Yet another reason the Snooze Journal blows.
* The Provocateur - Yet Another Defining Moment
* Rhymes With Right - A Note On The “Tenther” Smear
* Joshuapundit - Welcome To The Babi Yar Hotel
* Bookworm Room - Obama Keeps Hitler Analogy in the Public Eye
* Soccer Dad - Leaving the nest
* The Glittering Eye - How the Shell Game Con Works
* Right Truth - Why America Could Be Doomed
* The Colossus of Rhodey - More on Obama’s ridiculous foreign policy
* Mere Rhetoric - Obama Knew About Secret Iran Facility During Transition, Experts Pushed Engagement Anyway With Pro-Iran Pretexts
And don't forget the excellent non-Council offerings as well!
WTF is wrong with Hollywood? Crap like this:
Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Martin Scorsese have "demanded the immediate release" of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 childsex charge.
They were among 138 people in the film industry who signed a petition against the arrest.
Polanski was on the way to the Zurich Film Festival when Swiss police detained him in response to the American warrant.
The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.
Here's the entire list. Not too many names on there that I recognize (there appear to be many French names), but here's a few: Salman "Satantic Verses" Rushdie? Michael "Transformers" Mann? David "Twin Peaks" Lynch?
Whoopi Goldberg said yesterday that what Polanski did "wasn't rape-rape." Whaaaa ...?
Anyone recall how Hollywood reacted when Elia Kazan got a long-overdue [honorary] Oscar in 1999? All he did was cooperate with the government in outing known Communists within the industry. That made him a pariah in Tinseltown for the rest of his life, but Polanski raping a 13 year-old wins him instant sympathy against prosecution.
In the former, several hundred years from now, Earth's colonial defense forces are comprised of elderly humans who've uploaded their consciousness into new, biologically engineered bodies. This awesome story is continued in The Ghost Brigades, The Last Colony and Zoe's Tale.
In the latter, Pohl imagines a world where people can upload their minds into computers and essentially live forever at the hyperfast speeds of electrons. That's really only a subplot to Gateway, however. The real coolness of the yarn is humanity discovering an alien asteroid near Venus stuffed with faster-than-light spacecraft. The humans can use them -- but can't control them. They're all automated and pre-programmed! It's a "take your chances" sort of scenario where an interstellar flight can mean agonizing death from starvation (or, more rarely, via spatial phenomena) or can make one rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice (to quote a certain "Bones" McCoy from "Star Trek IV"). The follow-ups Beyond the Blue Event Horizon and Heechee Rendevous aren't as good, and there is at least one more sequel out there whose title I can't recall. But there's also a neat collection of vignettes surrounding the Gateway Asteroid in The Gateway Trip.
Dissent even an inch?? THEN SHUT YOUR MOUTH!! Even if you're a big-time lefty like Michael Moore.
... on this "Libertarian Purity Quiz."
A "45" means that "[my] libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on."
(Thanks to Paul Smith Jr. for the link.)
How fall has the NAACP fallen over the years? This far: NAACP Protests Obama Joker Banner at Strip Club.
The banner hangs outside [Richmond, VA's] Club Velvet, and the club's owner, Sam Moore, said in a statement that the display is not intended to make a racial statement, but rather to express his displeasure with the Obama administration, according to WTVR-TV.
"This country is going to hell in a hand bag and the current administration is making things irreversibly worse," Moore said.
Some locals said they were offended by the banner, while others said it is a sign of freedom of speech.
Representatives from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam(!) and other groups gathered outside Club Velvet at noon Monday to protest what they called an affront against the nation's first black president and "veiled attacks on all African people."
First, any time the Nation of Islam is involved, any serious consideration of what they're miffed at should be discarded. Second, while the NAACP is -- or, at least used to be -- more reputable, this "veiled attacks on all African people" nonsense is yet another example of how the organization's [original] purpose has dissolved into rancor over petty, ridiculous racial grievances.
... the St. Louis Rams, that is.
... so says the Law Library of the Congress of the United States (LLC):
The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings. The Constitution no longer authorizes impeachment, but gives Congress the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President, to conduct special investigations on issues of national interest, and to interpret the Constitution. In the case against President Zelaya, the National Congress interpreted the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President to encompass the power to remove him from office, based on the results of a special, extensive investigation. The Constitution prohibits the expatriation of Honduran citizens.
The [new] Honduran government's only error in its actions was exiling President Zelaya -- not removing him from office (the supposed "coup," as President Obama and his obedient media keep saying).
(h/t The Corner.)
Ben Chavis, principal of the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, CA, seems to have it right:
What the educational establishment really hates about Chavis is that he has achieved this success by exploding nearly every liberal myth about education. His approach to education is strictly old-school, and based on proven, effective methods. The only thing innovative about what he’s doing is that he’s doing it in the face of decades of “progressive” education. A few core tenets of his educational philosophy are:
- Requiring near-perfect attendance.
- Maximizing the amount of class time and number of school days. (Summer school is required, and teachers are expected to assign a minimum of two hours of homework each day.)
- Heavily weighting the curriculum toward language arts and math. (Chavis’s schools spend twice as much time on those subjects as most other California schools.)
- Liberally handing out disciplinary actions such as detention, and otherwise ensuring that order is maintained.
- Setting and enforcing standards — e.g., every eighth-grader must pass Algebra I. (In many California high schools, it’s possible to graduate with just “General Math.”)
- Making a big public point of not setting lower standards for minority students. (Too many educational institutions indulge in the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” as President Bush memorably put it.)
Wow! Who thought it could be that simple? Making -- and enforcing -- standards and discipline? No mealy-mouthed edu-babble? No politically correct multi-culti jibberish?
If only such common sense was more universally adopted.
Meanwhile, Joanne Jacobs reports that discipline hassles in the classroom ain't just an American problem.
Via Media Blog:
[Biden said] Iran — a key concern for the United States — was not a threat.
"I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," he told CNN's Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.
"The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned — much less concerned — about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America," he said.
That was a mere eight days ago when the admin. announced its plans to scrap the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.
President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain blasted Iran's construction of a previously unacknowledged uranium enrichment facility and demanded Friday that Tehran immediately fulfill its obligations under international law or risk the imposition of harsh new sanctions.
The new Iranian plant, the country's second uranium enrichment facility, is believed by U.S. officials to be part of a broad effort by Iran's leadership to pursue the ability to build nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly denied having any such goal, insisting that its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. U.S. officials said they believe the Qom plant is not yet operational but is intended to produce highly enriched uranium — suitable for nuclear weapons — and will be capable within months of producing enough material for at least one bomb per year.
And when was the Obama administration informed of this secret, second, Iranian processing facility? During the presidential transition. (For you thick-domed types, that means before Obama's inauguration.)
Media Blog's Guy Benson asks: "Astonishingly incompetent, perilously naive, or deliberately dishonest?" My guess is all three, but an emphasis on the second.
AP sources: Gitmo may not be shut by Jan. deadline.
President Barack Obama may not be able to meet his stated goal of closing the much-criticized Guantanamo Bay prison by January as his administration runs into daunting legal and logistical hurdles to moving the more than 220 detainees still there.
Senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip.
Obama's aides have stepped up their work toward closure and the president remains as committed to closing the facility as he was when, as one of his first acts in office, he pledged to shut it down, said the officials, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity in order to more freely discuss the sensitive issue.
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with A reminder to join the Navy League.
First place in the non-Council category was Z-Word with Gaza: The Overcrowding Myth.
Full results are here.
You probably already heard about that New Jersey Elementary school that sang about Emperor Obama's inherent goodness and omniscience. But did 'ya know that our "leader's" moniker was used in place of ... the Christian Savior?
One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
Yes. It's creepy. Very creepy. And you know no elementary school would sing such a song about a Republican president, no matter what.
Amazingly (not), the AP omits something from their report. See if you can spot it:
That month, a group of smiley and fidgety students at B. Bernice Young School sang a medley of two short songs praising the president.
The first song begins, "Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again."
The second one was set to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and included the refrain, "Hooray, Mr. President."
Yep, notice that "Jesus Loves the Little Children" is not mentioned as the song the first tune was set to, but "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is mentioned as the basis for the second. Surprise that, huh?
Noel Sheppard is all over it.
Barack Obama on Iran's [formerly] secret nuke facility: "The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful (nuclear) program."
MANCHESTER, Ky. — When Bill Sparkman told retired trooper Gilbert Acciardo that he was going door-to-door collecting census data in rural Kentucky, the former cop drawing on years of experience warned: "Be careful." The 51-year-old Sparkman was found hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery and had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment.
One thing's for sure -- MSDNC's Chris Matthews will probably devote a week to this topic now.
His response to CNN's Wolf Blitzer is spot-on:
BLITZER: If there is a trial at the International Court and the accusation is that Israel committed war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Gaza, will you cooperate with that?
NETANYAHU: Well, the question is, will any serious country cooperate with it?
I took note of the fact that the leading democracies that were in this U.N. commission, they opposed this. They were against this mandate, because it looked like a kangaroo court in the first place, where Israel was basically hanged, drawn, and quartered morally and given an unfair trial to boot right at the start of these proceedings.
I think this is wrong. But understand this. It’s not only we who will be damaged. It’s you, too. I mean, American pilots, NATO pilots, let alone Russia and other countries that are fighting terrorists, are going to be put on the dock, too, because it’s said that you cannot fight terrorists.
It means that all the terrorists have to do is put themselves in a residential quarter, and they receive immunity. And that’s not something that any country fighting terrorism can accept. And I don’t think you can accept it either.
Got that right, sir.
This week's offerings:
* Joshuapundit - Tossing Little Green Footballs Out Of The Game
* The Provocateur - Dr. Anna Chacko the Disruptive Physician
* Right Truth - Headbangers United Against Obama
* Bookworm Room - A reminder to join the Navy League
* Rhymes With Right - Questioning Our Patriotism — Again
* The Razor - Strike a Grand Bargain with Russia
* Soccer Dad - The goldstone standard
* The Glittering Eye - Support the Bad Plan!
* The Colossus of Rhodey - Desperation has reached the pinnacle now
Also check out the non-Council bits, too.
Lloyd has already been discussed here, notably for his ... "perspective" on the 1st Amendment. Now, Seton Motley has written about Lloyd's rather controversial racial comments (gee, a surprise coming from this administration -- again, see Wright, Pfleger, Jones) regarding media reform:
This ... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.
We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.
At least it's ... "comforting" to know that Lloyd thinks there are "truly good white people" out there. Then again, despite this belief, these "good people" in important positions remain "a problem." And since, in Lloyd's [warped] mind it is a problem, he's gonna tell who's gotta check out.
The funny thing is, white liberals who will essentially automatically go to bat for a nitwit like this won't know how to answer someone who asks them "Why don't you give up your position so that an 'underrepresented' person can have it?" Just try it. It's quite hilarious to watch their reaction.
Obama at the UN today: “The yearning for peace is universal.”
Tell that to Islamic fundamentalists, for one.
The [UK] Telegraph: The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak.
It is natural that much of the UN will embrace an American president who declines to offer strong American leadership. A president who engages dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez will naturally gain respect from the leaders of the more than 100 members of the United Nations who are currently designated as “partly free” or “not free” by respected watchdog Freedom House.
AOL News: Poll Finds Most Voters Mad at Washington.
President Obama at the UN today:
“We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations," he said.
Obama warned that a failure to address the problem could create an "irreversible catastrophe." Obama said time is "running out" to fix the problem but that, "we can reverse it."
That wasn't nearly enough to blunt the criticism directed at the United States by European and Asian leaders.
He was immediately followed on stage by Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, who criticized the West for "complacency and broken promises" on climate change. . . .
John Bruton, head of the European Union delegation in Washington, also issued a statement ahead of Obama's speech blasting the U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, we're still -- ridiculously -- saying "screw you" to nuclear power. Oh, and check this out from the NY Times: Emissions of CO2 Set for Best Drop in 40 Years. Of course, this is due to the recession, after all, which the current administration will probably keep us in for the foreseeable future.
The UN -- and Obama -- concern themselves with something (climate change) that is still far from a given, being that it has so many variables involved in it (like this, for instance). Meanwhile, as Cliff May notes,
... those gathered at the U.N. and the media covering them avoid talking about Islamist terrorism, genocide in Darfur, brutal suppression in Iran by a regime that is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, and similar unfashionable topics.
Which may explain why Obama has such an affinity for the UN!
I suggest a Constitutional Amendment to the effect that the United States not engage in any war longer than the Revolutionary War. That was 8 years and 137 days, Concord to the Treaty of Paris. The Afghanistan War would then be unconstitutional after February 21 next year.
We've been thrashing around in that worthless sinkhole of a country for eight years — twice as long as it took us to defeat Germany and Japan. And the Taliban is busily active in 80 percent of the place? HEL-LO . . .
Amen. Then again, if we had considered what happened to our pals the Russians 20+ years ago ...?
Look, we should have gone in there after 9/11 to blast the living sh** out of the Taliban and al Qaeda. And we should keep doing so -- but without a massive troop involvement. Nation building? No way. Ridiculous. Just paste the damn place with cruise and other missiles whenever we get some intel. Iraq was bad enough in terms of American lives lost; let's not get to that high a number in Afghanistan.
Man, you thought George W. Bush's foreign policy was nuts? Jennifer Rubin at Commentary writes regarding the current US position on Honduras:
So the Obama team is insisting on the return of the man no institution in this democratic country supports – and that position only emboldened that same unpopular figure to return. Nice work. And now that he has returned, will the Obama administration give up its bizarrely stubborn position that no new election can be recognized because that same unpopular figure isn’t back in power? And he isn’t in power, you will recall, because the supreme court and legislature, with the backing of the military, acted in defense of their constitution.
This is Alice-in-Wonderland “diplomacy”–making things worse and more difficult for a U.S. ally while bolstering Hugo Chavez’s ally. Actually, it’s just gross incompetence, which is becoming pretty much par for the course for the Obama foreign-policy wrecking crew.
I didn't want to believe those on the right who were clamoring that Obama is just a big American apologist. It's certainly right to acknowledge the past wrongs of the US, but being nice to states like Iran, Cuba and Venezuela while being tough on countries like Honduras and Israel is just, well, nuts. Yes, the US doesn't have a stellar history in Latin America with its interventions there. But simply saying that the current Honduras government is a product of a "military coup" completely ignores the reality there -- that President Zelaya was ousted by the military only because he refused to vacate office after he blatantly defied [Honduran] congressional and supreme court ultimatums. By the Obama administration trying to instill in people's minds the spectre of Cold War-era military coups that were staples in Latin America during the 50s through the 80s, it's being totally and completely dishonest.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because Zelaya is a leftist? And with regards to Iran, we'll actually sit down and talk with them -- despite their blatant election fraud? Despite their continued support for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan? Despite their continued nuclear program? Despite its president -- again -- denying the Holocaust and saying that basically it's "an excuse" for Israel to continue its "atrocities?" All this ... while Obama lectures Israel on its settlements in the West Bank? While one of Obama's advisers says that the US should shoot down Israeli jets if they fly over Iraqi airpsace en route to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?
Zbigniew Brzezinski says that in the event Israel decides to strike at Iran's nuke sites, not only should the US refuse Israeli jets the right to fly over Iraqi airspace, but should shoot them down if they do not comply.
DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
DB: What if they fly over anyway?
Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. (Link.)
The Liberty, of course, being the USS Liberty.
Does anyone think the US would really shoot down Israeli jets that were on a mission to destroy Iran's nuclear capability? Really? I seriously doubt it. Obama is already widely seen as soft on countries he should be tough with (and tough on countries he should go easy on); if he gave an order to blast away at an ally's planes, he would be in diplomatic Armageddon.
Newsweek's Raina Kelley:
This hesitancy to even speak of racism widens the divide between readers and the journalists who are supposed to be covering the world as it is, not as they want it to be.
"Hesitancy?" Um, that's ALL we've been hearing from the MSM when the subject is criticism of President Obama.
Oh, and lest I forget, Kelley thinks that some of the protests against the president are ... racist. Surprise!!
I often compare the American Left's antics to those found on [American] college campuses. Here's a perfect example why.
Doesn't that sound an awful like the "You're a racist because you disagree with us" mantra the Left is utilizing in political discourse these days?
Interestingly, I came across a movie on one of the indy film channels the other day called "Oleanna." It deals with a professor's (William Macy) [supposed] sexual harassment of a student, and the terminology used by the female lead (Debra Eisenstadt, whose acting is otherwise atrocious) is straight out of a college's over-the-top PC handbook. If you want to see what [clear-thinking] professors and students have to put up with at colleges these days, just listen to Eisenstadt's lines, especially in the second half of the story.
The Shark Guys lay it all out:
10) Spencer and Heidi Pratt:
(Excerpts from an appearance on the radio show of Alex Jones , himself a conspiracy theorist and the man behind “The Obama Deception” ): “We’ve been nonstop researching the Internet … for information for at least a month all day every day,” said Heidi. Spencer added: “From your [Jones'] research, it [9/11] 100 percent is [an inside job] … “I want to throw up.”
Hube says: The Pratts, living examples of why modern television is the cultural downfall of civilization (they're the stars of "The Hills"), are regular targets of Joel McHale on "The Soup" (the one show that recognizes how awful modern TV truly is). They probably have a combined IQ in the two-digit range. As for Jones, the dude is just a nut, period. One of his "followers" hassled me for a time years ago when I had the old "Cube" blog. Ultimately, he had to resort to making light of the fact that I collected comics.
9) Woody Harrelson:
“I am reading a book now called The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. I’ve been stuck in the position of ignoring my gut — knowing things don’t stack up. Even though our government obviously took advantage of 9/11 by making it their 'Reichstag,' I told myself, 'Surely they weren’t involved.' After reading this book I can’t doubt that our government was at least complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen.”
Hube says: The Shark Guys provide a fact I never knew -- Harrelson's father was widely thought by conspiracy buffs to be involved in the murder of JFK! He actually bragged about it when it came to light, too.
8) Mos Def:
“I don’t believe it was bin Laden today. I don’t believe it was never him … I’m sorry, I’m from the projects, I know danger. I don’t feel no danger from that shit… Highly-educated people in all areas of science have spoken on the fishiness around the whole 9/11 theory.”
Hube says: Didn't he contradict himself with that "I don't believe it was never him" double negative? And WTF does being from the projects have to do with common sense? Def sounds like NPR's Frank James.
7) Willie Nelson:
“I saw one fall, and it was just so symmetrical, I said wait a minute. I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas, and you see these implosions all the time. And the next one fell, and I said, hell, there’s another one – and they’re trying to tell me that an airplane did it, and I can’t go along with that … What does it take for us to realize we’re having the wool pulled over our eyes one more time?”
Hube says: I have a soft spot for poor Willie, having had to deal with the IRS for a decent portion of his life. And I can forgive his wretched duet with Julio Iglesias, "To All The Girls I've Loved Before." But seeing a demolition in Vegas doesn't mean something sinister happened in NYC on 9/11.
6) Tom DeLonge of Blink 182:
“We do know that the buildings came down in a fashion extremely similar to a controlled demolition of a building – we do know that expertise that is needed to fly those gigantic planes into that exact location could never have been achieved by someone that just learned how to fly a small plane.”
Hube says: I'm not sure which is worse -- Blink 182 or 1985's awful film "Turk 182!" starring Timothy Hutton. As Shark notes, "Salon.com in an 'Ask The Pilot' article addressing 9/11 questions, quoted someone who did fly planes for living as saying: … Striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship.” But c'mon -- DeLonge is a musician in a famous band! He has to be heard! Listened to! DeLonge also said Dick Cheney knew about the whole thing. Yeah, right. Just yet another reason to shun modern music.
5) Marion Cotillard:
“We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes. Are they burned? There was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burnt for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in NY], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed.”
Hube says: Sorry, but being unbelievably hot doesn't mean you should act like a total dunderhead. On second thought, maybe it does. Cotillard believes that the US government purposely "blew up" the towers in NYC because it was cheaper than "re-cabling" them. Of course, this doesn't address why a plane smashed into the Pentagon, and why another was on its way to DC.
4) Jesse Ventura:
“How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity – if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds – how can that be? Never before in the annals of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did.”
Hube says: Shark notes that Jesse moved to Mexico to "escape fascism." Good luck with that, Jess -- I just hope your saved up cash from "Predator" and "The Running Man" is sufficient for living in a country where bribery takes precedent over the law. Talk about fascism!
3) Rosie O'Donnell:
“It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved — World Trade Center 7. World Trade 1 and 2 got hit by planes. 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible."
Hube says: O'Donnell's lunacy is legendary, to say the least. To believe that fire cannot melt steel is essentially believing that steel is actually adamantium.
2) Janeane Garofolo:
“9/11 was an inside job!! I have come to this conclusion about that. … I think all Air America phone-in callers should open by saying, ‘9/11 was an inside job. We can all agree on that,' then get on with their specific question or comment. We should re-condition the listening audience to accept the Truth about 9/11 as the gospel.”
Hube says: Garofolo is supposed to be a comedienne; she's never been particularly funny -- unless you count her moronic beliefs as "humor." Garofolo most recently has offered that all the Tea Party protestors are "racist" (surprise there, eh?). Now that's some original material!
1) Charlie Sheen:
“It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions.”
Hube says: "I think I made a big mistake coming here, grandma." That's what Sheen's character in "Platoon" wrote home at one point. In real life he might wanna write "I think I made a bad career move, acting nutty like this." Sheen recently recorded a video message to President Obama imploring him to [re]investigate Sept. 11, 2001. Yeah, that'll work. One thing to wonder: Maybe Sheen's role in "The Arrival" transformed him into a "believer?"
Perhaps better to consider is what Sheen's character in "Wall Street" thought to himself on his Manhattan apt. balcony: "Who am I?" Answer: A nutjob.
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with Liberals are correct: I have a serious problem with Obama’s color.
First place in the non-Council category was Big Government with Chaos for Glory: My Time With ACORN.
Full results are here.
You knew it was coming, didn't you? Yes, the freelance sting artists who zapped ACORN are being -- and have been -- referred to as "racists" and puppets of conservative radio and Fox News. In addition, ACORN is utilizing a tried and true (but not very successful) tactic: Explaining that they were just "playing along" with the "ridiculous scheme."
I'm old enough to remember the famous (or infamous) Abscam sting of the early 1980s. One of the representatives who was convicted of taking bribes -- Richard Kelly -- famously (and hilariously) defended his illegal actions by claiming he was "undertaking his own investigation" and "spent part of the [bribe] money to maintain his cover."
It didn't work. Kelly spent thirteen months in the federal pen.
More interestingly, NPR's Frank James blames not the organization itself, but society:
It's also important to keep in mind that ACORN's workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves, with all that entails -- poor schools, high crime and the sorts of social problems that have been documented for decades.
So the flaws conservatives are pointing out about ACORN are not so much problems associated with that organization per se but more about the problems of being poor and minority in urban America.
'Ya got that? "Being poor and minority in urban America" means ... enabling illegal immigration and child prostitution? Breaking tax laws? And since this is "just part" of being poor and minority in urban America, we should just continue to throw taxpayer money at it? Can you imagine the MSM outcry if a conservative had made such an ... insinuation as to why ACORN acted as it did on the sting videos? Then it would be the "most virulent form of racial stereotyping" in which people can possibly engage.
(Also at Newsbusters.)
Watch this Nancy Pelosi video and try -- just try -- to hold back your guffaws (for many reasons).
She actually said this: "The balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance."
How much did the Left lecture us about that "false choice" during the Bush era, again?
... when even a former president blames racism for otherwise innocuous criticism:
Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president.
"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."
Do I really have to -- again -- bring up the vile, despicable and heinous epithets that were hurled at George Bush the last eight years ... some by those in our very own Congress? Do I?
Don't idiot "progressives" like Carter et. al. realize that labeling anyone and anything as "racist" for what are legitimate political differences ultimately fuels a much deeper racial animosity -- one greater than that which they believe already exists? Obviously not. The overwhelming vast majority of Americans out there possess/feel/harbor nothing but racial goodwill. Calling someone a "racist" is the modern-day Scarlet Letter -- it serves to make one a virtual pariah in society (especially conservatives by the mainstream media).
Or, maybe I should say used to make one a virtual pariah.
Because as more and more people use "racist" and "racism" against virtually ANYTHING with which they disagree, the terms become essentially useless. And, the aforementioned people of racial goodwill become bitter ... and angry. Many of these folks are people that supported Barack Obama. And, many who did not still recognize the historic nature of the man's presidency. Do these casual "throwers around" of "racist" ever stop to think at all ... how they are worsening race relations with their actions? Because what they do is the proverbial "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario multiplied a tenfold. Meaning, that when genuine racism surfaces, no one will believe it. Or worse, care.
UPDATE: Abigail Thernstrom agrees:
In other words, although about 60 percent of Obama’s votes came from whites, 60 percent of Democrats deeply distrust the racial views of white Americans. Did they just discover the man is black? And do the collapsed poll numbers of New York governor David Paterson and Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick also reflect a sudden racial awareness?
Needless to say, no.
It’s a sad and dangerous moment in American politics. As Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford has written, “self-serving individuals, rabble-rousers, and political hacks use accusations of racism . . . to advance their own ends." Those accusations provoke "resentment rather than thoughtful reaction."
Is that what Democrats want? The American public did not and would not have elected a Jesse Jackson figure. And yet the Jackson voice in the Congressional Black Caucus and some MSM circles is alive and well. Surely the president has to be thinking, with such friends, who needs enemies?
ACORN: GREAT MOMENTS in gatekeeping. “Let’s pose the question this way. If the Federalist Society, which got a heaping helping of demonization during the John Roberts and Samuel Alito confirmation hearings, started giving advice to prospective pimps and hookers on tax evasion and hiding child-prostitution rings, does anyone think that the Charlie Gibsons and the Papers of Record in the US would let that slide to the cable networks? Or would it headline their outlets, complete with a dissection of Federalist Society support for Republicans?”
Uh, the latter I think. No, I know. Oh, and not only did [ABC's] Charlie Gibson think the ACORN bust should be left to the cable networks, he didn't even know anything about the scandal period!"
"My a**," as a certain local blogger might say.
Ironically, CBS today asked if Democrats will "finally" get hate crimes legislation passed. Well, that's terrific, but the sad joke about "hate" crimes (and their legislation) is how they're so selectively applied. Lord knows how I've written about that in the past.
If an unprovoked beating has "no" racial aspect to it, yet folks have to twist the English language beyond all recognition to "discover" racism in people's political criticism, then hate crimes legislation has become a sadder joke than it already is.
Time magazine in 2005:
A little while later that year:
Then there's West's 2004 bitching about not winning a trophy (American Music Awards), and in 2006 he stormed the stage and complained again -- this time at the MTV Europe Music Awards when he was beaten out for Best Video. (Link.)
h/t to Campaign Spot:
The Delaware Tea Party will be holding a health care forum on September 30th at the Laurel Fire Hall located on 10th street in Laurel, Delaware. This will be an open, and balanced forum when you can get answers to your questions on Health Care Reform. Our panel will consist of experts from the local hospitals, physicians, legal, Seniors and Veterans groups. This forum will be made up of voices from many sides of the hearth care debate and its sole purpose is to help provide accurate information on your questions. The forum will start at 6:30 pm and if free to attend.
For more information, please email
Delawaretaxteaparty@gmail.com or call Chris Shirey at 302-875-5489.
From MSNBC's First Read:
Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.
Here, the administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.
The White House is backing measures that would require PROOF of legal residency. Which is, after all, what the GOP wanted all along and that Democrats in the House shot down ... and, ultimately, why Joe Wilson shouted out what he did.
... we'd be hearing for at least a week how the "right-wing hate-mongers" are "feeding" this stuff from the likes of our LGOMB and the MSM. But -- guess what? The victim here was an anti-abortion protestor, and he was targeted for that belief:
State police have confirmed they apprehended a suspect about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect's home in this small community northeast of Lansing.
Sara Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor for Shiawassee County, has confirmed that Pouillon's pro-life stance was the reason he was targeted and said the suspect officials have in custody disapproved of his abortion protests outside the schools.
“There was some displeasure with how open he was,” she said. “He tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses.”
Do you think this story will be a part of every MSM broadcast this evening? Do you think we'll hear talking heads pontificate endlessly about the rise in radical, left-wing violence in this country and how people like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Air America are, in part, to blame for it? Because that's precisely what we saw when abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered a few months ago.
Hey look -- some people have told me that when I make posts like these it using "bad behavior to justify other bad behavior." No way. Posts like these are ALWAYS to point out the ridiculous double standards that the mainstream media possess -- how topics that fit "their agenda" get smothering coverage (Tiller) while those that don't get nothing (see Van Jones, for one).
As if on cue from yesterday's post about the ridiculous "outrage" at Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" comment to President Obama during the latter's speech Weds. night, the Philly Daily News' Elmer Smith opines with "It's a small leap from 'You lie!' to 'You die!'"
I THOUGHT THAT the gun-toting goobers who waved their misspelled signs outside the president's speeches represented a new low.
Until Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer warned parents to prevent their children from hearing a speech by the president for fear he would "use our children as tools" to spread what Greer calls President Obama's "socialist ideology"
Then it was Wednesday night in the Capitol, where President Obama addressed the nation and a divided House and Senate. A fool named Joe Wilson, who represents the people of South Carolina, demonstrated his acute lack of impulse control and home training.
"You lie!" the fool shouted as the president pointed out that his health-care plan would not cover illegal aliens.
He was not the lone fool in the chamber of our divided house.
Others booed, hissed and laughed derisively as the president spoke. Still others twiddled their thumbs, folded their arms and worked on pocket computers to demonstrate disdain for the president.
I kept hoping that one of these juveniles would hold his breath until he turned blue in the face and spit up his pablum.
So what's next?
Well, based on the title of Smith's column you can probably guess. Yep, he's worried that all the "nasty" rhetoric from these "goobers" might lead to something worse for our president. To which I ask:
How in the f*** does Smith even manage to function?
I mean, he actually says the following at column's end:
This is about hatred, a visceral, personal and poisonous hatred on a level we haven't seen since Abe Lincoln was president. And we know how that ended.
A certain guy named George W. Bush would beg to differ, you idiot. Do I even need to mention why? But for lunkheads like you, Mr. Smith, that doesn't count -- for, as fellow delusional, radical partisan Joe Klein said earlier today, behavior such as that towards President Bush is justified because ... wait for it ... it is based on "substance" and "if they (Democrats) have a bias, it's towards policy, it's toward undue idealism."
OK. Now that I got that out of my system, this ... "attitude" seems to be popping up more and more often as I look around the political media. It mirrors that which regular DE Politics commenter "noman" recently wrote about conservatives/Republicans:
We are not polarized; we are corrupted.
Polarized implies two equal and opposite points of view. We don’t have that.
We have a traditional American center that is trying to solve problems and make progress through history in a typically American way - and then we have the wingnuts, driven by greedhead corporations and investors, who are doing their best to pervert the process with lies and propaganda.
I can accept if you are not on board with a center-left, socially liberal agenda. Honest people can disagree about that, and there are honest ways to do so.
But death panels, indoctrinating children, birth certificates, socialist, authoritarian - all that crap is dishonest. Go ahead and disown a few of those wacko ideas, and there are more where that came from. You can’t disown them fast enough.
I think the only reason the Repubs disowned the birther crap is because they were quite surprised to find it was blowing back on them. They went too far and actually got called out on it. If not they’d still be pushing it.
OK, suppose you leave all the fringe stuff behind and try to form a rational oppostion argument, focusing on spending perhaps. You still can’t do it, because you have never come clean about the failure of Republican economic theories, and you are not willing to acknowledge the hole the Republicans dug for us. Today’s CBO projections are no worse than projections at the beginning of the Reagan or Clinton administrations - and we dealt with them.
It’s not the disagreement - it’s the dishonesty with which Repubs do it. Nearly every right-wing argument I read is pre-debunked before they even utter it - and in many cases they even know they are repeating material that was debunked.
Knowingly repeating a lie for political effect = Propaganda.
For people like Smith, Klein and noman, there just IS NO ROOM for disagreement (despite what noman, in this case, actually says above). Conservatives/Republicans are inherently bad; therefore, they are dangerous. And since they are dangerous, they should be dealt with. (Which, when you think about it, is quite ironic considering the title of Smith's column.) By "dealt with" I don't mean anything like "killed" (although some actually advocate that), but something more akin to what we see regularly attempted on American campuses -- things like speech codes, ridiculous expansion and interpretations of "hate crimes," and kangaroo-style hearings based on the presumption of guilt.
You can see it with Smith: Since he believes a representative calling the president a "liar" will lead to a serious threat on the chief exec's very life, something must be done about folks like Joe Wilson and those who would emulate him.
You can see it with Klein: He says
But the arguments against Bush and Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy and so on were based on substance. The argument on this health-care plan is all fantasy. But the fact is that those kind of heinous arguments I think are a minor chord in the Democratic party, and they have been in the Republican party, but they are far more of a major chord. And I think that a lot of this, especially out in poor middle class white American is based in racial fears.
No rational disagreements on healthcare. "Heinous" arguments are a majority among the GOP, ultimately leading to (or led by) racial fears. And what is that but pure "hate," then? A "hate crime!"
And you can see it with noman: There's absolutely NO comparison between rightist and leftist crackpot theories (Birther vs. Truther), nor between calling Bush a "fascist" and Obama a "socialist," nor any room to prove the benefits of "Republican" economic theory.
You get it? YOU. JUST. CANNOT. DISAGREE. WITH. A. LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT.
Think about that.
And then think about, as I told noman in the comments at DE Politics, why those on the other side "bring up the names of famous authoritarians of the past" when folks like noman/Smith/Klein say what they do.
... but it seems to have worked:
Among three House committees to pass bills for health reform, only one expressly bans federal funding for proving health coverage to illegal immigrants.
"The Congressional Research Service has indicated that indeed the bills that are before Congress would include illegal aliens," Wilson said. "And I think this is wrong."
Indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service study found that the House health care bill does not restrict illegal immigrants from receiving health care coverage.
House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner amplified the complaint that without proof of citizenship, illegal immigrants could be insured.
"There were two opportunities for House Democrats to make clear that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered by putting in requirements to show citizenships," he said. "Both of those amendments were, in fact, rejected."
In the Senate, Democrats in the so called "Gang of Six," a group of bipartisan senators on the Senate Finance Committee which is the last panel yet to release its bill, began moving quickly to close the loophole that Wilson helped bring greater attention to.
"We absolutely assure that those who are here illegally would not get the benefit of any of these initiatives," Sen. Kent Conrad said.
So again, Wilson's outburst was a rude breach of protocol, but it did ultimately punch through the BS half-truth of Obama's constant proclamation that healthcare reform "will not cover illegal immigrants."
First place in the Council category was Soccer Dad with Verdict first; investigation afterwards.
First place in the non-Council category was Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate / WSJ with How a Detainee Became An Asset.
Full results are here.
Michael Clarke always wanted to be a firefighter. "When he was young, he just loved to sit in the engines at the firehouse," Michael's father Jack once said. And so, at age 27, joined the fire department in 1998. In 2001, he was transferred from Staten Island to Manhattan's Engine 8 and Ladder 2. Michael was excited about this move as "there was much more action in Manhattan."
September 11 was a scheduled day off for Michael, but he went in to work because he switched days with another firefighter.
Michael was a top student and star hockey player at Wagner College. Wagner retired his number (34) in remembrance of him. And as a perfect example of how people miss the "small" things in life, Michael's father Jack says he misses his son's daily phone calls. "He'd call everyday. He'd say, 'Hi Pop, how are you doing?'"
(See Portraits 9/11/01.)
Please check out Project 2,996 and join the effort.
Mr. President, a word if I may.
Getting sick is a negative economic event, like your stock plunging or your bank going under or losing your job. When you get sick, you have two choices: expend money or suffer (and perhaps eventually die). People choose to spend money because people generally don't like to die. If someone's money is more important to them, they can go ahead and go blind from a progressive disease, or die knowing that they left more money to their children. Of course, this seems odd to most of us: what's money for if not to keep us alive?
The point is that it's in the nature of getting sick that one expends money to get well again. That's why one has money in the first place, after all.
What's more, because of those pesky laws of thermodynamics and a thing called entropy, we're all going to eventually get sick and die. Nothing lasts forever: not even the universe. Energy (in our case money) has to be expended to maintain systems in a particular form. So there's always going to be a need for money to keep from getting sick.
But if there's a theoretically limitless call for moneys to keep from getting sick and dying -- there isn't a limitless supply of money. Thus, if there is always going to be a need for money to keep from getting sick, there will always be the chance that from a particular bout of illness one will run out of money: one will go broke, and it doesn't matter what country one is in.
Now, naturally there are ebbs and flows to the expenditures, just as there is a limit to the generation of wealth. Some very smart people in Europe created the notion of insurance to "even out" the bumps in the expenditure graphs and distribute the risk (in our case, of getting really sick all at once) of "going broke" among a bunch of people.
But what gets distributed in insurance programs is not cost, but rather risk. If people lived forever, their withdrawals from the insurance pool would ultimately reach the limit of their payments (less costs of administration, for nothing is free). But people don't live forever (because eventually the rising costs of fighting off a hostile universe and not getting sick cause people to go broke) so it seems like what we're spreading is costs, and that seeming makes otherwise reasonably intelligent people like you, Mr. President, mistakenly think that health insurance is really just about making sure that costs are spread around so "nobody goes broke". But that's not insurance: that's (and I don't mean this pejoratively) communism, specifically the "to each according to his need" part.
Go back to insurance for a moment: insurance is a contractual promise of indemnity against an unrealized risk. We have pre-existing condition exclusions in health policies because indemnifying against those expenses isn't something unknown or contingent -- it's an absolute known expenditure. You want to take away those exclusions, but if someone with a condition that will without a doubt cost $1,000,000 a year to treat walks into the insurance office, what is the insurer supposed to do? Sign up the insured so that the insurer buys a known million dollar liability in return for $40,000 in premiums?
Who would do something like that?
The answer, of course, is that the government would do something like that, because the government isn't spending its own money. It's immune from the sort of free market discipline that causes most economic entities to seek some form of efficiency. It is thus "free" to assume liabilities in return for payments that are smaller than the liabilities assumed.
But communism doesn't work as an economic model, precisely because government isn't forced to seek efficiencies (and also because the centralization of economic power causes tremendous rent-seeking and corruption).
"In the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. "
But if no one is to go broke from getting sick, then someone else is going to need to pay for it. And if that someone else is the government, then either the government will go broke keeping everyone alive and healthy no matter the cost, or -- far, far more likely -- someone in the government will have to decide when a particular medical reimbursement is no longer worth the expense.
But you just told us last night, Mr. President, that:
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
So if no one in the government is going to decide when to stop spending money on keeping people alive, then someone will go broke in the United States of America: the government will go broke because every last one of its citizens, in accordance with the laws of entropy, will eventually get sick. And unless more and more energy (money) is expended to keep them alive and health, they will eventually die.
Because you're not risk-spreading with your grandiose health care proposals... you're trying to cost-spread, and that's a very different, very intractable little economic beast, particularly when the costs are potentially limitless.
The article says he/she has no ovaries but does have internal male testes. This technically makes he/she a hermaphrodite. But it sounds like he/she's a lot more male than female based on those sex glands ...
And, unfortunately, a former GOPer -- RSmitty -- used the willing forum given him by our LGOMB to rant about it.
It was laughably predictable that the LGOMB would get all self-righteously indignant about ONE Republican representative yelling "liar" when President Obama said his healthcare plan (remember though -- he doesn't even have a plan out there yet!) would not cover illegal aliens.* But RSmitty ... using the LGOMB to likewise get self-righteous? That's a real shame.
Hey 'bats -- I'm curious. What did you think of this:
Oh gosh -- was that Democrats ... booing over what THE PRESIDENT is saying in his speech? How disrespectful! How rude! How awful! And that wasn't just one guy (who apologized profusely later, by the way) like Rep. Wilson last night. Yet, our MSM is covering this like it was political Armageddon, and as if the precedent hadn't already been set -- by the Democrats above. And cripes -- just imagine if this was Britain. There, the prime minister gets a LOT worse than that ... something our own president (of either party) would never subject himself to.
The next question is, when will Rep. Wilson be accused of racism?
Reason #9765 (a better number, Paul?) why the LGOMB has the cranial capacity of a beetle. And Smitty? You're a joke now, too.
* Democrats voted down -- on party lines -- [GOP-offered] amendments that would have required verification of residency status before receiving any [healthcare] benefits. So, although Obama wasn't outright lying as Wilson accused him of, he certainly wasn't being completely truthful.
UPDATE 3: LOL! Remember above where I asked, "The next question is, when will Rep. Wilson be accused of racism?" MSNBC is always happy to oblige.
But of course! He's a Republican!
And, of course, it's via the AP: Lawmaker Quits Over Sex Comments.
* Mere Rhetoric - Figures. Feds Didn’t Clear Brush In LA Wildfire Areas Because Of Liberal Pressure.
* The Provocateur - A Psychopath at the Pittsburgh VA.
* Rhymes With Right - Well, The Text Of The Speech Is Out.
* Right Truth - Obama the Liar.
* Soccer Dad - Verdict first; investigation afterwards.
* Bookworm Room - Are Obama and the American people capable of mimicking a Hitler/Nazi-like experience?
* The Colossus of Rhodey - “Hyper-partisan?”
* The Glittering Eye - Keep Faith With the Promise.
* Joshuapundit - Obamaspeak: Challenge For Youth.
Also check out the non-Council submissions.
Does this surprise anybody? I mean, really?
The White House insists that Congress has not exempted itself; but if it hasn't, then why was Rep. Dean Heller's (R-NV) amendment -- which "would have required Members to be covered by the Public Option plan if they approve it for private citizens" -- defeated in the House Ways and Means Committee, with all 21 Democrats voting against it?
Looks like the administration's insistence along these lines is much the same as healthcare reform "bringing costs down," "giving people more choices," and "giving people better care." In other words, pure bunk.
... but the BEYOND ridiculous double standards they constantly employ.
Check out Daniel Stone's description of 9/11 Truthers: It's "a sizable group of skeptical citizens asking unanswered questions."
Oh, but he "qualifies" this by saying that only since 2004 have they evolved into "fringe" and "angry." So -- that means for THREE YEARS these incredible Truther buffoons were merely ... SKEPTICAL??
I just know Stone wouldn't hesitate to label the "Birthers" as just ... "skeptical" about Obama's place of birth.
My God, how fall the mighty ...
(h/t: Campaign Spot.)
From the LA Times: Obama is fast losing white voters' support.
Our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) has a link to a petition "to let Congress know that paranoid teabaggers are the minority and not the majority."
One of the moonbats got an e-mail about the petition from one Jane Hamsher. Name doesn't ring a bell? Well, she was the brainchild behind this racist cartoon of Joe Lieberman. Hamsher later offered a non-apology apology for the cartoon ("I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended ..."), and then blasted folks like Michelle Malkin for their "absurd charges of racism."
Y'see, it's stuff exactly like this that makes the Left so utterly laughable. These are the folks that will cry "racism" at the drop of a hat for any legitimate political criticism of Barack Obama (or other black politicians); however, when crap like Hamsher puts out is called out, the self-righteous indignation among the 'bats is outright nauseating.
And it's reason #4,846 why our LGOMB is just a sad crew of angry lunkheads.
From the White House homepage -- the President's remarks to school kids (for tomorrow):
I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.
Isn't (wasn't) Obama ... an American too? ;-)
Screen-cap here in case the WH wises up.
(h/t to DE Politics)
... for once -- with this bit on the Obama school speech.
"Anyone who truly believes this, is not only suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome but is also a full-fledged psycho. It really is that simple."
And recently departed Van Jones is one. More here.
Paul Krugman's, that is. His NY Times blog is dubbed "The Conscience of a Liberal," and today he writes
Since I have decent Internet access for a couple of hours, let me weigh in a bit on the craziness sweeping America.
Joe Klein reports on a town hall meeting where people think that Obama has larded the government with communists. Bizarre — but I’ve been getting equally bizarre claims in much of my mail. And what’s striking is the intensity.
I’ve mentioned before that my hate mail has reached levels I haven’t seen since 2004 or so. But back then, the hate was in a way understandable. People like me were questioning Bush’s bona fides as the great protector against terrorism, were claiming that he deliberately misled the country into an unnecessary war. Those were strong charges, and in a way you could understand that people who idolized Bush (believe it or not, there used to be a lot of them) were upset.
Yep, that's pretty much the "conscience of a [modern] liberal," all right. It's "bizarre" that Obama has hired communists (ahem, Van Jones, ahem) and the "intensity" and "hate" in politics today is "crazy." But of course, back during the Bush era such "intensity," "hate," and "craziness" was ... "understandable."
... I'll have to be content with YouTube, I guess:
As a runner myself (like Chanman, from whom I got this article) and as one interested in the ever-evolving definition of "racism," I thought this was ... intriguing:
The president of Athletics South Africa, Leonard Chuene, was also defiant and said he had resigned from his seat on the IAAF board to protest the organization's treatment of [Caster] Semenya... "We are not going to allow Europeans to describe and define our children," he told a news conference, which Semenya attended although she did not address reporters... Semenya's supporters say the allegations against her are motivated by jealousy and show racial discrimination against Africans. (Link.)
What's the beef? Well, this:
World athletic officials said they were going to conduct "gender tests" on Semenya based on the suspicion of her [overly] muscular build and deep voice -- hence they're "racists."
But are they?
Chanman (again, a noted runner) offers a brief history lesson for the Sharpton-esque South African officials:
I guess this South African official wasn't paying attention during the 1970's and 1980's when female athletes from Eastern Block communist countries were showing their grotesque selves at track meets all over the world. How about current world record holder in - of all events - the 800 meters, Jarmila Kratochvilova of Czechoslovakia, who set the still-standing record of 1:53.28 back in 1983? Check out her feminine self:
Or how about Ewa Klobukowska of Poland, who actually did fail a gender test in the 1960s:
1:53 is absolutely smokin' for a woman in the 800 meters, by the way. So, it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if Kratochvilova proved to really be a man. It's either that, or, like way too many Eastern European athletes during the Cold War, she was steroided up to the hilt. Just look at "her" legs.
Thanks to miscreant for the notice in the comments.
It's a good thing, too. More and more was coming about this nutjob, including his production of a Mumia abu-Jamal -- the guy who killed Philly cop Daniel Faulkner way back in the early 80s -- CD.
And, of course, none of his current situation is his fault. It's been a "smear campaign" against him:
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
No, they haven't been "lies and distortions," Mr. Jones. They've merely been your own words and actions. Period.
You've got to love the Washington Post's coverage. The first story they ran on the Van Jones controversy was yesterday, with the chutzpah-rich headline "White House Says Little About Embattled Jones." Ah yes, that mute-mouthed White House has said so little about a story we at the Post haven't bothered to cover until this story about how close-lipped the White House is.
Today the Post reports in its lede:
White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday after weeks of pressure from the right over his past activism.
Weeks of pressure that you, dear Post readers, never heard about in weeks of reading this newspaper.
Mickey's getting closer to his dream: "I've been waiting for the day when a prominent pol resigns and for print MSM readers it appears to be out-of-the-blue...."
To say the least, and he didn't mean it:
(h/t: Olbermann Watch.)
... but, of course, was that the case 18 years ago moonbats?
House Democrats criticized President [George H.W.] Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.
The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "
Two [Democrat majority] House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]
Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.
Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits. (Source.)
Hearings! Congressional criticism! Waste of needed funds!
But hey, the moonbats believe that Obama's speech is "historial" (it's not -- and don't ever bother attempting to decipher this guy's writings), and even though some admit that they'd have a problem with a Republican giving such a speech (like all the above liberal/Democrats did), it still "wouldn't be as bad" as the current situation.
Uh-huh. Now excuse me while I clean up my keyboard from the coffee I just spit up all over it ...
...courtesy of one of my favorite scifi authors John Scalzi.
They all make sense to me, although I had a few issues with his beef against the Death Star. Scalzi writes:
An unshielded exhaust port leading directly to the central reactor? Really? And when you rebuild it, your solution to this problem is four paths into the central core so large that you can literally fly a spaceship through them? Brilliant. Note to the Emperor: Someone on your Death Star design staff is in the pay of Rebel forces.
Well, in "Star Wars," the exhaust port was shielded -- against beam weapons. That's why the Rebel leader prior to the final attack against the Death Star says that all attacking craft will have to use proton torpedoes. So, why wasn't the port protected against something like those? That's a good question, although like anywhere else in the universe, designers can't think of everything. And the Rebel leader did say that the Empire didn't consider individual fighter craft to be any threat to the D.S. Which, if the Rebs didn't snatch the D.S. plans, would have been -- and remained -- the case!
As for the second Death Star, I think Scalzi is being unfair. That D.S. was still very much under construction. That's why, after all, the Rebels were able to fly their craft through its interior to destroy its central power core. It's logical to assume that once it was completed, this would be rectified (as with, hopefully, the exhaust port problem!).
Scalzi also takes on Star Trek. Some of these beefs, however, are merely aesthetic. Scalzi doesn't like Starfleet's uniforms nor how the Borg look. OK, fine. Hardly "FAILs," though. But he's dead-on about holodeck technology:
In fact brilliantly designed (except for the fact that it's a little too easy to override the safety protocols, and, you know, die), but none of the movies ever addresses what anyone who's ever thought seriously about holodecks knows: Given that it's hard enough to get some MMORPG players today to take care of their basic bodily needs with Cheetos and moist towelettes, what's keeping the entire population of the Federation from queuing up the "Roman orgy" recreation, stepping into a holodeck, and never ever coming out again? If you say "they have to eat," allow me to introduce you to the magic of the food replicator.
Indeed. That's actually a problem with the whole of the Trek-verse -- with Earth now a virtual utopia, why on Earth would anyone want to risk their hide in service to Starfleet?
I think Scalzi is a bit mistaken about the V'Ger probe from the first Trek film, too. He writes:
In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, a Voyager space probe gets sucked into a black hole and survives (GAAAAH), and is discovered by denizens of a machine planet who think the logical thing to do is to take a bus-size machine with the processing power of a couple of Speak and Spells and upgrade it to a spaceship the size of small moon, wrap that in an energy field the size of a solar system, and then send it merrily on its way. This is like you assisting a brain-damaged raccoon trapped on a suburban traffic island by giving him Ecuador.
If memory serves, the denizens of that machine planet (often speculated that they were Borg) didn't outfit the Voyager probe with all that junk right away. As they set the craft back on its way home (Earth), the [since-modified] Voyager accumulated the majority of its technological enhancements on its approximately 70K light-year sojourn.
Although some have complained that the right is adept at "controlling the debate" (locally, too, we have those who have little conception of media reality), there has been barely a PEEP from the MSM about communist and now-revealed 9/11 Truther "green czar" Van Jones.
As of yesterday afternoon:
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.
I was perusing the MSM websites all day yesterday and only the CBS website had a link on their main page dealing with the Jones controversy. This morning thus far? MSNBC? Nada. CNN? Nope. NY Times? Zilch. At least ABC's website and the WaPo's main page have [small] links to articles today.
Oh, and here's the latest regarding Jones' moonbattery: You've never seen a Columbine massacre done by black kids.
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with Ted Kennedy Stumbles Offstage.
First place in the non-Council category was Sherman Frederick @ Las Vegas Review-Journal with Enough is enough, Harry – Stop the childish bullying.
Full results are here.
Pure wealth redistribution -- and by "pure" I mean distribution of wealth on the basis of wealth alone, without regard to one's, say, service to the nation or having fallen into a crisis of one sort or another -- is only popular when you're taking from a minority to give to either a bigger minority or the majority. Five lions can vote to eat the lamb; that's majoritarianism in action, and that is more or less the meaning of the word popular.
You can fool people about an awful lot, but one thing that you won't fool people about is that providing health "insurance" -- really just a euphemism for "medical services" these days as there's little insurance-like about it -- to people who otherwise don't have it is the redistribution of resources from one group (those with insurance) to another (those without).
The problem is that those with health insurance severely outnumber those without. This small population doesn't have the same sort of political "pull" that other groups might. We've already got medical programs for the elderly, for children, for veterans, for the disabled... there's no "compassion" factor left in the uninsured population. They're just uninsured. And there aren't that many of them, relatively speaking.
The Democrats are trying to convince the five lions to serve themselves up so the lamb can have a snack.
Good luck with that.
DE Libertarian's Steve Newton thinks you're an idiot if, as a parent, you withdraw your kid from class (or school) for the day when President Obama speaks to kids on Sept. 8. While I tend to agree that it would be an overreaction to take your kid out of class/school merely for the speech (I wouldn't use the term "idiot" in this case), as I noted in the comments in Steve's post the bigger concern was over the federal Dept. of Education's proposed lesson plans (since scrubbed from its website) dealing with Obama's address -- some of which forced students into adopting a particular point of view.
But Steve said "his post stands," and added
If Barack Obama's lesson plans are that effective in brainwashing the children of America in thirty minutes plus a bunch of lessons that very few teachers are ever going to do ... then we are all idiots.
Sorry, but this is hyper-partisanship carried to a ludicrous extreme.
But the issue isn't whether "very few teachers" use the plans (again, the controversial ones have since been deleted). The issue is teachers that would use them -- and use them to, as Steve might say, "hyper-partisan" effect. Steve seemed to have an objection to my use of the term "right of conscience" for he later wrote a rambling post about kids being "over-protected." In it he wrote:
Which is why I do not buy any of the faux "freedom of conscience" arguments from people who don't want their kids to be "forced" to watch President Obama on TV. Guess what? School is frankly about coercion all over the place, and the chief lesson once your kids become independent learners is how to find the edges of the system and survive. Coddling them by "protecting" them from strange ideas or bad teachers is, frankly, not helping them at all.
Don't agree? Fine. Take your kids out of every school activity with which you politically disagree; I won't interfere, other than to think you're not doing them any favors.
Since I was the only one to invoke such a term in his previous post, it's pretty obvious to me that Steve had myself in mind when he wrote that. But I didn't object to kids being forced merely to watch Obama on TV; again, I objected to the proposed lesson plans that the Dept. of Education initially had in mind (and which Steve indicated he still didn't care about). I responded in the comments section thusly:
"Faux?" I was trained as a social studies educator (even though I'm in foreign language now) and my cooperating teacher (a big-time conservative) made it more than clear that on all things political teachers should cover both (or as many as feasible) sides of an issue, and NEVER mandate that students be forced to PICK a side. If you are OK with what the federal DoE had in those lesson plans, fine. (I never said anything about merely watching Obama's speech, which I agree would be pretty much benign in nature, politically.) But as a social studies person yourself, I find that horrifying frankly. Amazing that you brush off concern over that as "hyper-partisanship," yet you get all apoplectic about a DNC memo invoking right-wing terrorism (which has also since been scrubbed from its website) which is what -- just more modern "politics as usual." Spare me.
You implication that I condone parents objecting to all things "controversial" is hilarious. So is your implication that I am a "helicopter parent." Try reading what I've written on that subject in my education archives. It would have saved you from being overly self-righteous (and verbose) in this post. All I was saying is that NO student should be forced to take a [political] side by advocating for something that he/she does not believe in. Would you, Steve, take such a cavalier attitude if schools forced students to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Would anyone concerned about that be "hyper-partisan" and/or "not doing their kids any favors" in life, hmm??
Indeed, even though I am (obviously) a right-leaning person politically, it frankly turns my stomach when I ponder myself assigning to students a paper/project for which they MUST adopt a particular point of view that may be [so] contrary to their personal beliefs. (And we're not talking about a college law class where potential lawyers must learn to advocate for a client despite personal views or something similar, OK?) Steve thinks this is just "hyper-partisan" (which, ironically, puts him in the company of the MSM).
UPDATE: Newton has since commented that my "right to conscience" point was not the genesis of his follow-up post, and that he still thinks classroom coercion in certain areas isn't that big a deal. And when he says
Children are amazing resilient and resistant to a lot of this crap, especially when parents are actually involved in their education. When parents are not, the children usually aren't learning much of anything
I largely agree. Personally, were my own daughter assigned a project to write a letter of support to a politician whom she did not agree with, I would not contact the teacher and demand he rescind the assignment. I would tell my daughter to ask the teacher if she could write a letter expressing her concerns over the politician's policies instead of indicating support. If the teacher refused, then I would [politely] contact him/her and ask why. I'd estimate that in 99% of such cases, the situation would be resolved right here. But if was not, at this point I [still] would not contact the school's administration. I'd tell my daughter to go ahead and write the "contrary" letter anyway -- just to see what happens. If the teacher gave the letter a failing grade that resulted in a detrimental overall drop in class average, then I would consider asking for a parent-teacher-[and possibly] administrator conference.
Overall, my view is that when delicate/controversial issues arise in classrooms/schools, parents should be well notified and should have a [reasonable] provision to either have their children do alternative work, or not attend altogether. Good teachers/administrators (and I've been fortunate enough to work with both over my almost 20 years in public ed.) recognize this and make allowances for such.
UPDATE 2: Uber edu-blogger Joanne Jacobs has a post up about the Obama speech/lesson plan controversy.
Obama's "green" czar is a 9/11 Truther.
UPDATE: Heh -- Jones is claiming "the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."
Uh huh. And Lenin wasn't a communist.
UPDATE 2: This is spot-on:
Imagine it's September 2013 and President Palin is preparing to present her massive tax cut proposal to a joint session of congress. She's momentarily distracted by an MSNBC report that her Second Amendment czar, Sig Sauer, has a peculiar history: He was once (and perhaps still is) a Bircher who argued for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. He's also appeared on numerous radio and TV shows calling for the oppressive United States government to be transformed into a monarchy. Shortly before his appointment he was captured on YouTube calling Democrats "a**holes." Another YouTube video shows him ranting about "black gun-control advocates" who confiscate guns from law-abiding white communities. Back in 2009 he signed a petition published in the New York Post calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama on the grounds that he wasn't born in the United States. Sauer has even been arrested twice for participating in riots outside the U.N. and G-8 Summit. Imagine that during a press briefing, a reporter asks White House press secretary Chuck Krauthammer how a radical right-wing racialist with an arrest record like Sauer could've possibly been appointed to a prominent White House position. Didn't President Palin know? Chuck dismisses the query, saying it's old news since Sauer has issued an apology contending that none of the forgoing actions reflect his actual views. Imagine that the members of the press corps nod their heads collectively and move on to the more relevant issue of what President Palin will be wearing to the joint session. Imagine. It's easy if you try.
Delaware Dem over at our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers):
“I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today,” [Baptist Pastor Steve Anderson] told MyFOXPhoenix on Sunday...
As I said, we live in a violent world. Even a supposed Man of God, a preacher, a Christian, hopes for the death of those he opposes politically. And not just any death. A horrible painful death of brain cancer.
There is no wonder why cops are being killed. There is no wonder why random killings happen all. the. time. I mean, even a fucking priest thinks death is cool for someone he just disagrees with!!!! A fucking priest!
Like I said, there is no hope for our society. On days like this, when two unrelated stories merge together to provide reveal the true nature of our nature, I become despondent.
DD becomes ... despondent? The very same DD who wrote this? This is the same LGOMB where horrific wishes are thrust upon the conservative dead or dying on a regular basis, too.
Indeed, if "there is no hope for our society," our LGOMB is surely leading the way. The [sadly] hilarious thing is that they often write garbage like DD did above, pretending like they're some paragons of virtue.
And they really want to be taken seriously? Really??
... to the MSM, especially the Washington Post. Check out the WaPo search results for "Robert F. McDonnell."
Now, check out the search results for "Barack Obama college transcripts."
Or how 'bout "Barack Obama college grades"? Or "Michelle Obama college thesis"? Or "Michelle Robinson (her maiden name) college thesis"? That's right -- zero, zilch, zip, nada.
McDonnell currently has nine articles about his [controversial] master's thesis on the WaPo website -- possibly more, but I don't feel like registering to view "exclusive" articles.
What's his 1989 thesis all about?
The 93-page document calls for passing strong pro-life laws, the creation of a covenant marriage classification, welfare reform, fighting the redefinition of families to include gays and single-unwed mothers and preventing federal funding of state sex-education programs, family planning or contraception.
McDonnell claims he has repudiated much of what he wrote 20 years ago. And it seems the public doesn't care much what he wrote long ago.
Meanwhile, our president's college courses, grades, theses ... have never been made available. The president's wife, Michelle, wrote her college thesis on "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," a politically correct racialist screed that garnered scant attention, pretty much only from conservative media.
I've spoken with numerous Ticos -- Costa Ricans -- since my post about Costa Rican President Oscar Arias supposedly wanting to take a page out of Hugo Chávez's playbook. And the result? They didn't know what I was talking about. They've heard nothing of the sort.
One friend said that she read Arias desired to streamline rules for [private] businesses which, if anything, makes Arias seems more like an anti-Chávez. This seems to jibe with what the Costa Rican English-language Tico Times noted:
Following in the footsteps of leftist presidents throughout Latin America whom he has criticised, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is proposing a constitutional reform. However, his idea is being pitched from the other end of the political spectrum: in the language of promoting free markets and entrepreneurship.
To Arias, “excessive controls” on the executive branch impede “vital projects” from coming to fruition.
“Reforming this situation will be the great challenge of Costa Rica in the coming years,” he said to an audience at the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday night. “We cannot afford to continue tireless debate on the reforms our country needs…. A restricted state, bloated and unable to execute its decisions, violates the public interest just as much as a state that abuses its power.”
A constituent assembly would work to address excessive regulations, he said, promoting action and implementation over heightened control.
“To the extent that we remain a country of controllers, not entrepreneurs, I see it very difficult to reach our goals, whatever they are,” Arias said.