32 Flavors of AWESOME.

Robert Ferrigno, author of Prayers of the Assassin, occasionally writes some scathing satirical fiction for NRO. His fantasy meeting between BHO and GWB, here, is one of the funniest things I've read in a good long while. Just one of the many, many great lines:

W. waited for Biden to leave. The veep-in-training tried to slam the door, but it had weighted gimbals so that it closed gently. Clinton had the gimbals installed during his first term when Hillary had cracked the door-frame twice in one week.

But, as usual, read the whole thing.

Last Post On This, I Promise

But my fingers may be crossed. Anywho, "Atrios" of strident, hard-core lefty Eschaton blog (HT Instapundit) has declared Barack Hussein Obama to be his "Wanker of the Day" (don't you love it when pretentious American twits use Britishisms to sound clever? Bollocks, I say!) in response to the Rick Warren announcement. And the best part? Read the comments to that declaration. A short sampling (all asterisks mine, of course, as it's a well known fact that the left is devoid of any capacity at linguistic restraint or self-censoring):

im done with obama.
i hope we have better luck in 4 years.
euphronius Jenkins | 12.17.08 - 2:48 pm | #

and:

Obama's sucking Warren's c*** is probably the major reason I was never a completely enthusiastic supporter.

F*** you, Barack.
dave™© | Homepage | 12.17.08 - 2:51 pm | #

and:

I just removed myself from any and all Moveon, Plouffe and other campaign email lists. That's it. Has he learned nothing from the GOP announcements of plans to fight Obama tooth and nail? I'm done. Not another dime to the inauguration or anything else.
TK | 12.17.08 - 2:52 pm | #

and:

BTW, Atrios, it took Rick Warren to finally give Obama wanker status?

Not Larry Summers, or Salazar, or Gates, or Jones, etc.?

No, those weren't outrageous enough...
Elias | 12.17.08 - 2:56 pm | #

and the Stockholm Syndrome Award goes to:

Rick f***ing Warren.

Oh, and f*** you, Elias. Twice, b****.

Obama was and is better than anyone else running, and certainly better than any Republican living, to damn with faint praise. I have no problem with that.

That being said, he's a big fan of telling his left to f*** off and die.
~
Meander | Homepage | 12.17.08 - 2:58 pm | #

Seriously, as of this writing, there are well over 500 replies to Atrios' post, and they range from denial to bummed out to frothing at the mouth, with lots of cognitive dissonance at every level. Great way to kill some time with glee if you're bored!

The Silver Lining

In my last post, I commented on Obama's choice of Rick Warren to lead the invocation at his inauguration. It occurs to me that there is one, genuine upside to the whole thing, regardless of either man's intentions: it completely defangs the whole "anti-proposition-8" backlash. Think about it: any time one of those people throws a hissy fit and tries to boycott a business or smear an individual because of that business's or person's support of prop 8, the response will always be "well, Obama picked a huge prop-8 booster to invoke his God at the inauguration. You gonna boycott the Democratic Party now?" Just make sure to wear protective equipment for when their heads explode.

In the current political climate, I need as many silver linings as I can get.

Political Theater At Its Crassest

Obama has asked Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his (His?) inauguration in January, and if I'm reading the reports correctly, Rick Warren has agreed to this. Without any other information but what I already know, this lowers my opinion of both men.

Rick Warren, as most of you probably know, is ostensibly an evangelical pastor of a very large megachurch in Southern California, and author of The Purpose Driven Life, a well-reputed and oft-studied (at least at evangelical churches) book based on Christian principles. Most recently, he was the host of the Saddleback Debate Forum, at which John McCain and Barack Obama were both asked the same set of questions, separate from each other, and put on the spot for direct answers.

Anywho, Rick Warren is, to his credit, outspoken against both gay marriage and abortion. The former actually surprises me a little, as it seems that opposition to gay marriage is the first to suffer from defenestration when erstwhile evangelicals want to "cross the aisle", so to speak (Ted Haggard, call your office). But my one major complaint about Pastor Warren, up until now, is that he has given the appearance that he enjoys (and seeks) the limelight just a little bit too much. This latest incident only strengthens that assessment. And Barack Hussein Obama, as we all know, is about as far-left on abortion as one can be without actually performing them in front of an audience at birthdays and bar-mitzvahs free of charge. His stance on gay marriage is a bit more "nuanced", as the left likes to describe inconsistent and electorally-motivated stances. But nevertheless, it's safe to say that the Big Gay Homo Community has a sympathetic ear in our president-elect.

What do they have in common? Well, Pastor Warren is very much a "bleeding heart evangelical" -- which may not be a bad thing, really -- in the sense that he prioritizes certain issues that orthodox conservatives tend not to: HIV/AIDS in Africa (as opposed to the bathhouses of San Francisco), the environment, the poor, etc. All of these things we are called as Christians to support, so I can't fault him for that (I think I could write a whole post on this, and perhaps I will). So I think each man perceives a kindred spirit in the other, but perhaps for erroneous reasons.

But again, it is yet another manifestation of the Obama Temptation to be okay with this. Because, again, it all boils down to support for the man, as opposed to support for the office. Rick Warren is in no way obligated to perform the invocation for Obama. But by agreeing to do so, he effectively affixes his imprimatur to the Obama Presidency, as if to say "Hey, Evangelical Christians, it's okay to like this guy".

And, please forgive me, Lord, if I am wrong, but I can't help but believe that this is the exact reason for Obama's choice. He says "hey, Bible-thumping fundies, I picked your #1 celebrity to do my inauguration, so you can trust me!" And many, many gullible dupes, who go to church every Sunday and vote Republican only because their gut (and maybe pastor) tells them to, but lack the skills for critical self-reflection and investigation of the actual issues, will internalize that message, and Obama will have his loyal "bipartisan" army.

Maybe I'm wrong. I am, quite literally, praying that I am. Maybe Pastor Warren had a great heart-to-heart with Obama, and Obama has now seen the light on abortion. Maybe this is a shot across the bow, Obama declaring that his true sympathies now lay (lie? I never get that right) on the right sight of the aisle with regard to genuinely moral issues. If that were the case, as I've said before, it would devastate the two-party system, because it would probably flip a supermajority of the Right's base of "values voters" (ooh, another whole post -- the ramifications and subsequent axial tilt/paradigm shift of such a split!). Alternately, maybe Rick Warren views this as an opportunity to sermonize and rebuke from "the belly of the beast", so to speak. Maybe he will give a rousing, revivalist invocation that will sear the souls of all who hear it, and enrage everyone on the left for decades to come. Either one of those would be an excellent outcome.

But my gut tells me that it's two powerful men seeking to exploit each other. Please, God, let my gut be wrong.

Obama Is The Death of Funny

Before the election, or more importantly, before the Age of Obama, it was very easy to satirize the empty suit that was running for president on the Democratic ticket. How easy? Even I could manage it! There was so much fodder: his absurd lack of experience, his absurd radical ties, his absurdly leftward leanings... well, you get the picture: he was an absurd man.

But now he's the President-Elect of this country. With Slow Joe Biden as the Vice President-Elect. With Hillary "My main qualification was being the wife of a crappy president" Clinton as Secretary of State. Is it still an absurd situation? Yes. But it's gone from comically absurd to gravely absurd, and I'm not sure what it means for the eventual fate of this country.

My point is this: what was once funny-because-it-could-never happen is now terribly not-funny-because-it-did-happen. Seriously. I've been sitting here, trying to rekindle the old Obama-satire magic, and I draw a blank. Now, I think, I understand the media and talk-show-host reluctance to poke fun, however lightly, at their Anointed One. In their minds, well before the election, his ascension was already a reality. QED, they were unable to make fun of him due to the gravity of the situation. Now that the virtual reality in their minds has reified into The Office Of The President-Elect, I am in the same boat, albeit for different reasons.

Wait a second... Office Of The President Elect... absurd presumption that such a thing exists or has any power... hmmm... maybe there's something there... stay tuned...

Watch and Forward This!

Marty posted a link to this over in the comments of this post at Mazurland, but I thought I'd embed it on my own front page. Seriously, it may be 10 minutes long, but it's worth watching (er, reading) in its entirety, and forwarding it to anyone who may be buying the "deregulation and the free markets caused this" lines spewing forth from Democrats. It does require your full attention, though, so make sure you're free of distractions.

A Trifling Thought On Palin and Obama

I'm glad that Barack Obama was nominated over Hillary Clinton in this election cycle. Sarah Palin's nomination to vice president has been a shot in the arm of a movement with rapidly waning (visions of arterial bleeding come to mind...) enthusiasm or even interest. Many, many pundits and wonks were talking about looking forward to "time in exile" to re-energize the cause of conservatism, much like the Carter-induced calm before the Reaganite storm. And what's great about it is that, for true conservative enthusiasts, Palin's womanhood is really secondary to her exciting persona and "proper" (and genuine!) stance on so many issues. Yes, we're excited about "hockey mom", but I think it's more hockey and less mom that gets us going. She's got an authenticity unlike so many other politicians that is very refreshing.

And had the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, none of this would be happening. A move by McCain to select Sarah Palin as his running mate in the face of a female presidential aspirant on the other side would have been seen (rightly so) as a crass move to shore up the old-white-male weakness of a McCain headline. Any enthusiasm for Palin would be underscored by the fact that she was a woman and was only there to compete with Hillary, and such comparisons would have caused her to be dead-on-arrival. So of course McCain would have been forced to nominate someone else (it's hardly the "maverick move" to put a woman in the number two spot against a woman in the number one spot), and it's hard to say how he would have reacted. Assuming Hillary wouldn't have picked Obama as her running mate, but went with another Bidenesque choice, McCain might (a very fragile "might") have picked someone like Bobby Jindal -- again, for many of the same reasons as he picked Palin in the first place: outsider, young, strong conservative credentials, and not an old white male. But Jindal is still young, and I think he's got more good to do in Louisiana before hitting the national stage. (This gives rise to the question, which is a whole topic unto itself: if I think Jindal wasn't ready yet, why do I think Palin is? I need to dwell on that one more).

And if Hillary had won the nomination, and picked Barack Obama as his running mate, I'd certainly be packing my bags for political exile right now. I'd say the same thing about Obama if he had picked Hillary as his own running mate, of course; and all the above arguments apply there as well. But I think a Hillary/Obama ticket would have been deadly to GOP prospects in an already dismally prospected year.

So to wrap things up: thank you, Democrats, for picking Obama. You've given us a new lease on life. And thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for picking Biden. You might have given us the election with that one.

Funny For All the Wrong Reasons

The above video was, to me, laugh-out-loud funny. High-frickin'-larious, in fact. But I don't think it was devised with the intent that I, a hard-core conservative voter with no intention of voting for the Barachrist Obamessiah, would enjoy it. First of all, it starts out with the currently popular canard among the left that McCain's choice of Susan Pollen Sarah Palin was an act of desperation. (Brief rebuttal: I have yet to see a single pundit not already completely and totally in the sack for Obama say that last week's Democratic Convention was somehow devastating to the Republican race; and although there was barely any gap between Obama's Thursday night acceptance speech and McCain's Friday morning announcement, there wasn't any discernible "bounce", however mitigated, for Obama. Moreover, most non-Obama-Zealots have indicated that Obama's speech was more or less Democratic boilerplate rather than the stirring, earth-shattering oratory for which Obama is (fallaciously, and I'll have more on that in a later post) reputed. Why then would McCain be suddenly thrust into "desperation mode"?)

But I digress. Like I said, I don't think the video was meant to be flattering, but to me, and I think to most conservatives, it comes across that way: that McCain really did pick someone who was ready, willing, and able to serve the role for which she has been selected, considerably more so than the guy the Democrats want in the front seat. It's going to be an exciting two months, if I can keep my lunch down from all the nauseating attacks, er, "journalistic duties" the MSM has been launching at Palin that they somehow forgot to do for Obama and Biden while the spotlight was on them. Minor clerical oversight, I'm sure.

For some clarification on Obama's "experience" and "readiness" versus Palin's, please watch this as well:



(HT: Instapundit via Ann Althouse)

The Platform Position That Really Matters

Forget the Iraq War. Forget the economy. Forget gay marriage, abortion, taxes, unions, foreign policy, domestic policy, and everything else.

I need to know, and I need to know now, what the next President will do about giant foreign spiders killing our family pets.

GIS for the spider in question here. Sweet Lord, deliver us from this evil.

Wisdom of the Ages

Jay Nordlinger posts the following quote, in response to Slow Joe Biden's execrable remark that "these times require more than a good soldier, they require a wise leader" (directed at McCain, of course), courtesy of Thucydides*:

"The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."

I'm not terribly well-read in the Classics, and I consider this a major failing of my own education (the other being the lack of any "shop" type classes, although both of these are failings of modern pedagogy as a whole, I think). In fact, apart from some high school Homer and some Julius Caesar, I'm not "read" at all in that realm. But clearly there is much wisdom to be gained from such an exposure, so perhaps it's time I rectify that glaring omission in my own studies.

As for the content of what Biden said: okay, show me one genuinely wise thing Obama has done or said in his vast, expansive career. Just one! Please! That's all I'm asking...

*Update: Okay, maybe it was more recent than Thucydides. But I think my points still stand.

How Does That Happen?

The latest (and boy do I mean late!) buzz in the VP race is now pointing to Chet Edwards as a potential pick by Obama. Interesting Red Shirt Fun Fact™: Edwards was my congressman for four years while I was at Baylor. And we at Baylor really didn't like him despite his incredibly conservative (for a Democrat) record, for a single reason: he is staunchly pro-choice. Apparently the rest of his central Texas district thought that was just fine and dandy, though.

So he's pro-choice; that's hardy surprising for a Democrat. But he's also very much anti-gay-marriage. And that's where confusion really enters into it for me, so I pose the question: how does one become pro-abortion and anti-gay-marriage? I don't see the logical path. I can certainly see the reverse path. One could easily approach a pro-life position from a "sanctity of all life" approach that is not necessarily informed by religious values, and extend that to a sort of "do what thou wilt and harm no other" sort of philosophy, thus being hunky-dory with gay marriage as well.

And of course the other possibilities in this matrix are evident in everyday politics: for cultural and religious reasons, people tend to oppose both abortion and gay marriage; for libertarian or "empowerment" reasons, people tend to support them (see attached illustration). Everyone knows where I stand on these issues, and I certainly make no effort to conceal my thoughts thereupon (and far from the "There's room to debate these issues, of course" line, I think anyone who differs from my opinion (Cartesian quadrant IV) is either evil (Cartesian quadrant II) or ignorant (Cartesian quadrant III). Take THAT!). But I am really at a loss to understand any personal ethos that would convince someone that killing babies is okay, but damn those queers and their legitimated sodomy! So to my dear readers: please, if you can justify (if not believe yourself, I hope!) such a logical connection, however speciously, please illuminate me in the comments!

Pithy And Powerful

Over at The Corner, Peter Kirsanow deconstructs the central myths of the Obama campaign and its appeal. I don't normally repost entire articles, but this is so brutally effective that I will make an exception, both here and my other blog. For your enjoyment:

When the Obama campaign was at it's apogee six months ago, its narrative— and Obama's appeal— consisted of the following components: 1) he transcends race; 2) he has superior judgment; 3) he's a post-partisan, non-ideological moderate; and 4) he's a nice, decent guy.
For most of the primary season, the narrative filled the voids in Obama's resume and experience. The claims underlying the narrative have now evaporated —-primarily due to Obama's self-inflicted wounds :

* Claim: Transcends race. Obama's a post-racial healer; he doesn't count by race.

Reality: 20 year membership in Rev. Wright's church; staunch supporter of racial preferences in public employment, contracting and school admissions; profligate insinuations of racism; even the New York Times notices he fails to transcend race.

* Claim: Superior judgment. Obama's lack of experience is more than offset by superior judgment. See, e.g., his opposition to the Iraq war.

Reality: Spectacularly and obstinately wrong on the surge; associates with Wright, Ayers, Rezko,Pfleger; his position on withdrawal from Iraq would've resulted in chaos, defeat and a resurgent al Qaeda.

* Claim: Post-partisan, non-ideological moderate. He bridges the partisan divide; not a knee-jerk ideologue like Bush/Cheney/McCain; thinks through issues; appreciates nuance.

Reality: Most liberal member of the senate; doctrinaire Democrat who rarely crosses the aisle; has perfected the technique of claiming to "listen" to the other side while almost invariably ending up on liberal/ Democrat side.

* Claim: Nice guy. Obama's an ordinary, reasonable Joe with Midwestern—"Kansas"—values.

Reality: Voted against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and issued four false explanations regarding same; calls those who point out the truth liars; repeatedly implies opponents or critics are racists; condescends to rural, blue collar Americans.

The Born-Alive vote and Obama's mendacity regarding the vote are, perhaps, the most devastating blows to the narrative. Obama hasn't been able to explain the vote because it's inexplicable.
With the narrative extinguished, the war being won and Bush/Cheney leaving office, what's left of the Obama appeal?

Forward this, or at least the link I've provided above, to everyone you know who's buying into this bunkum.

My VEEP Picks

I go on record about my official VEEP picks here. Long story short, Obama/Bayh and McCain/Cantor.

Obama Declares Self as VP Pick

Denver, CO -- Amid much speculation and anticipation, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama has finally unveiled his selection for the Vice Presidential candidate slot: himself. Coming as a shock to his supporters, and almost no surprise at all to his detractors, Mr. Obama's campaign staff was quick to explain the decision to reporters. According to one highly-placed campaign staffer, "Barack Obama has demonstrated time and time again that this campaign isn't about experience, it isn't about who fought in what silly little wars, and it definitely isn't about an established track record on issues that matter to Americans. No, it's about judgment. And if we're saying that Obama has the best judgment ever, then why would he sully that judgment by picking a lesser being to run alongside him?"

Barack Obama himself, when questioned about the startling revelation, responded, "Well, I am "The One", after all. How can The One be Two? That just doesn't make sense, you see. And I'm not going to let my Republican detractors make an issue out of my short time in office. If I were to pick someone with more experience than me, they'd be quick to point out that I was trying to shore up deficiencies. And, let's face it, there is nobody with less experience than me, so that leaves... just me!"

A Constitutional scholar, who asked not to be named because he is supporting the Obama/Obama ticket and did not want to give the appearance of bias, offered up this opinion: "Many folks have been trying to object to this move on the grounds of no clear line of succession should some tragedy befall Mr. Obama as President. I don't think there's really much concern for that. After all, from what I hear, if he should be struck down, he'll just rise again in three days".

Economics and the Holy Spirit

I was just sitting there watching my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter veeery slowly eat dinner, regretting having given her a lollipop about half an hour before her meal, and the thought struck me how well my daughter understands the economics of incentives. Sure, it's easy enough for even the smallest child to grasp the concept of reward, and act to earn that reward. But she already earned her reward in this case, apropos of nothing. Thus, she was no longer motivated to eat a good dinner, because she had nothing to gain from it (well, except tasty chili-cheese mashed potatoes, but apparently that's not her cup o' tea). Had I only showed her the sucker and told her that it would be given to her after she ate a good dinner, she would have eaten much faster.

What does this have to do with the Holy Spirit? Well, everything. We as Christians have received a free gift of eternal life from God through Christ Jesus. It is not the result of works or deeds which we have done in righteousness; Scripture is clear on this matter. Thus, our motivation for doing good and living moral lives is gone; we have received and been guaranteed our reward simply by faith in Jesus Christ. Sure, we are told to do good works, repeatedly and at great length. But because of this guarantee, there is no explicit incentive to do good. Both the carrot and the stick are removed; we already have eternal life, and Hell no longer awaits us.

Sure, there are groups among the Body of Christ who perhaps make too much of certain passages of Scripture, but now is not the time for that particular debate. Still others assert (and this I would vehemently debate to my last breath) that indeed our good deeds, our moral lives are indeed what save us; this is a debate that has unfortunately reared its head throughout the Church's history. But let us take it for a given that Scripture does indeed teach that eternal life is a free gift, and move on.

So stripped of all incentives, Christians by and large ought to be an indolent, loutish lot, right? After all, all they have to do is hurry up and die, and eternal bliss is theirs. Well, apparently the research is in, and this is not so. Now the article linked there, and the corresponding book by Arthur Brooks, focus more on the political divide, but let us make the assumption (which the liberal and secular left do on a daily basis, so why can't we?) that "conservative and religious" correlates quite highly with "orthodox Christian". I'd have to read the book itself to really see how it breaks down along specific religious lines, but since there are only so many hours in the day, I'll just say it's a safe assumption.

Thus, normal, human, natural incentives are stripped away from the Christian, and yet he continues to do good. Therefore, there must be some inhuman force at work in the life of the Christian that compels him to do good, not for a reward, but as an end unto itself. This force, of course, is the Holy Spirit, statistically writ large across Christian culture in comparison with others.

And this brings the argument of grace-based salvation full circle: if we include works as a necessary act for salvation, we can attribute man's good works to his own interal desire for eternal life; on the other hand, if the incentive for doing those works is taken away, the motivation to do good works is based solely on the indwelling and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In the former, man is glorified along with God; in the latter, the glory belongs to God alone.

Great, now I feel all Calviny again. But I'm really more of an Arminianist, I swear!

post script: The Wee One, sure as the day is long, didn't finish her dinner. When is that age of spiritual accountability again?

Batman as Cypher

Now that The Dark Knight has indelibly etched himself in our collective social subconscious, articles and blog posts are aflutter with news of the newest "deeper meaning" of Batman (not the Batman. NEVER the Batman). First was this article trying to guess various superheroes' political affiliations, with this to say of Bruce Wayne's alter ego:

Bruce Wayne is pro-gun-control and against the death penalty, which places him among left-wing Democrats.

Source: Chicago Tribune. Very telling. Next we have Kyle Smith's review, wherein:

Liberals live in a world of “and.” Full security and full civil liberties. Universal health care and the best quality with no waiting. A dynamic economy and full welfare and unemployment benefits. Liberals, in other words, live in that scene in “Spider-Man” in which Spidey, forced to choose between saving a tram car full of innocent civilians and saving his girlfriend, chooses both. Liberals live in a fantasy.

Conservatives, though, live in a world of tradeoffs, of either/or. For having this relationship with reality, conservatives are caricatured as grumpy, stingy and negative. Surely all it takes is a bump in taxes on the wealthy and everything will be affordable? Where’s the Hope? Where’s the Dream? Yes, we can!

“The Dark Knight” lives on a razor edge of tradeoffs. In the coin flips of Harvey “Two-Face” Dent there is a message that not only can’t you choose both heads and tails, but sometimes you’re up against a trick coin that ensures you lose either way.

Innocents get killed, civil liberties are infringed, and Batman ardently defends lies over truth in the pursuit of propaganda. Extremism in the defense of liberty is Batman’s virtue, and he ventures much farther into the wilds of lawlessness than any politician would dare. Moreover, his Gotham is a place where some believe that chaos can be managed, that giving into a simple demand from the Joker that Batman turn himself in might be a workable alternative in the long run.

In other words, Batman serves as a justification of the George Bush administration and the whole GWOT. Further thinking along this line here. Finally, this very evening, I come across an article by Ilya Somin in which libertarian aspects of Batman are detected and dissected, with quotes from the comments:

"Superman seems like more of a cultural conservative superhero, someone who has supernatural powers in whom to grant authoritarian trust. Batman seems libertarian, a private party using his skills and intelligence to overcome wrong, outside the government." Plus: "The only villains Batman goes after are those who have themselves violated the harm principle (usually by killing innocent people). He doesn't go after perpetrators of purely victimless crimes or people he dislikes because disapproves of the way they live their private lives."

(Quotes dragged up via Instapundit).

So there you have it. Batman is both a liberal scion, a conservative hero, AND a libertarian crusader! Now where have I heard this before: a lone hero with amazing powers and capabilities beyond normal human capacity, changing the world for the better, in whom everyone sees something of their selves, and projects their own hopes and beliefs onto the blank slate of his personality?

Holy projection, Batman! You're Barack Hussein Obama!

Okay, okay, now I feel bad, because Batman is totally awesome, and I just compared him to someone who may well yet prove to be the Antichrist. Ugh.

The Lighter Side of Derb

Much light has been made recently of Barack Hussein Obama's almost total humorlessness, on both sides of the aisle, in fact. Well, increasingly shrill and unreadable (due to his steadfast godless stick-in-the-muddery) John Derbyshire over at The Corner has provided some much-needed relief (both in the comic sense, and in terms of my esteem for him) by posting this little bit:

Since Obama humor seems to be this week's topic, I suggest we have a contest. Readers are invited to supply the punch line to any or all of the following Obama-joke openers. Prizes to be announced.

How many members of the Obama household does it take to screw in a light bulb?

"Knock, knock."
"Who's there?"
"Barack Hussein Obama."
"Barack Hussein Obama who?"
[The "Hussein" can be omitted if necessary to improve the punch line, or for contestants who are actually members of the Obama campaign staff.]

A priest, a rabbi, an imam, and Barack Obama are in a plane when the engines fail and the plane begins to go down. Opening the emergency locker, they find only three parachutes.

Arrested and imprisoned by a racist criminal-justice system, Barack Obama finds himself in the maximum-security wing among a group of lifers swapping jokes. "43," says one lifer. The others all roar with laughter. "17," says another. More laughter. Obama: "Excuse me, I don't get it. What's so funny about those numbers?" One of the lifers explains: "We've been here so long, see, we all know each other's jokes. So to save ourselves trouble, we've just numbered them. Everyone knows which joke is which number." Obama: "I see. All right, may I tell a joke?" The lifers nod agreement. "Um, 89," says Obama. Nobody laughs. Obama: "Why is nobody laughing?"

Barack Obama's sitting at a bar when a man comes up to him and says: "Wanna hear a Barack Obama joke?" Obama: "Er, hold on there, buddy — I am Barack Obama."

Of course, never give readers an inch, or they shall take up the whole room. So that they don't fall down the memory hole, here are a set of his first-responders:

Entry #1

How many members of the Obama household does it take to screw in a light bulb?
— What light bulbs? The house is illumined by the light of his countenance.

Entry #2

Barack Obama's sitting at a bar when a man comes up to him and says: "Wanna hear a Barack Obama joke?" Obama: "Er, hold on there, buddy — I am Barack Obama." "Oh. all right then, I'll tell it in Spanish."

Entry #3 (For Monty Python fans)

"Knock, knock."
"Who's there?"
"Barack Hussein Obama."
"Barack Hussein Obama who?"
"Barack Hussein Obama Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm."

Apparently Derb is posting more comprehensive results on a joke-by-joke basis. First up is the lightbulb joke, the cream of the crop of which may be found here, along with the requisite obscure turn-of-phrase by which Derb presumably measures his self-worth. My favorite so far? "None. They just declare the sudden darkness to be The Change We've Been Waiting For."

I Really Don't Get It

Glenn "I Link To The Redshirt To Boost My Own Readership Numbers" Reynolds just recently posted a link to a story describing the state of crime in Chicago post-gun-ban (which ought not stand in the wake of the Heller decision, but we shall see), the point being that things are so bad that Illinois Gov. Blagojevich is thinking of calling in some troops to help out. As expected, post-ban, only outlaws will have outlawed guns.

Now, to fully understand the dimensions in any policy debate in which I'm interested, I always try to get inside the head of the opposition, and understand how they may have arrived at their conclusions -- either to better refine my own position, or to be able to neutralize their arguments. Even if I find fault in the logical progression that might lead to alternate conclusions, I at least try to see their side of the issue. I am able to perform this analysis satisfactorily on many controversial issues -- abortion, religion, the free market, the death penalty, the war in Iraq, etc. But on the issue of gun rights, I am truly at a loss in this regard -- I truly cannot fathom a rational line of thinking that would lead one to believe that outlawing firearms in a society already laden with them could ever be a good idea, for the simple reason outlined above: regardless of the penalties, criminals have virtually no impetus to "give up" their guns, unlike law-abiding citizens. And surely no one on either side of the issue is unfamiliar with that objection.

So my question to any readers (preferably liberal, if I have them) is as follows: what is a logical line of thought that could lead one to the conclusion that banning guns is going to make non-criminal people safer? Of course, the obvious follow up is "how does this line of thinking stand up in light of conditions everywhere that guns have been banned, most notably England, Washington D.C., and now Chicago?"

More Like InstaDummy!

Author's note: read this, and then read this. Then the following will make a little bit of sense.

That Glenn Reynolds is up to his pathetic lies again: "They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, the palace of Liberty would be shuttered. And they were right!", with an attendant picture of a boarded-up "Liberty Building". Why do you have to lie so much, Mr. Reynolds? I have half a mind to determine whether or not that building actually has anything to do with the abstract concept of "Liberty" at all! Why, I would even wager that George W. Bush had nothing to do with those shutters! And who are "they", Mr. Reynolds? The space aliens? Your neo-con handlers? I demand to know who this "they" really are! I am calling you out!

Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Please, kick up your feet and stay a while! <shameless plug>For more of my parodic stylings, check out this or this. There's also more serious stuff lying around if that's your bag. I also blog over at Mazurland, which you're welcome to check out as well.</shameless plug>

News FromThe Front

Blog posting from the airport! I doubt some other jokers I know are so awesome and jet-setting… Well, okay, you called me out. While I’m writing this from the airport, I'm not about to shell out the six bucks for two hours of wifi that the airport is “offering” me. I use that word advisedly, as a Mafioso might “offer” protection to a poor street vendor.

Anywho. As fans of My Hero Jonah Goldberg™ are probably aware, there is much reportage of the various sales, positions (both in the charts and quite physically), and availability of his first (and super-awesome) book, Liberal Fascism. A recurrent theme of said reportage is the general lack of availability, or conspicuously poor placement, of the book at typically liberal-leaning booksellers such as Barnes & Noble or Borders Books.

Well, I can now provide some similar “news from the front”: Here in Dulles International Airport in Washington, DC, the tide appears to be turning. In the most-prominently featured section of the store is the “Social Science & Politics” section of books, directly in front of the register. Most of these books are in hardcover or large-size trade paperback form. To conserve space, of course, most of these books are stacked spine-out, although a selection of books are featured cover-out, presumably to jack up sales of those titles. At any rate, the choice of which books are emphasized thus provide insight into the political bents (or lack thereof) of the bookseller. And what books do I see cover out? Well, as you’ve probably already figured out, there’s Liberal Fascism, smiling mustachioedly in all its mock-Hitlerian glory. Of course, directly above it was Richard A. Clarke’s presumably execrable new book, the overly-wordy title of which was some generic slamming indictment of the current political regime that I forgot as soon as I read it. But two rows down? Douglas Feith’s book. One row above Clarke’s book? John Bolton’s. Scanning the spine-out books, too, I discovered a fairly and remarkably well-balanced selection (Bill O’Reilly’s book was directly adjacent to Keith Olbermann’s. I felt like warning the poor sales clerk of the impending rift in the space-time continuum that might arise from such a prolonged juxtaposition of two opposing bombasts, but decided against it. The black hole would probably gain critical mass during off hours anyhow).

Finally, my eyes spied my intended objective: My Other Hero Mark Steyn™’s America Alone, in trade paperback form with new introduction and super-awesome cover blurb “Soon To Be Banned In Canada”. Spine-out, of course, but we can’t win every battle. I purchased it more for the sake of buying a book of conservative importance at an airport Borders than any other reason, although I have been wanting to read it since it first came out. I’ve only read the first paragraph of the brand-spankin’-new introduction, and already given it several hearty internal guffaws. Hopefully it’ll give me plenty to blog about, if perhaps a bit behind-the-curve.