Obamatipping Your Waiter: Contrairimairi's Brother's Reply

Contrairimairi (also h/t Dan Friedman) just forwarded a post from the legendary blogger Doug Ross, based on an Eagle Tribune letter, about what I will call an "Obama-tip", that is, giving your waiter's tip to a homeless person because "it's good to spread the wealth around."

The following is from the Doug Ross post:

>Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

May have to try this next time I'm out on the town. And be packing I might add.

DH

Contrairimairi's Brother Replies:

>The guy did right (by Obama's measure) not to give the tip to the server, but he shouldn't have given $10 to the homeless guy outside. No, no, no! He *should* have sent it to his senator or congress critter so that they could take $8 of it first for "overhead" and "campaign modernization". The resulting $2 should have been sent to a local socialist group, who could send out their own damn street walkers to find the homeless folks, keeping $1 for each walker, and giving the homeless guy $1. Maybe.

The advantage of this approach is that (besides being much more realistic), it keeps the bulk of the money in the hands of the needy fat cats who can really use it, say, to get elected, and for the socialist street walkers who are burning up valuable shoe rubber. The homeless guy doesn't need as much and so shouldn't get as much. He also wasn't burning up shoe leather. Let him go find an old pair of Florsheims in the nearest dumpster. With $1, he can even get a "meal" at McDonalds - or at least a drink to wash down whatever he gets out of the dumpster along with the old shoes.

Obama an Active Socialist in 1996

The United States has lost its bearings. That an active socialist, Barack Obama, has reached the threshold of the presidency suggests to me that the country has become too big, lazy and stupid, and it should be broken into distinct federations. This had been viewed as an option in the 1780s when Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, but they argued against the idea because size was necessary to strengthen the nation. Today, the returns to size are negative. The liberal establishment has bamboozled most Americans into believing their self-serving claims that book learning and academic credentials are essential to progress. But in fact America advanced by emphasizing practical innovation, not intellectual achievement, political correctness or theoretical grandeur. The error Americans made was to emulate the German university system that developed in the nineteenth century by sending many elite Americans to Germany in the late nineteenth century and then developing a parallel system here. University education leads to a belief in socialism and planning because it over-glorifies theory at the expense of experimentation and practical knowledge. University professors claim to be important, but have produced little of value except where they have worked on technology and scientific applications that would be the province of industry in a free society.

Bob McCarty (h/t Contrairimairi) produces a newspaper article about Barack Obama's involvement in the socialist New Party in 1996.

Sarah Palin More Jewish Than Barry Goldwater

According to the Jewish Defense League site (h/t Nancy Razik) Sarah Palin is technically Jewish:

"Here's an interesting factoid: it seems that Governor Sarah Palin is technically a Jew. Yes, according to those who have written on the subject, not only was her mother, Sally Sheigam, Jewish (making her Jewish by Jewish law), her father also had a Jewish mother. However, her father was a devout Christian and raised his family that way, so Sarah was raised as a Christian despite her status as a Jew. Nazi sites have already picked up on this discussion."

Left-wingers attack Palin for being anti-Semitic while Nazis attack her for being Jewish. Academics attack her for not having studied the economics of John Maynard Keynes while educationists attack her for insisting that school children learn the "3 r's".

I hope McCain-Palin wins in no small part because I will LOVE to watch the saddened expressions on all those liberal professors that a Christian Jew non cultural relativist who is NOT ONE OF THEM is in the White House.

Newsmax Concludes Smears on "Fight the Smears" Mostly True

Well golly gee. Newsmax concludes that most of the "smears" on the Obama website "fight the smears" are true. I wonder if that goes for Andy Martin's recent assertion that Barack Obama is really the son of left-wing writer Frank Marshall Davis.

Lowell Ponte of Newsmax writes:

>The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

Obama’s www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama's ideological allies are not dominant.

These "smears" and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

Read the whole thing here.