Todd's Mischief Blog

In just over four years, Barack Obama has taken the United States from “Yes, We Can!” to “Oh No, You Didn’t!” But in the days since the Campaigner in Chief told business owners that “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” his apologists and his campaign have been very vehement that Barry did not actually say what he in fact did. They’ve even gone so far as to slide the president’s words off onto his political opponent, Mitt Romney. Just a few days ago, the Obama campaign released the following ad claiming that Romney put words into the president’s mouth: The only problem is, Barack Obama said exactly what Mitt Romney claims he did: Of course, the argument du jour is that Barry was taken out of context. Well, here’s some context: LINK So, what do you think Obama meant? (For a mind-bendingly overwrought interpretation of what the president meant, check out this article from Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog.

Surprise! The major topic of discussion today is gun control. Rather than single out particular shows and hosts, I’d like to focus on some of the recurring words, phrases and ideas that need to be dealt with. “Reasonable” gun control laws It’s a handy turn of phrase. After all, who doesn’t consider themselves reasonable? But it’s ultimately useless. Just get a roomful of reasonable people together and see how easily they agree to what is “reasonable.” Good luck! “Why not?” have gun registration, waiting periods, etc… That is not an argument in favor of anything. A good argument would tell you why we should have or do a thing. Simply asking “why not?” is tantamount to admitting that you have no argument in favor of your position. Does this scare you? Assault weapons I want this term obliterated from any discussion of gun control. (Heck, I want the discussion of gun control obliterated, but baring that…) If it isn’t well known by now, it should be, that “assault weapon” is a cosmetic...

I don't think there was any question about which topic would dominate the Sunday shows this week. Pretty much every show was devoted to discussion of the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare and trying to make some sense of Chief Justice Roberts' decision. While the blog-o-sphere and talk radio are lamenting that the bill is upheld, I think it is good to pause for a moment and take note that the liberals in Washington and the MSM appear like they've taken the loss. Case in point: on ABC This Week, CBS Face the Nation, and NBC Meet the Press, their respective guests, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi all read from the same script refusing to acknowledge the High Court's determination that the ObamaCare mandate does constitute a tax. Even in the face of this legally set definition, all three vehemently insist that the tax is merely a "penalty," and one directed at the 1%, I might...

There is a definite upward trend in both the quality and content of conservative political ads. Check this out: Hat-tip to Patti at NotaWonk .

Police have just released video of a statement made by George Zimmerman on the day following his fatal encounter with Trayvon Martin. In the statement, Zimmerman claims that Martin spotted his gun and tried to grab it. "He looked at it and he said 'You're going to die tonight mother f--ker and he reached for it," Zimmerman said. It was in that moment, Zimmerman said, that he acted in self-defense.  I don't mean to cast any doubt on Zimmerman's account, but I can't help thinking that it sounds awfully familiar:

Feminism is about giving women choices, a promise to every little girl that she can grow up to be anything she wants to be. Well, anything except one: a stay-at-home mom. This isn’t surprising in any way, but I have to give Elizabeth Wurtzel credit for being so forthright about it in her recent article in The Atlantic . She very directly refutes the idea that women can make any choice they desire and still be called feminists. "Who can possibly take feminism seriously when it allows everything, as long as women choose it?" she asks after comparing feminism—perhaps too aptly—to an "easy lay." And from there she very squarely pits feminism against wife and motherhood for the umpteenth time. Wurtzel repeats—even makes a subtitle of—the old canard that being a stay-at-home mother isn’t "a real job." She meanders through well over a thousand words loosely related to this idea before finally putting an underline to it: "something becomes a job when you are...

Snippets from other conversations On obstructionist politics: The false assumption made when asking simply whether obstructionist politics really work is that any given tactic will have the same effect regardless who is using it and regardless of the conditions in which it is used. This isn't true in warfare. This isn't true in sports. Why should it be true in politics? It's not hard to see that obstructionist tactics are working for the Republican party right now . It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to question a tactic's efficacy while it is working. The real question should be why it is working and what might cause that to stop? On the purpose of laws: The law should provide certainty where it otherwise does not exist. When new uncertainties arise, new laws may be created to deal with said uncertainties. However, when the creation of law becomes itself the source of uncertainty, then there is a real problem. We have that problem now. More on obstruction...