Skip to content

Cleaning Out The Cache

20 February 2010 @ 17:03

Here’s the latest and some stuff I haven’t had a chance to get to as we’ve been hurtling our way along the road to perdition…

-First off: Paco recently had up a very perceptive posting on how the wheel’s have come off in Washington.  A highlight:

Since practically the first day of the Obama administration, one of the big questions has been how far down the road to serfdom Democratic senators and congressmen were willing to go in order to satisfy the President’s ambitious, if initially vague, plans for an unprecedented expansion of federal power. Many went quite a long way down that road – some enthusiastically, others with great misgivings – but all are now facing the wrath of voters who have detected the smell of a socialist rat in the hope-and-change bouquet. The repercussions are already being felt…

When Paco starts-a commentatin’, you can always say of him: ‘This wheel’s on fire’.

-Yesterday, he also provided us with one of his occasional diary entries, which are always enjoyable.  Here’s one of the items from it:

I posted a link on my blog a couple of days ago that led to a story about a woman reporter who asked Joe Biden about the “bruise” on his forehead; this question arose during a press conference held on Ash Wednesday. Biden, a Catholic (perhaps nominally so, but that’s between him and God), had been to Mass and received the traditional ashes on his forehead. The really disappointing thing was that the reporter was supposedly Catholic, too, so she should have known better. In any event, a commenter at the original web site quoted Dennis Miller as saying that it’s not that Biden is a Catholic, it’s just that Obama puts his cigarettes out on Joe’s forehead; a bit of imagery that left me in stitches.

Me too.  No Sheeples Carol, are you listening?

-One more: Paco tells the story of the stealthy attempt by the Nobel Prize Committee to get back their medal of Algore — it’s another good yarn from the chief storyteller of the VRWC.

-The Classic Liberal thinks National Review is a ‘shell of it’s former self’ and lays out his case here.  A highlight:

“Don’t let them immanentize the eschaton,” Eric Voegelin’s famous phrase, once adorned pins and t-shirts sold by the conservative magazine National Review. Today however, the National Review has immanentized it, and flies it as their flag as they claim to be the “I Am” of the conservative movement.

Nifty interpretation of one of my favorite phrases.  While I don’t agree with the whole of it, theCL is right that NR has become pro-state [we just disagree on when it happened and I think his definition of ‘pro-state’ is a little too rigid].

-Like Irish Cicero [thanks for the kind words Irish], theCl knows how to treat his friends as evidenced by the linkfest [with photo of a babe with a gun] here.

-Speaking of IC, he agrees with me that They Don’t Make ‘Em Like That Anymore.  I already knew, Irish.; I already knew.

-The owners of Hooters are trying to sell the franchise.  Lori Ziganto, madam of Snark And Boobs, is taking it personally and blaming Barry O.

-Over at WyBlog, Chris has a trust issue with those who trust the government.  Can’t says I blame him:

…When the people are lulled into a false sense of security by the omnipresent bureaucracy they are most susceptible to the allure of stealth tyranny.

People that rely on the government for their happiness can all too easily become slaves to those who should rightly be their servants.

Dead solid perfect.

-In another posting, he takes on the IPCC and leaves nothing but the bones.  A highlight:

The IPCC’s vaunted “peer reviewed studies” weren’t published until they passed through a “political filter” to ensure that the “appropriate message” was conveyed. Science (what little of it there actually was) took a backseat to politics.

The real mission of the IPCC is to hijack the world’s economies under the umbrella of “social justice”. It’s about power, the power to control our lives via the rationing of energy and the redistribution of wealth, with a little population control and eugenics thrown in for good measure.

The science might be discredited, but we still can’t have our incandescent light bulbs back.

Mrs. Belvedere and I plan to still continue hoarding them.  The Guvmit will have to pry them out of my cold, dead sockets.

-Over a Piece Of Work In Progress, Enoch Root compares [very convincingly, I might add] our Fearless Leader to Zima, the nausea-inducing product of the ’90’s made of half beer and half lemonade.  A highlight:

One of the most frustrating aspects of President Obeyme is his inability to accept that some (some would say many) of his beliefs, political and otherwise, just do not have the popular appeal he insists they inherently do… or must, as a matter of course. I am reminded of some of the music I have been exposed to in my lifetime. Or of products which have been introduced that fall flat and ultimately fail to flourish in the marketplace. I won’t mention any bands by name, but I will mention Zima – the half beer, half-lemonade concoction marketed in the 90s. In the case of horrible bands and terrible beverages, it is true that marketplace influence makes all the difference. That is to say, a company committed to its awful product can keep it front and center despite the product’s inherent awfulness as long as said company has a tranche of goodwill/capital to spend and a willingness to continue dipping into it. But ultimately, thankfully, unappealing bands and brands (is there a difference?) go away. Or, in the very least, recede to some distant sliver of a market segment – and we are spared… until some force of marketing genius attempts once more to accost and overwhelm our sensibilities.

Now, it seems to me that Obeyme is to a very large extent in the business of hoisting questionable products onto the shelves of our political quick-mart. If the vision of the POTUS as product marketing manager doesn’t work for you, you may liken him to a tone-deaf record executive.

Some products suck. Zima sucks. It sucked from the first. And while there are some who might appreciate it, by and large we can agree it sucked. And it ultimately failed. On an epic scale….

-Speaking of POWIP, proprietor and zen master, Dan Collins had a serious health scare yesterday, as detailed by Enoch here, but he seems to be doing better today.  If you like Dan as much as I do, please follow the link to Enoch’s post and send him some good wishes [and prayers, if you’re the praying kind].

Get well soon, Dan.  I don’t know what your taste is women is, but, since you blogged about a Playboy Playmate recently, here’s one of the best ever, from 1973:

-Well…I have to stop here even though I’ve got some more.  I have to get to my next CPAC posting and, of course, Rule 5 Saturday [watch out Boob War Bozos, the Master is a comin’ after y’all].

  1. 20 February 2010 @ 21:13 21:13

    Thanks, Bob, feeling much better and at home again, without any needles in me, as far as I know.

  2. 21 February 2010 @ 11:21 11:21

    Thanks for the links Bob. You da man!

  3. 24 February 2010 @ 13:39 13:39

    I’ve been thinking about what you said about my definition of “pro-state” being too rigid, however I find “pro-state” to be more difficult to define than it is to point to examples. (None of this is pointed at you btw).

    Obviously, anything on the Left. They “believe” in the State.

    Acceptance of the New Deal and/or Great Society. This is a rejection of both our founding principles and natural law.

    Support of any positive right (granted by the State, not by God or nature). For example, even if I was wasting my life away smoking the reefer, nobody has the natural right to point a gun at my head (this is how law is enforced) to stop me. I would certainly hope friends and family would intervene, but there is no natural right to use force against me in this case. Stopping me by threat is an example of positive law.

    Being pro-war itself is not necessarily pro-state, but supporting whatever strategery is thrown at it, without any dissent, is certainly pro-state.

    Defining America by her government, instead of her Creed.

    Believing “the nation” (collective) serves a higher purpose than the individual. Think about it this way, only individuals have souls. God is the only true higher purpose.

    Allowing partisanship to blind one of the eternal truth that power corrupts.

    I hope these examples help clarify what I mean.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      24 February 2010 @ 14:35 14:35

      Well played sir – they do. Of course, I had also just read your The Myths Of Collectivism post over at the Washington Rebel, which I just quoted from approvingly in my latest posting: The End Of Leftist Days?

      • 24 February 2010 @ 15:24 15:24

        I just read through your post on the recent discussions at the Reb. It’s an honor to be able to post there. It’s tough to keep up with all those smart guys, and gal, over there. (Reading too much Nicki is known to cause serious blog crushes, smart girls are hot!) Thanks for the links!

        Now stop making me think!

        • bobbelvedere permalink*
          24 February 2010 @ 16:17 16:17

          Now stop making me think!

          Only if you reciprocate.


  1. Made A Good Run, But I Ran Too Slow « The Camp Of The Saints [New Main Site]
  2. Blake Lively Fixes the Jobs Problem

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: