Brian Sack teaches an important lesson to the Pumpernickel Boulevard gang – Glenn Beck.
Brian Sack is a genius. Two episodes in and his show is fantastic. The “weekend update” style news jokes are nothing to write home about, but the skits are brilliant. This one in particular should be required viewing for arguing on the Internet.
The legend of Tim Tebow grows – AFC West Blog – ESPN.
One thing that anti-religious zealots and deeply pious and religious people tend to have in common is disgust for seemingly disingenuous athletes thanking God for on-field success. The phrase “God doesn’t care who wins football games!” often comes up.
I’m starting to wonder if maybe they’re wrong. How else do you explain Tim Tebow? It makes perfect sense if you think about it, and keep the following things in mind…
1. God is omnipotent, and omniscient. He does not have to deal with matters of scarcity of resources in the same way we humans do. He can multi-task. He can save an orphan from a burning building, test the faith of a believer with tragedy, and will Rex Ryan to make an idiotic all-out blitz call on third down all at the same time if he feels like it.
2. We are made in God’s image. Most human beings seem to have a natural enjoyment of athletic competition. Therefore, I think it is only reasonable to assume that God himself would also enjoy sports. The NFL is one of the biggest sports leagues on Earth, why wouldn’t he watch?
3. America is God’s country. I refuse to believe that God would prefer soccer to football. There’s no way God approves of a sport where the surest pathway to victory is pretending to be injured when you aren’t.
4. If God watches football, wouldn’t it be more exciting if he had someone to root for? Who better to root for than one of his most famous and influential disciples? Tim Tebow is probably the most famously Christian athlete on the planet. Unless the Pope gets drafted by the Browns, why wouldn’t Tebow be God’s favorite player?
5. Tebow’s success serves as an inspiration, and enlarges his platform to spread the gospel. Can you imagine Tebow in the super bowl? The hundreds of millions of people around the world tuning in for what would surely be three hours worth of pre-game entirely devoted to how awesome Tebow is? Why wouldn’t God want that?
Given these points, I think it is quite obvious what is going on here. The Broncos fourth quarter drives are divinely inspired. Sorry Jerry Jones, but the almighty is no longer looking at Texas on Sundays. God wants Tebow to win, and has a pretty good track record of getting what he wants.
First, a brief history (because history is always important). Armistice Day was originally proclaimed by worst-president-ever Woodrow Wilson on November 11, 1919, the one-year anniversary of the end of World War I (a war he promised to keep us out of).
Today, Veterans Day is pretty widely celebrated. It isn’t hard, even in the more left-wing communities, to find “Support Our Troops” magnets and to occasionally get a “Thank you for your service” if spotted in uniform. Generally speaking, support for and approval of the military is fairly high in America.
The question that should be asked on Veterans Day is, what is the proper way to show support for the military? If you feel that servicemembers deserve a thank you, how do you properly thank them? Well, as you may have guessed, I have one suggestion. Why not figure out what they want, not for themselves, but for the country, and help them achieve it? I don’t believe that anybody joins the military “just for the money.” There are other ways to get money. Anyone who joins, I believe, has at least some part of them that truly cares about the nation and wants to help protect it.
We’re about one year out from an election. Statistically speaking, it is without a doubt that current and former members of the armed forces prefer Ron Paul. Congressman Paul is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who will bring the troops home “as soon as the ships can get there,” and will end foreign wars of choice. This Veterans Day, if you want to thank the military, do so by researching their preferred candidate. Ask yourself why so many members of the military are donating to Congressman Paul’s campaign. Consider registering as a Republican so you can support him in the primaries. Consider making a donation on today’s Veteran’s Day moneybomb.
Congressman Paul has one important thing in common with every current and former servicemember. He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Not to transform it. Not to change it. Not to scour it for loopholes allowing him to achieve certain political objectives by creative means that obviously subvert the original intent. If you want to help the military, then you need to help Congressman Paul Restore America Now.
http://www.supportthemnow.com/
In case you haven’t heard, Bank of America has decided to not institute its controversial $5 debit-card fee. Leftists everywhere are rejoicing. They are celebrating this decision as a great victory for the 99% over the evil, greedy, bankers. They are pointing to this as a great accomplishment by the Occupy Wall Street rallies.
What they don’t realize is that this decision in fact proves the inherent superiority of laissez-faire capitalism as a foundation of societal order.
The classic complaint from leftists is that corporations are unresponsive. That they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and that we will be forced to bend to their whim. That without big government, companies would pollute the air and water, charge $100 a gallon for gasoline, and murder you, perhaps all at the same time. Some industries are declared to be monopolies, and the ones that obviously aren’t are assumed to be engaged in anti-consumer cartel behavior. The only thing keeping them in line is government, you know, the institution that is REALLY responsive to the people! We hold the government accountable in a way that nobody but government could possibly hold a corporation accountable, right? Right?
Wrong. BofA reversed its decision not because of government regulations forcing them to do so (actually, it was government regulations that caused the decision to be made in the first place), but in response to consumer demand. Customers were cancelling their accounts because of it. People who weren’t customers were nevertheless lining up to publicly denounce and demonize them, hurting their public image. Most important, none of their competitors were following suit. In fact, many advertised against it in a scheme to scoop up BofA clients (my own bank displayed a banner ad on its website declaring “We’ll never charge you to access your own money). That doesn’t sound like collusion. That sounds like proof that what the Austrians and the libertarians have been saying all along is absolutely correct. That the free market responds to consumer demand and behavior. That companies cannot unilaterally impose anti-consumer practices on an unwilling populace.
Meanwhile, take a moment to reflect on exactly how responsive government is to consumer demand. Every single one of our wars is currently opposed by over half of the country. You can run the entire gamut of political issues of the day and find examples of things the public obviously wants that the public will never actually get. An end to militarism, a balanced budget amendment, and legalized online gambling are just a few examples. Meanwhile, things the majority of the country opposes (like say, Obamacare) are shoved down our throats and we’re told to deal with it.
The anti-capitalists on Wall Street can celebrate this decision all they want. Unfortunately for them, it proves that their core thesis is wrong. If they were right, the big news of the week would be that Bank of America is keeping it’s $5 debit card fee and all the other banks were following suit and matching it, and that government had decided to end all the wars, repeal Obamacare, enforce immigration laws, and reduce spending. Instead, the opposite happened. Who knew?
Flipflop by Bank of America and rivals on debit card fees will slash revenues by $8 billion
He just straight up does it, and then blames someone else after the fact. The final paragraph pretty much says it all.
“In any case, the vice president should know better than to spout off half-baked facts in service of a dubious argument. Even if one believes there is a link between crime and the number of police—which is debatable and subject to many caveats—there is no excuse to make the dramatic claim that more people will die or be raped without additional funds for police. When making such a breathtaking charge, you had better have your facts straight.”
But remember, it’s the right who plays on the fears of the population. Now shut up and vote for massive tax increases or your mother will be raped.
Biden’s absurd claims about rising rape and murder rates – The Fact Checker – The Washington Post.
Five myths about healthy eating – The Washington Post.
1. I own my body. I should be able to eat whatever I want.
2. To that end, I should be able to engage in voluntary exchange with someone who produces food (healthy or unhealthy) without government interference and punitive taxes.
3. I should not be forced to pay for the medical care of others who choose to eat unhealthy foods, nor should they be forced to pay for mine if I choose to do so.
Why Isn’t the Working Families Party Paying Its Employees a Living Wage? | All American Blogger.
You just can’t make stuff like this up. Do as I say, not as I do, and such…
Happy Columbus Day, everyone!
I wanted to take a moment to defend one of the most maligned holidays (and individuals) in American history. The movement to villianize Columbus the man, and denigrate his achievement has been picking up steam in recent years, and needs to be addressed. Typically, the objections to Columbus fall under one of two categories, both of which are rooted in the worship of indigenous cultures as superior to European culture:
1) Columbus didn’t discover America, there were already people living there!
2) Columbus isn’t a hero because he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples.
Number one is a semantic argument that is very easy to address. The obvious response is that it depends on how you define the word “discover.” Whether or not Columbus arriving in the Western Hemisphere represents a true “discovery” is not really relevant. He certainly discovered it from the perspective of Europe, which is where our western civilization descends from. In any case, his achievement was remarkable. He was the first European to sail from Europe to America. This achievement directly led to the founding of the United States of America. Whether he was looking for Asia or not is not relevant. Whether he thought he was in Asia or not is not relevant. Whether Leif Ericsson founded a quickly-abandoned colony in Newfoundland centuries earlier is irrelevant. Leif Ericsson’s colony did not lead to rampant exploration and colonization of the Western Hemisphere. Columbus did. His achievement was remarkable, regardless of whether indigenous peoples already occupied the land he “discovered” or whether Leif Ericsson technically “got there first.”
Number two is a tad more complicated. There is no doubt that the arrival of Columbus set in motion a chain of events that would change the world forever, and would affect virtually everyone on Earth. Some were affected positively, some negatively. It led to some things we look back on with pride (the founding of the United States) and some things we look back on with shame (the African slave trade). To address this claim, we must ask some hypothetical questions. The first of which is, would humanity as a whole be better, or worse off, if Columbus never made the trip at all? I would certainly say worse off. America is by no means perfect, but I believe its existence has been a net positive for humanity. This is obviously a matter of opinion. Some leftists out there are adamant that the opposite is true, that the loss of native culture, customs, and traditions, is not worth any price. That “colonialism” is the greatest evil perpetuated on Earth. Personally, I think the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere led directly to countless breakthroughs, inventions, and philosophical shifts that would ultimately increase the freedom of quality of life for all of humanity.
Columbus was an amazing man whose achievement is one of the most significant in human history. Negative opinions of some of his personal behavior, and a dispute over the meaning of the word “discover” are not valid reasons to denigrate his accomplishment. It is an accomplishment well worth honoring, celebrating, and remembering.
Secret panel can put Americans on kill list’ | Reuters.
This is a pretty important read. Not that I have much sympathy for al-Awlaki, but if I may invoke the slippery slope here, it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. Let’s review the details:
1) There is a secret panel that can authorize the government to assassinate people, even if the are U.S. citizens.
2) We’re not sure exactly who is on this panel.
3) We’re not sure exactly how this panel arrives at their decisions.
4) This panel is not provided for by any existing law or executive order (that we know of at least).
5) The amount of oversight the President has on this panel is “fuzzy.”
6) People on this list are not notified of it. They receive no due process whatsoever. They will presumably find out they are on this list when a drone drops a bomb on their house.
Am I the only one just a BIT concerned here? There should be mass protests in the streets of every major American city! What’s that? There are? Oh, good. Wait, what’s that? These protestors are seeking the re-election of the people who instituted this system? Oh…. well then.
Dude, Where's My Freedom? 
This GOP Field May Be the Worst Ever | The Independent Agenda
This GOP Field May Be the Worst Ever | The Independent Agenda.
I’d like to take the time to address a claim that is regularly made, and repeated as if it were the gospel truth, by seemingly the entire media. The claim is that the current field of Republican presidential candidates is incredibly weak, that they all suck, that this is the worst collection of candidates ever assembled in the history of voting.
I’ve linked to an article by Howard Gold from a website called “The Independent Agenda.” I know absolutely nothing about Mr. Gold or the website. I couldn’t tell you if it was a left-wing hack blog, or a libertarian bastion. This article doesn’t really make it clear, because all sides seem to be on this bandwagon. You hear the same message whether you’re reading the Huffington Post or listening to Glenn Beck. That the current Republican candidates are terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad, idiots.
Now, I think I’ve made it clear that I don’t think too highly of most of the current candidates myself. I’ve seen enough out of all of them to have made up my mind. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary, whether he’s still in it at that point or not, and I will be voting for Ron Paul in the general election whether he’s there as a Republican, a Libertarian, or whether I have to write him in myself.
But I would just like to ask one question, particularly to all the Republicans/Conservatives/Independents out there. Who exactly benefits from this narrative? Who gains the most by creating the perception that all of the Republican candidates are terrible? Not just terrible, but literally the worst field of candidates of all time! The answer, obviously, is Barack Obama. With the Republican race being a virtual dead-heat in the latest polls by the top four candidates (FYI, this would be Romney, Cain, Gingrich and RON PAUL, not Rick Perry), the left would need to waste a lot of time and resources attacking and smearing all four of them when only one will eventually win the nomination. It would seem like good strategy, instead, to write-off the whole group. To create a narrative and public perception that it doesn’t matter who wins, because they’re all terrible anyway. I wouldn’t put it past the mainstream media to be doing this completely on purpose, because they are squarely interested in getting Obama re-elected. But I’m disappointed that independent conservative voices are falling into this same trap.
Look, I feel your pain. I understand that many of these candidates have a lot of flaws. But the worst ever? Really? I’ve really only been old enough and intelligent enough to have properly followed the last two election cycles. I can’t speak with much conviction about the relative strength of the Landon/Borah Republican primary race of 1936 (although I would point out that Mr. Landon lost to FDR by an electoral count of 523 to 8). But if you’re a Glenn Beck type whose main complaint is that these candidates don’t seem conservative enough, I won’t even ask you to look back to 1936. Just look back to 2008. Going into the primaries in 2008, it was also essentially a four-person race between Guliani, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. Guliani and McCain were fairly obviously big-government progressive RINOs who are quite easily to the left of everyone in the current field (with the possible exception of John Huntsman, for whom ‘in the field’ is kinda stretching it). Huckabee got a lot of credit on social issues, but was a big-government progressive when it came to matters of the economy. Romney was, in many ways, the MOST conservative option in the field (and he lost).
Comparing this list to today’s top four, one can easily understand why committed leftists and socialists would hate the current batch. Romney is back again, only he has repudiated a lot of his big government positions and is even more conservative than he was before. Gingrich is filling the big-government progressive republican spot, and trying to do the same, but I think most of us could probably agree he’s definitely more conservative than say, John McCain. Filling the “social conservative” role this time I suppose would be Herman Cain, whose social positions seem to match up reasonably with Huckabee, only he’s also a lot better on the economy. The fourth spot, rather than wasted on another big government RINO, this time is filled by Ron Paul, whose economic positions make Romney look like a Communist, and who holds social conservative beliefs (although is in favor of letting the states decide these things). The only knock any conservative seems to have against him is that he doesn’t want to continue our wars or start any new ones.
Across the board, this is undeniably a better field than we had in 2008, unless you’re a committed leftist. By echoing the talking points of the left that this field is so weak, that it’s the worst ever, you serve only as a useful idiot in the re-election campaign of Barack Obama. I want an honest critique of all the candidates, but please, try to maintain some historical perspective here: All four of the current front-runners would not only be better presidents than Obama, they’d be better presidents than McCain, and probably better presidents than GWB.