Advertising War
Ξ May 29th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Humor |
And it begins (more below the fold):
Count Every Vote!
Ξ May 23rd, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |
I was reading an article by Byron York on Hillary’s position in the Democratic Primary. Turns out she’s within reach of a majority of votes if you include the vote from Florida, where both candidates were on the ballot (but not including Michigan, where Obama wasn’t). But that seems to not matter much, as we’re told to focus only on the delegate count.
Sometimes, Democrats just boggle my mind. In 2000, a quirk of American electoral rules resulted in Bush winning despite losing the popular vote. I rest easy at night in the belief that Bush won the election as dictated by the rules that had long been established and not challenged by either side prior to the election. Democrats wanted to change the rules ex-post facto, arguing that “every vote should count”.
Rules, to the Democrats, were mutable things that served at the fancy of populist sentiment. The scene replayed itself in 2002, when scandal-ridden Robert Torricelli of New Jersey withdrew from his Senate race after the cut-off date for when names can be submitted for inclusion on the ballot. The rule was put in place because A) you had to establish the ballot at some point and B) to let all the candidates know who they were facing. The Democrats said that it was unfair that they should have to obey that election law as well, and should be able to change the name whenever they want. The Democratic-heavy New Jersey court agreed, and let them switch names late in the game.
So, rules apparently don’t matter to Democrats when it’s inconvenient. They apply very much, however, when it’s convenient, as is the case with the nomination of Barack Obama. Take, for instance, Texas. People at the DailyKos were upset that the media wasn’t reporting the Obama won Texas with the majority of delegates. However, Hillary won the majority of the votes, and it was only with the confusing nature of the Texas hybrid primary/caucus setup that allowed Obama to get more delegates.
The fact that Hillary won more votes but lost the race in Texas is inconvenient for the Obama narrative that he’s an agent of change from the ways of Bush, because he’s winning just like Bush did in 2000.
But, he’s winning by the rules. Well, so did Bush in 2000, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Democrats at the time. The common Democrat theme over the last eight years is that rules don’t matter if they contradict “the will of the people” and that “every vote should count”. And now we’re seeing the potential that Hillary could go into the August convention with a convincing argument that she got more votes than Obama and should be the party nominee. To the Obama supporters, however, that doesn’t matter because according to the rules, he won.
Sometimes, Democrats just boggle my mind.
I Just Learned A New Russian Word – You’ll Never Guess What It Means
Ξ May 19th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Humor |
Aerofallosov. Explained below the fold (warning, NWS) (more…)
The Japanese Must Be Stopped
Ξ May 19th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Humor, Technology |
Managing to fuse the company that ushers in the end of civilization from the Terminator series with the homicidal AI from 2001, a Japanese robotic company has created a robotic augmentation suit. I present HAL by Cyberdyne.
Arab Technology Meets German Engineering
Ξ May 15th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Humor, Politics |
So politically incorrect but really funny:
(more…)
The New York Times: Obama the Apostate?
Ξ May 15th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |
I’d never heard of him before, but an Edward Luttwak penned an Op-Ed in the NY Times that bursts a recent foreign-policy meme coming from the Obama camp. (more…)
Reasons to Look Forward Computer Gaming in 2008
Ξ May 13th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Games |
Someone created a monster list of games scheduled to be released on the PC in 2008. Some are well known, some aren’t, but it’s a great list that gives you a taste of the possibilities this year. Heck, it looks like there’s even some SCUMM-like games on the list.
No Irish Need Apply
Ξ May 12th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Intellectual, Politics |
I recently came across a scholarly work investigating the history of the term “No Irish Need Apply”, and what it’s role was in history. Being that a number of elderly Irish-Americans remember signs in their youth with the term (notably, Edward Kennedy), and given the long history of Irish immigrants in America, it’s interesting to dig into the history.
To skip to the end, the basic conclusions of the article were that in isolated cases in the 19th century, such notices may have appeared, but would have almost exclusively been limited toward Irish-Catholic maids, whom mothers did not want to give undue influence over their generally protestant children. It certainly didn’t extend itself to the general workforce, for which there was no evidence to be found.
