Showing posts from April 21, 2013

This is insulting to inch deep people everywhere

W outclasses Barack and Bill, without even trying: "We reminisced about all the places we’d been, all the crazy days and wild nights, all the history we’d seen — first hand. Just before we said our goodbyes, I asked her if she’d miss covering President Obama.

“Not at all. He’s an inch deep. Bush is a bottomless chasm, a deep, mysterious, emotional, profound man. Obama is all surface — shallow, obvious, robotic, and, frankly, not nearly as smart as he thinks. Bush was the one.”

Her words, so succinct, have stuck with me ever since. By the way, she’s a hardcore Democrat."

I have no idea if this is true but it's awfully damning.


"The assailant was of Iranian origin, and an official investigation was underway to determine a possible motive,":

the assailant screamed “Allah-u-Akbar” — or “God is great” — during the attack.

Cannot imagine what the motive could possibly be. Any guesses? Anyone?

Shooting yourself in the foot

“Mandating that small businesses collect sales taxes for an additional 46 states and 9,600 tax jurisdictions would overload these entities with bureaucracy and red tape.”

The pessimist in me says "Yes, please put this to a vote. It's bound to wildly unpopular and the Dems will be on record as sponsors and it will be their undoing." The realist side of me has some questions

1. Will this force small e-tailers to confine themselves to local distribution?
2. Will the big players use this to squash the little guys?
3. Will this only increase the cheat rate for online e-tailers as they seek to operate in states that are less lax about enforcement?
4. Will this force states to work together to harmonize and simplify tax codes?

Any (or none) of these could come to pass. My previous predictions on virtually anything regarding politics preclude me from making such judgments but I think they're possibilities.

It's not about equality

I don't think feminism has a particular definition. I think it should, but it doesn't. It should mean "women are treated equally before the law" and that people shouldn't make assumptions about them or harass them for being a woman in whatever setting. That said, there is a particular brand of feminism which isn't seeking equality. It seeks advantage. Women's advantage always and everywhere. Here is a prime example:

Jackass Sues Gym Over Their 442 Women-Only Hours Per Year

See? Discrimination based on sex is totally ok when it's against men and it's a really small thing anyway. Kudos to the commenters who called her out on her bullshit.

Either discrimination is fine or its not. Pick one. You don't get to say yes for this group but no for that one.

These women want it both ways. They want the man to be asked out on a date and have him pay for the privilege of their company but you damn well better treat them as equals.

They are…