Howard Dean Demonstrates his Respect for North Carolina Voters

Testing, 1-2-3. Testing, 1-2-3...

For my olll' buddy CoolCzech:

Richie Incognito Didn't Do a Damm Thing Wrong

This is what happens when the offensive line fails to toughen each other up.

Have sports commentators and fans lost their collective minds?

Hasn't even a single one of them ever played on a post-Pop Warner football team? You know, where teammates--ESPECIALLY the linemen-- routinely smash, insult, gross out, cuss out, and variously abuse one another 6 days a week?   And then unite together in common cause on the seventh day, where they sacrifice literally bone and blood for each other against the Common Enemy?

One point that I've seen no-one else make--so I will make it here. In a given season, your average high-school-on-up football player actually plays against opposing teams less than 10% of the season.  Depending on practice hours, more than 90% of their playing is done in practice, against one another.

Of course, there is a double competitive element during team practices: first, who will be chosen by the coach to be the starting players, and get lots of playing time, glory, and in the pros, money;  second, how the team will practice against one another such that the whole team gets the maximum out of its potential, and works at its best as a collective unit on game day.  Every single player, coach, and participant at every level understands this as self-evident and hopelessly obvious. "We play as hard as we can AGAINST EACH other in practice all week, so we can work TOGETHER as cohesively as we can on game day. Of course!"

My gaawwd, in the practices and in the locker room after the practices, football teammates are brutal to one another...but this brutality is designed to elevate every player's performance, to ruthlessly get the most out of each player's potential, so the team will perform to its maximum potential.  Of course, in other sports similar things are done, but no other sport requires hugely muscled players to literally smash, grab, and slam into one another with maximum force and velocity on every single play of the game.  When a baseball player tries to make a point to his teammates by slamming his own head into his own locker, it's an exception;  when a football player does it, it's routine.

By all accounts, Richie Incognito was the Big Dawg amongst the Miami linemen, and took it upon himself to psyche up his comrades by time-tested and well-accepted techniques: threats, humiliations, insults, racial/ethnic/religious slurs (yes, and they traditionally go BOTH ways amongst teammates), and believe it or not, a vigorous and sincere bout of praise when he feels the teammate would really benefit from it (which is rarely). Maybe he misjudged Jonathan Martin, maybe he did not; but no-one denies that Incognito's sole purpose was to psyche up Jonathan Martin so he would maximize his performance.

It may be useful to take a little trip down memory lane, to see how athletes used to view these things in the 1960's, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.  One of my childhood heroes was the Boston Celtics center Bill Russell, who won 11 NBA championships over his 13 year career.  Russell played 9 of those years with forward Tommy Heinsohn (who later coached the Celtics to two more championships.)  Here is what Russell wrote in his autobiography "Go Up For Glory" in 1966:

               "I said one time and I say it again that 
          (Celtics coach Red) Auerbach made one big
          mistake with Heinsohn.  He should have made
          Heinsohn run until he fell down and then thrown
          water on him and told him to start running again." 

Wow.  THAT doesn't sound very sensitive.  Sounds a little brutal, even cruel.  And do I really need to point out that Russell was black, and Heinsohn a pale-face?

But then again...There ARE those 11 championships in 13 years...Hmmmm...

The obvious unstated purpose of this Incognito/Martin "narrative" is to land a decisive blow in the bizarre Progressive battle to emasculate our culture.  This is a dangerous trend that has accelerated in the Obama years (notice that the mom-jeans President has officially stated that he would not let his son play football, if he had a son).  But these Progressives fail to understand that if you suppress and extirpate normal, healthy masculine urges that have been channeled into productive and controlled areas, then the result will NOT be less masculinity; the result will be abnormal, unhealthy masculine actions exploding in destructive and uncontrolled areas.  You have less riflery clubs, hunters and soldiers; you'll have more gangbangers and psycho gunmen.   Less football players and boxers; more wife-beating and rape.

We all need to push back against this idiotic emasculation of what should be a wholesome and properly balanced society, where masculinity and femininity bring out the best in each other by bold contrast, without the relentless demoralization of one by a baleful ideology.

October 25. A very sad day.

"And nothing was left of it at all. Where has that life gone? And what has become of all that awful torment and torture? Can it really be that nothing at all is left of it? Can it really be that no one will answer for everything that happened? That it will all be forgotten without even any words to commemorate it? That the grass has grown over it?

So I ask you: How can all this be?"

--Vassily Grossman

We'll never forget her.

WANTED: GOP STREET-FIGHTERS (or Human Targets, same thing)

 

This is what the D-Rats seek for us Republicans.

Surely the world will be a much better place if we put THEM there instead.

 
The great website Ace of Spades hit the nail on the head recently, focusing on the "morale" of the Republican Party.  Morale is everything.  EVERYTHING.

What is morale?  It is NOT the belief you are destined to win...it is the belief YOU DESERVE TO WIN.  That you are FIGHTING ON THE SIDE OF GOOD & MORALITY.

The D-Rats have demoralized every single Republican leader in modern times, with the exception of Reagan (D-Rat his whole life until he was 52) and Newt Gingrich.  Notice that they were the only Repubs who got any significant victories vs. the Progressives.  And notice that they were the 2 Repubs targeted more than any other.

Speaking of TomDeLay & his successful appeal today: The D-Rats HATED that guy.  He was arguably the #4 target for the D-Rats all-time (Nixon was #3, due to his Communist-fighting).  Delay was an aggressive conservative Repub first elected in TX in 1978...when that state was still D-Rat majority.  He was a real working-class guy (exterminator), and he then got elected to the House in 1984.  DeLay became a leading conservative there, and we all know he was able to preserve Repub win after win in the House w/a razor-thin majority for years..  How? Because HE WANTED TO WIN, and he believed HE DESERVED TO WIN.

Boehner has led the House for 2.5 years w/a much bigger majority...how many wins has he had? Because he has no MORALE.  Because he has, yes,  a LOSING attitude.  Because he really, in his heart of hearts, doesn't WANT to win. 

Why?  Hard to say.  Probably doesn't want to be a target (like Delay & Gingrich were), and actually enjoys the lack of accountability & responsibility that comes with being a powerless minority. 

The Roves & the Boehners & the Kantors & the Grahams & the McLames...Sheesh, if they'd have just turned their formidable assets to  work WITH the conservatives the past 6 months, can you imagine how much stronger our position wd be?  But they really are demoralized, and they really feel more comfortable with the D-Rats who patronize them as they buy them off, rather than the boisterous TeaParty conservatives who actually are the only hope for our country.

Years ago I used walk every day past a D-Rat campaign office of a prominent local Mass. D-Rat pol (in Mass., 90% of elected legislators are D-Rats).  They had a sign in the window: "MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN."  You ever play sports?  Every good coach tells his players the same thing.  It means, OF COURSE, you as a player can't win the game on any given play, but it signifies that you ARE THINKING about winning, ALL THE TIME, and you are thinking on every single play how you can hurt your opponent and help your team. 

This D-Rat douche was running in a district where D-Rats had a 10-1 voter registration advantage, but they were still encouraging their people to "make things happen," and crush the [pathetic] Republican enemy.  They were...NOT DEMORALIZED.  Evil, yes, but not demoralized.

We Conservatives see that Sens Cruz, Paul & Lee are truly trying to MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.  Maybe it won't work, but it has the benefit of not being D-Rat pre-approved.  The Establishment Repubs allow filthy and evil D-Rat traitors like Schumer, Reid, Obama & Pelosi to set the parameters of "acceptable opposition." Is that a winning strategy? Is that even SANE? 

BTW, part of D-Rat demoralization strategy is of course to get us fighting amongst ourselves, but only if it's a horse-race, unprincipled fight.  They do NOT want us to fight about principles, which is actually a rather appealing, dramatic scene.  Notice guys like Rove & Reince never argue about principles, just tactics. 

BTW, when was the last time KarlRove won an important, uphill victory, anyway?  WhyTF shd we take his approach?  So he can do for us what he did for GWBush's social security reform? 

Just before I wrote this, I saw a new ad from Boehner, attacking Obama for negotiating w/Putin, but not Repubs.  It's a lot weaker than we need, but it's SOMETHING.  Again, such a shame that he's had a position of so much influence and power for 2.5 years and been so pitifully passive & gun-shy about exercising it.

I also have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of these 50+-something Repub leaders are just allergic to criticizing a [(half)black man, a perfect example of what GWBush called the soft-bigotry of low expectations.  So I guess they are proving themselves to be soft bigots?  Well, what do you think a Gingrich/DeLay House majority wd have done if a WHITE President had asked a Russian official for breathing room until after the election, when he cd show "more flexibility"?  They'd have had non-stop hearings for a month!  And unless the Prez promptly groveled and apologized, they'd have commenced impeachment hearings for treason!  With Boehner, the issue...was never even an issue.  Can't be questioning the integrity and patriotism of our first black President...Who to this day has never had to answer for it.

If the Establishment Repubs are demoralized by a communistic black Prez, we can only imagine how lovey-dovey they'll be with a pant-suited old harpy.  Ugh.

As Ace put it so beautifully in another essay, the purpose of a political party is NOT just to win, but to advance a certain set of ideas and principles that (in theory) the party is supposed to represent.  NOT sell out those principles to achieve a 10% watered down version of the enemy's policy, and certainly not to build up the world's biggest and most profitable donor database.

The historical principles of the Republican Party ARE good and moral.  The D-Rat Party has been pursuing pure evil for at least 20 years.  There is no reason to cross the aisle to these scum, and our party's leaders need to get this throu

Fighting the D-Rats in ways that they DON'T approve of is a start.  Let's get out there and MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN!

gh their heads, ASAP.  Else they will be tossed aside like snot-rags, and deservedly so.

New York Times: INCOMPETENT Robber Barons

Soooo many beautiful little nuggets from the announcement that the pathetically crooked and progessive Boston Globe is going to be sold by the New York Times to the owner of the Red Sox, John Henry for a paltry $70 million...Where to begin, ohhh, where to begin?!

Well, before they pull it down, how's bout the Globe's OWN DESCRIPTION in today's paper of how the Times used them after their 1993 purchase? Ahem:

The Times Co. is selling the Globe for far less than the $1.1 billion it paid for the paper in 1993, when the business was highly profitable and the Globe fetched a record price. The Times Co., like other business owners, withdrew a large stream of cash from the Globe during its ownership — a sum at least equal to the purchase price, according to several former high-ranking Globe executives.

Uhhhhh...Isn't that what all good lefties, progs and Democrats decry with horror as "CORPORATE LOOTING"?! Economic VAMPIRISM?! Draining a viable company DRY of revenues--at least $1.1 billion over 20 years!--then selling the near-worthless husk off to some even crueler capitalist for the coup de grace?!  Say it ain't so, Pinch!

Next, let's dig a little deeper into the Times' investment performance here.  We're talking about the SMARTEST people in America, recall, home of Seewwwper-Economics Genius Paul Krugman.  The Time paid $1.1 billion in 1993 dollars in 1993...and collected $70 million in 2013.  Nominally, that looks like they rode that bitch into the ground to the tune of 93.3%, with a paltry 6.7% value remaining.  But no-one lives nominally, do they?  Let's see what those 1993 dollars were like compared to 2013 dollars...   

When the Times bought the Globe in 1993, with $1.1 billion you could have bought 2,957,000 ounces of gold (yup, nearly 3 million ounces), more or less.  Or 62,535,532 barrels of oil.  Today, with their $70 million, they can buy 53,411 ounces of gold (a purchasing power reduction of 98.2%, just 1.8% value remaining), or 651,344 barrels of oil (purchasing power reduced by 98.9%, or 1.1% value remaining)...a truly mind-boggling anti-investment performance!

Remember Steve Martin's ridiculous old skit? "I'm working on a new book...'How I turned a million in real estate into 25 dollars CASH.'" The econ. brainiacs at the New York Times apparently thought that was a serious instruction manual...

Another way of looking at this stupefying financial waste: If the Times had taken that $1.1 billion in 1993, and invested it into top-grade 20-year bonds, then running at more than 6%...They could have had both their cash stream of $1.1 billion-plus, PLUS the return of their entire principal TODAY.

Oh, amidst the big news today it seems almost everyone forgot that the Times REJECTED a buyout of the Globe 5 months back...that offer was for "more than $100 million."  Seems like the Times grossly overvalued its asset, and paid a $30 million-plus penalty for its greed.  Hey, I thought this suck-em-dry-for-maximum-profit capitalism stuff was supposed to be easy, if you didn't care about your employees?

Keep all this in mind the next time you hear some fantasy-world egg-head like Paul Krugman pontificating on subjects economic in the laughable pages of the New York Times.

SPECIAL BONUS LINK:  Just look at these NYTimes losers whining about their reduced pension fund payouts in this famous YouTube vid from last year...Can't imagine the projections have gotten any better, since the Times sold the Globe, but KEPT the Globe's $100 million pension liability.  Hilarious!:

Our Own Little Vozhd...

And we thought this type of bureaucratic abuse and tyranny was long dead...

So now we learn that the thugette Obama has appointed as head of the IRS ObamaCare Enforcement Division (the force charged with documenting every detail of our private lives so we can all get far crappier healthcare) has been groomed for that role by running the tax-exempt division as it repressed the Tea Parties.

Folks, this is a deadly serious exposure of how modern totalitarians use a purportedly neutral bureaucracy to annihilate political enemies. The keys are:

[1] Position reliable agents in key posts inside the bureaucracy, where they
[2] "Neutrally" use their official powers to destroy enemies and help allies/sponsors, and
[3] are NEVER genuinely punished for their difficult-to-prove crimes.

[3] is KEY, since if they are actually punished the reliable agents will be less reliable, require more definitive, explicit instructions, and the whole magically-functioning KafkaPenalColony loses its magic.

The first expert at this wicked model was Iosif Stalin, who used his own reliable agents within the supposedly solidaristic Communist bureaucracy to consecutively crush Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, and hundreds of other giants of the October Revolution who couldn't acknowledge his godlike awesomeness. How much easier is it for a progressive America-hater like Obama to use his anonymous bureaucracies to relentlessly choke the life out of the American citizenry?

On a more local level, just remember the famous words of Boston Democrat machine-pol Martin Lomasney from the last century:  "Never write if you can spoeak.  Never speak if you can nod.  Never nod if you can wink."

These filthy gangsters that Obama salted through the IRS (and the State Dept; and Justice, and the EPA; and...) barely needed a wink..But they expected, and expect, that their fanatical loyalty will be rewarded by protection from punishment.

So Obama will not punish them.  Unless his hand is absolutely forced.