Tuesday, October 30, 2012


The more I hear about this thing, the uglier it gets.  So a theory is that Obama, who needs cover to release the blind sheik to placate Muslims (right) arranges for his consulate staff to be kidnapped so that he can exchange the sheik for our staff?!?  Or is it that Obama wanted to clear up loose ends of illegal arms dealing to Libyan rebels?  Any way you slice it, weak incompetence is at the heart of Obama's foreign "diplomacy" and all it's doing is getting Americans (preferably white ones) killed for no good reason.

Someone should tell him that the Muslims gave money to Mitt Romney, maybe that will make him slight less incoherent.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Event Horizon

[Update 4: It turns out that all Romney had to do was to get everyone who voted for McCain to show up and vote for him, which he couldn't do apparently.  I hope Americans like what the Western Hemisphere looks south of the border, because that's paying a visit to us here, but I fear the visitor will never leave...]

[UPDATE 3: Well, this is just crazy talk, or is it?  I'm of a similar mind though.  Most would agree that the polls are wrong; for example, the RCP poll average has Obama winning Ohio bigger than he did in '08?  Really?  Even a doom and gloomer like myself has a real hard time buying that.  So I would think that either A) Obama edges a narrow victory by looping in the hopelessly dependent gulags of Ill., Cali., NY, and their hangers-on and enough other useful idiots to pull him across, or the polls are way-crazy stupid wrong and Romney smokes himself some cheap, Kenyen dope.]

[UPDATE 2: After playing around with the map here I've determined the obvious: that it's pretty impossible for Romney to win without both Florida and Ohio.  He can lose Virginia but then he'd need some help from unreliable places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Colorado.  I was hoping the opposite was true, but it's actually not all that hard for Obama to win without winning Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  I agree with Michael Barone though in that if Obama starts losing states like Wisconsin, it's unlikely that he'll pick up the rest of the slate that he needs to pull him across the finish line.  Just an aside as well, I don't think that it would bode well for the future (and would actually further reinforce the point of this blog post) if Obama were to win while losing in places like Wisconsin, Iowa, and/or Minnesota.]

[Update: I'm more than happy to have to eat some crow on this post, and it really says something about Obama as well that it looks like he's going to lose to someone who lost in the primary against the guy Obama beat in 2008, who, McCain, in turn lost to GWB in 2000; that's like super loser status for ol' liver lips.  In fairness as well, as I've said on several occasions, only someone as dreadful as Obama could get me to vote for Romney.  My hope for the future now is that we run out of money before we cross the debt horizon (if we haven't already).]

Mrs. Sandmich related a tale of seeing a former squeeze of Kid Sandmich who was at work while wearing an Obama button of some sort.  Big surprise there, she's a single, white, anthropology student at a local college; does someone like that even have any aspirations at all to be a member of the productive class of society?  As I also related (and this is an observation I may have stolen from Rush Limbaugh, but it's pretty common sensical) that single women* are losers and they need big government to be their husbands because it's obvious that no real man wants anything to do with them. They're also overly concerned with birth control for sex that they'll never have, abortions for babies they'll never conceive and health care for diseases that they'll no doubt contract in an effort fight those two inevitabilities.  I've also seen feigned interest in loony lefty causes like politically driven environmentalism, animal rights, and food fascism since their lack of a family gives them plenty of time to worry about bullsh!t that doesn't matter.

That's one big group that's in the bag for Obama.  Heck, Bill Clinton had that group in the bag even though he was (more than likely) a sexually harassing rapist.  What other bandwagon pals can Obama count on?

  • "Organized Labor".  Private unions haven't figured out that public unions are the Borg that will annihilate them.  Government bureaucrats hate the working class by nature of their positions.  Public school teachers, although nominally government union workers themselves, have just started to figure this out, but too late I'm afraid.  The government elite will makes slaves of them all, union or no.  Too late to change course now, full steam ahead into the abyss says the AFL/CIO!
  • The "elderly".  It's been said that the WWII generation had the hardest childhood and the easiest retirement, while their kids had the easiest childhood, and the hardest retirement.  It matters not that the full money printing panic is making them poorer every minute; current and near-future retirees can see death's finish line in their sight and they figure that Obama can drag them there with the most ease and comfort before the systems that they depend on blow up and everyone who is left (alive) is stuck eating dog (like Obama).
  • The Free Sh!t Army (aka, the FSA).  Free school, free child care, free food, free phones; you name it, President Obama Camacho has your goodies ready at the trough.  One day the trough will be empty though, and the FSA will discover that they have been betrayed as the nation was destroyed in an effort to keep the trough filled and that there's now no great resources to fall back on.  Oops!  I also have to point out though, that in addition to the FSA, there is the FSA's support network, the trough fillers if you will.  That group is also heavy on the Obama bandwagon.  Heck, making the FSA not-FSA would endanger their jobs as trough fillers!
  • Rich (mostly coastal) Elites.  The more people made beggars by the government, the cheaper high end goodies and lawn care will be for snobs who benefit the most from currency devaluation, poor government performance, and any manner of other social ills that help destroy the middle class so that the American Oligarchs can reign over the land uncontested.  It's always fun to see lefties try to put the screws to Romeny for being rich while never wondering in their itty bitty heads why rich geniuses like Warren Buffet and George Soros (to say nothing of Jon Corzine) are so supportive of Obama and his policies.
  • Religious Nut Jobs.  I'm not referencing people who actually have religious values, oh no.  I speak, of course, of those who think that (ironically mostly Christian) religious values should be further espoused by the government.  The fact that such values are bankrupting the nation and are often having the exact opposite effect that they desire is a non-issue: it merely means that enough has not yet been done!
I, and a lot of people, have been amazed at the ability of our elites to punt our economic ills this far.  How much further can they push it?  Days?  Months?  Years?  Who knows, but it's certainly less time than people want it to be.  The economy is currently being held together by horrific government debt levels, and trickle down wealth from bankers made rich by Fed policies (policies which have impoverished everyone else), both of which are unsustainable.  The question mulled over by many is: has it gone too far?  Have we crossed the event horizon where escape is now impossible and our only exit is through the black hole of national insolvency, currency destruction, and possible national dissolution?  Or is it still possible to burn off our debt overhang, to put the nation's economy back on a traditional, sustainable path and to see a brighter future within all of our lifetimes?  

Romney may not have the chops to try to get us away from the black hole (should he even believe in it's existence), but Obama certainly doesn't, and one would be willing to bet that Obama doesn't care about the black hole even if he has knowledge of it (somebody else's problem to him).  But that's what it is to me.  Can someone do as BAD a job as Obama, someone who has the nation's worst interests at heart and still get re-elected? 

My guess is: yes**.  You never know that you've passed the event horizon until you try to escape, and by the time you realize that you need to escape, it's far, far too late.

*Just to be clear, single women != divorced women

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Yeah, What He Said...

Trying desperately to study up for Oracle's Java exam, but a single sentence carries the same effect as a bottle of dramamine, and a paragraph can put down a horse:
However—what if you have a non-static method that accesses a static field? Or a static method that accesses a non-static field (using an instance)? In these cases things start to get messy quickly, and there's a very good chance that things will not work the way you want. If you've got a static method accessing a non-static field, and you synchronize the method, you acquire a lock on the Class object. But what if there's another method that also accesses the non-static field, this time using a non-static method? It probably synchronizes on the current instance (this) instead. Remember that a static synchronized method and a non-static synchronized method will not block each other—they can run at the same time. Similarly, if you access a static field using a non-static method, two threads might invoke that method using two different this instances. Which means they won't block each other, because they use different locks. Which means two threads are simultaneously accessing the same static field—exactly the sort of thing we're trying to prevent.
In fairness, I've tried repeatedly to saw through MSDN articles on Microsoft's various "multithreading schemes", but can't saw more than a paragraph or two off before the eyes glaze over. Not from lack of understanding mind you, just utter and complete boredom (though I did chose to work on this rather than subject myself to the presidential debates, so I guess it still trumps some forms of..."entertainment").