Really, could he be any worse than McInsane or O'Bomber? How?
They both stand four-square for war, torture, domestic spying, and massive welfare for the rich. Or hadn't you noticed?
Anyway, click on the link to buy the swell shirt. I'm happy, at least, to be able to plug my pals Ray and Barb van Tilburg and their wonderful Offworld Designs. Ray's an excellent artist who does tee-shirt designs for a lot of Midwest cons, including Archon. Plus they have tons of non-con specific designs, such as the above, which are nifty and wicked clever.
Even if they're distressed by my usage of their design, if, like most people, they cherish the belief there's an actual difference between the sock puppet on Leviathan's left claw, and the one on His right.
But relax. It's nothing to the pain that your guy will cause if elected. No matter which he is.
(And then again ... not even a Great Old One can prevent the implosion of the Unitedstatesian Empire.)
As if it weren't annoying enough to have to deal with my sundry computers automatically changing to reflect the end of Daylight Savings Time - which doesn't happen this year until November 2 - my notebook keeps changing back to the wrong time, thanks to synchronizing automatically with time.nist.gov. Hey, thanks!
So here's another reason to question the judgement, if not the sanity, of those who - like all my liberal friends, Sarah Palin, and Stalin - believe whole-heartedly in the "power of government to do good." We need these people to manage every aspect of our lives when they can't, in its second year of operation, make the simple software fix to adjust to their own stupid law? What a great idea!
Even if there were some reason to believe government has, does, or ever will act with the primary motivation of making you or me safer, freer, healthier, or richer - and why should they? - this also reminds us to ask: what would make us believe they could if they wanted to?
For all those who like to believe that people today are dumber than they used to be, the above statement ought offer fairly compelling counter-evidence.
Once upon a time otherwise intelligent (and educated, which isn't the same thing) people apparently believed that statement, uttered decades ago by John Maynard Keynes, among others, in reference to the national debt.
But what does it even mean? On the face of it, isn't it transparent nonsense? Let's see you borrow $100 from yourself. Does that mean you suddenly have $200?
Ah, but let me explain how it really works.
I take from you $100. That shouldn't bother you, because "we" - necessarily including you and I - owe it to "ourselves." Yes?
Now, to pay back that debt, I take from you $100. Because you and I are still part of "we." And we owed that $100 to ourselves, yes?
Isn't that simple?
Not convinced? I give you the "bailout" - the largest single wealth transfer from the proletariat to the wealthy in known human history. In this case, the transaction above works out as $100 (plus a whole lot more) borrowed from you, and repaid to J.P. Morgan.
Which cosmic larceny, of course, is heartily supported by both presidential candidates.