Woodward Should Stay Leeward

You kids too young to remember Watergate will probably not remember Bob Woodward (or Edward Woodward, for that matter). Woodward was one of the two reporters (the other was Carl Bernstein, or Leonard Bernstein, for that matter) who brought down a president.

This is the paper that could bring down a president. At least two inches.

In fact, they did no such thing. The two received information that proved senior White House officials were involved in financing a bizarre burglary. This triggered a rash of resignations and scandals; ultimately, it was ultimately a combination of special prosecutors and committees, judges, and plea bargains that forced Nixon into resignation.

Even Bob Woodward has downplayed his role; however, popular mythology has made him and Bernstein the most powerful force in political whatever. Certainly, the moronic media view them as iconic heroes, bravely staring down the direct threats on their lives to get the truth out, man! Stilus contra gladius potentior est and all. The whole schmear of lefty journalist—and even a few right-handed James O’Keefes out there—want to be “the guy” who takes down the next president, is the subject of countless un-fact-checked books and movies, and be played by James Franco dodging explosions and black helipcopters to get the truth out, man! By the way, the Czar believes the collective noun for journalists is “a murder of.” Maybe that’s where they get their paranoia.

Anyhow, Woodward is still an old-school journalist and even if he did not take down a single president, he did his best to stick to the old ways of writing stuff down and corroborating facts. And being a Hero of the Left, he was given incredible access to the Obama administration over the last few years. And in an attempt to pay that back and make the administration look good, he wrote a book about how well they all work together. In one book, he even shows how the President worked with Senate Democrats to put together a clever little trap for Republicans called Sequestration.

Of course, when ObamaLand decided to blame Sequestration on Republicans and its rivers of blood and death of first-born males, Woodward’s book was quickly cited by Republicans looking to convince Americans that the President was, if you can believe this, bald-faced lying to the people. Again. For the hundredth time that month.

And so Woodward was asked about this—as if Republicans somehow got hold of the original Word files to his book and dropped that bit in there without anyone catching it until they needed a convenient pull quote. You can’t put anything past a group like that, who would throw your grandmother over a cliff in a wheelchair then put y’all back in chains. Naturally, Woodward not only confirmed his writing but explicitly agreed with the Republican claim that the whole Sequester stunt was done in full frontal view of the President and Senator Harry Reid as a way to extort Republicans. Because it happened. He was there, and he wrote it all down, and got everything right.

So for you kids who don’t know about Bob Woodward, Hero of the Left, and the Greatest Journalist Who Told the Greatest Story Ever Broken, you should now be aware that:

• He is senile and his memory faulty.
• That out-dated old Bob Woodward; boy, he used to be something, right? But now he’s washed-up, like Mike Schmidt.
• He is a Republican spokesman.
• Turns out he’s just a birther.
• He regrets or soon will regret what happened.
• He wasn’t threatened at all, and in fact, he has backed off that story entirely.
• The Sequester still is the fault of Republicans.
• They wanna put y’all back in chains.
• A plague of frogs, people!

Interesting how both the claims of washed-up senility and reporters agreeing he was not really threatened all came out about the same time, and are worded to a high degree of similarity. Remember: it isn’t a conspiracy if everybody was already thinking that way.

What do we make of all this? Factually, you cannot argue with Woodward on this—his piece on the Sequestration was too detailed, too organized, and too documented. The President clearly feels this will make him look bad, although let’s be honest the actual Sequestration is going to make him look way worse—nothing much is going to happen to the average person. In fact, the Republicans are smart to now be keeping reasonably quiet on who said what when—the President is the one making all the noise, and when little happens that upsets the average American, they will see him as the nagging, whinnying horse’s ass (see all those horse metaphors? This is why the Czar is a gifted writer. Metaphors.) he really is.

But Bob Woodward, who has never been afraid of the truth, now sees what life is like for conservatives. How bad it is: you are dealing with a thin-skinned, petty, megalomaniac who believes he is a strategic genius. And while you gave the President an out by blaming a senior offical we’ll call Cyril (although his real name is Gene Sperling), and you have sorta accepted an apology by accusing him of living in a fantasy world, you are enjoying all the wonderful benefits of his presidency.

Next time, Mr. Woodward, try to avoid spending so much time on facts when dealing with liberal Democrats, lest you forget you technically are one.

Mailbag: Politics Remains Local

The Czar loves his intelligent and thoughtful readers because they often write him intelligent and thoughtful letters. And this is good because the Czar can copy and paste them and do no additional work. In fact, the Czar can pretty much screw off the rest of the day now.

For a perfect example of an intelligent and thoughtful letter from an intelligent and thoughtful reader, including the requisite slacking off by the Czar, look no further than Merlin (yes, that Merlin, who also tweets by the hiphop handle of @NKYAggie because baby, that’s just how he rolls; you can’t tame a wild horse, or push against the wind—you can’t land on a fraction...and so on).

Great and Mighty Czar,

In your writing, you mention that "Americans have stopped caring about politics except for a few reliable groups."

I beg to differ, at least slightly. As Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local. At one time, Americans used to exhibit a care for more than themselves. They looked to the bigger picture. Local charities and philanthropic organizations were actually important. But not so much today.

THAT is what Mr. Dominick has rightly glommed onto. Politics has moved beyond the merely local, to the personal. We have become a "what have you done for me lately" society, whether it's our coaches, our pastors or our politicians. We have an entitlement spending problem because we have an entitlement mentality problem.

And with the full-court press being applied to normative morality in today's society, I don't see much hope for a change.

Much respect,

Merlin

No need to beg to differ; all you have done was refined the point further. Yes, you are exactly right. Further question: have Americans stopped caring, or have they been manipulated into acceptance?

CPAC, Gov. Christie, the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party

Yesterday, the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC as it’s affectionately known, decided New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was not sufficiently conservative to address its 2013 gathering in Washington, D.C.

One of ‘Puter’s favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer, took CPAC to task, referring to its snub of Gov. Christie as a “vast overreaction” and a “mistake.” So too did Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, take the opportunity to recognize CPAC’s snub for what it is: shortsighted and suicidal.

In a similar vein, John Podhoretz wrote a piece for the New York Post earlier this week that struck ‘Puter as particularly insightful. Mr. Podhoretz merely stated the obvious, which was not obvious at all to ‘Puter until Mr. Podhoretz did so.  That is, the Republican Party is exactly that, a political party whose sole goal is to win elections. And the Conservative Movement is exactly that, an ideological movement dedicated to “enduring ideas and deeply held philosophical beliefs.” Exactly right.

During ‘Puter’s lifetime, conservatives have existed peacefully (for the most part) in the way-back of the Republican Party’s family sta-wag, and Republicans have been happy to have conservatives along for the ride. Republican and conservative worldviews were largely the same: pro-gun, pro-life, pro-Israel, pro-family, pro-military, anti-Communism, small government, low taxes.  However, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the slow suicide of mainline Christian denominations, Republicans and Conservatives have become increasingly at odds, with disastrous consequences for both.

Republican candidates cannot get to a general election without conservative support in the primaries, but Republican candidates cannot win general elections without the support of America’s vast, squishy middle of low information voters.

And conservatives don’t have much of a national voice without high-profile officials holding federal office. Without the Republican Party’s support for conservative candidates, there would be exactly zero conservative politicians of note.

‘Puter can hear the caterwauling now.  “You’re so wrong, ‘Puter! You just don’t get it! You’re probably one of those RINOs, like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan! We are totally going to form a third party and throw you and all your RINO buddies overboard! Without those stupid RINOs, America will surely realize how awesome our platform of zero immigration, no abortions ever and zeroing out the welfare state is!” Uh, not exactly, dipsticks.

Despite conservatism’s delusions of grandeur, it is not now and will never be a viable third party. Here are the hard truths.

First, there are too few conservatives to win large scale national or even statewide elections.  Even if ‘Puter were to grant this conservative third party pipe dream for the sake of argument, such a party would never be a majority. A conservative third party would have to govern in coalition with another political party. And ‘Puter finds it exceedingly unlikely there’s a bunch of rock-ribbed conservatives champing at the bit to align with their BFFs, the Democrats. So conservatives are right back where they started: de facto members of the Republican Party.

Second, if polls are to be believed, America’s pretty much sick and tired of the conservative positions on most social issues, which taints America’s view of the parts of the conservative worldview it agrees with.

Look, ‘Puter’s more conservative than most Republicans and even he thinks conservatives need to stop being such giant asshats. We conservatives should make our points.  We should fight the good fight.  But there comes a time for us conservatives to shut the eff up and sit the eff down, even if it means accepting a less than perfect candidate. The alternative is to cede the field to the Democrats, and you can see how well that’s worked for America.

Even conservative sweethearts like Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker know this.  There’s a time when you take the best you can get and move on, living to fight another day.  Over time, this principled but incremental approach results in a statewide or nationwide conservative shift.  Conservatives must tolerate the manure spreader’s stank in the fall if we want to harvest the winter wheat come spring.

‘Puter’s not advocating for conservatives to roll over and be the Republican Party’s bitches, like the media is for President Obama. ‘Puter’s point is this: conservatives must decide which of their ideals are non-negotiable and learn to tolerate (not to love, or even to accept) heterodoxy on the less important points.  Conservatives must stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.

So what’s non-negotiable in ‘Puter’s view?  To ‘Puter’s, there are precious few non-negotiable conservative points. 

·         Protection Of Life At All Stages

 This means that a candidate must be committed to advancing pro-life issues where possible, resolving the tough calls in favor of life. 

 This means a candidate should vote for a law that presumes the Constitutional right to an abortion if it means making abortion less available overall. 

 This means a commitment to preserving the idea behind the welfare state, which is deeply conservative: America helps those who cannot help themselves, and everyone else should get to work.

 This does not require preserving current programs; in fact, it requires the opposite.  This requires overhauling systems devised in the 1930s and 1960s that are ill-suited to meeting the actual needs of the truly needy, systems that currently serve only to enrich undeserving Democrat constituencies such as public sector unions.

 This means standing against ObamaCare and its insistence that government determines the quantum of care to which you are entitled, which is nothing more than government authority to determine when and how you die.

 This means taking seriously our obligation to ensure the reasonable health and safety of the imprisoned, including stamping out prison rape once and for all.

 This means an absolute obligation to ensure that no innocent person be put to death by the state, even if that means forgoing the death penalty altogether.

·         Fiscal Responsibility

 This means government should not spend more than it takes in, in all but the most exigent circumstances, such as global war or worldwide depression.

 This means that if government spends more than it takes in to meet an exigent circumstance, it repays its bondholders at the earliest possible opportunity.

 This means government ensures all citizens, rich, middle class and poor alike, pay a fair share of America’s upkeep. 

·         Protection of Constitutional Rights/Rule of Law

 Government should be no larger than it must be to ensure our Constitutional rights.  All our Constitutional rights.  Even the Constitutional rights with which conservatives disagree, such as abortion.

 This means treating even made-up Constitutional rights, when settled, as worthy of respect and protection.

 This means permitting the states to handle matters on their own, in their own ways, according to the will of their citizenry, so long as states’ chosen paths do not impair Constitutional rights. A few examples are: education, insurance, drinking ages, and firearms regulation.

 This means reining in administrative agencies and Congress’ delegation of its Constitutional duties to unelected busybodies with lifetime tenure.

 This means insisting that the executive and judicial branches do not exceed their Constitutional authority even when – no, especially when – the results benefit conservative ideals.

 This means insisting America enforce its laws, whether we agree with them or not, until such laws are changed, repealed or superseded in accordance with the Constitution’s provisions.

 These are, or should be, conservatism’s non-negotiable points.  All else is well and good, but the above are essential. Note well that agreeing on core principles does not mean we will all agree on the best way to achieve these goals. It means that conservatives will continue to struggle, to argue, to fight and to scream about specific issues like gay marriage and gun control. And this sharp-elbowed debate is good. Conservatives need voices of principled dissent to hone our arguments and test our policies before we try them out on the country.

 

So back to CPAC and Gov. Christie. Is Gov. Christie ‘Puter’s idea of an ideal conservative candidate? No. But what Gov. Christie is is ‘Puter’s idea of an extremely electable Republican candidate. ‘Puter also believes that Gov. Christie meets the conservative litmus test he details above.  Gov. Christie is pro-life, fiscally responsible and a defender of our rights.  Sure, most of us wouldn’t choose the programs or paths to get to these ends Gov. Christie has, but lockstep adherence to conservative dogma of the day isn’t on ‘Puter’s checklist.

 

CPAC and many conservatives today would do well to remember Ronald Reagan’s wise words – “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” – and comport themselves accordingly.

Rove v Tea Party: Who's Right?

Only four months after the election, and the suggestions to the GOP on how to regroup and reorganize have recently gotten very good. And consistent: we talked about them here already, but the same ideas keep popping up again and again. To their credit, Republicans seem to be listening; time will tell on that, of course.

So what of Karl Rove? The big inside-baseball fight right now appears to be between Karl Rove’s recent party activities and the Tea Party. Not everyone has heard about this, so the Czar will summarize.

Karl Rove has issued a memo to the biggest Republican campaign donors that there needs to be some moderation of party donations: specifically, we need to stop backing all these whackjob Tea Party folks who are hurting the chances of real Republican candidates.

The Tea Party responded in an unusually disagreeable manner, depicting Rove in a Photoshopped Nazi uniform and referring to him basically as a jackass holepuncher, but with two fewer words. The Tea Party’s more serious retort is that the Tea Party represents the growing trend in Republican politics, and that he needs to get on the bandwagon, here.

As a result, both sides (“Extremists!” “Establishment!”) are feuding right now; fortunately, the media has largely ignored this. And it is hardly a bloodbath.

In some respects, though, both sides are right. Yes, Tea Party—there is no question that Republicans like Ryan, Rubio, Jindal, Cruz, and Paul are striking fear and terror into liberals’ hearts while doing superlative work at the same time. And yes, it is true that these are guys Rove probably would not have recommended as initial candidates.

But the Tea Party needs to pay attention to itself. Anyone remember Scott Ashijian? He was a Democrat who claimed to be a Tea Party candidate, and successfully siphoned key votes away from the more establishment Sharron Angle—who might have deposed Harry Reid in the Senate.

Remember Sarah Steelman and John Brunner? Of course not. These were two more established conservative candidates running against the low-polling Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). But they were defeated when the Democrats funded $2 million worth of ads supporting a goof named Todd Akin as the Tea Party candidate. And Akin not only lost the Senate for himself, but very likely turned voters off other strengthening candidates in other states (Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Indiana).

It does not always work: Paul Ryan, for example, defeated primary candidates backed as “even more conservative” Tea Party candidates; but unquestionably votes were siphoned off. Some suggest this is who Mitt Romney was: the weaker candidate, but presented by Democrats as stronger by dint of conservative beliefs.

The problem here, as Rove had difficulty communicating with his foot in his pompous mouth, is that the Tea Party supporters are way too quick to jump on the bandwagon for any candidate claiming to be one of them. And the facts often do not check out. We already see this in Kentucky: the head of the Louisville Tea Party was approached by Democrats offering vast sums of donation money to a candidate that could defeat Mitch McConnell in 2014.

Karl Rove, who is tiresome and debunked as a pundit, should never have gone public with his idea. Rather, he should have talked to the biggest donors privately (which would have been easy to do); now he has enjoyed further humiliation.

But Tea Party veterans need to research and expose so-called Tea Party candidates and reveal whether or not they are legitimate. Because the Democrats have caught on to this, and they they will keep winning with it until it is stopped.

American Voters: Shut Up and Vote Next Time

What a clown act the President has become; he isn’t seriously fooling his most loyal followers with his political stunts, and by God even the left-most media is calling him a nutjob.

In unrelated—seemingly—news, one of the most historically corrupt towns in the US had a mayoral election. Cicero, Illinois, re-elected Larry Dominick (D) for a third term. Mr. Dominick is unique among Cicero mayors in serving a third term without having been arrested for corruption six hundred times.

This does not of course mean that Mr. Dominick is without controversy. He won 60% of the vote despite claims of intimidation, vote fraud, and mishandled ballots. So this isn’t exactly news.

What makes the story interesting is that Mr. Dominick was going to win anyway, since he has figured something out that Democrats are figuring out across the country.

Forget by how much he won. He received (unofficially) 5,548 votes. His opponents received 2,870 and a mere 873. If you add those up, you get 9,291. Under 10,000 votes.

Admittedly, weather was bad through most of the election day in Cicero. But Cicero has 83,979 residents, of whom about 52,000 are old enough to vote. Meaning that voter turnout was about one-twentieth. Pathetic.

Dominick spent his last two terms expanding free services for seniors: free transportation most notably. Guess who largely showed up at election day? Seniors. Dominick figured it out: Americans have stopped caring about politics except for a few reliable groups. Pander to those groups, you get elected. This has been the Democratic play since the 1960s, but it has never been easier.

Now back to the Presidency. 53% of Americans want Barack Obama to screw everything up with his incompetence!

Do they? Voter turnout nationally was only 57.5%.

This means that 53% of 57.5% voted for Barack Obama. In other words:

• 30.5% of Americans voted for Barack Obama
• 27% of Americans voted for Mitt Romney
• 42% of Americans don’t give a crap either way what happens to them

If you agree with the Czar’s logic, let us take it to the next step. Look at recent poll numbers:

• 47% of Americans disapprove of Barack Obama as President. Too bad: only 27% of us voted against him.
• 83% of Americans think government spending is out of control and the orgy needs to end. Too bad: only 27% voted against that idea when it mattered.
• 53% of Americans say that they feel their rights are personally threatened by the federal government. Too bad: only 27% of you tried to do something about it.
• 36% of Americans think Obama is personally hostile to small business. Too bad: only 27% of us voted against him.
• 90% of Americans think Obama’s proposed gun legislation goes too far. Yet only 27% of us did anything about it.
• 48% of Americans think Obamacare will hurt the economy more than spending cuts. Too bad: only 27% of us voted against its chief proponent.

Twitter mad genius @fwoodbridge asked us the other day about this bizarre disconnect. If so many people are against Obama and his policies, why did he win? Fred’s right—if you put these numbers together, the President is out and a much stronger president (probably not Mitt Romney, if we had this spinal column back for the primaries) is in.

The answer simply appears to be that people would rather complain to a telephone pollster than cast a vote. But when it came right down to it, 42% of Americans would rather shrug.

And as the Czar explained previously, clearly a majority of Americans who did vote for Obama had no freaking clue what they were doing. The Czar met one last month who voted for Obama because he doesn’t really follow politics, and wanted to go along with what his wife suggested. Seriously. You wanna bet he’s in the disapprove column in all those polls? Reap what you sow, pal. 42% of Americans are learning dearly the cost of their own apathy.

The moment that we Americans associate “I hate these politicians” with “I can vote them out,” the Democrats’s corrupt reign is over, and the weak Republicans get their asses kicked. All in one shot.

But the numbers are all there: Americans would rather complain loudly than do anything about it. And it would have been so easy, too, to do it. All they had to do was show up and cast their vote for either party. That’s it.

eMailbag

GorT has a few emails that he received over the last week or so that merit replies (the rest were about 'Puter and Czar's latest adventures at the Leaping Peacock, Mandy's satellites interfering with The Hopper on DirectTV, Volgi's latest issues with a Chocosnow brand Yeti food recall and Dr. J's latest brony posts).  So here it goes (in chronological order by height).  I'll apologize for the length of this post but hey, it's oour blog so deal with it.

Operative RA writes in from the HQ of the so-called America's Team in the NFL:

On your "two thoughts" post, you wonder "why do these liberals care" about whether the Church changes its belief, and suggest that it is the usual liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth.
It is certainly that. But I wonder whether it might not also be more than that. As I read somewhere else some time ago (don't remember where -- wish I did), nobody cares what unicorn worshipers believe because there is no truth in it. So maybe liberals care about what the Church believes because deep-down they acknowledge and accept that it is a reflection of Objective Truth. Of course, they wouldn't directly admit as much, and may not even consciously realize it. The problem, of course, is that they see that Objective Truth doesn't square with their personal wishes, so they want Objective Truth to "become more open to some of the secular changes around us", i.e., to change so as to conform with the liberals' wish list.
But once they see that the Church isn't going to play along, then the liberals must try to destroy it, or at least its influence. It's no fun to be forced to acknowledge that Truth exists but is different from what we want it to be.

Good point.  Liberals do have an issue when faced with truths.

The ever faithful (you'll get the pun in a minute) MBernadetteE writes in with the following:

Excellent post. Timely, what with it being Lent and some coming back to the Church n'at. (Yay! Stick around for a while, won'tcha, folks?)

First comment: I don't know what generation I am. But I'm a 20-something, so I'm in whatever generation that is. A few trends I've noticed, of late, among my own Catholic peers. (N.B.: "Catholic peers" here should be read as "Mass-going, faithful, Catholics who may have issues of some sort with the Church but press on in faith.")
We want Truth and authenticity. The number of youngish people I know who will switch parishes if they notice liturgical abuses (protip: no ad-libbing the Eucharistic prayer, kthx) or have otherwise less-than-optimal experiences (see also: priests/religious/lay people who make comments that directly contradict Church teaching) is quite large. We're not gonna stick around if it's anything less than the best. Perhaps the parishes in which less young people are spotted are those not known for their orthodoxy? Just a theory.

Example. You touched on this. But children who grow up in a house where it's optional to go to Mass on Sunday, or where it's one of those things you can just skip if you need to, most likely don't see the point in going once they're out of the house. I didn't have this experience. We were those people who went to a random Catholic church in a random town while traveling, because you don't skip. Nonetheless, the point stands. Along with this? A lack of understanding of obligation. I don't even want to know what the results of a poll would be if the question was, "Is intentionally not going to Mass on a given Sunday a sin?". On a personal note, I wouldn't dare go "meh, Sunday, I'll just skip this weekend" knowing full well that I'd then have to get my ass to confession before getting it to Mass just so I could receive the Eucharist.

I can't speak personally to this one... but I think a number of youngish people, who might go to Mass regularly as single folk or as married folk, fall off the train when kids come into the picture. Yes, it becomes difficult, I would imagine. No condemnation from childless me, but as you pointed out, there are ways to work around this. It requires making it a priority in life. See also: point two, obligation.

This one's possibly off the rails, but... a lack of support. I can say that it's sometimes tough being a young, single person going to Mass each Sunday, alone, in a church full of mostly older people and/or families. (Thought bubble: does anyone care if I'm here?) That said, I do it anyway. (see also: obligation; priorities). But for others, who don't have the personal push saying Get Yo Ass to Mass [GorT would insert a "Get Your Ass to Mars joke here, but you've already read that last part with an Arnold voice so we'll move past it], or don't have family members saying "hey! how was Mass this week?" or have anyone holding them accountable, it could be tough. Maybe.

A final comment: there's a maturity thing that happens at some point where it goes from being "going to Mass is about me" to "I go to Mass because God expects me to be there, and it's good for me, but it's good for others as well, because the Church is the body of Christ and we work together". Until that realization happens, I think a number of people seek out other opportunities that they can "get more out of". That might be non-denom type services, that might be staying at home and not needing Church to be a good person, etc. That's officially just a theory, but.... isn't it all theory?

I'm glad that she weighed in - I know that she's busy with her next instructional video - but content like this is why you tune into our site.

And finally, Lieutant Dan (actually, LTC Dan) fired off the following before continuing to defend this great nation:

Sir (Sire),

I am a gov't contractor. My DA civilian counterparts will try to do 5 days' work in 4 days, if furloughs happen.

Many gov't civilians work check to check. A couple things that are not obvious: 10 days not working (and not paying insurance premiums), and the insurance company will take via deduction the arrears as soon as furloughs end. So, 20% pay cut, then big chunk out.
Suppose a GS-7 misses a bill, then one or two more... Then it's time to be reinvestigated for a clearance. I have seen many more folks lose a clearance for credit trouble than anything else. Poof! Job lost.

Will the O make it as painful as possible?

Yours,
LTC Dan

Well, "sir" or "sire" isn't required but thanks for the salutation nonetheless.  This is exactly my point.  The issue is NOT whether or not sequestration takes place it is how this will get implemented.  The government (at the working level, if you'll allow me that gross description) cannot make surgical cuts to what many (including LTC Dan (I believe) and myself would agree is waste or fraud and should be cut.  Instead, we get odd proouncements that entire departments are to implement plans such as our esteemed minion highlights.   Sigh.  Thanks to all writing in - keep it coming!!

'Puter is Sequestering Something

GorT read 'Puter's post earlier today regarding sequestration.  Let me first state that I'm in agreement with his conclusion: 

To win this debate once and for all, Republicans have to call the Democrats out and expose them for what they are: con men engaged in an inter-generational Ponzi scheme, stealing from Americans not yet born to give to greedy Americans today.

However, I'd like to comment on a statement my fellow Gormogon  made:

"Here's what the sequester means in reality.  Some government workers (and contract workers) in Washington, D.C. and across the country will work less for less pay. Traffic will lessen inside the Beltway (an environmental boon for the hippies!)."

Maybe not.  GorT has already heard of concrete plans within the DC Metro area to ask military and civilian employees of the Federal Government to work 4 out of the 5 days of work week for reduced pay BUT accomplish the same level of productivity that existed in the 5 days.  While this has numerous issues some of which were directly challenged in staff meetings. 

It is also quite possible that little to nothing will change.  We have been operating under Continuing Resolutions for years now so it has been difficult at best and impossible under usual government operations to forecast and plan for future efforts.  With a reduction in spending, it could be that government growth will be slowed - largely hurting the young workers who could backfill retiring workers and bring new thoughts, technology, and enthusiasm to the government - instead the retirees will be seen as a cost savings.

And if 'Puter thinks that anything of this magnitude will less the traffic around the DC Metropolitan area, then I have a bridge over a castle moat to sell to him.  Cheap.  Really.

Not your mother's glockenspiel...

Merlin, the court wizard spake:

...

Ok, Merlin the court wizard tweeted:

@gormogons I present this resume and application for Castle RSO - bit.ly/13F9kbq
— Matt (@NKYAggie) February 24, 2013

Normally, all things firearm are delegated to The Czar, Mandy and 'Puter. Dr. J. is the least sophisticated with regard to firearms and firearm safety. He is the most sophisticated with regard to gunshot wound management, however.

Nevertheless, the Czar deferred to him tweeting:

CZ @nkyaggie You're right of course, but I defer all MLP items to Dr J going forward. Still, you all drink for free at our bar tonight.
— The Gormogons (@Gormogons) February 25, 2013

Our readers know that the Lil Resident considers My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic appointment television, and as a consequence we've all been sucked into the various and sundry perils faced by America's favorite anthropromorphic equine, and have even dared use it as a metaphor for what constitutes good and bad doctoring...

Consequently, Dr. J. has taken great amusement with this gun safety article posted at Lurking Rhythmically in which three little ponies find a hand cannon sitting in the forest. Rather than be the anti-gun screed one would expect, it was a thoughtful gun safety piece. In order to exorcise the harridans and trolls, the author, a gun owner added a disclaimer in her comments:

Before anyone gets bent out of shape over this and think I have ponies advocating the use of firearms, please note that Twilight Sparkle never allowed anypony to cross in front of the barrel, and that the actions described here -- Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the Area, Tell An Adult -- are proper gun safety lessons for children.

Back to your regularly scheduled shooting...

By Corruptionsolid

The Proper Republican Response to Sequestration

The proper response to Democrats' profligate spending is to call
them out, make them pay for their beloved programs without
borrowing. Pictured, House Republicans after passing a balanced
budget bill, taunting the Democrat led Senate as "cabrons."

'Puter is sick and gosh-darned tired of listening to the media drone on and on and on and on and on about how Friday's looming minuscule cuts to the rate of spending increase (not an actual cut, mind you) will result airport Armageddon or a completely enfeebled and defenseless nation or dumb(er) children.

Here's what the sequester means in reality.  Some government workers (and contract workers) in Washington, D.C. and across the country will work less for less pay. Traffic will lessen inside the Beltway (an environmental boon for the hippies!). And life in America will go on as before.

Think about it. We all managed to do quite nicely before the Transportation Security Administration was created. The defense industry is not going to implode because it loses a couple of pet programs, or even (Heaven forfend!) a few hundred do-nothing generals working sinecures as they bide their time until retirement. Goodness gracious, 'Puter's old enough to remember a time before the Carter Administration's Department of Education stole what is correctly the states' responsibility for education with their borders.  And don't even get 'Puter started on dumping billion after billion down the failed Head Start program as an ongoing sop to teachers' unions.

All that said, President Obama's round-heeled media fluffers are Hell bent on blaming the Republicans for everything from killing grannies to defenestrating the pope.  Republicans need to respond to blunt the media's unfair criticism, but current spineless Republican leadership is too emasculated by zealot ideologues on its right to do so.

Allow 'Puter to step in. Here's how current moderate/chickenshit/realist/fascist Republican leadership -- pick the adjective that most fits your view of Speaker Boehner et al. -- can turn this apparent public relations calamity to its advantage and at the same time shore up its right flank.

Let the Democrats spend whatever the heck they want, so long as they agree to pay for every penny spent in the year the funds are spent.  That's right.  Put the Balanced Budget Amendment or a similar piece of stopgap legislation back on the table. All current fiscal year expenditures must be matched by current fiscal year revenue, with no exceptions.

A balanced budget requirement puts the lie to Democrat claims that anything is possible if we just believe hard enough in the awesomey goodness of governmentally imposed social justice (and secretly borrow tons of money they have no intention to pay back)! Requiring balanced revenues and expenditures would force all Americans earning any income to pay taxes, regardless of how little earned, spreading the pain across the entire spectrum of Americans.  There's not enough money among current taxpayers to fund the government's expenditures, even if you took every penny.  Those who currently pay no taxes would have to pony up for their pet programs just like everyone else.

And there's the Democrats Achilles' heel.  Most Americans would refuse to pay the tax rates and amounts required to pay for our government's annual expenditures, and rightly so. Rather, Americans would insist government get rid of unnecessary programs, agencies and departments in favor of preserving the programs that are important.

If Democrats think that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education spending and all other social welfare programs are sacrosanct, fine. Let's pay for them. Right here, right now. Let Democrats propose the confiscatory and broad-based tax increases necessary to stabilize these sacred cow programs and see how quickly Democrats become the permanent rump party they'd hoped Republicans would be.

Once Democrats realize that in order to fund their Utopian wealth redistribution schemes, they'll have to not only tax everyone making any income whatsoever, but do so at such high rates as to destabilize societal cohesion, they'll realize their con game is over.

To win this debate once and for all, Republicans have to call the Democrats out and expose them for what they are: con men engaged in an inter-generational Ponzi scheme, stealing from Americans not yet born to give to greedy Americans today.

And the way to do that is to make Democrats pay for their promises. Today.

An Open Letter to Scientific American @sciam

The Czar has read and consumed your publication since the April 1979 issue. He has subscribed without fail since 2000, but is compelled to conclude he will not be renewing his subscription.

In that time, he has seen the publication descend from a half-inch-thick journal of research and discovery into an eighth-inch thick slick publication filled with infographics and summaries of other research. Advertisers have gone from Lockheed and Monsanto to cell phone alternatives and foreign government investments. But these are understandable and even necessary changes with a less focused world.

No, the Czar is about done with your editorial policies. Sure, the main articles are still rather good—you focus a lot on space and physics and are increasingly including neuroscience and technology engineering.

But your editorial board is spending too much time with liberal bromides—sustainability! Climate change! Alternative energy!—to the point that you probably don’t even recognize it. And publication of the occasional complaint letter hardly balances this out. You don’t even see the echo chamber you have become.

If you were really committed to the values of science for the betterment of America, you would have more pieces explaining nuclear energy—the biggest alternative energy embarrassment there is to liberal causes. Yeah, it works and is safe and (at least for us) very low cost. But liberals spent decades demonizing it and still cannot manage to admit they were wrong on that one. And that, of course, is because conservatives have backed nuclear energy as sensible and solution-worthy. And for that reason alone you hate it.

How about pieces on whether government spending is sustainable? You talk and talk and talk in your editorial pieces about every other piece of sustainability—how about economic sustainability? You don’t because you know where the math winds up—with your ideas at the bottom. America is rapidly going broke, and all your whining and cringing about Republicans cutting your funding will wind up another point of perpetual embarrassment for you.

But the final straw for the Czar, and really do pack your things, is your current issue. On page 10 of your March 2013 issue, you take the NRA to task for blocking research into gun safety. Guns are about the safest consumer devices they are—which you know—and your analogies to car safety are completely fallacious. Which you also know. For you to reprint such long-disproved arguments with the authority of someone simply yelling Science! goes beyond reasonable and skeptical exploration and descends into blatant partisan positioning. Now, liberal cut-and-pasters will be quick to use this as a source that this already debunked position has gravitas. This is the problem with citology—you yourselves can no longer bother to research your opinions, but have instead factualized them into a source in some reverse argumentum ad verecundiam.

The reality is that you have not presented the argument fairly, nor have you provided clear investigation. You want something to be so, and thereby declare it such. This is precisely the classic counter-proof that liberals have little actual grasp of science, but imagine themselves the sole masters of it.

No, this is not about firearms. This is about presenting facts clearly and objectively; instead of thinking like scientists (and it has been a long time since April 1979, has it not?) you are behaving exactly as J-school graduates. And yes, you will post one or two complaint letters next month about it and do precisely nothing about. Cherry picking facts, failing to check sources, and glossing over counterarguments is something best left to the MSM; when you do it, you become just another liberal echo chamber.

So in a couple of months, you will notice your subscription notices will go unanswered. You will of course be able to reference this open letter as to why. The Czar will continue to look through the back issues, when Scientific American was a science publication, and not the print version of CNN.

Liberal Science

This was posted on the 'Being Liberal' page on Facebook today:

Ironically, gay marriage is closer than high pressure to being a cause. Think of the butterfly effect. The Spanish word for butterfly is mariposa, which is also a gay slur in Spain. Coincidence, I think not!

And these are the guys that are telling you that life begins at 40 rather than conception, evolution is fact rather than (the best and evolving) theory (we have), restrictive gun laws curb crime, we can tax and spend our way to economic growth, and that global warming is your pick-up truck's fault.

The scientific acumen of the typical liberal is clearly piss poor, and the stinky-after-eating-asparagus-piss at that!

It's the end of the world as we know it...

The Last Judgement by Gislebertus. Note, no sequestration anywhere on the tympanum...

...and  I feel fine.

Dr. J. was reflecting on the sequester this morning.

The sequester does not even result in real spending cuts, but like everything called a cut in Washington, it is merely slowing in the rate of growth.

Indeed this Mercatus Center chart put together by Dr. J.'s econo-crush Veronique de Rugy paints the picture far better than Dr. J. ever could:

While you let that sink in, note that President Obama is caterwauling like a mewling quim about a bigger (borrowed) budget. He wants to spend more even as America spends $1.89 for every $1 the United States Treasury takes in. If the President doesn't get his way, he is willing to abuse the latituded given to him in the sequester deal to make the smaller budget increase as painful for John Q. Public as possible in order to bully America into siding with him.

Furthermore, our House Republican friends have let the Senate swallow up their solutions without a public hearing and let Obama control the debate.

Let it further sink in that you don't get an automatic increase in your home budget every year, nor can you perpetually borrow 46¢ of every $1 in your budget. Indeed, like Dr. J. given the increasing energy costs and increased taxes (the end of the payroll tax holiday, and an increase in property taxes in his case), he has had to adjust his family budget accordingly.

Given the ridiculousness of the debate Americans of all stripes should be on the horn to Washington to tell them to get real.

This sequester, as you can see, is a drop in the bucket, but a full bucket begins with a single drop.

Catholicism in the Current Era

At least we don't have the liberal, hippie religion of being Herbert.  "I am not One!"

GorT has been contemplating Catholicism in the modern world due to a few things: (1) a recent conversation with his parents regarding a pretty basic question (see next paragraph) and (2) a push in his parish either by the Archdiocese or by his pastor to focus on the Church's mission facing the rise of Secularism (which I'll address further below).

My parents recently posed the following question: Why are people, in general, in my generation ("Generation X") and below not attending Mass regularly?  That is their perception and the perception of their peers.  Truth be told, GorT doesn't see this on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis as he lives in a community full of Catholics that largely send their kids to a Catholic school (either parochial or private) or attend CCD, that attend Mass weekly (to the point that everyone has "assigned seats", meaning that we all know which Mass each family attends and where they sit in church - to the point that one of our priests made the comment to GorT on the way out of Saturday evening Mass that we weren't sitting in our usual seats to which GorT explained, "Well, those are our 9:30am Mass seats, for 5:30 Mass we generally sit where we did tonight).  Each Mass at GorT's parish is well attended, even during the Ordinary Season of the Catholic calendar.  So having said all of the above, GorT is aware that some of his peers and those younger than him don't attend Mass regularly (if at all).  And the question posed is interesting: why do I think that has happened?

In the end, I think it is due to a few factors:
1.  Cultural - the secular thinking of liberals, largely experienced by those in college when one's parents aren't around to help provide guidance, has portrayed the Church as "not cool" for one reason or the other.  They will cite not having married priests, women priests, the children abuse scandal, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. as reasons why the Church is an institution not to be trusted, believed, or followed.

2.  Laziness - or one could term this as priorities.  With the explosion of activities available for kids - largely sports - that create scheduling conflicts with Mass it is easy for parents these days to say that they are too busy to make Mass.  Pffftt.  GorT's church holds four Masses per weekend and there are three or four other Catholic churches within a 15 minute drive that likely triples the number of distinct Mass times - ranging from 5pm Saturday evening through 5pm Sunday evening.  Even those in areas with fewer Catholic churches have at least some options...and yes, it might mean that Dad and one child goes to one Mass and Mom and the other kids go to another.  That's ok.  While we enjoy going to Mass as a family, during our busy sports seasons, we do split up to make it work.  Because it is important.  Which leads to...

3.  Parental Responsibility - one of the aspects of getting married in the Catholic Church is agreeing to receiving children from God and raising them in the faith.  All too often these days, parents are allowing children to dictate rules within the household: what they want to do (stay out late, play inappropriate games or movies, go to situations that are likely not appropriate for their age, etc.), what they want to own (Susie has a new iPhone, I want a new iPhone, I don't like my iPhone that is a year old), etc.  So, GorT envisions that there are families where a child complains Sunday morning, "Mom, I don't want to go to Church.  Do we have to?" and proceeds to be difficult and unruly.  Instead of using it as a teachable moment, the parent caves and says fine...and turns back to reading their copy of the New York Times and sipping their double caramel, half-caf, macchiato.

In the end, I think a liberal, secular culture has brought about this situation.  And that is why the timing of GorT's parish's Lenten focus on the Church facing the secular world so interesting.  His pastor has invited a guest speaker (a brother of the Order of the Holy Cross) to give a series of talks over the next few evenings on this subject.  GorT plans on attending and will report back and share with our readers some thoughts.  In the meantime, if you have other insights on this phenomena - both causes, effects, or why GorT missed some aspect of it, please drop me an email.

Oscar Predictions - Math Style

May the odds be ever in your favor!

Dr. J. stumbled upon Nate Silver's (yes that Nate Silver) Oscar predictions for this year. He worked his fancy math on the Oscars just like he did to predict the 2012 election more precisely than the rest of us did. His blog article is worth the read:

So our method will now look solely at the other awards that were given out in the run-up to the Oscars: the closest equivalent to pre-election polls. These have always been the best predictors of Oscar success. In fact, I have grown wary that methods that seek to account for a more complex array of factors are picking up on a lot of spurious correlations and identifying more noise than signal. If a film is the cinematic equivalent of Tim Pawlenty — something that looks like a contender in the abstract, but which isn’t picking up much support from actual voters — we should be skeptical that it would suddenly turn things around. 

Just as our election forecasts assign more weight to certain polls, we do not treat all awards equally. Instead, some awards have a strong track record of picking the Oscar winners in their categories, whereas others almost never get the answer right (here’s looking at you, Los Angeles Film Critics Association). 

These patterns aren’t random: instead, the main reason that some awards perform better is because some of them are voted on by people who will also vote for the Oscars. For instance, many members of the Screen Actors Guild will vote both for the SAG Awards and for the Oscars. In contrast to these “insider” awards are those like the Golden Globes, which are voted upon by “outsiders” like journalists or critics; these tend to be less reliable.

As a consequence, his predictions are:

• Best Picture - Argo
• Best Director - Spielberg
• Best Actor - Day-Lewis
• Best Actress - Jennifer Lawrence
• Best Supporting Actor - Tommy Lee Jones
• Best Supporting Actress - Anne Hathaway

Compare these to Dr. J.'s:

• Best Picture - Lincoln
• Best Director - Spielberg
• Best Actor - Jackman
• Best Actress -Jessica Chastian
• Best Supporting Actor - Tommy Lee Jones
• Best Supporting Actress - Anne Hathaway
• Best Animated Feature - Wreck It Ralph
• Best Animated Short - Paperman

May the best man win, though be forewarned Nate's election prediction was closer than any of your Gormogons...

Scientists As Media Priests

The mighty Borepatch pulled a chair up by the lobby bar, took a sip of his freshly made Yoo Hoo mojito, and told the Czar:

About your latest missive, I couldn't help but think that while large parts of the world sees their miracles in the form of Our Lady, the Media sees them in wearing a white lab coat.

The white lab coat is a stereotype. And it has become a stereotype because it is a parody of an outmoded belief. But many liberals do indeed rely on outmoded archetypes: rich people look like the monopoly guy, Republicans support the military industrial complex, bankers are robber barons, the savage is noble, and the scientist wears a white lab coat.

Odd how the media is absolutely convinced that this makes them more sophisticated.

This is an area of interest on which Confucius and the Czar overlap. Indeed, the Volgi has often commented that modern Liberalism is very much a religious belief. Not just the way they substitute government for God, but in the proselytizing manner with which they preach and deal with heretics.

The Czar of course agrees with His Effluence. And the high priests of liberalism are too often the scientists.

Ever seen a religious person misquote the Bible or bend an interpretation to suit their own ends? Like the guy who once pointed out his tatto that said “Leviticus 18:22” because he hates homosexuals so much, and how you chuckle and say “Leviticus 19:28” while poking his tat?

Most liberals do that with science all the time—they cherry-pick their social studies and findings to create a false but comforting aura that they are abiding by fact and reason. Jonah Goldberg does a superb job of shredding this in chapter 4 of The Tyranny of Clichés, but the Czar will readily go much further by repeating how badly liberals have done with science. So much so that even moderate liberals are finally calling it out, too. It’s undeniable.

Borepatch, of course, is one of the best-known even-handed analysts of global climate change claims, and you can see how many liberals will argue with his observations with the same weird panic and rueful laughing that Bible literalists deal with evolutionary science. Or try talking rationally to someone who believes in Bigfoot. Serious discussion lasts for about two minutes before the other side goes batshit crazy...because you are attacking a core matter of his faith.

Not that it should be a core matter of faith; really, belief in evolution does not undercut religious belief in any serious way: ask a Catholic. And does the Sasquatch guy really profit or lose if you disprove a seemingly invisible race of apes in British Columbia? Does it really matter to the liberal if oceans rise 3mm each year, in the event global warming is real and we do nothing?

Of course not: but the people who believe so passionately in these things are generally sitting on a belief system that’s a three-legged stool. You cannot kick out one leg of the stool without the whole thing falling down. This is because these passionate few are so shallow in their belief system that it would not take much to destroy it by, you know, forcing them to rethink all their positions.

And of course, as Borepatch suspects, it takes a person this shallow to conflate science with faith.

The media, who are as liberal as they come, fail to realize that science is committed to finding the truth—but it is never the truth itself. Science is a process, not a solution. It is a test—not an embodiment of knowledge.

Heck, it’s even in the word itself. The sc- in science is common in all Latin words that invoke change or transformation: cognoscere (to recognize), scintillare (to twinkle), discere (to learn over time), miscēre, (to mix together), and thousands of other examples. Science is a process of change or transformation.

To believe you have the final answer, even though the process continues, is a matter of faith.

*For those who came in late, Confucius is the Gormogons’ Œcumenical Volgi.

ZOMG! Zombie Cells!

Long-time reader BG let us know via Twitter that HuffPo is reporting “Scientists Create Zombies in Lab,” and adds that this should be like shooting fish in a barrel for us.

This story is not at all limited to HuffPo, of course, which is why BG wants us to do a takedown on this bad science reporting.

Okay, but this gets interesting only in that the Czar might indeed take an unexpected position.

Scientists have experimented with organic cells by coating them with silicic acid, which basically turns them into a silicate fossil. Interestingly, the cells can continue to perform some basic functions—just like capillary action happens even with dead capillaries.

For example, capillary action allows you to use a paper towel to pull water up out of a glass, even though you aren’t using any real capillaries. A silica-based cell fossil can do some limited functions even though it is not, technically, a cell.

So what? So the purpose was to create nanomachines: synthetic cells that can be used inside larger machines to recreate the function of valves, flow meters, and other useful devices on a usefully microscopic scale.

Yes, the stories typically follow the usual template of bad science reporting: an eye-grabbing headline, a reference to Hollywood, a promise that this could become reality, a too-short summary of the actual test that creates confusion and doubt as to what was being tested, a comment from someone not affiliated with the test about how important this could be, and an over-eager promise of miracle inventions that will surely follow from this.

But to be perfectly fair, it’s the scientists who started calling these fossilized cells “zombie cells.” And they consistently referred to them as such, even though the term is woefully incorrect in its application. So as far as the word zombie goes, the MSM gets a pass on that one.

Mailbag - Shot in the Dark Side Edition

With Eliquis you don't need to give up green tea with your blood thinners.

Vaccines, alongside guns, appears to be a topic our readers like to write in regarding.

Operative BG writes:

Did you ever see this video of Penn and Teller totally destroying the anti-vaccination argument? The complete, unrebuttable argument in a minute and a half. -- BG

Dear BG,

Dr. J.'s always had a soft spot in his heart for Penn and Teller. They're hilarious but fair minded. They nail it with this must watch video. The only thing that they don't show effecively is that vaccines aren't perfect, just far better than if we didn't have them.

The Royal Exchequer also writes in:

While I applaud your support for vaccinations, the difficulty you and others face is that, as Stalin observed, large numbers of deaths are just statistics. We are bombarded with statistics every day. Stalin also observed that a single death is a tragedy. 

So, in your support, I want to present the family of just one man, George Goodrich, in north central Utah in 1885. 

In four months he lost five of his children: 

Eliza Goodrich - died 5 June, age 12, diphtheria. 

Esther Goodrich - died 18 July, age 10, diphtheria. 

Fanny Goodrich - died 22 August, age 20, diphtheria. 

Julia Goodrich - died 6 September, age 13, diphtheria. 

Hyram Goodrich - died 6 September, age 10, diphtheria. 

Spend a bit of time researching your genealogy and the cost of no vaccinations becomes very, very real. 

- SW, Royal Exchequer

SW, your point is very well taken. I was discussing this issue while lecturing to folks regarding the new oral anticoagulants Pradaxa (dabigatran), Xarelto (rivaroxaban), and Eliquis (apixiban). In the treatment of atrial fibrillation Effient has a 2%/year bleeding rate compared to 3%/year in the clinical trial. That being said, time and supportive measures (holding pressure, transfusions, surgical hemostasis) are the only treatment for bleeding because it inhibits clotting factors. There is theoretical benefit of giving concentrated clotting factor (4 factor PCC or FEIBA). With warfarin, the drug causes the clotting factors to made incorrectly. Giving plasma is the (temporary) antidote if you need to take a patient to surgery while waiting for the patient's liver to start making the correct clotting factors.

Nevertheless these new drugs after being dreamed about for so long because you don't need to titrate the drug, there are no dietary or medication interactions, weekly/monthly blood draws, etc, now folks are scared to use them because they don't have an antidote similar to warfarin, even though the bleeding risk is clearly less for Eliquis, and probably less for Pradaxa. You never see the stroke you've prevented, but you see the bleed your treatment causes, and many doctors will then ask, what if...if the bleed happens on the new drug versus the older one even though the numbers say they're in the right.

Indeed, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Chairman of Pharmacology at the University of Pennsylvania said it best in an NYT article soundbite discussing the approval of Eliquis:

“What matters to a patient is the individual effect in them.”

And unfortunately we don't always have a measuring stick or a crystal ball to help us, which is why medicine is an art and a science.

Best,
Dr. J.

'Puter's Travelogue: America's Great Lakes

'Puter and Czar attended Lake Suuperior's Walleye
Festival last February. The young woman pictures
was the deckhand assigned to our boat.  Czar insists
he has never seen a woman more at ease handling
24" of aquatic fury impaled at the sharp end
of a six foot gaff.

As followers of our Twitter feed know, 'Puter has traveled extensively throughout the Great Lakes Region. By "traveled extensively," 'Puter means he has stumbled from the Castle's portcullis to the Leaping Peacock's adamantine-topped bar and back countless times. Since many of you will never have the opportunity to visit the Great Lakes Region, 'Puter has decided to share his vast storehouse of knowledge with you, the unworthy reader.

For those of you not up to date on your geography, which judging by his Twitter feed, 'Puter assumes is most of America, there are these bodies of water that are really, really big and full of fish and stuff. The Great Lakes are bordered on the North by Tuktuyaaqtuuq (literally, "it looks like a caribou"), Inuvit Region, Northwest Territories, Canada and on the South by Perth, Western Australia, Australia. The Great Lakes Region's eastern border lies near Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, while its western border cuts directly through Greenwich, England. Ignorant people refer to this western border as the "Prime Meridian," but those in the know call it by its Great Lakes sobriquet "Brenda."

Before traveling to the Great Lakes , the savvy traveler learns the names, locations and some pertinent facts about each of the Great Lakes, so as to avoid offending the natives, or worse, embarrassing one's self. Here's a primer for the first-time visitor to the Great Lakes region.

There are about six Great Lakes, give or take: Gitche Gummee; America's Aquatic Wang (not to be confused with Florida, America's Terrestrial Wang); Two or Three Lakes Named After Indian Tribes GM Didn't Name Cars After; Emerson, Lake (and Palmer); Baikal; and Ricki.



The results of Czar's ill-advised kayaking
expedition on Gitche Gummee

·         Lake Gitche Gummee is the largest of the Great Lakes, and easily distinguished from the rest because Gitche Gummee is shaped like Abe Vigoda’s nose. The traveler can reach Gitche Gummee any of several means, but ‘Puter’s favorite is to hitch a ride on an iron ore freighter headed out of one of several Wisconsin ports. If you’re traveling by automobile keep a look out for the wigwam of Nokomis (it’s by the shining Big-Sea-Water Park), and hang a quick right.  Pass by Chalstrom’s Bait and Convenience Store, then roll up the windows and lock your doors until you get through Duluth,* which is a meth-fueled hotbed of larceny and bestiality.  For goodness’ sake, whatever you do, don’t stop for any reason. Duluth’s natives have been known to kill a man just to watch him die.  Soon enough, you’ll be enjoying yourself beside Gitche Gummee’s piranha infested waters!

Here's China's aquatic Wang, who,
judging by the looks of the festering
sores on her back, was recently
swimming in America's Aquatic Wang

·         America’s Aquatic Wang (“AAW,” for short) is the pride and joy of Poles and other Eastern European Slavs who got too big for their britches and were shown the door by their countrymen.**  All other right-thinking people consider it the crappiest of all Great Lakes, and not only because God shaped America’s Aquatic Wang like, well, an aquatic wang. AAW is most famous because the aforementioned Slavs decided that it’d be a great idea to dump all their sewage directly into the Chicago River, which emptied into AAW.***  Imagine the Slavs’ surprise when dysentery, yellow fever and hepatitis ran amok! Rather than stop dumping raw sewage in the Chicago River, the Slavs decided to reverse its flow, causing the Chicago River to flow eventually into the Mississippi, making Chicago’s prolific fecal output St. Louis’ problem. To this day, it is legal to shoot a Chicagoan on sight in the City of St. Louis.

Pictured: Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario,
the soulless and quasi-evil members of
the Great Lakes Family

·         Two or Three Lakes Named After Indian Tribes GM Didn’t Name Cars After are the red-headed stepchildren of the Great Lakes. Nobody in the family likes them, everyone suspects they’re the result of Mom’s drunken one night stand with an overweight Barry Manilow impersonator and, as we all know, ginger kids have no souls.  All that said, if you happen to be on the run from the law, or an anthropologist studying peoples too dumb to leave after all meaningful employment opportunities have died, the TTLNAITGMDNCA lake complex may be for you. The cities bordering the TTLNAITGMDNCA lake complex are a who’s who of failed industrial cities damned by a shift away from manufacturing and confiscatory Blue State tax policy: Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, and Oswego.  The list is long and distinguished. ‘Puter would avoid the TTLNAITGMDNCA lake complex altogether but for the fact that he actually lives there.****

Sometime, late at night, if the wind is
just right, you can almost make out the
sounds of a stoner jamming on a Moog
synthesizer rising from the depths of
Emerson, Lake (and Palmer).

·         Emerson, Lake (and Palmer) (“ELP” to its friends) is a recent addition to the Great Lakes family.  Not much is known about the origin of this lake and its inclusion in the Great Lakes’ hydrological structure. It is known that in the summer of 1970, the Great Lakes were ending their gap year European backpacking tour of Europe. It is also known that the Great Lakes didn’t get too much farther into Europe than Amsterdam, their port of entry, as they spend far too much time sampling the wares in Amsterdam’s coffeehouses. Geologists also know from the fossil record that on the Great Lakes’ return trip home, they had a two week layover in the Cammel Laird shipyards on the Mersey in Liverpool, as the steam boilers on their frigate were torn down and rebuilt.  That’s all anyone knows with certainty about that era in the Great Lakes’ formation. However, geologists hypothesize that during the Great Lakes’ Liverpool layover, left with nothing to do but make fun of the local football club’s ineptitude, the group wandered off to the Isle of Wight Festival and got totally baked listening to ELP perform Lucky Man. Geologists believe it likely that during a backstage shrooms ‘n’ acid fest with ELP, the Great Lakes convinced the band to immortalize themselves as one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. To ‘Puter, the geologists’ theorem fits, because as every schoolchild knows, sometime during the overnight between August 31 and September 1, 1970, ELP formed in its current location, shocking the region’s inhabitants, especially those unfortunate enough to be located at what became the bottom of the lake.*****

Vladimir Putin swims in a most manly
fashion in Lake Baikal, a Great Lake
solely because of Mr. Putin's unquestioned
williningness to slaughter innocent lakes
to get his way.

·         Lake Baikal is the farthest east (or west, depending on your viewpoint) of the Great Lakes, located in Russia’s Siberia, near the Mongolian border. In reality, Lake Baikal isn’t a Great Lake at all.  Lake Baikal is only called a Great Lake as a result of Russian Mafia intervention. Early in January, at a cocaine and vodka filled Christmas party in Moscow, capo di tutti capi and tiger-rasslin’ strongman Vladimir Putin drunkenly insisted Lake Baikal was not only a Great Lake, but in fact the Greatest of All Possible Lakes.  Kurdish regional crime syndicate boss Aslan Usoyan foolishly challenged Mr. Putin’s characterization of Lake Baikal, calling Mr. Putin an alcoholic ублюдок and an unreformed выродок.  The next day, Mr. Usan was shot and killed by a sniper as he left a local restaurant after a light lunch of vodka and vodka.****** Hearing the news, the Great Lakes immediately assembled in conclave to determine a course of action.  On unanimous vote, the Great Lakes resolved Mr. Putin was a crazy-assed bastard who would kill them in their sleep and mail their entrails to their mothers if he did not get his way. As such, on a 6-0 vote (with ELP abstaining as it was totally baked), the Great Lakes resolved to text Mr. Putin to state that in their opinion, Lake Baikal was most certainly a Great Lake. To this day, none of the Great Lakes have suffered any unfortunate lead poisoning incidents like the one that befell Mr. Usan, and Lake Baikal proudly wears the title of Great Lake. Because of its violent origins, remote location and frigid climate, Lake Baikal is the least visited of all the Great Lakes.

Ricki Lake's expanding and contracting
shoreline has been the butt of cruel jokes.
Thankfully, the Army Corps of Engineers
has put an end to our long national nightmare

·         Last but not least, adventurous travelers may wish to visit the rapidly shrinking Ricki Lake before the lake is stripped of Great Lakes status. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Ricki Lake was a popular vacation destination for Baltimore’s human flotsam and jetsam.  Ricki Lake was famed for its daily parade of horrors, in which white trash willingly traipsed along its banks for the entertainment of vacationing Baltimorons******* who thought themselves better than Ricki Lake’s parading grotesques.  During this time period, Ricki Lake’s shoreline underwent an uncontrolled expansion, as Ricki Lake eagerly gorged itself on everything River Utz and Hostess Creek, Ricki Lake’s primary tributaries, could offer it. After an all-night bender spent guzzling Shamrock Shakes and scarfing down Ding Dongs, Ricki Lake hit bottom. At this point the Army Corps of Engineers staged and intervention, convincing Ricki Lake it had to change or its uncontrolled expansion could rupture its restraining dam, destroying Ricki Lake forever. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers carefully controls the flow of River Utz and Hostess Creek into Ricki Lake. The Corps has also opened Ricki Lake’s dam’s floodgates, rapidly reducing the lake’s spread. However, as a result of Ricki Lake’s ever-shrinking shoreline, the other Great Lakes are considering revoking her Great Lakes status. So, visit Ricki Lake before it suffers Pluto’s fate, and bring a case of Natty Boh, Hon!

 When you’re planning your summer vacation, don’t overlook America’s Great Lakes region. Our Great Lakes have something to offer everyone, even Chicagoans and Baltimoreans, so book your jitney and make flophouse reservations today!

*’Puter’s Gitche Gummee Fun Fact: “Duluth” means “Godforsaken Frozen Walleye Asshole” in Chippewa.

**’Puter’s AAW Fun Fact #1: These cabbage-eating, sloped-foreheaded Neanderthals settled in Chicago, primarily because “Chicago” sounds like “tshchkagus” in their native tongue, meaning “free kielbasa for all.”

***’Puter’s AAW Fun Fact #2: Impress a Chicagoan with your knowledge of their bloody and crap-covered history! Nonchalantly drop into conversation at a Blackhawks game that the Blackhawks are named after a late 1880s Chicago slang term for giant, pierogie filled turds covering the Chicago River like a stinky logjam. When the drunken Slavs run at you, mow them down with your Capone era Thompson submachine gun. Thanks to Chicago’s ineffective gun ban, the wilding Slav Blackhawk fans (but then ‘Puter repeats himself) will most likely be unarmed.

****’Puter’s TTLNAITGMDNCA Fun Fact: Most denizens of this region are pasty skinned, short-tempered and bitter, as lake effect snow and clouds cause the region to receive approximately -4,782.63% of possible sunlight.  When exposed to direct sunlight, many go blind, spontaneously combust or both.  These are the cave fish of humanity.

*****’Puter’s ELP Fun Fact: ELP’s hydrology is composed entirely of recycled bong water.

******‘Puter’s Lake Baikal Fun Fact: Lake Baikal is home to the endangered Baikal sturgeon. Czar insists these sturgeons make the most delightful red vapor when used as skeet on his dacha’s trap course.

*******'Puter's Ricki Lake FunFact: Baltimorons use "vacationing" as a synonym for "chronically unemployed and/or receiving welfare checks." If confronted by an aggressive "vacationing" Baltimoron, offer him a job.  Jobs are kryptonite to Baltimorons. Just look at Nancy Pelosi, a native Baltimoron who's done nothing useful for years, sponging off the public's largesse.