Booksmith

And I, For One, Welcome Our New Machine Overlords

2007-11-08T06:59:00.000-05:00

No, I'm not updating this blog any more. Go here instead, puh-leaze.

Hey! It's Dead Che Day! Hooray!

2007-10-09T20:36:00.000-04:00

It was forty years ago today
When they finally executed Che
His shirts have been the latest style
But the man was really very vile
So may I introduce to you
The beast you've known for all these years...
Che Guevara's bloated, stinking corpse!

Yes, forty years ago the planet became a better place as brutal, mass-murdering Stalinist t-shirt icon Ernesto "Spanky" Guevara was finally sent to hell. Despite being a failure as a revolutionary, Ernest had the good fortune of having a few pictures of him taken which made him seem to be a dashing figure, thereby guaranteeing that clueless teenagers and clueless Hollywood leftists would forever immortalize him (Now only $19.99 for this lovely Che shirt!).

The Cult of Che

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.

The fact that this man, responsible for so much suffering and death could become an icon says a lot about the sickness of our society.

At Least I Have Chicken

2007-10-07T12:39:00.001-04:00

Yeah, Good Luck With That

2007-10-02T20:12:00.000-04:00

"Ah Vir, I have heard political naivete this complete only once, from Lord Jhano in a speech he made before the Centarum. We voted to have him sterilized as a favor to future generations, then we remembered that he was married to the Lady Ahrnos so really, there was no need." - Londo Molarri, Babylon 5

Obama urges eliminating nuclear weapons
Democrat Barack Obama called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons Tuesday and offered his early opposition to the Iraq war as evidence of sound judgment that trumps his lack of Washington experience.

Obama argued that U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists. The United States shouldn't unilaterally disarm, he said, but it must work with other nations to phase out weapons and control atomic material.

"Here's what I'll say as president: 'America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'" Obama said.

"The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons — it's to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists," the Illinois senator said. Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a a single presidency.

Wow.

Just wow.

Let me spell it out to you, Barack:

IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Nuclear weapons are not going to go away. Ever. There are those for whom a nuclear weapon means power, influence, the ability to destroy their enemies with the push of a button. Y'see, Barack, there are bad people in the world. You can talk about "phasing out" nuclear weapons, but as long as there are maniacs like Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trying to get them it's not even a remote possibility. Since you've shown no particular inclination for using force to stop those bad people from getting their hands on nasty weapons, well, they can safely ignore you. And let's not even discuss the odds of getting Russia and China to go along with this without cheating.

So we're left with this problem:

Obama wants to get rid of nuclear weapons, but will not disarm unless everyone disarms.
There is absolutely no chance that everyone everyone is going to disarm.
Thus, nuclear weapons are not going to go away.

So why waste your time even talking about it? What you're proposing, Barack, is an impossibility. It may play well to the fringe nutcases of your party, but ordinary, everyday, non-fruitcake people are going to look at you and decide that you are dangerously naive. Once again, you're making Hillary Clinton look like the most mature, realistic Democrat running for office right now.

How sad is that?

(Link via Little Green Footballs)

It's a Small World After All

2007-10-01T18:23:00.000-04:00

"Please stand clear of the doors. Por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas..."

Today is the 36th anniversary of the opening of Walt Disney World here in central Florida, an event that turned this little cow-town of Orlando into a much, much larger cow-town. With rides. In 1971 WDW consisted of a few hotels, a monorail, golf courses, and the Magic Kingdom. Personally, I've always loved the place, overpriced churros and all. Back in 1970 my parents took me to the Preview Center, which showed what guests could expect when the park opened (presumably not mentioning the churros). My dad was excited, but financially the family wasn't able to swing a vacation there until the late 1970s. Since I moved to Orlando I've kept an annual pass about half the years I've been here.

Rides have come and gone over the years... Mr. Toad's Wild Ride is long-gone, replaced with a saccharine Winnie the Pooh ride. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has been replaced with... well, nothing. They filled in the lagoon and put yet another character meeting spot in its place where parents can take photos of screaming toddlers with six-foot-tall rodents, and more recently a Winnie the Pooh themed play area. As much as I miss the old rides, I understand that the only way to remain competitive is to constantly update, and it's not too bad as many of the classics (like the good old Haunted Mansion) are still there, often little changed. The Magic Kingdom is like a slice of old America, a less cynical time. The rides and attractions there have an endurance that is missing from almost every other non-Disney theme park... does anyone think people four decades from now will have nostalgic feelings for the Shrek 4-D ride at Universal? Of course not. Most won't even know it was ever there, it having been gutted decades ago and replaced by the next flavor-of-the-month ride based on a different, more recent film franchise. But the doom buggies will still be winding their way through the Haunted Mansion.

(For a fun look at the Disney World of the past, check out Widen Your World. I still miss the crappy hamburgers at the Adventureland Veranda. They put pineapple slices and teriyaki sauce on them, in what passed in the '70s for exotic theme-park food.)

We'll Provide the Bread, You Provide the Circuses

2007-09-29T09:21:00.000-04:00

The slide into the nanny state continues, and the leading Democrat has a nifty idea: pay people $5000 for every baby they crank out.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.
Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.
The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Does it matter how much it will cost? Money is no object when it comes from other people.

The more I watch what's going on in this Presidential campaign the more depressed I become. We're still more than a year away from November 2008 and the Democrats are falling all over themselves proposing new government spending on a scale that would have made Franklin Roosevelt's head melt like one of the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. On the positive side, we should be able to tap a new, unlimited power source: the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves should provide enough energy to light up the Eastern seaboard.

Understand something: Lady Macbeth's primary goal here is simply get herself elected. However, giving people government money serves another, more long-term purpose... as people become dependent on the government it becomes far easier to manipulate them. "Don't vote for that guy! HE'LL TAKE AWAY YOUR BENEFITS!" We saw this during the Social Security battle a few years ago. Bush's modest idea to let people invest a few frikkin' percent of their SS taxes was savaged as an attempt to destroy Social Security. It will be the same if Hillary's scheme here passes, or if (when) we get socialized health care in this country. "Don't vote for that guy, HE'LL CUT YOUR MEDICAL BENEFITS!" Bind people to the government dole and they'll do anything you want to keep the supply of money coming in. It's essentially a scheme for permanent power.

In the meantime, Americans continue to pay far more attention to Britney's latest crash or OJ's latest felony than they do to the fact that they're being manipulated. In 2008, half the voters in this country will choose a candidate who promises to take away their troubles, while the other half will vote for a candidate who promises to take away almost all their troubles.

But... But... It Was a GUN FREE ZONE!!!

2007-09-29T07:45:00.000-04:00

How is this possible? This school was a gun free zone, which means there should have been no possibility that a gun would be brought to school. No possibility whatsoever!

(CBS 5 / AP) OROVILLE A student gunman held an Oroville high school drama class hostage Friday, firing several shots into the ceiling and holding three of the students for more than an hour before a police hostage negotiator persuaded him to surrender peacefully, authorities said. No one was hurt.

Couldn't the kid read the signs?

Don't Tase Me, Bro!

2007-09-23T19:39:00.001-04:00

Bloody Peasant!

2007-09-22T18:03:00.001-04:00

The Eyes of a Psychopath

2007-09-20T19:26:00.001-04:00

Anime I'm Watching: Ergo Proxy

2007-09-19T19:22:00.000-04:00

When it comes to anime, I'm what you might call a "casual fan" (if I can use such a contradiction). I tend to pick up series based on whim and recommendation, watch most them in their English dubbed versions (HERETIC! HEATHEN!), and have pretty specific criteria for shows I like:

The series must have a compelling story and not be an endless battle-of-the-week or monster-of-the-week.
The heroes must be likable and interesting, and the villains suitably nasty but also interesting. There's nothing worse than a boring villain.
Characters must grow and change during the series. When I started watching Neon Genesis Evangellion I took an instant dislike to the character of Shinji (who is almost a textbook definition of "whiny little bastard"), but was willing to continue watching because I assumed he'd get better. That is, until a friend told me "no, he's pretty much like that through the entire series." Oh, well, never mind. I stopped watching and never looked back, and from what I've since heard I made the right decision.
The series must end at some point, whether it be 13 episodes, a season, or a couple of seasons, and the ending must be satisfying and FINAL. The ending should not be a meaningless mindfuck full of unexplained events and deep symbolism... far too many anime series end in such a way, as if the series creators throw up their hands and say "hell, we don't know what's going on either."
The ending should have an emotional kick to it... characters should live, characters should die, but only if it makes sense in the story.
It should be well-written, with clever lines and humor that is actually funny (as opposed to humor that is supposed to be funny but really isn't).
It must be clear within the first few episodes that the creators are going somewhere with the plot and have an idea how things are going to work out. I enjoy series that drop subtle hints early on that pay off in the end (American science fiction examples of this would be series like Babylon 5 and Heroes).

Lately I've been buying two series as they come out: Ergo Proxy and Kurau Phantom Memory. Both have been enjoyable for different reasons, but I'll write about Kurau in the future. Right now let's concentrate on Ergo Proxy. I'm going to try to avoid spoilers but some are inevitable, so stop reading now if that sort of thing bothers you.

Ergo Proxy takes place an indeterminate time in the future on a devastated Earth, with humanity reduced to a few (very few) domed cities amidst a wasteland of dust and ash. The city of Romdo is just such a place, and inside the inhabitants enjoy a peaceful paradise where all their needs are taken care of. Each Romdo citizen has an android assistant called an AutoReiv which serves as companion, assistant, and network computer; the AutoReivs are intelligent but not truly self-aware. They do have a "Turning Application" which causes them to interact like a living person with others, but it can be shut off when it becomes annoying.The city is ruled by an old man called the Representative who speaks through four AutoReivs (which resemble Michelangelo's sculptures).

Things generally don't change much in Romdo... the citizens are born in artificial wombs, educated for their tasks, and encouraged to consume. Nobody questions anything.

However, recently AutoReivs have started becoming infected with a virus called Cogito that causes them to become self-aware... to possibly gain souls and the ability to make decisions for themselves. In some this causes violent reactions against humans and has resulted in a series of murders. In response, the city has created the AutoReiv Control Division to hunt down and eliminate the infected.

Vincent Law is a refugee from the destroyed city of Mosk who works for this unit. His only goal is to become a "fellow citizen"... meek and compliant, Vincent is a bit of a whiner and is tends to simply accept whatever life throws at him. He has a crush on Re-l Mayer which borders on stalking. He is accused of treason and escapes from the dome into the outside world.

Re-l (pronounced "ree-el") Mayer is the granddaughter of the Representative who works for the Citizen intelligence Bureau. She is haughty and cold, and entirely too curious for her own good. Charged with investigating a series of Cogito murders she discovers a superhuman being called a "proxy" and is attacked by another one. Her search for the truth causes her to seek out Vincent Law outside Romdo.

Pino is a Cogito-infected AuroReiv which resembles a small girl (both in design and personality). Designed to serve as a substitute child for a couple which has not yet been granted a child, Pino escapes with Vincent rather than be hunted down. She is generally friendly and happy, not caring too much about the deep psychological dramas of the characters.

The main plot of the series follows the journey of Vincent, Re-l, and Pino as they journey to the ruins of Mosk to find the truth behind the proxies. As they travel across the blasted wasteland they discover other remnants of humanity but few humans and quite a few proxies.

Ergo Proxy has several themes: identity (as implied by the title and much of the terminology of the show), loneliness and isolation, and memory. Approximately every third or fourth episode is a mindfuck episode... you don't know what-the-hell-is-going-on at the start:Vincent is a contestant on a game show, or Pino awakes in an amusement park. However, the mindfuck episode is always explained at the end and doesn't leave the viewer wondering what-the-hell-is-going-on after it's over. The series delves deep into the psychology of its characters but never to the point of excess (cough*Evangellion*cough), and characters grow and change in sometimes unexpected ways.

So what's the final verdict? That remains to be seen. The final disc doesn't come out until next week, so I won't know if the ending is a satisfying one until then. It's been an interesting journey so far, though.

The Grand 9/11 Conspiracy, Explained

2007-09-11T17:54:00.000-04:00

If someone had told me that six years after September 11th, 2001, there would be people who deny that al Qaeda attacked the United States and who, instead, insist that a sinister conspiracy is behind the attacks, a conspiracy originating within our own government (with the often-assumed assistance of Mossad), I would have...

I would have completely believed them. People like this have always existed. Today's truthers are no different than Kennedy conspiracy whackjobs, moon-landing deniers, holocaust deniers, and UFO kooks. The goal is to twist reality to fit their own beliefs, regardless of what actually happened. In this case, hatred of the Bush administration is combined with an unwillingness to accept that there really are religious fanatics in other countries who want to murder Americans, which is combined with a paranoid mindset, resulting in convoluted conspiracy theories which have about as much to do with the real world as your average Star Trek convention.

Regarding September 11th, the truther theories are continually morph and change, and no two truthers will ever give you the same theory.

Let's look at what would be involved in your average 9/11 conspiracy, if the government REALLY was behind it:

Funding is arranged from secret sources.
Hundreds of willing accomplices must be carefully screened and approached... if even ONE person gets a hint of what is being proposed and suffers an attack of conscience, the whole scheme could be exposed. Any who may tip off others or talk must be silenced before they can send an e-mail or phone a reporter.
The attacks must be coordinated between everyone involved while still remaining a complete secret.
The World Trade Center (and WTC7) must be wired with explosives without anyone noticing.
Airplanes must be hijacked, the passengers quietly offloaded (depending on which conspiracy theory one believes) and executed.
The planes must be wired for remote control (although this may have been done beforehand).
The planes must be crashed into the towers.
A cruise missile must be launched at the Pentagon, despite the fact that the evil cabal was willing to use airplanes in the other crashes.
Another plane must be crashed into the fields in Pennsylvania.
The explosives in the towers must be set off, causing the towers to collapse.
The collapse must be predictable enough to damage WTC7, since it has previously been wired.
Several hours later the explosives in WTC7 must be set off.
al Qaeda must be blamed.
Afghanistan must be invaded, despite the fact that there is no oil there.
This will allow the cabal to set up the invasion of Iraq, which DOES have oil, which can then be stolen.
Any who discover the truth must be allowed to continue to speak out, and make money on DVDs and lectures, despite the willingness of the sinister cabal to kill thousands upon thousands in their mad scheme.

It's all so SIMPLE!!!

Emperor Palpatine couldn't come up with a scheme as convoluted as the average truther theory.

This from a government that can't manage to keep troop movements secret, keep track of its equipment, or balance a budget. Here's an easy way to refute every truther argument: the government sucks at everything. The level of competence required to pull off 9/11, keep it a secret, frame the Arabs, and thusly start a war is staggering. The scheme involves hundreds, if not thousands, of people, millions of dollars, and complete secrecy. And for what? Truthers can't even agree on the goals of the conspiracy.

The REAL truth, that a bunch of 7th century religious fanatics exploited that very same governmental incompetence to go undetected, hijacked planes, and crashed them into buildings is much simpler. In fact, it makes use of the universal truth stated above (I'll repeat: the government sucks at everything) in order to succeed. It's simple, it's easy to explain, and everyone who isn't a paranoid whackjob can agree on it.

Of course, the truth is the last thing a truther wants to hear.

Never Forget

2007-09-11T07:20:00.001-04:00

Can Your Heart Stand the Shocking Facts About Grave Robbers from Outer Space?

2007-09-09T11:18:00.000-04:00

And remember, my friends, future events such as these... will affect you in the future.

Health Care is Mandatory, Citizen

2007-09-03T09:57:00.001-04:00

I know, I know, I've been picking on John "Hairpile" Edwards a lot more than any of the other Social-Democrats, but the man just bugs me in a way that even Hillary Clinton doesn't... not that there's really much difference between them. The most frightening thing is that the man actually did pretty well in Iowa; it's not likely that he's going to defeat Lady Macbeth, but as I've said before, John Edwards is the kind of man who should be kept as far away from political power as is possible. And this is why:

John Edwards' Universal Health Care Plan Would Make Regular Checkups Mandatory

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

Mandatory health care? There is political pandering, and then... there is John Edwards. There is Orwellian governmental control of your life, and then... there is John Edwards. There is hypocrisy, and then... there is John Edwards.

Johnny, I have a few questions:

Will I be required to follow the doctor's advice? If, for example, I am a smoker and choose not to follow doctor's orders and quit, will the state punish me in some way? Will I be required to give up fast food if ordered to do so? Required to wear sunscreen?
What will be the penalties for refusing to see a doctor for preventative care? Fines? Imprisonment for extreme cases? Disconnection from the Hive Mind?
Will I be allowed to "doctor shop" to find a physician who tells me what I want to hear, or doesn't require me to change my lifestyle?
Where will all the extra doctors and nurses required to implement this plan come from?
Will there be a religious exemption for those who do not believe in modern medicine, such as Christian Scientists? How about those who prefer alternative medicine?
Who will enforce this?

How will Edwards pay for this?

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.

I have to admit, I laughed out loud at this. $120 Billion? In 2005, American annual spending on health care passed $2 trillion and you're thinking you're going to pay for universal health care for a paltry $120 billion a year, John?

Guess again. By at least an order of magnitude. Then double it. And considering how inefficient government spending on anything is, take that number and triple it. Any proposal that doesn't take these monstrous amounts into consideration is a fantasy, nothing more.

Obviously the goal here isn't anything more than John Edwards' election. The fact that his ideas are ridiculously impractical, disturbingly Orwellian, and haven't a snowball's chance of being implemented is beside the point. The only thing that matters to Edwards is becoming President. He will literally tell anyone anything they want to hear if it advances that goal, even moreso than your average pandering politico. He will tell Americans they should give up their SUVs (while having a fleet of them). He will live in a mansion the size of a breakaway Russian republic while professing his deep concern for the poor. He will talk about reducing global warming while flying everywhere in a private jet.

And the media will never question him on it.

Breaking News: Bin Laden Issues New Fatwa

2007-09-01T19:22:00.000-04:00

Pakistan (1 hour ago)-Osama bin Laden released a new audio tape today in which he named several new enemies of Islam.

The full text follows:
---------------------------------------------------------
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, permission to fight and destroy these infidels is given:

The makers of HeadOn.
David Caruso. You're not a good actor, dude. And what's up with the sunglasses bit? Do you think it makes you look cool?
Those who manufacture the tape that goes across the top of CD and DVD packages.
Lynard Skynard
Debbie Martinson. I heard what you said about me in homeroom, you bitch. I do not wear too much makeup!
All those who go AFK in Alterac Valley. You infidels are the reason the Horde loses so often.
Mullah Omar. You never call anymore! Did what we share mean so little to you?

In addition, eternal bliss in Heaven and 72 virgins are granted to anyone who will muck out my cave. It's getting pretty bad in there.

8-Bit? More Like 2-Bit

2007-08-27T20:06:00.000-04:00

(Atari 2600 Label Maker)

A Really Inconvienient Truth

2007-08-26T19:41:00.000-04:00

Bush vs. Gore.

Predictable

2007-08-26T19:33:00.000-04:00

So predictable.

Sorry, Lewis, not buying it. Not for a minute.

"I Was Only Kidding"
"Wierd Al" Yankovic

When I said that I'd be faithful
When I promised I'd be true
When I swore that I could never
Be with anyone but you
When I told you that I loved you
With those tender words I spoke
I was only kidding
Now, can't you take a joke?

When I said that I need you, baby
When I told you that I really care
When I said that I can't live without you
When I said I'd follow you anywhere
When I said you could always trust me
When I said I'd never leave you flat
Well, guess what? I was only kidding, baby
I can't belieeeeve you fell for that! You're so gullible...

(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) You thought that was for real?
I was only kidding
Now I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but the fact remains
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Baby, baby, I was...
(I was) only kidding
Well, I guess I got you pretty good, now listen...

When I said that I love you, baby
From the very bottom of my heart
When I said that I miss you so badly
Every second we're apart
When I swore that you're just getting more and more
Beautiful every day
Well, I was only kidding, honey
What's the matter with you anyway? Let me tell you something

(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) You understand, don't ya?
I was only kidding
Well, I guess it probably hurts you alot, but you gotta know
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Come on now, get a clue
I was only kidding
I really love you... NOT!

When I said you oughta marry
When I said that we should settle down
Well, I was pullin' your leg there, honey
I was just foolin' around
You see, I -- I never meant to upset you, darlin'
I never meant to hurt anyone
I was only kidding, baby
Why don't you just put down that gun?
Let's talk this over

(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Whatch where you're pointing that thing
(I was only kidding)
Hey, I'm sorry if your heart is broke... you gotta realize
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) Aww, yeah
I was only kidding
Now, honey, can't you take a joke?
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I was only kidding
(I was only kidding) I didn't lie to you
I was only kidding... Yes indeed
(I was only kidding) Baby, baby, you know
(I was only kidding) Hey!

In order to Save the United States We Were Forced to Destroy It

2007-08-26T15:24:00.000-04:00

It's unfortunate when someone you dislike is elected. In the last few years, the political left in this country has let it eat at their souls, their hatred of the selected-not-elected Emperor Chimpy Dubya McHitlerburton having grown to a category-5 storm of sheer incoherent rage, so much so that there are some who would be perfectly willing to stick the US Constitution in a shredder if it meant they could be rid of him.

Case in point, "noted raconteur and Bon Vivant" (I'm not making that up... it's in his author page) Martin Lewis has a solution for the world's Dubya problem... have General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "relieve the President of his command."

Yeah. That's right. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

Dear General Pace,

I just want to say, in opening, that I love your salsa.

I note with admiration your courage in making clear your private concerns about the safety of the US military and the longterm danger to US national security caused by the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the quagmire in Iraq.

Wow, first paragraph out of the box and we've already hit the lefty standard, "quagmire." We're in for a fun ride, folks.

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero

BABY KILLER!!!

Isn't it odd how leftists suddenly become so pro-military when they want something?

- who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

The President has that authority, Lewis. The Chairman serves at his discretion... it's part of the whole "civilian control of the military" thing that, as we shall see, you don't quite understand.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice.

He's allowed to do that. Comes with the job.

Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

"Ignoring advice" is not a violation of the law, Mr. Lewis.

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

Impossible. The duties and powers of the President of the United States are clearly spelled out in The Constitution (you might want to look it up, Lewis) and there is no provision for taking away one power while leaving others. The President is the Commander in Chief. Article II, section 2. If he's not Commander in Chief, he's not President. You don't get to mix-n-match Constitutional powers and duties. If the military removes him from this duty then they are removing themselves from civilian control, a completely unconstitutional and insanely bad idea.

But, hey, if it weren't for insanely bad ideas the left would have no ideas at all. Let's continue, shall we?

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

Why, it's as simple as that!!!

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

I'd prefer to invoke § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government. On you.

Article 134 reads:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

The Posse Comitatus Act severely limits the power of the military to enforce laws upon civilians. They may police their own, but they have no, repeat no authority to arrest the President, a civilian.

Article 133 reads:

"Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

President George W. Bush is not a commissioned officer, a cadet, or a midshipman. He (and I have to repeat this for the terminally stupid) is a civilian. As such, he doesn't fall under the very law you're quoting to try and get him arrested.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup.

Yes you are. The military has NO authority to remove the President, relieve his of any of his duties, or anything else of the sort. Saying that you're not advocating a coup is laughable when that's clearly what you are doing.

You are an honorable patriotic man.

Stop kissing his ass, Lewis. Assuming he ever reads your post (and I'd be surprised if someone hasn't passed it along to him as a joke), you're not going to impress him by telling him how wonderful he is. You're asking him to step beyond the bounds of his post, violate the Constitution and the law, just so you can be rid of a man who you're going to be rid of in about a year and a half anyway.

If I were General Pace, I'd be insulted. In fact, I'd be calling the Secret Service right now, and asking those humorless gents to have a word with you, and perhaps explain the laws of this land to you before subjecting you to them.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

That is exactly what you are doing. The power of the President as Commander-in-Chief can not be separated from his civilian duties... it IS one of his civilian duties, and as such is not answerable to anyone except Congress or the Supreme Court acting in their Constitutional roles. Congress may impeach, but the military may not simply decide they have had enough and arrest him, no matter how pissed off they may be.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

So the Pace has a legal responsibility to violate the law? Oy vey, I need an aspirin.

Look, pinhead, the UCMJ does not supersede the Constitution, except in the Bizarro World that you and most of the left lives in these days.

If you have reason to believe that the President is responsible for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and for "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital" then you have the obligation to act.

Really? That's your criteria? If that was the case, the military could have relieved Bill Clinton of his power as CiC. Oh, and by the way, perjury is also a violation of the UCMJ, Mr. Lewis.

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Jesus H. Cthulhu, do you even understand our laws? Short of a declared national emergency, the US military doesn't have the authority to place civilians under military arrest. If Congress impeached the President and he refused to step down upon being removed from office you might have a point, but barring that sort of profound national crisis what you're advocating is a military coup.

Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says:

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

(c) All officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers shall have authority to quell all quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this Code and to apprehend persons subject to this Code who take part in the same.

(sigh) THE PRESIDENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ. He is a civilian. See that word? CIVILIAN. Someone needs to tattoo it onto your forehead in reverse letters so you can look it in a mirror every time you brush your teeth.

I understand that it would not be an action to undertake lightly.

Actually, if you believe that the United States military should arrest a President with only a few years left in his term simply because your hatred of the man has overwhelmed what little common sense you have, you "understand" nothing.

In all your 39 years of service you have shown total loyalty to the chain of command.

But, hey, feel free to throw that all away and spit on the oath you took simply because a pencil-dicked leftist "bon vivant" wants you to.

However, given the current imperilment of US troops, and the "Conduct Unbecoming Of An Officer And A Gentleman" of this President - you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor and to the US Constitution.

Goddamit, you don't show responsibility to your nation, your code of honor, and to the US Constitution by destroying them.

I wish you well as you prepare to undertake the most heroic action of your distinguished career.

You baby-murdering fascist killbot.

General Pace - please save the US.

By instituting a military coup and violating the Constitution. What's the old phrase... "in order to save the US we were forced to destroy it?"

Respectfully yours,

Martin Lewis

Do you TRULY want to go down this road, Mr. Lewis? Once you open that door there's no going back, ever. Every President will be subject to arrest and trial by the military should they decide to do so, based on the remarkably vague criteria you've established. Once the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has that power, it won't be given back. Ever. Rather than a military that is told what to do by the President, we will have a President that is told what to do by the military.

I'm a conservative, Mr. Lewis, but I'm not one of those screaming hate-filled Michael Savage "hang all o' them libruls" types. I've voted for Democrats on occasion (rarer and rarer occasions, granted), and have grown to loathe the Republican Party almost as much as I hate the Democrats. I want you to understand this clearly, because I'm going to say something to you that I've NEVER said to anyone regardless of how much I may disagree with them:

GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.

Pack your things and go. You have no business being here. You're a twit who has seen too many military courtroom dramas and thinks that they apply to the real world. You clearly do not understand our laws, but that's never stopped a Huffington Post writer before. You have advocated the overthrow of our civilian government merely to remove a man from office who will be gone in a short time anyway. You have called on the military to overstep its Constitutional bounds and remove itself from civilian control. In more civilized times you'd be tarred and feathered. In these politically correct times you probably won't even be arrested.

Now I'm sure you're going to try and spin this as "A Modest Proposal," and make comments on just how upset we righties are getting over this.

Piss off. You're right we're upset. I'm sick of people like you, sick to my very black right-wing soul of people like you who understand so little of history, understand so little of just how precious and rare civilian control of the military is in human affairs, how important it is to maintaining the institutions we in the West hold dear. In the vast majority of human history it has been the military that has done the controlling, not the other way around. Have you given the slightest thought to the long-term consequences of your idea, Mr. Lewis? I doubt it. Your hatred of Bush trumps everything.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008, how do you think the military is going to react? Do you think they're going to be happy taking her orders? They loathed her husband, and I'm guessing they'll be even less thrilled with her. Now give the military the power to arrest her for violating the UCMJ... how many minutes do you think it'd take them to come up with an excuse? Five? Ten? There's an old saying, Lewis, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. The weapon that you wish to use to remove the hated Dubya from power can easily be used against a President that you like as well. And it would, have no doubts.

Personally, I'm not cool with that, even if Lady Macbeth wins the election.

Fortunately, General Pace IS an honorable man, and will ignore your idiotic plea. You should be happy about that, Lewis, because in years gone by an officer like him, his honor insulted by someone like you, might have challenged you to a duel.

And dueling violates the UCMJ. You wouldn't want him to get in trouble, now, would you?

Weep for the Future

2007-08-26T13:35:00.000-04:00

How frightening is it that, among the top Democrats seeking the nomination, Hillary Clinton is the most reasonable and qualified?

Hillary. Clinton.

Barak Obama seems like a nice guy... likable, charismatic, not scarily partisan or dogmatic. The problem is, unfortunately, that there's really no reason at all why he should be President of the United States. He's unerringly liberal, has shown that he has little clue about the rough details of foreign policy or the tough choices that all Presidents must make.

Of all the top-tier nazghul, John Edwards is the most frightening. A foppish former trial lawyer who has mastered the art of political pandering in a way that John Kerry could only dream of, Edwards promises all things to all people with nary a thought of how to pay for them. That, of course, he can figure out once he's sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office. He's the kind of person who should be kept as far from power as is possible. In a sane universe, John Edwards would be selling used cars in Raleigh Durham.

Hillary Clinton is the most hawkish, the most realistic of the Dems, which is like saying that Police Academy II was the best of the Police Academy movies... perhaps, but they ALL suck. This is, of course, the woman whose proposal for solving the "health care crisis" in 1993 was to nationalize 15% of the American GDP and create a Canadian-style system. She has been pounding the issue since she announced her candidacy roughly 27 years ago, so I have little hope she's learned her lesson. At least she's willing to acknowledge that there's a little problem with Islamic terrorists that can't be solved by making nice.

I don't think I've seen a more pathetic group of Democrats running for President since 2004. I mean, time and time again you Dems force me to vote Republican simply to keep your latest pandering socialist out of office. Are there ANY John F. Kennedys or Harry Trumans left in your party, or have the Kos lunatics completely taken over? You hate the fact that people like George W. Bush win office? Give me an alternative. How about nominating someone who isn't going to create more bloated government programs, who isn't going to neglect the defense of the country, who isn't in the pocket of the far-left psychopaths who seem to be running your party.

Is that too much to ask? Don't bother to answer, I already know what you're going to tell me.

(Tap, Tap, Tap, Checking Watch)

2007-08-24T17:57:00.000-04:00

Fred, I like what you have to say.

GET ON WITH IT!!!

Chicks Dig Giant Robots

2007-08-21T21:58:00.000-04:00

Steven Den Beste (formerly of USS Clueless fame, now anime blogging at Chizumatic) has posted a Too Many Words™ about why mechas in anime are stupid... big, impractical, and almost impossible to build, giant robots are extremely unlikely to ever see the fields of battle in the real world, he's absolutely right. However, as he points out:

So what's this big exception? That's easy: telling a fun story in animation. None of the problems described above are at issue because you don't actually have to build or operate the mecha. You just have to draw it. In your virtual universe you can ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You can conjure power out of thin air. You can create perfect bearings. You can construct your machine out of materials which can't possibly exist without changing the universal electrical constant. You can ignore gravity, too, if it's inconvenient. And phlebotinum is available in unlimited quantities.

The only place where mechas are practical is a place that doesn't exist. And they're a good solution because they look really cool. Or at least some of them do.

That's pretty much all the argument one needs... they're cool. Giant robots appeal to the 13-year-old-boy in all of us, and that's why they're so common in anime (as well as American animation).

As for me, while I'm only a casual anime fan, sometimes you just want to see a city levelled.

Islam in Europe

2007-08-19T08:18:00.000-04:00

The Suck of the Century

2007-08-18T17:47:00.000-04:00

I'm usually pretty good at picking out interesting fiction, and I love a good disaster story. I can find a good one without too much effort, which makes the misses all the more painful. Take for example Category 7, by Bill Evans and Marianna Jameson. It's a "thriller" about an artificially-created superstorm that is set on New York City, except that the authors forgot to put in any thrills. Instead, we have page after page of cliched characters and poorly-written dialog, starting with a chapter detailing our villain, a scientist/businessman with a God complex and a break-a-few-eggs mentality. Never seen THAT before. None of the other characters are more interesting

It only got worse from there, to the point where I was able to see what was going to happen well before it did. And since I already knew what was going to happen, there was no need for me to finish the book, was there?

I Don't Want to be Elfstar Any More.

2007-08-16T18:14:00.000-04:00

Wonderful news.

August 16, 2007 (Renton, WA) – Whether you storm a mad wizard's tower every week or haven't delved into a dungeon since you had a mullet and a mean pair of parachute pants, one thing is certain - millions of D&D players worldwide have anticipated the coming of 4th Edition for many years. Today, Wizards of the Coast confirms that the new edition will launch in May 2008 with the release of the D&D Player's Handbook. A pop culture icon, Dungeons & Dragons is the #1 tabletop roleplaying game in the world, and is revered by legions of gamers of all ages.

The 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons game includes elements familiar to current D&D players, including illustrated rulebooks and pre-painted plastic miniatures. Also releasing next year will be new web-based tools and online community forums through the brand-new Dungeons & Dragons Insider (D&D Insider) digital offering. D&D Insider lowers the barriers of entry for new players while simultaneously offering the depth of play that appeals to veteran players.

After all, it's only been a year and a half since I shelled out for the D&D 3.5 rulebooks, so it makes me happy to have to spend large amounts of money for yet another set of rules with only minor differences from the previous ones.

How about I just save myself the trouble and wait until D&D 4.5 comes out?

Mrawgrlgrlgrlgrlgrrgle

2007-08-16T18:09:00.000-04:00

Obey or Be Destroyed

2007-08-15T07:59:00.000-04:00

Presented by Frank J, who approves this message.

The RNC. We Care.

2007-08-12T15:16:00.000-04:00

In the mail yesterday arrived a survey called the "Republican Party Census Document," (really, a fundraising pamphlet designed to make it look like the RNC cares what Republican voters think) ... and y'know, just sending it back (without a generous contribution) doesn't express my disgust at these people right now. So, as any reasonable evil right-winger would do, I decided to blog my answers. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

1. If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans fight back?

Undecided. I've always felt the creepily-Orwellian-named "Patriot Act" was a mixed bag... while it contains some useful and needed tools for the fight against terrorists, it is also too easily open to abuse.

2. Should we stop Democrats from cutting funding for our intelligence agencies or bringing back Clinton-era restrictions on inter-agency communications?

Umm... YES. Do you need to even ask? What would happen in the odd circumstance that you didn't get a "yes" answer from most of the people in this so-called census... would you let the Democrats do whatever they wanted to the intelligence agencies without a fight? Why are you even asking me this? Do your goddamned jobs, Republicans!

3. Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to individuals or organizations committed to further attacks on America?

Yes. Air strikes, carpet-bombing, particle beam weapons, nuking the site from orbit, etc. In short, what should have been going on from day one of this so-called "War on Terror™." Treat it like it was a real war instead of an exercise in nation-building.

4. Should we do everything we can to stop democrats from repealing critical border and port security legislation?

I'd answer yes, but exactly what "critical border and port security legislation" did you actually pass when you were in power? The borders are less secure than they were when Bill Clinton was in office, our port security is a joke, and here you are trying to shift the focus to the Democrats. How about doing everything you can to actually pass some meaningful border and port security legislation? That would be a good start. Of course, why start now?

5. Should our homeland defense forces use profiling to protect our nation?

Yes, for gossake. We're not being attacked by seventy-year-old grandmothers, or seven-year-old children. Our enemy is almost invariable young, male, and Muslim. It is a sad sign of our politically-correct times that we can't even mention this fact. Paying extra attention to them is only logical. This doesn't mean we have to treat young Muslim males like lepers, but it only makes sense to give them a little extra scrutiny.

Economic Issues
1. Should we continue working to permanently repeal the inheritance or "Death Tax."

Yes. Better yet, pass the Fair Tax and you won't have to worry about it at all.

2. Should President Bush's successful income and capital gains tax cuts be made permanent?

Yes. Good luck with that, now that you've lost control of Congress due to your incompetence and arrogance.

3. Should Republicans renew the fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment?

"Renew?" When did you actually fight for it? For the entire duration of your control of Congress you spent money like drunken sailors, showing yourselves to be every bit as corrupt and greedy as the Democrats. Yet you want me to believe that you'd start fighting for a balanced budget now?

Hmm... how do I politely put this? Bullshit.

4. Should Republicans unite to keep our pro-growth achievements from the past six years intact by blocking new federal government bureaucracy and red tape?

Oh, why start now?

5. Should Republicans in Congress oppose the new wasteful government spending programs proposed by the Democrats and their new leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

I'd be more impressed if you hadn't spent the last six years passing your own wasteful government spending programs. Now that you've lost control of Congress you expect me to believe that you've suddenly become fiscal conservatives? SPARE ME. Go ahead, oppose Pelosi and Reid, but don't try to convince me that there's any motive behind it other than power and control of governmental purse strings. If you get power back you'll quickly revert to your old ways, just as the Democrats did.

Domestic Issues 1. Do you agree that we must stop illegal immigration?

Yes. yes, yes, a thousand times YES. The problem, though, is that I don't believe for a nanosecond that you actually want to stop illegal immigration. The amnesty bill you almost passed (with the help of the Democrats) put the lie to that. We in your base had to fight like rabid wolverines to get you to back down on that abortion of a bill, and even with its defeat I'm not sure you got the point. You've paid lip service to the issue but made little meaningful effort to stopping illegal immigration or enforcing current immigration laws.

Secure the borders and I'd be perfectly willing to discuss amnesty for the illegal aliens already here, or a guest worker program. Until you show me proof that you're capable of taking the issue seriously, shove it.

2. Should we continue working for serious tort reform to protect individuals and small businesses from predatory lawsuits?

"Continue?" You might sense a trend in my questioning of why it took a political defeat after six years in power to get you to look at this issue. Anyway, how about instituting a "loser pays" system like so many other countries have? It's never going to happen, of course... you Republicans are too wishy-washy on the issue and the Democrats would never stand for it, a tricky problem since you lost power to them due to your own idiocy.

3. Should we make sure President Bush's judicial nominees receive fair hearings and up or down votes in the Senate even when Democrats threaten a filibuster.

Yes.

4. Should Republicans in Congress protect America's private property rights from eminent domain?

How dare you even ask this. YES. Do your jobs. You shouldn't need a "census" to tell you where to stand on the subject.

Social Issues
1. Do you think Congress should pass the Federal Marriage Amendment?

No. Don't screw around with the Constitution on such a trivial issue.

2. Do you want us to defend the recently-passes partial birth abortion ban from attacks by the Democrat majority?

Yes. Although I'm generally apathetic about abortion as an issue (and loathe both fanatical sides), partial birth abortion is a sickening procedure and should be banned.

3. Do you support President Bush's initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need?

Well, when you put it that way, yes. What, am I supposed to say no?

Defense Issues
1. Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations commanders?

No. On the other hand, it would serve as a sort of "get out of jail free" card, since the left doesn't show the slightest caring about crimes committed by U.N. "Peacekeepers." Let a U.S. soldier point sneeringly at a prisoner's wee-wee and it's a scandal worth literally months of solid new coverage and outraged cries of Democrats, but let U.N. Peacekeepers rape kids and the press and the Dems yawn.

2. Do you agree that our top military priority should be fighting terrorists?

Yes. And any nation that harbors or supports them.

3. Should we fight Democrat efforts to impose Clinton-era cuts in the pentagon's budget?

(extreme sarcasm)
Noooooooo. You should just let them cut the budget to the bare bones to pay for ridiculous social programs and pork spending.
(/extreme sarcasm)

Stop asking questions you should already know the answers to.

4. Should Republicans continue to support the State of Israel?

Yes. Partly because it's the only democracy in the Middle east, partly because they're the only ones serious about fighting terrorists (at least until recently), but mainly because it pisses antisemites and Islamofascist fanatics off. And anything they think is a bad idea deserves serious consideration.

5. Do you support economic sanctions against North Korea and Iran to stop their nuclear weapons programs?

As much as I'm thrilled with idea of psychotic fanatics armed with the most dangerous weapons known to man and threatening to start World war III every fifteen minutes, I'm gonna have to reluctantly say yes to this.

6. Do you agree that sowing the seeds of Democracy and freedom in the Middle east is a worth goal?

Worthy? Yes. Achievable? I'm not so sure.

Republican Party
1. Do you support the election of republican candidates across the country and the rebuilding of our majorities over the next ten years?

You have failed me for the last time, Admiral.

Undecided. I dutifully voted for you time and time again (less and less to keep you in power as much as to keep your opponents out of it), but you DESERVED your loss in 2006. You had grown arrogant, treated the money of taxpayers as it was your personal trust fund, made no meaningful efforts to secure the borders, and ignored the wishes of the people who put you in power. And rather than learning from your defeat, you continued to make the same mistakes even after you were the minority party. I will support individual Republicans on a case-by-case basis, but if the choice comes down to electing a Republican-in-name-only or a Democrat, I will either vote third party or leave the space blank.

How about doing something to actually earn power, and then get back to me.

2. Did you vote in the year blah blah blah?

Yes. Given the state of things, I'm more and more wondering why I bothered.

3. Will you join the Republican National Committee by making a contribution today?

No. No way in hell would I send you a dime after your own incompetence and greed put the Democrats back in power.

Conveniently, the census gives me other choices than sending a contribution...

Yes, I support the RNC, but I am unable to participate at this time. However, I have enclosed $11 to cover the cost of tabulating my survey.

It costs you $11 to tabulate a frikkin' survey?!? And I wonder why Republicans can't seem to spend money efficiently any more than Democrats can... I could hire a minimum-wage schlub to tabulate the results for a hell of a lot cheaper than that. Of course, it's very likely that the envelope gets opened, the checks taken out, and the census forms are tossed in the trash untabulated. Considering the discontent in the Republican base and continued Republican idiocy, it's not like anyone at the RNC is actually paying attention.

That's not the best part of the census... the best part is the next bubble:

No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years.

Don't insult my intelligence. And don't try to blame us, tools, if you continue to lose. It will be due to your own failings, and not because I didn't cut you a check. It will be because you ignore the groundswell of support for REAL illegal immigration reform (an actual fence, crackdowns on those who hire illegals, etc.). It will be because Republicans spent the last six years gorging themselves on pork spending. It will be because you did little to oppose the Democrats when they weren't in power in Congress, and you continue to do nothing now that they are.

So... does that answer your questions?