Todd's Mischief Blog

Some additional thoughts: George Washington in his farewell address had many strong words to say about parties. He called their rivalries despotism and described in 1796 our present situation as a result of the party system. I would love to see the disintegration of the party system. The alternative is their dismantling, and that would come along with the worst possible outcome for our present experiment in liberty. I believe we are a long way from that outcome. However, we are at least as distant from my preceding hope. There is at least one political party that has put its own interests above those of the nation. Personally, I think the other one simply has no aim, currently. Before political factions can be safely done away with, conservatives need to put this county back on its Constitutional foundation. To do that, we gain control of the Republican Party and use it as a tool to fix what needs fixing. Think of the Republican Party as a crowbar to dislodge the liberal Democrat...

Ronald Reagan famously quipped on more than one occasion, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." Today, many conservatives feel the same way about the Republican Party. While they may be right in some respects, their timing couldn’t be more wrong. Just as many registered Republicans are getting fed-up with their party for drifting away from conservative principles, many Democrats are waking up to the realization that they, too, have been left by their party; in some cases, left long ago. Add to that the number of so-called moderates who vote left on a number of issues, but still lean right on the fundamentals, and we are witnessing a conservative shift in the American voting population. But don’t take my word for it: on October 26, 2009, Gallup reported that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative while 37% consider themselves as moderates. Now they are all looking for a politically conservative place to call home. So, where will t...

ABC’s new primetime drama “V” premiered last night to better-than-expected ratings, pulling in 14 million viewers, mainly among the coveted 18-49 crowd. Apparently it pulled in a rating of 5. I don’t know what that means, but it was translated for me as “very, very good.” In other words, ABC has a hit on its hands. Now come a bunch of “Why?” questions. Why was showrunner-exec Scott Peters demoted and replaced before the pilot even aired? Why did his replacement Scott Rosenbaum receive two-year, seven-figure deal as part of the change? Why was production halted after only four episodes? Why was the original pilot tweaked to redo the final fight scene before air? Why do the writers need a hiatus lasting until March to “fine-tune” upcoming scripts? I’m sure there are some perfectly good answers for many of these questions. But one certainly does wonder why an apparent out-of-the-gate success would be immediately burdened with so many obstacles that could likely drag it down. Another theor...

This John Mayer interview is too good! I had to repost it. http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/10/john_mayer_threatens_to_sodomi.html Last night, Vulture had the pleasure of running into world-renowned blues legend John Mayer at a party at the Elle Decor-sponsored Armani/Casa party, where he was playing host. Since he's known for political outspokenness and the trenchant commentary of hits like "Waiting on the World to Change," we figured we'd ask his opinion on health-care reform and Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Our freewheeling conversation touched on seventies mustaches and his new album, and concluded, naturally, with the threat of forced sodomy. Enjoy! What do you think about Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize? I think it's fantastic. Why? What's your overall opinion? Do you think I'm smart enough to be able to articulate to you why our president receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a bit early for things? What's your overall opinion? ...

The term “global warming” is more than just a failed theory, it represents at least 20 years of fear mongering used to promote restrictive regulations and anti-growth legislation. And now it seems that those who have been leveraging the term are just going to shrug it off as though it never happened. Instead, they want to rally around “man-made climate change” as the new threat to the future, taking pains to leave it as undefined as their previously concocted phantoms. Should the appropriators of the global warming hoax be allowed to simply drop the subject and be let off the hook? Ideally, no. Anyone who attempts to continue arguing a lost debate by playing semantics should properly be called out and made to admit their error. However, the debate over man’s effect on the environment is not structured. The self-proclaimed defenders of the environment need only toss out claims without fear of having to defend them. That is because the debate doesn’t occur behind paired podiums, but in t...

Like the fat kid in a grade-school track meet receiving his participation ribbon for showing up, U.S. President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize on the basis of what he is trying to do. According to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the prize was given to Obama for his "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy," his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and for inspiring hope and creating "a new climate in international politics." As further justification, Norwegian Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said, "If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do," "We are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," and “[The prize] is a clear signal to the world that we want to advocate the same as he has done to promote international diplomacy." In more realistic terms, they’v...

“Whoever defines the issue controls the debate.” –Timothy Cummings Environmentalists have dropped the term "global warming." Maybe not completely, but there is a shift in the environmental movement that moves away from talk of "global warming" in favor of discussing "climate change." This is an insidious move because the term lacks any clarity on what it might mean. I'm not saying that anyone working to debunk the global warming myth is wasting their efforts. But I am warning that conservatives do not want to appear "out-of-date" on this issue. Rather soon, I believe, environmentalists will concede that global warming is not a threat. But the caveat will be that they are still right in their premise, that human activity may * be affecting the global climate (another meaningless term). Indications of cooling temperatures will be co-opted into climate change theory, regardless of the actual causes. As for "global warming deniers," t...