Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for October, 2009


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 31, 2009

PakistanWhen afforded the opportunity – which, granted, is rare – I like to point out when liberals say something that is honest. In the name of intellectual integrity, I cannot, in good faith, maintain a blog comprised primarily of commentaries on some of the day’s events and expect that liberals will never utter any word of truth at any time – although it is tempting to believe it. It is the very least I can do as my quest for clarity trudges forward.

On Thursday, in Pakistan, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, after saying that she found it hard to believe that the Pakistani government couldn’t “get” the Al Qaeda leadership in that country if they really wanted to, went on to say, ” We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.”

Considering the existence of the “death tax,” Clinton is absolutely correct – America really does tax things that don’t move. (A sourec of pride for her, I’m certain).

For her honesty, kudos to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 31, 2009

A week ago today, thousands of people across the globe participated in a “Global Day of Action” to “encourage world leaders to help stop climate change.” (You must have read about it). According to the Toronto Sun, “the events kicked off in Australia, where thousands of people formed a large “350” number with their bodies in front of the famous Sydney opera house and displayed placards with the number on the hotspot Bondi Beach.” (That’s because these events were put together by a group called, a band of hysterical doomsdayers hell-bent on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to 350 parts per million from the current planet-slaying total of 387. Clever, yes?)

Meanwhile, in Denver, Colorado, the biggest October storm to hit in twelve years is crippling the metropolitan area. As much as two feet of snow is on the ground in some areas.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that Nebraska and Kansas experienced blizzard conditions yesterday as the global warming freight train came barreling through.

Just sayin’.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 31, 2009

Do NOT leave alcohol anywhere near your pumpkins.

picture of the day 10_31_09

Disgusting, I know. I apologize.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 30, 2009

michelle obama_sleevelessFrom the “If This Had Been A Republican” file …

This story actually dates back to August – and many thanks to the great Weasel Zippers blog for bringing this back to my attention – but in light of the two-thousand page health care reform encyclopedia introduced by Madame Pelosi yesterday, coupled with the fairy-tale news reports of how “successful” the Stimulus Bill has been up to this point, this is more than relevant today.

So, I respectfully pose the question … How did the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, tend to her personal needs and desires before moving into the White House? How was she ever able to master such tricky maneuvers such as getting her hair done, putting on her make-up and laying out her clothes without a veritable army of servants to assist? How did she survive before a gaggle of taxpayer-funded minions attended to her every whim?

And exactly how much taxpayer money does Michelle Obama require for her twenty-six – count ’em twenty-six -personal attendants?

Dr. Paul L. Williams of the Canada Free Press (CFP) writes:

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

Just to be clear … That’s nearly two-million dollars of taxpayer money not going to the health-care deprived citizens of this country. That’s almost two million dollars of taxpayer money not being doled out to the dying (and almost-dying) who litter America’s streets. That’s practically two-million bucks  not going out to the victims of the health-care Holocaust taking place across America.

In July, the CFP originally reported that Mrs. Obama had a mere twenty-two assistants at her doiposal … but they were dead wrong.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on and Canada Free Press on July 7.

All of those assistants and no one can come up with a single pair of sleeves?

And in the name of all that is holy, can we possibly combine all twenty-six carbon footprints into one big all-encompassing footprint to save space? And the planet?

wordpress statistics

Posted in First Lady | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 30, 2009

You probably didn’t realize that Gore Vidal – an icon, I’m told – is a sharp provocateur, did you? You weren’t aware, I’m sure, that this 83-year old “too smart for the room” cultural relic is as delightfully irreverent as he is engagingly irascible. He is so complex, so enchanting, so cantankerous, so dazzling – a veritable bouillabaisse of pervasive cogitation – that to not elicit his opinion on any given subject is to embrace intellectual apathy. He apparently possesses a “trademark wit” and does “dead-on” imitations of John F. Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Oh, goody.

Mr. Vidal – interviewed by John Meroney of Atlantic Magazine – believes that the United States doesn’t deserve a man like Barack Obama at the helm.

Gore VidalMeroney: Barack Obama’s books seemed to persuade many people to support him. Have you read them?

Vidal: No. Does one ever read a politician’s books?

Meroney: Well, Obama actually wrote them himself.

Vidal: I’m sure he did. He’s highly educated – and rather better than a country like this deserves. Put that in red letters.

Yes, according to Gore Vidal – one time chairman of the People’s Party in the early 1970s, and an advocate of impeaching former President George W. Bush for war crimes – Barack Obama is “rather better than a country like this deserves.”

“A country like this?”

(Vidal once famously said, “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat … Essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”)

And didn’t Bill Ayers, the terrorist, help co-write the Obama book Dreams From My Father?

Vidal goes on to refer to the 13-year old girl that Roman Polanski drugged and sodomized in 1978 as a “hooker.”

Meroney: In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

Vidal: I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

Meroney: I’ve certainly never heard that take on the story before.

Vidal: First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

Such class.

Such wit.

Trademark, I’m told.

But wait … it gets better. Not only was the raped child a “hooker” – which, presumably, sheds some much-needed light on the misunderstandings that characterize the entire Polanski affair – but the fact that Polanski is Jewish played a major role in what happened to him.

Yes, anti-semitism – not the raping of a minor – is what brought Polanski down.

Vidal: The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

Yes, the story was totally different thirty-one years ago. It has been manipulated by Jew-haters and conservatives alike over the course of time. Why couldn’t the rest of us see that?

Some of the original headlines – “Young Teen Seduces Director – Forced Him Into Sodomy” and “Polanski Hoodwinked By Teeny-Bopping Tart” – have since been lost to the annals of time. Thank goodness the great provocateur Gore Vidal could set it straight for everyone.

Meroney: You think anti-Semitism is motivating the prosecution of Polanski?

Vidal: Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski. He was also a foreigner. He did not subscribe to American values in the least. To [his persecutors], that seemed vicious and unnatural.

Meroney: What are “American values”?

Vidal: Lying and cheating. There’s nothing better.

If ever there was something that does not require any further analysis, it is Vidal’s definition of “American values.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Pop Culture, Values | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 30, 2009

stop global warming

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 29, 2009

stimulus package hatHow about that?

The economy grew by 3.5% during the third quarter. Needless to say, it was unexpected by “experts.”

Yahoo News went so far as to say that the recession was over.

Happy days must be here again.

I would advise, however, that before anyone starts wetting their inseams with glee, a little perspective is in order.

Think of a restless boy on a dose of Ritalin. As the drugged child settles down and begins his excursion into the cognitive abyss, the doctor walks by to see the “out of control” lad pacified at last. He’s quiet now – in that just-recently-lobotomized sort of way. He still needs tending to, but things are finally calm. The doctor also sees a frazzled parent slumped back in the chair, relieved to finally find a few moments peace. The “Leave It to Beaver” theme plays in the parent’s head.

As heart rates decrease and tensions abate, both doctor and parent arrive at the same conclusions: Ritalin, good. Peace, good. Rambunctious boy, bad.

And the long term effects of the dope-instead-of-parenting approach?

Who cares?

As long as it’s quiet.

This, my dear readers, in a nutshell, is a good place to start when trying to understand the Obama economy – drugged and artificial.

Here’s the bottom line … despite the orgasmic reports of an economic third quarter that has put to bed the worst recession in seventy-years (which only a few days ago, according to Joe Biden, was a full-fledged depression), the reality is, this is no recovery. This is not the beginning of a long term trend based on investment and genuine growth. Rather, it is the temporary result of an infusion of the drug known as government intervention. Take away the Cash-for-Clunkers program and the Homebuyer Tax Credit – fleeting “fixes” that spurred temporary consumer activity – and all that’s left is an absolute failure of a stimulus program that increases nothing except the tax burden for generations to come. In other words, when the Ritalin wears off, the child will be out of control again.

These moronic lefty contrivances are not genuine economic stimulators. Obama’s gargantuan deficits will not encourage private-sector investment. The President’s “there-isn’t-a-tax-I don’t-love” approach will not promote economic growth. His “to-hell-with-the-free-market” modus operandi will never stimulate a damn thing.

And exactly what proof is there that Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package – which, incidentally, has only been 20% implemented, and most of that in non-stimulating capacities – had anything to do with the so-called recovery? Because Joe Biden said so? (Remember, this was a depression not too long ago) Because the state-level recipients, who wouldn’t dare levy a negative word at the money-givers, said so?

This morning, on her nationally syndicated radio program, Laura Ingraham spoke with former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin:

Ingraham: (The Stimulus) has been, without a doubt, exposed as a farce … We have lost jobs. They predicted three million. We now see an exodus, when you add it all up, of six-and-a-half million jobs from the United States.

Holtz-Eakin: And remember, when it became obvious that this was not going to work, they invented a new term – “jobs saved” – something that has, literally, no foundation in fact, and (can) never be verified, in order to sell (the success of the Stimulus).

“Jobs saved” is just as easy to verify as “souls saved.” I mean, there is just no way to do this.

And then there’s this …

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration’s “economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.”

The government’s first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

It is interesting to note that the CBO let out its economic soothsayers back in February, predicting that by the end of this year, we’d see some kind of economic recovery even if Obama and the Cats did absolutely nothing. They also pointed out that all the debt that will result from Obama’s astronomical spending spree could trigger a re-recession – or a double-dip recession – when the bills come due.

It’s pretty easy to grasp.

Government spending does not create economic growth. It would seem to be self-evident seeing as the government gets its money from the private sector through taxation. This is so basic that “one-plus-one-is-two” is labyrinthine in comparison.

Perhaps someone ought to slip some Ritalin into the Congressional water cooler.

Incidentally, isn’t it a delicous coincidence that the “worst recession since the Great Depression” would come to an end on the 80th anniversary of the event that is considered to have triggered the Great Dpression itself – the Stock Market crash of 1929?
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 29, 2009

hate crimeLet’s review …

If a white man comes along (let’s call him Person A) and brutally murders an innocent black man (let’s call him Person B) by beating him about the skull with a cinder block, and while doing so screams, “You son of a bitch! You stole my wife! You ruined my marriage! Take that, you bastard!” it is less of a crime than if a white man (let’s call him Person C) brutally murders an innocent black man (let’s call him Person D) by beating him about the head with a cinder block, screaming, “You nigger! You stole my wife! You ruined my marriage! Take that, you nigger!”

Thanks to the abomination known as “hate crime” legislation, it is.

Sure, murder may be one thing, but it somehow becomes more intolerable if you tack on an epithet or two, according to the stewards of justice who stand as proponents of “hate crime” legislation. Indeed, the smashing of the skulls of two innocent men (Persons B and D) may be equally abhorrent in terms of the physical brutality involved, but Person C’s crime is deemed worse because of what was in his heart. Person A may be a cold-blooded murderer, but Person C is also a “hater.”

After all, there’s good old-fashioned, just-like-grandma-used-to-make, text-book murder … and then there’s hateful murder.

A hypothetical … If Person A murders Person B in cold blood but does not utter any kind of epithet or slur, how does it compare to Person C who badly beats up Person D (without killing him) while shouting out the nastiest, racist invectives imaginable?

Are these crimes closer to eachother on the despicable meter because the latter has the affixed “hate crime” component factored in?

What if Person C badly beats up Person D (without killing him) and says nothing that could be considered hateful, prejudiced, bigoted or racist (as defined by the language of “hate crime” legislation) until, say, two days before the trial, when he screams, “I killed that rat jew bastard because all jews need to be wiped from the planet!”

Is that a retroactive “hate crime?”

Either way, a great big wet juicy kiss goes out to the Democrats for attaching the latest slice of thought-police legislation to a completely unrelated $680 billion defense spending bill.

Trumpeting a victory against careless spending, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a defense bill that kills some costly weapons projects and expands war efforts. In a major civil rights change, the law also makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation.

The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to the must-pass defense policy bill over the steep objections of many Republicans.

Is the President aware that the murder of any innocent – gay, straight, black, green – is the ultimate violation of one’s civil rights? That beating a homosexual is a crime because beating up any innocent is a crime?

So, I can’t help but wonder … If Person A (a white man) murders Person B (a black man) in cold blood and not only uses the word “nigger” during the killing, but also calls him a “fag,” is he twice as hateful? Should he get twice the punishment? Or is all the additional hate combined into one all-encompassing charge?

Bottom line …

If a thug yells out the word “fag” while pulverizing the cranium of a gay person, he should get what’s coming to him because pulverizing a head is a crime. For all anyone cares, he could be screaming out the words “eggs benedict,” and the crime would be just as horrible. The perpetrator may, indeed, be a homophobe, but in a free society, he has the right to be one if he wants. Indeed, he can feel as he wishes – or he should be able to – regardless of how unpopular, archaic or hateful his position(s) may be.

(I thought liberals were all about feelings anyway).

What this skull-smasher doesn’t have the right to do is assault an innocent.

Back in April, when the House, by a vote of 249-175, decided to expand upon the already existing idiocies of “hate crime” law with this newest provision, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner charged that the legislation “places a higher value on some lives compared to others.”

“All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, including crimes in which victims are targeted because of their race, color, religion, or national origin.”

There’s that color-blind, race-blind thing that conservatives seem overly obsessed with again.

The real question is … Are we far away from interpreting religous writings as hate speech?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, politics, social issues, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 29, 2009

obamacare cartoon

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 28, 2009

obama crybabyPresident Barack Obama needs to grow up, quit all the whining, stop blaming every conceivable ill that exists in America on the other side, and at least try to appear as if leadership of some kind is attainable. It’s time for this colossal do-nothing President to get up off his backside and finally own his Presidency. Someone with some balls needs to pick up Mr. Obama, turn him over, flip the switch from “campaign” to “President,” inform him that he is now more than nine months into his term, and demand that he stop behaving like a prepubescent kickball team captain and finally act like a man accountable.

Democrats have the White House and both houses of Congresses (Lord helps us), and if there has ever been a more disengaged, sedentary, lackluster, bumbling, stumbling collection of stammering political lummoxes than the crew in charge right now, I’m not aware of it. And although the campaign is long over (calendar-wise), and the blame-Bush-for-everything window has long been hammered shut, the President is still trying to squeeze through.

The fact is, it’s too late for that now.

It now belongs to the Anointed One.

It is all his.

This is, after all, the real world – where enemies exist, lives hang in the balance and actions must speak louder than words. This is not a hacky-sack bull session among campus marxists-in-waiting and capitalism-sucks dope smokers. This is not Wednesday afternoon Mahjongg, or one of President Obama’s studly White House basketball games, or one of his twenty-nine thousand rounds of golf. This is reality … and the reality is, this is a nation at war, with troops in harm’s way, facing an enemy hell-bent on destroying this country and all it stands for, led by a holding-pattern President who needs to pull out his thumbs and actually lead. Unfortunately, America’s top Keystone Cop has done little more than show those who are under his command that they are, at best, secondary to such pressing matters as global warming, curbing CEO salaries, destroying private insurance companies and doing all he can to make sure Chicago hosts the 500 meter freestyle event.

How dare this President fiddle with five irons and lay his egotistical charms on the Olympic gods while America’s bravest wait for some kind of word from the mountain top as to what their mission in Afghanistan is. While Obama’s White House is busy brown-shirting their way into a war against the Fox News Channel – and he continues to distinguish his administration with Mao enthusiasts, 9/11-truthers, tax evaders, race-baiters and unaccountable czars – American troops are quite literally stranded in a strategic limbo wondering what the hell their Commander-in-Chief is waiting for.

On Monday, for instance, the President commented that after “long years of drift,” he was finally going to get America’s Afghanistan policy correct.

In response, Charles Krauthammer, of the Fox News Channel, on yesterday’s Special Report, said:

I want to point out one thing about what Obama had said, what he talked about: “the long years of drift.” There is something truly disgusting about the way he cannot refrain from attacking Bush when he’s being defensive about himself. I mean, it’s beyond disgraceful here. He won election a year ago. He became the Commander-In-Chief two months later. He announced his own strategy – not the Bush strategy, his strategy – six months ago, and it wasn’t off-handed. It was a major address with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State standing with him, and now he’s still taking about “the drift” in the Bush years.

What’s happening today is not a result of the “drift in Bush years,” so-called. It’s because of the drift in his years. It’s because of the flaws in his own strategy, which is what he is re-examining. He has every right as Commander-in-Chief to re-examine his own strategy, but he ought to be honest, forthright and courageous enough as the President to simply say, “I’m rethinking the strategy I adopted six months ago, and not, once again, childlike attack his predecessor. 

Spot on.

Also on Monday, the President of the United States, speaking to a military audience in Jacksonville, familiarly took leave of his backbone and once again proved why national security cannot be trusted to liberals and other children. With his nation at war, and troops already on the battlefield, he forever etched his name in the annals of great American war leaders, saying, “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary.”

Is he kidding?

It’s been seven months.

This is the President of the United States, the most powerful man on the face of the earth, addressing members of the American military, the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, and the message he manages to convey – the words of inspiration he musters for those who have pledged their lives to defend this country – is he “won’t risk” lives “unless it is absolutely necessary.”

What about those who are at this moment in harm’s way, Mr. President? What about those who are already risking everything so that you (and the rest of us) can hit the links, or arrange pick-up games at the White House, or use fatty oils to fry up their latkes? What about the troops who are now fighting America’s enemies in a war that, not too long ago, you called a war of necessity?

Is it no longer a war of necessity?

Is the President aware that the words he speaks are actually heard and ingested outside of the friendly confines of his own mind? Including those who are currently serving in Afghanistan?

ObamaPattonI humbly ask … Is it at all posibble for the man who won a whopping 52.7% of the popular vote last November – the man who proclaimed incontrovertibly that victory was the only option in Afghanistan – to stop blaming his own inability to chew gum and q-tip his ears at the same time on George W. Bush?

Yes, yes, we know … Along with all of his other atrocities, Bush probably took great delight in kicking little puppies, thought nothing of cutting in front of little old ladies at the Post Office, and stole coins from the blind pencil guy on the street.

Regardless, Barack Obama is in charge today. This is his ship. Nine damn months is long enough.

Man up.

The President, of course, employs the same “it-was-him-not-me” approach when dealing with domestic issues (e.g., unemployment, health care, growing deficits, etc.) Note that as he attempts to “tackle” the myriad of challenges facing the United States – and defend his all-too important legacy-in-progress – everything always comes down to doing all he can to try and deal with the incalculable disasters he inherited from George W. Bush.

It wasn’t him, he cries.

Eight years of bad policies just can’t be undone like that, he explains.

Things will get worse before they get better, he promises.

It’s not easy, he says.

Blah, blah, blah.

Proclaiming that America’s problems still boil down to the preponderance of pervasive blunders and destructive policies perpetrated and implemented by George W. Bush, he figures, will have the citizenry nodding and sighing in agreement, as if to say, “We understand, Bam. We’re with you. Just get to it when you can.”

Forget the fact that Obama already sees his role as a rebuilder and transformer. It is his charge (in his own mind) to reconstruct this nation from the ruins of the more than two centuries of social injustice, run-away capitalism, and international bullying that preceded him. He first has to salvage what he can from the calamitous reign of George W. Bush, then he can beat down the Founding Fathers.

Someone – anyone – who is more concerned with the well-being of the United States than whether or not they will continue to have access to the messianic inner circle needs to shake some damn sense into the man who cannot let go of the blame-Bush-for-everything game plan that got him the job. This incessant cry-baby approach – the victimization mentality of “it-isn’t-my-fault-because-this-is-what-was-handed-to-me” – must come to a screeching halt immediately.

Enough is enough.

Own it.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, military, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 28, 2009

In the name of equality – which is a value unparalleled to a liberal (as opposed to, say, liberty) – I trust that trailblazing writer/comedian Larry David will beckon the courage to be true to his edgy, ground-breaking self and figure out some way to step out beyond the hackneyed, trite world of Christian-bashing and take a walk on the real wild side.

If anyone can break free from the constraints of conventionality, it is Larry David.

If anyone can show the world that, in the name of artistry, the Qur’an and human urine actually do mix, it is he.

From Fox News:

Larry DavidComedian Larry David is under attack from critics who say he pushed the mocking of religion and Christian belief in miracles over the edge in the latest episode of his HBO series “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which the cable network defended as “playful.”

On the show’s most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying.

In a statement to, HBO downplayed the controversy.

“Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire,” the statement read. “Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.”

Indeed, nothing tickles the ribs more than peeing on a religious Christian painting.

Cutting edge.

Incidentally, I missed the episode where playful Larry David accidentally sneezes on a depiction of Muhammad while strolling past a mosque. Talk about madcap hyjinx.

And I hear the show where the Qur’an is accidentally defaced by vomit and fecal metter is one of the great all-time knee-slappers.

The irony is, Larry David – a secular leftist with obvious contempt for all religion – is inadvertently demonstrating why, in the real world, creating moral equivalencies between different religions and value sets is untenable.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Entertainment, religion, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 28, 2009

picture of the day 10_28_09

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 27, 2009

Sick NY StateThe idea is a simple one – an oft-cited concept worth repeating here.

If something is taxed, the result will be less of whatever that something is. (Conversely, subsidizing something means there will be more of it).

From the perspective of the consumer, if income is taxed, then, by definition, there will be less income for the individual. From the perspective of the tax collector, ironically, the same holds true – raising income taxes (as has been shown repeatedly) actually decreases the amount of total tax revenue to the state.

It’s this thinking that is behind exorbitant cigarette taxes, “fat” taxes, or any other varieties of “sin tax.” If taxes on these items increase, there will be generally less consumption of those items. (Theoretically, taxes could increase so much that consumption on any item could reach zero).

On the other hand, the opposite will prove true when taxes are cut. Hence, back-to-school no-sales-tax days are instituted to bring more people into the stores.

Naturally, the demand for “sin tax” items, such as cigarettes won’t vanish completely; and there are, arguably, other economic justifications for piling on such levies. So while  these taxes can still be a reliable source of income for the government (which is why the tax per cigarette pack isn’t $100), the principle is still valid.

All of this applies not just to goods and services, but to people as well.

If, for instance, you continue to tax the wealthy, you will not only get people with less wealth, but ultimately, less wealthy people. And seeing as it is the wealthy who not only create jobs but supply the overwhelming vast majority of the tax revenue, hiking taxes is never a good thing if prosperity and a healthy economy are on the docket.

The same can be said with respect to the middle class – which is why it is a staple of every political campaign, regardless of what side of the aisle the candidate is on, to emphasize that “middle class tax cuts” are a priority.

Keep all of this in mind as we temporarily turn our attentions to the bluest of the blue states – New York.

According to a new study by the Empire Center for New York State Policy, during the nine year period from 2000 to 2008, the state of New York has been losing people – or as Andy Soltis writes in the New York Post, “New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers.”

A whole lot of tax revenue is going bye-bye.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

“The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.

And what is the primary cause of the Empire Exodus? According to the report, it is the “state’s high cost of living and high taxes.”

And no, it isn’t just the rich that are making bee-lines out.

What’s worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. And it should be no surprise that the city — and Manhattan in particular — suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income. The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726. That’s a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference.

It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the “migration flow” out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion.

That’s not chump change.

Meanwhile, the population of New York City, based on a 2008 estimate, went up by over 300,000 people since 2000. In terms of population, the city is getting larger.

The problem is, with higher-income people comprising the bulk of the escapees, more and more of the people coming in to replace the money-makers will be reliant in some way on government assistance.

In Manhattan, an income of $72K for a family of four doesn’t stretch very far.

Take a guess how that problem will be addressed.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, New York City, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 27, 2009

pelosi wasserman

Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman

I’ve decided that, in the spirit of Nancy Pelosi’s renaming of the “Public Option” to “Competitive Option” or “Consumer Option” – evocative of dropping “War on Terror” for “Overseas Contingency Operation” – I would, too, try to make things more palatable for the American citizenry by renaming some of the other “less-than-favorably-perceived” realities that permeate American life. After all, substance is altogether irrelevant in the think tanks and policy barns of the American leftocracy.

Rather, it’s all in the name.

In other words, if it sounds unobjectionable, it can’t be all that bad.

To that end, I thought I’d have a go at some Tuesday morning inanity – for kicks.

Thus, with the light of liberalism to guide me – and drawing from the deep well of contemplation that characterizes the American left – I submit some of these changes now.

The scourge of cancer (the second leading cause of death in the United States) shall now be referred to as Spirited Cellular Reproduction. I call for murder (prohibited by the Sixth Commandment) to be forever known as a Natural Resource Stabilizer. Child molestation shall henceforth be called Age Neutral Gratification. And I ask that everyone come together and start referring to rape as Vigorous Intimacy Awaiting Approval.

They’ll be easy enough to remember after you say them a few times – like pronouncing the name of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After the first hundred or so tries, it’ll just roll off the tongue.

Did I make it all better?

This, of course, is the liberal modus operandi: Don’t call it crap – although the shape, size, color, consistency and smell all suggest it. Don’t think of it as waste – although more useful things have dropped out of the backsides of horses and cattle. Pretty bows, silky ribbons and rainbow colored wrapping paper will not change the fact that inside the box is a load of excrement just waiting to attract a bevy of migrant flies.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.” Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

Desperation, thy name is liberalism.

It is unclear whether Pelosi will follow through on changing her title from “House Speaker” to “High Priestess of Washington.”

Unofficially, of course.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, health care, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 27, 2009

wal mart news story

 What the ?

Posted in humor | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 27, 2009

excited JoeI owe a debt of gratitude to President Barack Obama for removing Joe Biden from the United States Senate. Unfortunately, there’s a second part to that story.

Nine months into the Messianic Age, with poll numbers dropping across the board for politicians and water-walkers alike, the Vice President’s favorability ratings are engaged in an epic battle. While Biden’s unfavorable rating, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, is slowly inching upward – now at 40% – his favorable rating is racing downward to meet it at 42%.

Now that’s close.

The question is … Which rating will emerge victorious?

It is interesting to note that Biden’s favorable rating, since the election in November, has never gone up. In fact, from the time of his election to just before the inauguration, his favorable rating actually went down six points. That’s quite a trick considering he hadn’t even taken office yet. (By contrast, President Obama’s numbers went up 10% during the same period).

According to the Poll:

Gallup has measured public opinion of government leaders using the favorable/unfavorable question format since 1992, so it has comparable data only on Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney.

Both Gore (63% in January 1993) and Cheney (61% in January 2001) had higher favorable ratings immediately before taking office than did Biden (53% in January 2009).

Though Gallup did not measure the vice presidents’ favorable ratings often during the first year of each administration, the available data show both Gore (55% based on five measurements) and Cheney (65% based on three measurements) having higher average favorable ratings in their first year than Biden does (45% based on two measurements) thus far.

Biden also departs from his immediate predecessors in being significantly less popular than his boss. Gore’s and Cheney’s first-year averages were similar to Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s, respectively.

So, thank you, Bam, for doing something I didn’t think could happen – that is, extracting Crazy Uncle Joe from the Senate.

See what happens when you get what you ask for?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Joe Biden, politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 27, 2009

picture of the day 10_27_09
What are the conditions?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

obama_b_ballThere isn’t enough government cheese in all the land to go with the latest flow of liberal whine coming from aggrieved women and lefty bloggers over the actions of the Neanderthal-in-Chief. Indeed, they still worship him as much as ever, but they’re disappointed (his maximum coolness and mouth-watering sex appeal not withstanding). As amazing as the dashing young Barack Obama is, there is concern that the dulcet-toned metrosexual from Chicago is slinging just a bit too much testosterone around the White House for their liking.

The assumption, of course, was that once the previous occupant of the White House – the God-obsessed John Wayne wanna-be – took his saddle and went back home to Crawford, the slick, bright-eyed, young Chicagoland urbanite would slide right in and show America what a true, well-balanced rainbow of success looked like. With the coming of the Messianic Age, along with varying shades of melanin, all chromosomes would be fairly represented at the House of Transformation.

However, there are genuine objections coming from non-testicled liberals and their allies. This Chief Executive, to their great dismay, seems tragically preoccupied with athletics, and sweat, and hanging out with the boys, and all of those things associated with … guys – and it’s got many irked.

Mark Leibovich at the New York Times, in his Washington Memo, explains:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

The President, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

Too much.

Isn’t that “Louie, Louie” I hear playing in the background? Am I the only one with visions of twisting togas filling my head?  What would the President’s frat name be?

“Dumbo?” “Marxie?” “Bam-A-Lang-a-Ding-Dong?”

Just asking.

And what about this high-level basketball game?

Barack Obama had the audacity not to suit up with chicks for a game of round ball, so naturally, women’s advocates are beside themselves with visions of Cro-Magnon patriarchy.


The President better get those urinals installed in the White House ladies rooms post haste.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

Mr. Obama, in an interview with NBC on Wednesday, called the beef over basketball “bunk,” saying that the players were largely picked from a regular Congressional game and that the list of invitees was reviewed by women on his staff.

“I don’t think it sends any kind of message or signal whatsoever,” said the president, who often points out that he is surrounded by strong females at home (where he is the only non-canine male). He added, in the interview, that he had hired women into “some of the most important decision-making positions in this White House.”

You honestly cannot make things like this up.

“They don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle”?

What, pray tell, would the correct number of inner-cirle women be?

So then, are the events that need co-ed participation to be determined by the President himself? By staff members? By a counsel of angry and neglected women? Is there any limitation as to what the event could or should be?

What if the President schedules a staff bra-and-panties pillow fight? One would hardly be able to come up with something more “co-ed” than that. Of course, to be truly equitable, Obama, Gibbs, Emanuel and Summers would have to wear bras.

That, or the female invitees go topless.

Either way.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

chris matthewsI haven’t cracked open a thesaurus in a mighty long time, but in the coming weeks and months, I may have to. Using the word “desperate” over and over to describe liberals and their recurrently pathetic tactics will almost certainly wear thin – not unlike President Obama’s first nine months in office.

Still, it is unavoidable to give credit where credit is due. After all, if not for the American Left, where then would desperation nest?

No, it isn’t enough to have the Speaker of the House accuse fellow Americans of being swastika bearers at Townhall meetings. It isn’t enough to have the Senate Majority leader call those opposed to ObamaCare “hate mongers.” It isn’t enough to have the White House assail private citizens (Rush Limbaugh) and privately owned companies (Fox News) because they have the chutzpah not to bend over for President Liberty-Kill and his big government Obamacrats. It isn’t enough to have a mainstream media so in the tank for the administration that almost no coverage is afforded Anita Dunn and Alan Grayson while names like Joe Wilson become more familiar than Abraham Lincoln.

It just isn’t enough.

Thank goodness for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews – the lacerated septum of broadcast journalism.

Late last week, on MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews was having a “discussion” with Frank Gaffney and Ron Reagan Jr. about Afghanistan.

As the segment came to an end, the exchange went this way:

Gaffney: (speaking to Reagan) Your father would be ashamed of you.

Reagan: Oh, Frank, you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.

Matthews: That’s not fair. The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the religious right.

To begin with, Gaffney, who is President of The Center for Security Policy, made himself look a bit silly by having to resort to pulling out the “Ronald Reagan” card while debating Reagan, Jr., who is an unabashed, unapologetic, liberal. Whatever the elder Reagan would have thought of his son’s views on Afghanistan was irrelevant to the discussion. Unquestionably, Gaffney had more than enough substantive ammunition to combat Reagan. He knew better.

However, it was the always ignoble and detestable Matthews (let me count the ways), in true “drive-by” media style, who actually compared the American “religious right” to the barbarous terrorists – the Taliban  – before escaping into the security of the ensuing commercial break.

(Of course, if Congressman Alan Grayson could somehow correlate the state of America’s health care delivery system to the Holocaust, then equating American conservatives of faith to the murderous Taliban wouldn’t seem particularly preposterous).

First of all, Mr. Matthews ought to take a moment and brush up on his ideologies. By definition, conservatives want less government involvement in our lives.

By definition.

religious rightIf for no other reason than that, the American “religious right” simply does not resemble the Taliban, who exist to impose theocratic influence on every aspect of life through totalitarian rule. Simply having a strong faith in God, which presumably is what Matthews is attempting to use to tie the two together, is an embarrassingly weak premise to build such a ridiculously naive – and easily refuted – argument.

If faith alone, in Matthews’ simplistic, one-dimensional, bumper-sticker world, were the main criterion for drawing parallels between the American “religious right” and the Taliban, then leftists, who worship with equal zeal at the alter of unproven global warming, would, by definition, more resemble the Taliban because of their propensity to expand the power of government.

Naturally, neither the American Left or the American Right really resemble the Taliban in any way whatsoever, but playing along with Mr. Matthews brings certain relaities to light. Leftists are just as religious when it comes to global warming as conservatives are about traditional religion. However, it is the global warming movement, in their ever-growing fanaticism, that demands governments intrusion on the industrialized free market by inflicting crippling emissions standards – guidelines that would literally bring down the American economy.

By contrast, no one on the “religious right”  – no one – wants that level of government involvement in American lives. And no one on the religious right advocates, supports, suggests or even hints at imposing a theocracy of any kind in the United States.

If presented in those terms, which side more “resembles” the Taliban, Mr. Matthews?

It isn’t difficult to understand.

Besides, if Mr. Matthews can point me in the direction of those “religious right” organizations that strap bombs to the chests of their young for the purpose of blowing up as many innocents as possible, I’m willing to listen. If there are videos out there of hooded members of the “religious right” slicing the heads off of non-believers, I missed it. If the “religious right” advocate the beating of women for walking by themselves or driving motor vehicles, I’d love to see the literature. Perhaps Mr. Mathews can play on his television program the audio of members of the “religious right” calling for a Holy War against non-Christian nations.

He certainly has the forum to defend his assertions.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, religion, terrorism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

In July, on PBS’s News Hour, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:

I think there’s a lot of interest in taxing the insurance companies because people really do see across America. They know that (the insurance companies) have caused the problem we have with their anti-trust exemption … and the immoral profits. They’re making billions of dollars in profits while they’re cutting off benefits that they are entitled to.

Last week, Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, said:

They are so anti-competitive. Why? Because they make more money than any other business in America today… What a sweet deal they have.

It’s a common theme from the Left.

Insurance companies are all about their disgustingly gross profits and are willing to see Americans drop dead and rot in the streets to preserve them. One could only deduce, listening to Democrats go on and on about the obscene money being pulled in by these insensitive corporate greed merchants, that the industry as a whole must be one of the most lucrative in America, if not the most lucrative. If anyone in the United States is swimming in profits, it has to be the fat cat insurance companies.

Democrats say so.

Well, it’s not even close.

In fact, insurance companies ranked an unimpressive 35th on the Fortune 500 list of most profitable American industries.

Calvin Woodward, from the Associated Press writes:

Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

To be precise, insurance companies posted a 2.2% profit.

For those keeping score at home, that’s .6% less profitable than being a member of Congress, all of whom received an average 2.8% pay raise from last year.

And that includes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Just out of curiosity … I wonder where Jesse Jackson’s shake-down/race-based extortion enterprise ranks this year?
wordpress statistics

Posted in Economy, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

picture of the day 10_26_09

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 25, 2009

picture of the day 10_25_09

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 24, 2009


The greatest casualties in the age of global warming hysteria are satire and parody. That which divides spoof and reality has been so blurred in recent times, particularly in relation to the global warming hoax, that it isn’t possible to differentiate between the two without having to investigate. Even before President Obama signs the Global Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen in December, the extremity with which today’s global warming crusaders operate is already proving to be a bane to the economy. Think of all the comedy writers out of work. 

If the concept of carbon credits wasn’t demented enough; if the notion of a carbon footprint didn’t have you checking your Pepsi for hallucinogens; if the idea that “global warming leads to global cooling” doesn’t have you making sure you aren’t reading The Onion, then please take a moment to check this one out.

The nation of Sweden is looking to take the lead with a brand new initiative designed to combat the terrors of global warming.

(And that’s exactly what humanity needs: another way to make the world safer from greenhouse gas emissions).

Elisabeth Rosenthal from the New York Times explains:

Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.”

“Right now, I don’t know what this means,” said Ms. Bergstrom, a pharmaceutical company employee.

But if a new experiment here succeeds, she and millions of other Swedes will soon find out. New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.

People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.

Yes, you read that correctly: Sweden is placing CO2 emissions information on food labels.

(That sound you heard was the sound of a thousand satirists slamming their laptops closed and throwing their hands up in frustration, realizing they cannot compete with reality)

Note the term Rosenthal uses in her piece: “climate changing gasses.”

Presumably, the goal of these obsessed global warming wingnuts is to aspire to an environment that consists of one constant temperature and unvarying weather patterns. But what, pray tell, is the correct temperature? The correct climate?

(Still waiting for an answer to that one)

Some of the proposed new dietary guidelines, released over the summer, may seem startling to the uninitiated. They recommend that Swedes favor carrots over cucumbers and tomatoes, for example. (Unlike carrots, the latter two must be grown in heated greenhouses here, consuming energy.)

They are not counseled to eat more fish, despite the health benefits, because Europe’s stocks are depleted.

Pickle eaters and ketchup enthusiasts will be the death of us all.

If one could go back in time, say fifty years, and tell the people of that long-gone era some of things that the future holds – like smoking being outlawed in privately owned bars; certain cooking oils being banned in privately owned restaurants; labels on our store bought food listing CO2 emission levels – those people would look at you as if a family of pulsating goiters were living on your neck.

But wait, it gets better. Read some of the commentary from New York Times readers on the matter. (None of these are made up):

– It is funny, it almost seems like magic when you start to realize what a world can be like without capitalism… They actually care about the environment and their people.

– Once again a Scandinavian country is leading the way. Do others have the fortitude to follow?

– They are so far ahead of us in understanding the interconnectedness of all things. A role model if ever there was one.

– Yes, the Swedes are way ahead of us and setting the standard for eating that is both healthy for your body and your world.

– From the rapacious, civilization destroying Viking raiders to the present enlightened Scandinavians, these people are amazing.

“The environment and their people?”

“The Fortitude to follow?”

“A role model if there ever was one?”

What, pray tell, was the size of the carbon footprint left behind by the Nobel Prize ceremonies in neighboring Denmark? And what will the footprint look like after all the leaders of the world fly to Copenhagen in December to discuss the ravages of global warming? And if beans are to replace beef, as the article suggests, what about the increase of o-zone destroying flatulence that is sure to come from the cows that are left uneaten, not to mention the ever-growing population of bean eating humans?

Perhaps the solution is in eliminating Sweden altogether. That ought to knockout a tasty chunk of those greenhouse gases.

I’m curious … if every computer model in all of human existence is predicting disaster for the Earth due to global warming, why didn’t a single model predict the cooling trends that have taken place over the past several years across the globe? Or the expanding ice at either pole?

Personally, the climate police (and everyone bending over for them) can provide whatever information they wish on any package, any menu, or any pamphlet they so choose. My concerns will be with the price and how tempting the food sounds. For all I care, it can be transported by a fleet of gas guzzling Hummers. If it sounds good to me, I’m buying it.

Oh yeah, one other thing … there is not one stitch of scientific evidence – not an electron’s worth – that supports the argument that increasing C02 levels cause temperatures to rise.

Not one.

I wonder … how did that Ice Age get chased away without a backlog of traffic on the Long Island Expressway spitting out CO2 into the atmosphere?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 24, 2009

Thanks for clearing that up

Thanks for clearing that up

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 23, 2009

Michael Tomasky

Michael Tomasky

The existence of a prevailing liberal media bias in almost every sector of the mainstream news complex can hardly be denied – unless, of course, your perspective is from the Left. From over there, liberal notions are seen as simply mainstream, middle-of-the-road, all-American ideals.

That influential, big media liberals rarely intermingle with “regular folks” who have dissenting points of view (unless covering them at a swastika-peppered Townhall meeting) also cannot be denied.

The truth is while these news-corridor lefties rarely find themselves exposed to the mainstream of conservative thought, conservatives are relentlessly bombarded with liberalism – from the culture-at-large to the way the news itself is “objectively” reported. Indeed, liberal perceptions of conservatism are often based on caricatures or clumsy stereotypes.

Even the word “conservative” is an effective means to an end.

While mainstream media news outlets rarely use the word “liberal” to describe Democrat policies, they manage to squeeze in the word “conservative” – not as a description, but a pejorative – at every opportunity.

In short, conservatives know liberals far more than liberals know conservatives.

It is what it is.

And while liberals are wont to attribute such assertions to conservative paranoia, a perfect illustration of this congenital media bias occurred on Dennis Prager’s radio program on Wednesday.

Prager interviewed Michael Tomasky – editor of Democracy and A Journal of Ideas. He is also a correspondent for The Guardian in Great Britain as well as a regular contributor to The American Prospect and The New York Review of Books.

Safe to say, Mr. Tomasky is well-connected to current events.

The subject of White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, came up. You’ll recall that Dunn is the one who stated, in front of a graduating high school class, that humanity’s all-time genocidal maniac, Mao Zedong, was one of her two favorite philosophers. That a high-profile employee of the White House would declare someone such as Mao as a philosophical mentor is certainly newsworthy – or so one would think.

Here is the brief exchange between Prager and Tomasky. Unintentional as it was, it is, indeed, a profound “gotcha” moment:

Prager: Do you find it problematic that someone as high up as the Communications Director of an American administration says to young children that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Zedong?

Tomasky: (slight pause) Uh .. now see, you’re catching me because I didn’t even know this.

Prager: Okay, that’s – well … Look, I have to say that proves my point – that the Left lives in a bubble.

Tomasky hadn’t even heard of the story. The entire Anita Dunn affair was “news” to him.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t “news” to the mainstream news outfits.

Would anyone care to speculate on the media saturation that would be taking place had someone on George W. Bush’s staff commented on Adolf Hitler’s clarity of thought?

What media bias?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 23, 2009

What the ...

What the ...

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 22, 2009

How presidential.

How elegant.

Indeed, there are times when he speaks with such eloquence, enunciating with such distinction, delivering his words with a fluency and cadence that can impress even the most hard-nosed detractors, that it’s hard not to acknowledge his skills as a top flight teleprompter reader. And then there are others, when the teleprompter is nowhere in sight, far away from the electronic cue-cards that have helped build his legend as a master orator, when his down-home, unscripted, earthy style sounds so contrived, so phony, so condescending, so unpresidential that you want to retch.

This is not an out-of-the-box thinker. This is not a fast-on-your-feet ad-libber. This is not someone who has a command of the language, although he is billed that way.

With all of that said, here is my quote of the day, from President Barack H. Obama, courtesy of Real Clear Politics:

There’s going to be some disagreements and details to work out, but to the Democrats, I want to say to you, Democrats, let’s make sure we keep our eye on the prize … Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know the other side, they just kind of sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves. I like that in you, but it’s time for us to make sure that we finish the job here, we are this close and we’ve got to be unified.

As a card-carrying, fist-pumping, Constitution-loving, lock-step automaton from the other side, I must ask … How does one criticize the “other side” for it’s unvaried, unwavering, “do what you’re told” opinions and then ask an “opinionated bunch” to forgo their own disagreements and opinions and do what they’re told?

How does that work exactly?

I like the “y’all,” incidentally.

Those Windy City colloquialisms are a nice touch.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 22, 2009

From the “Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain” file …

I’ve lost count, but I think there are now forty-seven days remaining before planet Earth reaches the point of no return, at least according to internationally acclaimed climatologist – and Prime Minister of Great Britain – Gordon Brown. If memory serves, Earth has already, on several occasions, reached the point of no return. This time, however, I’m inclined to believe that this is the real point of no return.

Unless it’s not.

That scourge, that disease, that terror, that unyielding, unrelenting, sinister plague that looms like grim death over us all – global warming – continues its inexorable assault on a fragile planet that just wants to be left alone.

The latest example is so heinous, so foul, that I am loathe to report on it.

Still, I must …

In Germany, the unabated warming of the globe has caused record-setting low temperatures – in fact, the lowest temperatures ever recorded in October in that country.

Meteorologists on Tuesday morning recorded the lowest ever October temperature in Germany, as the mercury dipped to a chilly -24.3 degrees Celsius in Bavaria’s Berchtesgaden national park.

The bitter cold was measured at the Funtensee, a notoriously frosty lake high in the Bavarian Alps. Jörg Kachelmann from the Meteomedia weather service said conditions overnight were ideal “with brisk cold air flowing in over freshly fallen powder snow.”

That’s -12 fahrenheit.

Look how they massacred my planet.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 22, 2009


picture of the day 10_22_09

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 21, 2009

One of the favorite stops on my daily trek through cyberspace is the great Vocal Minority blog. Besides being informative, it is always enjoyable and peppered with passion. Indeed, Eric is someone who knows how to fight the good fight.

One of the tag lines used regularly at Vocal Minority is “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

It isn’t just a funny throw-away line.

It isn’t just another way of saying, “See? I told you so.”

It is the reality of a Leftist freight train bearing down at full speed on the institutions and values that have defined America for over two centuries … and America is sitting on the tracks.

A couple of nights ago, on Mark Levin’s radio program, he played an audio clip of Great Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton who was addressing the Minnesota Free Market Institute at Bethel University in St. Paul last week. In his remarkable speech, Lord Monckton warned, in no uncertain terms, of the dangers that face the United States should President Barack Obama sign the proposed Global Climate Change Treaty being negotiated in Copenhagen. 

It was an important recitation – an admonition of the highest order that must be taken seriously.

Please take the time to read the transcript (or watch the video clip).

At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it (because they think they’re going to get money out of it). Most of the left-wing regimes of the world and the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I have read that treaty. And what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘a climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t, and we’ve been screwing up the climate. (We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line). And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the two-hundred pages of that treaty?

Quite right. It doesn’t appear once.

So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year because they’d captured it – Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies for that point of view, he’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Laureate. Of course, he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this … If that treaty is signed, (that) constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution, and you can’t reign from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back again. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, economically speaking, there’s nothing we can do about it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate

Eric at Vocal Minority writes:

Monckton, a one-time science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, knows that this climate bill is the end of American prosperity and exceptionalism. Funny we need a foreigner to point this out to us.

Funny, indeed.

One of the arguments I’ve read against Lord Monckton’s assessment (in an attempt to discredit his entire position) is his “misunderstanding” of how the treaty process in the United States works. Because a treaty is only a treaty with two-thirds advice and consent from the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, US Constitution), anything the President signs in Copenhagen would (presumably) be “binding” in the same way the North American Free Trade Agreement is – that is, a congressional-executive agreement requiring a simple majority Congressional vote with a provision to withdraw if certain conditions are met.

Technically speaking, the criticism is correct.

But relying on the “constitutional limitations” argument is both naive and dangerous, particularly because even the most rudimentary review of this nation’s history reveals scores of examples of those limitations being violated or abused. (Franklin D. Roosevelt anyone?)

How, for example, does Social Security exist if the Constitution is as unassailable as Monckton’s detractors claim? How is it that Medicare and Medicaid exist if the constitution’s limitations are as impregnable as some would believe? Explain how campaign finance reform, as spelled out in McCain-Feingold, can exist when there is a First Amendment?  What specifically in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to seize the health care industry? And don’t get me started on the constitutionally unaccountable “czars” that litter the federal government like so many autumn leaves on the driveway.

These are, of course, the same people who speak of a “living, beathing” constitution.

Suddenly, conveniently, its limitations are relevant.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 21, 2009

paterson and sodaFrom the “You Deserve What You Get” file …

The enormously popular Governor of New York, David Paterson, is going to try again. In that elder George Bush style, Paterson – who pledged not raise taxes – is going to raise taxes … again. Sounding cranky and a bit tired, the Governor, in a radio interview, said he is going to reintroduce his “fat tax” on sodas and other sugary beverages in his next budget.

New York’s Legislature already rejected a Paterson “fat tax” proposal earlier this year – an 18% tax – and instead opted to tax the wealthy some more.

But next year will be a new day.

This latest “fat tax” chatter began after Paterson heard an audio clip of Brooklyn Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries saying that a soda tax (as well as a boost of out-of-state tuition fees) could be a viable way to help close the $3 billion budget gap facing New York – an alternative more appealing than pursuing the education and health care cuts Paterson proposed.

That’s when  aclearly annoyed Paterson responded.

Brendan Scott of the New York Post writes:

“I promise I will put (the soda tax) back in my budget address and give the Legislature another chance to do it,” Paterson said during an interview on WNYC. “But you can’t keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying you don’t want to make cuts.”

The problem, as Paterson sees it, is that the soda tax wouldn’t be put into effect until next year when the new budget is created. Indeed, he’s all for it, but he needs to figure out a way to start slicing and dicing this year’s budget.

While Paterson said he would be open to another soda tax proposal next year, he rejected Jeffries’ claim that such new taxes could help close the $3 billion gap in the state’s current budget.

“He’s right about different ways we can enhance revenues if the Legislature will agree to it,” Paterson said. “But he’s totally wrong because I’m talking about payments that must be met by Dec. 15.”

“I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to say this before people understand and are persuaded that we have to act now,” the governor continued.


It’s always government, government and more government, isn’t it?

Albany has been unable – or perhaps, more fittingly, unwilling – to trim the fat in New York. (What blue state is?) The fact is, New York is so over-regulated – which translates into being “over-taxed” – that its budget cannot be anything but out of control. After all, who is going to make sure the never-ending maze of regulations and codes are enforced? People cost money. Money comes from taxpayers. That means bigger budgets.

Here’s a suggestion perfectly suited to today’s proponents of government-run, rationed, mediocre health care (which, theoretically, a “fat tax” could help pay for):

Forget the “fat tax.”

How about taking a page from the Robert Reich “Let’s Tell The Truth About Health Care Reform” Songbook and propose a “fat subsidy?” In other words, pay people to get fat – not unlike the federal government pays some farmers to grow corn and soybeans, which are processed into fattening food ingredients such as corn syrup and vegetable oil that could get taxed by a “fat tax.” (Yes, in the United States we tax food on the consumer end while subsidizing it on the production end).

With a fat subsidy, people will die sooner and thus save precious medical resources for the rest of us who fall within whatever guidelines the government creates for us (for our own good).

Makes sense, no?


As one blogger put it, “We could let adults make, live with, and pay for their own lifestyle choices.”

Talk about radical.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 21, 2009

Can we have a moment?

Can we have a moment?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009

another global warming pictureI appreciate that the blogosphere is abounding with commentary today on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s dire warning that humanity has a mere fifty days to save itself from certain global-warming induced doom.

This is prcisely the kind of story tailor-made for opinion bloggers.

After all, what could be easier (and more fun) to write about than make-believe?

If one buys into the global warming  hysteria, there’s absolutely nothing holding the blogger (i.e., the story-teller) back except bandwidth, time, and the limits of his or her imagination. If one doesn’t buy into it, the assertions are so patently ludicrous, the piece practically writes itself.

However, I admit to some confusion.

Over the past year, depending on the source, the amount of time left before the climactic Day of Reckoning has varied considerably. According to one disaster scenario, humanity may have as many as 2000 days left to set itself straight , while according to another, we may already be past the point of no return.

Naturally, as one who would find the destruction of the planet as we know it cumbersome, I can’t help but ask … Can we possibly come to a consensus on when the end is going to come?  Or, at least, narrow it down?

Can’t our computer models just get along?

Obviously, there’s a science to global warming science that eludes me.

Being only a casual observer of temperature (i.e., choosing the right jacket to wear), one thing is abundantly clear: Regardless of the timeline to ultimate destruction, the common thread through each doomsday proposition is that the awaiting “catastrophe,” as the Prime Minister calls it, is the result of reckless human activity.

We are all to blame.

Brown, speaking at the Major Economies Forum in London – a conference of seventeen of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas-emitting nations – said the following:

In every era, there are one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history, because they change the course of history, and Copenhagen must be such a time. There are no fewer than fifty days to set the course for the next few decades. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal over the next few months, let us be in no doubt – since once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late.

World delegations are scheduled to meet in Copenhagen in December for global warming talks.

I do, however, have a few questions for Mr. Brown:

– Try as I might, Mr. Brown, I cannot seem to come up with a single moment since, say, World War II, when nations have come together to reach agreements that have changed the course of history. Would you be so kind as to give me one example since 1945?

– Why, sir, am I to believe that the catastrophe you (and others) predict for the future, based on computer modeling (as all “global warming” hysteria is) is to be believed when not a single computer model predicted the current cooling trends?

– If recent cooling trends are not indicative of a world that is *not* warming, then what is exactly?

– What recent climactic event or event(s) have convinced you that fifty days from yesterday is all we have left before it’s too late? Why not fifty-three? Or Sixty-seven? And what will indicate that “too late” is upon us?

Hurry, Mr. Brown .. we’re down to forty-nine.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009

maoFrom the “If This Was A Republican File”…

And it isn’t even necessary to go “hypothetical” on this one.

George W. Bush, during a 2000 Presidential debate, named Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher. Many may not remember, but the outcry from all corners of the mainstream media eco-system was nothing short of deafening. The punditocracy was rife with outrage while the alphabet channel cackling heads went on and on about the mixing of church and state, the lack of nuance in the bible belt, the truth of Thomas Jefferson’s secularity, blah, blah, blah. Eventually, the indignation shifted from the President having the nerve to name the Son of God as his favorite philosopher to his audacity in “twisting” Jesus’ teachings to fit his war-mongering agenda.

How convenient.

In 2002, when former Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, speaking about Senator Strom Thurman, said, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either,” one would have thought by following it in the press that Lott rammed a cross into a press conference podium, lit it on fire, and promised white hoods and frozen yogurt to anyone who wanted them.  (You’ll recall that the late Senator Thurmond, who in 1948 ran for President as a “Dixiecrat,” based his campaign on a platform of racial segregation).

Without question, it was an enormously stupid comment for Lott to make, given Thurmond’s philosophical positions on race more than a half-century earlier. And despite the fact that Thurmond, like former Klansman-turned-senator, Robert Byrd,  eventually veered away from his antiquated philosophies on race by supporting the extension of the Voting Rights Act, the making of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday a federal holiday, and becoming the first southern senator to appoint a black aide, the incident cost Trent Lott his job.

Back in the day, journalists, writers, opinion-makers, experts, and windbags of all shapes and sizes were consumed with these stories.

Things are a tad different today. 

Liberals run the show in Washington, and a like-minded, lap-dog,  “here-is-my-lunch-money-if-you’ll-just-be-my-friend” mainstream media, determined to be part of history, want to be kept in the loop. They’ve seen what happens to those who cross the big man – how they’re shunned and left out of the grooviest parties and press events – so they’re very careful not to pee where they eat.

Thus, a selectively unconscious mainstream media – more consumed with the devastation inflicted on the city of Chicago for losing the Olympic bid, the horror of a Republican Senator shouting out the words “You lie” during a Presidential address, and the ever-growing incivility of potentially dangerous white conservative men in America – is predictably ignoring the comments of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn who said that humanity’s all-time mass-murderer, Mao Zedong, is one of her two favorite political philosophers.

Mao bleeping Zedong.

He was a sadistic monster who subjected his own people the cruelest deaths one can imagine. He is personally responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of innocent human beings – as many as seventy million people (more than the number murdered by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin combined). This sounds like something that ought to be newsworthy, don’t you think?

Perhaps Anita Dunn is reading Wikipedia.

Whereas the online encyclopedia says this about Adolf Hitler: 

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, popularly known as the Nazi Party. He was the authoritarian leader of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state (Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945.

A decorated veteran of World War I, Hitler joined the Nazi Party (DAP) in 1919 and became leader of NSDAP in 1921. Following his imprisonment after a failed coup in Bavaria in 1923, he gained support by promoting German nationalism, anti-semitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and propaganda. He was appointed chancellor in 1933, and quickly transformed the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich, a single party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideals of national socialism.

Wikipedia says the following about Mao:

Mao Zedong was a Chinese revolutionary, political theorist and Communist leader. He led the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. His theoretical contribution to Marxism-Leninism, military strategies, and his brand of Communist policies are now collectively known as Maoism.

Mao remains a controversial figure to this day, with a contentious and ever-evolving legacy. He is officially held in high regard in China where he is known as a great revolutionary, political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Many Chinese also believe that through his policies, he laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China, transforming the country from a backward agrarian society into a major world power. Additionally, Mao is viewed by many in China as a poet, philosopher, and visionary, owing the latter primarily to the cult of personality fostered during his time in power. As a consequence, his portrait continues to be featured prominently on Tiananmen and on all Renminbi bills.

Conversely, Mao’s socio-political programs, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are blamed for causing severe famine and damage to the culture, society and economy of China. Mao’s policies and political purges from 1949-1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 40 to 60 million people.

Mao “remains a controversial figure with a  contentious and ever-evolving legacy?”

His political purges are “believed to have caused the deaths of between 40 and 60 million people?”


I’m glad they found room to squeeze that little genocidal tidbit in after describing how some perceive him as a poet, philosopher and visionary. (I wonder where Mao ranks on Dunn’s Coolest Poets list?)

Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director during President George W. Bush’s first term. Imagine what would have ensued had he, while speaking to an audience of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young graduates, named his two favorite political philosophers as Benito Mussolini and Mahatma Gandhi.

The profusion of commentary that would have been unleashed describing a right-wing dictatorship in waiting would have crippled the blogosphere by sheer volume alone.

You’d have seen more swastikas and short black moustaches then your imagination would have ever allowed for.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, Moral Clarity | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009

Dunn, giving the murderer Mao some love

Anita Dunn, giving humanity's all-time mass-murderer, Mao, a little bit of love

To misspeak is one thing. It’s fairly common among homosapiens who communicate through spoken language. However, to speak without substance or lucidity, devoid of forbearance of thought – and to be admired for it – is quite another.

It is astonishing to me (and it shouldn’t be) how often Democrats – almost always portrayed as the most astute, most intellectual members of the political gamut – have to “clarify” and “amend” the things they say.

Somehow, so much of what they say need to be placed in “proper context” after the fact.

Perhaps it appears that way because they are afforded far more column space and air time to explain away gaffes, blunders and unqualified stupidity than Republicans are. Or maybe they just say more dim-witted things. (We may be getting warmer). Indeed, a liberal may conclude that the brightest among us are also the most complex of notion, easily misunderstood by the common folk and therefore requiring more time to elucidate their ideas for the masses – in other words, too smart for the room.

Take, for instance, White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, who has not only waged open warfare against the privately owned, free-market media outlet, Fox News Channel (“It’s opinion journalism masquerading as news.”) but admittedly gets intellectual tingles from one of her two favorite philosophers – the man responsible for the most murders in all of human history – Mao Zedong.

It’s true that on a daily basis, I read stories that simply mystify me. At times, I take pause and consider the possibility that I have unwittingly slipped through a crack in the space and time continuum and entered some sort of parallel universe. But this is astounding. The Communications Director of the White House is literally stating in front a graduating high school class that the man who murdered, by conservative estimates, 70 million human beings, is one of her two political philospohical heroes.

She said on June 5th:

The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is: You’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal … These are your choices. They are no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Zedong said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” … Think about that for a second. You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths. It is about your choices and paths. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you.

Of course, Dunn, after the fact,  had to clarify what she meant – for the shallow of mind and unnuanced – and put everything in its “proper context,” blaming a deceased Republican for her misunderstood comments.

She explained:

The use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony. The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me.

Yeah, okay.

First off all, it is obvious that Dunn’s knowledge of history on the matter could be misplaced on the head of a pin. 

Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists had “everything on their side?”  Really?

Except for the nuclear arsenal and full support of the Soviet Union, I suppose there may be truth in that.

Second – and most relevant – assuming that the mass murdering madman Mao Zedong even had a “philosophy” from which to draw, since when does anyone quote from a philosophical point of view – stating that the philosopher in question is a personal favorite – without actually being sympathetic to that ideology?

Do liberals ever pay attention to the things they say?

And so what if Lee Atwater quoted Mao in the 1980s? What on earth does that have to do with anything? As long as a Republican quotes a murderous totalitarian, then Obamacrats are free and clear to claim that totalitarian as a major philosophical influence without consequence?

No one can master the non sequitor like a liberal.

I wonder … Would Dunn have ever dared to speak the names Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler in the same sentence?

This was, after all, “only” Mao.

There aren’t the plethora of video images and photographs, nor the comprehensive and easily accessible evidence, of the 70 million murdered like there are of the atrocities of the Holocaust, so it hasn’t the impact. Thus, the word “evil” isn’t as readily associated with Mao as it is with Hitler … or even Gorge W. Bush.

As a result, Dunn is tagged a deep thinker, a master of wrangling the ironic, a challenger of convention – someone way too smart for the room.

HBO’s Bill Maher, host of the program Real Time, summed up this Leftocrat thinking in a column he penned  just a month before last year’s election suitably titled, Republicans, Stop Calling Obama Elitist – Because the real reason you don’t like him is that he’s smarter than you.

In one of the most telling sentences ever written highlighting liberal elitism, Mahr wrote:

Barack Obama can’t help it if he’s a magna-cum-laude Harvard grad and you’re a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That’s why George Bush is president.”


But it’s not just the “I-went-to-Harvard-so-I-am-obviously-superior-than-you” school of thought, mind you, that pervades the liberal mind. Democrats, besides being the brightest among us, also mean well, are the upholders of true compassion, and care far more about human beings than Republicans do.

They’ll tell you so – my favorite example of which comes from former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who famously said on Meet The Press once that “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Remember, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

Robert Reich

Robert Reich

Any indignation or outrage emanating from the right over patently ridiculous or embarrassing comments made by Democrats will boil down to “misinterpretation.”

They’ll tell you so – like when former Labor Secretary Robert Reich spoke hypothetically, saying that someone running for President of the United States, if he or she did not actually care about being elected and actually spoke the truth about what health care reform was really all about, would be able to say, “If you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Admidst a firestorm of reaction (from conservatives only), Reich later explained that he was “taken out of context,” saying, “The whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can’t state what everyone knows to be the truth because they’ll be taken apart by the Right or the Left.”

I’m not sure how that is “out of context,” especially because he prefaced his “mock exercise” with this clarifying statement:

I’ll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them.

Recall when Senator John Kerry notoriously asserted that young people in America who don’t study or get an education “get stuck in Iraq” – one of my all-time favorite “misunderstandings.” According to the leftocracy, Republicans “got it all wrong” when attempting to interpret that one – including MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who cracked open his Democrat/English dictionary to offer the most salient clarification of all. He explained that Kerry was actually referring to President Bush’s intelligence, and was attacking Bush’s “team” as being dense for not understanding that. Said Olbermann, “Kerry called them stupid, and they were too stupid to know he called them stupid.”

Recall then-Senator Barack Obama at the now famous Saddleback Forum saying that he couldn’t appropriately comment on when human life began because it was “above his pay grade.” He eventually had to clarify his statement by explaining, “All I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

(It’s interesting to note that he apparently felt he knew enough to be able to decide that the killing of that “unknown” quantity was perfectly reasonable).

When candidate Obama, talking about small-town Americans, said, “It’s not surprising … they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them … as a way to explain their frustrations,” he eventually clarified what he really meant by saying, “So I said … when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people … vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.”

How ironic it is that Democrats, always self-promoted as the party of the common people, have such a difficult time talking to the narcissistic, driveway-resurfacing Wal-Mart set.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Media Bias, Moral Clarity, Values, World History | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009

You go girl

How many has she killed with her second-hand smoke?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi

From the “I Wish It Mattered, But It Really Doesn’t” file…

Interesting, yes … but largely irrelevant. (I’ll explain in a moment).

Although tempting, the question to ask isn’t why do only 34% of residents of the Golden State approve of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s performance. The question isn’t why do 44% percent of Californians say they outright disapprove of Pelosi. The point isn’t even trying to get to the bottom of why 22% have no opinion at all. Unfortunately, until the majority of voters in her district vote to oust her from office, state wide poll numbers mean nothing.

The real question is: How in hell do 7% of Californians who identify themselves as Republicans say they approve of Nancy Pelosi?

Jordan Fabian at The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room writes:

A poll released over the weekend shows that only 34 percent of Californians approve of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) job performance, down 14 points from March.

39 percent of “non-partisans” approved of her while 37 percent disapproved, with 24 percent responding that they had no opinion.

Pelosi’s job approval had sunk to similar lows in October and December 2007 during President George W. Bush’s second term.

Numbers, numbers, numbers.

Indeed, like Pelosi’s, George W. Bush’s approval rating often came close to scraping shoe tops during his second term. However, a cohesive case could be made as to why he had the support he had – his prosecution of the War on Terror being the largest factor.

In contrast, what on God’s green earth has America’s Official Observer of Swastikas done to warrant any support? What precisely has she accomplished – apart from crying at the microphone, expressing her fears that angry conservatives could unleash terror on unsuspecting, good-intentioned progressives – that could even elicit a reasonable argument of support from “Republicans?”

Despite firm Democrat control of the House, her ineffectiveness is becoming legendary – on par with the President’s own impotence. Yet, more than half of Democrats in California still approve of her job performance.

That’s expected, of course – although her approval numbers, even among friendlies, has dipped since March.

But …

None of this really matters, except for the fact that it makes juicy water cooler fodder.

None of this relevant in the grand scheme of things because the entire state of California does not elect Nancy Pelosi to the House – only her district does (the 8th District), which include almost all of San Francisco.

Her job description as Speaker of the House of Representatives means she matters on a national level, but as long as 50.1% of District 8 voters give Pelosi the thumbs up, the rest of the state’s numbers, while interesting, mean nothing.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Polls | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

liberalsWhile I am certain that I could construct a comprehensive list – a definitive collection – of mandatory questions that every liberal must be asked by anyone who dares to call himself journalist, I will attempt to whittle it down to a mere four for this afternoon’s edition of “Coffee Thoughts.”

(These are the things that help keep me awake as I wait for my second wind to kick in).

Indeed, I’ve posed these questions in the past at various times on this blog (as regular readers know), but I thought it would be instructive and beneficial to put them together in one place.

So, for this exercise, if you would, picture your favorite leftist – let’s say, President Barack H. Obama – behind a sea of microphones being “questioned” by adoring minions, when all of a sudden, some renegade reporter with a bad attitude (i.e., a genuine journalist) steps up and poses any one of these four questions in these exact words (to a room of gasping outraged bed fellows, no doubt).

Try to imagine the President’s teleprompter-free responses to these:

-If you were absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that “global warming” was not the result of anything human kind was doing, and were convinced all temperature fluctuations were completely natural, would you still care about the “dangers” that rising temperatures pose to the planet?

-Contrast these two questions, if you would: What do you think would happen in the Middle East if terror-groups like Hamas and Hezbullah laid down their arms? What do you think would happen if the country of Israel did the same? (Feel free to substitute “Hamas” and “Hezbullah” with *any* terrorist organization hell bent on the murder of innocents, and replace “Israel” with the “United States.” The idea is the same).

-If you are unsure of your opinion as to when life begins, why would you come down on the side of having the right to abort the unborn with such certitude? And if it were proven to your satisfaction, beyond question, that human life did begin at conception, would you still feel that abortion was a viable “choice?”

-If quality of health care is not an issue, and accessibility is the real concern, would you be willing to give up your current health care package and sign up for whatever health care reform plan the government proposes for the uninsured?

Assuming the journalist had not already been tased or hauled off, how delicious would that exchange be?

Obviously, there is a myriad of other questions that can – and should be – asked of liberals. Perhaps the next time my eyelids decide to declare war on me, and I need to keep shaking my synapses into coherence, I’ll come up with more.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

global warmingThat meteorologists and other weather predicting specialists often have a hard enough time dealing with the extended five-day forecast doesn’t ever seem to bother the save-the-earth climate warriors. The certitude with which leftists and other children predict the end of the planet as we know it due to global-warming (within a generation or two, they say) is surpassed only by their eerie ability to coin a dim-witted – and entirely incorrect – phrase for in-unison chanting and demonstration sign painting.

The term “flat earther” is a popular phrase I’ve heard bandied about to describe those who are skeptical of the notion of a planet in danger due to this climate-killing inevitability. And while I will concede it is a commendable attempt at intertwining environmental consciousness, witty nomenclature and historical awareness, it is – in a word – stupid.

Indeed, as readers of this blog are well aware, I am one who unabashedly – passionately – rejects the view that the planet is in peril, or that it is on the verge of irreversible devastation, or that it is teetering on the edge of complete destruction due to the dangerous warming of the earth (now called “global climate change” because of recent, unmistakeable cooling trends) – thus, I am a flat earther.

Eleanor Wolf, a columnist with the Leader-Telegraph of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, last year commented on Republicans in her state who denounced the global warming threat in a column she called, cleverly enough, “Flat Earth Republicans.” The link, interestingly, has since been broken; but trust me on this, she did write it.

She wrote:

Republican state representatives attending a recent meeting in Eau Claire called the recommendations of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Task Force on Global Warming “hairbrained”(sic) and “nonsensical.” Rep. Terry Moulton obviously represents the “flat Earth” contingent when he stated that “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.”

I love the word “harebrained” – particularly when it’s spelled correctly. I must use it somewhere.

There are two things to point out here.

flat_earthOne – the modern connotation of “flat earth” largely originates from Washington Irvin’s fantasy novel “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,” published in 1828. It is from there that the myth of medieval Europeans believing that the earth was flat was propagated. How ironic that the term “flat earth” was, too, used by Darwinists in the 19th Century as a weapon against Christians. In fact, Christians believed in a spherical earth, dating back to – and far beyond – the medieval period.

Two – the belief in a flat earth was ubiquitous among humans until the Classical Greek period. Up until that period, believers in a flat earth were virtually unanimous. It was, to summon a phrase, conventional wisdom – much like the granola-chomping notion of an earth so delicate and so fragile that it is about to descend into an environmentally-induced chasm of grim death is today. It took time for the majority to swing in the other direction.

Overwhelmingly, academia and the media have bought into the hysterical claims of impending global-warming doom – and admittedly, so have the majority of the scientific community.

Don’t be fooled, however.

Many of the most well-known, accomplished, distinguished, learned people on the subject of climatology do not believe we’re on the eve of destruction. They have no agenda, are not concerned with angering those who would provide critical funding, understand the millennia-old patterns of climate fluctuation and can cite as many examples of growing glaciers as they can of melting ones.

Ms. Wolf, in her column, went on to say:

Moulton and his Republican cohorts choose to ignore scientific consensus as presented in the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report stated: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. There is a very high confidence that human activities since 1750 have played a significant role by overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, hence retaining solar heat that would otherwise radiate away.”

Since 1750?

Those nasty, nasty hot air balloons…

The idea of a “consensus” on the matter is absolute nonsense – and the debate is nowhere near over, as those renowned virtuosos of climatology, Al Gore and Barack Obama, have declared.

One of my favorite quotes about those of us who rebuff the claims of looming disaster actually comes from a blog I used to frequent. A particularly ardent proponent of imminent earthly demise, a blogger who went by the name of “green_or_die” (I’m not making that up), wrote:

“In a few years, climate change skeptics will be ranked alongside the Flat Earth Society.”

There’s that phrase again.

If I may …

It would be more accurate to say, “In a few years, the belief in ‘climate change due to human activity’ will be ranked along other fossilized, antiquated concepts – like, for instance, the idea of a flat earth.”

Add to that the disastrous threat of a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the United States during the 1980s, the running out of natural resources by the year 1990, the indisputable danger posed by global cooling in the 1970s, and the prediction that the New York Jets, at home, would beat the lowly Buffalo Bills yesterday.

Don’t get me started on that.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

That clears that up.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 18, 2009

pic of the day_fitness center

Saving energy for the treadmill.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

anti-smokingToday’s leftists – and some on the right – have decided that health is now a moral issue. It has become a religion, a value as important and ethically significant as any other Americans hold sacred. This morality is manifesting itself through marginally coherent (and agenda-driven) feel-good science. It is a result of  the propensity of today’s liberal to create policy out of emotion.

We see this, for example, in the ongoing evangelism that characterizes the man-made global warming movement. Despite the fact that there is not an iota of scientific data to back up the contentions of a world headed for disaster due to human activity, it is an ongoing hysteria that continues to be sold as absolute truth.

We see it in the ongoing debate that has consumed the bulk of the American dialogue in recent months – health care reform. Despite the fact that the United States has the best health care delivery system on the planet – the envy of the world – and the fact that only a relatively small percentage of Americans are uninsured, the word “Holocaust” is used to describe the “crisis.”

Clearly more critical to the well-being of humanity than the ongoing war against Islamo-fascism is the real battle facing freedom loving people everywhere, the next true peril. While the word “victory” has been vanquished by leftists from any discussion relating to the war in Afghanistan, the emergence of a nuclear Iran, and against evil in general, it has been expropriated for the Left’s fight to preserve this new value system.

It is, in a sentence, a struggle for the good of us all.

The enemy is (and actually has been for some time) tobacco … and to these new moral crusaders, it is the very existence of liberty itself that enables this diabolical adversary to continue to kill innocents. That’s why in almost every sector of life, actions are being taken to eradicate this evil with the same kind of vigor that used to be reserved for totalitarians and murderous dictators. That’s why government must involve itself. This is war. From bans in privately owned restaurants and bars, to making it illegal to smoke in one’s own car, the assault on cigarettes makes the Normandy invasion look almost pedestrian.

The University of Montana, for instance, is the latest institution of higher learning in the United States to break out its can of regulatory RAID and help stop the freedom bug in its tracks by pushing toward a “tobacco-free” campus – something they hope to accomplish by 2011.

Carmen George of the Montana Kaimin writes:

Julee Stearns, UM health promotion specialist and chair of the UM Tobacco Task Force that drafted the plan, said that as of Oct. 2, there are at least 322 smoke-free campuses and 172 tobacco-free campuses nationwide. Montana Tech will also be completely tobacco-free in July 2010. The tobacco-free plan, drafted at the request of UM President George Dennison, aims to ensure the campus environment is healthy and accessible for everyone, Stearns said.

Yes, you read that correctly; there is a UM Tobacco Task Force.

(I’m guessing there must also a UM Separation of Church and State Task Force, among others).

In Pennsylvania last summer, one day after a statewide ban on smoking took place in workspaces and public areas, the Keystone State became the first in the nation to create completely smoke-free campuses at its fourteen state universities. Following the state’s lead, Chancellor John Cavanaugh decided to do what he could to save the children. As Martha Raffaele of the Associated Press wrote:

After discussions with university presidents and system board members, Chancellor John Cavanaugh said he interprets the law to extend beyond buildings at educational facilities to include all campus grounds, such as courtyards, parking lots and athletic fields. Cavanaugh, who took over as chancellor in July, said some classes occasionally meet outside, and the schools also hold outdoor fundraising events and receptions. “After all of that deliberation, we decided we would go on the side of caution,” he said.

How fascinating.

I love it when liberals come down on the “side of caution.” (I’m willing to wager a vital body appendage that Mr. Cavanaugh is on the left).

no smoking signI wonder if that “side of caution” is in play when these open-minded, clear-thinking educators discuss the viability of a human life in the womb. (Perhaps that one flies above their collective pay grades). Either way, these health-as-the-new-morality crusaders – let’s call them “Mommy” for this discussion – have decided that smoking should not only be expelled from public view but must be abolished from every nook and cranny of life – including vehicles and secluded getaway spots.

It’s another small step toward Utopia.

It is reminiscent (and emblematic) of what Councilman Dave Warden of Belmont, California said three years ago when that community was looking to implement the most comprehensive smoking ban in the nation. He summed it all up for the members of the council when he asked, “What if every city did this, imagine how many lives would be saved?”

Sheer brilliance.

That’s the kind of vision that communes and sit-ins are made of – not to mention totalitarian societies. It is also another example of the unadulterated arrogance of today’s leftist. They have taken it upon themselves to regulate and legislate our lives so that, presumably, we will never ever die. This is all okay, of course, because smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit that kills trillions anf trillions of people each year. The fact that “Mommy” cares enough to imperil your personal freedoms should speak to the moral imperative.

It’s ironic (don’t you think?) that these anti-tobacco warriors are the very same people who angrily pumped their fists in outrage over provisions of the Patriot Act, claiming they were a direct threat to personal liberties, all the while justifying the government’s right to annex a person’s freedom to engage in a completely legal activity under the phony guise of saving lives – even though there is not a single human being who has ever been documented to have died from second hand smoke.

Not one.

Today’s purveyors of the new morality know better than you, and they’ll tell you so.

And this isn’t just relegated to the United States.

In a piece published Monday on the UK Telegraph Online website, columnist Ed West wrote about a particularly fanatical anti-smoking commentary he had come across – a piece he called “the most sinister article I’ve read in a long time.”

West wrote:

Duncan Bannatyne of Dragons’ Den has written an article that sent a shiver down my spine. Entitled “I’ll only be happy if smoking is banned”, it proposed measures so dismissive of any sane person’s idea of individual liberties that I’m tempted to say that it sounded better in the original German.

First he praises the Government for banning smoking in pubs and supports the latest proposal to put cigarettes in shops out of sight. But then he goes really mad:

“In my view smokers who currently stand outside a pub or restaurant having a fag should have to stand at least several yards away from the front door, to save the 79% of us who don’t smoke from breathing in their smoke when we go in or out. We should curtail the rights of the 21% and increase their responsibilities towards the 79%. In other words, we should stop them killing us and our children.

Studies estimate that about 11,000 people a year die because of passive smoking. This isn’t nanny statism, Big Brother, or wrongful interference in people’s personal freedoms – it’s the right thing to do to protect the health of the vast majority of us who don’t smoke from the declining minority who do.”

Really? Well, wouldn’t you have been better protected if you’d allowed smokers to meet inside smoking pubs rather than forcing them outside, where they kill you and your children?

“Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it.”


“On a school visit I met a 12-year-boy who wanted to be an athlete who told me that every morning his mother lit up when she was driving to school, even though he’d begged her to stop. He should be able to report her to the police.”

Are you out of your mind?

“It should also be illegal to smoke at home in front of children. I accept that enforcing such a law would be difficult, but it would send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable. And shops should need a licence to sell cigarettes. They need a licence to sell alcohol, which is sometimes addictive and certainly harmful, just like tobacco, so why not? That would make shopkeepers less likely to sell fags to people under age.

Some shopkeepers are genuinely afraid of a ban on tobacco displays. But that is because the tobacco industry have been up to their old tricks. They tried to convince pubs that the smoke-free law would drive them out of business so they would lobby against the law.”

Er, the smoke-free law has driven loads of pubs out of business, you lunatic. I’m all for reducing tobacco use, but it isn’t any of the Government’s damned business whether people smoke in their own homes. What next? Will officials be able to come around and check they’re eating five a day?

Talk show host Dennis Prager makes the point that if second-hand smoke kills as many people as is claimed by these totalitarian-like zealots – (some say as many as 50,000 a year in the United States alone, which would translate to nearly six people an hour dying in this country as a result of coming into contact with second-hand smoke) – then not only should the practice be banned outright everywhere, but those who are smoking need to be arrested and convicted for taking the lives of the innocent.

Logical, yes?

When Belmont, California finally passed its landmark anti-smoking legislation into law in September, 2007, the ban was an outright prohibition of cigarettes in all areas of the city, except single-family detached homes.

This prompted me to wonder, if second-hand smoke poses that kind of calamitous threat to everyone everywhere, why then are single-family homeowners immune in Belmont? Don’t they matter? Aren’t the potential “innocents” in that single-family home as much at risk as someone who lives three floors above a smoker in an apartment building?

It is all sheer nonsense.

Yet, “mommies” all over the country are getting precisely what they want – control.

Should we expect the ACLU to step up and defend personal liberty? Perhaps a better question is whether or not anyone truly believes that once the evil of smoking is wiped clean from the lives of people everywhere, it will simply end there.

nanny-stateIn New York City, for example, the attack on cigarettes wasn’t enough. It extended to cooking oil and, most recently, salt.

Government infringements on personal choice always begin with “harmless,” “reasonable-sounding” discussions draped in genuine “concern.” It is always for our own good.

The zealotry from the left when it comes to the smoking issue is remarkable. The anti-smoking crowd is among the most – if not the most – intolerant in our society, and they continue to push falsehoods and fabrications to further their agenda. Despite inconclusive evidence, rigged statistics, and studies showing that the catastrophic dangers of second-hand smoke are bogus (note the recent report by the British Medical Journal as one example), these people are more than willing to sacrifice your liberties for you.

It is truly ironic how leftists aim to protect the physical body from selected poisons while scoffing at any suggestion that poisons of the mind and soul (hyper-sexed music videos, profanity-laced pop music, the banishing of God from schools, etc) have any kind of impact on people.

Morality, indeed.

Once the scourge of tobacco is eradicated and people stop dropping like Warner Brothers’ cartoon anvils from second-hand smoke, then we could turn our attentions to more casual fancies – like Islamo-facism.

No, I am not a cigarette smoker.

Yes, there can be no dobut that cigarette smoking is bad for you.

So what?

This is about liberty.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Health is the New Morality, Junk Science, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

Readers of Roman Around know that I’ve no need to resort to the use of profanity here, and save for a few occasions in which I’ve opted to quote someone else, I have deliberately avoided it. I assure you, I am no prude, and I certainly don’t say this from a position of superiority or righteousness. I do not begrudge any of my colleagues in the blogosphere who do (including some I respect immensely). It’s simply a choice I’ve made for this blog.


Primarily because I find it beneficial to elevate language whenever possible. Yes, I am wont to have a little fun with words now and again, but as a rule, I find wanton profanity polluting and wholly unnecessary – particularly in a world where competing ideologies and value sets can get explosive.

I don’t even allow replies with profanity to be posted here. If there is a point to be made in response to something I’ve written, I trust it can be made without having to resort to vulgarity.

If it cannot, then I invite the reader to go elsewhere.

Indeed, a case can be made that there is a time and place for profane language – like in a movie, or when listening to Senator Chuck Schumer speak.

However, there are times – rare occasions – when the inclusion of profanity and epithets on this blog become a necessary evil to illustrate critical points.

(Uh oh, says the audience … What am I trying to say here?)

Here’s my point:

The common criticism – the underlying theme – in the tsunami of anti-Rush Limbaugh rhetoric that has flooded the mainstream media in recent days has been Limbaugh’s (supposed) insensitivity and divisiveness. His bid to be a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams football team actually offended and outraged many.

Limbaugh has no place in the National Football league, his enemies have said. He is simply is not good for professional football, his detractors have argued. He would not project the right image or uphold the league’s high standards, his opponents have claimed.

At Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood site, blogger “Stage Right” exposes hypocrisy at its double-standard ugliest:

And now a word from an NFL owner:

“And the game done chose me to bring pain to niggas and pussy holes, they one in the same.”     – I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Sensationally crude, I know.

(My sincere apologies)

But in light of the brutal beating Limbaugh has taken in the media for things he never said or did, such eloquence and lyrical vivacity bear repeating in order to emphasize the point: “Niggas and pussy holes.”

Isn’t it delightful?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you that grandiloquent wordsmith – and minority owner of the Miami Dolphins – Jennifer Lopez.

As “Stage Right” explains:

Jennifer Lopez, whose Sondheim-like lyric genius is on display at the top of this post, holds the same status with the Miami Dolphins as Limbaugh would have with the Rams. And, not only does she have co-writer credit on this offensive drivel, she also recorded and performed it live. She continues to earn money in royalties for her genius use of the “N-Word.” My guess is that those who took issue with Limbaugh’s imaginary racial slur are OK with J-Lo’s actual racial slur because she looks a lot better in tight pants.

Although Limbaugh has slimmed down considerably in recent months, I’ll concede the point and give the nod to Lopez in the “looks-better-from-behind” department. However, distinguishing between that which is excreted from that shapely backside of hers and the filth coming from her mouth is no easy task.

(My apologies once again).

Remember, liberal bigotry unifies.

Compare Lopez’s lyrics with these words that actually did come from Limbaugh’s mouth:

When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals.

Appaling, right?

Divisive, yes?

How dare he say that he wants every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. How dare he see Americans as human beings. Perhaps if he saw them as “niggas” and “pussy holes,” he’d have been accepted by the standard bearers of professional football.

Stage Right at Big Hollywood continues:

Meanwhile, another minority owner of the Dolphins has some controversial issues with public statements as well. Recently, Dolphins minority owner Serena Williams broke quite a few FCC laws by letting loose an “F-word” filled tirade on live television during the US Open. Then she menacingly threatened a side judge and was subsequently disqualified. This kind of behavior and speech seems to be right in line with the NFL’s standards since I missed the press conference from Commissioner Roger Goodell condemning it.

Ahh, yes.

Self control personified.

If only the coffers of Medicare and Medicaid could have been fortified with one dollar for each use of the F-word in Serena’s nationally televised snit; President Obama could have then focused on his pursuit of the Nobel Prize in Physiology instead of health care reform.

Finally, we get to Fergie, some-time member of the Black Eyed Peas and some-time solo artist.  You betcha, she has also been approved as a minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Earlier this week, Goodell said of Limbaugh’s potential ownership, “Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.” Is he splitting hairs between “comments” and “lyrics?” Because these lyrics from a 2003 Black Eyed Peas song sounds pretty divisive to me:

Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA …

A war is goin’ on but the reason’s undercover
The truth is kept secret, it’s swept under the rug

Nothing like accusing the CIA of terrorism and our government of lying to bring people together.

 Goodell also said, “We’re all held to a high standard here.”

Really? Does this meet his high standard?

Whatcha gonna do with all that junk
All that junk inside your trunk
I’ma get get get get you drunk
Get you love drunk off my hump
My hump my hump my hump my hump my hump
My hump my hump my hump my lovely little lumps

How about drinking so much that you wet your pants, mid-song, on stage, in front of a live audience?

Where, pray tell, is the contingent of outraged football players on this one? And who will summon the courage to comment on the divisivness of accepting a  member of a musical group that accuses the CIA of terrorist activities as a minority owner?

Am I to assume the league would somehow be tarnished to have a man who doesn’t care a damn thing about skin color – and has said repeatedly that he wants everyone in the United States to succeed – as a minority owner, but somehow benefits from embracing a foul-mouthed, undisciplined, F-bomb dropping cry baby?

When can we expect a statement from Al Sharpton on the unacceptability of a non-black using the word “nigga?” (Beacuse it’s clearly okay for blacks to use that word). 

Aren’t 70% of the NFL’s players offended by the diviseness of Jennifer Lopez’s use of a racial epithet? 


And other adjectives too.
wordpress statistics


Update – October 17, 2009, 10:08 AM

In a column published online last evening at the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh wrote:

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?


Posted in American culture, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

On the Staten Island Expressway early this morning, on my way home from dropping off my daughter at her Water Safety Instructor certification class, I flipped the car radio to the oldies station.

As with just about all oldies stations these days, they were having one of those special “themed weekends” (i.e., another interesting way of grouping together the same thirty-five songs on their playlist).

Certainly, many of you are familiar with this practice. An oldies station, for example, will run a “70s Weekend,” or a “Number One Records” weekend. That sort of thing.

This weekend, the theme on my local oldies station is the “Men and Women of Motown.”

Call me nitpicky, but what does that mean? The “Men and Women of Motown?”

As opposed to what?

What else is there?

Why not just say, “A Motown Weekend?”

If it isn’t going to be a “Women of Motown” weekend, which is perfectly fine, or a “Men of Motown” theme, why go to the trouble of saying “The Men and Women of Motown?”

Are the “Hermaphrodites of Motown” specifically being excluded?

Do the “Transexuals of Motown” warrant their own weekend?


These are the things I think about driving from Flatbush, Brooklyn all the way to the south shore of Staten Island on a Saturday morning.

Posted in Everything Else | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

here comes the water

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009

Admittedly, comparing poll numbers to bona fide election results may not be the most scientifically prudent method of making a point, but because in the world of politics polls actually do matter, it can be a revealing exercise.

Otherwise, why conduct them?

Thus, I ponder the following:

down arrowIf 52.7% represents a sweeping mandate – a conclusive and unambiguous message from the American people that “we can” – then what shall we call 57%?

The answer, of course, is contingent on whom you ask … and the subject matter.

If we’re talking about the election of Barack H. Obama last November, 52.7% is a number that represents an indomitable roar from a discontented electorate ready for change; it is a mighty bellowing from a people tired of “politics as usual;” it is a thunderous call for a comprehensive metamorphis of a reupblic in need of healing; it is a wake-up call for three-hundred million – a mandate for the transformation of America.

If, however, we’re talking about the percentage of people who would not vote for Barack Obama were the 2012 election held today, then 57% is a number that most likely represents the fruits of a flawed survey replete with deceptively worded questions and manipulated data – especially because the poll from which this percentage was tabulated is coming from an organization of bigoted louts and clodhoppers, Fox News.

However, if you can buy into the concept that something of value and integrity can come from Fox News, the trends are crystal clear:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.
Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

This news comes on the heels of Gallup’s revelation that former President Bill Clinton’s wife has a higher favorability rating than Barack Obama.

Call me silly, but the reality that Hillary Clinton gets more hoorahs from the American people than the Copenhagen Kid is funny for so many reasons.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama-Mania, politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

As a public service to faithful readers of this blog, I am going to cautiously lead some of you to a place that is all at once frightening, disorienting and embarrassing. It is a place that many of you have heard about in one context or another, but one that can make even the most iron-constitutioned conservative shudder.

Be forewarned.

It isn’t pretty.

I take you deep within the chattering ranks of a leftist blog.

(Now would be the time to remove any children or frail seniors from the room).

At Think Progress, back before it was announced that Rush Limbaugh would be dropped from the group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team,  many of leftism’s deepest and most articulate thinkers weighed in on Limbaugh potentially becoming a part-owner in the NFL.

The best and brightest of post-racial America voiced their concerns and shared their intuitive analyses.

Not a single word has been altered, and not a single one of the screen-names has been changed to protect the pathetic.

If Rush is approved , he could change the name from Rams to the Nazis or KKK, have his own Brown Shirt Army and at half time have them drill march with swastika flags and have a KKK celebration with a burning cross at midfield.                                    -Nellieh

When I heard that Boss Limbaugh expressed interest of buying the Rams, I had to wonder what bad pain killer did he take. Having Limbaugh buy any football team which have predominently African-American players is like having the KKK buy a football team. This would put a black eye on the NFL franchise if EL Rushbo brought the Rams.                               -SP Biloxi

After all, when Limbaugh told an African-American caller to “take the bone out of his nose”, he was just “commenting on race.”                                   -Ralph the Wonder Llama

I’m sure plenty of owners have racist tendencies. The only difference is that Rush’s feelings are on the record.                                         -Badmoodman

It would be a real hoot if after tub-o-lard shelled out all that dough and bought the team, the entire team walked out on his fat ass.                                -Bozo the Neo Clown

Rush couldn’t even pass the NFL’s drug abuse policy.                     -Kid Charlemagne

Rush just wants a bevy of team doctors to shop from.                            -Xisithrus

Limpballs has so thoroughly immersed himself in white-wing racism that it will be a monumental task for any team he would own to keep non-white players. Limpballs has catered to the stereotypical dumb white bozo who hates anyone non-white.                              -Evangenital

This is great news… After Limberger’s ego gets back into shape after finding out he can’t change the symbol on the St. Louis Cards helmets to a burning cross, and that they refused to wear white hoods under their helmets, he’ll go on a two-week rant about his being singled out for discrimination. What joke this lump is.                               -Winski

You folks are thinking the wrong way about Rush. He thought that, by buying the team, he was actually buying the players. He figured that this would be an end run around the 13th Amendment and that he could treat his black players like the slaves he wishes he could own.                                -fergus

He also fantasizes about hanging around the locker room ogling his big, strapping athletes and ordering them to do nasty things to him.                                          -fergus

I’m not sure any additional commentary is needed here. It speaks for itself.

And keep in mind, this was but a sampling.

These are the same cerebral heaviweights who profess that if you are in favor in same-sex marriage, you must hate homosexuals. These are the same intellectual powerhouses who say that if you are opposed to affirmative action, you must hate minorities. Therefore, what other reason could there possibly be for Rush Limbaugh to want to be part-owner of a professional football team other than his desire to be able to say he effectively “owns” black men?

Reasonable, no?

Meanwhile, on his radio program yesterday – just one day after being booted from the potential buyers group – Limbaugh took a few moments to speak with Ken Hutcherson, a former NFL linebacker who is now best known as the pastor of the Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington.

Incidentally, “The Hutch,” as Rush calls him, is black.

(It shouldn’t matter, but to the American leftocracy, nothing matters more).

Here was the exchange between Hutcherson and Limbaugh. (That’s Uncle Tom and Adolf Hitler to you lefty bloggers):

Ken Hutcherson

Ken Hutcherson

Limbaugh: Hutch, Welcome to the program.

Hutcherson: Hey, my man. I am so mad. I am doing backflips up here in Seattle. What in the world is going on in the United States? I mean, the whole issue, Rush, whether you like it or not, is they have done you wrong. And this is intolerance. It’s prejudice. And if America don’t wake up, it’s going to happen to them. I am so mad, man, I can’t even – and I’m a man of the cloth, Rush. I’m not supposed to get this upset.

Why don’t they talk to some African-Americans who know you?

Limbaugh: Oh, that would destroy the narrative. That would destroy the template.

Hutcherson: Oh, forget that. You know, and talk to some African-Americans who know the poverty pimps, Sharpton and Jackson. They’re nothing but slave sliders and pushers to get their way. And they’re going to let them have a voice on all the stuff that they’ve done? Jesse Jackson was telling Bush to, “Stay out of the bushes.” He was the one in the bushes having illegitimate kids. How in the world can the NFL – and I’m going to tell you something else, brother, straight from me, who played football – those African-American brothers who talk about they wouldn’t play? That is the biggest lie on this side of the universe. Not only would their wives get on them and make them go – and their girlfriends, and their moms – they would beat them all the way to the 50 yard line and tell them, “You better get out there and get that game check.” And why don’t they talk to the hundreds of African-American players that would be excited about you owning a team?

Limbaugh: Well, they want to present the idea that there are none, and that’s what they’ve done. 

I’ll have to check the archive of Rush’s famed “ditto cam” to see if he was still wearing his minstrel paint when talking to Hutcherson.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009

picture of the day_101609

 Were the swastikas photoshopped out?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009

Hill and BamFrom the “Gee, I Wonder Why” file …

There aren’t icicles forming in hell exactly, but still … who’d have guessed that former President Bill Clinton’s wife would be more popular than the Annointed One himself, President Barack Obama, less than a year after the ushering in of the Messianic Age?

Take a huge “wow” out of petty cash.

Wasn’t it only a year ago that Barack Obama, as a candidate, was causing unsuspecting young women all across the United States to stick to the script – er, faint in his presence?

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – in many ways, a better man than he – rates six points higher in favorability than the President.

A new Gallup poll shows that the number of people who have a favorable impression of Barack Obama has fallen to its lowest point since he became president. Fifty-six percent say they have a favorable impression of Obama, versus 40 percent who say they have an unfavorable impression. (Four percent say they have no opinion.) Historically, a president’s personal favorable rating has often been higher than his job approval rating; right now, Gallup has Obama’s job approval at 52 percent.

Gallup points out that in this latest survey, Hillary Clinton is now more popular than Obama. Sixty-two percent say they have a favorable impression of the Secretary of State, versus 34 percent who have an unfavorable impression. That’s a big change from the height of the battle for the Democratic nomination last year; in February 2008, just 48 percent had a favorable impression of Mrs. Clinton, versus 49 percent who had an unfavorable impression.

I’ve got to ask … Who are these people clinging to their favorable impressions of him, and what narcotics are they taking?

What is there to be impressed about exactly?

His unending compassion for those less fortunate than he? (i.e., his facility to confiscate money from society’s most successful and distribute it to others?)

There are only so many $250 bribery checks that can be handed out to America’s seniors  before it all starts looking suspicious, you know.

It’s regrettable that ObamaCare couldn’t have been implemented sooner.

There’d be a lot less old people around to have to buy off.

Posted in politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009

contemptible, as always

contemptible, as always

Whenever the repugnant slice of human debris that is Al Sharpton declares anything a moral victory, it should be an unmistakable signal to anyone with a functioning cerebrum that taking the opposite position is the best – and ethical – course of action. So sure am I in making such an authoritative statement that I am willing to stand up on any stage, in any forum, in any location, anywhere on God’s green Earth to not only state it with conviction, but explain in impassioned detail why it is so.

Sharpton is to civil discourse what ulcerative colitis is to the large intestine. That the repulsive race-baiter Sharpton is given even a whit’s worth of credence by anyone in the mainstream media, let alone camera time and print space, indicates that white America is still very afraid of him.

It also shows that the bulk of racist Americans live and thrive on the Left.

It is they who infuse race into every nook and cranny of American life.

It is they who reject assessing their fellow human beings based on the content of their character, and instead focus like laser beams on the color of their skin.

Do the names Maureen Dowd, Charlie Rangel, Henry Louis Gates, Diane Watson, Paul Krugman, Jessie Jackson, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (among others) ring a bell?

Following Rush Limbaugh’s booting from the investment group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team late Wednesday, the lying, riot-inciting, shakedown king Al Sharpton said in a statement, “It is a moral victory for all Americans — especially the players that have been unfairly castigated by Rush Limbaugh. This decision will also uphold the unifying standards of major sports.”

This statement fascinates me, because if there is anything I am obsessed with, it is the truth.

What players, pray tell, have been unfairly castigated by Limbaugh?

Who are they? What was said about them?

Are these “castigations” as provable as the malicious falsehoods spread across the internet about Limbaugh’s sympathies with James Earl Ray? Or Limbaugh’s belief that there was good that came from slavery?

Mr. Sharpton, you are a boldface liar.

I am an American, sir, and this is no moral victory for me.

Unlike Reverend Al, I do not see people in terms of race, and I do not slander those with whom I disagree.

And just where has the melanin-obsessed reverend’s moral compass been during the NFL’s ethically-challenged nine-year period dating back to the year 2000? Surely he’s aware that over 450 NFL players have been arrested since then for a veritable cavalcade of offenses, ranging from sexual assault to domestic violence to drugs.

I’d love for the slick-haired, unapologetic slanderer of innocent men to explain the moral victory in keeping someone like Leonard Little in the National Football league. Remember him? Eleven years ago, he killed a 47-year old mother of two while driving drunk. Where was Sharpton on behalf of the innocent back then? Where was Sharpton’s deep concern for the “unifying standards of major sports” then? And where was he when Mr. Little found himself arrested yet again for drunk driving six years after that?

Sharpton went on to say that major sports leagues like the NFL shouldn’t welcome owners who are “divisive and incendiary.”

Divisive and incendiary?

Kettle, meet pot.

And yet, Rush Limbaugh – who hasn’t a racist bone in his body, and adores the game of football – is a moral threat to the National Football League? 

Rush Limbaugh is somehow more intolerable than convicted felons?

Excuse me, have I slipped through a crack in the space-time continuum?

Do the names Dante Stallworth, Adam Jones, Plaxico Burress, Michael Vick and Travis Henry ring a bell for the adjudicator of all that is morally sound and ethically conscious, Al Sharpton?

This isn’t an issue of race. It’s an issue of values.

By all means, let the scrupulously upright powers-that-be in the National Football League (and those outsiders who influence it and shake it down) crucify Rush Limbaugh and stand in the way of his free-market right to invest in a team that can use all the help it can get, but let’s be sure bona fide criminals are afforded infinite chances to play the game.

Do the words “upside down world” mean anything?

Please don’t misunderstand me.

League owners, players and observers can certainly hold any opinion they wish regarding Rush Limbaugh. The NFL is well within its rights to deny Limbaugh the opportunity to invest in one of its teams as a minority partner.

However, all credibility within the ranks of the anti-Limbaugh brigades is shattered as they squawk about what’s good and bad for a league that accomodates thug players with no regard for decency and the law. It is laughable to hear these people portray Rush as being the worst thing that could ever happen to the game because of things he never said or did while common criminals are accepted and embraced as heroes.

How about a little moral clarity?

Moral victory, my ass.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Ethics, Racism, Sports, Talk-Radio, Values | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »