2

Congressional Turkey of a Bill

cross posted at hepsy.wordpress.com

Thanksgiving. Twenty pound turkeys. Stuffing and all kinds of trimmings.

Turkey is best when it’s sliced before serving. Then cut into bite-sized pieces before inserting in mouth. Congress is looking to stuff the bird with things they don’t want to read, consume the whole turkey in one big swallow, then pass the gas off on us.

Yesterday the Senate began the turkey season with 60 votes for its two thousand seventy four (2,074) pages of S.1697. It’s difficult enough to imagine our busy Senators taking the time to count the pages, let alone read the words printed on them. As Senator Murkowski (another smart lady from Alaska) said, that 20 1/2-pound pile of the Senate’s 2,074 pages [propaganda] is a turkey of a bill.

Senator Boxer complained of the resolution’s objectors, “Nowhere on their desk do we see their bill. They have no answers, no solutions.” Here’s one. Cut the turkey into reasonable servings. Then cut it again, for bite size pieces. No need to pretend the Congressional Turkey bills are ready to serve. No need to practice gluttony. If it’s not suitable for Congress, it isn’t suitable for US, the citizens.…Read More

3

a Lady as President?

cross posted at hepsy.wordpress.com

What’s wrong with Sarah?

Sarah is a lady.

It was the image contrasting last year’s First Lady on the left and this year’s First Lady positioned on the right that made me realize my hesitancy with Sarah Palin.

Politics: always spinning, the truth is there, somewhere, usually tucked between the folds of the spun propaganda. The Left has made quite the investment in convincing US that Sarah is stupid. And they’re looking to spend more to discredit her, with the DNC currently raising money for attack ads against her. Shouldn’t take too long to figure out that the Left isn’t as convinced of her stupidity as they would present her, as they want you to believe.

I couldn’t quite put my finger on my hesitancy about Sarah. When considering the prevarication of MSM, political pundits and the DNC against her it became obvious that she is not stupid. Either she isn’t stupid, or the Piper on the Left is, for expending so much energy and money in paltering a truly stupid person. Or am I wrong, the Left really is that stupid?

Then I saw the Change picture, Laura on the left and Michelle on the right, and instantly knew why I was holding out in supporting Sarah. Sarah is a lady. She’s feminine. Can a Lady be an effective President?

Not every woman is a lady. Laura Bush is a graceful lady. As First Lady, Laura presented herself as well groomed, well dressed, as though she respects the people who look up to her. That’s Laura. Laura isn’t the first First Lady to be a graceful lady, but she is the most recent. Michelle, on the other hand, doesn’t hesitate to present herself rumpled and flippant. Laura filled her role as First Lady as a dignified lady. Michelle is extravagant in her nouveau riche position, yet all the gold in the world can’t make her the lady she is not. Michelle is filling her role as First Lady as, well, a pretentious woman.

When imagining a female President, isn’t it easier to picture a masculinized woman? What woman in power is, or has been, a lady, or even feminine? Few. Not recent women prominently in American politics, as Hillary C., Nancy P., Madeline A. or Janet N., hardly feminine. They’re women in power. Women, not Ladies.

It isn’t easy to picture a lady, feminine like Sarah, in the role of President, is it? Men like to look at her, and she’s smart. She’s sincere, likely the non-politician in her. She’s soft and cuddly, her edges feminine. Her administrative experience, tested decision-making, resilience to attack, etc., get lost when people look at her. Even with her glasses on she’s a sexy, feminine lady.

What’s wrong with Sarah? Sarah is a lady.

A lady can be every bit as effective as any man.

Especially a lady qualified as Sarah.

A Lady for President?

You betcha!

2

Divided States - How U.S. will Split

cross posted from hepsy.wordpress.com

Endtime prophecy is not the province of the religiously excitable alone. Even the die-hard materialists of the Russian intelligence service FSB (formerly the KGB) dabble in apocalyptic musings – although the scope of this particular prediction is not global, but limited to the imminent demise of that old-and-new archenemy, the United States.

Igor Panarin has been predicting the “moral and economic collapse” of the US for about a decade now; he set the Endtime for the American Empire at the year 2010, and the recent arrival of the credit crunch lends some credence to his outlandish forecast – at least as far as the Russian (state) media is concerned. Panarin, formerly a KGB analyst and now an academic, gets about two interview requests a day.

The break-up predicted by Panarin would be the result of mass immigration, economic decline and moral degradation, all of which would trigger a second American civil war, and the collapse of the dollar. This would then lead to the break-up of the United States, by mid-2010, into half a dozen regional sub-entities. These would be dominated or absorbed outright by foreign powers.

• Alaska would revert to Russia, and Hawaii would become Chinese or Japanese.
• The West Coast (the three Pacific states, joined with Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Arizona in a Californian Republic), would fall to China or at least be under Chinese influence.
• A Texas Republic, which would also include New Mexico, Oklahoma and all the other traditionally southern states (except the Carolinas, the Virginias, Kentucky and Tennessee), would similarly be either directly or indirectly under the sway of Mexico.
• The aforementioned southern exceptions would join the northeastern states in forming a bloc that might join the European Union.
• The rest – all midwestern and western states – would be at Canada’s mercy.

Imagine Chinese overlordship of Utah – another Tibet waiting to happen -, the Maple Leaf flag flying at the Gateway Arch and the European Union and Mexico meeting just south of there, on the Mississippi. As far-fetched as that may sound, Mr Panarin is no fringe looney. He heads the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats (and Russia will need quite a few more of those, if his prediction comes true). Mr Panarin also is one of  the talking heads on (Russian state) tv whenever US-Russian relations are at issue.

The popularity of his end-of-America views mirrors the Kremlin’s semi-official anti-Americanism, and it is all the more popular for the pithy sympathy he wraps up his predicitions in: Panarin claims his disintegration scenario has about 50% chance of happening, and if it did, it would not be the best outcome – for Russia, that is. Even though the Russians would again cross the Bering Strait to retake possession of Alyaska, the disintegration of Russia’s main trading partner would spell economic trouble for the resurgent world power.

One can’t help but feel that Mr Panarin’s view is less a realistic scenario based on cold, hard facts (as he claims), and more a kind of payback for America’s and the West’s gleeful spectatorship of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Mr Panarin explicitly refers to political scientist Emmanuel Todd, who in 1976 predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. “People laughed at him”, Mr Panarin is quoted as saying by this article in the Wall Street Journal, implying that he can relate to the scorn felt by Mr Todd at the time, and is anticipating a similar vindication.

As with religious eschatologists (at least those careless enough to posit a near and definite date for the world’s end), the only way definitely to disprove Mr Panarin’s reverse Schadenfreude is to wait for his prediction to outlive itself. So let’s see exactly what Mr Obama remains president of, if anything, come August 2010…