This is a great short film by a beginning filmmaker. There's no story as such, just a guy walking in the snow, at night. But the scenery, the lighting, etc. are exceptional.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Nothing Good Can Last Forever
I just remembered something. This is the first year in more than sixty years there is no Kennedy in Washington. Enjoy the brief respite while it lasts, and pray that it continues, however unlikely that is. But while we do have this brief interval of relief, I'll celebrate with the following video. This band is one of my favorites, even though I don't really care that much for their music. It's just that their name always brings a fucking smile to my face.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Progressive Tolerance On Public Display
The following video is from a progressive rally sponsored by Common Cause. Yeah, according to these fuckwits, Clarence Thomas should be made to work in the fields, or he should be hung, along with his wife. Scalia, Alito, and Roberts don't fare much better, nor does anybody connected with Fox News. This is a perfect example of why I wouldn't give a good fuck if somebody was to drive by cocksuckers like this and spray them with machine gun fire.
UPDATE-All right, I admit that was a little harsh and over the top, but these kind of people piss me off so bad, I just can't help it. Especially grating is the fact that these are the very kinds of asshats that would raise bloody hell over anything anybody on the right said that was one fourth as vile as the shit that spews out of their mouths here.
Come to think about it, I remember now about two weeks before Gabrielle Giffords was shot, I brought a box of Kleenex, because I was fresh out. I still haven't gotten around to opening that fucking box of tissue. Make of that what you will.
H/T Belchspeak
UPDATE-All right, I admit that was a little harsh and over the top, but these kind of people piss me off so bad, I just can't help it. Especially grating is the fact that these are the very kinds of asshats that would raise bloody hell over anything anybody on the right said that was one fourth as vile as the shit that spews out of their mouths here.
Come to think about it, I remember now about two weeks before Gabrielle Giffords was shot, I brought a box of Kleenex, because I was fresh out. I still haven't gotten around to opening that fucking box of tissue. Make of that what you will.
H/T Belchspeak
It's All In The Genes
I'm starting to think now I am veering over towards the camp of the Birthers. It's not that I find it so strange that Barak Obama allegedly spent millions of dollars to keep his birth certificate under wraps. Even if that's true, there could be all kinds of understandable reasons he might do that. For example, he might have been an addict, or he might have even been born with an embarrassing disease, such as syphilis.
But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I have other concerns that have recently come to light, things that might explain certain things in Obama's past. Having perused the photographic evidence, I now present THE ANSWER!
What do you get when you cross Ted Kennedy-
With a Klingon Warrioress-
Answer-
Yep, explains a lot.
But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I have other concerns that have recently come to light, things that might explain certain things in Obama's past. Having perused the photographic evidence, I now present THE ANSWER!
What do you get when you cross Ted Kennedy-
With a Klingon Warrioress-
Answer-
Yep, explains a lot.
A Dangerous Game
Now that its come out that Obama, the State Department, and the international AFL-CIO are all largely responsible-granted, allegedly, for now-for the Middle East unrest that has led to violent demonstrations in Cairo and Alexandria, Egypt, and threatens to spread even to Syria, what happens from here? Is this some kind of ideological mutation that has metastasized? If so, what is the end game? Obviously, if Mubarak leaves Egypt in the next few days, as Obama seems to want, chaos will reign supreme, making it that much easier for the Nuslim Brotherhood to assume power. After all, they are the only ones, except for the military (and of course Mubarak's government) with the infrastructure, resources, and the will to stand up what would pass for a government. In the urge for stability in the days following Mubarak's premature ouster, the people might turn to them in large enough numbers to give them power. From there on, any election, despite any international monitoring, would be as much a sideshow as the recent rigged elections held by Mubarak.
It's hard to see how this benefits the US, but if this is true, what it suggests to me, is that the Obama Administration has decided the only way to achieve peace and stability in the region long-term is by being on the right side of history and to be perceived as helping it along as much as possible.
As for Israel, its easy to read the Administrations aims in that regard. They think that if there is a region wide upheaval that empowers "the people", and this is spearheaded or at least largely influenced by Islamist factions, the Israeli state would have no choice but to adopt what the administration feels is a more "reasonable" posture. Remember, to their way of thinking, in progressive internationalist terms, the problem is a perceived lack of opportunity for the Arab citizens of Gaza and the West Bank, who yearn collectively for nothing more than political freedom and economic opportunity. Once they have achieved these aims, eventually the strife will end, and Jews and Arabs will live together in peace. More or less.
But first, the Jews have to grant at least a limited right of return, remove all barriers to free and reasonable travel throughout the country, and finally, withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders. And of course, work out some sort of solution regarding Jerusalem, or at least East Jerusalem.
It will never happen though, in my opinion, and this is why this is such a dangerous, incredibly short-sighted game. This is eventually going to result in yet another full-scale Intifada, eventually, and it will likely culminate in the loss of more lives, mostly Palestinian, in a shorter amount of time, than at any time of recent history. It is not unreasonable to assume the casualties could result in the hundreds of thousands, and the million mark, while probably unlikely, is by no means impossible.
The key is the Egyptian military. They know they are no match for the Israelis, even on their best days. The annual aid the Egyptian military receives from us is for defensive purposes. If they tried to man an offensive operation against the Israelis, they would get their clocks cleaned, and they know that. So unless an Egyptian Napoleon arises from the rubble and there is support from China or the EU, its probably not going to happen. Besides, they don't want to lose their US support, and they understand full well that Obama, even if he wanted to, would be unable to justify such continued support in the face of any aggressive actions.
Therefore, the most likely targets of Israeli wrath, beyond the Palestinian people and especially Hamas, would be Syria, Lebanon, and by extension, possibly even Iran, because that's the real key to instability in the region anyway. Iran has funded Hzbollah, and is also a major supporter of Hamas, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Right now the Israelis have been relatively restrained in their reaction to recent events. But they're watching, and waiting. And if worse comes to worse, they aren't going to take anything lying down.
And then there's the oil situation.
And oh yeah, China, which is an economic partner of Sudan-which is also facing the same kind of unrest as seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and now, possibly Jordan.
Mark the coming days carefully, because you could be viewing the beginnings of a third world war. And if it turns out like I'm afraid it will, you might also start to hear the beginning stirrings of talk of impeachment, and it might be at a bipartisan level at that.
For now, watch Mohamed El-Baredei. He could well be the key to all this. If I'm right, this is something that's going to reach all the way into the corridors of the UN.
So what's Obama thinking? Obviously, he's not thinking of helping a legitimate, stable government to emerge, because if he was, he would accede to Mubarak's stated aims to remain in power until September, and from there to peacefully transition to a more acceptable, more democratic government. Because everybody knows that such a transition, while it would have to allow for some participation by the Muslim Brotherhood, would not on the face of it allow for the kind of chaos that would make their ascension to total power highly probable, if not a definite certainty.
And that's what makes this whole thing so potentially explosive. Even if one chose not to trust in the sincerity of Mubarak, steps could be taken to assure that he kept to the September time-table, and a stable government was set up at the end of that period. That Obama and the administration, as well as the ACLU and probably a cabal within the UN seems to be working more hand in hand with the Muslim Brotherhood (and by extension Iran), bodes no good at all.
It's hard to see how this benefits the US, but if this is true, what it suggests to me, is that the Obama Administration has decided the only way to achieve peace and stability in the region long-term is by being on the right side of history and to be perceived as helping it along as much as possible.
As for Israel, its easy to read the Administrations aims in that regard. They think that if there is a region wide upheaval that empowers "the people", and this is spearheaded or at least largely influenced by Islamist factions, the Israeli state would have no choice but to adopt what the administration feels is a more "reasonable" posture. Remember, to their way of thinking, in progressive internationalist terms, the problem is a perceived lack of opportunity for the Arab citizens of Gaza and the West Bank, who yearn collectively for nothing more than political freedom and economic opportunity. Once they have achieved these aims, eventually the strife will end, and Jews and Arabs will live together in peace. More or less.
But first, the Jews have to grant at least a limited right of return, remove all barriers to free and reasonable travel throughout the country, and finally, withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders. And of course, work out some sort of solution regarding Jerusalem, or at least East Jerusalem.
It will never happen though, in my opinion, and this is why this is such a dangerous, incredibly short-sighted game. This is eventually going to result in yet another full-scale Intifada, eventually, and it will likely culminate in the loss of more lives, mostly Palestinian, in a shorter amount of time, than at any time of recent history. It is not unreasonable to assume the casualties could result in the hundreds of thousands, and the million mark, while probably unlikely, is by no means impossible.
The key is the Egyptian military. They know they are no match for the Israelis, even on their best days. The annual aid the Egyptian military receives from us is for defensive purposes. If they tried to man an offensive operation against the Israelis, they would get their clocks cleaned, and they know that. So unless an Egyptian Napoleon arises from the rubble and there is support from China or the EU, its probably not going to happen. Besides, they don't want to lose their US support, and they understand full well that Obama, even if he wanted to, would be unable to justify such continued support in the face of any aggressive actions.
Therefore, the most likely targets of Israeli wrath, beyond the Palestinian people and especially Hamas, would be Syria, Lebanon, and by extension, possibly even Iran, because that's the real key to instability in the region anyway. Iran has funded Hzbollah, and is also a major supporter of Hamas, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Right now the Israelis have been relatively restrained in their reaction to recent events. But they're watching, and waiting. And if worse comes to worse, they aren't going to take anything lying down.
And then there's the oil situation.
And oh yeah, China, which is an economic partner of Sudan-which is also facing the same kind of unrest as seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and now, possibly Jordan.
Mark the coming days carefully, because you could be viewing the beginnings of a third world war. And if it turns out like I'm afraid it will, you might also start to hear the beginning stirrings of talk of impeachment, and it might be at a bipartisan level at that.
For now, watch Mohamed El-Baredei. He could well be the key to all this. If I'm right, this is something that's going to reach all the way into the corridors of the UN.
So what's Obama thinking? Obviously, he's not thinking of helping a legitimate, stable government to emerge, because if he was, he would accede to Mubarak's stated aims to remain in power until September, and from there to peacefully transition to a more acceptable, more democratic government. Because everybody knows that such a transition, while it would have to allow for some participation by the Muslim Brotherhood, would not on the face of it allow for the kind of chaos that would make their ascension to total power highly probable, if not a definite certainty.
And that's what makes this whole thing so potentially explosive. Even if one chose not to trust in the sincerity of Mubarak, steps could be taken to assure that he kept to the September time-table, and a stable government was set up at the end of that period. That Obama and the administration, as well as the ACLU and probably a cabal within the UN seems to be working more hand in hand with the Muslim Brotherhood (and by extension Iran), bodes no good at all.
The White Stripes
The White Stripes have decided to call it quits. One thing about it, it wouldn't be that big a deal for them to start all over, you know since like there's only two of them and they ARE brother and sister.
UPDATE-Yikes, I fucked up. Meg and Jack White aren't brother and sister, they are former husband and wife. In fact, he took her last name when they were married, and they were divorced either by the time they began recoding together or shortly after.
Needs more doorbell.
UPDATE-Yikes, I fucked up. Meg and Jack White aren't brother and sister, they are former husband and wife. In fact, he took her last name when they were married, and they were divorced either by the time they began recoding together or shortly after.
Needs more doorbell.
A Bag For Me, A Bag For You
Listen carefully, children, as lovable Irish hip-hop artists The Rubberbandits expound on the techniques and joys of sniffing glue.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
The Sun Is Shining Down by Almira Fawn Southworth
I haven't heard a word out of this kid, or about her, since her mother was murdered, so I don't know how she's doing. No word yet on the status of the investigation. I just hope she pulls through.
Katie Holmes For-Well, Anything
I finally got around to seeing the Batman movie The Dark Knight, and I was all like WTF is such the big deal about that? Let's face it, if it weren't for Heath Ledger as The Joker, that would have been one big turkey. They should have just made the movie about The Joker and called it-well, The Joker. Not only was Batman useless, but they had to cram yet another villain, Two-Face, in there and gum up the works, like they usually do with superhero movies any more. Just like two many cooks spoil the broth, so too do too many villains cram the plot and ruin the character development.
Worse, it probably isn't going to get any better than that, so now I know I won't be going to the trouble of the drive and the expense to see the newest Batman, which will feature Anne Hathaway in the role of Catwoman.
But I do have one hell of an idea. Why not cast Katie Holmes as Catwoman, and then go that extra mile by casting Tom Cruise as Batman. Now that would be some intense shit. You would have one psycho character who doesn't believe in psychiatry playing the role of a costumed vigilante that needs one almost as badly as Cruise. And Katie Holmes as Catwoman would be the perfect foil. Unfortunately, Hollywood would be tempted to camp it up with these two and ruin the whole thing, so it might not be such a great idea after all.
In other comics related movie news, sometime this year the new movie Captain America-The First Avenger will be released. He will undoubtedly kick much ass, but here's the real kick in the ass. It will be released worldwide, but in three countries the title will be changed to simply The First Avenger. Those three countries are Russia, the Ukraine, and-South Korea.
Don't get me wrong, I've been aware for some time now that the US is not exactly universally loved in South Korea, to put it lightly. But this? I guess it could have been worse. They could have called it "Capitalist America Swineman", or "Captain Infidel Dog". But you know what? American values just aren't for everyone, not even the screwed up versions as conceptualized by Marvel Comics, which is as left-wing a company as you can imagine.
These are the people who honestly believe that the hero Iron Man represents a true conservative, and on top of that, one of the very few good ones. And even he at one point turns out to be quite the fascist prick. But there again, to Marvel, that's what conservatism is. It's no wonder kids grow up with a screwed up view of conservative values. They're either Bible thumping ignorant rednecks who hate everybody, or crooked business people who could care less about people or the environment, or they are bent on world domination for the sake of their own power and influence, while selling it in terms of American security needs. No wonder the South Koreans hate us, even though they would doubtless have been overrun by the communist North decades ago if not for us. Go figure.
Finally, in other comic book news, the Human Torch is dead. Yeah, I know, they can always bring him back, this is the comics after all. But it just seems wrong. A flaming, flying human is an original concept to Marvel, and though Johnny Storm wasn't the first human torch, he has been the mainstay of the concept for going on fifty years now. With the advent of Marvel superhero movies, including the Fantastic Four, I guess someone is afraid that some little jerk-off will set himself on fire, who knows? No way it could be just another cynical marketing ploy, huh?
Worse, it probably isn't going to get any better than that, so now I know I won't be going to the trouble of the drive and the expense to see the newest Batman, which will feature Anne Hathaway in the role of Catwoman.
But I do have one hell of an idea. Why not cast Katie Holmes as Catwoman, and then go that extra mile by casting Tom Cruise as Batman. Now that would be some intense shit. You would have one psycho character who doesn't believe in psychiatry playing the role of a costumed vigilante that needs one almost as badly as Cruise. And Katie Holmes as Catwoman would be the perfect foil. Unfortunately, Hollywood would be tempted to camp it up with these two and ruin the whole thing, so it might not be such a great idea after all.
In other comics related movie news, sometime this year the new movie Captain America-The First Avenger will be released. He will undoubtedly kick much ass, but here's the real kick in the ass. It will be released worldwide, but in three countries the title will be changed to simply The First Avenger. Those three countries are Russia, the Ukraine, and-South Korea.
Don't get me wrong, I've been aware for some time now that the US is not exactly universally loved in South Korea, to put it lightly. But this? I guess it could have been worse. They could have called it "Capitalist America Swineman", or "Captain Infidel Dog". But you know what? American values just aren't for everyone, not even the screwed up versions as conceptualized by Marvel Comics, which is as left-wing a company as you can imagine.
These are the people who honestly believe that the hero Iron Man represents a true conservative, and on top of that, one of the very few good ones. And even he at one point turns out to be quite the fascist prick. But there again, to Marvel, that's what conservatism is. It's no wonder kids grow up with a screwed up view of conservative values. They're either Bible thumping ignorant rednecks who hate everybody, or crooked business people who could care less about people or the environment, or they are bent on world domination for the sake of their own power and influence, while selling it in terms of American security needs. No wonder the South Koreans hate us, even though they would doubtless have been overrun by the communist North decades ago if not for us. Go figure.
Finally, in other comic book news, the Human Torch is dead. Yeah, I know, they can always bring him back, this is the comics after all. But it just seems wrong. A flaming, flying human is an original concept to Marvel, and though Johnny Storm wasn't the first human torch, he has been the mainstay of the concept for going on fifty years now. With the advent of Marvel superhero movies, including the Fantastic Four, I guess someone is afraid that some little jerk-off will set himself on fire, who knows? No way it could be just another cynical marketing ploy, huh?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Leave That Sphinx Alone!
Well, it happened. During the recent demonstrations in Cairo, somebody broke into a museum and beheaded two mummies, one the great-grandmother of King Tut. I'm guessing they were incensed that her facial wrappings were removed. Oh well, some cooler heads, like Dr. Hawass, are insistent that most Egyptians are opposed to such wanton destruction of the antiquities that constitute Egypt's proud heritage. I hope they're right. On the other hand, remember the Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan?
That's got me so worried about this guy, I wrote a little song for him-
LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE (to the tune of Pink Floyd's Another Brick In The Wall).
We Don't Need No Islam Nation
We Don't Need Hajib Control
No Bomb Explosions In The Mass Rooms
Raghead Leave That Sphinx Alone
HEY! RAGHEAD! LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE!
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
That's got me so worried about this guy, I wrote a little song for him-
LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE (to the tune of Pink Floyd's Another Brick In The Wall).
We Don't Need No Islam Nation
We Don't Need Hajib Control
No Bomb Explosions In The Mass Rooms
Raghead Leave That Sphinx Alone
HEY! RAGHEAD! LEAVE THAT SPHINX ALONE!
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
Allah Akbar Just Another Prick On Jihad
Just Make Sure She Knows How To Work That Mouth
Courtesy of Breitbart, you know now what to do if any of your underage foreign sex slaves get pregnant, or to check and make sure they don't have any STDs. You just take them to Planned Parenthood. No questions asked. Just make sure your little teenage whore has all the right things memorized so she won't say anything that might obligate any of the highly trained personnel there to report you to the authorities. Like, for example, by giving them her true age, or the true age of the adult that got her pregnant.
Hey, you might even get some good professional advice, such as, during the period following an abortion when your little girl hooker can't have vaginal sex, she can always do other things. You know, like, "from the waist up".
There now, my fellow Americans, doesn't that prove Planned Parenthood deserves 400 million of your tax dollars a year?
Hey, you might even get some good professional advice, such as, during the period following an abortion when your little girl hooker can't have vaginal sex, she can always do other things. You know, like, "from the waist up".
There now, my fellow Americans, doesn't that prove Planned Parenthood deserves 400 million of your tax dollars a year?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Locked And Loaded In Missoula Montana
I want to make something clear to everybody right up front. I don't give a shit if liberal Democrats are sincere in their calls for more civil political speech. I still wouldn't like the direction in which they're trying to take the country, so I would still give them hell even if they did in all sincerity adopt a tone that was all sweetness and light. Let's just say they are still in my cross-hairs. I mean that figuratively, of course, as anybody who isn't intellectually brain-dead or emotionally retarded could figure out without me telling them. But hey, leftards, if you want to take it literally, knock yourselves out, preferably by walking into the middle of on-coming traffic.
Let's face it, its not exactly like progressives are sincere in their demands for more civil political dialogue. If you think they might be, this report from the Wall Street Journal might induce you to think twice about it. During a performance by the Missoula Children's Theater of The Mikado, one of the children in the cast called for the beheading of Sarah Palin. This met with the approval of most members of the liberal Missoula theater audience, but to their credit, The Missoulan published a letter to the editor from an outraged attendee, as follows-
Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:
First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.
The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.
We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.
As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton
I'll tell you someone else who should be especially ashamed of themselves, but are probably not-the parents of the child who uttered such a heinous line. I find it more likely than not that the parents were informed by one of the adults in charge of the production of this hateful insertion, and gave their approval. If so, the child should be snatched up by Social Services, and the parents subjected to some intense therapy at their own expense before they are ever allowed to see it again. As for the adults responsible, they should be prosecuted for child abuse. If this isn't an example of intellectual and emotional child rape, nothing is.
Unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. It wasn't but a few years ago someone produced a movie that dealt with the assassination of then President George W. Bush. That was different, though, in that as far as I know the film was not encouraging or calling for such an event to happen, at least not overtly. But this, however they might now try to paint it in terms of an unfortunate example of inappropriate humor, is really beyond the pale.
Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood civil and progressive citizens of the world, courtesy of the sweet little horrors they indoctrinate on a daily basis. As if that weren't enough, they are even funded in part by the National Endowment For The Arts.
Isn't that grand? Your tax dollars at work, funding humorous little quips calling for the beheading of conservative politicians. Out of the mouths of babes.
H/T Weasel Zippers
Let's face it, its not exactly like progressives are sincere in their demands for more civil political dialogue. If you think they might be, this report from the Wall Street Journal might induce you to think twice about it. During a performance by the Missoula Children's Theater of The Mikado, one of the children in the cast called for the beheading of Sarah Palin. This met with the approval of most members of the liberal Missoula theater audience, but to their credit, The Missoulan published a letter to the editor from an outraged attendee, as follows-
Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:
First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.
The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.
We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.
As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton
I'll tell you someone else who should be especially ashamed of themselves, but are probably not-the parents of the child who uttered such a heinous line. I find it more likely than not that the parents were informed by one of the adults in charge of the production of this hateful insertion, and gave their approval. If so, the child should be snatched up by Social Services, and the parents subjected to some intense therapy at their own expense before they are ever allowed to see it again. As for the adults responsible, they should be prosecuted for child abuse. If this isn't an example of intellectual and emotional child rape, nothing is.
Unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. It wasn't but a few years ago someone produced a movie that dealt with the assassination of then President George W. Bush. That was different, though, in that as far as I know the film was not encouraging or calling for such an event to happen, at least not overtly. But this, however they might now try to paint it in terms of an unfortunate example of inappropriate humor, is really beyond the pale.
Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood civil and progressive citizens of the world, courtesy of the sweet little horrors they indoctrinate on a daily basis. As if that weren't enough, they are even funded in part by the National Endowment For The Arts.
Isn't that grand? Your tax dollars at work, funding humorous little quips calling for the beheading of conservative politicians. Out of the mouths of babes.
H/T Weasel Zippers
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Oh, Domino!
Courtney has an interesting post on GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD that goes a long way towards explaining the confusion that underscores US Mid-East policy as expounded by Professor Stephen M. Walt. I would personally describe Walt's assessment as a kind of intellectual brain fart. Unfortunately, it seems the professor is not so much a brilliant observer of history as he is just another one of many suffering from the mass delusion of their own intellectual superiority.
True enough, his credentials would seem to be impeccable.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, where he served as academic dean from 2002-2006. He previously taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, where he served as master of the social science collegiate division and deputy dean of social sciences.
He has been a resident associate of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, and he has also been a consultant for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
But what else am I to make of a Professor at one of our most prestigious universities who decries America's relationships in the Middle East as based on The Domino Theory.
As many of you are aware (or maybe you're not) the Domino Theory was devised during the Eisenhower Administration as a means of supporting America's anti-communist Cold War policies. It advanced the belief that if any significant nation fell to communism, then all others in the region would quickly succumb, like a line of falling dominoes. As you might suspect, the Professor asserts that our Middle East policy of present is a continuation of the same theme. His proof that it is a "bad idea"?
Various scholars examined the domino theory in detail and found little historical or contemporary evidence to support it.
Uh, okay then, two points-
One, regardless of the validity of the Domino Theory as applied in the past to the communist threat of the Cold War era, recent developments in Tunisia have borne out the theory in regards to the proliferation of the effect in Egypt, as well as Yemen. Who knows where it will go from there? The Middle East is more of a tenderbox than ever and Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt, is clutching tenuously onto what is left of his power by his bare knuckles. His son and wife have already fled the country. The former President of Tunisia has similarly fled his nation after abdicating his position in the face of growing unrest and violent disruptions. If they fall completely, and Yemen, what happens then to Jordan? What about Saudi Arabia? Even Syria could conceivably face disruptions. Turkey has already lurched towards Islamist control. And make no mistake about it, Islamist factions are chiefly responsible for the current upheaval, and stand as of now potentially to profit from it the most. The Dominoes might not be falling yet, but they are certainly teetering dangerously close to doing so.
But even if that were not the case, by far the greater proof of the viability of the Domino Theory is to be found in the far distant past, when that ship first set sail-in the seventh century AD. Once Mecca fell to the forces of Mohamed it wasn't long before the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula submitted to the coercion of the Islamic hordes. And from there, it was on to Asia, and Africa. And Europe, where the advance was finally stopped. At least for the time being.
All things being equal, it seems to me like the history of the spread and expansion of Islam is a textbook case in proof of the Domino Theory. The history of Islam IS the Domino Theory, dammit.
But what do I know, its not like I have a Master's Degree or something.
Friday, January 28, 2011
British Baby Doll Commercial
I wish they'd market this doll over here with this commercial, just for the lulz.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Sarah Palin Responds To Obama's State Of The Union
Sarah Palin's response to Obama's SOTU speech is on Facebook, and she damn well knocks it out of the ballpark. "Winning The Future", the title of the speech, is more accurately assessed by its acronym-WTF!-than by the speech's content, according to Palin.
From that point on, she proceeds to rip the President to shreds. Following is a few of her points. For example, with the following she nails the Democratic Party philosophy, from at least the days of Roosevelt, down as concisely as anyone ever has.
He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree.
In other words, as far as Obama's concerned-nothing's changed, nor is there any reason to change any of his previous policies, nor will the Democratic members of Congress change any of their policies. They will just allegedly be warmer and fuzzier about the way they present them and the manner in which they debate them. What choice do they have, really?
Palin further elucidates on some of Obama's spending proposals.
And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.
She might have also added that these investments probably won't even break even, let alone pay any real dividends. They might provide a service for a small sector of society, and even in the best case scenario spur some job creation, but for ever job they create, they'll probably cost two. Or three. And like I said, they won't pay off in the long run, particularly if Obama insists on socking it to the oil and coal industries on which we now depend, something Palin also pointed out-
When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.
And she also touched on education.
Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.
She was actually being more kind than she needed to be. Not seeing any "substantial improvement" is the least of it. The federal governments initiatives since 1970 has ruined the American education system in far too many states and neighborhood schools, where those students who do get a good education do so from their own initiative and due to parental involvement. What official help they get is derived from oversight from various state and local governments and school boards. Aside from federal dollars, which comes with myriads of strings, the federal government is a hindrance, not a help to public education.
But here might be the most important point of all-
On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.
What she didn't go into is the real reason Obama and the Democrats are dead set against entitlement reform, why they are so aghast at the idea of "privatizing" Social Security. Simply put, by keeping Social Security as is, it insures continued dependency, but that's not even the major reason. The real reason is, once those funds are transferred to private accounts, the government from that point on loses control of them. Never mind that there are no funds worth controlling at this stage, they are insistent that Social Security can be made solvent. They are determined to make it so, because it provides a steady stream of funds to borrow from to finance other projects. That's precisely why they don't want to reform the system.
They could in reality care less if the elderly lost their savings in the stock market. In fact, that would be the one bonus to the Democrats way of thinking. If that happened, they could come up with a government program to "save" them and make them more dependent on them than ever. And I have no doubt that if such a privatization program ever is implemented, Democrats will work tirelessly to insure that seniors are able to have free reign over how their money is invested, hoping for a resultant crash, and will do so on the grounds of protecting the rights of seniors to invest their money in the best way they see fit.
Let's face it, whether we are talking about foreign policy, energy policy, education, job creation, or entitlements, the Democratic Party agenda can be summed up as government power and control, and Palin sums it up succinctly.
Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.
That pretty much sums it up. I can't add anything at all to that, and that is precisely what made Sarah Palin, during her all too brief two year tenure, the greatest governor in Alaska history. Its also why she is so despised, not only by the Left, but by the corporatist, establishment Republicans that are really out for their own interests at the expense of all of us. They and the Left are not really ideological opposites so much as they are two sides of the same coin, forged from an alloy or corruption, special interest, and elitism.
And Obama is just more of the same, the same as always.
But mark my words, the most talked about part of Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the SOTU won't be any of her major points. It won't be her ideas, or her assessments of Obama and his big government agenda. No, the media jackals who support the Democrats, and promote the establishment Republicans as the voice of the GOP, will devote most of their response to Palin's use of the phrase WTF!
You can make book on it.
From that point on, she proceeds to rip the President to shreds. Following is a few of her points. For example, with the following she nails the Democratic Party philosophy, from at least the days of Roosevelt, down as concisely as anyone ever has.
He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree.
In other words, as far as Obama's concerned-nothing's changed, nor is there any reason to change any of his previous policies, nor will the Democratic members of Congress change any of their policies. They will just allegedly be warmer and fuzzier about the way they present them and the manner in which they debate them. What choice do they have, really?
Palin further elucidates on some of Obama's spending proposals.
And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.
She might have also added that these investments probably won't even break even, let alone pay any real dividends. They might provide a service for a small sector of society, and even in the best case scenario spur some job creation, but for ever job they create, they'll probably cost two. Or three. And like I said, they won't pay off in the long run, particularly if Obama insists on socking it to the oil and coal industries on which we now depend, something Palin also pointed out-
When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.
And she also touched on education.
Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.
She was actually being more kind than she needed to be. Not seeing any "substantial improvement" is the least of it. The federal governments initiatives since 1970 has ruined the American education system in far too many states and neighborhood schools, where those students who do get a good education do so from their own initiative and due to parental involvement. What official help they get is derived from oversight from various state and local governments and school boards. Aside from federal dollars, which comes with myriads of strings, the federal government is a hindrance, not a help to public education.
But here might be the most important point of all-
On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.
What she didn't go into is the real reason Obama and the Democrats are dead set against entitlement reform, why they are so aghast at the idea of "privatizing" Social Security. Simply put, by keeping Social Security as is, it insures continued dependency, but that's not even the major reason. The real reason is, once those funds are transferred to private accounts, the government from that point on loses control of them. Never mind that there are no funds worth controlling at this stage, they are insistent that Social Security can be made solvent. They are determined to make it so, because it provides a steady stream of funds to borrow from to finance other projects. That's precisely why they don't want to reform the system.
They could in reality care less if the elderly lost their savings in the stock market. In fact, that would be the one bonus to the Democrats way of thinking. If that happened, they could come up with a government program to "save" them and make them more dependent on them than ever. And I have no doubt that if such a privatization program ever is implemented, Democrats will work tirelessly to insure that seniors are able to have free reign over how their money is invested, hoping for a resultant crash, and will do so on the grounds of protecting the rights of seniors to invest their money in the best way they see fit.
Let's face it, whether we are talking about foreign policy, energy policy, education, job creation, or entitlements, the Democratic Party agenda can be summed up as government power and control, and Palin sums it up succinctly.
Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.
That pretty much sums it up. I can't add anything at all to that, and that is precisely what made Sarah Palin, during her all too brief two year tenure, the greatest governor in Alaska history. Its also why she is so despised, not only by the Left, but by the corporatist, establishment Republicans that are really out for their own interests at the expense of all of us. They and the Left are not really ideological opposites so much as they are two sides of the same coin, forged from an alloy or corruption, special interest, and elitism.
And Obama is just more of the same, the same as always.
But mark my words, the most talked about part of Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the SOTU won't be any of her major points. It won't be her ideas, or her assessments of Obama and his big government agenda. No, the media jackals who support the Democrats, and promote the establishment Republicans as the voice of the GOP, will devote most of their response to Palin's use of the phrase WTF!
You can make book on it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU
Let me see if I got this straight.
Obama claims we have to cut spending. Also, we have to stop giving breaks to oil companies and instead we need to subsidize alternative energy sources. Then, we have to approach education like its this generation's "Sputnik Moment".
So clarify something for me, somebody. Does that mean we have to spend more money on education? And alternative energy? And while we're doing this are we supposed to expect to pay that much more for gasoline and on our electric bills?
If Americans are going to have to make these hard choices, can we assume Obama and the Congress are going to have it as tough as the rest of us?
Obama claims we have to cut spending. Also, we have to stop giving breaks to oil companies and instead we need to subsidize alternative energy sources. Then, we have to approach education like its this generation's "Sputnik Moment".
So clarify something for me, somebody. Does that mean we have to spend more money on education? And alternative energy? And while we're doing this are we supposed to expect to pay that much more for gasoline and on our electric bills?
If Americans are going to have to make these hard choices, can we assume Obama and the Congress are going to have it as tough as the rest of us?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Jesse "The Full Body" Ventura Has A Groping Hang-Up
Ever since Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal, professional wrestler and wrestling commentator, and the former Governor of the state of Minnesota, had a titanium hip replacement, he can't go through airport security without setting off alarms. He has been subject to extra scrutiny on numerous occasions. At times, he has had wand scans, at other times subjected to a full body scanner, and at other times-notably one day in November-he has been subjected to intense physical pat downs that involved TSA agents groping his genitals. When he was informed that due to the reaction his titanium implants had on airport security alarms he would always be subjected to either pat-downs or full body scanners, he filed a lawsuit against the TSA, naming Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants.
His grounds for the lawsuit are that the pat-downs constitute what amounts to-
"unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."
So says the man who rose to fame and fortune by spending years, in the public eye, on video and the televised media, and before audiences of thousands, doing shit like this for a living-
H/T Ace of Spades HQ
His grounds for the lawsuit are that the pat-downs constitute what amounts to-
"unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."
So says the man who rose to fame and fortune by spending years, in the public eye, on video and the televised media, and before audiences of thousands, doing shit like this for a living-
H/T Ace of Spades HQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)