Monthly Archives: October 2010

So I hear that in New York, the rent is too damn high

Apparently so much that there’s a party by that name. No, really. They even have a website, which apparently teleported in from 1993. Here’s their candidate, Jimmy McMillan:

What’s amazing is that some of his points actually make sense. For instance, he describes how “rent stabilization” boards and property taxes have the net effect of raising the rent for everyone. He describes how taxing businesses results in higher prices. He displays an understanding of how cutting taxes can increase government revenue. In fact, his grasp of economics seems better than that of 95% of other politicians. I don’t know if that’s horribly depressing or not.

Oh, and what a beard!


Ahh, the hopenchange is strong today

From the New York Times:

An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand a 1994 law requiring carriers to make sure their systems can be wiretapped.

But I thought Republicans were Big Brother fascists and Democrats loved peace and freedom!

BradyWatch: Low IQ patrol

Joan Peterson is at it again. This lady is amazing. There’s been some discussion as to just what her problem is. Is she a zealot? Does she have cognitive dissonance? Does she lack a process for determining truth from falsity? Is she a bigot?

Definitely she’s got a bunch of these, but I think she’s just plain not too bright. First, she doesn’t seem to get the internet. She deletes all the dumbest comments and then complains how intolerant and stupid we are, unaware that all she’s done is keep the cream of the crop, which compares quite unfavorably to her incoherence. Then there are whoppers like these:

As to your question, I don’t remember who, now, asked if I could show that legal assault weapons had been used in a gun crime. My question, as you very well know, is to find out what difference it makes whether or not someone is killed with a legal or illegally obtained assault rifle. One obtained illegally would be a stolen weapon, as in one of the stories to which I linked, or a street purchase by an prohibited purchaser. We all know it’s legal for felons and mentally ill people to purchase guns without background checks but they are prohibited from purchasing so it’s not right and should be illegal.

In addition to confusing similar terms and displaying a lot of general incoherence, I love how she claims in a single sentence that the purchase of firearms at gun shows by felons and crazies is both legal and prohibited. You can’t make this stuff up!