A pitiful attempt to defend Palin's understanding of the Office she seeks

Already our favorite dipshit is echoing the talking points of the Palin apologists. She "watered down" the explanation since the question was asked by a third grader. To wit, any reasonable person would respond, where was the third grader in the room?

And his deflection to typical rabble is funny. Yes, the Vice President presides over the Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The Pope also shits in the woods, so tell me something I don't know already.

Presiding over the parliamentary procedures as a means to exert power is a dangerous game. To wit, the example of John Adams, who was perhaps the most active Vice President toward his Senate duties in history, but his activity nearly cost him his political career. Since there has been a longstanding tradition of VPs running for head cheese, they tend to relgate their formal duties to the President pro tempore.

Now, onto what Palin actually said:

That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

Err... no, not really. The President of the Senate can make judgments on point of order and other typical rules of order, but they don't "get in there with the senators". Silly gibberish coming from someone who seems to have never been bothered to read the Constitution at least once.

But I expect nothing less from my favorite little dipshit. Keep on defending the worst vice presidential candidate ever.

The GOP is having a cow over ACORN

But something tells me that the same nitwits who clamor on about ACORN will give the same condemnation to Young Political Majors.

Funny how the mind works in crank land.

Irony makes the world go round

While we have some anonymous election lawyer stirring the moonbats into a frenzy over a possibly legitimate case, the FBI is investigating ACORN on potentially aiding in voter registration fraud.

Unbelievable. Something tells me that those self-proclaimed "intellectually honest" GOP loyalists are cheering on the FBI, while the more sane GOP members are bashing them. Say, former US Attorney David Iglesias, one of the attorneys who was fired for not kowtowing to the ridiculous demands of the GOP to prosecute ACORN and other similar programs for voter fraud back in 2006.

Irony makes the world go round, it seems.

I question this anonymous source

PajamasMedia has posted a story from an anonymous election lawyer about the Tan Nguyen indictment. However, I think this anonymous lawyer needs to relook at the history of the case.

For Spanish readers, here is the original letter. For those who lack the education in Spanish, the "damning" portion translates as follows:

You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If
you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the
democratic process of voting. You are advised that if your residence in this
country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a
crime that could result in imprisonment, and you will be deported for voting
without having the right to do so.

The backstory, according to the LA Times article previously linked, was that the original letter in English had "green-card holders", which was translated into Spanish as "emigrados", which translates back into English as "immigrants".

Of course, green card holders cannot vote, so the original English draft was correct. However, immigrants can, so long as they are U.S. citizens. It is important to make such a syntactical distinction. An immigrant is anyone whose country of origin is different than the one they currently reside. An illegal immigrant is one who resides illegally in a country not of their origin. A legal immigrant is one who resides legally in a country not of their origin. Legal imigrants include not only people who have green-cards and similar documentation, but also people who have become citizens through the naturalization process. Therefore, the bolded is vague and confusing to someone who has earned citizenship but may have been an immigrant to the country. Therefore, the letter was intimidating to some Latino voters.

It is true that no criminal intent was discovered (archived LA Times article). However, this current GOP case is about whether Nguyen obstructed the investigations. I won't comment on this, as I am neither interested in that allegation nor does it affect me in my current geographical location.

However, what i do find entertaining is the overall conspiracy tone of the article. I note that if it weren't for our favorite knight in tin-foil armor, I probably would not have even noticed it. How much of reality do these sycophants have to do in order to justify their nuttery?

_

It is not worth it, even for the lulz

Embedded video from CNN Video

Fighting an Argument from Pathos with...an Argument from Pathos...

The abortion debate is a pivotal issue for a select few voters, so much so that this one issue is the only reason they are involved with politics. That is an unfortunate reality, but not of interest in this post.

Recall the viral ad that has been circulating about Obama's voting record. Nevemind about how the ad is full of baloney, it is simply a pathetic appeal to emotion. The pro-choice can also appeal to emotion on the issue:

I've never agreed with the tactic of appealing to your audiences emotion. Though this ad touches on only a portion of the debate, which is a woman's right of choice in the matter of family planning, it attempts to blurr the line with the addition of the emotional response to rape.

Talk about rape, in this manner, and talk about "I may not exist" are both examples that trivialize the main concern of the public policy debate. They are both disgusting distractions, in my opinion. But the scientific side of me wonders which scenario resonates better in individuals, and in particular voters who are not particularly persuaded on the issue of choice versus life.

We shall see.

Message to McCain

Message to McCain

It's that time of the year again

The IgNobles have been posted. This year's chemistry recipients are a joint effort on arguing whether Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola are good spermicides. It seems like the verdict is still out (pro, con).

But those are old references. Anyone have any new ones?

I Don't Know Much About Economics

And that is pretty much the only thing McCain and I have in common.

Here is an article at McClatchy that summarizes part of the cause of the recent economic turmoil. Basically, it was not Fannie/Freddie since they did not have the ability to invest much into the sub-prime market. Instead, financial institutions that were able to wiggle themselves into regulatory gaps backs much of these subprime loans on the secondary market, and when loans began being defaulted on eveything went to hell in a hand basket.

I hope you have enough pork and beans to last you through the winter.