Do you believe this shit? The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, an agency which regulates private broadcasters in Canada, has banned the song Money For Nothing by the rock group Dire Straits. What is more, even though membership in the Council is strictly voluntary, this decision is final and may not be appealed, even though it does not apply to state-owned Canadian broadcast networks or the internet. If you are a private owner, you are bound to the rules, unless you resign from the Council. You can do this, but the problem with that is, your license will probably not be renewed once it expires.
These are exactly the same kind of people who control the Democratic Party here in the US. The very same kind of people who want to ram through every big government program and agenda possible and who want to shut up everybody who opposes them, by way of lies, manipulation, political correctness, and now, mass murder.
But I'm supposed to worry about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party because some fruit loop kills a few people? And I'm supposed to believe the progressive left when they open their mouths about-hell, not just about this, but about anything? Too fucking incredible for words.
H/T-The Other McCain
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Hey, Democraps-How's That Civility And Respect Working For Ya?
Former House Representative from Pennsylvania Paul Kanjorski, who got kicked out on his ass in the last election, has something to say in a New York Times editorial about the need for "civility and respect" when it comes to political discourse. Here's a taste-
We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.
Well, isn't that sweet? The former Congressman, who got tossed out on his ass in the last election (God DAMN I love the feeling I get when I type that), is no stranger to polite, civil, and respectful political discourse. He has always been all for it. And, even when he was fighting his own re-election battle-that would be the one he lost-he still took the time to spread the love around. Notice what he said about the Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Rick Scott, who went on to win his race. Maybe he won due to the nice, positive, respectful things Kanjorski said about Scott, such as the following-
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Now how much more civil could a Democrat possibly be? Kanjorski was, of course, respectfully engaging in a little bit of respectful hyperbole. Thankfully, there are no loony people in Florida who would shoot a gun at Governor Scott over such insignificant, meaningless banter.
In fact, so impressed am I by Kanjorski's and other Democrats style of rhetoric, I strongly urge Republicans to try to see if they can be just as "civil" and "respectful" as they are. In fact, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I strongly recommend that anytime Democraps show this version of "respect" and "civility" towards Republicans, or the Tea Party, that all of us go out of our way to give it back to them in spades.
H/T Moonbattery
We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.
Well, isn't that sweet? The former Congressman, who got tossed out on his ass in the last election (God DAMN I love the feeling I get when I type that), is no stranger to polite, civil, and respectful political discourse. He has always been all for it. And, even when he was fighting his own re-election battle-that would be the one he lost-he still took the time to spread the love around. Notice what he said about the Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Rick Scott, who went on to win his race. Maybe he won due to the nice, positive, respectful things Kanjorski said about Scott, such as the following-
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Now how much more civil could a Democrat possibly be? Kanjorski was, of course, respectfully engaging in a little bit of respectful hyperbole. Thankfully, there are no loony people in Florida who would shoot a gun at Governor Scott over such insignificant, meaningless banter.
In fact, so impressed am I by Kanjorski's and other Democrats style of rhetoric, I strongly urge Republicans to try to see if they can be just as "civil" and "respectful" as they are. In fact, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I strongly recommend that anytime Democraps show this version of "respect" and "civility" towards Republicans, or the Tea Party, that all of us go out of our way to give it back to them in spades.
H/T Moonbattery
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Jarod Loughner-Did He Act Alone?
I think the question needs serious consideration. I'll put this bluntly. If there is anything at all to Obama's Justice Department, they are going to be looking seriously into the possibility that Jarod Loughner was manipulated into committing his monstrous crime. The first place they should look very closely is at the office of the Pima County Sheriff Dupnik.
Sheriff Dupnik was well aware of Loughner's mental and emotional problems, and now there is some credible circumstantial evidence that the sheriff's department had fielded complaints about Loughner from numerous sources, including radio personalities and bloggers in the Tucson area whom Loughner had called and threatened.
The sheriff's response, if true, is incredible. According to The Cholla Jumps, Dupnik informed at least one complainant that Loughner's mother worked for the city (Parks and Recreation), and as such any attempt to prosecute Loughner would only make matters worse.
If that is true, that almost sounds like a threat to me. But of course, if this really happened, we are talking about conservative bloggers and radio pesonalities, and a clearly liberal sheriff who in an effort to divert attention from his own malfeasance in office involving this case, has accused anyone he can think of for responsibility for the crime.
Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and most recently Rush Limbaugh. Anyone but himself, as long as its someone on the right.
Yet, despite the fact that the sheriff's office had fielded all these complaints, and despite the fact that Loughner was kicked out of his own town's community college, he was allowed to purchase a firearm, just in lieu of the fact that he had no criminal record, thanks largely to the incompetence of this sheriff in following up on complaints on Loughner that might have been used to prevent his purchase of a firearm.
And this brings me back to my main point. This sheriff is a progressive, and I have to wonder if he or someone in his department, or elsewhere in the county, or the state, wanted Gabrielle Giffords gone, albeit for some as yet unknown reason beyond mere political disagreement. A person like Loughner would be easily manipulated by a person of authority, someone who might be a friend of the family, someone who looked out for him and befriended him. I will explain how in a future post Loughner's condition might make it relatively easy, even simple, to manipulate him to do almost anything.
Such a person might have possibly even given him private firearms lessons. Loughner committed his deed with stunningly ruthless efficiency, yet there is no indication he had any experience with firearms prior to early last year. It seems to have been something he had only recently shown an interest in. For someone to learn to shoot that quickly, with such deadly efficiency, would require some level of skill set he would be unlikely to have acquired on his own or with just moderate level assistance in such a short span of time.
I'm almost sure this is what happened. I think, however, it wasn't supposed to end quite this way. I think he was supposed to shoot Giffords and leave, quickly. He would have been told to meet someone somewhere, where of course he would have been apprehended, and more than likely shot dead.
Instead, he went totally off the rails and started shooting everybody in sight, until he was apprehended by private citizens acting out of self-preservation. Now he is in custody, where the normally talkative, insanely expressive Loughner is reportedly mum, and saying nothing.
If I'm right, it might not be too long before we hear that Jarod Loughner has been found dead in his cell-a victim of "suicide".
In the meantime, not only should the Justice Department look into this possibility, but Obama himself should be very cautious when he travels to Tucson. After all, Giffords has drawn ire from leftists in the past for not being sufficiently progressive on a variety of issues. Many of these leftists have similar animosity towards Obama, especially in the wake of certain moves that look as though he might be moving toward a more politically centrist position. In fact, to a great many of them, he was never progressive enough to begin with. Now they are beside themselves over some of the recent signals he has sent. His compromise on the tax bill, his recent appointments of centrist Democrats to highly placed advisory positions of influence.
And they know full well that if Obama is assassinated, they can always blame the Right-the same Sarah Palins, Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Tea party patriots they have been screaming non-stop are responsible for the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords.
This is who they are. This is what they do.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Great! Now They're Saying Loughner Is A Pagan
Well, more precisely, that he was a Satanist, or into "the occult". It doesn't matter, as in the minds of most people, all those terms, along with Pagan, Wiccan, Witch, etc., are interchangeable. They found some kind of altar in a camouflage tent outside his house, with a skull over a pot of shriveled oranges. Don't ask me. I used to burn lemon juice in Everclear as an aspect of a purification ritual. He might have been using the oranges for a similar purpose, but really, who knows? The point is, this is just one aspect of an obviously troubled mind, one that seems to have a satanist, possibly pagan connection. And on it goes.
I guess nobody is immune. For all we know, someone might soon assert that Jarod Loughner was actually targeting John Roll, the federal judge who was one of the six killed in the rampage shooting, over his judicial philosophy. Or maybe he was after the little girl, Danielle Green, because her grandfather former Yankees and Phillies manager Darrell Greene, was involved in a diabolical plot to use baseball as a form of mind-control.
Whatever the case, I'm not intimidated. Nor would I be seriously alarmed were this to turn out to have an actual pagan connection. The main point is deserving of reiteration.
1. Leftist loons have been engaging in vile, hateful rhetoric almost non-stop since the sixties, at least.
2. Jarod Loughner was clearly a leftist.
3. Yet, through some tortured twisting of logic that only a leftist could hope to comprehend, leftists claim Loughner's shooting spree is the fault of hateful rhetoric on the right and blame Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party.
For the record, if Jarod Loughner does turn out to be, not a Satanist but a Pagan, all that proves is that he was, like the vast majority of pagans, a leftist pagan. If he was a Satanist, again, he was not a typical Satanist either, but a clearly deranged type of self-identifying individual who might well have picked out such secondary targets as the little girl as an aspect of ritual sacrifice. On the other hand, others have tagged him as an atheist, so go figure.
And for all those people who conveniently like to avoid discussing the possibility that this killing was politically motivated, I would like to point out that his mother, with whom he lived (and who must have had some familiarity with the ritual altar at the home), was a member of the city's Board of Supervisors. That would suggest that his very upbringing and day to day surroundings reeked of politics.
That and the fact that there is strong, compelling evidence that this was not a random, spur of the moment mass killing of convenience. He didn't just happen upon this crowd of people and decide to cut loose. He had purposely targeted the Congresswoman as his primary victim.
Like it or not, crazy and deranged people have political leanings too, you know.
I guess nobody is immune. For all we know, someone might soon assert that Jarod Loughner was actually targeting John Roll, the federal judge who was one of the six killed in the rampage shooting, over his judicial philosophy. Or maybe he was after the little girl, Danielle Green, because her grandfather former Yankees and Phillies manager Darrell Greene, was involved in a diabolical plot to use baseball as a form of mind-control.
Whatever the case, I'm not intimidated. Nor would I be seriously alarmed were this to turn out to have an actual pagan connection. The main point is deserving of reiteration.
1. Leftist loons have been engaging in vile, hateful rhetoric almost non-stop since the sixties, at least.
2. Jarod Loughner was clearly a leftist.
3. Yet, through some tortured twisting of logic that only a leftist could hope to comprehend, leftists claim Loughner's shooting spree is the fault of hateful rhetoric on the right and blame Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party.
For the record, if Jarod Loughner does turn out to be, not a Satanist but a Pagan, all that proves is that he was, like the vast majority of pagans, a leftist pagan. If he was a Satanist, again, he was not a typical Satanist either, but a clearly deranged type of self-identifying individual who might well have picked out such secondary targets as the little girl as an aspect of ritual sacrifice. On the other hand, others have tagged him as an atheist, so go figure.
And for all those people who conveniently like to avoid discussing the possibility that this killing was politically motivated, I would like to point out that his mother, with whom he lived (and who must have had some familiarity with the ritual altar at the home), was a member of the city's Board of Supervisors. That would suggest that his very upbringing and day to day surroundings reeked of politics.
That and the fact that there is strong, compelling evidence that this was not a random, spur of the moment mass killing of convenience. He didn't just happen upon this crowd of people and decide to cut loose. He had purposely targeted the Congresswoman as his primary victim.
Like it or not, crazy and deranged people have political leanings too, you know.
Jarod Loughner Baffles With His Bullshit On Above Top Secret
Here's a thread on the website Above Top Secret that seems to have been started by Jarod Loughner, who was once a member of the site, before he was kicked off. As you will be able to tell if you read the thread, this guy was clearly a loon. He had all the posters who responded to his thread scratching their heads. It's something to do with his belief that years-individual years-are infinite. He wonders how the BCE or BC years could have ended for the CE or AD years to begin. It's just crazy shit that doesn't even make no sense. In fact, its so confused I'm hard pressed to describe it.
YouTube-Leftist Enemies Of Gabrielle Giffords
Boy oh boy here we see some real whack-a-doodles, 911 Truthers protesting Gabrielle Giffords support of the Iraq War. What really pisses these people off is Gifford's stated refusal at the time to support impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney as filed in the House by fellow whack-a-loon Dennis Kucinich. You can almost feel the spit rushing to their heads when a spokeswoman says she isn't sure how Giffords would vote on impeachment if such a motion came out of the House Judiciary Committee.
This goes back to 2008, when these loony tunes were protesting outside Gifford's office. At one point later in the video, there is one woman who makes an appearance going in a building, who looks like ultra-loon queen Cindy Sheehan, though she makes no remarks on this video. It's a blink and you'll miss her moment.
My point here is, why the hell isn't Keith Olbermann and Marcos Moulitsos talking about this video. It's been out there for a while. These people are so demonstrably crazy, two women in a car, women who are clearly Democrats and Giffords supporters, stop to harass them.
Why isn't this being hailed as an example of hateful rhetoric that is poisoning the political discourse? Why couldn't Jarod Loughner have been influenced by these whack-a-doodles?
This goes back to 2008, when these loony tunes were protesting outside Gifford's office. At one point later in the video, there is one woman who makes an appearance going in a building, who looks like ultra-loon queen Cindy Sheehan, though she makes no remarks on this video. It's a blink and you'll miss her moment.
My point here is, why the hell isn't Keith Olbermann and Marcos Moulitsos talking about this video. It's been out there for a while. These people are so demonstrably crazy, two women in a car, women who are clearly Democrats and Giffords supporters, stop to harass them.
Why isn't this being hailed as an example of hateful rhetoric that is poisoning the political discourse? Why couldn't Jarod Loughner have been influenced by these whack-a-doodles?
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Shockerarama! Leftist Who Might Be Responsible For Leftist Shooting Democrat, Blames Conservatives!
Cos of course, that's what they do, habitually. So when Marcos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos tries to point the finger of blame at Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, or the Tea Party, maybe we are supposed to overlook the time he himself targeted Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
So why would he do that? Short answer is, Giffords, though a Democrat, is a member of the Blue Dog coalition, and as such, was targeted by Moulitsos as a target to be primaried if she didn't tow the line. Never mind that she voted for TARP, the Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that she favored rescinding incentives for oil companies in favor of a plan to incentivize solar energy development, which would benefit her state of Arizona.
She just plainly wasn't liberal enough for Marcos. After all, this was a woman who supported gun rights. She even filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case against the DC ban on private gun ownership, a case that was ultimately a victory for the Second Amendment.
Possibly even worse, even though she had spoken out against Arizona's illegal immigration law, she was herself a strong advocate of border security, and complained consistently that the federal government wasn't performing adequately in that regard. She was even responsible for the decision of Barak Obama to increase the numbers of border patrol agents along the Arizona-Mexico Border.
Because of these, and other things, Moulitsos wants her gone. But hey, you don't have to just take my word for it, you can read it from a post on Daily Kos just two months before the 2010 primary.
But because Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party targeted Gifford's district in a campaign that, as a result of their efforts, almost caused Gifford to lose her seat to Tea-Party supported Republican Jess Kelly, Moulitsos blames them for the assassination attempt on Gifford's life that left her in critical condition and resulted the deaths of at least five others. One of the victims was a federal judge, appointed by President George H W Bush. Others include a nine year old girl, one of Gifford's assistants who had recently become engaged, and two elderly people. Several others were wounded, some of whom might yet die. Giffords herself might yet well relapse and ultimately succumb for all we know. She was shot point blank range in the head, after all.
Yeah, if I was Marcos, I guess I would encourage blaming somebody else, anybody else. If I found out the guy was a fan of the Dead Kennedy's I would point that out. Come on, that might mean something, right?
Unfortunately for him, such diversionary tactics will be difficult to pull off with anybody that isn't a liberal loon Democrat (in other words, any living, breathing person with a functioning brain), for the simple fact that Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman involved in the crime, is clearly insane and, according to somebody who knew him well, he was a leftist. Here's what she had to say about him-
This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me. it's loughner just checked my year book. I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing. more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive. he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent"
He also seems to have a penchant for such leftist literature as Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, as well as-wait for it-
Das Kapital by Karl Marx.
Yeah, not exactly the kind of reading you see passed around and discussed at your local Tea Party gathering, at least not in a positive way. Yet, these are what he described as his favorite books on the profile of his YouTube page.
Yet, in addition to Moulitsos, you have none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda chiming in and blaming conservatives.
I take great exception to certain people advising us to avoid attacks on the left, and to see this guy as an insane nut more than acting out of any political orientation. For one, he was clearly acting out of a political agenda, albeit a paranoid, possibly schizophrenic and delusional one. For another, I take great pride in the fact that one leftist recently referred to this blog as "the reliably vicious Pagan Temple".
Yeah, I'll take that. I'm so fucking vicious I want this scumbag tried, convicted, and executed, though more for the death of the nine year old girl than for the others. But I want him executed for them as well. I guess that in itself makes me more vicious than Moulitsos and Fucktard Fonda, who will probably want to keep the bastard alive and granted free blowjobs during conjugal visits at taxpayer expense. After all, to execute a person would be vicious, but to keep him alive and deprive him of sexual gratification would just be cruel and inhuman.
While we're at it, I still want Hanoi Jane tried for treason. I want her to have a fair trial, but If she is convicted, I want her skank ass hung by the neck until dead. Justice has been too long delayed on that front, and seeing it happen would be more fun than watching Barbarella.
So I guess if Jane Fonda is killed here in the next few days that's possibly my fault as well, right?
Wrong! The left is doing what the left always does. They are creating discord and casting blame and aspersions, and as is more often the case than not, it is over an event for which they are at least partially responsible.
Sorry, folks, but for all my sympathies for the victims here, including the Congresswoman and her family, I'm not in the mood to play nice. I don't dance to any tune the left whistles, now or ever. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.
So why would he do that? Short answer is, Giffords, though a Democrat, is a member of the Blue Dog coalition, and as such, was targeted by Moulitsos as a target to be primaried if she didn't tow the line. Never mind that she voted for TARP, the Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that she favored rescinding incentives for oil companies in favor of a plan to incentivize solar energy development, which would benefit her state of Arizona.
She just plainly wasn't liberal enough for Marcos. After all, this was a woman who supported gun rights. She even filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case against the DC ban on private gun ownership, a case that was ultimately a victory for the Second Amendment.
Possibly even worse, even though she had spoken out against Arizona's illegal immigration law, she was herself a strong advocate of border security, and complained consistently that the federal government wasn't performing adequately in that regard. She was even responsible for the decision of Barak Obama to increase the numbers of border patrol agents along the Arizona-Mexico Border.
Because of these, and other things, Moulitsos wants her gone. But hey, you don't have to just take my word for it, you can read it from a post on Daily Kos just two months before the 2010 primary.
But because Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party targeted Gifford's district in a campaign that, as a result of their efforts, almost caused Gifford to lose her seat to Tea-Party supported Republican Jess Kelly, Moulitsos blames them for the assassination attempt on Gifford's life that left her in critical condition and resulted the deaths of at least five others. One of the victims was a federal judge, appointed by President George H W Bush. Others include a nine year old girl, one of Gifford's assistants who had recently become engaged, and two elderly people. Several others were wounded, some of whom might yet die. Giffords herself might yet well relapse and ultimately succumb for all we know. She was shot point blank range in the head, after all.
Yeah, if I was Marcos, I guess I would encourage blaming somebody else, anybody else. If I found out the guy was a fan of the Dead Kennedy's I would point that out. Come on, that might mean something, right?
Unfortunately for him, such diversionary tactics will be difficult to pull off with anybody that isn't a liberal loon Democrat (in other words, any living, breathing person with a functioning brain), for the simple fact that Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman involved in the crime, is clearly insane and, according to somebody who knew him well, he was a leftist. Here's what she had to say about him-
This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me. it's loughner just checked my year book. I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing. more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive. he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent"
He also seems to have a penchant for such leftist literature as Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, as well as-wait for it-
Das Kapital by Karl Marx.
Yeah, not exactly the kind of reading you see passed around and discussed at your local Tea Party gathering, at least not in a positive way. Yet, these are what he described as his favorite books on the profile of his YouTube page.
Yet, in addition to Moulitsos, you have none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda chiming in and blaming conservatives.
I take great exception to certain people advising us to avoid attacks on the left, and to see this guy as an insane nut more than acting out of any political orientation. For one, he was clearly acting out of a political agenda, albeit a paranoid, possibly schizophrenic and delusional one. For another, I take great pride in the fact that one leftist recently referred to this blog as "the reliably vicious Pagan Temple".
Yeah, I'll take that. I'm so fucking vicious I want this scumbag tried, convicted, and executed, though more for the death of the nine year old girl than for the others. But I want him executed for them as well. I guess that in itself makes me more vicious than Moulitsos and Fucktard Fonda, who will probably want to keep the bastard alive and granted free blowjobs during conjugal visits at taxpayer expense. After all, to execute a person would be vicious, but to keep him alive and deprive him of sexual gratification would just be cruel and inhuman.
While we're at it, I still want Hanoi Jane tried for treason. I want her to have a fair trial, but If she is convicted, I want her skank ass hung by the neck until dead. Justice has been too long delayed on that front, and seeing it happen would be more fun than watching Barbarella.
So I guess if Jane Fonda is killed here in the next few days that's possibly my fault as well, right?
Wrong! The left is doing what the left always does. They are creating discord and casting blame and aspersions, and as is more often the case than not, it is over an event for which they are at least partially responsible.
Sorry, folks, but for all my sympathies for the victims here, including the Congresswoman and her family, I'm not in the mood to play nice. I don't dance to any tune the left whistles, now or ever. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Christine O'Donnell vs The Forces Of Evil (II)
When Christine O'Donnell lost the Delaware Senate race, I was greatly disappointed, not so much in her loss-she was always at best a long-shot candidate-but in the way her defeat came about. Not too long after the election was over, there was an analysis at the blog Protein Wisdom that pretty much summed up my feelings over the matter. Here is a portion of it-
Why would we want a Senator Castle?
Seriously. Why? I mean, clearly the Republican primary voters of Delaware didn’t want him, and this was their election. So why do so many GOP cheerleaders wish Republican primary voters of Delaware would have been smart and savvy enough to vote for a guy those voters didn’t want representing them, casting their vote instead for a woman they believed would?
There is nothing “extreme” about the Tea Party message, and there’s nothing in that message that should put off “moderates.” O’Donnell did well with independents, despite having no support from her own party machinery. And yet because GOP establishment types were so quick to scoff and sniff and run away from O’Donnell or Angle (and, initially, Rubio), they lent credence to the idea that the Tea Party is “extreme,” and so obviously racist, fascist, nativist, populist, and anti-intellectual. Not to mention, longing to squeeze into tight black goth garb and couple with the Beast.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if sold on its merits, classical liberalism — and the Tea Party’s message is essentially a classical liberal message — crosses party lines and appeals to anyone who believes in individual liberty, smaller government, equality of opportunity, and the rule of law. It is constitutionalism — legal conservatism / libertarianism — substantively alienated from the rudderless country club Republicanism of Lindsey Graham, or the vote-counting gamesmanship of Karl Rove, for whom winning temporary majorities and chairmanships is more important than governing from a coherent philosophical base.
We don’t need slicker candidates. We need committed candidates.
I myself am not an ideological purist, so there are some issues where me and the Tea Party part company. But by and large, i agree with them far more often than I disagree, and this post in question pretty much sums up my feelings.
But it goes deeper than that. Mike Castle is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics in general. What we have bred is a political class that feels its entitled, both to rule over the unwashed masses, and to protect their own perceived turf by any means imaginable. Castle's membership in the good old boys club of Washington politics made it almost a sure thing that other establishment Republicans would in large measure turn on O'Donnell, or at the very least, turn away from her. She was plainly not one of them, and represented a greater threat to their hegemony within the Republican Party than the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, or, for that matter, Beau Biden, who had earlier declined to seek the Democratic Party nomination.
There is also something about Delaware that can't be stressed nearly enough. It takes pride in the motto "First In Freedom" because it was the first state to ratify the constitution. It is technically speaking our first state. But it is now, and has been for some time, a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking and finance sectors of the country. It has developed and maintained a corporate friendly environment, this mainly for the benefit of those banking and financial interests.
Those same interests have also propped up the political establishment of the state, and this includes both parties, and their most important leaders. This would include the Bidens, both the current Vice-President, and his son, formerly the state's Attorney General, who declined to run for the seat formerly held by his father when Joe Biden became Vice President.
And, it would also include the man who is now the state's senior Senator, Tom Carper.
One of the people who has been a strong supporter of Joe Biden, in addition to being a former staffer of the Vice-President, is Melanie Sloan, who head of an organization called CREW-Citizens For Responsibility For Ethics In Washington. CREW us funded in part by George Soros think-tank Think Progress.
And it is Crew that has filed an ethics complaint against Christine O'Donnell, which you can read in its entirety here.
Crew filed the complaint on behalf of one Leonard S. Togman, a Delaware citizen and voter who also just happens to be Melanie Sloan's father. Not only is Togman also a supporter of Joe Biden, he has also contributed to not only his past campaigns but also to those of Carper, whom most people think O'Donnell will challenge in 2012.
Is it any wonder Christine O'Donnell, who vociferously denies the charges in the complaint, thinks Joe Biden is pulling strings in an effort to put an end to any of her potential future political aspirations?
It's been established that CREW, despite its claims of being non-partisan, is actually a schill for the Democratic Party and other progressive groups and causes. The report at Weekly Standard is chilling, if true.
Several news stories have pointed out that much of CREW's [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] funding comes from liberal groups and big donors to Democratic candidates and causes. And all but a handful of its complaints against Members of Congress have targeted Republicans.
But in some cases, there appear to be deeper links between the agenda of the donor and CREW's attacks. In February 2006, CREW asked the Senate Finance Committee to investigate the Center for Union Facts, an anti-union group, and its sister organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which CREW claimed are "front organizations for for-profit industry entities."
The complaint noted that the Center for Union Facts Web site had "negative information about unions," including the Service Employees International Union. Later that year, CREW launched a Freedom of Information Act request, followed by a lawsuit, to get the Department of Labor to hand over documents regarding the department's contacts with the founder of the two centers.
On Sept. 1, 2006, CREW received $75,000 from the SEIU, according to documents that the union filed with the Department of Labor.
CREW has also received hundreds of thousands from ARCA, an organization which favors reopening trade with Cuba, and has filed ethics complaints against individuals and companies which favor the current policy. The Executive Director of ARCA has served on the board of CREW, and is now running for Congress as a Democrat. (CREW has attacked her opponent.)
If you need further proof that Sloan is far from non-partisan, all you have to do is visit the website of CREW, where she has posted her bio. It states plainly that she was minority counsel for the House of Representatives, where she worked for both John Conyers, and then New York Representative Charles Schumer.
I think al the above lays to rest any notion that Sloan, or her activist group CREW, are impartial or non-partisan. The question then becomes, why are they after O'Donnell. And why was the FBI brought into it to the extent that they released the news of the investigation of O'Donnell to the press, before O'Donnell herself was even informed about it, in what American Spectator describes as a smear operation?
However, I think Stacy McCain might be actually closer to the truth than anyone else thus far, in pointing out that there's not a whole lot of daylight in Delaware between the Republican and Democratic parties. In doing so, McCain points the finger at Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross and the "state GOP insiders".
And it is a fact that there is little difference between the two. Mike Castle, the former Republican House member who Christine O'Donnell trounced in the Delaware Senate primary, probably voted with the US House Democrats AT LEAST AS OFTEN as he voted with Republicans. The majority of the Delaware Republican electorate had understandably had enough, and turned down his bid to run against Chris Coons. When he lost, national Republicans threw a hissy fit. People like Karl Rove were clearly upset that Christine O'Donnell might blow the one clear chance the party might have had to win the Senate seat formerly held by Joe Biden. They became so agitated at the prospect, so infuriated, and frustrated, that they not only refused to support O'Donnell-in many cases they outright spoke out against her.
Had they supported her, stood by her, perhaps she still would have lost, but possibly not. She might have pulled it out, or at the very least she would not have, through no fault of her own, been a drag on the down-ticket Republicans in the race, almost all of who lost handily due to the depressed GOP turnout in Delaware.
Is there any doubt that Castle would like to run for the Senate against Carper in 2012l, and would much prefer not to have to face yet another primary challenge from O'Donnell. But if he had to, he would much prefer a damaged O'Donnell than the conservative darling of the right-wing Republican base, most of who would gladly vote for her again. That is a problem the club will have to deal with.
There is more at stake in elections than merely winning or losing, you see. There is more involved than bragging rights. All of the Delaware political insiders are well-connected, from both parties, and stand to lose little in the way of legitimate political influence in the event of the victory of an outsider like Christine O'Donnell.
Ah, but the operative word here is, after all, legitimate. And when it comes to the shadowy corridors of political power, it's not whether you win or lose, or even how you play the game. All that matters is the unwritten rule-don't make waves.
Why would we want a Senator Castle?
Seriously. Why? I mean, clearly the Republican primary voters of Delaware didn’t want him, and this was their election. So why do so many GOP cheerleaders wish Republican primary voters of Delaware would have been smart and savvy enough to vote for a guy those voters didn’t want representing them, casting their vote instead for a woman they believed would?
There is nothing “extreme” about the Tea Party message, and there’s nothing in that message that should put off “moderates.” O’Donnell did well with independents, despite having no support from her own party machinery. And yet because GOP establishment types were so quick to scoff and sniff and run away from O’Donnell or Angle (and, initially, Rubio), they lent credence to the idea that the Tea Party is “extreme,” and so obviously racist, fascist, nativist, populist, and anti-intellectual. Not to mention, longing to squeeze into tight black goth garb and couple with the Beast.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if sold on its merits, classical liberalism — and the Tea Party’s message is essentially a classical liberal message — crosses party lines and appeals to anyone who believes in individual liberty, smaller government, equality of opportunity, and the rule of law. It is constitutionalism — legal conservatism / libertarianism — substantively alienated from the rudderless country club Republicanism of Lindsey Graham, or the vote-counting gamesmanship of Karl Rove, for whom winning temporary majorities and chairmanships is more important than governing from a coherent philosophical base.
We don’t need slicker candidates. We need committed candidates.
I myself am not an ideological purist, so there are some issues where me and the Tea Party part company. But by and large, i agree with them far more often than I disagree, and this post in question pretty much sums up my feelings.
But it goes deeper than that. Mike Castle is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics in general. What we have bred is a political class that feels its entitled, both to rule over the unwashed masses, and to protect their own perceived turf by any means imaginable. Castle's membership in the good old boys club of Washington politics made it almost a sure thing that other establishment Republicans would in large measure turn on O'Donnell, or at the very least, turn away from her. She was plainly not one of them, and represented a greater threat to their hegemony within the Republican Party than the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, or, for that matter, Beau Biden, who had earlier declined to seek the Democratic Party nomination.
There is also something about Delaware that can't be stressed nearly enough. It takes pride in the motto "First In Freedom" because it was the first state to ratify the constitution. It is technically speaking our first state. But it is now, and has been for some time, a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking and finance sectors of the country. It has developed and maintained a corporate friendly environment, this mainly for the benefit of those banking and financial interests.
Those same interests have also propped up the political establishment of the state, and this includes both parties, and their most important leaders. This would include the Bidens, both the current Vice-President, and his son, formerly the state's Attorney General, who declined to run for the seat formerly held by his father when Joe Biden became Vice President.
And, it would also include the man who is now the state's senior Senator, Tom Carper.
One of the people who has been a strong supporter of Joe Biden, in addition to being a former staffer of the Vice-President, is Melanie Sloan, who head of an organization called CREW-Citizens For Responsibility For Ethics In Washington. CREW us funded in part by George Soros think-tank Think Progress.
And it is Crew that has filed an ethics complaint against Christine O'Donnell, which you can read in its entirety here.
Crew filed the complaint on behalf of one Leonard S. Togman, a Delaware citizen and voter who also just happens to be Melanie Sloan's father. Not only is Togman also a supporter of Joe Biden, he has also contributed to not only his past campaigns but also to those of Carper, whom most people think O'Donnell will challenge in 2012.
Is it any wonder Christine O'Donnell, who vociferously denies the charges in the complaint, thinks Joe Biden is pulling strings in an effort to put an end to any of her potential future political aspirations?
It's been established that CREW, despite its claims of being non-partisan, is actually a schill for the Democratic Party and other progressive groups and causes. The report at Weekly Standard is chilling, if true.
Several news stories have pointed out that much of CREW's [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] funding comes from liberal groups and big donors to Democratic candidates and causes. And all but a handful of its complaints against Members of Congress have targeted Republicans.
But in some cases, there appear to be deeper links between the agenda of the donor and CREW's attacks. In February 2006, CREW asked the Senate Finance Committee to investigate the Center for Union Facts, an anti-union group, and its sister organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which CREW claimed are "front organizations for for-profit industry entities."
The complaint noted that the Center for Union Facts Web site had "negative information about unions," including the Service Employees International Union. Later that year, CREW launched a Freedom of Information Act request, followed by a lawsuit, to get the Department of Labor to hand over documents regarding the department's contacts with the founder of the two centers.
On Sept. 1, 2006, CREW received $75,000 from the SEIU, according to documents that the union filed with the Department of Labor.
CREW has also received hundreds of thousands from ARCA, an organization which favors reopening trade with Cuba, and has filed ethics complaints against individuals and companies which favor the current policy. The Executive Director of ARCA has served on the board of CREW, and is now running for Congress as a Democrat. (CREW has attacked her opponent.)
If you need further proof that Sloan is far from non-partisan, all you have to do is visit the website of CREW, where she has posted her bio. It states plainly that she was minority counsel for the House of Representatives, where she worked for both John Conyers, and then New York Representative Charles Schumer.
I think al the above lays to rest any notion that Sloan, or her activist group CREW, are impartial or non-partisan. The question then becomes, why are they after O'Donnell. And why was the FBI brought into it to the extent that they released the news of the investigation of O'Donnell to the press, before O'Donnell herself was even informed about it, in what American Spectator describes as a smear operation?
However, I think Stacy McCain might be actually closer to the truth than anyone else thus far, in pointing out that there's not a whole lot of daylight in Delaware between the Republican and Democratic parties. In doing so, McCain points the finger at Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross and the "state GOP insiders".
And it is a fact that there is little difference between the two. Mike Castle, the former Republican House member who Christine O'Donnell trounced in the Delaware Senate primary, probably voted with the US House Democrats AT LEAST AS OFTEN as he voted with Republicans. The majority of the Delaware Republican electorate had understandably had enough, and turned down his bid to run against Chris Coons. When he lost, national Republicans threw a hissy fit. People like Karl Rove were clearly upset that Christine O'Donnell might blow the one clear chance the party might have had to win the Senate seat formerly held by Joe Biden. They became so agitated at the prospect, so infuriated, and frustrated, that they not only refused to support O'Donnell-in many cases they outright spoke out against her.
Had they supported her, stood by her, perhaps she still would have lost, but possibly not. She might have pulled it out, or at the very least she would not have, through no fault of her own, been a drag on the down-ticket Republicans in the race, almost all of who lost handily due to the depressed GOP turnout in Delaware.
Is there any doubt that Castle would like to run for the Senate against Carper in 2012l, and would much prefer not to have to face yet another primary challenge from O'Donnell. But if he had to, he would much prefer a damaged O'Donnell than the conservative darling of the right-wing Republican base, most of who would gladly vote for her again. That is a problem the club will have to deal with.
There is more at stake in elections than merely winning or losing, you see. There is more involved than bragging rights. All of the Delaware political insiders are well-connected, from both parties, and stand to lose little in the way of legitimate political influence in the event of the victory of an outsider like Christine O'Donnell.
Ah, but the operative word here is, after all, legitimate. And when it comes to the shadowy corridors of political power, it's not whether you win or lose, or even how you play the game. All that matters is the unwritten rule-don't make waves.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Allen West Tells It Like It Is
Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, recently elected to the House of Representatives from Florida's 22nd district, makes no bones about describing the true nature of the Islamist threat against America and the West. This was in response to a question from a reporter from Red State who prefaced his question with an account of a recent remark by leftist reporter Helen Thomas, who had stated that the Islamic radicals had "perverted Islam" in order to carry out their war on the West, with the goal in mind (according to Thomas) of securing their independence from Western domination.
Colonel West made it clear that, far from being a perversion of Islam, the Islamic radicals were following the exact road map laid out centuries ago in the Koran itself.
I agree with West wholeheartedly, although I would add the caveat that, in my opinion, the Islamic radicals, though they do follow the Koran in the way it was intended, are nevertheless a minority. At least I hope that's the case, but whether I'm right or wrong, its irrelevant. The so-called "moderates", whether they are in the majority or the minority, are themselves irrelevant. They just do what they're told, and otherwise shut up. Not all the outreach and interfaith dialogue in the world is going to change that fact one iota, not now, not in the near future, and not decades or centuries from now.
Keep your eye on West. He's one of the few willing to call it as he sees it, and at least in this case, he happens to be one hundred percent correct. Hopefully, we're going to hear a lot more from him in the years to come.
Hopefully, we will have the wisdom, and the courage, to listen.
Colonel West made it clear that, far from being a perversion of Islam, the Islamic radicals were following the exact road map laid out centuries ago in the Koran itself.
I agree with West wholeheartedly, although I would add the caveat that, in my opinion, the Islamic radicals, though they do follow the Koran in the way it was intended, are nevertheless a minority. At least I hope that's the case, but whether I'm right or wrong, its irrelevant. The so-called "moderates", whether they are in the majority or the minority, are themselves irrelevant. They just do what they're told, and otherwise shut up. Not all the outreach and interfaith dialogue in the world is going to change that fact one iota, not now, not in the near future, and not decades or centuries from now.
Keep your eye on West. He's one of the few willing to call it as he sees it, and at least in this case, he happens to be one hundred percent correct. Hopefully, we're going to hear a lot more from him in the years to come.
Hopefully, we will have the wisdom, and the courage, to listen.
John P. Wheeler III-How Did He Really Die?
Is it possible he died from natural causes. I know it sounds unlikely, given the circumstances by which his body was allegedly discovered, by sanitation workers in a landfill (when it was supposedly seen falling from a garbage truck), but this whole story is riddled with contradictions.
For one thing, Wheeler was seen over a period of some two days or more wandering aimlessly in the street of Newark Delaware (about ten miles north of Wilmington, where he had supposedly been traveling to). He seemed greatly disheveled and disoriented, and claimed at one point to have been robbed of his briefcase. He was holding a shoe in one hand and wore no coat. He was seen by various people, who asked if he needed help, which he refused. At one point he blamed his circumstances on his mother and brother.
This sounds like the ravings of a man caught in the throes of dementia, but this doesn't seem to be the case. My guess is more than likely he suffered a stroke, or series of mini-strokes, possible the result of the stress of his being robbed. If he had imbibed even a slight amount of alcohol previous to this, that might well have intensified the effects of the strokes.
What happened next is anyone's guess. He could have climbed up inside one of the dumpsters, to sleep or get out of the cold, or he might have had an idea his briefcase might have been in one of them and sought to retrieve it. At this point, under this scenario, he would have died of natural causes. If there is any merit to this theory, an autopsy should provide sufficient evidence.
Of course, there is also the possibility that he could have fallen victim to a second assault that might have lead to his possibly accidental death, whereupon his assailants, probably two or more, deposited his body in the dumpster in a desperate attempt to hide their unintended crime of manslaughter.
I also have to wonder, concerning the first robbery, whether he was lured someplace by a prostitute, possibly one with whom he had some familiarity. Or possibly another person he trusted, someone he had previously thought to help.
It's certainly a strange story, and the conspiracy theories are already flying full force.
But I will delve more deeply into them later, and in so doing offer my own version of what might have happened in the event Mr. Wheeler's death actually was the result of murder and conspiracy. I know there is a temptation to jump the gun here. After all, this was no ordinary guy, but a man of great accomplishment and influence in a variety of areas of public life and service. Here is a detailed account of his life, career, and accomplishments, including his more recent endeavors.
For now, I leave this open for consideration with no further comment, for now. After all, those more mundane explanation that people tend to overlook oftentimes afford the most likely answers.
For one thing, Wheeler was seen over a period of some two days or more wandering aimlessly in the street of Newark Delaware (about ten miles north of Wilmington, where he had supposedly been traveling to). He seemed greatly disheveled and disoriented, and claimed at one point to have been robbed of his briefcase. He was holding a shoe in one hand and wore no coat. He was seen by various people, who asked if he needed help, which he refused. At one point he blamed his circumstances on his mother and brother.
This sounds like the ravings of a man caught in the throes of dementia, but this doesn't seem to be the case. My guess is more than likely he suffered a stroke, or series of mini-strokes, possible the result of the stress of his being robbed. If he had imbibed even a slight amount of alcohol previous to this, that might well have intensified the effects of the strokes.
What happened next is anyone's guess. He could have climbed up inside one of the dumpsters, to sleep or get out of the cold, or he might have had an idea his briefcase might have been in one of them and sought to retrieve it. At this point, under this scenario, he would have died of natural causes. If there is any merit to this theory, an autopsy should provide sufficient evidence.
Of course, there is also the possibility that he could have fallen victim to a second assault that might have lead to his possibly accidental death, whereupon his assailants, probably two or more, deposited his body in the dumpster in a desperate attempt to hide their unintended crime of manslaughter.
I also have to wonder, concerning the first robbery, whether he was lured someplace by a prostitute, possibly one with whom he had some familiarity. Or possibly another person he trusted, someone he had previously thought to help.
It's certainly a strange story, and the conspiracy theories are already flying full force.
But I will delve more deeply into them later, and in so doing offer my own version of what might have happened in the event Mr. Wheeler's death actually was the result of murder and conspiracy. I know there is a temptation to jump the gun here. After all, this was no ordinary guy, but a man of great accomplishment and influence in a variety of areas of public life and service. Here is a detailed account of his life, career, and accomplishments, including his more recent endeavors.
For now, I leave this open for consideration with no further comment, for now. After all, those more mundane explanation that people tend to overlook oftentimes afford the most likely answers.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
MYOB
Special Note-Join the Support Captain Owen Honors Facebook Page
Now that Captain Owen Honors has been relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise, its only a matter of time before his entire career is brought to an inglorious end, despite the fact that he has dedicated his life to honorable service to the US Navy and to his country. He now languishes at an obscure desk job, but no one has any doubt as to what the ultimate outcome will be. Nor do many question the reason. Honors is being persecuted for the crime of producing a humorous video, meant for the entertainment and morale of his crew, parts of which could be interpreted as insulting and denigrating towards homosexuals.
Honor's superiors in the Navy knew about the videos years ago, and there have been intimations that he was disciplined. Some even today say that what he did, while over the line and inappropriate, should not be a firing offense. And evidently, it wasn't, until the videos, which have long been available on the ship's computers, surfaced in the way of complaints made by various service personnel up the higher chain of command. But the difference between now and then is, of course, the repeal of DADT.
Since the repeal, I guess its only to be expected that there would be some kind of ritual sacrifice that would serve to usher in the new age with its new policy of tolerance and inclusion, and to be sure, Honors made himself all too easy to use as a bad example, even going to the extent of convincing actress Glenn Close to make a cameo appearance in the video. Close claims she was wholly unaware of the true nature of the video, and now she has also come out against Honors, calling the incident "insulting".
Whatever the merits of the case against the now former Enterprise Commander, we can only hope this does not also herald the onset of a new era of repression against those who do not tow the pc line, because if it goes too far, it will not bode well for the long-term health of the US military. In fact, some estimates of the numbers of those who will not re-enlist because of the change in policy run as high as forty percent.
Seeing as how that's the case, it seems unwise to me to remove from service a man who has served honorably and well, having at one point proved instrumental as a commander of another ship during the Georgian-Russian conflict. He commanded a ship that delivered humanitarian supplies to the Georgians, in a mission Honors was quoted as calling a "show of solidarity". It was his work in this capacity that earned him his promotion and eventual command of the USS Enterprise.
Many see what's coming down the road and what has happened to Honors might be just the first shot across the bow. You can expect, probably sooner than you think, a flurry of lawsuits alleging abuse of gay service members, in all branches of the service. There will be such lawsuits based both on alleged past indiscretions, as well as accusations pertaining to such conduct in the future.
And you can almost make book on how long it will be before several gay service members file complaints alleging they were passed up for career promotions to higher rank due to, supposedly, their homosexuality. That one is so obvious you could almost shrug, yawn, and go on back to ignoring it were it not for the obvious implications that you also have to figure what will also be coming down the road-demands from the political hacks in Washington to promote x number of homosexuals to the higher chains of command. This will mostly be the work of Democrats (of course) but a few RINOs as well are likely to get in on that action.
And of course, you can most definitely expect demands from the homosexual activist community wing of the far left fringe to make demands as to future cabinet appointments. Do not be in the least bit surprised, especially if Obama wins re-election in 2012, if he does not appoint an openly gay former military official to the post of Secretary of Defense, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or National Security Adviser, etc. There will be such open and insistent demands for such appointments, in addition to other posts, such as Secretary of State and Attorney General, a Supreme Court Justice, etc, that it is bound to happen sooner or later. This in itself would not matter to great extent were it not for the fact that such appointments will be mainly political, with the merit of the individuals involved being of secondary consideration at best.
But even this, in addition to everything else, will be of minor concern in comparison to the overall atmosphere, which will be poisonous. Now it starts to come into focus, just exactly what many military officials and experts were warning us about for so long related to military cohesion and combat readiness. The effect on morale is going to be so all-pervasive and thick you can cut it with a knife. There should also be concerns about the potential for the abuse of heterosexual soldiers at the hands of homosexual superiors, something that was punished severely by none other than George Washington in 1778. in the case of a homosexual Lieutenant he drummed out of the army after he was convicted of attempting to commit sodomy with an enlisted private.
But that was then and this is now. Will there be such abuses in the future? Or if there are, will they be the exception? Is the whole thing a matter of gross exaggeration, just the other side of the same political game piece?
The good news is after so long there should be at least the semblance of a return towards normalcy. Before long, the majority of gay soldiers, that majority who are patriots and who just want to serve their country, or at the very least just want the career opportunities the military provides, will see the radical left in as negative a light as the typical heterosexual soldier tends to see them. They will avoid the gay service members clubs and off-base gay activist organizations like the plaque. They will keep their personal lives private, and devote their on-duty time to nothing more or less than simply doing their jobs.
Most of them will come to see the wisdom behind DADT, which might be best described by another old axiom-MYOB.
But for the time being, and very likely for a long time to come, the US military will be suffering unduly from what will turn out to be a serious wound. I don't think it will die from the conflict, but it might eventually suffer greatly from a serious case of PTSD.
That would be POLITICAL Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Now that Captain Owen Honors has been relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise, its only a matter of time before his entire career is brought to an inglorious end, despite the fact that he has dedicated his life to honorable service to the US Navy and to his country. He now languishes at an obscure desk job, but no one has any doubt as to what the ultimate outcome will be. Nor do many question the reason. Honors is being persecuted for the crime of producing a humorous video, meant for the entertainment and morale of his crew, parts of which could be interpreted as insulting and denigrating towards homosexuals.
Honor's superiors in the Navy knew about the videos years ago, and there have been intimations that he was disciplined. Some even today say that what he did, while over the line and inappropriate, should not be a firing offense. And evidently, it wasn't, until the videos, which have long been available on the ship's computers, surfaced in the way of complaints made by various service personnel up the higher chain of command. But the difference between now and then is, of course, the repeal of DADT.
Since the repeal, I guess its only to be expected that there would be some kind of ritual sacrifice that would serve to usher in the new age with its new policy of tolerance and inclusion, and to be sure, Honors made himself all too easy to use as a bad example, even going to the extent of convincing actress Glenn Close to make a cameo appearance in the video. Close claims she was wholly unaware of the true nature of the video, and now she has also come out against Honors, calling the incident "insulting".
Whatever the merits of the case against the now former Enterprise Commander, we can only hope this does not also herald the onset of a new era of repression against those who do not tow the pc line, because if it goes too far, it will not bode well for the long-term health of the US military. In fact, some estimates of the numbers of those who will not re-enlist because of the change in policy run as high as forty percent.
Seeing as how that's the case, it seems unwise to me to remove from service a man who has served honorably and well, having at one point proved instrumental as a commander of another ship during the Georgian-Russian conflict. He commanded a ship that delivered humanitarian supplies to the Georgians, in a mission Honors was quoted as calling a "show of solidarity". It was his work in this capacity that earned him his promotion and eventual command of the USS Enterprise.
Many see what's coming down the road and what has happened to Honors might be just the first shot across the bow. You can expect, probably sooner than you think, a flurry of lawsuits alleging abuse of gay service members, in all branches of the service. There will be such lawsuits based both on alleged past indiscretions, as well as accusations pertaining to such conduct in the future.
And you can almost make book on how long it will be before several gay service members file complaints alleging they were passed up for career promotions to higher rank due to, supposedly, their homosexuality. That one is so obvious you could almost shrug, yawn, and go on back to ignoring it were it not for the obvious implications that you also have to figure what will also be coming down the road-demands from the political hacks in Washington to promote x number of homosexuals to the higher chains of command. This will mostly be the work of Democrats (of course) but a few RINOs as well are likely to get in on that action.
And of course, you can most definitely expect demands from the homosexual activist community wing of the far left fringe to make demands as to future cabinet appointments. Do not be in the least bit surprised, especially if Obama wins re-election in 2012, if he does not appoint an openly gay former military official to the post of Secretary of Defense, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or National Security Adviser, etc. There will be such open and insistent demands for such appointments, in addition to other posts, such as Secretary of State and Attorney General, a Supreme Court Justice, etc, that it is bound to happen sooner or later. This in itself would not matter to great extent were it not for the fact that such appointments will be mainly political, with the merit of the individuals involved being of secondary consideration at best.
But even this, in addition to everything else, will be of minor concern in comparison to the overall atmosphere, which will be poisonous. Now it starts to come into focus, just exactly what many military officials and experts were warning us about for so long related to military cohesion and combat readiness. The effect on morale is going to be so all-pervasive and thick you can cut it with a knife. There should also be concerns about the potential for the abuse of heterosexual soldiers at the hands of homosexual superiors, something that was punished severely by none other than George Washington in 1778. in the case of a homosexual Lieutenant he drummed out of the army after he was convicted of attempting to commit sodomy with an enlisted private.
But that was then and this is now. Will there be such abuses in the future? Or if there are, will they be the exception? Is the whole thing a matter of gross exaggeration, just the other side of the same political game piece?
The good news is after so long there should be at least the semblance of a return towards normalcy. Before long, the majority of gay soldiers, that majority who are patriots and who just want to serve their country, or at the very least just want the career opportunities the military provides, will see the radical left in as negative a light as the typical heterosexual soldier tends to see them. They will avoid the gay service members clubs and off-base gay activist organizations like the plaque. They will keep their personal lives private, and devote their on-duty time to nothing more or less than simply doing their jobs.
Most of them will come to see the wisdom behind DADT, which might be best described by another old axiom-MYOB.
But for the time being, and very likely for a long time to come, the US military will be suffering unduly from what will turn out to be a serious wound. I don't think it will die from the conflict, but it might eventually suffer greatly from a serious case of PTSD.
That would be POLITICAL Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
New Years Prediction-The Strong Horse
I know this comes a few days late, but who says you can't take the time to think it over. Since today was the first New Moon of the New Year, I thought it provided an appropriate type of energy to meditate on the matter.
And the more I thought about it, the more I kept coming back to something I read on one of my favorite blogs, GrEaT sAtAnS gIrLfRiEnD, where blog owner Courtney made a prediction regarding the GWOT to the effect that we will finally capture or kill Ayman L Zawahiri.
I'm going to take it a step further. I think we might also capture Bin Laden himself, or possibly kill him. Seen from the perspective of the Obama Administration, killing him would be far better. If we kill him, the deed is done, and Obama can brag that his tenacity and leadership got the job accomplished, the job he will be sure to point out his predecessor in the White House could get done in eight full years on the job.
If he is captured alive though, that brings up a whole different set of issues. Do we try him in civilian or military court? Do we stick him in Gitmo where he will be a hero to his fellow Islamist prisoners, or do we stick him in solitary confinement, and if the latter, where? Will the Left, especially the Democrats, be demanding he be tried in accordance with the same legal and constitutional rights an American citizen would be granted without a second thought? What will be the reaction of CAIR to the news? Will they strongly condemn Bin Laden and demand he be tried and if convicted executed, or will they talk out of both sides of their asses, demanding relative leniency and issuing veiled threats if he is not granted special protections and considerations. Will they or some other Islamic advocacy group even go so far as to spring for his defense? And what about those threats? Will there be worldwide repercussions if Bin Laden is captured. Even if he is killed will there be an increased threat of terrorist attacks on our embassies abroad, on traveling citizens, on our shipping, maybe even within our borders? Will citizens be kidnapped and held for ransom, with demands that Bin Laden and other Islamist prisoners be released?
Maybe most importantly, how will this influence the political atmosphere? How will Obama handle the challenges this would pose, and how will the Republicans react to his handling of his responsibilities?
Left unasked up until now-will Obama actually deserve credit for capturing Bin Laden, or will it actually be more the result of behind the scenes maneuvering by Hillary Clinton, pulling strings and twisting arms among the power elites in Pakistan, who will actually be the one responsible for Bin Laden being found-and delivered. After all, it would be a win, win, win, for her. There would be no downside. She would take the lions share of the credit, or could obviously if she so chose, while Obama is left with all of the never-ending and increasingly painful headaches, which might well be enough to keep him up at night, and possibly even cause him to have to call off a vacation or two.
One things for sure though, if this does happen, most especially if Bin Laden is captured alive, for all the pain and agony this would induce in the Obama Administration, it would render the potential of a political challenge from his left in 2012 highly unlikely to gain as much traction as it ordinarily would. With all the problems that would be manifest by a Bin Laden capture, especially if it resulted in a serious increase in violent terrorist attacks here or abroad, no one would be interested in a far left candidate's take on the matter.
No, at that point, the problem would be from his right. And the woman responsible for the capture would be holding all the cards.
And the more I thought about it, the more I kept coming back to something I read on one of my favorite blogs, GrEaT sAtAnS gIrLfRiEnD, where blog owner Courtney made a prediction regarding the GWOT to the effect that we will finally capture or kill Ayman L Zawahiri.
I'm going to take it a step further. I think we might also capture Bin Laden himself, or possibly kill him. Seen from the perspective of the Obama Administration, killing him would be far better. If we kill him, the deed is done, and Obama can brag that his tenacity and leadership got the job accomplished, the job he will be sure to point out his predecessor in the White House could get done in eight full years on the job.
If he is captured alive though, that brings up a whole different set of issues. Do we try him in civilian or military court? Do we stick him in Gitmo where he will be a hero to his fellow Islamist prisoners, or do we stick him in solitary confinement, and if the latter, where? Will the Left, especially the Democrats, be demanding he be tried in accordance with the same legal and constitutional rights an American citizen would be granted without a second thought? What will be the reaction of CAIR to the news? Will they strongly condemn Bin Laden and demand he be tried and if convicted executed, or will they talk out of both sides of their asses, demanding relative leniency and issuing veiled threats if he is not granted special protections and considerations. Will they or some other Islamic advocacy group even go so far as to spring for his defense? And what about those threats? Will there be worldwide repercussions if Bin Laden is captured. Even if he is killed will there be an increased threat of terrorist attacks on our embassies abroad, on traveling citizens, on our shipping, maybe even within our borders? Will citizens be kidnapped and held for ransom, with demands that Bin Laden and other Islamist prisoners be released?
Maybe most importantly, how will this influence the political atmosphere? How will Obama handle the challenges this would pose, and how will the Republicans react to his handling of his responsibilities?
Left unasked up until now-will Obama actually deserve credit for capturing Bin Laden, or will it actually be more the result of behind the scenes maneuvering by Hillary Clinton, pulling strings and twisting arms among the power elites in Pakistan, who will actually be the one responsible for Bin Laden being found-and delivered. After all, it would be a win, win, win, for her. There would be no downside. She would take the lions share of the credit, or could obviously if she so chose, while Obama is left with all of the never-ending and increasingly painful headaches, which might well be enough to keep him up at night, and possibly even cause him to have to call off a vacation or two.
One things for sure though, if this does happen, most especially if Bin Laden is captured alive, for all the pain and agony this would induce in the Obama Administration, it would render the potential of a political challenge from his left in 2012 highly unlikely to gain as much traction as it ordinarily would. With all the problems that would be manifest by a Bin Laden capture, especially if it resulted in a serious increase in violent terrorist attacks here or abroad, no one would be interested in a far left candidate's take on the matter.
No, at that point, the problem would be from his right. And the woman responsible for the capture would be holding all the cards.
Justin Bieber Despondent, Suicidal Over Selena Gomez Abortion Plans
That's right, Selena Gomez is as of this writing just under three months pregnant with with Justin Bieber's love child. No word on whether its a boy or a girl, but Gomez is determined to end the pregnancy sometime within the next two weeks. The Bieber is beside himself, and even intimated a vague threat to commit suicide if Gomez goes through with her plans.
It certainly hasn't helped matters that legions of his teen and tween fans have actually threatened to kill Gomez. Not because she's pregnant with his child, which is not yet widely known, but because the two have apparently been dating, and were photographed kissing recently, despite the fact that Gomez at eighteen is legally an adult, while Bieber is still technically a minor. Following is a sampling of the hate hurled via Twitter at Gomez, courtesy of TMZ-
- roses are red, violets are blue, @selenagomez if you'll break @justinbieber's heart I'm gonna kill you :3
-- @selenagomez I'll kill you I swear on GOD!!!!
-- @selenagomez If you are the Girlfriend of Justin I will Kill you I HATE YOU :@ !!!
-- @selenagomez whore cancer whore..like i'mm kill myself cuz i saw you and Justin kissing well thankyou Selena thankyou now i'm killing myself
-- @selenagomez stay away from Justin pedophile, retard wait i'm gonna kill ya in the night underneath your smelly bed
Bieber was even more agitated at this latest development.
"Who does that?" he mused openly. "It takes a psychotic bitch to threaten somebody like that. Are all my fans psychos? Hell I think I might take up golf."
The only thing important to him, he added, was his child and its mother.
"If I lose that, I've lost everything that matter."
According to Gomez, however, the whole thing was a big mistake, and a child at this stage of her life would just be much too great of an inconvenience.
"It wouldn't be fair to the child", she explained.
Heat Balls
No, it's not me three days after New Years, its a product currently marketed in Europe. Red State tells the tale-
very ingenious things, heat balls: they work by converting electricity into heat energy, with an impressive 95% efficiency, which makes them perfect for warming specific spots in the house. They’re also absurdly simple to make: glass, tungsten, some argon to keep the device stable - it’s all very cheap to make, particularly since it’s all off-the-shelf technology. Best of all: heat balls fit in a standard lamp socket, which means that you won’t need any kind of special equipment to use them! They’re not perfect, though: the extremely small amount of energy wasted by a heat ball ends up generating photons, which means that you don’t want to look at a heat ball directly. But even that can be mitigated by using exterior shades. Really, on balance it’s a great little device: as Instapundit (H/T) notes, very green.
Let's be clear, however, in that we're not exactly talking about a new invention. In fact, its been around for a while.
Of course, its illegal in Europe, but only if you market it and sell it as a light, not as an extra heat source. Pretty clever way if you ask me to look the man in the eye and say-
FUCK YOU FAGGOT!
very ingenious things, heat balls: they work by converting electricity into heat energy, with an impressive 95% efficiency, which makes them perfect for warming specific spots in the house. They’re also absurdly simple to make: glass, tungsten, some argon to keep the device stable - it’s all very cheap to make, particularly since it’s all off-the-shelf technology. Best of all: heat balls fit in a standard lamp socket, which means that you won’t need any kind of special equipment to use them! They’re not perfect, though: the extremely small amount of energy wasted by a heat ball ends up generating photons, which means that you don’t want to look at a heat ball directly. But even that can be mitigated by using exterior shades. Really, on balance it’s a great little device: as Instapundit (H/T) notes, very green.
Let's be clear, however, in that we're not exactly talking about a new invention. In fact, its been around for a while.
Of course, its illegal in Europe, but only if you market it and sell it as a light, not as an extra heat source. Pretty clever way if you ask me to look the man in the eye and say-
FUCK YOU FAGGOT!
Monday, January 03, 2011
Gaea Manifest
The Global
Robyn Williams: So there you've got an image of the earth, the planet as a god, but also a very sophisticated and credible scientific idea.
Tim Flannery: That's right. I was tempted in the book to simply give in and call it Earth System Science, because Gaia is earth system science and in many university departments around the world, as you'll know, Robyn, earth system science is a very respectable science. But as soon as you mention Gaia of course, the scepticism comes out. I didn't do that though, because I think there's a certain elegance to Gaia, to that word and the concept, and also because I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest. I do think that the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that doesn't exist yet, but it will exist in future. That's why I wanted to keep that word.
Does he mean that the goddess Gaea will actually manifest within and to the world as a living, breathing Goddess? Some seem to have interpreted it that way, but as tempting as it might be to jump to that conclusion, what he actually meant might be far worse. There is a strong, vital goddess movement, albeit relatively small, that believes that, in fact, Gaea has already manifested. Who is she? Well, she is all of us. The following is taken from the website of Geon of Atlanta-
Who is Gaea? Why, you are. So am I. So are the great whales, and the plants that made the beans for your morning coffee. Gaea is the politician on your television, and the medium by which you are reading these words. Gaea, in short, is the entirety of the living, breathing world we call home.
So Gaea is a kind of collective consciousness of the entire world. Fine, I could be down with that, to a point, but the problem is, it gets problematic the minute you make the jump, a quite natural leap, that since we all share the same collective consciousness, we should all be the same. It not only gets problematic, it can be dangerous.
The Gaea worshipers, at least the ones on this site, are plain in their pronouncements that not all Gaeans will approach the worship of Gaea in the exact same way. The important thing is the end goal. So, what are some of the different ways through which one might decide to best show their devotion to the great Mother Goddess? Thankfully, the site provides some insight-
The stated goals of your basic Gaea devotee are as follows-
* We seek to provide fellowship and spiritual nourishment through reaffirmation of our unity with Gaea.
* We seek to promote the religion of Gaea, and the theaology of natural divinity.
* We seek to promote the ethics of individual liberty bounded only by individual responsibility and justice.
* We seek to promote the community of all earth-reverent religions, nourishing both its unity and its diversity.
Well, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? They even throw in a paean to "individual liberty", responsibility and justice. So then, what are some of the differing paths by which one might choose to achieve these goals. From the same page-
There is no “One True Way” of Gaea. There are several organizations and traditions that hold the basic Gaean philosophy as outlined above, yet differ wildly as to how to pursue the greatest good for the Mother. Some groups call for an end to technology, or capitalism, some for mandatory veganism, some for mass human suicide. The diversity of thought on the subject can be confusing, but it's probably a good thing. Diversity promotes evolution and strength. That principle works as well for ideas as it does for species. This site represents my experience, and compatible views of Gaea. I do not claim to speak as the voice of Gaea, or claim authority over what may someday be coherent opinions on her part. (Frankly, I would be very cautious of anyone who did).
Do note the author here is understandably suspicious of anyone that would deign to speak for the goddess, but evidently she is not suspicious or the least bit concerned that some of her fellow Gaea worshipers might promote mass human suicide. Doesn't that make you wonder just how prevalent such a mindset might be within the Gaea movement? It sure makes me wonder. That doesn't necessarily translate into the broader spectrum of earth sciences and environmentalist political activism, of course, but its worth noting that the influence of such radical philosophies is part and parcel of the whole.
They might well point out that humankind is itself suicidal to at least an extent, and that might well be a valid point. But in this instance, we see suicide as an accepted, and acceptable, doctrinal movement, an actual spiritual philosophy.
We are used to seeing Gaea "manifest", symbolically of course, as a youthful, wild virgin, as a Great Mother figure, and as an ancient wise crone, all timeless representations of various stages of life mirrored in the greater universe of the world and its environment. We have seen her presented as a kindly matriarchal figure, and conversely as a stern, disciplinary mother, even as a passionate lover and temptress on the one hand, and an enraged, vengeful dispenser of divine, impassioned justice on the other.
Now we are gifted with yet another vision, that of a remorseless, crazed murderess of her own children. Or, if you will, as a suicidal cunt.
At her age, perhaps the Goddess is merely suffering from an intermediary stage of Alzheimers. Whether she is or is not, or even if that is merely another one of her many varied and seemingly contradictory manifestations, it begs the question-should we her children not be providing for her care? I think we should, but in an appropriate way that is practical and in taking into consideration the needs of all of her children-seeing as how we are, of course, just another manifestation of her greater global consciousness.
It would seem that even an aged and revered goddess, for all her greatness and power, can suffer from the pangs of delusion and dementia. Unfortunately, with all too many of her followers, that seems to be the most prominent consciousness she has yet to manifest unto us.
What is worse, I have not seen any signs that her followers in the scientific community, or the ones in the world of progressive politics, have any better grasp of reality than those of her devotees that offer her scented candles and incense on Earth Day.
It's The Day After New Years And I Need Another Drink
Now I'm depressed. No, not because Cindy Shehan is back in the news, bitching because Obama is not any more liberal than Nancy Pelosi. It's because if she wasn't so fucking ugly, half the independents in the country and at least a third of the RINO Republicans would be gushing all over her. If she looked like Juliette Huddy, so would I. There, fuck it, I said it.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
California Here We Come
Sometimes things happen that are so impossible to make up, you have to wonder if its an omen. Yesterday, at the Rose Parade, there were a number of extravagant floats. Some of them one awards. So which one do you suppose won an award for being the float that best represents life in California?
That would be the Sierra Madre float.
That would be the float that broke down and had to be hauled through the parade by a tow truck.
H/T Samizdata
That would be the Sierra Madre float.
That would be the float that broke down and had to be hauled through the parade by a tow truck.
H/T Samizdata
Friday, December 31, 2010
For Asgard!
Above we see the Norse God Heimdall, as portrayed by actor Idris Alba, in the upcoming movie Thor, which is based more on the Marvel Comics superhero, not so much on the mythology of Scandinavia. Naturally, a good many people have stridently objected to the casting of a black actor in the role of a Germanic deity, but Marvel has been careful to explain that the Asgardians are not really "gods" in the religious sense. They are actually a bunch of aliens from another dimension. Following is probably the most accurate explanation I've yet read regarding this hair-brained plot line.
the Asgardians in the film are, as they are in the Earth X comics, actually aliens rather than gods. They visited earth in the ancient past, where their culture, language, beliefs and customs influenced the development of certain human civilizations, such as the Vikings
Whew, what a relief. That's a much more realistic view of the ancient gods, isn't it? Much better than actually putting them on the level of a truly religious deity, such as Yawheh, Christ, Allah, or Buddha. After all, that might be a real insult to the adherents of the world's major religions, might it not?
You can see a theme developing here amongst the folks at Marvel. Don't dare to offend anyone. Except, of course, the very people who are the most devoted to the very characters and, yes, gods that you are cravenly exploiting.
At any rate, despite the fact that the Asgardians come from an alien dimension, they are made up of different racial types, somehow strangely identical to those found on earth.
Many of the film's critics are urging a boycott of the movie. Others disagree, and in some cases suggest they are or might be acting out of racist inclination. For example, Jason at the Wild Hunt disingenuously suggests that there is something not only racist but hypocritical at work here. For example, many of the current critics of the film had no problem that Thor, originally red-haired and full bearded, became in the comics a clean-shaven, blond haired hero more similar in appearance to Prince Valiant than to a rugged Norse fighter and slayer of giants.
What makes this argument remarkably disingenuous is that the comic book Thor predates the Asatru movement by probably at least ten years, and the comics creators wanted a handsome, dashing figure that would look good in a tight fitting outfit. This could hardly be considered to be in dire conflict with the traditions and heritage of the original followers of the Norse God. It is probably more a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of the more rabid comic books fans, probably as much as eighty percent of them, are closeted gays. The other twenty percent are so far out of the closet every fucking day is their own personal Gay Pride Parade.
You think I'm exaggerating? One of Thor's better known villains is an indestructible entity created by Thor's father Odin called the Destroyer, who can only come to life when he is animated by the controlling, or controlled, guiding spirit of another. At times he has been portrayed with what looks to be a bulging penis at his crotch. The only problem with this is, he's a magical but EMPTY FUCKING SUIT OF ARMOR!
In other words, in so many ways we see how Marvel has historically manipulated the sensitivities and even the sexuality of its fan base for profit, yet they get a pass from these fanboys, black and white.
This would include now the proprietor of this site which promotes black heroes, who stresses that he is happy Marvel has stood by its decision and is ready to stick it to the racists. The word racist here is doubtless defined as anybody who objects to the casting of a black actor in the role of a Norse God.
As someone who is no longer a fan of comics, this really isn't my fight. As someone who isn't truly an Asatruer or Odinist, it is not my concern. And I am damn sure not a Wotanist, which is in fact a white supremacist religious group devoted to the worship of Wotan (the ancient German spelling of Odin, who was Thor's father). Nevertheless, this leaves me just a little perplexed, and not a little disgusted.
But before I go on, I want to point out, I have no problem with black actors taking on traditionally white roles. For example, when Will Smith took on the role of James West, the role made famous by Robert Conrad in the classic western themed tech-spy series The Wild Wild West, I was intrigued by the concept, and was eager to see it. Unfortunately, the movie itself turned out to be a load of crap, but that's beside the point.
In this case, the whole point of casting Idris Elba as Heimdall, the Norse God and Guardian of the Rainbow Bridge, is useless, pretentious, obvious, calculating, and on top of that, silly and unnecessary. And yes, even a little bit insensitive towards people who are, with good reason, prideful of their European heritage and roots, people who are not all racists and bigots, but who nevertheless understandably take exception to their heritage being hi-jacked and subverted for the sake of political correctness, or at least for a wider share of the film audience.
This should also be seen as an insult to the black movie audience. It actually has the temerity to presume that they are incapable of appreciating a film that doesn't feature an African American or black character, which is of course nonsense, and let's face it, fucking racist as all get-out in its own right. If you can even get around to thinking about it seriously, which is to say honestly, you could cut the condescension with a knife, provided you aren't quickly suffocated by the polluting arrogance of sheer elitist gall.
Marvel can spin their wheels all they want about the "true nature" of the Asgardians, and they can certainly give them a multi-cultural history if they want. They own the rights to what characters that they themselves have invented, such as the Enchantress, Karnilla, Volstagg, etc. But no matter how they try to spin it, there's no getting around the undeniable fact that the setting, concept, and for the most part the central characters, are definitely based on the ancient Norse legends and myths. Marvel didn't invent them, they adapted them, and to an extend made them their own.
Let's face it-the Marvel people are free riders who have made possibly tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from the adapted mythology of an ancient people whose descendants are yet very much alive, and who have a very great degree of reverence and respect for their ancient cultural traditions. This is just as true even if they don't subscribe to any form of religious devotion to their ancestral deities. And in fact this is the case with the vast majority of them.
But they do have the right to object and even to feel offended when their very heritage is disrespected, regardless of the reason or excuse.
If Marvel is determined to change characters from black to white, they could just as easily make Captain America, or Iron Man, or the Fantastic Four, black people. But of course they won't do that, because they know they would never get away with it. People would bitch, and rightly so. On the other hand, they did change Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD, into a black man, portrayed by Samuel Jackson. No one complained that I know of, including me.
But Heimdall, an actual cultural icon from centuries ago, in fact from more than a millennium past? A figure from ancient Norse mythology who was one time himself a figure of devotion, and possibly even the center of his own cult of worship? I'm sorry, but that's just a bridge too far.*
It's too late to change things now. The die has been cast, and Marvel should stick to their guns. We don't need any further Rodney King style riots over something as trivial as who portrays a character in a superhero movie. And no, its not racist to suggest that there are some in the black community who would use such a controversy as an excuse to start something like that. If you don't believe me, wait and see what happens in a great many inner cities if Barak Obama is defeated for re-election in 2012. I'm still surprised there weren't celebratory yet destructive riots in some inner city black neighborhoods when he won.
But Marvel needs to drop the disingenuous excuses and start treating the cultural sensitivities of a probably not insignificant portion of their fan base with equal consideration. Respect for the heritage and traditions of all races and religions should be an equal opportunity endeavor. Otherwise, Marvel continues to look like just what they are-just another group of leftist hypocrites.
I'm not expecting any change from this group of creatively challenged funny book creators. As I alluded earlier, I am a great fan of the concept of the comics, the characters and some of their plots and story lines. But it just doesn't translate well on film, due mainly to the obvious time constraints which work in conflict with the generally over-ambitious scope of the majority of movie adaptations. But even the comics themselves have gotten bogged down with overly complicated tie-ins and overarching plots and story lines that are ridiculous to the extreme. Yes, even by comic book standards. It just gets worse and worse. No one ever stays dead for long, there are so many different alternate realities you have to be an autistic savant to even begin to be able to keep track of them, and there are so many god-like entities, some of whom can create and destroy entire universes with little more than a passing thought, its gotten to the point no one can take them seriously even on a creative level. The irony is, the movies might well be their last best chance of survival, and could pave the way for a creative renaissance. But it looks like they are determined to screw that up as well.
The comics industry has just dug itself a hole, but that's the nature of the beast. They are cultural thieves, in addition to free-riders, and that's what thieves do. More often than not, they do not end well.
*Haw Haw Haw see what I did there?
Cap And Trade Is Here As Of January 2nd
The Environmental Protection Agency has set new regulations that apply mainly to seven states, including Texas, which according to the EPA would, if it were a nation, be the eight largest carbon producer in the world. It is the largest polluter in the US, accounting for 11% of the pollution produced here. But what does that really mean?
Rick Perry isn't having any of it, and has sued to stop implementation of the EPA's guidelines, but a federal court has refused to block the EPA until such time as the matter is resolved.
What really matters is the price at the pump. When these new rules take effect, on January 2nd, look for the price of gas to rise dramatically. Frankly, the Republicans in the House can put a stop to this by simply refusing to fund the EPA.
The administration didn't seem to get the message that the American people are against Cap And Trade. If Obama doesn't get what he wants through legislative action, evidently he thinks its appropriate to force the issue through a dictatorial regime.
That's not only legitimate grounds to withhold funding from the agency, it might also be a legitimate reason to proceed with impeachment proceedings.
Rick Perry isn't having any of it, and has sued to stop implementation of the EPA's guidelines, but a federal court has refused to block the EPA until such time as the matter is resolved.
What really matters is the price at the pump. When these new rules take effect, on January 2nd, look for the price of gas to rise dramatically. Frankly, the Republicans in the House can put a stop to this by simply refusing to fund the EPA.
The administration didn't seem to get the message that the American people are against Cap And Trade. If Obama doesn't get what he wants through legislative action, evidently he thinks its appropriate to force the issue through a dictatorial regime.
That's not only legitimate grounds to withhold funding from the agency, it might also be a legitimate reason to proceed with impeachment proceedings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)