If anyone is interested in seeing some hard-core torture, be sure to tune in to next Monday night's episode of 24, Day Eight, Hour 12:00pm-1:00pm (episode 21). According to the previews from last night's episode, Jack Bauer goes all hyper-Bauer on the Russian spy who assassinated his lover, Renee Walker, in this season's episode 17. It looks like some pretty intense shit. Put it this way. In the preview in question, the Russian spy was visible from the waist up. Jack was standing right in front of him. The guy was screaming in agony. You could see Jack's arm going towards him, but you could not see Jack's hand. You do the math.
Jack is trying to learn the identities of the Russian officials involved in the terrorist plot that took the life of IRK President Hassan and ultimately cost the life of Renee. He now has a disc that was purported by Dana Walsh (the CTU analyst who was a Russian mole) to prove who was behind these events. Evidently, it is this disc that will eventually lead Jack to the Russian spy. Just wait until he finds out ex-President Logan is involved with the Russians. I expect Logan to face Jack's ire and to meet his ultimate fate. Jack is not to be outdone. He is out for justice, but also fueled by the desire for revenge.
Dana Walsh learned that in last night's episode the hard way. In a way it was too bad, as she demonstrated in this episode that she was a worthy foe, but she was, alas, not quite good enough. After Jack extracted the disc from her, he could have tied her up and left her to the police, or for that matter even let her go, as he himself said she was nothing but small potatoes. Instead, he killed her, more or less in cold blood. I liked the way he did it too. He shot her once, just to make sure she knew the end was coming. He definitely wanted her to know what hit her. Then, once he was satisfied that message was delivered, Jack shot her again and put her out of her misery. Dana almost looked, ironically, like she was finally at peace. She knew any chance for a normal life was long over, at any rate. Perhaps, in an odd sort of way, this was Jack's way of showing her some mercy, since she admitted to him that she didn't have the heart to kill Agent Cole Ortiz (her former fiancee') when she had a clear chance to do so.
This happened while Jack, who was on the run from CTU, waited outside the bank while Cole and Dana went to their shared safety deposit box to retrieve the disc, Dana agreeing to do so after Cole and Jack rescued her from Bledsoe and his men who, unbeknownst to Jack, was hired by Logan with President Taylor's permission to keep Dana from spilling the beans about the Russians and their involvement with Hassan's murder, thus derailing the still fragile peace accords. Bledsoe subjected Dana to numerous water-boarding ordeals, but Dana still refused to divulge the information they were after, telling Bledsoe to go to hell. After all, she knew her life was over the minute she told him what he wanted to know.
But now, Dana seemed willing to hand this information over to Jack and Cole. Unfortunately, she had a prearranged ace in the hole. Along with the disc was a concussion device that was activated when Cole opened the box, temporarily disabling him to the extent Dana was able to easily render him unconscious. She then took the disc, along with the remainder of the contents of the safe deposit box-a cell-phone, some money, and a gun. She then used the phone, after she shot and killed her and Cole's friend who had come to investigate the noise, and made a 9/11 call reporting Jack's presence outside the bank.
This report made it back to Logan's flunky, who was now at CTU, in charge of the hunt for Bauer, and who sent word to the Russians, who will now be on the hunt for Jack as well. However, Jack easily escaped the two police who responded to the 9/11 call, shooting one in the foot and knocking the other one out. He then took off after Dana, who made it to an empty construction site, ditching her shoes in an attempt to move quietly. After some brief tension, Jack got the better of her, as reported above.
There was one major flaw in the entire episode which has so far been unremarked, concerning the scene at the bank with the safe deposit box. In the box, as I said, was a gun, money, and a disc in a plastic case. There was also some kind of concussion device, which was strong enough to temporarily disable Cole, who stood over the box, then taking the gun, remarking as to how Dana would never change, before the concussion stunned him. Yet, it did so while seeming to not damage the thick wad of bills, or the disc in the case. So far as you could tell, they were not so much as even jostled around. I guess you could make the point that the case was concussion proof, but I think it's more than likely just one of the many oversights that crop up from time to time.
At any rate, I am looking forward to see how this series finally resolves. I tend to think the news of a 24 movie might be a blind, to disguise Jack's demise at the end of the series. Of course, the movie could also be a prequel with a star other than Sutherland-a younger Jack Bauer.
At this stage, it wouldn't surprise me to see the series end the opposite way it started. Jack taking the life of a president instead of working to save the life of a presidential candidate. I can envision Logan's coming fate, as he crouches in terrors, knowing Jack is in the room with him, having made it past his security, or disabling them, before he finally puts the weasel out of the world's misery.
Nothing is better than justice served with a piping hot side of revenge.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Kent State-40th Anniversary
Today is the fortieth anniversary of the Kent State "Massacre", as some refer to it, though actually the whole thing started off on May Day, 1970, with a series of events that culminated in what was truly a tragedy, yet one that could have and should have been avoided-the killing of four Kent State students by the Ohio National Guard, and the wounding of nine other students. Everyone is familiar with the iconic picture of the girl who gazed out in shock and despair while crouching near the body of one of the dead students.
Many people have an inaccurate view of this event, while many people on both sides of the political equation maintain whatever belief is most palatable to their own points of view. Even after so long a time, fortunately, it is not that difficult to find the sequence of events that led to the ultimate confrontation of Monday, May 4th, 1970. The problem is, for many, it is best to ignore or forget certain things.
This was not about a repressive government oppressing innocent students who were simply doing nothing more than exercising their rights to assemble and protest under the First Amendment. Although there was certainly an element of peaceful, legal protest in the beginning, things quickly spiraled out of control.
It all began when President Richard Nixon announced on April 30th that the US and its South Vietnamese allies were in the process of expanding the Vietnam War into Cambodia, in the hopes of then bringing the war to a final conclusion. He had long promised (and in fact was elected in part because of his promise) to end the Vietnam War and to bring "peace with honor". He was loathe to simply withdraw, as he fully understood this would be taken as a sign of weakness and defeat by America's enemies. Time has proven how prescient Nixon was, many times over. Of course, many of America's youth had other concerns, due to the draft. Any of them were subject to be called up to fight what was in essence an undeclared war-a police action.
When Nixon made his announcement, a series of demonstrations was scheduled for May Day, by the Kent State Victory Bell. This series of protests culminated in a symbolic burial of the constitution (in the form of a copy of the document). Many other students (including a former Vietnam Veteran) burned their draft cards. Throughout the day there was a series of speeches and crowd participation in the form of chants and slogans. It was really nothing out of the ordinary for the times, and in fact might have actually been quite benign in comparison to the general tenor of the times. Unfortunately, things later turned quite ugly, when a crowd converged on Water Street, where a number of bars were located, and began a street demonstration. Eventually, cops were pelted with rocks, and many of the bar patrons, many of whom were also students, joined the original crowd, they made their way toward town, overturning cars and smashing windows in the process. Banks ans loan companies were attacked, one bank having every one of its windows broken.
Eventually, the police restored some semblance of order and herded the students back toward campus, in addition to a number of people who didn't even live there or in that area. By now, rumors were circulating that the Air Force ROTC barracks were going to be attacked. To forestall this, all weapons were removed from the building, which was indeed attacked on the next day, Saturday the 2nd. It was in fact burned so badly nothing remained but the outer shell of the old building, which was more of a small shack than anything.
This was enough to encourage the Ohio Governor, Republican Jim Rhodes, to call out the National Guard. In the meantime, the mayor of Kent had previously announced a curfew from duck until dawn.
Sunday the 3rd was actually pretty uneventful, however uncomfortable it might have been due to the presence of the Guard. It was not until the next day, the 4th, that all hell broke loose. By now, the protest had turned into one of protest against the draft, and the Vietnam War and its expansion into Cambodia, into one of protest against the presence of the National Guard, who were attacked with rocks. No one is certain who gave the order to fire, but the matter might eventually be cleared up when modern technology is used to clean up the background noise of sound recordings of the event. One student is on record as stating that he clearly heard the order given to fall back and fire. Maybe soon the mystery will be solved-but there's really no mystery to it.
If there is a mystery to be solved, it is more a matter of why anyone, students included, could engage in wanton mayhem and property destruction, destroy a military facility, and attack people-either private citizens or people of authority-with rocks, fists, or anything else, and be considered by many as heroes.
The only true tragedy that happened at Kent State is that the ones responsible for instigating the violence and mayhem were themselves not killed, or at the very least arrested and prosecuted.
Many people have an inaccurate view of this event, while many people on both sides of the political equation maintain whatever belief is most palatable to their own points of view. Even after so long a time, fortunately, it is not that difficult to find the sequence of events that led to the ultimate confrontation of Monday, May 4th, 1970. The problem is, for many, it is best to ignore or forget certain things.
This was not about a repressive government oppressing innocent students who were simply doing nothing more than exercising their rights to assemble and protest under the First Amendment. Although there was certainly an element of peaceful, legal protest in the beginning, things quickly spiraled out of control.
It all began when President Richard Nixon announced on April 30th that the US and its South Vietnamese allies were in the process of expanding the Vietnam War into Cambodia, in the hopes of then bringing the war to a final conclusion. He had long promised (and in fact was elected in part because of his promise) to end the Vietnam War and to bring "peace with honor". He was loathe to simply withdraw, as he fully understood this would be taken as a sign of weakness and defeat by America's enemies. Time has proven how prescient Nixon was, many times over. Of course, many of America's youth had other concerns, due to the draft. Any of them were subject to be called up to fight what was in essence an undeclared war-a police action.
When Nixon made his announcement, a series of demonstrations was scheduled for May Day, by the Kent State Victory Bell. This series of protests culminated in a symbolic burial of the constitution (in the form of a copy of the document). Many other students (including a former Vietnam Veteran) burned their draft cards. Throughout the day there was a series of speeches and crowd participation in the form of chants and slogans. It was really nothing out of the ordinary for the times, and in fact might have actually been quite benign in comparison to the general tenor of the times. Unfortunately, things later turned quite ugly, when a crowd converged on Water Street, where a number of bars were located, and began a street demonstration. Eventually, cops were pelted with rocks, and many of the bar patrons, many of whom were also students, joined the original crowd, they made their way toward town, overturning cars and smashing windows in the process. Banks ans loan companies were attacked, one bank having every one of its windows broken.
Eventually, the police restored some semblance of order and herded the students back toward campus, in addition to a number of people who didn't even live there or in that area. By now, rumors were circulating that the Air Force ROTC barracks were going to be attacked. To forestall this, all weapons were removed from the building, which was indeed attacked on the next day, Saturday the 2nd. It was in fact burned so badly nothing remained but the outer shell of the old building, which was more of a small shack than anything.
This was enough to encourage the Ohio Governor, Republican Jim Rhodes, to call out the National Guard. In the meantime, the mayor of Kent had previously announced a curfew from duck until dawn.
Sunday the 3rd was actually pretty uneventful, however uncomfortable it might have been due to the presence of the Guard. It was not until the next day, the 4th, that all hell broke loose. By now, the protest had turned into one of protest against the draft, and the Vietnam War and its expansion into Cambodia, into one of protest against the presence of the National Guard, who were attacked with rocks. No one is certain who gave the order to fire, but the matter might eventually be cleared up when modern technology is used to clean up the background noise of sound recordings of the event. One student is on record as stating that he clearly heard the order given to fall back and fire. Maybe soon the mystery will be solved-but there's really no mystery to it.
If there is a mystery to be solved, it is more a matter of why anyone, students included, could engage in wanton mayhem and property destruction, destroy a military facility, and attack people-either private citizens or people of authority-with rocks, fists, or anything else, and be considered by many as heroes.
The only true tragedy that happened at Kent State is that the ones responsible for instigating the violence and mayhem were themselves not killed, or at the very least arrested and prosecuted.
Monday, May 03, 2010
It Was One Hell Of A May Day
Just a day in the life of a naive happy-go-lucky person who is silly enough to think he should be able to go to see a play in New York City without being endangered by criminal, radical thugs engaging in property destruction and threats of violence against civilians and police while protesting in favor of
About an hour later we were heading to a concert on the NYU campus, and started walking down Broadway toward Astor Place. We started hearing lots of police sirens all at once, and then looked straight ahead. There were young guys with baseball bats and Che signs pinned to their backpacks running down the street smashing store windows, all on the west side of Broadway. We stopped dead on a corner, because there were police cars coming from so many different directions the street lights were rendered meaningless. As soon as we stopped, about 6 NYPD units pulled up to our exact corner and the cops jumped out and tackled two of the vandals literally TWO FEET in front of me. Some other officers arrived, jumped out of their cars, and started a crazy foot pursuit of another guy who started running in zig-zags down the middle of Broadway. They tackled him as well, in the middle of the freakin’ street, as cars kept almost hitting everyone involved. It happened incredibly quickly. There were tons of eyewitnesses, and I even saw a few people videotaping, but of course I can’t find mention of this incident anywhere online or in the media. We had about five minutes to get to the concert, so stopping and gawking wasn’t an option. We just kept walking, tried to get away from the whole mess. But we could see and hear police interviewing plenty of witnesses, and heard people say “they just kept breaking windows”, and saw the perps with their faces in the pavement for ourselves. I could describe them to you, but that would be utterly and totally racist.
Be sure to go to the site and read all about it. But note how he says he only had five minutes to make it to the play he was attending, on Broadway. Makes you wonder about that car bomb doesn't it? And maybe some other things as well.
H/T Michelle Malkin Be sure and go to that link as well and check out all the pictures, for those of you who don't (want to) believe that our immigration problems amount to more of an invasion of our borders than anything. Here's one that will both whet your appetite, yet make you sick to your stomach.
Revolution Without Borders! Yeah, buddy, that's the ticket.
Now, if you would like to read a brutally frank and honest assessment of what is actually going on here, from the perspective of the left, I highly recommend this article from In Defense of Marxism. Socialists, by and large, see themselves as natural rivals-for the support of the working class and the poor-to the Democratic Party, which is referred to here as "the graveyard of progressive ideals". Although socialists prefer the Democratic policy to that proposed by most (real) Republicans, they are pretty clear in their conviction that the Democratic agenda is to use the Hispanic poor immigrants as voting chattel. The immigrants themselves will get precious little out of it other than a chance to live here and work for peanuts and draw social services, or otherwise make a subsistence living.
Actually, it would be the best thing all the way around if the illegal Hispanic immigrants become registered members of some socialist party, should they indeed win the battle to become legalized citizens. The Democratic Party would certainly sing a different tune then. Unfortunately, the kind of things it will take to totally and permanently ruin the Democratic Party might well be the thing that will send the nation into a downward spiral from which it might never recover.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
I'll Teach You To Throw Up On Me You Bald Headed Bastard
Thanks to long-time reader Danielle, I now have a whole new perspective on the myth of Cronus. I always thought it was kind of strange, as though something just didn't fit. Uranus cast all his children into Tartarus as soon as they were born. They were so horrible to look at, evidently, he just couldn't stand the sight of them. It was always a bit of a nagging question as to how Cronus managed to make his way stealthily up to his bedside while he slept, or while he was drunk, or otherwise in some way preoccupied and, egged on by the vengeful mother Gaea, castrated the old man, then flinging his genitals into the sea. It was almost as like he came out of nowhere, as though Uranus was never aware of his birth, or his very existence.
Now at last I possibly have the answer. Cronus had not even been born yet. He evidently castrated Uranus while still in Gaea's womb, while Uranus was fucking her. Ouch. Now that presents a bizarre picture. Cronus must have evidently been born right at the moment after he did the deed, Uranus's genitals in hand, after which came the triumphant toss which gave birth to Aphrodite from the foam of the sea, while drops of blood that fell upon the ground gave birth to the Furies, and to Pegasus.
I think what we are seeing here is the origin of why men, or at least western men, had for such a long time, such a hang-up about having sex with their pregnant wives. It is almost as though this myth was invented or developed to make men think twice about doing that. My guess is it might have had something to do with perceptions as to the effect of sex on an unborn child. Whatever the case, the video itself is interesting and worth a look for anyone interested in Greek myth.
Naturally, Cronus was determined not to make the same mistake his pop made, and so he swallowed his children whole as soon as they were born. We can safely assume he abstained from sex with sister-wife Rhea until they were born. This is portrayed in the artwork at the top by Goya, where a suitably monstrous Cronus is seen devouring who is apparently the future God of the Underworld, Hades.
The glossed over implications of all of this is the influence of the female deities in question. In the case of Cronus and Gaea, there is an implicit acknowledgment in the belief of the natural bonding of mother and child which takes place as early as well before childbirth, while the child is yet in the womb. This could have come about due observations as to the obvious attachment of the newborn infant to his mother which is not apparent insofar as the relationship of the infant to the father. No child knows who his father is, but it seems as though the bond with the mother is complete from the moment of childbirth. Thus, it is easy to make the leap that this bonding is developed during the entirety of the gestation process.
And it is equally true across genders. Both sons and daughters have that bond with the mother that neither can possibly have with the father. Since men have ruled since the dawn of historical times, and probably well before then (and probably always have), the bond between mother and child might have from earliest times been viewed with some alarm, and may have been a contributing factor to the subjugation of women.
It seems to present a compelling case that, if men felt that women should be subjugated, there was also a chance women might be resentful of that subjugation, and pass that resentment on to their children. Why make matters worse by having sex with her while she is carrying the child. It also possibly goes a long way towards explaining the sternness of discipline exhibited towards children by their fathers.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day-Why I'm Not Going For It
Nope I won't be participating. for a number of reasons.
1. It's kind of dumb and childish.
2. I don't want to take a chance on some seventh century savage hunting me down and killing me and my family.
3. So far as I know, there's no money in it, nor is there likely to be any bragging rights unless you're a big name blogger like Andrew Sullivan or some of the other big-time bloggers who are supporting the idea.
4. I'm reasonably sure it might be considered as being against Blogger's TOS. In fact, I'm reasonably sure Sonia Belle got in trouble at least in part over her support of the Iraq War and her stand against Islamic fascism. The link I provided tells you all you need to know. Don't bother to go there, as there is no longer a there to go to.
Not only has her account been disabled by Blogger, so has her Google account and GMail. Even past comments she has made on other blogs have disappeared. I don't believe this has anything to do with porn. For one thing, aside from her profile picture, Sonia's blog was for the most part pretty boring. (Sorry, Sonia, but that's just the truth). Also, she was behind an adult warning link that you had to click onto before you could proceed to the sight. Finally, none of her porn was against Blogger's TOS. The only porn that might get you in trouble is bestiality, incest, or child porn, something Sonia never engaged in.
There is a slight chance there might have been links to other porn sites on her blog that might have got her in trouble with Google bots who might have automatically flagged her as a promoter of spam, but I kind of doubt that. Had this been the case, she would have probably been banned at the same time she was put under the adult warning flag. Until I find out otherwise, I have to assume someone complained to Blogger about her posts in favor of the Iraq War and against Islamic fundamentalism, and Blogger responded by giving in to them.
Moreover, there has been a strange meme making the rounds lately, involving big-name bloggers such as Anne Althouse discouraging participation in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, even though Althouse herself was earlier supportive of the South Park writers whose program was censored. Even the person who initially proposed the stunt, set for May 20th, is now disavowing it.
This makes me think they might possibly be doing this under pressure from their providers-Blogger in Althouse's case, but others as well. The cartoonist who originally proposed the idea, and who has now turned against it, might have run afoul of her employer, while others, such as one of the bloggers at the Gay Patriot, might have simply decided he wanted nothing to do with something that might seem a little much like piling on another oppressed minority, something he would understandably be sensitive about.
However, whereas Althouse might have received the courtesy of a heads up from Blogger due to the fact she is one of their better known and widely read bloggers, a chump like me would probably get nothing but the ax, with no explanation. Nor according to Bloggers TOS am I entitled to one.
Then of course, there is reason number five-I can't draw worth a shit, so in my case its a moot point. I guess I could photoshop something, but for all the other reasons I mentioned, I guess I will pass on the opportunity to draw a picture of, say for example, Mohammed getting fucked in the ass by a hog or something.
Do I think this is right? As most of you might suspect, no I do not. All the comparisons Althouse and others have made to "Piss Christ" are wide of the mark. The main objections to Piss Christ were due to government funding of this and other similar projects by the NEA. True, there are Christians who would doubtless love to see such artwork banned, government funding or not. On the other hand, none have ever killed anybody over it, nor to my knowledge have any ever threatened to do so. The whole idea behind EDMD was to make a stand against intimidation by radical Islamists, who will never be satisfied, because everything we do to all intents and purposes is offensive to them. Before long they will be demanding an end to outdoor barbecues involving pork products because the scent is offensive and there's an off-chance they might stumble upon such a picnic of infidels. Sexually clad women of course are offensive to them, so they would probably ban them as well if they could. I'm reasonably sure the time will come when they will insist on all major food chains, grocery stores as well as restaurants, offering Halal food-and perhaps minor mom-and-pop operations as well, if that would seem practical to them, or even if it doesn't.
If the truth were known, they would ban anything that doesn't fit into their religious views. But the violence, and the threat of violence, against those outside their faith is what sets them apart from even the most radical conservative Christian and Jewish groups, most of whom (with the exception of a very small handful of deranged individuals) are violent only in cases of self-defense, or when otherwise provoked. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day would be a good way to let off a little steam as regards people's frustrations over such unbridled arrogance, and dare I say evil. But by the same token, its a little like putting a band-aid over a bullet wound.
Right now, they make up about one percent of the American population. The best way we could go about combating their evil and intolerance is to do whatever is possible and reasonable to keep their numbers at that level or lower. If that makes us as intolerant as them in some people's eye, so be it. I can live with that. I can't live without my head.
I'll end this by stating in no uncertain terms that I also discourage any and all small-time bloggers from participating in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. But I'm not about to sit here and pretend you should not do so in order to avoid offending Muslims, even the so-called "moderate" ones, assuming there really is such a thing as that. And even if there are, and even if they would be offended, so what? No one has a right to go through life and expect to never be offended, including about their religious beliefs. If I sat here one day and typed out a long, somber-minded piece about my religious devotion to BOB or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu, etc., I'm sure somewhere along the way, if someone really took me seriously, I would find myself the object of derision, and rightly so.
A group of Christian archaeologists from China recently announced they have discovered, on a mountain of the Ararat range, yet another in what must have certainly been a fleet of Noah's Arcs. You can be pretty confidant they are going to be the subjects of ridicule over the following days. That just comes with the territory. If Muslims-radicals or otherwise-can't understand that or deal with it, they need to resign themselves to the proposition that maybe they just don't belong in western, and remove themselves to where they can practice their beliefs in the peace they insist they want, but which in reality seems to be definable as the kind of peace that comes with not having to be around anyone that might believe something differently.
1. It's kind of dumb and childish.
2. I don't want to take a chance on some seventh century savage hunting me down and killing me and my family.
3. So far as I know, there's no money in it, nor is there likely to be any bragging rights unless you're a big name blogger like Andrew Sullivan or some of the other big-time bloggers who are supporting the idea.
4. I'm reasonably sure it might be considered as being against Blogger's TOS. In fact, I'm reasonably sure Sonia Belle got in trouble at least in part over her support of the Iraq War and her stand against Islamic fascism. The link I provided tells you all you need to know. Don't bother to go there, as there is no longer a there to go to.
Not only has her account been disabled by Blogger, so has her Google account and GMail. Even past comments she has made on other blogs have disappeared. I don't believe this has anything to do with porn. For one thing, aside from her profile picture, Sonia's blog was for the most part pretty boring. (Sorry, Sonia, but that's just the truth). Also, she was behind an adult warning link that you had to click onto before you could proceed to the sight. Finally, none of her porn was against Blogger's TOS. The only porn that might get you in trouble is bestiality, incest, or child porn, something Sonia never engaged in.
There is a slight chance there might have been links to other porn sites on her blog that might have got her in trouble with Google bots who might have automatically flagged her as a promoter of spam, but I kind of doubt that. Had this been the case, she would have probably been banned at the same time she was put under the adult warning flag. Until I find out otherwise, I have to assume someone complained to Blogger about her posts in favor of the Iraq War and against Islamic fundamentalism, and Blogger responded by giving in to them.
Moreover, there has been a strange meme making the rounds lately, involving big-name bloggers such as Anne Althouse discouraging participation in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, even though Althouse herself was earlier supportive of the South Park writers whose program was censored. Even the person who initially proposed the stunt, set for May 20th, is now disavowing it.
This makes me think they might possibly be doing this under pressure from their providers-Blogger in Althouse's case, but others as well. The cartoonist who originally proposed the idea, and who has now turned against it, might have run afoul of her employer, while others, such as one of the bloggers at the Gay Patriot, might have simply decided he wanted nothing to do with something that might seem a little much like piling on another oppressed minority, something he would understandably be sensitive about.
However, whereas Althouse might have received the courtesy of a heads up from Blogger due to the fact she is one of their better known and widely read bloggers, a chump like me would probably get nothing but the ax, with no explanation. Nor according to Bloggers TOS am I entitled to one.
Then of course, there is reason number five-I can't draw worth a shit, so in my case its a moot point. I guess I could photoshop something, but for all the other reasons I mentioned, I guess I will pass on the opportunity to draw a picture of, say for example, Mohammed getting fucked in the ass by a hog or something.
Do I think this is right? As most of you might suspect, no I do not. All the comparisons Althouse and others have made to "Piss Christ" are wide of the mark. The main objections to Piss Christ were due to government funding of this and other similar projects by the NEA. True, there are Christians who would doubtless love to see such artwork banned, government funding or not. On the other hand, none have ever killed anybody over it, nor to my knowledge have any ever threatened to do so. The whole idea behind EDMD was to make a stand against intimidation by radical Islamists, who will never be satisfied, because everything we do to all intents and purposes is offensive to them. Before long they will be demanding an end to outdoor barbecues involving pork products because the scent is offensive and there's an off-chance they might stumble upon such a picnic of infidels. Sexually clad women of course are offensive to them, so they would probably ban them as well if they could. I'm reasonably sure the time will come when they will insist on all major food chains, grocery stores as well as restaurants, offering Halal food-and perhaps minor mom-and-pop operations as well, if that would seem practical to them, or even if it doesn't.
If the truth were known, they would ban anything that doesn't fit into their religious views. But the violence, and the threat of violence, against those outside their faith is what sets them apart from even the most radical conservative Christian and Jewish groups, most of whom (with the exception of a very small handful of deranged individuals) are violent only in cases of self-defense, or when otherwise provoked. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day would be a good way to let off a little steam as regards people's frustrations over such unbridled arrogance, and dare I say evil. But by the same token, its a little like putting a band-aid over a bullet wound.
Right now, they make up about one percent of the American population. The best way we could go about combating their evil and intolerance is to do whatever is possible and reasonable to keep their numbers at that level or lower. If that makes us as intolerant as them in some people's eye, so be it. I can live with that. I can't live without my head.
I'll end this by stating in no uncertain terms that I also discourage any and all small-time bloggers from participating in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. But I'm not about to sit here and pretend you should not do so in order to avoid offending Muslims, even the so-called "moderate" ones, assuming there really is such a thing as that. And even if there are, and even if they would be offended, so what? No one has a right to go through life and expect to never be offended, including about their religious beliefs. If I sat here one day and typed out a long, somber-minded piece about my religious devotion to BOB or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu, etc., I'm sure somewhere along the way, if someone really took me seriously, I would find myself the object of derision, and rightly so.
A group of Christian archaeologists from China recently announced they have discovered, on a mountain of the Ararat range, yet another in what must have certainly been a fleet of Noah's Arcs. You can be pretty confidant they are going to be the subjects of ridicule over the following days. That just comes with the territory. If Muslims-radicals or otherwise-can't understand that or deal with it, they need to resign themselves to the proposition that maybe they just don't belong in western, and remove themselves to where they can practice their beliefs in the peace they insist they want, but which in reality seems to be definable as the kind of peace that comes with not having to be around anyone that might believe something differently.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Lost Again
Last week on Lost, something occurred which gave me faith in the validity of my theory as to which of the candidates will replace Jacob and, conceivably, the Smoke Monster who is not so much Jacob's evil self, as the primal, emotional side of this schizophrenic entity-Jacob being the coldly logical, calculating, pragmatic side.
Sun will replace one, her husband Jin the other, and the two of them, by reason of their love for each other, will serve to integrate the two conflicting sides and make them whole.
But before I go into what happened last week, there is also another aspect that might seem confusing and which needs to be addressed. If what we are seeing in Sideways time is the result of what would have happened if the crash of Flight 815 never occurred, then how does that explain such drastic changes in their lives inflicted by Jacob's influence, from years before the crash, suddenly no longer being in affect at the time the crash ordinarily would have occurred?
Luckily, we have the possible answer there as well-time travel again. Jacob didn't insinuate himself into the survivor's lives until they became survivors after the crash. Once the crash occurred, only then did Jacob, after almost instantaneously learning all there was to know about them, go back in time to pivotal points of their lives and influence them-in affect changing them to what he most needed them to be. Had he chosen not to do so, or had he been unable to do so, the crash survivors would have been as we see them in Sideways time, stranded on the island due to a mishap with the escaped electromagnetic energy which initially caused the crash-but otherwise the same people, with the same lives, that we are seeing in Sideways time.
As for what happened last week, it was one of those "blink and you miss it" type of things. When Sun and Jin were finally reunited on Hydra Island, after a separation of some three years, they ran toward each other and embraced. In a straight line from the exact spot between the two of them as they embraced stood one of the pylons erected by Charles Widmore as a means of keeping the Smoke Monster at bay.
Something else happened. Sun got back her ability to speak English-after Fake Locke (Smokey in the guise of John Locke) touched her. Recall that Flocke had previously touched an unconscious Sun, whereupon she awoke having forgotten how to speak English, though she could still understand it, an indication that her desire to speak English derived from a previous touch from Jacob. Flocke's previous touch negated that gift, while not negating the ability to understand English (possibly because she was unconscious when he touched her, which might have limited his power).
When Flocke saw the result of his touch, and that it would be more of a hindrance than a help to his plans, Flocke rescinded the power of his own touch with a follow-up, not realizing the true import of Jacob's influence, in Sun and Jin's case, was their marriage, which otherwise would have never come about, despite their love for each other. As we saw in the Sideways timeline, they would not have been married at the time of the crash of Flight 815 had it not been for Jacob's influence.
Yet, Jacob's influence was also such that Sun became fluent in English as a means of eventually leaving Jin, who though loving him she had come for a time to distrust due to his criminal associations with her mobster father. It took a time of separation following the birth of their daughter before she realized just how much she really loved him after all. So what will the overall implications of Flocke's latest actions amount to?
We also saw how his touch has influenced Sayid. We saw in Sideways time how Sayid would do anything to protect Nadia, including from himself. Jacob's influence changed him to where he would do anything to get Nadia for himself. Now that's she's gone, Sayid wants her back, and Flocke has promised to deliver on that promise. Yet, Flocke's touch in Sayid's case seems to have had yet another unexpected result. Sayid is changing back to where he is not willing to go too far, not despite his feelings for her, but because of them. In last week's episode, he apparently backed out of murdering Desmond Hume in cold blood, against Flocke's express orders, after Hume asked him what would Nadia think if she found out he committed such a cold blooded murder on her behalf?
That seems to have been too much for Sayid to cope with. Yet, this was a man who, while yet under Jacob's influence, willingly became a hired assassin for Benjamin Linus during his return stint to the outside world.
So if you see where I'm going with this, then it becomes obvious that the seemingly ageless war between Jacob and the Smoke Monster is much more complicated than that of a simple war of good versus evil. If anything, Jacob's influence would seem to be a net negative. On the other hand, it might be more pragmatic in certain ways-yet it seems to instill a sense of determination towards the candidates to go about the accomplishing of those innermost desires which they might otherwise sublimate for the greater good of all concerned.
Another case in point is Sawyer. Although it is hard to gauge the influence of Flocke's touch on him (remember, Flocke touched him when he saved him by grabbing his arm as he was about to fall to his death while descending the face of the cliff towards Flocke's cave), it is certainly obvious by now what Jacob's influence was.
In Sideways time, we saw how Sawyer, whose true name is James Ford, decided to become a devoted officer of the law in the aftermath of his mother and father's murder and suicide by the "real Sawyer". Although he was still devoted to tracking down the villain and possibly killing him, he still wanted to make a positive difference.
Jacob's influence changed all of that. Instead, Ford adopted the name Sawyer and became not just a career criminal, but the same kind of con artist who wooed naive and unhappily married women and stole their family's life savings. It would stand to reason now that the effect on Sawyer of Flocke's touch, of negating Jacob's influence, would be to revive in him that dedication to justice and honor that might in the long run contribute yet another facet of Flocke's ultimate downfall.
And at the end of last week's episode, we saw Flocke touch Jack Shepherd. How will that play out? In truth, we know little of Jacob's influence on him, other than had he not intervened in Jack's life, he would have had a relationship with his son, something he ended up avoiding due to the belief that he would be a terrible father.
So far, Flocke has not exercised the power of his touch on Hugo, whom Jacob transformed from a business entrepreneur with a golden touch of his own, into a lottery winner, though of otherwise uncommonly bad luck.
He has also not touched Kate, nor for that matter Jin. Doubtless he will in time, but to what effect?
In closing, I should like to point out that I might be in the course of revising an earlier theory to the effect that the island is itself alive, and Jacob and Smokey could just represent two conflicting sides of its personality. While that might well be true, it is also conceivable that the island is just a place of special electromagnetic power, and the two warring sides just might have been caught up by the force of its power and transformed by it in some unknown way.
it is even conceivable that the Adam and Eve skeletons might well be the original persons of Jacob and Smokey-a husband and wife. It's been theorized that since time travel is an integral element of the show, these skeletons, whom Jack Shepherd says died about fifty years ago, could in fact be Sun and Jin, victims of time travel. I think, however, that they might actually be the original parents of Jacob and Smokey, regardless of whether those two are one person or two. It is also possible that they might be those two, and that they-Jacob and Smokey-might have originally been husband and wife.
One thing about this show-there's no end to the possibilities, which is one of the things that make it so compelling.
Sun will replace one, her husband Jin the other, and the two of them, by reason of their love for each other, will serve to integrate the two conflicting sides and make them whole.
But before I go into what happened last week, there is also another aspect that might seem confusing and which needs to be addressed. If what we are seeing in Sideways time is the result of what would have happened if the crash of Flight 815 never occurred, then how does that explain such drastic changes in their lives inflicted by Jacob's influence, from years before the crash, suddenly no longer being in affect at the time the crash ordinarily would have occurred?
Luckily, we have the possible answer there as well-time travel again. Jacob didn't insinuate himself into the survivor's lives until they became survivors after the crash. Once the crash occurred, only then did Jacob, after almost instantaneously learning all there was to know about them, go back in time to pivotal points of their lives and influence them-in affect changing them to what he most needed them to be. Had he chosen not to do so, or had he been unable to do so, the crash survivors would have been as we see them in Sideways time, stranded on the island due to a mishap with the escaped electromagnetic energy which initially caused the crash-but otherwise the same people, with the same lives, that we are seeing in Sideways time.
As for what happened last week, it was one of those "blink and you miss it" type of things. When Sun and Jin were finally reunited on Hydra Island, after a separation of some three years, they ran toward each other and embraced. In a straight line from the exact spot between the two of them as they embraced stood one of the pylons erected by Charles Widmore as a means of keeping the Smoke Monster at bay.
Something else happened. Sun got back her ability to speak English-after Fake Locke (Smokey in the guise of John Locke) touched her. Recall that Flocke had previously touched an unconscious Sun, whereupon she awoke having forgotten how to speak English, though she could still understand it, an indication that her desire to speak English derived from a previous touch from Jacob. Flocke's previous touch negated that gift, while not negating the ability to understand English (possibly because she was unconscious when he touched her, which might have limited his power).
When Flocke saw the result of his touch, and that it would be more of a hindrance than a help to his plans, Flocke rescinded the power of his own touch with a follow-up, not realizing the true import of Jacob's influence, in Sun and Jin's case, was their marriage, which otherwise would have never come about, despite their love for each other. As we saw in the Sideways timeline, they would not have been married at the time of the crash of Flight 815 had it not been for Jacob's influence.
Yet, Jacob's influence was also such that Sun became fluent in English as a means of eventually leaving Jin, who though loving him she had come for a time to distrust due to his criminal associations with her mobster father. It took a time of separation following the birth of their daughter before she realized just how much she really loved him after all. So what will the overall implications of Flocke's latest actions amount to?
We also saw how his touch has influenced Sayid. We saw in Sideways time how Sayid would do anything to protect Nadia, including from himself. Jacob's influence changed him to where he would do anything to get Nadia for himself. Now that's she's gone, Sayid wants her back, and Flocke has promised to deliver on that promise. Yet, Flocke's touch in Sayid's case seems to have had yet another unexpected result. Sayid is changing back to where he is not willing to go too far, not despite his feelings for her, but because of them. In last week's episode, he apparently backed out of murdering Desmond Hume in cold blood, against Flocke's express orders, after Hume asked him what would Nadia think if she found out he committed such a cold blooded murder on her behalf?
That seems to have been too much for Sayid to cope with. Yet, this was a man who, while yet under Jacob's influence, willingly became a hired assassin for Benjamin Linus during his return stint to the outside world.
So if you see where I'm going with this, then it becomes obvious that the seemingly ageless war between Jacob and the Smoke Monster is much more complicated than that of a simple war of good versus evil. If anything, Jacob's influence would seem to be a net negative. On the other hand, it might be more pragmatic in certain ways-yet it seems to instill a sense of determination towards the candidates to go about the accomplishing of those innermost desires which they might otherwise sublimate for the greater good of all concerned.
Another case in point is Sawyer. Although it is hard to gauge the influence of Flocke's touch on him (remember, Flocke touched him when he saved him by grabbing his arm as he was about to fall to his death while descending the face of the cliff towards Flocke's cave), it is certainly obvious by now what Jacob's influence was.
In Sideways time, we saw how Sawyer, whose true name is James Ford, decided to become a devoted officer of the law in the aftermath of his mother and father's murder and suicide by the "real Sawyer". Although he was still devoted to tracking down the villain and possibly killing him, he still wanted to make a positive difference.
Jacob's influence changed all of that. Instead, Ford adopted the name Sawyer and became not just a career criminal, but the same kind of con artist who wooed naive and unhappily married women and stole their family's life savings. It would stand to reason now that the effect on Sawyer of Flocke's touch, of negating Jacob's influence, would be to revive in him that dedication to justice and honor that might in the long run contribute yet another facet of Flocke's ultimate downfall.
And at the end of last week's episode, we saw Flocke touch Jack Shepherd. How will that play out? In truth, we know little of Jacob's influence on him, other than had he not intervened in Jack's life, he would have had a relationship with his son, something he ended up avoiding due to the belief that he would be a terrible father.
So far, Flocke has not exercised the power of his touch on Hugo, whom Jacob transformed from a business entrepreneur with a golden touch of his own, into a lottery winner, though of otherwise uncommonly bad luck.
He has also not touched Kate, nor for that matter Jin. Doubtless he will in time, but to what effect?
In closing, I should like to point out that I might be in the course of revising an earlier theory to the effect that the island is itself alive, and Jacob and Smokey could just represent two conflicting sides of its personality. While that might well be true, it is also conceivable that the island is just a place of special electromagnetic power, and the two warring sides just might have been caught up by the force of its power and transformed by it in some unknown way.
it is even conceivable that the Adam and Eve skeletons might well be the original persons of Jacob and Smokey-a husband and wife. It's been theorized that since time travel is an integral element of the show, these skeletons, whom Jack Shepherd says died about fifty years ago, could in fact be Sun and Jin, victims of time travel. I think, however, that they might actually be the original parents of Jacob and Smokey, regardless of whether those two are one person or two. It is also possible that they might be those two, and that they-Jacob and Smokey-might have originally been husband and wife.
One thing about this show-there's no end to the possibilities, which is one of the things that make it so compelling.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Lindsay Graham And John McCain-Two Twisted Individuals
I read a hilarious report today that is just so asinine I don't know what to make of it. It seems Lindsey Graham, Republican In Name Only Senator from South Carolina, is hopping mad at Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, because Reid is going ahead with an Immigration Reform Bill ahead of their previously agreed schedule-originally after the 2010 mid-term elections. Graham is so upset at this, he has threatened to pull out on the Cap And Trade legislation he has been working on along with Senators Kerry and Lieberman. In response, Kerry has pulled the plug on the planned unveiling of the legislation until further notice. For the time being, it is in effect dead.
Graham's reasoning, however, is what is so mind-numbingly obvious it almost comes across like a comedy routine. Graham is certain that Reid is just doing this for political purposes, a way to possibly salvage his political career, which no doubt is the truth. Reid is in trouble and such a bill might be the only way he can salvage his own political career, by appealing to the Latino voters in his state.
In the meantime, Graham-who I should here point out has long been an advocate and supporter of Immigration Reform (he supported the last controversial attempt at such legislation co-authored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy and supported by then President George W. Bush), but he is certain this is just another way for the Democrats to gain a political advantage for the up-coming 2010 mid-term elections over the GOP, whose base has long let it be known in no uncertain terms that any GOP Senator who supports any kind of liberalization of American immigration policy will do so at their own peril.
Graham has worked hard on the Cap and Trade bill in the probably futile hopes of making it palatable to most conservative voters, by working for the inclusion of calls for more exploration and drilling of oil and natural gas, development of clean coal technology, and even construction and expansion of more nuclear plants.
It's obviously an important issue to him, and so is Immigration Reform, and moreover, Lindsey Graham is not up for re-election this year. In fact, he's not up until, I think 2014. So what is his problem here?
Enter-John McCain, who is in the fight of his Senatorial career, in a primary contest with former Republican House member JD Hayworth, currently a conservative talk radio host in Arizona. Although McCain is for now ahead in the polls, it is by no means a comfortable lead-some polls show the lead held by McCain to be as slight as five percent-and Hayworth seems to be steadily gaining ground. He seems to in effect have the momentum.
So there you have it. McCain can't afford to vote for an Immigration Reform Bill at this stage. That would certainly be political suicide, especially given the current climate in Arizona, his home state. He would like to vote for it. He would love to vote for it, for all the self-serving rhetoric he's been dishing out on the stump lately about securing our borders. But he knows he can't vote for it before the 2010 elections, and so does Lindsey Graham. More to the point, McCain not only can't afford to vote for it, he also can't afford to sabotage any filibuster attempts by any of his fellow GOP Senators, something for which he also has an unfortunate history. McCain is in a real bind now, and he-and Lindsey Graham-know that only too well. Lindsey Graham is like a little kid playing hide-and-seek in the middle of the living room, laying in the middle of the floor with a blanket pulled over him, and thinking no one else can see him.
Of course, while this is funny on one level, on another it is really quite sad. What you have here is a United States Senator throwing a temper tantrum because a key ally is being put in a position where he has to oppose a bill in order to retain his seat, when he would ordinarily love to support the bill-as would Graham himself, who has therefore removed himself from the negotiations from yet another bill they would both also love to support, one they had hoped to be able to do so while including elements they hoped would prevent the disintegration of their core support.
In the meantime, there is yet a second factor at work as regards Grahams seemingly untypical meltdown-
Grahams recent actions in fact gives him plausible deniability as regarding the charges made against him in the preceding video, recorded at a recent Tea Party in South Carolina, Grahams home state.
It seems like Graham has the balls to stand up to the Democrats after all, seems to be the intended message, not of course that they have anything on him that he has to worry about, by God. Yes Graham has balls, and while they might be tiny little round ones, they are straight ones nevertheless.
By the time Graham does come up for reelection, don't be surprised if he isn't married to Katy Holmes
As for McCain, he knows full well that if he is elected to yet another term, it will in all likelihood be his last one. Given his past history, what possible reason does he have to improve on it now? He has it in his senile mind that he is an elder statesman, the kind of guy who can "reach across the aisle and get things done for the American people". What that translates into is he is a conservative of convenience, but a liberal by inner sentiment. He dare not vote for or support an immigration reform bill now.
But if he is elected, to what will in all probability be his last term in office, you had better understand this-he will have no reason to pretend to be anything other than what he is. And he will act accordingly. Thus you have Lindsey Graham, throwing the equivalent of a Senatorial hissy-fit, all because he knows if his buddy McCain is put in a position where he can't support his cherished dreams without risking the loss of his Senate seat due to those pesky little inconvenient things known as the voters, its all the Democrats fault. They should have had enough class to wait until after the election-when it would be too late for the voters to punish McCain accordingly.
In the meantime, to all those Arizona Republicans who might be thinking of whether they should support McCain in the primaries, if you fall for his lies and manipulations now, you have only yourselves to blame. JD Hayworth is by no means perfect, but what politician is? When it comes to John McCain, what he says now and what his actual legislative history and voting record is might well be-in fact is-two different things.
Graham's reasoning, however, is what is so mind-numbingly obvious it almost comes across like a comedy routine. Graham is certain that Reid is just doing this for political purposes, a way to possibly salvage his political career, which no doubt is the truth. Reid is in trouble and such a bill might be the only way he can salvage his own political career, by appealing to the Latino voters in his state.
In the meantime, Graham-who I should here point out has long been an advocate and supporter of Immigration Reform (he supported the last controversial attempt at such legislation co-authored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy and supported by then President George W. Bush), but he is certain this is just another way for the Democrats to gain a political advantage for the up-coming 2010 mid-term elections over the GOP, whose base has long let it be known in no uncertain terms that any GOP Senator who supports any kind of liberalization of American immigration policy will do so at their own peril.
Graham has worked hard on the Cap and Trade bill in the probably futile hopes of making it palatable to most conservative voters, by working for the inclusion of calls for more exploration and drilling of oil and natural gas, development of clean coal technology, and even construction and expansion of more nuclear plants.
It's obviously an important issue to him, and so is Immigration Reform, and moreover, Lindsey Graham is not up for re-election this year. In fact, he's not up until, I think 2014. So what is his problem here?
Enter-John McCain, who is in the fight of his Senatorial career, in a primary contest with former Republican House member JD Hayworth, currently a conservative talk radio host in Arizona. Although McCain is for now ahead in the polls, it is by no means a comfortable lead-some polls show the lead held by McCain to be as slight as five percent-and Hayworth seems to be steadily gaining ground. He seems to in effect have the momentum.
So there you have it. McCain can't afford to vote for an Immigration Reform Bill at this stage. That would certainly be political suicide, especially given the current climate in Arizona, his home state. He would like to vote for it. He would love to vote for it, for all the self-serving rhetoric he's been dishing out on the stump lately about securing our borders. But he knows he can't vote for it before the 2010 elections, and so does Lindsey Graham. More to the point, McCain not only can't afford to vote for it, he also can't afford to sabotage any filibuster attempts by any of his fellow GOP Senators, something for which he also has an unfortunate history. McCain is in a real bind now, and he-and Lindsey Graham-know that only too well. Lindsey Graham is like a little kid playing hide-and-seek in the middle of the living room, laying in the middle of the floor with a blanket pulled over him, and thinking no one else can see him.
Of course, while this is funny on one level, on another it is really quite sad. What you have here is a United States Senator throwing a temper tantrum because a key ally is being put in a position where he has to oppose a bill in order to retain his seat, when he would ordinarily love to support the bill-as would Graham himself, who has therefore removed himself from the negotiations from yet another bill they would both also love to support, one they had hoped to be able to do so while including elements they hoped would prevent the disintegration of their core support.
In the meantime, there is yet a second factor at work as regards Grahams seemingly untypical meltdown-
Grahams recent actions in fact gives him plausible deniability as regarding the charges made against him in the preceding video, recorded at a recent Tea Party in South Carolina, Grahams home state.
It seems like Graham has the balls to stand up to the Democrats after all, seems to be the intended message, not of course that they have anything on him that he has to worry about, by God. Yes Graham has balls, and while they might be tiny little round ones, they are straight ones nevertheless.
By the time Graham does come up for reelection, don't be surprised if he isn't married to Katy Holmes
As for McCain, he knows full well that if he is elected to yet another term, it will in all likelihood be his last one. Given his past history, what possible reason does he have to improve on it now? He has it in his senile mind that he is an elder statesman, the kind of guy who can "reach across the aisle and get things done for the American people". What that translates into is he is a conservative of convenience, but a liberal by inner sentiment. He dare not vote for or support an immigration reform bill now.
But if he is elected, to what will in all probability be his last term in office, you had better understand this-he will have no reason to pretend to be anything other than what he is. And he will act accordingly. Thus you have Lindsey Graham, throwing the equivalent of a Senatorial hissy-fit, all because he knows if his buddy McCain is put in a position where he can't support his cherished dreams without risking the loss of his Senate seat due to those pesky little inconvenient things known as the voters, its all the Democrats fault. They should have had enough class to wait until after the election-when it would be too late for the voters to punish McCain accordingly.
In the meantime, to all those Arizona Republicans who might be thinking of whether they should support McCain in the primaries, if you fall for his lies and manipulations now, you have only yourselves to blame. JD Hayworth is by no means perfect, but what politician is? When it comes to John McCain, what he says now and what his actual legislative history and voting record is might well be-in fact is-two different things.
The British Mess
In the event of a hung Parliament, where no party has a clear majority following the next set of British elections, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg has promised that he will not form a coalition government with Brown and his Labour Party. He has said this in an apparent attempt to counter charges by Cameron's Conservatives that a vote for the LibDems is tantamount to a vote for five more years of Brown and Labour. As has been pointed out however, this would likely cause disaffection amongst those left of center voters who are now supporting Clegg (due to his performance in the series of "Leaders Debates" in which he performed far above expectations and according to most analysts won the debates). They might hate Brown, but they certainly would not wish to see the Tories gain power.
However, it seems pretty obvious that, the way the British electoral system is set up, either Brown or Cameron will have to form a coalition government with the LibDems, which means that one of the two leaders of said parties would become Prime Minister.
Even if the Liberal Democrats perform at the highest possible levels, they will only pick up a relative handful of seats, just enough to keep the Conservatives, poised to end up with the most seats in any event, from gaining a clear majority. The clear losers, under the most likely at this point scenario, will be Labour, who might well, and in fact likely, nevertheless maintain the reins of government with Brown still at the helm-assuming Clegg relents and forms his coalition government with Labour. It does seem highly unlikely that either Labour or Conservatives will agree to Clegg being Prime Minister.
So what do you have? Very likely, chaos. At the very least, the British public are going to be outraged in large part at themselves if their votes for Clegg amounts to a return to power of Brown, or for that matter Cameron.
This problem could be easily solved were Britain to merely hold run-off elections between the two top contenders. Under that scenario, the election would more than likely be between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Conservatives would likely win that one running away, because frankly if you love Labour, you would have to be absolutely enthralled with the Liberal Democrats. Their policies would be tantamount to national suicide.
They are in favor of a multinational foreign policy and are full speed ahead in favor of full integration into the European Union, including but not limited to adopting the Euro and dropping the Pound. They are also for unilaterally dismantling the Trident nuclear deterrent. They favor what can only be described as an open borders immigration policy, and would like to see a system of home incarceration for convicted offenders of "minor" crimes.
Bear in mind that the Liberal Democrats, the heirs to Gladstone, have been out of power now for closely approaching one hundred years, when to all intents and purposes they slid into practical irrelevancy as the third party of British politics. They contributed to a hung Parliament once in the early to mid seventies, but that matter was quickly resolved. Then again, there was not so much at stake then.
This is not your great-great-great grandfather's Liberal Party, which used to favor a laissez-faire economic policy. They actually bonded with another minor party, the Social Democrats, in the eighties, and swung greatly to the left. At the time it was a matter of survival more than relevancy that they do so.
Now they are on the verge of establishing themselves as power brokers and netting a handful of Ministry posts in the bargain, in addition to asserting some of their policies into government as a matter of compromise politics. Clegg's latest promises to the contrary, the Labour Party seems to be the most obvious route to go. Labour is certainly unlikely-to say the very least-to form a coalition with the Conservatives, so how could Clegg?
Ironically, the overall result of this might well turn out to be the fiasco that, far from bringing the Liberal Democrats to power and establishing them as a permanent major player in British politics might well in the long run turn them into a footnote of British history and seal their permanent doom.
If there is one thing the British can't abide, it's chaos, which is seemingly what they are headed towards. The result could be a collapse of government if Clegg fails or refuses to form a coalition government with Labour, or the Conservatives. At that point, would Brown even have the authority to call another election? If he does not, does anybody aside from the Queen have that authority-or does she even have that authority? I rather suspect not. Nor would there be any sitting chamber that would have the authority to do pretty much anything in the way of forming a government or reforming this batty electoral system in which the runaway winner of the election might well end up, and probably will end up, with no more than 64 seats, about ten more than they now have, while the loser could and probably will end up with more than two hundred, and be positioned to yet run the government. It's stark madness, and if it instigates the fall of the British government, would that be any great mystery?
The whole problem has arisen due to the perception, probably an accurate one, that Cameron and the Conservatives are themselves to all intents and purposes a center-left party, and by American standards, on the average an out-and-out liberal party. It is no longer the party of Margaret Thatcher, or Winston Churchill. It has regressed back to where it is once again the party of Neville Chamberlain, minus the optimistic outlook.
There is no truly conservative party by any stretch of the imagination. Even the much and with good reason maligned British National Party is not so much a conservative party as a hyper-nationalist one with fascist overtones. No one is buying their snake oil. At least, not yet.
But like I said, the British cannot abide chaos, and it won't take long before demands are made for electoral reform. But in the meantime, what is going to be the result on Britain's relations with the EU and with America? Unfortunately, the US is a big part of their problem. Most Brits want their country to cut themselves loose from the alliance, which they feel has brought them nothing but turmoil. As it stands, the western city with the largest percentage of pro-Islamic radical sympathizers is not Paris, not Amsterdam-but London. The government has brought a lot of this headache on themselves, as much with their liberal social and immigration policies as by their connection to Iraq and Afghanistan, but by now America makes the most convenient scapegoat.
Then there's the EU. They had a conniption over the economic turmoil of relatively tiny Greece. What will happen if the British economy collapses due to political instability? It could easily happen. In America, not too very long ago, such a scenario would probably have been temporarily good for the economy, because not so much of it was bound up in government subsidies, and in fact, there would have been some who would have and could have easily and happily profited from the situation inherent in the inability to oversee the regulatory schemes that tend to put a brake on economic growth. No such potential exists in Britain. To utilize a current phrase, Britain is "too big to fail". So what happens if it does just that?
However, it seems pretty obvious that, the way the British electoral system is set up, either Brown or Cameron will have to form a coalition government with the LibDems, which means that one of the two leaders of said parties would become Prime Minister.
Even if the Liberal Democrats perform at the highest possible levels, they will only pick up a relative handful of seats, just enough to keep the Conservatives, poised to end up with the most seats in any event, from gaining a clear majority. The clear losers, under the most likely at this point scenario, will be Labour, who might well, and in fact likely, nevertheless maintain the reins of government with Brown still at the helm-assuming Clegg relents and forms his coalition government with Labour. It does seem highly unlikely that either Labour or Conservatives will agree to Clegg being Prime Minister.
So what do you have? Very likely, chaos. At the very least, the British public are going to be outraged in large part at themselves if their votes for Clegg amounts to a return to power of Brown, or for that matter Cameron.
This problem could be easily solved were Britain to merely hold run-off elections between the two top contenders. Under that scenario, the election would more than likely be between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Conservatives would likely win that one running away, because frankly if you love Labour, you would have to be absolutely enthralled with the Liberal Democrats. Their policies would be tantamount to national suicide.
They are in favor of a multinational foreign policy and are full speed ahead in favor of full integration into the European Union, including but not limited to adopting the Euro and dropping the Pound. They are also for unilaterally dismantling the Trident nuclear deterrent. They favor what can only be described as an open borders immigration policy, and would like to see a system of home incarceration for convicted offenders of "minor" crimes.
Bear in mind that the Liberal Democrats, the heirs to Gladstone, have been out of power now for closely approaching one hundred years, when to all intents and purposes they slid into practical irrelevancy as the third party of British politics. They contributed to a hung Parliament once in the early to mid seventies, but that matter was quickly resolved. Then again, there was not so much at stake then.
This is not your great-great-great grandfather's Liberal Party, which used to favor a laissez-faire economic policy. They actually bonded with another minor party, the Social Democrats, in the eighties, and swung greatly to the left. At the time it was a matter of survival more than relevancy that they do so.
Now they are on the verge of establishing themselves as power brokers and netting a handful of Ministry posts in the bargain, in addition to asserting some of their policies into government as a matter of compromise politics. Clegg's latest promises to the contrary, the Labour Party seems to be the most obvious route to go. Labour is certainly unlikely-to say the very least-to form a coalition with the Conservatives, so how could Clegg?
Ironically, the overall result of this might well turn out to be the fiasco that, far from bringing the Liberal Democrats to power and establishing them as a permanent major player in British politics might well in the long run turn them into a footnote of British history and seal their permanent doom.
If there is one thing the British can't abide, it's chaos, which is seemingly what they are headed towards. The result could be a collapse of government if Clegg fails or refuses to form a coalition government with Labour, or the Conservatives. At that point, would Brown even have the authority to call another election? If he does not, does anybody aside from the Queen have that authority-or does she even have that authority? I rather suspect not. Nor would there be any sitting chamber that would have the authority to do pretty much anything in the way of forming a government or reforming this batty electoral system in which the runaway winner of the election might well end up, and probably will end up, with no more than 64 seats, about ten more than they now have, while the loser could and probably will end up with more than two hundred, and be positioned to yet run the government. It's stark madness, and if it instigates the fall of the British government, would that be any great mystery?
The whole problem has arisen due to the perception, probably an accurate one, that Cameron and the Conservatives are themselves to all intents and purposes a center-left party, and by American standards, on the average an out-and-out liberal party. It is no longer the party of Margaret Thatcher, or Winston Churchill. It has regressed back to where it is once again the party of Neville Chamberlain, minus the optimistic outlook.
There is no truly conservative party by any stretch of the imagination. Even the much and with good reason maligned British National Party is not so much a conservative party as a hyper-nationalist one with fascist overtones. No one is buying their snake oil. At least, not yet.
But like I said, the British cannot abide chaos, and it won't take long before demands are made for electoral reform. But in the meantime, what is going to be the result on Britain's relations with the EU and with America? Unfortunately, the US is a big part of their problem. Most Brits want their country to cut themselves loose from the alliance, which they feel has brought them nothing but turmoil. As it stands, the western city with the largest percentage of pro-Islamic radical sympathizers is not Paris, not Amsterdam-but London. The government has brought a lot of this headache on themselves, as much with their liberal social and immigration policies as by their connection to Iraq and Afghanistan, but by now America makes the most convenient scapegoat.
Then there's the EU. They had a conniption over the economic turmoil of relatively tiny Greece. What will happen if the British economy collapses due to political instability? It could easily happen. In America, not too very long ago, such a scenario would probably have been temporarily good for the economy, because not so much of it was bound up in government subsidies, and in fact, there would have been some who would have and could have easily and happily profited from the situation inherent in the inability to oversee the regulatory schemes that tend to put a brake on economic growth. No such potential exists in Britain. To utilize a current phrase, Britain is "too big to fail". So what happens if it does just that?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Eyjaffjallajokul Sends Us A Message
Happy Earth Day, SUCKERS!
He (or she?) must have read the article that proposed limiting jet flights as a means to combat Global Climate Change, which contained the following-
Jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud-forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.
The now well recognized critical role (including by the United Nations) that air transportation plays in climate change is raised to the highest levels of concern by the Pentagon's report. "Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding."
And since no one else seems at all interested in limiting jet flights, instead preferring to limit or outright ban other aspects of energy consumption which are far more vital to the lives of most every day Americans and for that matter everyone else in the world, it looks like the old volcano deity has decided to take a firm stand on behalf of humankind everywhere. For a while, air traffic was virtually halted throughout Europe, both within the continent, and to and from it as well.
No word of relief from Global Climate Change alarmists or anyone else, no further recommendations to reduce air traffic from European or American leaders, not even so much as a pointing to the silver lining inherent within that gigantic cloud of volcanic ash that hung like a shroud over the European continent. Nothing but anxiety over the lack of air traffic, especially of course from the airlines, who will probably recoup their losses now by making passengers stand in the aisles when they fly while holding onto a secure hand strap they'll probably charge you an extra twenty dollars for. Hey, come to think of it, who needs seats, they can haul a lot more folks that way. Whoops, better scratch that idea, that would mean they could reduce their flights.
It would not be the first time that the old Icelandic volcanoes acted up and cooled things off as a result of their tantrums, as witness this account of Ben Franklin's observations toward the end of the eighteenth century of the rampant and unusual cooling throughout Europe and America, and maybe beyond, all the result of the activity of the Laki fissure volcano system.
Now we get a twofer-the volcanic ash itself should contribute to cooling or at least marginally offset the alleged man-made warming going on, and in the meantime the reduction albeit temporary of air traffic (about one percent at most of which is probably vital and necessary) should further reduce pollution, and more importantly, for that very brief period at least contribute to a lessening in consumption of the petroleum necessary to produce the jet fuel that certainly contributes greatly to our ever-dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy sources.
Have no fear though. Al Gore will soon hop on a jet and log a few thousand miles in order to enlighten us all on the need to cut down on, or be taxed out our asses for, our driving back and forth to our piddling little daily jobs and to the stores to do our shopping for, you know, unimportant luxuries such as food, clothing, and other supposed household "necessities", to say nothing of our decadent modern addiction to wanting to keep warm in the cold of winter and tolerably cool during the dog days of summer.
I hope the next time that volcano decides to party he brings all his buddies with him.
He (or she?) must have read the article that proposed limiting jet flights as a means to combat Global Climate Change, which contained the following-
Jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud-forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.
The now well recognized critical role (including by the United Nations) that air transportation plays in climate change is raised to the highest levels of concern by the Pentagon's report. "Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding."
And since no one else seems at all interested in limiting jet flights, instead preferring to limit or outright ban other aspects of energy consumption which are far more vital to the lives of most every day Americans and for that matter everyone else in the world, it looks like the old volcano deity has decided to take a firm stand on behalf of humankind everywhere. For a while, air traffic was virtually halted throughout Europe, both within the continent, and to and from it as well.
No word of relief from Global Climate Change alarmists or anyone else, no further recommendations to reduce air traffic from European or American leaders, not even so much as a pointing to the silver lining inherent within that gigantic cloud of volcanic ash that hung like a shroud over the European continent. Nothing but anxiety over the lack of air traffic, especially of course from the airlines, who will probably recoup their losses now by making passengers stand in the aisles when they fly while holding onto a secure hand strap they'll probably charge you an extra twenty dollars for. Hey, come to think of it, who needs seats, they can haul a lot more folks that way. Whoops, better scratch that idea, that would mean they could reduce their flights.
It would not be the first time that the old Icelandic volcanoes acted up and cooled things off as a result of their tantrums, as witness this account of Ben Franklin's observations toward the end of the eighteenth century of the rampant and unusual cooling throughout Europe and America, and maybe beyond, all the result of the activity of the Laki fissure volcano system.
Now we get a twofer-the volcanic ash itself should contribute to cooling or at least marginally offset the alleged man-made warming going on, and in the meantime the reduction albeit temporary of air traffic (about one percent at most of which is probably vital and necessary) should further reduce pollution, and more importantly, for that very brief period at least contribute to a lessening in consumption of the petroleum necessary to produce the jet fuel that certainly contributes greatly to our ever-dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy sources.
Have no fear though. Al Gore will soon hop on a jet and log a few thousand miles in order to enlighten us all on the need to cut down on, or be taxed out our asses for, our driving back and forth to our piddling little daily jobs and to the stores to do our shopping for, you know, unimportant luxuries such as food, clothing, and other supposed household "necessities", to say nothing of our decadent modern addiction to wanting to keep warm in the cold of winter and tolerably cool during the dog days of summer.
I hope the next time that volcano decides to party he brings all his buddies with him.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Three Jackson County Ky. Teens Attempt To Murder Gay Classmate
A horrifying story is unfolding from out of McKee, Jackson County Kentucky that illustrates the danger of the religious indoctrination of children and the possibly irreversible harm it can do to a child's psyche. Some people might even point to it as a case in point as to how children should not be allowed within ten miles of organized religion, which would of course be taking it way too far. What it does however definitely illustrate is the need for proper, mature, adult supervision. I'll go more into this later, but first, the story.
Two eighteen year old girls, along with an unnamed teenage juvenile, have been charged with kidnapping, assault, and attempted murder. The alleged victim was Cheyenne Williams, an openly gay classmate who is said to have been friends with her alleged assailants since they were in the sixth grade-in other words, for close to six years.
What they did to her is a case study in sadism. They took her to a remote forested area and assaulted her, at one point throwing rocks at her, and ultimately attempting to force her off the edge of a cliff. Strangely, Miss Williams somehow managed to film the entire assault, or at least a significant part of it, on her cell phone.
There is a large part of this story that is yet shrouded in mystery, but it has been stated that the conflict amongst the long-standing friends came to a head after the April 16th Day of Silence event, which has been promoted by gay activist groups as a means of protesting harassment of gay students at public schools. Of course, the event, which was originated at the University of Virginia back in the mid-nineties, is a controversial one, with some conservative and religious organizations demanding that their children be allowed to take the day off school, or otherwise protesting the event. It should be pointed out, however, that the Day of Silence is purely voluntary. It entails a commitment from students to refrain from speaking during that day, while yet otherwise participating in class room activities and class assignments in order to not disrupt the learning environment (such as it may be).
It is also unclear as to how long Miss Williams has been "out of the closet" insofar as her sexuality in concerned, and whether or not there was any previous controversy regarding this between her and her former friends.
Additionally, it is unknown as to what degree the perpetrators of the assault were influenced by their religious beliefs, but one of the students at the school, in commenting on the case in an interview for Lexington Ky television news WLEX, made the statement that the students in question were Holiness, or Pentecostal.
If this is in fact the case, I have to wonder whether they truly intended to kill Miss Williams, or whether instead they might have been attempting to "save her soul" in a form of bizarre exorcism ritual involving forcing her to turn to God and be saved by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It so happens that Pentecostal beliefs about homosexuality is pretty explicit. They think it is a sin, and that those who commit it or are homosexual have offended God-but they do nevertheless hold that a gay person can be "saved"-and do note this does not mean merely that God will forgive them of their sins and accept them into His heavenly kingdom. It means that God will literally change them by turning them into straight people.
This beings us back full circle to my statement about the need for adult supervision when it comes to religious indoctrination. It's one thing to believe that a gay person can "change". I personally think its possible, but unlikely, for the simple reason that a person who is attracted to the same sex-regardless of what the reason for that might be-is quite simply unlikely to want to change, even if it were possible. This brings us to the main point that children brought up in religious households need to have proper guidance. Unfortunately, the adults responsible for their religious training (not just parents, but pastors, priests, and rabbis as well) have been lacking in this regard in all too many cases, this being a preeminent example.
Put simply and succinctly, regardless of the worthiness or viability of your own personal belief systems, your beliefs are not, nor hopefully will they ever be, the law of the land. The laws of your nation might be abhorrent to your way of thinking or beliefs, but they are still the law. Moreover, regardless of what you might think about homosexuals, they have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I might also point out that it doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is a sin, or whether or not a person can stop being gay if he turns to God. Even if that were all true, an individual person has the right to be gay if he or she so chooses to be gay-assuming just for the sake of argument that it is a matter of choice to begin with.
Nobody has to believe in your God regardless of what you think, or to practice your particular faith or believe anything you believe. You sure as hell don't have the right to throw them off a cliff if they do not. Stories like this are easily picked up by the Left and utilized as proof of the bigotry of the right, or at least of the religious right, but I want to point out that this kind of thing is not conservative, not under any legitimate definition of the term.
This is the exact same kind of mindset that would pass laws against gay marriage at the national level, or would outlaw abortion at the national level, in effect giving powers to the federal government that it was never intended to have over each individual state's sovereignty in such matters-not one iota better or worse than guaranteeing abortion rights or the right to gay marriage at the federal level over the rights of the states to decide such matters-matters which were never in any fashion elucidated in the constitution as belonging to the domain of the federal government. Because such is the road to a tyranny of the federal government over the people. That such might be accomplished in the name of supposed conservative values does not make it any less leftist or intrusive. It is even more dangerous to support such views in the name of some supposed deity.
There are times when people who suppose they are acting out of republican (small r) or conservative values of freedom and liberty act at cross-purposes due to a supposed threat to their values from the left, and they tend to overreact at the antics of leftist organizations such as GLSEN, and others who promote such things as the Day of Silence in public schools, and other things which might be not so worthwhile or positive.
I would point out to them that there are numerous gay conservatives, and for that matter, it is even possible to be a Gay Patriot.
More to the point, though, is that while you have a right to your own religious beliefs and the right to teach those beliefs to your children, you have the obligation and responsibility to monitor your child's activities and insure that they are adequately counseled as to what is appropriate, and what might be going over the line (or over a cliff in this case).
It doesn't matter whether the crime they committed, and attempted to commit, was a hate crime, or a desperate act of misguided love meant to save the soul of a friend from hellfire. Something like this should never happen, and if these three teens are punished to the fullest extent of the law, it would be right and appropriate. No one would have a legitimate right to cry about leftist discriminatory policies against Christian beliefs-well, unless those who might do so only want to look even more ridiculous than they already do.
Two eighteen year old girls, along with an unnamed teenage juvenile, have been charged with kidnapping, assault, and attempted murder. The alleged victim was Cheyenne Williams, an openly gay classmate who is said to have been friends with her alleged assailants since they were in the sixth grade-in other words, for close to six years.
What they did to her is a case study in sadism. They took her to a remote forested area and assaulted her, at one point throwing rocks at her, and ultimately attempting to force her off the edge of a cliff. Strangely, Miss Williams somehow managed to film the entire assault, or at least a significant part of it, on her cell phone.
There is a large part of this story that is yet shrouded in mystery, but it has been stated that the conflict amongst the long-standing friends came to a head after the April 16th Day of Silence event, which has been promoted by gay activist groups as a means of protesting harassment of gay students at public schools. Of course, the event, which was originated at the University of Virginia back in the mid-nineties, is a controversial one, with some conservative and religious organizations demanding that their children be allowed to take the day off school, or otherwise protesting the event. It should be pointed out, however, that the Day of Silence is purely voluntary. It entails a commitment from students to refrain from speaking during that day, while yet otherwise participating in class room activities and class assignments in order to not disrupt the learning environment (such as it may be).
It is also unclear as to how long Miss Williams has been "out of the closet" insofar as her sexuality in concerned, and whether or not there was any previous controversy regarding this between her and her former friends.
Additionally, it is unknown as to what degree the perpetrators of the assault were influenced by their religious beliefs, but one of the students at the school, in commenting on the case in an interview for Lexington Ky television news WLEX, made the statement that the students in question were Holiness, or Pentecostal.
If this is in fact the case, I have to wonder whether they truly intended to kill Miss Williams, or whether instead they might have been attempting to "save her soul" in a form of bizarre exorcism ritual involving forcing her to turn to God and be saved by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It so happens that Pentecostal beliefs about homosexuality is pretty explicit. They think it is a sin, and that those who commit it or are homosexual have offended God-but they do nevertheless hold that a gay person can be "saved"-and do note this does not mean merely that God will forgive them of their sins and accept them into His heavenly kingdom. It means that God will literally change them by turning them into straight people.
This beings us back full circle to my statement about the need for adult supervision when it comes to religious indoctrination. It's one thing to believe that a gay person can "change". I personally think its possible, but unlikely, for the simple reason that a person who is attracted to the same sex-regardless of what the reason for that might be-is quite simply unlikely to want to change, even if it were possible. This brings us to the main point that children brought up in religious households need to have proper guidance. Unfortunately, the adults responsible for their religious training (not just parents, but pastors, priests, and rabbis as well) have been lacking in this regard in all too many cases, this being a preeminent example.
Put simply and succinctly, regardless of the worthiness or viability of your own personal belief systems, your beliefs are not, nor hopefully will they ever be, the law of the land. The laws of your nation might be abhorrent to your way of thinking or beliefs, but they are still the law. Moreover, regardless of what you might think about homosexuals, they have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I might also point out that it doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is a sin, or whether or not a person can stop being gay if he turns to God. Even if that were all true, an individual person has the right to be gay if he or she so chooses to be gay-assuming just for the sake of argument that it is a matter of choice to begin with.
Nobody has to believe in your God regardless of what you think, or to practice your particular faith or believe anything you believe. You sure as hell don't have the right to throw them off a cliff if they do not. Stories like this are easily picked up by the Left and utilized as proof of the bigotry of the right, or at least of the religious right, but I want to point out that this kind of thing is not conservative, not under any legitimate definition of the term.
This is the exact same kind of mindset that would pass laws against gay marriage at the national level, or would outlaw abortion at the national level, in effect giving powers to the federal government that it was never intended to have over each individual state's sovereignty in such matters-not one iota better or worse than guaranteeing abortion rights or the right to gay marriage at the federal level over the rights of the states to decide such matters-matters which were never in any fashion elucidated in the constitution as belonging to the domain of the federal government. Because such is the road to a tyranny of the federal government over the people. That such might be accomplished in the name of supposed conservative values does not make it any less leftist or intrusive. It is even more dangerous to support such views in the name of some supposed deity.
There are times when people who suppose they are acting out of republican (small r) or conservative values of freedom and liberty act at cross-purposes due to a supposed threat to their values from the left, and they tend to overreact at the antics of leftist organizations such as GLSEN, and others who promote such things as the Day of Silence in public schools, and other things which might be not so worthwhile or positive.
I would point out to them that there are numerous gay conservatives, and for that matter, it is even possible to be a Gay Patriot.
More to the point, though, is that while you have a right to your own religious beliefs and the right to teach those beliefs to your children, you have the obligation and responsibility to monitor your child's activities and insure that they are adequately counseled as to what is appropriate, and what might be going over the line (or over a cliff in this case).
It doesn't matter whether the crime they committed, and attempted to commit, was a hate crime, or a desperate act of misguided love meant to save the soul of a friend from hellfire. Something like this should never happen, and if these three teens are punished to the fullest extent of the law, it would be right and appropriate. No one would have a legitimate right to cry about leftist discriminatory policies against Christian beliefs-well, unless those who might do so only want to look even more ridiculous than they already do.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Lost Tomight-Desmond Hume's Scheme
The sideways time Desmond Hume is a man on a self-appointed mission to awaken all of the Sideways time versions of the Island Lost characters to their seemingly dual existences. Having been awakened to this conundrum by Charlie Pace in the course of a near death experience, he has now endeavored to track down all of the Flight 815 passengers in order to avail them of this knowledge as well. As seen last night, he did so successfully with Hugo, and at the end of the episode, he seems to have gone to extremes in order to awaken Sideways Locke-he run him down with his car, wheelchair and all, leaving a critically injured Locke in convulsions on the road right in front of a horrified Sideways Ben. Personally, I think I would have taken a different approach, but evidently Desmond is on top of his game enough to know the risk is minimal.
It will be interesting to see where he goes with this from this point on, and perhaps fun to speculate. He has already met Sideways Claire, of whom he is aware also due to Charlie's awakened feelings for her. We know that Island Claire is insane at least in part due to her loss of her infant son Aaron (Kate having in an earlier season abducted the young lad and taken him to the outside world to be raised). Will Desmond go that extra mile and abduct Sideways Aaron from Claire as a means of awakening her to her island past?
What of Sayid, whom we saw last week in the previews for this week's episode discharging a firearm into the bottom of the well into which Island Flocke (Smoke Monster in the guise of John Locke) had unceremoniously dumped Island Desmond towards the end of the last episode. Will he clear the way for Sayid to recapture his love for Nadia (and his island memories as well) by going to the extent of murdering Sayid's brother right where he is in the hospital?
And then there is Jack, whom I have read this weeks Sideways plot is centered around. Obviously he will in his capacity as a spinal surgeon work on the injured Sideways Locke, whom I have no doubt will start to realize his island life-and death. How will this make him react to Jack, with whom he was at enmity throughout the series. And what will his reaction be to Ben, who murdered him in the Island universe (though this occurred off the island)?
Thankfully, Hugo's meddling may produce some unexpected positive results on the island world. The ghost of Michael advised Hugo to talk to Locke, so off he went, taking some of his compatriots with him, although Ben and Miles elected to follow Richard, who is determined to destroy the Ajira plane in order to prevent Flocke from leaving the island. This all followed the shocking death of Illana, who suffered the same death-by-dynamite fate as Dr. Arzt (in the season one finale) when she secured dynamite from the Black Rock in order to destroy the Ajira plane.
Otherwise, Jack seems resigned to whatever fate awaits him for once, and has agreed to follow Hugo's lead, as has a reluctant Sun, desperate to be reunited with husband Jin. My first reaction was, well, Michael meant to talk to John Locke's ghost-since Hugo alone of the characters has that ability (Miles can only hear their last thoughts if he comes in contact with their remains). He did not mean, obviously, that Hugo should talk to the Smoke Monster in the guise of Locke.
But then it occurred to me, since Locke's memories and even a large part of his personality seems contained within the form adopted by the Smoke Monster, whatever that creature really is, then it is possible, in fact probable, that communicating with Locke through that form might actually cause John Locke-the real one-to actually take control of the form. Kind of like an exorcism in reverse, sort of.
As for Desmond, will his scheme work on peripheral characters who were not passengers on 815? For example, will Martin Keamy, assuming he somehow survives his gunshot wound in Sideways time, awaken to his past as a mercenary for Charles Widmore on the island?
And what of Ben?
It will be interesting to see where he goes with this from this point on, and perhaps fun to speculate. He has already met Sideways Claire, of whom he is aware also due to Charlie's awakened feelings for her. We know that Island Claire is insane at least in part due to her loss of her infant son Aaron (Kate having in an earlier season abducted the young lad and taken him to the outside world to be raised). Will Desmond go that extra mile and abduct Sideways Aaron from Claire as a means of awakening her to her island past?
What of Sayid, whom we saw last week in the previews for this week's episode discharging a firearm into the bottom of the well into which Island Flocke (Smoke Monster in the guise of John Locke) had unceremoniously dumped Island Desmond towards the end of the last episode. Will he clear the way for Sayid to recapture his love for Nadia (and his island memories as well) by going to the extent of murdering Sayid's brother right where he is in the hospital?
And then there is Jack, whom I have read this weeks Sideways plot is centered around. Obviously he will in his capacity as a spinal surgeon work on the injured Sideways Locke, whom I have no doubt will start to realize his island life-and death. How will this make him react to Jack, with whom he was at enmity throughout the series. And what will his reaction be to Ben, who murdered him in the Island universe (though this occurred off the island)?
Thankfully, Hugo's meddling may produce some unexpected positive results on the island world. The ghost of Michael advised Hugo to talk to Locke, so off he went, taking some of his compatriots with him, although Ben and Miles elected to follow Richard, who is determined to destroy the Ajira plane in order to prevent Flocke from leaving the island. This all followed the shocking death of Illana, who suffered the same death-by-dynamite fate as Dr. Arzt (in the season one finale) when she secured dynamite from the Black Rock in order to destroy the Ajira plane.
Otherwise, Jack seems resigned to whatever fate awaits him for once, and has agreed to follow Hugo's lead, as has a reluctant Sun, desperate to be reunited with husband Jin. My first reaction was, well, Michael meant to talk to John Locke's ghost-since Hugo alone of the characters has that ability (Miles can only hear their last thoughts if he comes in contact with their remains). He did not mean, obviously, that Hugo should talk to the Smoke Monster in the guise of Locke.
But then it occurred to me, since Locke's memories and even a large part of his personality seems contained within the form adopted by the Smoke Monster, whatever that creature really is, then it is possible, in fact probable, that communicating with Locke through that form might actually cause John Locke-the real one-to actually take control of the form. Kind of like an exorcism in reverse, sort of.
As for Desmond, will his scheme work on peripheral characters who were not passengers on 815? For example, will Martin Keamy, assuming he somehow survives his gunshot wound in Sideways time, awaken to his past as a mercenary for Charles Widmore on the island?
And what of Ben?
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Cookbook Should Stirve For Accuracy Above All
Penguin Australia Books has suffered some embarrassment due to a misprint in one of their recipe books, in a recipe for "spent tagliatelle with sardines and prosciutto" which called for "freshly ground black people" as an ingredient.
They've gone off the deep end over this minor misprint, and so evidently have some of their customers, to the point they have recalled all of the unsold books, to be replaced with the corrected version. They have further promised to replace the misprint version for any customer that might be offended by what the company refers to as a "silly mistake".
Well personally I can see why an unaware customer might take offense, and it is certainly good that the company has offered to make restitution.
After all, "Freshly Ground Black People" is a bit much isn't it? The recipe doesn't even specify HOW MANY freshly ground black people one is to use in the recipe. Some might defensively insist that one should obviously use this particular ingredient to suit ones taste. However, it seems quite obvious to me that, if that is the case the recipe should simply read "Freshly Ground Black Person (to taste)".
"Person" singular, not "People" plural.
An entire person would be a bit much at that, even if cooking for a banquet, so once you are finished preparing your meal, I would suggest you keep your Freshly Ground Black Person in a tightly sealed container in order to retain freshness for future use.
They've gone off the deep end over this minor misprint, and so evidently have some of their customers, to the point they have recalled all of the unsold books, to be replaced with the corrected version. They have further promised to replace the misprint version for any customer that might be offended by what the company refers to as a "silly mistake".
Well personally I can see why an unaware customer might take offense, and it is certainly good that the company has offered to make restitution.
After all, "Freshly Ground Black People" is a bit much isn't it? The recipe doesn't even specify HOW MANY freshly ground black people one is to use in the recipe. Some might defensively insist that one should obviously use this particular ingredient to suit ones taste. However, it seems quite obvious to me that, if that is the case the recipe should simply read "Freshly Ground Black Person (to taste)".
"Person" singular, not "People" plural.
An entire person would be a bit much at that, even if cooking for a banquet, so once you are finished preparing your meal, I would suggest you keep your Freshly Ground Black Person in a tightly sealed container in order to retain freshness for future use.
Rules For Radicals
Bill Clinton has been warning us that the Tea-Party movement and anti-government rhetoric could lead to another Oklahoma City bombing, the fifteenth anniversary of which is today.
However, the Soccer Dad points out that this is a typical Clintonian tactic, one that he polished during his presidency at the instigation of then adviser Dick Morris.
It's pretty ingenious. Use government to enact an intrusive law-the example from the Clinton presidency and which is enumerated in the link is the Brady Bill-and then when conservatives rail to their Republican representatives, use this to paint the Republican Party as inciting or encouraging potential violence. If you have an actual example of violence, so much the better. You have a precedent to point towards.
It never seems to occur to Democrats and leftists that if they would just stop using the federal government as a tool to intrude in practically every area of American life, there would not be nearly as much chance of violent upheaval. Or I guess they just don't want most Americans to realize that.
Nor does it seem to occur to anybody that the vast majority of politically motivated violence that occurs in the US is from the Left. Here's an example that occurred recently in California, when leftists attacked a legal demonstration of national socialists. Yes, they were Nazis, and as such, given their inherent disloyalty to the Constitution, they should not have been allowed to speak, as far as I'm concerned.
What is telling about this,however, is that it was leftist counter-protesters who got physically violent, resulting in injuries to two National Socialist protesters, and arrests of a number of the leftist counter-demonstrators.
An even more pertinent point, however, is in how leftists tend to regard conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. One of the many pejoratives aimed at the Tea Party and conservatives in general, from the left, is that they are all, or at least that a good many if not most of them, are fascists-and Nazis. Given this is in fact how they feel, or at least that this is the kind of rhetoric they engage in, how can conservatives, or members of the Tea Party, not consider or expect that they too might one day be physically assaulted, partially on those grounds? It is certainly something to consider.
Then there was this little tidbit where the daughter of Louisiana Governor Jindal and a male escort were followed from the Conservative Leadership Conference by a gang of protesters and attacked. Although Michelle Malkin in the linked post cautions that there is no proof the assault was politically motivated or anything other than rampant New Orleans style thuggery, I would point out that they were followed from the event and from the area where there were still some protesters present, and that there was no robbery committed or demands made, nor was Miss Jindal sexually assaulted, though she was called a "blonde bitch", and her escort was referred to as a "fucking faggot" right before they were beaten so badly they had to be hospitalized, one for a broken leg.
My advice to anybody who is assaulted by leftist thugs is, if you are attacked, fight back. Don't try to play Gandhi. If you kill these thugs, so long as they are the ones who instigate the violence, you are doing the country a big favor. However, don't instigate the violence yourselves. You will be criticized badly enough just for protecting yourselves from these worthless scumbags.
If they start it themselves and you protect yourselves, and are criticized for it, make sure you are unapologetic about it, and that you make it clear that if you are attacked, as far as you are concerned you are defending your life and won't care one iota to take the life of your assailant. If a few of these fucktards are killed in this way, maybe the Democrats and the media will get the message-
If you don't want violence and bloodshed and loss of life-don't instigate it and then think you are going to manipulate public sentiment by playing the victim. The majority of us are wise to that bullshit, and the time for playing by your rule book has come and gone.
However, the Soccer Dad points out that this is a typical Clintonian tactic, one that he polished during his presidency at the instigation of then adviser Dick Morris.
It's pretty ingenious. Use government to enact an intrusive law-the example from the Clinton presidency and which is enumerated in the link is the Brady Bill-and then when conservatives rail to their Republican representatives, use this to paint the Republican Party as inciting or encouraging potential violence. If you have an actual example of violence, so much the better. You have a precedent to point towards.
It never seems to occur to Democrats and leftists that if they would just stop using the federal government as a tool to intrude in practically every area of American life, there would not be nearly as much chance of violent upheaval. Or I guess they just don't want most Americans to realize that.
Nor does it seem to occur to anybody that the vast majority of politically motivated violence that occurs in the US is from the Left. Here's an example that occurred recently in California, when leftists attacked a legal demonstration of national socialists. Yes, they were Nazis, and as such, given their inherent disloyalty to the Constitution, they should not have been allowed to speak, as far as I'm concerned.
What is telling about this,however, is that it was leftist counter-protesters who got physically violent, resulting in injuries to two National Socialist protesters, and arrests of a number of the leftist counter-demonstrators.
An even more pertinent point, however, is in how leftists tend to regard conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. One of the many pejoratives aimed at the Tea Party and conservatives in general, from the left, is that they are all, or at least that a good many if not most of them, are fascists-and Nazis. Given this is in fact how they feel, or at least that this is the kind of rhetoric they engage in, how can conservatives, or members of the Tea Party, not consider or expect that they too might one day be physically assaulted, partially on those grounds? It is certainly something to consider.
Then there was this little tidbit where the daughter of Louisiana Governor Jindal and a male escort were followed from the Conservative Leadership Conference by a gang of protesters and attacked. Although Michelle Malkin in the linked post cautions that there is no proof the assault was politically motivated or anything other than rampant New Orleans style thuggery, I would point out that they were followed from the event and from the area where there were still some protesters present, and that there was no robbery committed or demands made, nor was Miss Jindal sexually assaulted, though she was called a "blonde bitch", and her escort was referred to as a "fucking faggot" right before they were beaten so badly they had to be hospitalized, one for a broken leg.
My advice to anybody who is assaulted by leftist thugs is, if you are attacked, fight back. Don't try to play Gandhi. If you kill these thugs, so long as they are the ones who instigate the violence, you are doing the country a big favor. However, don't instigate the violence yourselves. You will be criticized badly enough just for protecting yourselves from these worthless scumbags.
If they start it themselves and you protect yourselves, and are criticized for it, make sure you are unapologetic about it, and that you make it clear that if you are attacked, as far as you are concerned you are defending your life and won't care one iota to take the life of your assailant. If a few of these fucktards are killed in this way, maybe the Democrats and the media will get the message-
If you don't want violence and bloodshed and loss of life-don't instigate it and then think you are going to manipulate public sentiment by playing the victim. The majority of us are wise to that bullshit, and the time for playing by your rule book has come and gone.
A Perfect Example Of WHy We Should Welcome Muslims With Open Arms
Iranian Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi has an explanation for the recent earthquake phenomenon of the last few months.
Many women who dress inappropriately... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes.
You just gotta love these guys. A few years back, another Iranian Ayatollah, after much apparent thoughtful deliberation on the subject, solemnly announced that, if a woman was to fall from the top of a staircase while naked, and she were to land on top of her naked son in such a manner that his penis went up inside her vagina-
TA_DAAAAAAAA-It would not be incest.
How enlightened. Me, I would say it would depend on how long they stayed in that position if conscious and able to move, how much thrusting and writhing was involved, and whether or not an orgasm resulted.
I would also have to add-WHO THE FUCK SITS AROUND AND THINKS ABOUT SHIT LIKE THAT?
And the answer would be, of course, an Ayatollah.
Yeah, let's open the US up to more immigration from Muslim countries. Let's make sure we have an equal amount of Sunni and Shia though, otherwise it might cause an imbalance, which could eventually lead to chaos. As long as we make sure we allow a proportionate number of the imams and Ayatollahs in as well, since those are the only people Muslims tend to listen to, and in fact believe without question, everything should be hunky-dory.
Many women who dress inappropriately... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes.
You just gotta love these guys. A few years back, another Iranian Ayatollah, after much apparent thoughtful deliberation on the subject, solemnly announced that, if a woman was to fall from the top of a staircase while naked, and she were to land on top of her naked son in such a manner that his penis went up inside her vagina-
TA_DAAAAAAAA-It would not be incest.
How enlightened. Me, I would say it would depend on how long they stayed in that position if conscious and able to move, how much thrusting and writhing was involved, and whether or not an orgasm resulted.
I would also have to add-WHO THE FUCK SITS AROUND AND THINKS ABOUT SHIT LIKE THAT?
And the answer would be, of course, an Ayatollah.
Yeah, let's open the US up to more immigration from Muslim countries. Let's make sure we have an equal amount of Sunni and Shia though, otherwise it might cause an imbalance, which could eventually lead to chaos. As long as we make sure we allow a proportionate number of the imams and Ayatollahs in as well, since those are the only people Muslims tend to listen to, and in fact believe without question, everything should be hunky-dory.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Excuse My Seeming Disregard For Human Rights Here, But-
Everybody has the right to a fair trial. If convicted, some deserve twenty years to life without parole. Some deserve the death penalty to be implemented as quickly and relatively painlessly as possible.
And then there are these motherfuckers.
In a case this heinous, this brutal, nothing would satisfy me less than death by slow, excruciating, hard-core torture, with the goal of keeping the motherfuckers alive and conscious throughout the entire ordeal, while injected with a drug that would heighten sensitivity to pain.
Actually, fuck the trial. There might be some scumbags that don't really deserve one after all. I don't suggest the state act in this manner, I think private citizens should go all Rambo on the bastards and any public official who might be stupid enough to protect their "rights", if absolutely necessary.
You see, the thing is, animals can't speak up for themselves, and they get no vote or no say-so on anything. Animal rights activists don't matter, because far too often they don't know what the fuck they're doing or talking about either. I guess they do their best, but too many of them have more of a leftist agenda than are concerned with legitimate animal welfare.
So anyway, fuck it, since animals don't have the same degree of constitutional protections as humans, I think I'm well within reason to insist that those that abuse them should pretty much be considered to have abrogated their own constitutional protections, or for that matter any kind of legitimate claim to human rights at all. Kill these motherfuckers and make an example out of them.
And by the way, how in the hell do you sexually abuse mice so badly they have to be euthanized? WTF?
At least one part of this sorry ass story had a happy ending. One creep that had sex with a horse died from it. Good!!!
And then there are these motherfuckers.
In a case this heinous, this brutal, nothing would satisfy me less than death by slow, excruciating, hard-core torture, with the goal of keeping the motherfuckers alive and conscious throughout the entire ordeal, while injected with a drug that would heighten sensitivity to pain.
Actually, fuck the trial. There might be some scumbags that don't really deserve one after all. I don't suggest the state act in this manner, I think private citizens should go all Rambo on the bastards and any public official who might be stupid enough to protect their "rights", if absolutely necessary.
You see, the thing is, animals can't speak up for themselves, and they get no vote or no say-so on anything. Animal rights activists don't matter, because far too often they don't know what the fuck they're doing or talking about either. I guess they do their best, but too many of them have more of a leftist agenda than are concerned with legitimate animal welfare.
So anyway, fuck it, since animals don't have the same degree of constitutional protections as humans, I think I'm well within reason to insist that those that abuse them should pretty much be considered to have abrogated their own constitutional protections, or for that matter any kind of legitimate claim to human rights at all. Kill these motherfuckers and make an example out of them.
And by the way, how in the hell do you sexually abuse mice so badly they have to be euthanized? WTF?
At least one part of this sorry ass story had a happy ending. One creep that had sex with a horse died from it. Good!!!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
24-The Series Comes To An End
Following years of more or less steady decline in the quality of the series, 24 is finally calling it quits after the current season 8, or as it is called, "Day 8". Fox Network has declined to renew the program, which NBC also declined to pick up. That is probably a good thing. To those of you who think 24 has veered too greatly into the arena of political correctness over the course of the last three years or so, can you imagine what a shadow of its former self it would become as an NBC program? The only worse fate would be were it to be picked up by CBS. As it stands now, perhaps it is best that it is ending its television run, after which it is slated to be made into a full length feature film.
As far as the political correctness goes, I can see where that might have something to do with the declining quality of the program, but I think its a minor factor in comparison to the fact that the show is just getting old and, even worse, predictable.
24 made its mark as one of those kinds of action suspense series where you never knew nor suspected what was going to happen next. It was a wild ride, an adrenaline rush which could easily take your breath away and keep you lighting up one cigarette after another with your eyes and attention breathlessly glued to the screen.
Naturally, it would be next to impossible to keep up that level of suspense year after year, especially when the show followed more or less the same formula, repeatedly. A terrorist threat, be it a nuclear or dirty bomb, or a chemical weapon attack, or biological weapon, threatened a major American city. Jack Bauer to the rescue. Jack learns there is a mole, at CTU, or close to the President, working with the villains. Jack engages in questionable tactics, usually some degree of torture, in order to extract the necessary information to save tens of thousands, potentially millions of lives. Some key character or characters eventually dies unexpectedly.
On to the next day, the next year, and the same formula. Naturally, as I said, it got predictable, and when Season 7 saw the inclusion of liberal comedienne activist Jeannine Garafolo in the role of an FBI analyst, it was taken by many as a sign of impending doom. Sure enough, Jack began to question his own methods. He felt guilty about many of his past actions. At the end of the show, when it looked as though he might be nearing the end of his life, he turned to an Islamic imam for spiritual guidance.
All of that most of us could have lived with and even accepted as an aspect of character growth and development, even if we didn't appreciate the apparent behind the scenes reasons. But the fact remains, after so long, you can only jump out at someone from around the same corner at the same time and scream "Booyah" so many times before such an exercise loses the element of surprise.
Like I said, there was a progressive decline over the years, speaking in a general sense, although Season 5 did seem to reverse the trend, and came close to matching the original adrenaline rush that was the premiere season. But as though to balance out this anomaly, Season 6 was to all intents and purposes execrable, generally agreed by most to be the series worst year. Season 7 was better, but still not quite up to the par of the old magic of the earlier seasons.
Ironically, this season has in my opinion been the best since 5, and by the time it is over with may well surpass that mark. Jack's lover Renee' Walker was killed in last nights episode, which most people might have saw coming, but at least in my own case only in the last couple of minutes before it actually happened.
The Prime Minister of the IRK, who has been trying to forge a peace deal with President Allison Taylor, was brutally murdered in the last episode after turning himself over to IRK terrorists in order to save tens of thousands of New York City lives from the explosion of a dirty bomb. This development took me totally by surprise.
A lot of people were surprised by the reveal of Jenny Scott as the CTU mole, but only because they spent so much time complaining about what seemed to be her useless subplot, the seemingly good-hearted beleaguered former criminal trying to turn her life around while being blackmailed by her redneck former boyfriend who was threatening to reveal the truth about her past. I was not surprised. In fact I figured that one out early on. It made no sense that someone with that background could hide her past and get a job that entails such sensitive responsibilities of national security as a CTU systems analyst involves.
Now, former President Logan is back, seemingly as villainous as ever. Where is all this leading to? With the death of Renee Walker, Jack has lost all hope for a happy ending to this series, though at least he still has his daughter and grandchild. Will he find at least some degree of peace and happiness through them? Will he acquire the justice and vengeance his heart has to crave? Will he make a conversion to Islam?
And, what of Tony Almeida? Will he get in on the action and get revenge on Logan for his involvement in the death of his wife and unborn son?
Will Chloe remain as CTU boss?
This season, incidentally, might well go down as the most cerebral one of the entire series, though not lacking in action and suspense.
Unfortunately, the formula for the series seems to have devolved into a presumed need for a high body count. Unfortunately, that only matters when you care about the bodies being counted. The vast majority of them are merely nameless, almost faceless figures-a handful of terrorists here, two or three members of this or that criminal crew there, a handful of cops, CTU or FBI agents, etc., and before you know it, you get numb to the carnage which seems to amount to nothing more than violence for the sake of the body count. Plot and character development all too often took a back seat for far too long.
But it was a hell of a ride while it lasted, and to be fair, even the disappointing Season 6 was better than most of the shit that is perpetrated on the American television viewing public.
At any rate, it was nice knowing you, Jack Bauer. See you at the movies.
As far as the political correctness goes, I can see where that might have something to do with the declining quality of the program, but I think its a minor factor in comparison to the fact that the show is just getting old and, even worse, predictable.
24 made its mark as one of those kinds of action suspense series where you never knew nor suspected what was going to happen next. It was a wild ride, an adrenaline rush which could easily take your breath away and keep you lighting up one cigarette after another with your eyes and attention breathlessly glued to the screen.
Naturally, it would be next to impossible to keep up that level of suspense year after year, especially when the show followed more or less the same formula, repeatedly. A terrorist threat, be it a nuclear or dirty bomb, or a chemical weapon attack, or biological weapon, threatened a major American city. Jack Bauer to the rescue. Jack learns there is a mole, at CTU, or close to the President, working with the villains. Jack engages in questionable tactics, usually some degree of torture, in order to extract the necessary information to save tens of thousands, potentially millions of lives. Some key character or characters eventually dies unexpectedly.
On to the next day, the next year, and the same formula. Naturally, as I said, it got predictable, and when Season 7 saw the inclusion of liberal comedienne activist Jeannine Garafolo in the role of an FBI analyst, it was taken by many as a sign of impending doom. Sure enough, Jack began to question his own methods. He felt guilty about many of his past actions. At the end of the show, when it looked as though he might be nearing the end of his life, he turned to an Islamic imam for spiritual guidance.
All of that most of us could have lived with and even accepted as an aspect of character growth and development, even if we didn't appreciate the apparent behind the scenes reasons. But the fact remains, after so long, you can only jump out at someone from around the same corner at the same time and scream "Booyah" so many times before such an exercise loses the element of surprise.
Like I said, there was a progressive decline over the years, speaking in a general sense, although Season 5 did seem to reverse the trend, and came close to matching the original adrenaline rush that was the premiere season. But as though to balance out this anomaly, Season 6 was to all intents and purposes execrable, generally agreed by most to be the series worst year. Season 7 was better, but still not quite up to the par of the old magic of the earlier seasons.
Ironically, this season has in my opinion been the best since 5, and by the time it is over with may well surpass that mark. Jack's lover Renee' Walker was killed in last nights episode, which most people might have saw coming, but at least in my own case only in the last couple of minutes before it actually happened.
The Prime Minister of the IRK, who has been trying to forge a peace deal with President Allison Taylor, was brutally murdered in the last episode after turning himself over to IRK terrorists in order to save tens of thousands of New York City lives from the explosion of a dirty bomb. This development took me totally by surprise.
A lot of people were surprised by the reveal of Jenny Scott as the CTU mole, but only because they spent so much time complaining about what seemed to be her useless subplot, the seemingly good-hearted beleaguered former criminal trying to turn her life around while being blackmailed by her redneck former boyfriend who was threatening to reveal the truth about her past. I was not surprised. In fact I figured that one out early on. It made no sense that someone with that background could hide her past and get a job that entails such sensitive responsibilities of national security as a CTU systems analyst involves.
Now, former President Logan is back, seemingly as villainous as ever. Where is all this leading to? With the death of Renee Walker, Jack has lost all hope for a happy ending to this series, though at least he still has his daughter and grandchild. Will he find at least some degree of peace and happiness through them? Will he acquire the justice and vengeance his heart has to crave? Will he make a conversion to Islam?
And, what of Tony Almeida? Will he get in on the action and get revenge on Logan for his involvement in the death of his wife and unborn son?
Will Chloe remain as CTU boss?
This season, incidentally, might well go down as the most cerebral one of the entire series, though not lacking in action and suspense.
Unfortunately, the formula for the series seems to have devolved into a presumed need for a high body count. Unfortunately, that only matters when you care about the bodies being counted. The vast majority of them are merely nameless, almost faceless figures-a handful of terrorists here, two or three members of this or that criminal crew there, a handful of cops, CTU or FBI agents, etc., and before you know it, you get numb to the carnage which seems to amount to nothing more than violence for the sake of the body count. Plot and character development all too often took a back seat for far too long.
But it was a hell of a ride while it lasted, and to be fair, even the disappointing Season 6 was better than most of the shit that is perpetrated on the American television viewing public.
At any rate, it was nice knowing you, Jack Bauer. See you at the movies.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Octodick
It's semi-official, I guess you could say. In the next James Bond film, the world's preeminent film spy is coming out of the closet, with at least one gay sex scene involving Bond, along with one scene depicting full-frontal nudity, as per star Daniel Craig's request.
Reportedly, the film will be set in India, with the pivotal role of what has been described as the "Bond guy" played by Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan. No word yet on the overall story plot, still in development, parts of which take part in such diverse areas as Kashmir, Tibet, and a remote Indian village, in addition to New Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta.
Not to worry, though, purists, as there will also be the traditional Bond girl in the film, in the person of Freida Pinto, from Slumdog Millionaire.
So what would be a good title? Octodick might seem a little obvious.
Moonraker?
Reportedly, the film will be set in India, with the pivotal role of what has been described as the "Bond guy" played by Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan. No word yet on the overall story plot, still in development, parts of which take part in such diverse areas as Kashmir, Tibet, and a remote Indian village, in addition to New Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta.
Not to worry, though, purists, as there will also be the traditional Bond girl in the film, in the person of Freida Pinto, from Slumdog Millionaire.
So what would be a good title? Octodick might seem a little obvious.
Moonraker?
A Slice Of History
Street scene of San Francisco, April 14th, 1906-four days before the great earthquake and fire.
H/T Car Lust Blog
H/T Car Lust Blog
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Obama Targets US Citizen Traitor For Assassination (Or, A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day)
An American citizen has been targeted for assassination by the Obama Administration, and in this case, that's fine with me. New Mexico born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Alawki is a man who has openly declared war against the US, while living in Yemen, an Al-Queda stronghold, and has offered comfort and support to known terrorists. Specifically, the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas "underwear bomber".
National Review Online supports the policy as well, though the linked article does call to attention the seeming disparity between this and other Obama Administration policies in regards to terrorists apprehended on and off the field of battle. Their stated preference of trying them in civilian courts, with full Miranda rights and other constitutional protection afforded to most common criminals, provides the most telling an obvious example of this disparity.
In the meantime, some leftist sites are on record as calling into question this policy-while some right-leaning blogs also criticize the policy, one of them going so far as to declare an "amber alert" on behalf of the constitution. No one on the left has joined in this particular cause, which is good, as most of those assholes wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it bit them on the ass, let alone was missing. They never bothered to familiarize themselves with it before, so it would be unseemly for them to put it on a fucking milk carton. Doubtless they would portray it in the form of an age-progression sketch which would look very little like the original document.
But for pundits on the Right to criticize this policy strikes me as no more than a knee-jerk anti-Obama reaction. While it is to be expected, it is every bit as unseemly as the Left with their constant harping about the Bush Administration, come what may, for whatever reason, which could pretty well be distilled in essence as, hey it's a new day, what can we find to bash Bush about?
I have yet to see anything by the Daily Kos or the HuffPo concerning the matter, which is not to say they haven't posted anything, I just haven't taken the time to go directly to those sites yet. I have not seen anything by them linked by other sites, however, which might be significant. Doubtless were this a Bush Administration policy, again, traffic to these and other leftist sites bitching about it might well crash the net. But so it goes.
Ordinarily, it would be legitimate cause for concern if the feds were to target a civilian citizen for assassination, or for some other action which might be seen as in violation of that person's constitutional rights. For example, suppose an AG were to kidnap a Mafia member and have him whisked away and unceremoniously dumped in the jungles of Guatemala without benefit of a trial or hearing, with nothing but the clothes on his back and money in his wallet, with not so much as a toothbrush, suitcase, or change of clothes otherwise. We would ordinarily be aghast at such unofficial official behavior, regardless of our lack of sympathy as to the plight of the individual in question. Unless of course the AG in question was Robert Kennedy, at which point, if you're a Democrat, you continue to bow and worship at the Kennedy altar.
This, however, is a man who is a known, proven, and demonstrated traitor to his country, who is acting in concert with declared enemies of the US, on foreign soil. He deserves no special consideration. No trial, hearing, or judicial review here in needed nor is it warranted. He is on record, in person, recorded on tape from Yemen, as encouraging attacks on this country and its citizens.
As much as it pains me to admit it, Obama is right in this matter. The only problem is, he doesn't go far enough. It shouldn't stop with American citizens.
Any Islamic imam who declares war, jihad, fatwa, or otherwise engages in violent, or otherwise criminal activity against the US, should be taken out, along with his core supporters. This wouldn't be that hard to do. Yes, it might involve loss of innocent lives, but I would suggest that those around such people, in his immediate orbit, are mostly supporters. If this policy were pursued over a five year period, it might result in the loss of a few thousand lives, maybe even ten or twenty thousand or so, and yes, many of these will be relatively innocent family members, including children.
On the other hand, it would give these people pause to consider that maybe encouraging attacks against the US, against US citizens on US soil and abroad, and against US interests, might not be the wisest move they might make.
It's called cutting off the head of the snake. I say go for it. No matter how many deaths are the result of such a policy, it probably would be a fraction of the deaths that would otherwise occur, the vast majority of who might well be, in fact more than likely would be, innocents.
Of course, we would need a carrot to go with this stick. In this case, we might well find that, when it comes to the majority of people on the so-called Arab street, the carrot and the stick might well be one and the same thing. I honestly believe the Muslim population would be well served by cutting off this cancer in their midst. They just can't tell you that openly, for obvious reasons.
National Review Online supports the policy as well, though the linked article does call to attention the seeming disparity between this and other Obama Administration policies in regards to terrorists apprehended on and off the field of battle. Their stated preference of trying them in civilian courts, with full Miranda rights and other constitutional protection afforded to most common criminals, provides the most telling an obvious example of this disparity.
In the meantime, some leftist sites are on record as calling into question this policy-while some right-leaning blogs also criticize the policy, one of them going so far as to declare an "amber alert" on behalf of the constitution. No one on the left has joined in this particular cause, which is good, as most of those assholes wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it bit them on the ass, let alone was missing. They never bothered to familiarize themselves with it before, so it would be unseemly for them to put it on a fucking milk carton. Doubtless they would portray it in the form of an age-progression sketch which would look very little like the original document.
But for pundits on the Right to criticize this policy strikes me as no more than a knee-jerk anti-Obama reaction. While it is to be expected, it is every bit as unseemly as the Left with their constant harping about the Bush Administration, come what may, for whatever reason, which could pretty well be distilled in essence as, hey it's a new day, what can we find to bash Bush about?
I have yet to see anything by the Daily Kos or the HuffPo concerning the matter, which is not to say they haven't posted anything, I just haven't taken the time to go directly to those sites yet. I have not seen anything by them linked by other sites, however, which might be significant. Doubtless were this a Bush Administration policy, again, traffic to these and other leftist sites bitching about it might well crash the net. But so it goes.
Ordinarily, it would be legitimate cause for concern if the feds were to target a civilian citizen for assassination, or for some other action which might be seen as in violation of that person's constitutional rights. For example, suppose an AG were to kidnap a Mafia member and have him whisked away and unceremoniously dumped in the jungles of Guatemala without benefit of a trial or hearing, with nothing but the clothes on his back and money in his wallet, with not so much as a toothbrush, suitcase, or change of clothes otherwise. We would ordinarily be aghast at such unofficial official behavior, regardless of our lack of sympathy as to the plight of the individual in question. Unless of course the AG in question was Robert Kennedy, at which point, if you're a Democrat, you continue to bow and worship at the Kennedy altar.
This, however, is a man who is a known, proven, and demonstrated traitor to his country, who is acting in concert with declared enemies of the US, on foreign soil. He deserves no special consideration. No trial, hearing, or judicial review here in needed nor is it warranted. He is on record, in person, recorded on tape from Yemen, as encouraging attacks on this country and its citizens.
As much as it pains me to admit it, Obama is right in this matter. The only problem is, he doesn't go far enough. It shouldn't stop with American citizens.
Any Islamic imam who declares war, jihad, fatwa, or otherwise engages in violent, or otherwise criminal activity against the US, should be taken out, along with his core supporters. This wouldn't be that hard to do. Yes, it might involve loss of innocent lives, but I would suggest that those around such people, in his immediate orbit, are mostly supporters. If this policy were pursued over a five year period, it might result in the loss of a few thousand lives, maybe even ten or twenty thousand or so, and yes, many of these will be relatively innocent family members, including children.
On the other hand, it would give these people pause to consider that maybe encouraging attacks against the US, against US citizens on US soil and abroad, and against US interests, might not be the wisest move they might make.
It's called cutting off the head of the snake. I say go for it. No matter how many deaths are the result of such a policy, it probably would be a fraction of the deaths that would otherwise occur, the vast majority of who might well be, in fact more than likely would be, innocents.
Of course, we would need a carrot to go with this stick. In this case, we might well find that, when it comes to the majority of people on the so-called Arab street, the carrot and the stick might well be one and the same thing. I honestly believe the Muslim population would be well served by cutting off this cancer in their midst. They just can't tell you that openly, for obvious reasons.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Tea-Party Racism
I'm going to preface this by stating that I don't give a shit how much of a hero John Lewis supposedly was during the Civil Rights era. What matters to me is what a lying stack of shit he is now. Lewis has a habit of playing the race card This is a man who called John McCain (whom I should first of all point out that I don't like at all) a latter-day George Wallace, in so many words, even though McCain has always spoke of Lewis in glowing, almost idolatrous terms (which is one among many reasons I don't like the despicable old RINO).
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts needs no introduction. We are all aware of his past running a brothel for male prostitution out of the basement of his house involving male staffers, something for which he was neither censored nor for that matter even criticized, at least not officially, by his Democratic compatriots. In the meantime, he has gone on to such a high-ranking position in the Democratic Party controlled Congress, he shares a large part of the blame for the current housing market woes and resultant financial meltdown, due to his influence on the committee charged with overseeing regulation of the housing and banking industries.
Not a man of integrity, to say the least.
When men of this quality claim they are verbally assaulted, called nigger and fag, and spat upon, while purposely walking through crowds of political opponents, I say they are liars. Particularly since there is no proof whatsoever, outside of their word, that the alleged racist and homosexual slurs take place. There is no proof on tape, film, or video, nor is there any verifiable proof from any independent source to corroborate their story, which sounds to me like the same kind of race-hustling politics the Democrats have been playing for decades.
For what its worth, if it did happen, it won't change my vote or my own political philosophy. It's just something that either happened or didn't. I ordinarily wouldn't even give enough of a damn to blog about.
But then, something happened. A poll came out, conducted by Gallup, which showed the overall make-up of the Tea-Party organization. When I saw the results of the poll, it suddenly occurred to me-maybe there are a small percentage of racists in the Tea-Party movement after all.
The results of the poll, according to Gallup-
Political/Ideological make-up of the Tea-Party
Republicans- 49%
Independents- 43%
Democrats- 8%
Conservatives- 70%
Moderates- 22%
Liberals- 7%
So there you have it, folks. I had always figured there would probably be a small number of bigots and racists in the Tea Party, but their numbers would probably be so marginal as to not amount to even one solid percent.
Now, come to find out, they might make up as much as-well, seven or eight percent?
Who knows? And, as long as they vote against the Democrat motherfuckers this fall-who cares?
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts needs no introduction. We are all aware of his past running a brothel for male prostitution out of the basement of his house involving male staffers, something for which he was neither censored nor for that matter even criticized, at least not officially, by his Democratic compatriots. In the meantime, he has gone on to such a high-ranking position in the Democratic Party controlled Congress, he shares a large part of the blame for the current housing market woes and resultant financial meltdown, due to his influence on the committee charged with overseeing regulation of the housing and banking industries.
Not a man of integrity, to say the least.
When men of this quality claim they are verbally assaulted, called nigger and fag, and spat upon, while purposely walking through crowds of political opponents, I say they are liars. Particularly since there is no proof whatsoever, outside of their word, that the alleged racist and homosexual slurs take place. There is no proof on tape, film, or video, nor is there any verifiable proof from any independent source to corroborate their story, which sounds to me like the same kind of race-hustling politics the Democrats have been playing for decades.
For what its worth, if it did happen, it won't change my vote or my own political philosophy. It's just something that either happened or didn't. I ordinarily wouldn't even give enough of a damn to blog about.
But then, something happened. A poll came out, conducted by Gallup, which showed the overall make-up of the Tea-Party organization. When I saw the results of the poll, it suddenly occurred to me-maybe there are a small percentage of racists in the Tea-Party movement after all.
The results of the poll, according to Gallup-
Political/Ideological make-up of the Tea-Party
Republicans- 49%
Independents- 43%
Democrats- 8%
Conservatives- 70%
Moderates- 22%
Liberals- 7%
So there you have it, folks. I had always figured there would probably be a small number of bigots and racists in the Tea Party, but their numbers would probably be so marginal as to not amount to even one solid percent.
Now, come to find out, they might make up as much as-well, seven or eight percent?
Who knows? And, as long as they vote against the Democrat motherfuckers this fall-who cares?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)