joyfulchristian

Let's get real

Scott Brown is a northeastern Republican. Whether he believes in the "jobs" bill or not, he's going to have to be a more liberal voter in the Senate than conservatives like just to have a chance for re-election.

Calling him a turncoat or other nonsense is absurd. If you weren't prepared for some votes from him that would turn your stomach then you were being naive. Are "jobs" bills abhorrent to conservatives? Yes. In the grand scheme of things this bill is small potatoes. What's important is whether Brown will be there when the chips are down. So far, it's to early to say. I know this though: If we run him out of the part on a rail at the first vote we don't like, then the odds of him being there when we need him are small.

Oh, come one now Jim!

Look, I realize that Alan Grayson is an odious human being. However, isn't implying that a coup in Niger was somehow his fault kinda over the top?

My 2 cents on "Birfers"

Erick Erickson has a funny put-down of a "birfer". That's his terminology for people who insist that Obama isn't a natural born citizen.

Here's my two cents on this issue. As Erickson points out, if you wanted to challenge Obama's eligibility to be President, you should have done whatever you were going to do as soon as he declared his candidacy. If you believe any court in the land is going to say Obama isn't eligible after he's been in office a year, then you're delusional.

Further, if anyone had any actual evidence that Obama isn't a citizen, why haven't wee seen it? All I ever hear from these people is constant claims that whatever evidence we've seen isn't enough. As Erickson points out, no President has ever had to prove his eligiblity. I think the historical precedent comes down pretty clearly on the side of assuming eligiblity barring evidence to the contrary and I haven't seen any contrary evidence.

I have, however, seen a birth announcement. That seems pretty conclusive to me.

So, why hasn't Obama released more evidence than he has documenting his place of birth? I have no idea. There's plenty of good reasons. The best that I've seen is that it's a great way to discredit his enemies while causing people to waste time and resources. (I don't remember where I saw this idea first, but John Hawkins touches on it here.)

If you're hung up on this issue, please drop it. If you won't, the rest of us have every right to distance ourselves from you to keep from being painted as lunatics by association.

Well, I can vote for him

.. and I did.

If he runs again, I'll vote for him again.

Bleg

So apparently my daughter's school system has run out of money to pay for school counselor's. They're trying to get a grant from Pepsi to keep the program going. If anyone's so inclined, please go to the Pepsi site and vote for it.

Yeah, because they're pretty much the same thing.

Vietnam War. Bush administration. When you think about, really, what's the diff?

Unbelievable.

Coolest blog name ever.

So, I just stumbled across this blog. It doesn't appear to have had any activity in years, but I loved the name.

Antisiesetablishmentarianesque.

Anonymity?

Apparently several Rutgers students were horribly beaten in a sorority hazing. One student says she was beaten with a paddle 201 times over the course of a few days. She was hospitalized.

The store contained this odd comment:

The pledge who spoke to The Star-Ledger did so on condition of anonymity, saying she feared retaliation. Her cousin, Khalilh Anthony, accompanied her to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, along with the pledge’s mother, saying she was appalled when she saw the injuries caused by the repeated beatings.

There were apparently only 7 pledges so it's probably not that hard to find out who's talking anyway. What sense does it make though to conceal the victim's name to protect her identity while telling the whole world who her cousin is in the next sentence?