Posted by Bill (not IB) | Friday, June 10th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 46 Comments

Jeepers, a Presidential Election is a true gift when it comes to material to write about!!!!

In the “Hillary the Unavoidable” post, BillB had an interesting observation:

“The POTUS, if that is still the title…”

I was about to post a comment in response, and then I saw an opportunity to let everyone join in the fun.

I believe that the acronym “POTUS” would remain the same if Hillary ended up in the ovary   Oval Office, but the title would change. My idea was:

“Psycopath of the United States”

But, I have no monopoly on humor, satire, or creative ideas. So – lets hear from you, people. What do you think the title would change to – and yet retain the same acronym?


Posted by Bill (not IB) | Wednesday, June 8th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 54 Comments

Update – there is now the best of all possible reasons to reject Hillary as the Democrat candidate for President. Obama has endorsed her…

So, Hillary has the Democrat Presidential Candidate nomination clinched.

But, does she?

There are many, many supporters of Bernie Sanders who will never, ever accept Hillary. And just because she has a majority of delegates based on primary elections is no guarantee that those delegates will actually support her.

One of the great “fallacies” of the primary process is the idea that delegates are obligated to vote in accordance with the results in their local/state elections.

They aren’t actually *required* to vote for anyone in particular. The primary election results are significant, but they are not binding.

This is especially true for “Superdelegates”; those with large numbers of votes who are theoretically directed to follow election results, but in point of fact, they can do whatever they want with no fear of retribution.

One other thing that I hope will get lots and lots of press in the coming months. Barack Obama received 93% of the black vote in 2012, after having received 96% of the black vote in 2008. If this had happened to a candidate of another race (say an Asian or Latino) the hue and cry over “bigoted and racist voting” would have knocked down the foundations of the Supreme Court building. But, in the race (pun intended) to elect the first black (or is it African-American? Medunno…) President, it’s quite clear that race transcended politics.

Does anyone want to speculate as to what the numbers will be for Hillary with regard to female voters? (Please, let’s avoid the LGBT+54 aspect…) If she ends up with, say, 90% of the female vote, can there be any question as to whether or not it is her politics or her gender/sex/sexual orientation/DNA assessment/personal self-identification that is the basis for the votes she receives?

And, how can Hillary *POSSIBLY* claim to be an advocate of women’s rights and still be married to her philandering, faithless, lying P.O.S. husband? What Billy Boy did (and it’s not a matter of speculation, it’s a matter of fact; the DNA on Monica’s dress doesn’t lie) is a disgrace to marriage, truthfulness, and victimized a woman who fell under the spell of a professional politician/manipulator.

What is the likelihood that Hillary would have “stood by her man” if she wasn’t desperately hoping to find herself on track to major political aspirations?

Hillary has got more baggage to deal with than the Griswold family heading out for a trip with stops in St. Louis; Coolidge, Kansas; Phoenix; Walley World; London; Paris; “Dimplestrade, Somewhere in Germany”; Rome; and Las Vegas. (And Hillary doesn’t look NEARLY as good as Beverly D’Angelo…)

Between Bill’s pants problems, Benghazi, the email servers, the Clinton foundation, Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm, and Hillary’s monumental failure with health care reform as “First Lady” (gee, who would have though that someone who wasn’t elected would have troubles with major political machinations…) Trump has enough ammunition to prevent Hillary from having a chance of *ever* getting off the defensive. And Trump has no regard for the “inside-the-Beltway-codes” that allow for treating some things as being out of bounds – having fought in the world of business and finance for decades, Trump knows that nice guys finish last.

Hillary could still lose the nomination. She’s vulnerable – MUCH more so than Sanders, and she really has nothing to offer over and above Bernie’s qualities other than the fact that she is a She (political correctness apologies requested…).

Truthfully, if I were a Democrat, I’d rather it be Bernie than Hillary carrying my flag to the finish line. And therein may reside a lot of hope for Republicans.


Posted by Bill (not IB) | Wednesday, June 8th, 2016 | Website Issues | 9 Comments

Update – brief list of HTML tags added to Comments page…
Update – addition of the author name in the post heading completed!

Well, I think I’ve gotten almost as far as I can with improvements to the MCJ blog. Here’s a brief rundown of the changes:

1) Addition of a “Recent Posts” list

2) Addition of a “Recent Comments” list

3) Addition of a “Preview” function for comments – to use it just click “preview” If you’re satisfied, click “post”. If changes are required, make them IN THE ORIGINAL COMMENT BOX. You can then either click “preview” again, or click “post”.

4) Automatic closure of comments on posts more than 30 days old (if it hasn’t been said by then, it ain’t worth saying…)

5) Removal of numerous “dead” links in the Blogroll; this will be ongoing

6) Reformatting of margins, spacing, etc. to allow more information on a single page

7) Changing the “Archives” from a “month/year” list to a “year” list

8) Moving the “Search” function up to make it more accessible

9) Addition of an email link for contact on website issues (goes to “Bill not IB” rather than Chris)

10) Addition of categories to posts (these may change over time)

There are three things left that I’m working on:

a) Addition of the author name in the “Recent Posts” list

DONE!!! b) Addition of the author name in the post heading

c) Resolving the “right hand edge” formatting issues with the sidebar.

As progress is made, I’ll keep you posted.

Meanwhile – in exchange for the amazing added value to the MCJ blog, please consider clicking the PayPal link and making a donation. All funds go straight to Chris – and I’ve started the ball rolling with a donation of my own.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, June 7th, 2016 | Everyone a Victim | 29 Comments

or, Why I Call It The United Church of the Zeitgeist.  God, through His Holy Spirit:

8. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

9. He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.

10. He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

12. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

God again.

9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

UCZ blogger Marchaé Grair.

Recognize that you’re still racist. No matter what.  Sometimes, anti-racist allies talk in an “us vs. them” framework when they discuss race, with the “us” being POC and anti-racist allies and the “them” being racist people. That’s an oversimplification of centuries of racism, and it also avoids one simple truth.White people always benefit from institutionalized racism, no matter how anti-racist your ideologies may be. You can’t disconnect yourself completely from the racism from which you benefit, and recognizing that is a large step in rejecting white privilege.


Posted by Bill (not IB) | Monday, June 6th, 2016 | Stupid Laws | 15 Comments

I saw the articles about NYC cracking down on large-sized drinks containing sugar, and thought it ludicrous.

I saw the articles about NYC cracking down on foods containing sodium, and thought that at some point, common sense would prevail against the minions of political correctness.

But – sugar and salt are merely the tip of the nanny-state iceberg. You have no right to drink a Big Gulp, and you have no right to have your order of fries (be it small or super-sized) served with the merest whiff of salt unless there is a warning label the size of Bill Clinton’s ego™.

But fortunately, all is not lost. In NYC you DO have a God-given right to take a piss wherever and whenever you want to.

Are you standing in the middle of Grand Central Terminal, having taken your freedom in your hands and quaffed down a 128 ounce “Jumbo Super Mega Gulp” which has for some reason caused you to have a full bladder? No problem, just pick a convenient wall, ticket booth, or whatever else you happen to spot, and “do what comes naturally”.

Were you walking along Broadway in the Theater District when you suddenly couldn’t “hold it” anymore? Don’t worry, just step into the lobby of any nearby building and relieve yourself at your leisure.

Do you simply not want to be bothered with having to find a bathroom when you feel the call of nature? That’s quite alright, it would be oppressive, racist, and bigoted to expect you to inconvenience yourself by searching for toilet facilities; your health may depend on not stressing your kidneys. And who wants a police record for public urination? (Remember the “Seinfeld” episode in the parking garage, where Jerry and George both get caught relieving themselves?)

Are you sitting on the subway, and the next station is just “too far away”? Well, by all means, let it flow, let it flow, let it flow… (and on many trains, that means the folks on either side of you will get to share your generosity!)

You think I’m joking, right…

New York City To Allow Public Urination, So Minorities Can…

Public urination in New York becomes Test Case for Policing

As I’ve mentioned before, in one of my previous lives I spent a LOT of time in NYC. And early every morning (7:00AM-ish) when I walked from my apartment to my workplace (a straight shot on Park Avenue) there was a daily routine taking place all around me; maintenance staff hosing down the sidewalks in front of just about every building to get rid of the night’s accumulation of urine.

The real irony is that it is now a much more serious offense in NYC to fail to pick up your dog’s droppings than it is for a man or woman to stand in the middle of any street, expose themselves and urinate.

How in the WORLD have things gotten this bad?


Posted by Bill (not IB) | Friday, June 3rd, 2016 | Website Issues | 28 Comments

I’m working at finding ways to get some new features added and “improving” the formatting for the blog, but it’s taking a lot of trial and error. Please be patient; this, too, shall pass…

(All done under the imprimatur of Christopher I, Most High Panjandrum and Factotum of the Internet.)


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, June 2nd, 2016 | History Repeats | 13 Comments

If any ObamaBorg reading this has nothing better to do, Byng the name Rose Mary Woods some time.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 1st, 2016 | Presidential Election | 64 Comments

Could Hillary Clinton lose the Democratic presidential nomination?  Well…yeah, actually, according to Democratic strategist Doug Schoen:

There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president. How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities. 

The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen…

If Ol’ Hammer-and-Sickle wins Cali…

A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.

Then, not to put too fine a point on it, but Katie, bar the door.

There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200 pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules change on superdelegates more likely.

Which brings up this delicious suggestion.

Only a month or two ago, [the Democrats] were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.

Aside from Hillary more-or-less sweeping the board next Tuesday, which could happen, I see this playing out in two ways:

(1) The Doddering Old Communist wins big, taking Cali, doing well in other states and considerably closing the delegate gap.  As Schoen points out, this would mean that the Democrats would basically be forced to take a HARD look at the Hillary Clinton candidacy and come to grips with two basic facts.

Bernie Sanders’ supporters are young and passionate.  And let’s face it, Bernie’s the Stalinist Donald Trump.  On the other hand, the only people in this country who are genuinely passionate about President Hillary Clinton are the people who stand to make millions, if not billions, of US dollars off her presidency.

So Bernie considerably closes the gap, goes to Philadelphia and officially makes his superdelegate proposal.  Once again, two things could happen.

The Leninist Fan Boy could lose in which case he and his delegates bolt the convention, give the Greens a call and essentially hand the election to Donald Trump.  Or, and this brings us to our second possibility…

(2) Sanders could win the rules change and take down the whole damned pot.  This would thrill lefties from one end of this country to the other.  At least, perhaps, until they sobered up and realized that the big-money boys, who are already in Hillary’s pocket, are probably not going to pony up a lot of money to a Communist no matter how well he polls against the Ego.

In America, enthusiasm can only take you so far.  Philadelphia could very well turn out to be the most interesting American political convention since Chicago, ’68.  And elderly Americans of a certain age all know how that one turned out.

While the leftist train wreck that would be a Sanders Administration would be AWFULLY fun to watch, there is one other factor to consider.  Trump v. Sanders would essentially be Tea Party v. Occupy.  And when Trump wins, I can’t imagine that Sanders supporters will go gentle into that good night.

Things may get interesting in this country and I don’t mean that in a good way.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 1st, 2016 | Presidential Election | 12 Comments

How or whether this affects the upcoming presidential election remains to be seen but an influential and vitally-important member of the current administration, Barack Obama’s Teleprompter, may have just endorsed Donald Trump.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, June 1st, 2016 | Presidential Election | 14 Comments

Seems that some of Trumpy’s supporters really aren’t that bright:

In this modern era of micro-targeting, where every vote in a swing state is coveted by both major political parties, conservative allies of the Trump campaign are investing in an outside-the-box strategy to court a historically unenthusiastic portion of the electorate — the Amish.

Although there are about 70,000 Amish citizens and counting in the potential swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, very few of them have participated in presidential politics, since their faith requires them to eschew most of the trappings of modern society.

For instance, in 2004, an estimated 1,300 voted in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania region (or 13 percent of the eligible Amish voting population). While they largely backed President George W. Bush’s re-election, their tiny turnout didn’t prevent Democratic nominee John Kerry from winning statewide.

Nevertheless, Trump supporters with ties to Dr. Ben Carson and Newt Gingrich have founded Amish PAC, which aims to launch the most ambitious get-out-the-vote efforts among the devout religious sect to date. They will almost certainly face an uphill battle, since the Amish don’t watch television or read social media, which could be a net positive or negative for Trump, depending on your point of view. And while voting is not necessarily prohibited by their strict religious beliefs, it’s not exactly encouraged either.

What, no Quaker PAC?  Nobody anywhere at Trump Tower cares about who the all-important Swedenborgian Bloc will support in the fall?

Right.  The Amish who, quite admirably in my opinion, couldn’t possibly care less about who the president of the United States is, are going to respond REALLY well to a bunch of English outsiders coming in to their settlements and telling them that they REALLY need to vote for Donald Trump’s Ego this November.

Should swing the whole election.



Posted by Bill (not IB) | Tuesday, May 31st, 2016 | Stupid Laws | 14 Comments

I can’t even freakin’ keep up with the insanity.

Last time, it was NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio attacking Chick-fil-A because the owner of the fast-food chain didn’t bow down before the LGBT+51 altar.

And deBlasio also resurrected former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to ban sugary drinks (primarily soda) over a certain size to save people from their failure to understand that one huge drink is worse than three smaller drinks.

Trans-fat in cooking oils has been outlawed in New York City; I’d love to know how that affected all sorts of restaurants, especially places specializing in Oriental and Southern cooking.

Now? Here we go again; that most poisonous of all substances, NaCl (Sodium Chloride, better known as “salt”) is under fire.

The Nanny State Groweth: NYC to start issuing salt fines

Once upon a time, salt was recognized as being critical to living. Roman soldiers were sometimes paid in salt; “Worth one’s salt” comes from that practice. Salt was used as a form of currency for trading; one of Gandhi’s acts of “civil disobedience” was to have the people of India make their own salt, sales of which at the time was a monopoly enforced by the British.

On a more practical level – in another life (I had a lot of those!) I spent time working in a ferrous (iron) foundry. You want to know what HOT is? Get right up close and personal with a furnace full of molten steel. Temperatures in the winter (when it was perhaps -10 Fahrenheit outside) hovered in the 130 Fahrenheit range – and that was in the aisles, away from the “hot spots”. So what, you may ask? Heat like that sucks water out of humans at an incredible rate. All over the foundry one would find “salt stations”; dispensers which gave forth salt pills you could eat to help prevent the worst of the dehydration.

Salt as an enemy? Sure, too much of it IS bad for you – but to treat it like an unnatural poison is outré at best, and I’d have to say it’s much closer to demonstrating a level of ignorance and egotism that makes ending up with a case of Godwin’s Law seem more or less appropriate.

If you have to have a warning symbol on the box holding your super-sized order of fries saying “There be salt here…” then NaCl is the LEAST of your worries…


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, May 31st, 2016 | Presidential Election | 36 Comments

I love you, brother, and I always will.  You’re one of the best writers on the Internet, maybe the best, and as far as I’m concerned, you and Leon Wieseltier share a unique feature.  Your writing’s great even when I fervently disagree with it.

Sometimes especially when I fervently disagree with it.

Because it’s got that certain…quality, nome sane?

That said, I have a question for you.  Well, you, Bill Kristol, George Will, Glenn Beck and all the other so-called “conservatives” who profess themselves to be horrified at the prospect of President Donald Trump and appalled by the so-called “abandonment” of “conservative” principles that a Trump presidency would represent.

Who did you vote for in 2012?

Because if you voted for Mitt Romney, then nobody anywhere gives a rat’s ass what you think right now.  Four years ago, Mitt Romney was Donald Trump only without the swagger or the combativeness.

A guy who claimed to convert to “conservative” principles simply because that’s what his political party demanded.

Which is kind of why he lost.

People know when they’re being lied to, Jeff.

Don’t get me wrong.  I didn’t vote for Romney because I liked the guy.  I voted for him because I was terrified by the idea of four more years of Barack Obama.  But it seems that quite a few “conservatives” are a WHOLE lot less terrified by the prospect of President Hillary Clinton than I am.

Because of “conservative” principles and crap.

Or something.

Do I like the idea of President Donald Trump?  Not even remotely.  But I haven’t liked the idea of most of the candidates that this country’s “conservative” political party has presented to me in the last forty years or so.

Trump won, Jeff, and he’s as “conservative” as any of them.  Sack up and deal with it.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, May 30th, 2016 | Education | 23 Comments

Little Myrmidon?  It would seem that a sizable number of the residents of your great state are completely unable to spell their state’s name without online assistance:

Google released search trends revealing the most searched spellings by state in honor of the Scripps National Spelling Bee and residents in Massachusetts showed difficulty spelling the name of their own state.

“Massachusetts” was the most searched word in the state on the chart tweeted by Google Trends, which showed the top “how to spell” search results by state.

We here in Missouri can easily spell “Missouri.”  It’s just that far too many of us can’t correctly pronounce it (“Missour-uh” is completely unacceptable).  But never EVER criticize or publicly express impatience with stories or songs directed toward children.

Because the only reason that I know how to spell Massachusetts is because of a song about Massachusetts that I used to regularly hear on an American children’s television show called Captain Kangaroo well over fifty years ago.  I don’t know what the song was called or anything else about it but I do remember the key part.

“M-A-Double S-A-C-H-U-S-E-Double T-S.”

And I have NEVER forgotten it.

TESTING, 1,2,3…

Posted by Bill (not IB) | Saturday, May 28th, 2016 | Website Issues | 26 Comments

Dear Readers,

This is an experiment in making access to recent posts easier. Please leave your opinions in the comments for this page.


(bonus points for identifying that acronym – and Googling is unfair! Bill_iB)





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Posted by Bill (not IB) | Friday, May 27th, 2016 | Humor | 18 Comments

I was reading about Christo’s latest project earlier this week (wrapping a lake in Italy) and when I saw this – well, it’s just too good to be true (but it is true):

Pair of glasses left on floor at museum mistaken for art

        Support The MCJ


Email the editor-in-chief

          ©2016 Christopher Johnson  
              Email about Website issues

Recent Comments



Annual Archive