What are the odds?

Which is more likely?

----->We're being visited by ET's.

----->The reality of ghosts, the post-dead.

New vocabulary word

I'd say the health care debate has given us a new word for our daily vocabulary--"stupack."  It may be used in contexts such as

"I got stupacked--I was expecting scallops in white wine, but they served fish sticks."

"The crowd was angry with the show's producer who promised The Rolling Stones, but could only deliver the Herman's Hermits tribute band.  Accusations of stupacking abounded."

"My bout with intestinal flu threatened to stupack our planned cruise; fortunately, I recovered in time."

A blend of dashed expectations and unanticipated venality....if that makes sense.

Houston, we have a problem....

Of course, the disinformation officers state solemnly that the electorate who voted in the primary could not possibly know what they were doing. Certainly this is the line of thought offered by those who favor the dictatorship over--er, of--the proletariat. Who among the enlightened would NOT see the wisdom and benevolence of Maximum Headroom--er, Leader?

But, what if they knew what they were doing???

UPDATE:

Now, here's more--good research and some comment.

Saving this link for future comment....

... assuming it's not comic enough on its own. An actual PLAN by the Democrats (!?) to flood talk radio with callers who will "refute"--translated "disinform"--on the subject of government-funded comprehensive health care.

This is very good. It will give the opponents of this silliness a wonderful forum to make the case against government health care.

A foolish consistency . . .

. . . is not necessarily the only sign of insanity. What about a foolish inconsistency, such as the President's conversion to viewing nuclear power as clean energy? Is this just blatant political opportunism, given his campaign comments about the danger of nuclear waste and the uncertainty about storing such material when it expires?

Lately, he's made such flip-flops on a number of issues, with stunning disingenuousness. Does no one in his circle recognize that this isn't a good sign. A general sign of sanity is not necessarily lockstep consistency, but simply lacking recognition that a thing and its opposite cannot be casually swapped like the blue tie or the striped tie is surely not healthy, either. Swapping ties is not a statement of political and intellectual character; reversing positions on issues that matter is such a statement. Either this gentleman and his clique are significantly lacking in principles, or they are suffering from some kind of delusion that reality is simply what is subject to the convenience of their definitions.

It's a little frightening, considering the power they wield.

Must-read: on the "catechism" of the leftist claque

Mr. Lowry's current piece on the seemingly intractable ideology of the true supporters of the President is right on target. Unlike them, he has a good ear for what others are saying. The "religion" of what I called "warmed-over Marxism" during the the campaign is beginning to be seen for what it is by pickup-truck driving average American voters. The President can own up to this, or he can continue to believe and recite the mantras (to mix the religious metaphors) that he artfully wove into his very deceptive campaign for office. I'm convinced "the programme" was there to be seen, but the electorate was encouraged by his demeanor and double-meanings, and was hungry for a cool-down of the frenetic political situation (abetted by both parties) that dogged the second GWB administration.

Never overlook ideology.

A Fragment on Michael Jackson

In spite of millions of words, one small thought I haven't seen yet: How unhappy must a person be, who spent his last hours, days, months, and perhaps even years, begging for more pain-killers.

It's obvious that it wasn't for the thrills....

Janus? Is that you?

President Barack Obama signed a law that explicitly bans federal funding of any “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death” only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the killing of new human embryos.

Goodness--words mean nothing with him. To adapt an O'Reilly-ism: is he the bloviator-in-chief?

He's got to be kidding.

"Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now."

After spending two months telling us how dire things are, now he wants us to believe it's just hunky-dory, just like that? This demonstrates one of two things, or both: (a) he thinks the public are fools; (b) he has no clue what he's talking about. Take your pick.

By the way, the stock market, after moving further south in response to a series of words from the President and the Treasury Dude, has moved north for three days. Why? Bernanke spoke. It's apparently no harder than that.

One more thing: Mr. Geithner DOES look like the palest guy at the dude ranch--the one who needs a seat belt for his saddle.

Please, please, stop talking about religion.

Goodness. The more these politicians talk about their faith--or anyone else's, for that matter--the deeper the logical, contextual and cultural holes they dig themselves into. It's certainly OK for a candidate to have or not to have an articulate personal faith, but to prate about some religious or moral principles that neither they nor their party currently finds to be anywhere near their core ideology, is just, as the younger folks say, lame. They deserve all the grief they get when they say things that turn out to be completely odious as they pander to whichever group they think is listening at the moment. It would be nice to have time--perhaps before November--to parse some of their current position statements.

By the way, for some competent talk about faith issues and moral principles, follow what Pope Benedict says this week. That's probably not a fair comparison to everyday political discourse, but why not study the best and work to model our principles on that. At least, no one will EVER accuse Benedict XVI of pandering to the audience of the day.