Dalicious

I think the Democratic party is hung up on race more than anyone. It is the most racist organization I have ever belonged to. In the 1950s and before, it was racist in a segrationist kind of way. Since the Democratic Party ran things in the South for more than a century -- it was literally the party of the slavery and the Confederacy -- you can't blame the Republicans. Even Lyndon Johnson came into power in the Senate not as a friend of blacks, but as a friend of the Southern segationists, who gave him his power and made him Majority Leader.

Now guilty Democrats are overcompensating by doing everything they can think of to punish whites for being white. I was for affirmative action as a youth, but now that it is my children being discriminated against. Why should I fight for the rights of people who only want to take my rights from me? Why should I fight for the economic elevation of those who only want to take my money? It makes no sense.

Of course, Mr. Chang is not a guilty white Democrat, so he must have a different motivation -- what could it be? Could it be the pile-on-whitey mentality?

That is Obama's problem in a nutshell: Obama may not personally choose to pile on whitey, but a LOT of his appointees and their minions will feel empowered to do so. Anyone who attended the Democratic conventions this year saw this mentality in full posted 07/16/2008 at 15:18:35

About the effect of biofuel, solar, wind, and geothermal on energy prices:

1. How long will it be before prices are relieved?
2. How long will it be before the complete destruction of the world food system?
3. How long will it help us before the Butterfly Effect destroys the world climate system?
4. Will it once again delude us into thinking we are solving something, when real, immediate solutions (drilling) are being ignored?
5. How long will it be before the rest of the world is willing to go along with abandoning petroleum?
6. How much will it cost us to be the only nation not using oil, the substance that built the modern world? posted 07/14/2008 at 11:01:36

To admit that you've been bamboozled by the down-home advertising campaign of a rich Texas oil man who has, among many other transgressions, tried to corner the market in water in West Texas, is to provide us with an extremely low assessment of your ability to comprehend political affairs. posted 07/14/2008 at 10:55:13

I hate it when Bush does something I agree with, but with China and Cuba drilling off the Florida coast, we clearly have to act in our own best interests. We can't just wish for more oil, we have to produce it. posted 07/14/2008 at 10:52:44

On the one hand, it is tempting to say they could end the world food crisis by simply not holding this dinner. On the other hand, the menu makes it clear that the average person, starving or not, would have nothing to do with this "food" (I couldn't help but think of the elaborate food scenes in American Psycho). posted 07/08/2008 at 16:50:36

It certainly is protectionism -- which is exactly why we need it. We need to protect our jobs; our economy is no longer waxing, it is waning. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:22:21

I am against NAFTA as much as you, but you are wrong to say that Clinton's support of NAFTA was a toss-in to the Republicans. I just re-read a history of the 1912 presidential election, where free trade was one of the biggest issues. In 1912, the Democrats considered themselves free traders, and Republicans supported the tariff. Abolition of the tariff was one of Woodrow Wilson's key issues as a free trader, and the Republicans were vociferously opposed. They saw it as a worker's issue because at the time, workers lost jobs to tariffed goods due to decreased trade, and the corporate bosses still benefitted.

The America was in major growth mode at the time and needed the halters taken off; today, it is in decline and needs protection. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:20:48

Sweetie, you are totally clueless about economics, and I mean totally. Maybe the point of the blog was to see how many polysyllabic words you could fit into a sentence, but otherwise, let me help you out.

"...their pain is less than the aggregate societal benefit." Whose society would that be, China's? India's? What metrics did you use to arrive at that conclusion? What is the source of your data?

"More people are benefitted, including by job creation and access to cheaper goods." Give me a break! Goods are cheaper because the jobs are being created overseas and destroyed in America! Are you dense?! The only way there is an aggregate societal benefit is if you care more about people overseas than in America. Since you call yourself a proud liberal (talk about self condemnation!), I assume you think everyone outside of America is more important than anyone inside America. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:12:51

You appear to be one of the average Joes who don't understand the issues, as demonstrated by your statement "Drilling in ANWR will not solve our energy predicament". Obviously it will not solve it; no one thinks it will. That's a straw man argument. For that matter, there is no single solution that will solve our energy predicament, so you can knock down any and all partial solutions with that one sophomoric statement.

Drilling in ANWR WILL contribute to improving the supply/demand equation, although not any time soon. In a nation where the daily demand varies on the margin by 1/2 to 2 million barrels a day, an ANWR output of 1/2 million barrels a day could improve spot prices a lot.

But we also need to start drilling the coastlines. Yes, it's horrible, isn't it? But China and Cuba are already starting, and we know what wonderful guardians of the environment the Communists are. We have to start drilling the coastlines if only to stake our claim against outsiders who have our worst interests at heart. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:07:09

I meant to say "ruin Office and Windows", not "run Office and Windows". posted 06/30/2008 at 12:58:10

First Microsoft enabled PCs, now it is crippling them. The company that gave PCs the edge over Apple's II series now is forcing us to go back to Apple to get a usable computer again! What irony! How much did Steve Jobs have to pay those idiots to do this for him? They run Office and Windows in the same year ... Macintosh, here I come! posted 06/30/2008 at 12:57:22

My question is, was Obama born a Muslim? This is a fair question, since his father was Muslim and gave him a Muslim name, and Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia. I have family members in a very similar situation, and they are considered in violation of sharia for converting from Islam to Christianity. Was Obama born a Muslim? Did he violate sharia? posted 06/30/2008 at 13:08:35

I'm not a McCain supporter, but it looks valid to call Obama Dr. No, for the reasons given. It might also be valid to call McCain "The Evil Dwarf", but let's not go there. posted 06/25/2008 at 17:40:22

Will it give us relief? We won't know until we try it. But with the Cubans and Chinese drilling only 70 miles off the Florida coast, I have yet to hear anyone explain why it is OK for them but not for us. In that context, it seems totally insane for us to avoid drilling off the coasts. It will happen: the only question is, will we benefit or will our enemies benefit? posted 06/24/2008 at 12:22:10

Heck, yeah, why should McCain pay top dollar for a bunch of consultants, when he can get the benefit of Hillary's consultants at no charge to himself? Hillary Clinton, the gift that keeps on giving. posted 06/19/2008 at 10:44:19

No kidding. Every day he goes to work is a disaster. posted 06/19/2008 at 12:29:55

If America is not the central hub, why is it that globalization did not exist until we made it happen? Why is it that our actions can bring it to a halt? Why is it that no other country except American can have this effect? posted 06/19/2008 at 12:41:23

This election is global in the sense that all those countries have their fingers in our pie, one way or another. It's all about them, not us. They don't care about us. If Barack Obama destroys this country, that will make them happy, and they see him as more likely to do it than McCain -- because for all his flaws, McCain at least knows when this country is climbing and when it is falling. I voted for Obama against the Evil Hillary, but now that she's gone the comparison is starkly different. There is no guarantee that he will keep my vote. The best way for him to lose it is to demonstrate a belief that we should be just as sympathetic for other countries as we are for our own. posted 06/19/2008 at 12:38:19

I've often gone back and forth with myself over what I thought of Russert's style ... but bottom line, he was a good journalist in an industry that has very few good people. I am deeply saddened by this news. posted 06/13/2008 at 16:06:25

He obviously can't run for Obama's appointment, but Dean is my first choice for VP. posted 06/05/2008 at 15:09:38

I think Mars is a little unrealistic. Can we have an Ambassador to Siberia? Maybe send them both? What with global warming and all, the tundra will be warming up and should support a lot of new agriculture. posted 06/04/2008 at 17:07:03

Caroline Kennedy for VP. You heard it here first! posted 06/04/2008 at 17:05:29

Why blame Bill? Hillary's only real accomplishment was marrying well. If she had not married him, she never would have once entered the White House or the Senate chambers. He gets away with cheating on her because she owes him everything. posted 06/04/2008 at 16:59:59

No, it's all about Bill, didn't you hear what he said? "This may be the last event of this kind I will ever do," he said. It's all about HIM! posted 06/04/2008 at 16:54:11

A distinction without a difference. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:21:05

Do you also respect Joe Kennedy, Henry Ford, John Rockefeller, and Charles Lindberg for refusing to back off their support of the Nazi regime? posted 03/26/2008 at 13:20:22