I just remembered something. This is the first year in more than sixty years there is no Kennedy in Washington. Enjoy the brief respite while it lasts, and pray that it continues, however unlikely that is. But while we do have this brief interval of relief, I'll celebrate with the following video. This band is one of my favorites, even though I don't really care that much for their music. It's just that their name always brings a fucking smile to my face.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Progressive Tolerance On Public Display
The following video is from a progressive rally sponsored by Common Cause. Yeah, according to these fuckwits, Clarence Thomas should be made to work in the fields, or he should be hung, along with his wife. Scalia, Alito, and Roberts don't fare much better, nor does anybody connected with Fox News. This is a perfect example of why I wouldn't give a good fuck if somebody was to drive by cocksuckers like this and spray them with machine gun fire.
UPDATE-All right, I admit that was a little harsh and over the top, but these kind of people piss me off so bad, I just can't help it. Especially grating is the fact that these are the very kinds of asshats that would raise bloody hell over anything anybody on the right said that was one fourth as vile as the shit that spews out of their mouths here.
Come to think about it, I remember now about two weeks before Gabrielle Giffords was shot, I brought a box of Kleenex, because I was fresh out. I still haven't gotten around to opening that fucking box of tissue. Make of that what you will.
H/T Belchspeak
UPDATE-All right, I admit that was a little harsh and over the top, but these kind of people piss me off so bad, I just can't help it. Especially grating is the fact that these are the very kinds of asshats that would raise bloody hell over anything anybody on the right said that was one fourth as vile as the shit that spews out of their mouths here.
Come to think about it, I remember now about two weeks before Gabrielle Giffords was shot, I brought a box of Kleenex, because I was fresh out. I still haven't gotten around to opening that fucking box of tissue. Make of that what you will.
H/T Belchspeak
It's All In The Genes
I'm starting to think now I am veering over towards the camp of the Birthers. It's not that I find it so strange that Barak Obama allegedly spent millions of dollars to keep his birth certificate under wraps. Even if that's true, there could be all kinds of understandable reasons he might do that. For example, he might have been an addict, or he might have even been born with an embarrassing disease, such as syphilis.
But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I have other concerns that have recently come to light, things that might explain certain things in Obama's past. Having perused the photographic evidence, I now present THE ANSWER!
What do you get when you cross Ted Kennedy-
With a Klingon Warrioress-
Answer-
Yep, explains a lot.
But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I have other concerns that have recently come to light, things that might explain certain things in Obama's past. Having perused the photographic evidence, I now present THE ANSWER!
What do you get when you cross Ted Kennedy-
With a Klingon Warrioress-
Answer-
Yep, explains a lot.
A Dangerous Game
Now that its come out that Obama, the State Department, and the international AFL-CIO are all largely responsible-granted, allegedly, for now-for the Middle East unrest that has led to violent demonstrations in Cairo and Alexandria, Egypt, and threatens to spread even to Syria, what happens from here? Is this some kind of ideological mutation that has metastasized? If so, what is the end game? Obviously, if Mubarak leaves Egypt in the next few days, as Obama seems to want, chaos will reign supreme, making it that much easier for the Nuslim Brotherhood to assume power. After all, they are the only ones, except for the military (and of course Mubarak's government) with the infrastructure, resources, and the will to stand up what would pass for a government. In the urge for stability in the days following Mubarak's premature ouster, the people might turn to them in large enough numbers to give them power. From there on, any election, despite any international monitoring, would be as much a sideshow as the recent rigged elections held by Mubarak.
It's hard to see how this benefits the US, but if this is true, what it suggests to me, is that the Obama Administration has decided the only way to achieve peace and stability in the region long-term is by being on the right side of history and to be perceived as helping it along as much as possible.
As for Israel, its easy to read the Administrations aims in that regard. They think that if there is a region wide upheaval that empowers "the people", and this is spearheaded or at least largely influenced by Islamist factions, the Israeli state would have no choice but to adopt what the administration feels is a more "reasonable" posture. Remember, to their way of thinking, in progressive internationalist terms, the problem is a perceived lack of opportunity for the Arab citizens of Gaza and the West Bank, who yearn collectively for nothing more than political freedom and economic opportunity. Once they have achieved these aims, eventually the strife will end, and Jews and Arabs will live together in peace. More or less.
But first, the Jews have to grant at least a limited right of return, remove all barriers to free and reasonable travel throughout the country, and finally, withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders. And of course, work out some sort of solution regarding Jerusalem, or at least East Jerusalem.
It will never happen though, in my opinion, and this is why this is such a dangerous, incredibly short-sighted game. This is eventually going to result in yet another full-scale Intifada, eventually, and it will likely culminate in the loss of more lives, mostly Palestinian, in a shorter amount of time, than at any time of recent history. It is not unreasonable to assume the casualties could result in the hundreds of thousands, and the million mark, while probably unlikely, is by no means impossible.
The key is the Egyptian military. They know they are no match for the Israelis, even on their best days. The annual aid the Egyptian military receives from us is for defensive purposes. If they tried to man an offensive operation against the Israelis, they would get their clocks cleaned, and they know that. So unless an Egyptian Napoleon arises from the rubble and there is support from China or the EU, its probably not going to happen. Besides, they don't want to lose their US support, and they understand full well that Obama, even if he wanted to, would be unable to justify such continued support in the face of any aggressive actions.
Therefore, the most likely targets of Israeli wrath, beyond the Palestinian people and especially Hamas, would be Syria, Lebanon, and by extension, possibly even Iran, because that's the real key to instability in the region anyway. Iran has funded Hzbollah, and is also a major supporter of Hamas, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Right now the Israelis have been relatively restrained in their reaction to recent events. But they're watching, and waiting. And if worse comes to worse, they aren't going to take anything lying down.
And then there's the oil situation.
And oh yeah, China, which is an economic partner of Sudan-which is also facing the same kind of unrest as seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and now, possibly Jordan.
Mark the coming days carefully, because you could be viewing the beginnings of a third world war. And if it turns out like I'm afraid it will, you might also start to hear the beginning stirrings of talk of impeachment, and it might be at a bipartisan level at that.
For now, watch Mohamed El-Baredei. He could well be the key to all this. If I'm right, this is something that's going to reach all the way into the corridors of the UN.
So what's Obama thinking? Obviously, he's not thinking of helping a legitimate, stable government to emerge, because if he was, he would accede to Mubarak's stated aims to remain in power until September, and from there to peacefully transition to a more acceptable, more democratic government. Because everybody knows that such a transition, while it would have to allow for some participation by the Muslim Brotherhood, would not on the face of it allow for the kind of chaos that would make their ascension to total power highly probable, if not a definite certainty.
And that's what makes this whole thing so potentially explosive. Even if one chose not to trust in the sincerity of Mubarak, steps could be taken to assure that he kept to the September time-table, and a stable government was set up at the end of that period. That Obama and the administration, as well as the ACLU and probably a cabal within the UN seems to be working more hand in hand with the Muslim Brotherhood (and by extension Iran), bodes no good at all.
It's hard to see how this benefits the US, but if this is true, what it suggests to me, is that the Obama Administration has decided the only way to achieve peace and stability in the region long-term is by being on the right side of history and to be perceived as helping it along as much as possible.
As for Israel, its easy to read the Administrations aims in that regard. They think that if there is a region wide upheaval that empowers "the people", and this is spearheaded or at least largely influenced by Islamist factions, the Israeli state would have no choice but to adopt what the administration feels is a more "reasonable" posture. Remember, to their way of thinking, in progressive internationalist terms, the problem is a perceived lack of opportunity for the Arab citizens of Gaza and the West Bank, who yearn collectively for nothing more than political freedom and economic opportunity. Once they have achieved these aims, eventually the strife will end, and Jews and Arabs will live together in peace. More or less.
But first, the Jews have to grant at least a limited right of return, remove all barriers to free and reasonable travel throughout the country, and finally, withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders. And of course, work out some sort of solution regarding Jerusalem, or at least East Jerusalem.
It will never happen though, in my opinion, and this is why this is such a dangerous, incredibly short-sighted game. This is eventually going to result in yet another full-scale Intifada, eventually, and it will likely culminate in the loss of more lives, mostly Palestinian, in a shorter amount of time, than at any time of recent history. It is not unreasonable to assume the casualties could result in the hundreds of thousands, and the million mark, while probably unlikely, is by no means impossible.
The key is the Egyptian military. They know they are no match for the Israelis, even on their best days. The annual aid the Egyptian military receives from us is for defensive purposes. If they tried to man an offensive operation against the Israelis, they would get their clocks cleaned, and they know that. So unless an Egyptian Napoleon arises from the rubble and there is support from China or the EU, its probably not going to happen. Besides, they don't want to lose their US support, and they understand full well that Obama, even if he wanted to, would be unable to justify such continued support in the face of any aggressive actions.
Therefore, the most likely targets of Israeli wrath, beyond the Palestinian people and especially Hamas, would be Syria, Lebanon, and by extension, possibly even Iran, because that's the real key to instability in the region anyway. Iran has funded Hzbollah, and is also a major supporter of Hamas, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Right now the Israelis have been relatively restrained in their reaction to recent events. But they're watching, and waiting. And if worse comes to worse, they aren't going to take anything lying down.
And then there's the oil situation.
And oh yeah, China, which is an economic partner of Sudan-which is also facing the same kind of unrest as seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and now, possibly Jordan.
Mark the coming days carefully, because you could be viewing the beginnings of a third world war. And if it turns out like I'm afraid it will, you might also start to hear the beginning stirrings of talk of impeachment, and it might be at a bipartisan level at that.
For now, watch Mohamed El-Baredei. He could well be the key to all this. If I'm right, this is something that's going to reach all the way into the corridors of the UN.
So what's Obama thinking? Obviously, he's not thinking of helping a legitimate, stable government to emerge, because if he was, he would accede to Mubarak's stated aims to remain in power until September, and from there to peacefully transition to a more acceptable, more democratic government. Because everybody knows that such a transition, while it would have to allow for some participation by the Muslim Brotherhood, would not on the face of it allow for the kind of chaos that would make their ascension to total power highly probable, if not a definite certainty.
And that's what makes this whole thing so potentially explosive. Even if one chose not to trust in the sincerity of Mubarak, steps could be taken to assure that he kept to the September time-table, and a stable government was set up at the end of that period. That Obama and the administration, as well as the ACLU and probably a cabal within the UN seems to be working more hand in hand with the Muslim Brotherhood (and by extension Iran), bodes no good at all.
The White Stripes
The White Stripes have decided to call it quits. One thing about it, it wouldn't be that big a deal for them to start all over, you know since like there's only two of them and they ARE brother and sister.
UPDATE-Yikes, I fucked up. Meg and Jack White aren't brother and sister, they are former husband and wife. In fact, he took her last name when they were married, and they were divorced either by the time they began recoding together or shortly after.
Needs more doorbell.
UPDATE-Yikes, I fucked up. Meg and Jack White aren't brother and sister, they are former husband and wife. In fact, he took her last name when they were married, and they were divorced either by the time they began recoding together or shortly after.
Needs more doorbell.
A Bag For Me, A Bag For You
Listen carefully, children, as lovable Irish hip-hop artists The Rubberbandits expound on the techniques and joys of sniffing glue.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
The Sun Is Shining Down by Almira Fawn Southworth
I haven't heard a word out of this kid, or about her, since her mother was murdered, so I don't know how she's doing. No word yet on the status of the investigation. I just hope she pulls through.
Katie Holmes For-Well, Anything
I finally got around to seeing the Batman movie The Dark Knight, and I was all like WTF is such the big deal about that? Let's face it, if it weren't for Heath Ledger as The Joker, that would have been one big turkey. They should have just made the movie about The Joker and called it-well, The Joker. Not only was Batman useless, but they had to cram yet another villain, Two-Face, in there and gum up the works, like they usually do with superhero movies any more. Just like two many cooks spoil the broth, so too do too many villains cram the plot and ruin the character development.
Worse, it probably isn't going to get any better than that, so now I know I won't be going to the trouble of the drive and the expense to see the newest Batman, which will feature Anne Hathaway in the role of Catwoman.
But I do have one hell of an idea. Why not cast Katie Holmes as Catwoman, and then go that extra mile by casting Tom Cruise as Batman. Now that would be some intense shit. You would have one psycho character who doesn't believe in psychiatry playing the role of a costumed vigilante that needs one almost as badly as Cruise. And Katie Holmes as Catwoman would be the perfect foil. Unfortunately, Hollywood would be tempted to camp it up with these two and ruin the whole thing, so it might not be such a great idea after all.
In other comics related movie news, sometime this year the new movie Captain America-The First Avenger will be released. He will undoubtedly kick much ass, but here's the real kick in the ass. It will be released worldwide, but in three countries the title will be changed to simply The First Avenger. Those three countries are Russia, the Ukraine, and-South Korea.
Don't get me wrong, I've been aware for some time now that the US is not exactly universally loved in South Korea, to put it lightly. But this? I guess it could have been worse. They could have called it "Capitalist America Swineman", or "Captain Infidel Dog". But you know what? American values just aren't for everyone, not even the screwed up versions as conceptualized by Marvel Comics, which is as left-wing a company as you can imagine.
These are the people who honestly believe that the hero Iron Man represents a true conservative, and on top of that, one of the very few good ones. And even he at one point turns out to be quite the fascist prick. But there again, to Marvel, that's what conservatism is. It's no wonder kids grow up with a screwed up view of conservative values. They're either Bible thumping ignorant rednecks who hate everybody, or crooked business people who could care less about people or the environment, or they are bent on world domination for the sake of their own power and influence, while selling it in terms of American security needs. No wonder the South Koreans hate us, even though they would doubtless have been overrun by the communist North decades ago if not for us. Go figure.
Finally, in other comic book news, the Human Torch is dead. Yeah, I know, they can always bring him back, this is the comics after all. But it just seems wrong. A flaming, flying human is an original concept to Marvel, and though Johnny Storm wasn't the first human torch, he has been the mainstay of the concept for going on fifty years now. With the advent of Marvel superhero movies, including the Fantastic Four, I guess someone is afraid that some little jerk-off will set himself on fire, who knows? No way it could be just another cynical marketing ploy, huh?
Worse, it probably isn't going to get any better than that, so now I know I won't be going to the trouble of the drive and the expense to see the newest Batman, which will feature Anne Hathaway in the role of Catwoman.
But I do have one hell of an idea. Why not cast Katie Holmes as Catwoman, and then go that extra mile by casting Tom Cruise as Batman. Now that would be some intense shit. You would have one psycho character who doesn't believe in psychiatry playing the role of a costumed vigilante that needs one almost as badly as Cruise. And Katie Holmes as Catwoman would be the perfect foil. Unfortunately, Hollywood would be tempted to camp it up with these two and ruin the whole thing, so it might not be such a great idea after all.
In other comics related movie news, sometime this year the new movie Captain America-The First Avenger will be released. He will undoubtedly kick much ass, but here's the real kick in the ass. It will be released worldwide, but in three countries the title will be changed to simply The First Avenger. Those three countries are Russia, the Ukraine, and-South Korea.
Don't get me wrong, I've been aware for some time now that the US is not exactly universally loved in South Korea, to put it lightly. But this? I guess it could have been worse. They could have called it "Capitalist America Swineman", or "Captain Infidel Dog". But you know what? American values just aren't for everyone, not even the screwed up versions as conceptualized by Marvel Comics, which is as left-wing a company as you can imagine.
These are the people who honestly believe that the hero Iron Man represents a true conservative, and on top of that, one of the very few good ones. And even he at one point turns out to be quite the fascist prick. But there again, to Marvel, that's what conservatism is. It's no wonder kids grow up with a screwed up view of conservative values. They're either Bible thumping ignorant rednecks who hate everybody, or crooked business people who could care less about people or the environment, or they are bent on world domination for the sake of their own power and influence, while selling it in terms of American security needs. No wonder the South Koreans hate us, even though they would doubtless have been overrun by the communist North decades ago if not for us. Go figure.
Finally, in other comic book news, the Human Torch is dead. Yeah, I know, they can always bring him back, this is the comics after all. But it just seems wrong. A flaming, flying human is an original concept to Marvel, and though Johnny Storm wasn't the first human torch, he has been the mainstay of the concept for going on fifty years now. With the advent of Marvel superhero movies, including the Fantastic Four, I guess someone is afraid that some little jerk-off will set himself on fire, who knows? No way it could be just another cynical marketing ploy, huh?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Leave That Sphinx Alone!
Well, it happened. During the recent demonstrations in Cairo, somebody broke into a museum and beheaded two mummies, one the great-grandmother of King Tut. I'm guessing they were incensed that her facial wrappings were removed. Oh well, some cooler heads, like Dr. Hawass, are insistent that most Egyptians are opposed to such wanton destruction of the antiquities that constitute Egypt's proud heritage. I hope they're right. On the other hand, remember the Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan?
That's got me so worried about this guy, I wrote a little song for him-
LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE (to the tune of Pink Floyd's Another Brick In The Wall).
We Don't Need No Islam Nation
We Don't Need Hajib Control
No Bomb Explosions In The Mass Rooms
Raghead Leave That Sphinx Alone
HEY! RAGHEAD! LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE!
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
That's got me so worried about this guy, I wrote a little song for him-
LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE (to the tune of Pink Floyd's Another Brick In The Wall).
We Don't Need No Islam Nation
We Don't Need Hajib Control
No Bomb Explosions In The Mass Rooms
Raghead Leave That Sphinx Alone
HEY! RAGHEAD! LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE!
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
Just Make Sure She Knows How To Work That Mouth
Courtesy of Breitbart, you know now what to do if any of your underage foreign sex slaves get pregnant, or to check and make sure they don't have any STDs. You just take them to Planned Parenthood. No questions asked. Just make sure your little teenage whore has all the right things memorized so she won't say anything that might obligate any of the highly trained personnel there to report you to the authorities. Like, for example, by giving them her true age, or the true age of the adult that got her pregnant.
Hey, you might even get some good professional advice, such as, during the period following an abortion when your little girl hooker can't have vaginal sex, she can always do other things. You know, like, "from the waist up".
There now, my fellow Americans, doesn't that prove Planned Parenthood deserves 400 million of your tax dollars a year?
Hey, you might even get some good professional advice, such as, during the period following an abortion when your little girl hooker can't have vaginal sex, she can always do other things. You know, like, "from the waist up".
There now, my fellow Americans, doesn't that prove Planned Parenthood deserves 400 million of your tax dollars a year?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Locked And Loaded In Missoula Montana
I want to make something clear to everybody right up front. I don't give a shit if liberal Democrats are sincere in their calls for more civil political speech. I still wouldn't like the direction in which they're trying to take the country, so I would still give them hell even if they did in all sincerity adopt a tone that was all sweetness and light. Let's just say they are still in my cross-hairs. I mean that figuratively, of course, as anybody who isn't intellectually brain-dead or emotionally retarded could figure out without me telling them. But hey, leftards, if you want to take it literally, knock yourselves out, preferably by walking into the middle of on-coming traffic.
Let's face it, its not exactly like progressives are sincere in their demands for more civil political dialogue. If you think they might be, this report from the Wall Street Journal might induce you to think twice about it. During a performance by the Missoula Children's Theater of The Mikado, one of the children in the cast called for the beheading of Sarah Palin. This met with the approval of most members of the liberal Missoula theater audience, but to their credit, The Missoulan published a letter to the editor from an outraged attendee, as follows-
Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:
First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.
The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.
We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.
As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton
I'll tell you someone else who should be especially ashamed of themselves, but are probably not-the parents of the child who uttered such a heinous line. I find it more likely than not that the parents were informed by one of the adults in charge of the production of this hateful insertion, and gave their approval. If so, the child should be snatched up by Social Services, and the parents subjected to some intense therapy at their own expense before they are ever allowed to see it again. As for the adults responsible, they should be prosecuted for child abuse. If this isn't an example of intellectual and emotional child rape, nothing is.
Unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. It wasn't but a few years ago someone produced a movie that dealt with the assassination of then President George W. Bush. That was different, though, in that as far as I know the film was not encouraging or calling for such an event to happen, at least not overtly. But this, however they might now try to paint it in terms of an unfortunate example of inappropriate humor, is really beyond the pale.
Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood civil and progressive citizens of the world, courtesy of the sweet little horrors they indoctrinate on a daily basis. As if that weren't enough, they are even funded in part by the National Endowment For The Arts.
Isn't that grand? Your tax dollars at work, funding humorous little quips calling for the beheading of conservative politicians. Out of the mouths of babes.
H/T Weasel Zippers
Let's face it, its not exactly like progressives are sincere in their demands for more civil political dialogue. If you think they might be, this report from the Wall Street Journal might induce you to think twice about it. During a performance by the Missoula Children's Theater of The Mikado, one of the children in the cast called for the beheading of Sarah Palin. This met with the approval of most members of the liberal Missoula theater audience, but to their credit, The Missoulan published a letter to the editor from an outraged attendee, as follows-
Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:
First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.
The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.
We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.
As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton
I'll tell you someone else who should be especially ashamed of themselves, but are probably not-the parents of the child who uttered such a heinous line. I find it more likely than not that the parents were informed by one of the adults in charge of the production of this hateful insertion, and gave their approval. If so, the child should be snatched up by Social Services, and the parents subjected to some intense therapy at their own expense before they are ever allowed to see it again. As for the adults responsible, they should be prosecuted for child abuse. If this isn't an example of intellectual and emotional child rape, nothing is.
Unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. It wasn't but a few years ago someone produced a movie that dealt with the assassination of then President George W. Bush. That was different, though, in that as far as I know the film was not encouraging or calling for such an event to happen, at least not overtly. But this, however they might now try to paint it in terms of an unfortunate example of inappropriate humor, is really beyond the pale.
Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood civil and progressive citizens of the world, courtesy of the sweet little horrors they indoctrinate on a daily basis. As if that weren't enough, they are even funded in part by the National Endowment For The Arts.
Isn't that grand? Your tax dollars at work, funding humorous little quips calling for the beheading of conservative politicians. Out of the mouths of babes.
H/T Weasel Zippers
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Oh, Domino!
Courtney has an interesting post on GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD that goes a long way towards explaining the confusion that underscores US Mid-East policy as expounded by Professor Stephen M. Walt. I would personally describe Walt's assessment as a kind of intellectual brain fart. Unfortunately, it seems the professor is not so much a brilliant observer of history as he is just another one of many suffering from the mass delusion of their own intellectual superiority.
True enough, his credentials would seem to be impeccable.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, where he served as academic dean from 2002-2006. He previously taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, where he served as master of the social science collegiate division and deputy dean of social sciences.
He has been a resident associate of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, and he has also been a consultant for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
But what else am I to make of a Professor at one of our most prestigious universities who decries America's relationships in the Middle East as based on The Domino Theory.
As many of you are aware (or maybe you're not) the Domino Theory was devised during the Eisenhower Administration as a means of supporting America's anti-communist Cold War policies. It advanced the belief that if any significant nation fell to communism, then all others in the region would quickly succumb, like a line of falling dominoes. As you might suspect, the Professor asserts that our Middle East policy of present is a continuation of the same theme. His proof that it is a "bad idea"?
Various scholars examined the domino theory in detail and found little historical or contemporary evidence to support it.
Uh, okay then, two points-
One, regardless of the validity of the Domino Theory as applied in the past to the communist threat of the Cold War era, recent developments in Tunisia have borne out the theory in regards to the proliferation of the effect in Egypt, as well as Yemen. Who knows where it will go from there? The Middle East is more of a tenderbox than ever and Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt, is clutching tenuously onto what is left of his power by his bare knuckles. His son and wife have already fled the country. The former President of Tunisia has similarly fled his nation after abdicating his position in the face of growing unrest and violent disruptions. If they fall completely, and Yemen, what happens then to Jordan? What about Saudi Arabia? Even Syria could conceivably face disruptions. Turkey has already lurched towards Islamist control. And make no mistake about it, Islamist factions are chiefly responsible for the current upheaval, and stand as of now potentially to profit from it the most. The Dominoes might not be falling yet, but they are certainly teetering dangerously close to doing so.
But even if that were not the case, by far the greater proof of the viability of the Domino Theory is to be found in the far distant past, when that ship first set sail-in the seventh century AD. Once Mecca fell to the forces of Mohamed it wasn't long before the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula submitted to the coercion of the Islamic hordes. And from there, it was on to Asia, and Africa. And Europe, where the advance was finally stopped. At least for the time being.
All things being equal, it seems to me like the history of the spread and expansion of Islam is a textbook case in proof of the Domino Theory. The history of Islam IS the Domino Theory, dammit.
But what do I know, its not like I have a Master's Degree or something.
Friday, January 28, 2011
British Baby Doll Commercial
I wish they'd market this doll over here with this commercial, just for the lulz.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Sarah Palin Responds To Obama's State Of The Union
Sarah Palin's response to Obama's SOTU speech is on Facebook, and she damn well knocks it out of the ballpark. "Winning The Future", the title of the speech, is more accurately assessed by its acronym-WTF!-than by the speech's content, according to Palin.
From that point on, she proceeds to rip the President to shreds. Following is a few of her points. For example, with the following she nails the Democratic Party philosophy, from at least the days of Roosevelt, down as concisely as anyone ever has.
He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree.
In other words, as far as Obama's concerned-nothing's changed, nor is there any reason to change any of his previous policies, nor will the Democratic members of Congress change any of their policies. They will just allegedly be warmer and fuzzier about the way they present them and the manner in which they debate them. What choice do they have, really?
Palin further elucidates on some of Obama's spending proposals.
And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.
She might have also added that these investments probably won't even break even, let alone pay any real dividends. They might provide a service for a small sector of society, and even in the best case scenario spur some job creation, but for ever job they create, they'll probably cost two. Or three. And like I said, they won't pay off in the long run, particularly if Obama insists on socking it to the oil and coal industries on which we now depend, something Palin also pointed out-
When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.
And she also touched on education.
Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.
She was actually being more kind than she needed to be. Not seeing any "substantial improvement" is the least of it. The federal governments initiatives since 1970 has ruined the American education system in far too many states and neighborhood schools, where those students who do get a good education do so from their own initiative and due to parental involvement. What official help they get is derived from oversight from various state and local governments and school boards. Aside from federal dollars, which comes with myriads of strings, the federal government is a hindrance, not a help to public education.
But here might be the most important point of all-
On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.
What she didn't go into is the real reason Obama and the Democrats are dead set against entitlement reform, why they are so aghast at the idea of "privatizing" Social Security. Simply put, by keeping Social Security as is, it insures continued dependency, but that's not even the major reason. The real reason is, once those funds are transferred to private accounts, the government from that point on loses control of them. Never mind that there are no funds worth controlling at this stage, they are insistent that Social Security can be made solvent. They are determined to make it so, because it provides a steady stream of funds to borrow from to finance other projects. That's precisely why they don't want to reform the system.
They could in reality care less if the elderly lost their savings in the stock market. In fact, that would be the one bonus to the Democrats way of thinking. If that happened, they could come up with a government program to "save" them and make them more dependent on them than ever. And I have no doubt that if such a privatization program ever is implemented, Democrats will work tirelessly to insure that seniors are able to have free reign over how their money is invested, hoping for a resultant crash, and will do so on the grounds of protecting the rights of seniors to invest their money in the best way they see fit.
Let's face it, whether we are talking about foreign policy, energy policy, education, job creation, or entitlements, the Democratic Party agenda can be summed up as government power and control, and Palin sums it up succinctly.
Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.
That pretty much sums it up. I can't add anything at all to that, and that is precisely what made Sarah Palin, during her all too brief two year tenure, the greatest governor in Alaska history. Its also why she is so despised, not only by the Left, but by the corporatist, establishment Republicans that are really out for their own interests at the expense of all of us. They and the Left are not really ideological opposites so much as they are two sides of the same coin, forged from an alloy or corruption, special interest, and elitism.
And Obama is just more of the same, the same as always.
But mark my words, the most talked about part of Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the SOTU won't be any of her major points. It won't be her ideas, or her assessments of Obama and his big government agenda. No, the media jackals who support the Democrats, and promote the establishment Republicans as the voice of the GOP, will devote most of their response to Palin's use of the phrase WTF!
You can make book on it.
From that point on, she proceeds to rip the President to shreds. Following is a few of her points. For example, with the following she nails the Democratic Party philosophy, from at least the days of Roosevelt, down as concisely as anyone ever has.
He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree.
In other words, as far as Obama's concerned-nothing's changed, nor is there any reason to change any of his previous policies, nor will the Democratic members of Congress change any of their policies. They will just allegedly be warmer and fuzzier about the way they present them and the manner in which they debate them. What choice do they have, really?
Palin further elucidates on some of Obama's spending proposals.
And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.
She might have also added that these investments probably won't even break even, let alone pay any real dividends. They might provide a service for a small sector of society, and even in the best case scenario spur some job creation, but for ever job they create, they'll probably cost two. Or three. And like I said, they won't pay off in the long run, particularly if Obama insists on socking it to the oil and coal industries on which we now depend, something Palin also pointed out-
When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.
And she also touched on education.
Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.
She was actually being more kind than she needed to be. Not seeing any "substantial improvement" is the least of it. The federal governments initiatives since 1970 has ruined the American education system in far too many states and neighborhood schools, where those students who do get a good education do so from their own initiative and due to parental involvement. What official help they get is derived from oversight from various state and local governments and school boards. Aside from federal dollars, which comes with myriads of strings, the federal government is a hindrance, not a help to public education.
But here might be the most important point of all-
On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.
What she didn't go into is the real reason Obama and the Democrats are dead set against entitlement reform, why they are so aghast at the idea of "privatizing" Social Security. Simply put, by keeping Social Security as is, it insures continued dependency, but that's not even the major reason. The real reason is, once those funds are transferred to private accounts, the government from that point on loses control of them. Never mind that there are no funds worth controlling at this stage, they are insistent that Social Security can be made solvent. They are determined to make it so, because it provides a steady stream of funds to borrow from to finance other projects. That's precisely why they don't want to reform the system.
They could in reality care less if the elderly lost their savings in the stock market. In fact, that would be the one bonus to the Democrats way of thinking. If that happened, they could come up with a government program to "save" them and make them more dependent on them than ever. And I have no doubt that if such a privatization program ever is implemented, Democrats will work tirelessly to insure that seniors are able to have free reign over how their money is invested, hoping for a resultant crash, and will do so on the grounds of protecting the rights of seniors to invest their money in the best way they see fit.
Let's face it, whether we are talking about foreign policy, energy policy, education, job creation, or entitlements, the Democratic Party agenda can be summed up as government power and control, and Palin sums it up succinctly.
Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.
That pretty much sums it up. I can't add anything at all to that, and that is precisely what made Sarah Palin, during her all too brief two year tenure, the greatest governor in Alaska history. Its also why she is so despised, not only by the Left, but by the corporatist, establishment Republicans that are really out for their own interests at the expense of all of us. They and the Left are not really ideological opposites so much as they are two sides of the same coin, forged from an alloy or corruption, special interest, and elitism.
And Obama is just more of the same, the same as always.
But mark my words, the most talked about part of Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the SOTU won't be any of her major points. It won't be her ideas, or her assessments of Obama and his big government agenda. No, the media jackals who support the Democrats, and promote the establishment Republicans as the voice of the GOP, will devote most of their response to Palin's use of the phrase WTF!
You can make book on it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU
Let me see if I got this straight.
Obama claims we have to cut spending. Also, we have to stop giving breaks to oil companies and instead we need to subsidize alternative energy sources. Then, we have to approach education like its this generation's "Sputnik Moment".
So clarify something for me, somebody. Does that mean we have to spend more money on education? And alternative energy? And while we're doing this are we supposed to expect to pay that much more for gasoline and on our electric bills?
If Americans are going to have to make these hard choices, can we assume Obama and the Congress are going to have it as tough as the rest of us?
Obama claims we have to cut spending. Also, we have to stop giving breaks to oil companies and instead we need to subsidize alternative energy sources. Then, we have to approach education like its this generation's "Sputnik Moment".
So clarify something for me, somebody. Does that mean we have to spend more money on education? And alternative energy? And while we're doing this are we supposed to expect to pay that much more for gasoline and on our electric bills?
If Americans are going to have to make these hard choices, can we assume Obama and the Congress are going to have it as tough as the rest of us?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Jesse "The Full Body" Ventura Has A Groping Hang-Up
Ever since Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal, professional wrestler and wrestling commentator, and the former Governor of the state of Minnesota, had a titanium hip replacement, he can't go through airport security without setting off alarms. He has been subject to extra scrutiny on numerous occasions. At times, he has had wand scans, at other times subjected to a full body scanner, and at other times-notably one day in November-he has been subjected to intense physical pat downs that involved TSA agents groping his genitals. When he was informed that due to the reaction his titanium implants had on airport security alarms he would always be subjected to either pat-downs or full body scanners, he filed a lawsuit against the TSA, naming Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants.
His grounds for the lawsuit are that the pat-downs constitute what amounts to-
"unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."
So says the man who rose to fame and fortune by spending years, in the public eye, on video and the televised media, and before audiences of thousands, doing shit like this for a living-
H/T Ace of Spades HQ
His grounds for the lawsuit are that the pat-downs constitute what amounts to-
"unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."
So says the man who rose to fame and fortune by spending years, in the public eye, on video and the televised media, and before audiences of thousands, doing shit like this for a living-
H/T Ace of Spades HQ
You Just Don't Know What To Believe Anymore
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14th, 1865. On that same date, he issued a pardon to a young boy who had been a Union soldier, charged with desertion.
Only, despite the claims of historian Thomas P. Lowry, it was not April 14th of 1865, but on the previous year. Come to find out, Lowry had gone into the National Archives, and changed the date on the paper that recorded the pardon.
Why did he do it? So he could announce a discovery of historical significance. Earlier on the date Lincoln was assassinated, he had engaged in an act of mercy that saved another life. That was it. Everyone would talk about the discovery of Thomas Lowry, for a brief period, and I guess he could work it into a book or something, and people would be eager to read it. Unfortunately for him, somebody caught on. Now his reputation is in the shitter, but that's not the worse part of it, other than for him. The worse part is, the study of history has now taken a body blow from which it might well never recover.
But you know something? That might be a good thing. How many historians are actually objective and totally non-biased? When I say non-biased, I mean on every subject of historical importance, or even of marginal importance? I don't believe there are any, and I think their work is colored by their bias, even if it is mostly a subconscious projection.
This should encourage people to question more, to demand more concrete proof, to require more evidence to support contentions and theories. Historians should from this point on consider themselves on notice.
The study of history is one of the sacred rites that separate mankind from the other animals, who don't know what families their ancestors stayed with, the adventures and battles they had, how they died, what their favorite foods were, what they liked to do in their spare time. They don't know, don't care that they don't, and wouldn't think to learn, or even wonder in passing about it. Maybe they're lucky that way, because history, while a blessing, is also a curse. It's constantly abused for self-serving reasons, for political reasons, even for religious reasons.
If a noted historian would risk destruction of his reputation and his career for something this trivial, how often has the truth concerning important historical events been compromised, and even trampled, to suit an agenda?
It really makes me sick to my fucking stomach, to think that something that should put us on a higher level than the animals is used so cavalierly ti turn us into just another fucking herd of sheep.
Only, despite the claims of historian Thomas P. Lowry, it was not April 14th of 1865, but on the previous year. Come to find out, Lowry had gone into the National Archives, and changed the date on the paper that recorded the pardon.
Why did he do it? So he could announce a discovery of historical significance. Earlier on the date Lincoln was assassinated, he had engaged in an act of mercy that saved another life. That was it. Everyone would talk about the discovery of Thomas Lowry, for a brief period, and I guess he could work it into a book or something, and people would be eager to read it. Unfortunately for him, somebody caught on. Now his reputation is in the shitter, but that's not the worse part of it, other than for him. The worse part is, the study of history has now taken a body blow from which it might well never recover.
But you know something? That might be a good thing. How many historians are actually objective and totally non-biased? When I say non-biased, I mean on every subject of historical importance, or even of marginal importance? I don't believe there are any, and I think their work is colored by their bias, even if it is mostly a subconscious projection.
This should encourage people to question more, to demand more concrete proof, to require more evidence to support contentions and theories. Historians should from this point on consider themselves on notice.
The study of history is one of the sacred rites that separate mankind from the other animals, who don't know what families their ancestors stayed with, the adventures and battles they had, how they died, what their favorite foods were, what they liked to do in their spare time. They don't know, don't care that they don't, and wouldn't think to learn, or even wonder in passing about it. Maybe they're lucky that way, because history, while a blessing, is also a curse. It's constantly abused for self-serving reasons, for political reasons, even for religious reasons.
If a noted historian would risk destruction of his reputation and his career for something this trivial, how often has the truth concerning important historical events been compromised, and even trampled, to suit an agenda?
It really makes me sick to my fucking stomach, to think that something that should put us on a higher level than the animals is used so cavalierly ti turn us into just another fucking herd of sheep.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Even A Douch Like Olbermann Deserves Better Than This
I've withheld comment about the recent firing of Keith Olbermann by MSNBC for no other reason than I quite literally didn't know what the hell to make of it. A lot of people are assuming that it had something to do with the recently approved sell of NBC to cable giant Comcast. I myself said as much to several different people, and it does seem to make sense at first glance, but something here doesn't pass the smell test. For that matter, it fails the test of any of the known senses.
There is usually, I don't know, I guess you might call it a grace period, you know? You give a person notice, usually two weeks, or at least one. You don't just call somebody in to the office and unceremoniously fire him outright. But in this case, that seems to be exactly what happened. Assuming this is an accurate account, its wrong to do anybody that way, even an insufferable douchebag like Olbermann. Unless of course there's some compelling reason that we don't know about. If someone is guilty of sexual harassment, or some other kind, or he has been deemed a hazard to those around him. Or maybe if something has turned up in his private and/or his professional life that is so profoundly disturbing you come to realize this person could turn out to be a distinct liability to your company's reputation.
Love him or hate him, Olbermann almost single-handedly revived the fortunes of MSNBC. While they never came close to approaching the ratings of Fox News, they did pull ahead of CNN, and Olbie deserves the lion's share of the credit for that. Nor do I begrudge the need for a news network with a decidedly liberal slant. Come on, let's face it, MSNBC does deserve credit for being openly progressive, just as Fox News makes no bones that as a matter of editorial policy, they slant to the right. They at least aren't hypocrites about it, and neither is MSNBC, unlike big brother NBC which tries to portray itself as objective and fair, but, like most other members of the mainstream media, is clearly anything but.
Those of us who have more or less followed the train wreck that was the MSNBC career of Keith Olbermann are aware of his problems. We know of the controversies, the open feud with Fox's O'Reilly, the insane off-the-wall rants, and finally his recent suspension for contributing to three political campaigns of Democratic candidates without permission from his network bosses.
This was in my opinion nothing more than an artifice intended to allow Olbermann a cooling off period following the recent election. The man obviously bore watching during this period. Who knew what he was liable to say or do?
By the way, one of the three candidates Olbermann contributed to was Gabrielle Giffords. When Olbermann made a recent comment about the need to tone down the rhetoric, and included himself in the list of those who needed to be more circumspect in their remarks, I think he was honestly blaming himself for what happened to Giffords, and to the other victims. He may have honestly thought that there was at least a slight chance that he might have inspired Loughner to carry out his monstrous act, maybe to spite Olbermann, the well-known Giffords supporter.
Olbermann seems to have such an exaggerated sense of his own importance not only to his own self, but to those within the sound of his voice, it doesn't take much to ascertain that he would entertain such notions. But more to the point, there has been a great deal of circumspection in the offices of MSNBC, like the other news networks, some of whom have seemingly gone to ridiculous extents to avoid giving the impression of encouraging hateful rhetoric by engaging in it themselves.
So did Olbermann say something, or do something, on the air or in the studios, that drew attention to him as someone who might be in danger of going completely off the rails and saying or doing something that might be explosive, let's say in a figurative sense? I don't know, and we likely never will know. But did his recent lambasting of Joe Liebermann, just a night or two before Olbermann's final broadcast, provide what amounted to the final straw in the face of some new MSNBC policy regarding hateful rhetoric aimed at public officials in the wake of the Tucson tragedy? Again, we may never know for sure. What we do know is that Olbermann, for all his talk about toning down the rhetoric, seemed to be showing signs of already coming slightly unglued.
But the longer we go without a clear definitive reason, the more speculation will run rampant, at least for a while. For example, you have to wonder if it might actually be due to some internal matter or conflict at MSNBC. Or maybe something in Olbermann's personal life that might have come to light, and might yet explode into the public sphere.
Whatever is wrong, Olbermann isn't talking about it, not even on his usually busy Twitter page. I tweeted him and asked him if it was a live boy or a dead girl, and I wasn't completely kidding. But as of now, the last tweet precedes his firing by maybe a couple of hours, and there is nothing there that provides any clues as to what happened or why. At the top of the page is a notation that a baseball oriented page will debut there on February 14th. Other than that, nothing but a deafening silence.
Owing to the recent mob bust in New York and elsewhere, is it possible that some information about Olbermann has come to light, or is about to? No, I'm not kidding, at all. Olbermann always fancied himself a modern day Edward R. Murrow, and he was willing to look into the most bizarre source on the planet in any attempt to bolster his credentials as a worthy heir to the Murrow legacy. In some cases, he made himself look foolish doing so. In fact, some of his "credible sources" were so laughable it would have been enough to have him fired from any other network. But as long as they seemed to bolster his preconceived notions and supported his own apparent agenda, he would accept such sources as would be laughable even taken at face value. Here's one example of a report that became Countdown's number one story of the day.
On September 7th, Olbermann reported on an Indiana University study that found parents lose 12 to 20 IQ points after having children and quoted a Dr. Hosung Lee saying the report "explains why every parent thinks their child is the smartest kid in the class or the best athlete... even if that child is as dumb as a box of rocks or needs a calendar to time their 40-yard dash."
The source Olbermann used in citing a supposed study from Indiana University was The Hoosier Gazette, a satirical website that is similar in content to the Weekly World News.
The point here, in so many words, is that owing to Olbermann's history of using sources that are not legitimate, he might have become a target of unscrupulous persons. There could even be a chance Olbermann was on the verge of walking blindly into a potential lawsuit and maybe dragging MSNBC along with him.
Now he's gone, and I want to make it clear, I am not happy about it. I enjoyed watching the bizarre Countdown with Keith Olbermann what times I did on rare occasions. It had its share of entertainment value, and also sheer outrage. But perhaps most importantly, Olbermann served a vital function to the right, more than he ever did for the left. He made it all too clear just what the liberal American progressive left was all about, stripped of its thin veneer of cordiality and what they seem to consider reason. He made it all too clear that there was precious little difference between mainstream Democrats like Harry Reid, and their more nutcase fringe allies of convenience, running the gamut from the SEIU to ACORN, all the way from the NAACP to the New Black Panther Party, from NOW to Code Pink. These are people who are willing to tear the country apart in order to rebuild it according to their vision, all the while laughably proclaiming their patriotic devotion to their Mr. Magoo version of the Constitution that contains elements and precedents no one but them could ever conceive at the closest examination, or would want to.
Olbermann served as a poster boy for what the liberal progressive American left was all about, and he was available five nights a week from eight o'clock until nine, in all his nutty, bizarre, liberal progressive glory. Who knows, really, how many votes he gained for Republicans in the last election? It's almost like he was a plant, a kind of Manchurian Journalist, if you will. Remember this screed against then Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown?
Maybe we'll get real lucky and, sometime before the 2012 election, Obama will go batshit insane enough to name Olbermann his White House Press Secretary.
Could we really be that lucky?
There is usually, I don't know, I guess you might call it a grace period, you know? You give a person notice, usually two weeks, or at least one. You don't just call somebody in to the office and unceremoniously fire him outright. But in this case, that seems to be exactly what happened. Assuming this is an accurate account, its wrong to do anybody that way, even an insufferable douchebag like Olbermann. Unless of course there's some compelling reason that we don't know about. If someone is guilty of sexual harassment, or some other kind, or he has been deemed a hazard to those around him. Or maybe if something has turned up in his private and/or his professional life that is so profoundly disturbing you come to realize this person could turn out to be a distinct liability to your company's reputation.
Love him or hate him, Olbermann almost single-handedly revived the fortunes of MSNBC. While they never came close to approaching the ratings of Fox News, they did pull ahead of CNN, and Olbie deserves the lion's share of the credit for that. Nor do I begrudge the need for a news network with a decidedly liberal slant. Come on, let's face it, MSNBC does deserve credit for being openly progressive, just as Fox News makes no bones that as a matter of editorial policy, they slant to the right. They at least aren't hypocrites about it, and neither is MSNBC, unlike big brother NBC which tries to portray itself as objective and fair, but, like most other members of the mainstream media, is clearly anything but.
Those of us who have more or less followed the train wreck that was the MSNBC career of Keith Olbermann are aware of his problems. We know of the controversies, the open feud with Fox's O'Reilly, the insane off-the-wall rants, and finally his recent suspension for contributing to three political campaigns of Democratic candidates without permission from his network bosses.
This was in my opinion nothing more than an artifice intended to allow Olbermann a cooling off period following the recent election. The man obviously bore watching during this period. Who knew what he was liable to say or do?
By the way, one of the three candidates Olbermann contributed to was Gabrielle Giffords. When Olbermann made a recent comment about the need to tone down the rhetoric, and included himself in the list of those who needed to be more circumspect in their remarks, I think he was honestly blaming himself for what happened to Giffords, and to the other victims. He may have honestly thought that there was at least a slight chance that he might have inspired Loughner to carry out his monstrous act, maybe to spite Olbermann, the well-known Giffords supporter.
Olbermann seems to have such an exaggerated sense of his own importance not only to his own self, but to those within the sound of his voice, it doesn't take much to ascertain that he would entertain such notions. But more to the point, there has been a great deal of circumspection in the offices of MSNBC, like the other news networks, some of whom have seemingly gone to ridiculous extents to avoid giving the impression of encouraging hateful rhetoric by engaging in it themselves.
So did Olbermann say something, or do something, on the air or in the studios, that drew attention to him as someone who might be in danger of going completely off the rails and saying or doing something that might be explosive, let's say in a figurative sense? I don't know, and we likely never will know. But did his recent lambasting of Joe Liebermann, just a night or two before Olbermann's final broadcast, provide what amounted to the final straw in the face of some new MSNBC policy regarding hateful rhetoric aimed at public officials in the wake of the Tucson tragedy? Again, we may never know for sure. What we do know is that Olbermann, for all his talk about toning down the rhetoric, seemed to be showing signs of already coming slightly unglued.
But the longer we go without a clear definitive reason, the more speculation will run rampant, at least for a while. For example, you have to wonder if it might actually be due to some internal matter or conflict at MSNBC. Or maybe something in Olbermann's personal life that might have come to light, and might yet explode into the public sphere.
Whatever is wrong, Olbermann isn't talking about it, not even on his usually busy Twitter page. I tweeted him and asked him if it was a live boy or a dead girl, and I wasn't completely kidding. But as of now, the last tweet precedes his firing by maybe a couple of hours, and there is nothing there that provides any clues as to what happened or why. At the top of the page is a notation that a baseball oriented page will debut there on February 14th. Other than that, nothing but a deafening silence.
Owing to the recent mob bust in New York and elsewhere, is it possible that some information about Olbermann has come to light, or is about to? No, I'm not kidding, at all. Olbermann always fancied himself a modern day Edward R. Murrow, and he was willing to look into the most bizarre source on the planet in any attempt to bolster his credentials as a worthy heir to the Murrow legacy. In some cases, he made himself look foolish doing so. In fact, some of his "credible sources" were so laughable it would have been enough to have him fired from any other network. But as long as they seemed to bolster his preconceived notions and supported his own apparent agenda, he would accept such sources as would be laughable even taken at face value. Here's one example of a report that became Countdown's number one story of the day.
On September 7th, Olbermann reported on an Indiana University study that found parents lose 12 to 20 IQ points after having children and quoted a Dr. Hosung Lee saying the report "explains why every parent thinks their child is the smartest kid in the class or the best athlete... even if that child is as dumb as a box of rocks or needs a calendar to time their 40-yard dash."
The source Olbermann used in citing a supposed study from Indiana University was The Hoosier Gazette, a satirical website that is similar in content to the Weekly World News.
The point here, in so many words, is that owing to Olbermann's history of using sources that are not legitimate, he might have become a target of unscrupulous persons. There could even be a chance Olbermann was on the verge of walking blindly into a potential lawsuit and maybe dragging MSNBC along with him.
Now he's gone, and I want to make it clear, I am not happy about it. I enjoyed watching the bizarre Countdown with Keith Olbermann what times I did on rare occasions. It had its share of entertainment value, and also sheer outrage. But perhaps most importantly, Olbermann served a vital function to the right, more than he ever did for the left. He made it all too clear just what the liberal American progressive left was all about, stripped of its thin veneer of cordiality and what they seem to consider reason. He made it all too clear that there was precious little difference between mainstream Democrats like Harry Reid, and their more nutcase fringe allies of convenience, running the gamut from the SEIU to ACORN, all the way from the NAACP to the New Black Panther Party, from NOW to Code Pink. These are people who are willing to tear the country apart in order to rebuild it according to their vision, all the while laughably proclaiming their patriotic devotion to their Mr. Magoo version of the Constitution that contains elements and precedents no one but them could ever conceive at the closest examination, or would want to.
Olbermann served as a poster boy for what the liberal progressive American left was all about, and he was available five nights a week from eight o'clock until nine, in all his nutty, bizarre, liberal progressive glory. Who knows, really, how many votes he gained for Republicans in the last election? It's almost like he was a plant, a kind of Manchurian Journalist, if you will. Remember this screed against then Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown?
Maybe we'll get real lucky and, sometime before the 2012 election, Obama will go batshit insane enough to name Olbermann his White House Press Secretary.
Could we really be that lucky?
Renegade Eye-Coming Soon To A Theatre Near You
Few people know that my communist buddy Marvin, better known to my readers and on his own blog as Renegade Eye, is actually a long time professional wrestling promoter. Most of those who do know it probably learned it from his FBI dossier. In the picture above, Marvin, the bald headed guy with glasses, looks like he might have had a body slam coming his way.
Marvin has led a long, eventful life and has now recently announced on his Facebook page that he is in the process of writing a movie script based on his life story, but is wondering who might play him on film.
What do you all think? Let's help Marvin out here. Submit your votes for the actor you think might make the best Renegade Eye, aka Marvin Joel Rubin.
I'll get the ball rolling by suggesting Patrick Stewart.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Steampunk Palin
Nope, your eyes are not deceiving you. Sarah Palin is now a comic book superhero known as Steampunk Palin. In this comic book, someone tries to blow her up during a speaking engagement in which she is advocating moving from dependence on oil and nuclear energy to steam power. When she revives, she finds that she is now a cyborg, outfitted with a steam-powered cybernetic costume. Obama was also present at the attack, and is now also a cyborg named Robama.
Here, Obama and Palin become allies, as Palin decides she has to stop the evil oil and nuclear energy cartel, as well as the Russians who stand poised to invade Alaska.
And the villain who is behind this evil plot (whatever the fucking hell it is), who goes by the moniker Professor Greenhouse? Al Gore.
The book also contains fifteen pages of Palin pinups. It's sure to be a collectors item, though I'm not really sure why. This is actually an offering in the new Steampunk literary genre of comics, which is based on a futuristic world that has moved beyond electric and fossil fuels.
H/T Belchspeak
Friday, January 21, 2011
Have You Pursued Your Happiness Today?
This is a good one, right here. Representative John Lewis declares that since the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has not yet been repealed, it gives the government the right to force you to purchase health insurance. It is not unconstitutional at all. But that's not the end of it. Guess what? You as an American citizen have the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness, according to the Preamble to the Constitution. But, if you fail to do so, the government has the right to force you to pursue said happiness by law. Therefore, by forcing you to purchase health insurance the government is merely making sure you pursue your dreams of happiness. Yeah, chew on that one for awhile.
I want you fucking Democrats to do me a big favor. The next time you get it in your heads you want to send an alleged hero to Washington, you might want to find one that hasn't at some point in his past HAD HIS FUCKING HEAD BUSTED OPEN!!!
H/T-The Colossus Of Rhodey
I want you fucking Democrats to do me a big favor. The next time you get it in your heads you want to send an alleged hero to Washington, you might want to find one that hasn't at some point in his past HAD HIS FUCKING HEAD BUSTED OPEN!!!
H/T-The Colossus Of Rhodey
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The Hamburglar Was Not Availiable For Comment
If you live in Philadelphia, be on the lookout for a silver Mercedes much like the one below. The owner of a car like this one is involved in a heinous crime near the intersection of second and Callowhill Streets.
Two men got out of said vehicle and according to witnesses began to fight. At some point one man shot the other, who is now in critical condition at Hahnemann University Hospital. The shooter quickly sped away in the Mercedes and is being sought by police. No description is given of either the perpetrator or the victim, so I guess we're supposed to assume they are black.
The reason for the violence? They were fighting over-French fries.
I don't know what fast food restaurant those fries were purchased at, but their advertising department should jump all over this one.
A fucking Mercedes?
H/T-Wyatt Earp
Two men got out of said vehicle and according to witnesses began to fight. At some point one man shot the other, who is now in critical condition at Hahnemann University Hospital. The shooter quickly sped away in the Mercedes and is being sought by police. No description is given of either the perpetrator or the victim, so I guess we're supposed to assume they are black.
The reason for the violence? They were fighting over-French fries.
I don't know what fast food restaurant those fries were purchased at, but their advertising department should jump all over this one.
A fucking Mercedes?
H/T-Wyatt Earp
WTF Moments In Black History
Yesterday, at the annual Martin Luther King Day observance held by the NAACP at the statehouse of Columbia, South Carolina, George Washington was clearly not welcome. Therefore, in order not to offend any of the attendees, the big bronze statue of The Father Of Our Country was hidden behind a box, so no one would see him.
But I'm supposed to be worried about the Tea Party having too much influence over American policies.
In. Fucking. Credible.
Oh well, at least I know now not to send any donations to the NAACP.
Oh, but wait a minute, I wasn't going to do that anyway, so-never mind.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Proof Jim Morrison Is Still ALive
Rod Blagojevich offers proof positive that MORRISON IS STILL ALIVE!
Monday, January 17, 2011
Happy Benjamin Franklin Day
He was arguably the greatest American of all time. Throughout his long and eventful life, he engaged in a variety of endeavors. Statesman, diplomat, journalist, publisher, businessman, entrepreneur, scientist, and inventor. He might have been the penultimate American, warts and all. If Washington was the father of our country, Franklin might well be considered the attending physician at its birth, the priest who sanctified it, friend and counselor, devoted old uncle, and godfather-all rolled into one.
He dedicated his life to the concept of the new nation he helped found, but after all, it was in his own best self-interest to do so, as he would be the first to heartily admit. That shared self-interest, he realized, insured the greatest likelihood of long term success. But also he recognized the potential for failure. It was he who when questioned as to what kind of nation he and the founders had forged, answered the old woman with the refrain "a republic, madame, if you can keep it."
His was probably the greatest influence behind the concept of respect for private enterprise, and of the need for as little government intrusion in the market as possible. He also devoted himself to the establishment of the volunteer fire department. His concern for fire safety likely inspired him to invent the Franklin Stove. He discovered, or rather proved, the fluid nature of electricity with his groundbreaking experiments
He was a Deist rumored to be a member of the Hellfire Club, and a Rosicrucian, and probably had as much of an influence on the concept of freedom of religion as he did freedom of the press.
In these and in so many other ways, the DNA of Benjamin Franklin is the DNA of the nation, and its core, long term, most cherished values are reflected in him.
And today, January 17th, is his birthday. Bet you didn't know that did you? Strangely, I myself just learned it today.
Now This Is My Kind Of Political Discourse
Newly elected Governor of Maine Paul LePage had a bit of a spat with the local chapter of the NAACP when he refused to appear at a prison event for black inmates. LePage said he wouldn't appear unless the event was open to all inmates of all races. They refused to meet his conditions, and so he simply declined their invitation. That should have been all of it, but of course the NAACP moaned and bitched. LePage was questioned about it on a local radio station. Following is how he explained it.
"They are a special interest. End of story...and I'm not going to be held hostage by special interests.
He also told them to kiss his butt. Now that's the way all Republican politicians should act, and talk.
Well, I would have preferred that he tell them to kiss his ASS, but you know what they say-baby steps.
"They are a special interest. End of story...and I'm not going to be held hostage by special interests.
He also told them to kiss his butt. Now that's the way all Republican politicians should act, and talk.
Well, I would have preferred that he tell them to kiss his ASS, but you know what they say-baby steps.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
The Municipal Bond Market-Possibly The Next Great Financial Casualty
My word, I hope I don't come across as negative or ever not so civil, but if you buy Municipal Bonds, you might first want to look at this chart that shows that market crashing straight down the crapper.
Then you need to realize that, if you still decide to invest any money at all in Municipal Bonds, you are probably a fucking idiot. But if you are so cock-sure Obama and the Democrats will heal our nation, you will probably buy them anyway, and prove my point. After all, if you do lose your shirt, that would obviously be the fault of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
Just do me a big favor, if you would be so kind. If you do lose all your money and assets and eventually see through the haze that it is in fact Democratic malfeasance, corruption, and incompetence that has caused our largest cities to fail-like our states, and our country-and that by extension they are the reason you have lost everything, kindly don't seek revenge by shooting one of them.
I do so hate to have to put on airs.
Then you need to realize that, if you still decide to invest any money at all in Municipal Bonds, you are probably a fucking idiot. But if you are so cock-sure Obama and the Democrats will heal our nation, you will probably buy them anyway, and prove my point. After all, if you do lose your shirt, that would obviously be the fault of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
Just do me a big favor, if you would be so kind. If you do lose all your money and assets and eventually see through the haze that it is in fact Democratic malfeasance, corruption, and incompetence that has caused our largest cities to fail-like our states, and our country-and that by extension they are the reason you have lost everything, kindly don't seek revenge by shooting one of them.
I do so hate to have to put on airs.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Green Hornet
You can't just please some people. I know, I'm one of them. But I know it, which is why I very seldom go to the movies. For me, this amounts to a better than fifty-mile round trip, for one thing. Then there's the price. Next comes the depression, annoyance, and sometimes outright anger when a film isn't as good as the trailers imply.
For this reason, I didn't go to see Iron Man I or II. I finally got a chance to see Iron Man I on cable a few nights ago, and I was underwhelmed, to put it kindly. Sure, there were a few good moments, but still-pretty much a forgettable exercise.
I'll have to admit though, I would give serious thought to seeing The Green Hornet.
Here you have Seth Rogan playing the Hornet/Brit Reid, and going to the trouble of losing thirty pounds to play the role. Also, he co-wrote the movie. In other words, Seth Rogan is living a comic-book nerd's dream, writing the script for a superhero movie, and playing the lead role. Unfortunately, many comics fans are not happy about Rogan playing the role, and are adamant in their protests, as you will ascertain in this and other reviews, and in the myriads of negative comments.
Rogan, an overweight comedian, is just not right for the role, they say. And, despite the fact that he is serious enough about the role to lose thirty pounds, he also does not take the part seriously enough, which I see as a positive, frankly. Its not that the film isn't serious enough. It's just not somber or too serious. It's just not that kind of movie. In fact, the film is billed as an action-comedy.
The Green Hornet's main enemy is not the film's villain, then, so much as it is the legion of comics fans who have launched the most diabolical plot of all. They are staying away from the movie, in droves. It opened with a disappointing take of eleven million dollars gross.
That's really too bad. Also-well, I started to say childish, but after all, these are comic book fans we're talking about, so that would be about like calling Islamic terrorists ill-tempered, wouldn't it?
I think the problem here is, Seth Rogan is having good-natured fun at comic fans expense, and they aren't happy about it. They're pissed without even being aware of why they're pissed.
Here's the story. Brit Reid is a slacker playboy type who, when his millionaire publisher father dies, inherits the family business. He wants to make something of himself, live up to the responsibility his father left him, even though he clearly hated the old man. At the same time, he doesn't really want to grow up, and doesn't see anything wrong with that. In fact, like most comic book geeks, he really doesn't see it, period.
Yes, Brit Reid in this film is the penultimate comic book nerd. Brit Reid's father was so disgusted with him that, as a child, he snapped the head off his Superman action figure. So now, he and Kato, the old man's mechanic, chauffeur, and all-around gopher, who also hated the elder Mr Reid, decide in a drunken stupor to remove the head off his memorial statue. They inadvertently foil a mugging, for which they are then blamed, and at this point, Reid is inspired to finally make something out of his life-he would become a masked crime fighter with a secret identity. So he has it both ways. He has a position of responsibility, but also lives an exciting, glamorous life as a crime fighter in a way to indulge his sense of adventure and excitement-his inner comic book nerd.
But it goes deeper than that. See, Brit Reid would probably be as good a crime fighter as your ordinary, everyday comic book geek-
Look, there on the sofa! Fatter than a breakfast buffet. Strong enough to resist motivation. Able to leap through two hundred cable channels without getting off the couch for a solid month. It's BOY-MAN! and his trusty sidekick JACKDICK!
But luckily for Brit, he has a lot more going for him than some weird little kid with tight, flaming red short shorts and girlishly sexy legs. He has Kato, who can kick your fucking ass. The unique thing about Kato was always that, on a bad day for him and a good day for the Hornet, he kicked twice as much ass as the Hornet. On a good day, the Hornet was superfluous. Plus, Kato is the one who built and maintains the Black Beauty, which is one bad motherfucking ride.
So why does the Hornet get the billing? Well, because its his show, literally and figuratively. It's his idea, but even more importantly, its his money. He pays the bills. He does something in this film that was never done in any of the other incarnations. He gets jealous of Kato because he gets it in his head that his lady-love, played by Cameron Diaz, is smitten with Kato. But this comic geek insecurity on Brit's part passes in time, and we are left with the distinct impression that Brit Reid and Kato make one hell of a team. They are, you might say, one hell of a dynamic duo, if you know what I mean. But of course, being a comic book geek at heart, Brit doesn't. But let's just say, the fact that Diaz's character isn't all that well drawn out could very well be part of the plot. The comic book geek hero should always get the girl. First he has to know what to do with her if he does get her. But since he doesn't, he won't, and she will just stay a distant ideal. You know, something that is good for his-er, self-image?
This movie is supposed to be funny. It is obviously a Bromantic Comedy as much as a kick-ass, superhero action flick. Comic geek fans should take it for what it is and stop being so self-conscious. The Black Beauty if anything is probably worth the price of admission, though admittedly, the relative restraint used with the car might be the one serious flaw of the film. But then again, what comic geek superhero would take too many unnecessary chances with that kind of ride?
The movie also contains, toward the end, a salute to the old sixties television series. I won't describe it here in detail, but its a recycled plot device which will be immediately recognizable to connoisseurs of the old sixties series with Van Williams and Bruce Lee.
So fuck it, comic geeks, go see the movie, relax, laugh at yourselves, and-well, you know, grow up? Let's face it, the concept of a guy that dresses in a costume, hides his true identity, and becomes a superhero, is the concept of a guy that can't be wrapped too tight. I mean, some of them are wrapped so tight you can see their bulging, throbbing comic book cocks, but hey, that's just proving my point, isn't it? And that point is, its all right for a comic book superhero movie to laugh at the concept every now and then.
For this reason, I didn't go to see Iron Man I or II. I finally got a chance to see Iron Man I on cable a few nights ago, and I was underwhelmed, to put it kindly. Sure, there were a few good moments, but still-pretty much a forgettable exercise.
I'll have to admit though, I would give serious thought to seeing The Green Hornet.
Here you have Seth Rogan playing the Hornet/Brit Reid, and going to the trouble of losing thirty pounds to play the role. Also, he co-wrote the movie. In other words, Seth Rogan is living a comic-book nerd's dream, writing the script for a superhero movie, and playing the lead role. Unfortunately, many comics fans are not happy about Rogan playing the role, and are adamant in their protests, as you will ascertain in this and other reviews, and in the myriads of negative comments.
Rogan, an overweight comedian, is just not right for the role, they say. And, despite the fact that he is serious enough about the role to lose thirty pounds, he also does not take the part seriously enough, which I see as a positive, frankly. Its not that the film isn't serious enough. It's just not somber or too serious. It's just not that kind of movie. In fact, the film is billed as an action-comedy.
The Green Hornet's main enemy is not the film's villain, then, so much as it is the legion of comics fans who have launched the most diabolical plot of all. They are staying away from the movie, in droves. It opened with a disappointing take of eleven million dollars gross.
That's really too bad. Also-well, I started to say childish, but after all, these are comic book fans we're talking about, so that would be about like calling Islamic terrorists ill-tempered, wouldn't it?
I think the problem here is, Seth Rogan is having good-natured fun at comic fans expense, and they aren't happy about it. They're pissed without even being aware of why they're pissed.
Here's the story. Brit Reid is a slacker playboy type who, when his millionaire publisher father dies, inherits the family business. He wants to make something of himself, live up to the responsibility his father left him, even though he clearly hated the old man. At the same time, he doesn't really want to grow up, and doesn't see anything wrong with that. In fact, like most comic book geeks, he really doesn't see it, period.
Yes, Brit Reid in this film is the penultimate comic book nerd. Brit Reid's father was so disgusted with him that, as a child, he snapped the head off his Superman action figure. So now, he and Kato, the old man's mechanic, chauffeur, and all-around gopher, who also hated the elder Mr Reid, decide in a drunken stupor to remove the head off his memorial statue. They inadvertently foil a mugging, for which they are then blamed, and at this point, Reid is inspired to finally make something out of his life-he would become a masked crime fighter with a secret identity. So he has it both ways. He has a position of responsibility, but also lives an exciting, glamorous life as a crime fighter in a way to indulge his sense of adventure and excitement-his inner comic book nerd.
But it goes deeper than that. See, Brit Reid would probably be as good a crime fighter as your ordinary, everyday comic book geek-
Look, there on the sofa! Fatter than a breakfast buffet. Strong enough to resist motivation. Able to leap through two hundred cable channels without getting off the couch for a solid month. It's BOY-MAN! and his trusty sidekick JACKDICK!
But luckily for Brit, he has a lot more going for him than some weird little kid with tight, flaming red short shorts and girlishly sexy legs. He has Kato, who can kick your fucking ass. The unique thing about Kato was always that, on a bad day for him and a good day for the Hornet, he kicked twice as much ass as the Hornet. On a good day, the Hornet was superfluous. Plus, Kato is the one who built and maintains the Black Beauty, which is one bad motherfucking ride.
So why does the Hornet get the billing? Well, because its his show, literally and figuratively. It's his idea, but even more importantly, its his money. He pays the bills. He does something in this film that was never done in any of the other incarnations. He gets jealous of Kato because he gets it in his head that his lady-love, played by Cameron Diaz, is smitten with Kato. But this comic geek insecurity on Brit's part passes in time, and we are left with the distinct impression that Brit Reid and Kato make one hell of a team. They are, you might say, one hell of a dynamic duo, if you know what I mean. But of course, being a comic book geek at heart, Brit doesn't. But let's just say, the fact that Diaz's character isn't all that well drawn out could very well be part of the plot. The comic book geek hero should always get the girl. First he has to know what to do with her if he does get her. But since he doesn't, he won't, and she will just stay a distant ideal. You know, something that is good for his-er, self-image?
This movie is supposed to be funny. It is obviously a Bromantic Comedy as much as a kick-ass, superhero action flick. Comic geek fans should take it for what it is and stop being so self-conscious. The Black Beauty if anything is probably worth the price of admission, though admittedly, the relative restraint used with the car might be the one serious flaw of the film. But then again, what comic geek superhero would take too many unnecessary chances with that kind of ride?
The movie also contains, toward the end, a salute to the old sixties television series. I won't describe it here in detail, but its a recycled plot device which will be immediately recognizable to connoisseurs of the old sixties series with Van Williams and Bruce Lee.
So fuck it, comic geeks, go see the movie, relax, laugh at yourselves, and-well, you know, grow up? Let's face it, the concept of a guy that dresses in a costume, hides his true identity, and becomes a superhero, is the concept of a guy that can't be wrapped too tight. I mean, some of them are wrapped so tight you can see their bulging, throbbing comic book cocks, but hey, that's just proving my point, isn't it? And that point is, its all right for a comic book superhero movie to laugh at the concept every now and then.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
That Little Faggot With The Earring And The Make-Up
Do you believe this shit? The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, an agency which regulates private broadcasters in Canada, has banned the song Money For Nothing by the rock group Dire Straits. What is more, even though membership in the Council is strictly voluntary, this decision is final and may not be appealed, even though it does not apply to state-owned Canadian broadcast networks or the internet. If you are a private owner, you are bound to the rules, unless you resign from the Council. You can do this, but the problem with that is, your license will probably not be renewed once it expires.
These are exactly the same kind of people who control the Democratic Party here in the US. The very same kind of people who want to ram through every big government program and agenda possible and who want to shut up everybody who opposes them, by way of lies, manipulation, political correctness, and now, mass murder.
But I'm supposed to worry about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party because some fruit loop kills a few people? And I'm supposed to believe the progressive left when they open their mouths about-hell, not just about this, but about anything? Too fucking incredible for words.
H/T-The Other McCain
These are exactly the same kind of people who control the Democratic Party here in the US. The very same kind of people who want to ram through every big government program and agenda possible and who want to shut up everybody who opposes them, by way of lies, manipulation, political correctness, and now, mass murder.
But I'm supposed to worry about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party because some fruit loop kills a few people? And I'm supposed to believe the progressive left when they open their mouths about-hell, not just about this, but about anything? Too fucking incredible for words.
H/T-The Other McCain
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Hey, Democraps-How's That Civility And Respect Working For Ya?
Former House Representative from Pennsylvania Paul Kanjorski, who got kicked out on his ass in the last election, has something to say in a New York Times editorial about the need for "civility and respect" when it comes to political discourse. Here's a taste-
We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.
Well, isn't that sweet? The former Congressman, who got tossed out on his ass in the last election (God DAMN I love the feeling I get when I type that), is no stranger to polite, civil, and respectful political discourse. He has always been all for it. And, even when he was fighting his own re-election battle-that would be the one he lost-he still took the time to spread the love around. Notice what he said about the Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Rick Scott, who went on to win his race. Maybe he won due to the nice, positive, respectful things Kanjorski said about Scott, such as the following-
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Now how much more civil could a Democrat possibly be? Kanjorski was, of course, respectfully engaging in a little bit of respectful hyperbole. Thankfully, there are no loony people in Florida who would shoot a gun at Governor Scott over such insignificant, meaningless banter.
In fact, so impressed am I by Kanjorski's and other Democrats style of rhetoric, I strongly urge Republicans to try to see if they can be just as "civil" and "respectful" as they are. In fact, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I strongly recommend that anytime Democraps show this version of "respect" and "civility" towards Republicans, or the Tea Party, that all of us go out of our way to give it back to them in spades.
H/T Moonbattery
We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.
Well, isn't that sweet? The former Congressman, who got tossed out on his ass in the last election (God DAMN I love the feeling I get when I type that), is no stranger to polite, civil, and respectful political discourse. He has always been all for it. And, even when he was fighting his own re-election battle-that would be the one he lost-he still took the time to spread the love around. Notice what he said about the Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Rick Scott, who went on to win his race. Maybe he won due to the nice, positive, respectful things Kanjorski said about Scott, such as the following-
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Now how much more civil could a Democrat possibly be? Kanjorski was, of course, respectfully engaging in a little bit of respectful hyperbole. Thankfully, there are no loony people in Florida who would shoot a gun at Governor Scott over such insignificant, meaningless banter.
In fact, so impressed am I by Kanjorski's and other Democrats style of rhetoric, I strongly urge Republicans to try to see if they can be just as "civil" and "respectful" as they are. In fact, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I strongly recommend that anytime Democraps show this version of "respect" and "civility" towards Republicans, or the Tea Party, that all of us go out of our way to give it back to them in spades.
H/T Moonbattery
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Jarod Loughner-Did He Act Alone?
I think the question needs serious consideration. I'll put this bluntly. If there is anything at all to Obama's Justice Department, they are going to be looking seriously into the possibility that Jarod Loughner was manipulated into committing his monstrous crime. The first place they should look very closely is at the office of the Pima County Sheriff Dupnik.
Sheriff Dupnik was well aware of Loughner's mental and emotional problems, and now there is some credible circumstantial evidence that the sheriff's department had fielded complaints about Loughner from numerous sources, including radio personalities and bloggers in the Tucson area whom Loughner had called and threatened.
The sheriff's response, if true, is incredible. According to The Cholla Jumps, Dupnik informed at least one complainant that Loughner's mother worked for the city (Parks and Recreation), and as such any attempt to prosecute Loughner would only make matters worse.
If that is true, that almost sounds like a threat to me. But of course, if this really happened, we are talking about conservative bloggers and radio pesonalities, and a clearly liberal sheriff who in an effort to divert attention from his own malfeasance in office involving this case, has accused anyone he can think of for responsibility for the crime.
Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and most recently Rush Limbaugh. Anyone but himself, as long as its someone on the right.
Yet, despite the fact that the sheriff's office had fielded all these complaints, and despite the fact that Loughner was kicked out of his own town's community college, he was allowed to purchase a firearm, just in lieu of the fact that he had no criminal record, thanks largely to the incompetence of this sheriff in following up on complaints on Loughner that might have been used to prevent his purchase of a firearm.
And this brings me back to my main point. This sheriff is a progressive, and I have to wonder if he or someone in his department, or elsewhere in the county, or the state, wanted Gabrielle Giffords gone, albeit for some as yet unknown reason beyond mere political disagreement. A person like Loughner would be easily manipulated by a person of authority, someone who might be a friend of the family, someone who looked out for him and befriended him. I will explain how in a future post Loughner's condition might make it relatively easy, even simple, to manipulate him to do almost anything.
Such a person might have possibly even given him private firearms lessons. Loughner committed his deed with stunningly ruthless efficiency, yet there is no indication he had any experience with firearms prior to early last year. It seems to have been something he had only recently shown an interest in. For someone to learn to shoot that quickly, with such deadly efficiency, would require some level of skill set he would be unlikely to have acquired on his own or with just moderate level assistance in such a short span of time.
I'm almost sure this is what happened. I think, however, it wasn't supposed to end quite this way. I think he was supposed to shoot Giffords and leave, quickly. He would have been told to meet someone somewhere, where of course he would have been apprehended, and more than likely shot dead.
Instead, he went totally off the rails and started shooting everybody in sight, until he was apprehended by private citizens acting out of self-preservation. Now he is in custody, where the normally talkative, insanely expressive Loughner is reportedly mum, and saying nothing.
If I'm right, it might not be too long before we hear that Jarod Loughner has been found dead in his cell-a victim of "suicide".
In the meantime, not only should the Justice Department look into this possibility, but Obama himself should be very cautious when he travels to Tucson. After all, Giffords has drawn ire from leftists in the past for not being sufficiently progressive on a variety of issues. Many of these leftists have similar animosity towards Obama, especially in the wake of certain moves that look as though he might be moving toward a more politically centrist position. In fact, to a great many of them, he was never progressive enough to begin with. Now they are beside themselves over some of the recent signals he has sent. His compromise on the tax bill, his recent appointments of centrist Democrats to highly placed advisory positions of influence.
And they know full well that if Obama is assassinated, they can always blame the Right-the same Sarah Palins, Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Tea party patriots they have been screaming non-stop are responsible for the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords.
This is who they are. This is what they do.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Great! Now They're Saying Loughner Is A Pagan
Well, more precisely, that he was a Satanist, or into "the occult". It doesn't matter, as in the minds of most people, all those terms, along with Pagan, Wiccan, Witch, etc., are interchangeable. They found some kind of altar in a camouflage tent outside his house, with a skull over a pot of shriveled oranges. Don't ask me. I used to burn lemon juice in Everclear as an aspect of a purification ritual. He might have been using the oranges for a similar purpose, but really, who knows? The point is, this is just one aspect of an obviously troubled mind, one that seems to have a satanist, possibly pagan connection. And on it goes.
I guess nobody is immune. For all we know, someone might soon assert that Jarod Loughner was actually targeting John Roll, the federal judge who was one of the six killed in the rampage shooting, over his judicial philosophy. Or maybe he was after the little girl, Danielle Green, because her grandfather former Yankees and Phillies manager Darrell Greene, was involved in a diabolical plot to use baseball as a form of mind-control.
Whatever the case, I'm not intimidated. Nor would I be seriously alarmed were this to turn out to have an actual pagan connection. The main point is deserving of reiteration.
1. Leftist loons have been engaging in vile, hateful rhetoric almost non-stop since the sixties, at least.
2. Jarod Loughner was clearly a leftist.
3. Yet, through some tortured twisting of logic that only a leftist could hope to comprehend, leftists claim Loughner's shooting spree is the fault of hateful rhetoric on the right and blame Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party.
For the record, if Jarod Loughner does turn out to be, not a Satanist but a Pagan, all that proves is that he was, like the vast majority of pagans, a leftist pagan. If he was a Satanist, again, he was not a typical Satanist either, but a clearly deranged type of self-identifying individual who might well have picked out such secondary targets as the little girl as an aspect of ritual sacrifice. On the other hand, others have tagged him as an atheist, so go figure.
And for all those people who conveniently like to avoid discussing the possibility that this killing was politically motivated, I would like to point out that his mother, with whom he lived (and who must have had some familiarity with the ritual altar at the home), was a member of the city's Board of Supervisors. That would suggest that his very upbringing and day to day surroundings reeked of politics.
That and the fact that there is strong, compelling evidence that this was not a random, spur of the moment mass killing of convenience. He didn't just happen upon this crowd of people and decide to cut loose. He had purposely targeted the Congresswoman as his primary victim.
Like it or not, crazy and deranged people have political leanings too, you know.
I guess nobody is immune. For all we know, someone might soon assert that Jarod Loughner was actually targeting John Roll, the federal judge who was one of the six killed in the rampage shooting, over his judicial philosophy. Or maybe he was after the little girl, Danielle Green, because her grandfather former Yankees and Phillies manager Darrell Greene, was involved in a diabolical plot to use baseball as a form of mind-control.
Whatever the case, I'm not intimidated. Nor would I be seriously alarmed were this to turn out to have an actual pagan connection. The main point is deserving of reiteration.
1. Leftist loons have been engaging in vile, hateful rhetoric almost non-stop since the sixties, at least.
2. Jarod Loughner was clearly a leftist.
3. Yet, through some tortured twisting of logic that only a leftist could hope to comprehend, leftists claim Loughner's shooting spree is the fault of hateful rhetoric on the right and blame Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party.
For the record, if Jarod Loughner does turn out to be, not a Satanist but a Pagan, all that proves is that he was, like the vast majority of pagans, a leftist pagan. If he was a Satanist, again, he was not a typical Satanist either, but a clearly deranged type of self-identifying individual who might well have picked out such secondary targets as the little girl as an aspect of ritual sacrifice. On the other hand, others have tagged him as an atheist, so go figure.
And for all those people who conveniently like to avoid discussing the possibility that this killing was politically motivated, I would like to point out that his mother, with whom he lived (and who must have had some familiarity with the ritual altar at the home), was a member of the city's Board of Supervisors. That would suggest that his very upbringing and day to day surroundings reeked of politics.
That and the fact that there is strong, compelling evidence that this was not a random, spur of the moment mass killing of convenience. He didn't just happen upon this crowd of people and decide to cut loose. He had purposely targeted the Congresswoman as his primary victim.
Like it or not, crazy and deranged people have political leanings too, you know.
Jarod Loughner Baffles With His Bullshit On Above Top Secret
Here's a thread on the website Above Top Secret that seems to have been started by Jarod Loughner, who was once a member of the site, before he was kicked off. As you will be able to tell if you read the thread, this guy was clearly a loon. He had all the posters who responded to his thread scratching their heads. It's something to do with his belief that years-individual years-are infinite. He wonders how the BCE or BC years could have ended for the CE or AD years to begin. It's just crazy shit that doesn't even make no sense. In fact, its so confused I'm hard pressed to describe it.
YouTube-Leftist Enemies Of Gabrielle Giffords
Boy oh boy here we see some real whack-a-doodles, 911 Truthers protesting Gabrielle Giffords support of the Iraq War. What really pisses these people off is Gifford's stated refusal at the time to support impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney as filed in the House by fellow whack-a-loon Dennis Kucinich. You can almost feel the spit rushing to their heads when a spokeswoman says she isn't sure how Giffords would vote on impeachment if such a motion came out of the House Judiciary Committee.
This goes back to 2008, when these loony tunes were protesting outside Gifford's office. At one point later in the video, there is one woman who makes an appearance going in a building, who looks like ultra-loon queen Cindy Sheehan, though she makes no remarks on this video. It's a blink and you'll miss her moment.
My point here is, why the hell isn't Keith Olbermann and Marcos Moulitsos talking about this video. It's been out there for a while. These people are so demonstrably crazy, two women in a car, women who are clearly Democrats and Giffords supporters, stop to harass them.
Why isn't this being hailed as an example of hateful rhetoric that is poisoning the political discourse? Why couldn't Jarod Loughner have been influenced by these whack-a-doodles?
This goes back to 2008, when these loony tunes were protesting outside Gifford's office. At one point later in the video, there is one woman who makes an appearance going in a building, who looks like ultra-loon queen Cindy Sheehan, though she makes no remarks on this video. It's a blink and you'll miss her moment.
My point here is, why the hell isn't Keith Olbermann and Marcos Moulitsos talking about this video. It's been out there for a while. These people are so demonstrably crazy, two women in a car, women who are clearly Democrats and Giffords supporters, stop to harass them.
Why isn't this being hailed as an example of hateful rhetoric that is poisoning the political discourse? Why couldn't Jarod Loughner have been influenced by these whack-a-doodles?
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Shockerarama! Leftist Who Might Be Responsible For Leftist Shooting Democrat, Blames Conservatives!
Cos of course, that's what they do, habitually. So when Marcos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos tries to point the finger of blame at Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, or the Tea Party, maybe we are supposed to overlook the time he himself targeted Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
So why would he do that? Short answer is, Giffords, though a Democrat, is a member of the Blue Dog coalition, and as such, was targeted by Moulitsos as a target to be primaried if she didn't tow the line. Never mind that she voted for TARP, the Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that she favored rescinding incentives for oil companies in favor of a plan to incentivize solar energy development, which would benefit her state of Arizona.
She just plainly wasn't liberal enough for Marcos. After all, this was a woman who supported gun rights. She even filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case against the DC ban on private gun ownership, a case that was ultimately a victory for the Second Amendment.
Possibly even worse, even though she had spoken out against Arizona's illegal immigration law, she was herself a strong advocate of border security, and complained consistently that the federal government wasn't performing adequately in that regard. She was even responsible for the decision of Barak Obama to increase the numbers of border patrol agents along the Arizona-Mexico Border.
Because of these, and other things, Moulitsos wants her gone. But hey, you don't have to just take my word for it, you can read it from a post on Daily Kos just two months before the 2010 primary.
But because Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party targeted Gifford's district in a campaign that, as a result of their efforts, almost caused Gifford to lose her seat to Tea-Party supported Republican Jess Kelly, Moulitsos blames them for the assassination attempt on Gifford's life that left her in critical condition and resulted the deaths of at least five others. One of the victims was a federal judge, appointed by President George H W Bush. Others include a nine year old girl, one of Gifford's assistants who had recently become engaged, and two elderly people. Several others were wounded, some of whom might yet die. Giffords herself might yet well relapse and ultimately succumb for all we know. She was shot point blank range in the head, after all.
Yeah, if I was Marcos, I guess I would encourage blaming somebody else, anybody else. If I found out the guy was a fan of the Dead Kennedy's I would point that out. Come on, that might mean something, right?
Unfortunately for him, such diversionary tactics will be difficult to pull off with anybody that isn't a liberal loon Democrat (in other words, any living, breathing person with a functioning brain), for the simple fact that Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman involved in the crime, is clearly insane and, according to somebody who knew him well, he was a leftist. Here's what she had to say about him-
This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me. it's loughner just checked my year book. I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing. more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive. he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent"
He also seems to have a penchant for such leftist literature as Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, as well as-wait for it-
Das Kapital by Karl Marx.
Yeah, not exactly the kind of reading you see passed around and discussed at your local Tea Party gathering, at least not in a positive way. Yet, these are what he described as his favorite books on the profile of his YouTube page.
Yet, in addition to Moulitsos, you have none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda chiming in and blaming conservatives.
I take great exception to certain people advising us to avoid attacks on the left, and to see this guy as an insane nut more than acting out of any political orientation. For one, he was clearly acting out of a political agenda, albeit a paranoid, possibly schizophrenic and delusional one. For another, I take great pride in the fact that one leftist recently referred to this blog as "the reliably vicious Pagan Temple".
Yeah, I'll take that. I'm so fucking vicious I want this scumbag tried, convicted, and executed, though more for the death of the nine year old girl than for the others. But I want him executed for them as well. I guess that in itself makes me more vicious than Moulitsos and Fucktard Fonda, who will probably want to keep the bastard alive and granted free blowjobs during conjugal visits at taxpayer expense. After all, to execute a person would be vicious, but to keep him alive and deprive him of sexual gratification would just be cruel and inhuman.
While we're at it, I still want Hanoi Jane tried for treason. I want her to have a fair trial, but If she is convicted, I want her skank ass hung by the neck until dead. Justice has been too long delayed on that front, and seeing it happen would be more fun than watching Barbarella.
So I guess if Jane Fonda is killed here in the next few days that's possibly my fault as well, right?
Wrong! The left is doing what the left always does. They are creating discord and casting blame and aspersions, and as is more often the case than not, it is over an event for which they are at least partially responsible.
Sorry, folks, but for all my sympathies for the victims here, including the Congresswoman and her family, I'm not in the mood to play nice. I don't dance to any tune the left whistles, now or ever. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.
So why would he do that? Short answer is, Giffords, though a Democrat, is a member of the Blue Dog coalition, and as such, was targeted by Moulitsos as a target to be primaried if she didn't tow the line. Never mind that she voted for TARP, the Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that she favored rescinding incentives for oil companies in favor of a plan to incentivize solar energy development, which would benefit her state of Arizona.
She just plainly wasn't liberal enough for Marcos. After all, this was a woman who supported gun rights. She even filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case against the DC ban on private gun ownership, a case that was ultimately a victory for the Second Amendment.
Possibly even worse, even though she had spoken out against Arizona's illegal immigration law, she was herself a strong advocate of border security, and complained consistently that the federal government wasn't performing adequately in that regard. She was even responsible for the decision of Barak Obama to increase the numbers of border patrol agents along the Arizona-Mexico Border.
Because of these, and other things, Moulitsos wants her gone. But hey, you don't have to just take my word for it, you can read it from a post on Daily Kos just two months before the 2010 primary.
But because Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party targeted Gifford's district in a campaign that, as a result of their efforts, almost caused Gifford to lose her seat to Tea-Party supported Republican Jess Kelly, Moulitsos blames them for the assassination attempt on Gifford's life that left her in critical condition and resulted the deaths of at least five others. One of the victims was a federal judge, appointed by President George H W Bush. Others include a nine year old girl, one of Gifford's assistants who had recently become engaged, and two elderly people. Several others were wounded, some of whom might yet die. Giffords herself might yet well relapse and ultimately succumb for all we know. She was shot point blank range in the head, after all.
Yeah, if I was Marcos, I guess I would encourage blaming somebody else, anybody else. If I found out the guy was a fan of the Dead Kennedy's I would point that out. Come on, that might mean something, right?
Unfortunately for him, such diversionary tactics will be difficult to pull off with anybody that isn't a liberal loon Democrat (in other words, any living, breathing person with a functioning brain), for the simple fact that Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman involved in the crime, is clearly insane and, according to somebody who knew him well, he was a leftist. Here's what she had to say about him-
This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me. it's loughner just checked my year book. I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing. more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive. he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent"
He also seems to have a penchant for such leftist literature as Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, as well as-wait for it-
Das Kapital by Karl Marx.
Yeah, not exactly the kind of reading you see passed around and discussed at your local Tea Party gathering, at least not in a positive way. Yet, these are what he described as his favorite books on the profile of his YouTube page.
Yet, in addition to Moulitsos, you have none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda chiming in and blaming conservatives.
I take great exception to certain people advising us to avoid attacks on the left, and to see this guy as an insane nut more than acting out of any political orientation. For one, he was clearly acting out of a political agenda, albeit a paranoid, possibly schizophrenic and delusional one. For another, I take great pride in the fact that one leftist recently referred to this blog as "the reliably vicious Pagan Temple".
Yeah, I'll take that. I'm so fucking vicious I want this scumbag tried, convicted, and executed, though more for the death of the nine year old girl than for the others. But I want him executed for them as well. I guess that in itself makes me more vicious than Moulitsos and Fucktard Fonda, who will probably want to keep the bastard alive and granted free blowjobs during conjugal visits at taxpayer expense. After all, to execute a person would be vicious, but to keep him alive and deprive him of sexual gratification would just be cruel and inhuman.
While we're at it, I still want Hanoi Jane tried for treason. I want her to have a fair trial, but If she is convicted, I want her skank ass hung by the neck until dead. Justice has been too long delayed on that front, and seeing it happen would be more fun than watching Barbarella.
So I guess if Jane Fonda is killed here in the next few days that's possibly my fault as well, right?
Wrong! The left is doing what the left always does. They are creating discord and casting blame and aspersions, and as is more often the case than not, it is over an event for which they are at least partially responsible.
Sorry, folks, but for all my sympathies for the victims here, including the Congresswoman and her family, I'm not in the mood to play nice. I don't dance to any tune the left whistles, now or ever. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)