The science is "settled" -- no longer can we continue to use warp drive to traverse the stars. It's gradual effect is tearing apart the fabric of space!
Michael McGonigle of Philadelphia thinks he's "deconstructed conservatism":
When a conservative calls something "socialism," all they really mean is that someone other than themselves or their big-money friends stands a chance to make a portion of the profits. Liberals may be starry-eyed and naive, but at least they are not petulant and greedy.
Wrong. They're just usually greedy with other people's money.
If you want to know what the U.S. Constitution says about the duties of the president, check out Article II, Sections 2 and 3.
While it's true that the president's duties have become more complex since the Constitution went into effect in 1789, I'm not sure that just "cutting taxes" and "killing terrorists" are the president's sole duties, even if that's what [letter writer] Stuart Caesar believes.
Let's say Mr. Caesar is right - wouldn't it be really helpful to make sure the person is actually a "terrorist" before we kill him?
Maybe Mike oughta ask that of Barack Obama, whose stepped-up pilotless drone attacks on suspected al Qaeda and Taliban (that's "TAH-lee-bahn" according to Barack) don't "make sure" of that distinction at all!
But then, that means we would have to follow the legal procedures outlined in the Constitution because we are, after all, a country that prides itself on following the law.
And didn't Obama campaign largely on that premise -- "getting us back" to that after those "devastating" Bush years?
And then the typical, ridiculous fall-back position:
I ask all decent, intelligent and thoughtful Americans to stand up to these fools. We have a glorious and successful history on our side. All they have is Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
Gad, I wish I had a nickel every time I heard/read some sadsack "progressive" bring up the names of the supposed "boogeymen" of the conservative movement -- Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al. But even if that were really the case -- that they were "all [conservatives] had," who is "all 'progressives' have?" Keith Olbermann? Rachel Maddow? Chris Matthews? Ed Schultz?
ROTFLMAO! Good luck with that!
Headline in today's Wilmington News Journal: "Delaware police: Officers cleared after bar fight." The sub-header says "Details 'unclear' in altercation that broke nose of black patron."
Wait -- black patron? Not just ... a patron? Is this the same News Journal that, no matter what, won't publish the race of a wanted criminal? Yet, somehow it's ... politically correct to mention race when it's about exonerated [off-duty] police officers in a bar fight story involving an alleged [black] victim?
Interesting priorities there, News Journal.
First place in the Council category was Soccer Dad with Cry havoc and let slip the fog of (agw) lore. (Colossus finished in second place this week.)
First place in the non-Council category was Michael Yon/Big Government with Whispers.
Full results are here.
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has criticized NBC for its "lack of diversity":
Two members of the Judiciary panel - Reps. Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) - ripped into (Comcast Chairman Brian) Roberts and (NBC President Jeff) Zucker for what they saw as the lack of diversity in programming and in the executive ranks at either company.
"There is no diversity on the Sunday morning talk shows," Jackson-Lee told NBC's Zucker.
Armed with lists of board members for both companies, Waters asked Roberts why Comcast had only one woman and one black man on its board. She then asked Zucker why NBC didn't currently have any black programming on NBC. "Is there some assumption that black programming is not profitable?" she asked him.
Zucker said that diversity was one of his strategic goals and that the company was trying to do better.
Not only is the irony delicious because MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has been recently ripping the Tea Party movement as "undiverse" (and hence, "racist"), but here we have members of a racially-exclusive group chastising others for ... their own lack of diversity.
CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
And it's that 63% of Independents -- a heckuva lot closer to the nearly 70% of Republicans than the 37% of Democrats -- that will sink Obama's party this November, especially if it insists on jamming through their version of health care reform.
Just keep this poll in mind the next time you see/hear some MSM pundit trashing groups like the Tea Partiers, the largest manifestation of this majority-of-voters sentiment.
cassandra over at the LGOMB thinks this is "awesome, really."
Now, for the proverbial bucket of cold water:
According to opensecrets.org, out of the 100 top donors in 2010 only 11 favored republicans. Ranking at #68 Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America donated $711,750 of which 60% went to republicans; 37% to democrats. Out of all the insurance companies that were listed, not one favored republicans. (I presume the writer meant "Out of all the remaining insurance companies ..." -- Hube.)
Anthony Weiner not only distorts the truth, he left out the fact that the insurance industry has donated $63,490 to his campaign coffers over the course of his despicable career.
In fact, insurance cos. contributed the second largest amount of campaign cash to Weiner's coffers.
So yeah, cassandra -- Weiner is "awesome, really." Awesomely hypocritical, that is.
Someone alert the MSM:
(h/t: The Nose on Your Face.)
Before the commission was yet another appeal from a Philadelphia-area family, again seeking a break on unpaid electric and gas bills that by last year were closing in on $30,000.
This family lived in a $986,000 house on the Main Line. The breadwinner, until recently, had earned well more than $100,000 per year. Yet he and his wife were in hock to creditors, ranging from Uncle Sam to their former synagogue - and had regularly been stiffing Peco Energy for five years, breaking payment plan after payment plan.
"Our procedures," the commission's Tyrone J. Christy wrote in a Dec. 17 motion, "were not meant to allow customers living in $986,000 houses, with incomes in excess of $100,000 per year, to run up arrearages approaching $30,000."
Longtime Peco spokesman Michael Wood said this week that the family's debt was the largest household delinquency he could recall, except for one theft-of-services case.
In addition to the Peco debt, the PUC noted, the Robbinses had been hit with numerous civil judgments in recent years totaling more than $365,000.
According to court records, their unpaid debts range from $62,692 owed to the IRS to lesser debts of a few thousand to their dentist, their former synagogue's preschool, and a Montgomery County lawyer.
Michael Robbins is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with his former employer, Interstate Motor Carriers Agency Inc. of Freehold, N.J.
In a federal lawsuit filed by Haltzman last year, Robbins contends that Interstate owes him about $5 million in commissions. Bill Buckley, an attorney for Interstate, declined to comment.
Huh. Could it be that this laptop controversy was the "perfect vehicle" by which this family could recoup some cash?
Did anyone catch the brief statement by Lindy Matsko, assistant vice principal at Harriton High School yesterday? I've rarely seen someone so adamant in their own defense, not to mention genuine. Robbins' lawyer Mark S. Haltzman said "he had warned the [Robbins] family that its members' lives would be placed under a microscope" -- and he's right. Though he says this laptop lawsuit should be viewed independently of the family's past legal troubles, I wonder if he actually said that with a straight face -- especially since it seems professional litigant-to-be Blake Robbins' (the son/student) story seems sketchy. Blake said "Ms. Matsko does not deny that she saw a Web-cam picture and screenshot of me in my home;" yet the vice-principal had stated "At no time have I ever monitored a student via a laptop Web cam." Maybe that's a substantive difference, but I sure doubt it.
Sorry, but I feel little-to-no sympathy for people that refuse to pay their bills -- and get sued for it -- especially when they're living in the lap of luxury. Hey Robbins family -- Your rights were [supposedly] violated by the school district? What about the rights of all those you've bilked out of rightful payments?
(Story h/t to Colossus R&D man Gooch!)
2005: The year the Democrats couldn't believe the GOP would use the so-called "nuclear option" to get their agenda through Congress:
Note what Obama says at the beginning of the vid: "Majoritarian, absolute" rule and that's "not what the Founders intended."
Signe Wilkinson in today's Philly Daily News sidetracks from
his her usual [liberal] cartoons to write a supposed "thought-provoking" column on learning something from communist Vietnam. I didn't know exactly what to take from it -- Wilkinson says we can "learn something" about capitalism from the bustling port vendors so prominent in Haiphong Harbor ("they don't seem to be turning any of them into parks or casinos"); however, with Philly's ridiculous crime problem (and that of other big cities), how productive would such a hypothetical market be? The city can't even control rampaging youth through its inner city malls, yet Philly should consider 'Nam's version of capitalism? Uh huh. Maybe if communist dictatorships have the crime problems of democratic societies (that is one of the banes of being "free," after all) there might be a logical comparison. After all, it's easy to make crime rare when people can be arrested at the whim of any government official, for virtually any reason.
Where Wilkinson makes some sense is when
he she brings up education. He She writes:
And if Philadelphia parents wanted to see what urban education looks like where kids come to school on time and pay attention, they, too, should visit third-world Vietnam.
Looking into schoolyards in the early morning, the neatly uniformed children were busy doing exercises (sometimes led by another student), singing or listening to school programs.
But this is hardly unique to authoritarian societies like Vietnam. Many Third World countries' parents take a lot more pride in getting their children an education than we do here in the most affluent of nations. Take Costa Rica, for example, where I've lived and traveled to many times. CR is a democratic nation much like our own (capitalist with a strong two-party political system), yet their education system is very akin to what Wilkinson notes about 'Nam. I think what Signe fails to realize is that since Third World nations -- any of them -- lack much of what we're fortunate enough to have here in the US, they're much more serious about doing what it takes to improve their "lot in life." Our problem in many areas is that there is a sentiment of "being owed" something that really only can exist in affluent societies. In "richer" areas, parents think their children should get their way/what they want because, well, they're rich. (This hassle is probably more evident in private schools, I'd imagine.) In "poorer" areas, so many things have been subsidized (transportation, breakfast, lunch, school uniforms, materials) that there's no real feeling of responsibility left for anything (like behavior and academic achievement).
Over the years I've had the pleasure of teaching students that had come from different countries, and several things are usually evident. One, they're initially ... appalled at the classroom and hallway behavior of the typical American [public] school student, and two, their parents are saddened -- and surprised -- at how way too many American students disdain education and could care less about the so very much they have available to them in their teachers and their schools.
I say this a lot, I know, but just imagine if a [black] conservative group called for "scrubbing" certain black liberals "from [black] history" ...
TheRoot.com, a blog owned by the Washington Post, seems to have no qualms about doing so, as evidenced in its list of 21 "Black Folks We'd Like To Remove From Black History". Among the names are Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele.
Also included on the list: murderous Ugandan military dictator Idi Amin, the notorious "DC Sniper" John Allen Muhammad, Zimbabwean kleptocrat Robert Mugabe and the ruthless father-and-son Haitian dictators "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier. (Source.)
In an age where myriad black [liberals] get offended at the merest perception of a stereotype, how is it that they'd advocate a set black mindset? In other words, if it's negatively stereotypical to run an ad for collard greens and corn bread during Black History Month, why is it not similarly negatively stereotypical to desire an excision of black conservatives from black history ... merely because they do not subscribe to the same political philosophy as the current majority of African-Americans?
"All blacks have rhythm" = bad stereotype.
"All blacks are liberal Democrats" = good stereotype.
Perhaps the best current comment on the ridiculous Root article has been made by "ant." He writes:
The column is based on a stupid premise to begin with. No one should be blotted from history whether they are Judges or ruthless dictators. Ignoring history is for the Ministry of Truth.
Re-education camps, kangaroo PC courts, and revisionist history -- isn't that what the Modern Left is all about, after all? Would that the Left could forget about men like Thomas and Steele ...
Semi-related: CNBC's Donny Douche calls Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio a "coconut."
partisan bickering—a period when conservatives are unexpectedly gaining the upper hand.
gridlock—a time when liberal legislation polls less than 50 percent among the American people.
bipartisanship—triangulating Republican legislators who join liberals on key legislation.
filibuster—a sometimes necessary Senate remedy to thwart reactionary excess — in its perverted form, unnaturally turned on progressives.
centrist—a Republican who votes for Democratic-sponsored legislation; to be distinguished from an opportunist, who, as a Democrat, votes for Republican-sponsored legislation.
Courtesy (as usual) our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) on the news that Dick Cheney had a heart attack.
First here's Never-Did-An-Honest-Day's Work Jason Scott: "I’ll dance a jig when that evil f***er kicks the bucket." (Commented edited.)
Delaware "Round Up All Republicans and Shoot 'Em" Dem: "He’ll outlive us all, Jason. Immortality was part of that deal with Satan."
delacrat: "Go heart disease."
Just further proof that these local mental (and moral) midgets are neither "progressive" OR "liberal" in any sense of the real word.
That would be Bill Ayers, Barack Obama buddy, unrepentant domestic terrorist, and supposed education expert -- this Wednesday, Feb. 24 at the Willard Hall Education Building, room 207.
(h/t: Target Rich Environment's BadIdeaGuy via e-mail.)
Looks like perpetual GOP office-runner (and occasional Internet sock puppet) Mike Protack has decided to aim a bit lower and run for New Castle County Council. Based on his previous attempts, I was half-expecting him to run for freakin' president in 2012 ...
Thankfully, he's not running in my district. There's no way he'd get my vote.
Alexander Haig has passed away.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately labeled the incident where Joe Stack, the disgruntled nut who smacked a plane into an IRS building in Austin, TX, as "terrorism":
"Whenever an individual or group attacks civilians in order to make a political statement, that is an act of terror," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the faith, race or ethnicity of the perpetrator or the victims. We pray for the speedy recovery of those injured in the attack." . . .
Awad noted that if a Muslim had carried out the IRS attack, it would have surely been labeled an act of terrorism.
Well, that may be accurate, but surely CAIR -- like our own president -- have been at times ridiculously ponderous about calling acts of violence perpetrated by radical Muslims "terrorism." Not only that, but the MSM feels similarly.
But not in this instance.
The MSM has been twisting itself into pretzels attempting to link Stack's attack to [mostly] the Tea Party movement.
Now, contrast: What were some of the reactions, say, to the Fort Hood shooting by the MSM? Newsweek blamed it on the military. Chris Matthews asked "It's not a crime to call al Qaeda, is it?" Time's cover story asked if the incident was "terrorism." CBS's Bob Schieffer blamed the US military. An NBC analyst wasn't sure the incident was terrorism.
But back to Stack and his suicide run: Was it "terrorism?" In my book, yeah. But the issue is how the MSM amazingly goes to lengths to connect him to the Tea Partiers (and the right-wing in general) while at the same time will do the same to NOT connect more obvious instances (like radical Islam and Fort Hood). While pondering Stack's background, conveniently IGNORED were things like this:
Do all the above sound like ravings of a right-winger?? Hardly. If anything, it just proves that this Stack nutjob isn't easy to pigeonhole. But that won't stop our illustrious mainstream media who's looking out for US, eh? LOL!
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with Life 2.0.
First place in the non-Council category was M. Zhudi Jasser @ DC with Failing at force protection: The misguided Pentagon report on the Ft. Hood massacre.
Full results are here.
Those who accuse former Bush administration officials of criminality for having supported enhanced interrogation techniques are nearly silent about the ongoing and vastly increased targeted assassinations ordered by the Obama administration, and I for one am confused by this standard of attack.
If a suspected jihadist on the Afghan Pakistan border were to be asked his choice, he might very well prefer to be apprehended, transported to Guantanamo, and harshly interrogated rather than blown to bits along with any family and friends who happen to be in his vicinity.
Weird, eh? Cheeyeah, right. The answer is obvious: Obama is a liberal Democrat therefore his actions are acceptable.
Check out one of the latest from our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers): Recent electoral upset king Scott Brown of Massachusetts gave a somewhat garbled and confusing reply to Fox News's Neil Cavuto regarding the recent airplane rammer-into-IRS-building guy, and suddenly (yet expectedly) ... Brown is endorsing what this idiot did:
Uh….really? Scott Brown thinks his voters are like homicidal lunatic Joe Stack? I really am scared now.
Unstable Mental Case is ... scared of Scott Brown voters? Yet ... she freely chooses to blog with a "man" who once wrote this:
"You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously."
Then there's the moral fraud known as pandora who writes:
Did Scott Brown just justify this nuts actions? Know what else he did… he single-handedly moved the crazy guy into the Republican camp. WTF?
Seriously, WTF are they doing?
Introducing Grover Norquist, Human Events Editor Jed Babbin said, “He was getting a little testy in the past couple of weeks, and I was just really, really glad that it was not him that was identified as flying that airplane into the IRS building.”
Besides not being funny, they, yet again, link this guy to themselves.
She writes this -- and yet once was appalled when I called her a "moral fraud" over at an old thread at DE Politics because, like Unstable Mental State, I pointed out that she freely chooses to blog at the very same place as Delaware Dem -- the same guy who, once again, wrote
"You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously."
I mean, really. These self-righteous arbiters of correctness get their panties all in a bunch at the slightest hint that any act of violence may have a nebulous "connection" with the right-wing ... yet (and I'm sounding like a broken record, but it's quite necessary) they freely choose to associate with the piece of scum who once wrote the above, and who continues post some of the vilest, hateful pieces around.
So I'll say it again, loud: You are moral frauds, U.M.S. and pandora.
Via Atlanta's Fresh Loaf:
Atlanta Progressive News has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s vision. And, no, that’s not sarcasm.
In an e-mail statement, editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News.”
Part of the paper's statement says that “Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust." Apparently, there is no objective reality when it comes to these issues. Further, the statement says, "We provide news of concern to working families, and therefore, our writing is geared toward a specific audience. Fortunately, our audience – working families – comprises a majority of people in the United States who are largely ignored by corporate media sources."
How 'bout that? A majority of the people in the US don't want objective news! Who knew?
The APN is obviously of the mind that the American media is conservative which proves, right there, that they have a [big] screw loose.
Superb retort to Glenn Beck's handling of his interview with TX gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina:
Bottom line: How are Beck's past comments any different from Medina's?
Joe Biden, saying how he "refused to accept" that the US would not "lead the world economically throughout the 20th century":
Here's the AP report on the remarks:
"I absolutely refuse to accept the notion that the United States of America is not going to lead the world economically throughout the 21st Century," Biden said during remarks to supporters on the Delta campus.
But on the other hand, when it comes to someone like Sarah Palin, the digs just come, well, naturally to the AP:
Palin said she was “having fun and not thinking about the politics of this,” but didn’t miss the chance to energize her base in one of the most critical regions of the largest swing state.
“This is awesome,” she said. “It’s all-Americana event. Good, patriotic, wonderful event that’s bringing a whole lot of people together. I think this is good for our country.”
Sporting a black coat, blue jeans and heels — no hand notes — the self-described “hockey mom” got the full experience in her first visit to the Daytona 500.
What liberal media again?
But maybe Jesse Jackson will offer to pay her bail ... like he once did for her tuition after he hoped against hope that her "rape" story would be accurate.
Via Education Week: Court Backs Student on Facebook Page Criticizing Teacher.
The case involves Katherine Evans, who was a senior at Pembrook Pines Charter High School in Florida in 2007 when she created a group on Facebook called, "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met."
"To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred," Evans wrote on the page, which she created on her home computer.
Peter Bayer, the principal of Pembroke Pines High, suspended Evans for three days and removed her from her Advanced Placement classes for violating the school's rules against "cyberbullying" and "harassment" of a staff member, according to court documents.
Evans sued the principal in his individual capacity, alleging that her First Amendment free speech and 14th Amendment due process rights were violated.
In a Feb. 12 ruling in Bayer v. Evans, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry L. Garber of Miami declined Evans's request for an injunction barring the principal from keeping the student's discipline in school records. But the judge denied qualified immunity for Bayer, holding that Evans's speech was protected under the First Amendment and that the principal should have known he was violating a clearly established right by disciplining Evans.
There must be an indication that the speech at issue disrupted the work and discipline of the school, or will disrupt school in the future, for the discipline to be upheld, the judge said, and there was no indication in the record before him that Evans' Facebook group critical of a teacher disrupted school.
I would concur with this ruling. The last paragraph is key, and I think courts have been fairly consistent with rulings of this nature -- that the "disruption of the educational environment" has to be established before any sort of speech restrictions would be warranted. Keep in mind, too, sites like RateMyTeachers.com which give an open forum for any student to criticize any teacher for reasons as silly as "makes you throw out your gum." If the court found for this principal, then sites like "Rate" would have to be shut down too, right -- if any teacher complained (or principal objected)?
Sorry, but teachers aren't immune from criticism just no one else is, even that of their own students.
Elsewhere, some members of the Seattle Education Association have been suspended for violating their district's directives:
In 2007, we were told to administer the Washington Alternate Assessment System to our students in grades 3-5, and we did. It took nearly three months because the test had to be given a little at a time, to each student individually. Meanwhile, our other six children were with our assistants.
Although the test was modified, it measured our students achievement against grade level standards. Because our students are cognitively at ages six months to two years, the assessment was not at their level. It had nothing to do with the goals and objectives designed for them.
Our goal might be to teach them to hold a spoon or recognize their name in print, and the test covered fractions. In fact, one student would start crying every time we got to the part on fractions.
So last year, we described the test to the parents. They said it was ridiculous. One said, “If I had known you were doing this, I would have told you to stop.” Another said, “I’m sick of tests that tell what my child can’t do. I want to see what he can do.”
We did our own research and found that parents do have a right to refuse state assessments. Since the parents had expressed their opinions to us, we thought this was all that was needed. So we didn’t give the test.
The way the district sees it, we were given a directive and didn’t follow it. The reason why held little significance to them.
My emphasis above -- and therein lies the problem: These teachers took it upon themselves to determine what was "right" in this case (not giving the test) -- for a state assessment that their district must give. It's an easy call, really, despite how sympathetic I (or others) may be to these teachers' cause. They "thought this was all that was needed." Did they not bother to check with their school administration, let alone district highers-up? In their own words, no. Many districts have in-house lawyers, or contract out to one when needed; an opinion on the matter could have asked of him/her, could it not?
Hey, administrators, school or district level, are far from infallible. But teachers are employees who, like those in other careers, have to follow a chain of command and get approval for many things (like this) from those above them. If you decide to take it upon yourself to "make the call" on something of this import (or controversy), then you'd best be prepared to face the consequences.
Mere Rhetoric - Confirmed: College Doesn’t Make Kids Smarter, Just More Liberal
The Provocateur - Intern Dispute Turns Into First Amendment Battle
Right Truth - Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar Captured
The Colossus of Rhodey - “Iron Man was right”
Rhymes With Right - Mayor Parker Considers Making One Ride Free – And Another More Expensive
The Glittering Eye - Sometimes You Need More Than a Narrative
Soccer Dad - The administration’s goldstone omission
Joshuapundit - Life 2.0
Wolf Howling - A Dangerous Retreat From The War Of Ideas
The Razor - Of Chinese Wheelbarrows and Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program
American Digest - Notes on Love and Death
And as usual there are the non-Council nominations, too!
Avi Green over Four Color Media Monitor (the best site around for the mixture of comics and politics news) has more on the Marvel Comics/Captain America controversy regarding the Tea Partiers. Avi notes the comments of longtime Cap writer Mark Waid about the whole deal:
[Mark] is humiliated and mortified on behalf of my entire industry that Fox News is able to bully us into apologizing to lunatics. (Source.)
And there you have it. That is the mindset that led to the controversy in the first place, and Waid sure ain't doing Marvel any favors with his comments after the company apologized. Hey, Waid has every right to speak his mind (as do Brubaker and anyone at Marvel, DC or wherever), but as I've noted many times (usually in regards to singers/actors) don't be freakin' surprised when people get miffed at your [political] comments. If you work in a field -- usually entertainment -- that caters to EVERYBODY, it just makes common sense that you don't wanna piss off a segment of that audience, does it not? If you wanna "take a chance" and be "outspoken," freedom of speech does NOT then mean "freedom from consequences." And the most American of such consequences are retaliatory speech and, perhaps, boycotts.
Waid's comments, unfortunately, are nothing more than those so frequently uttered by way too many in the MSM ... specifically Fox News and the Tea Partiers are just "lunatics," in this case.
Would that we all could be graced with Waid's "superior" wisdom, eh?
"21st Century Racism Or Lack Thereof: How To Make An Issue Of Something Not There"?
Henry Louis Gates Jr. donates the handcuffs used during his arrest to the Smithsonian Institution's Black History Museum.
Like ... why? What are the cuffs supposed to represent, exactly? If anything, they personify how racism has diminished considerably, and how the "R" word is being utilized for just about anything imaginable.
First place in the Council category was American Digest with Barack Obama: Imaginary Friend of Democrats. Cause and Cure.
First place in the non-Council category was Douglas Murray @ Telegraph Blogs with Geert Wilders: On Trial For Telling The Truth.
Full results are here.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.
Professor [Phil] Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
Imagine that. Just over 30 years ago scientists were warning of the next Ice Age. Then, fifteen years later, global warming was a catastrophe of Biblical proportions. Oh, but now it seems that the Earth hasn't really warmed up that much. Maybe a little. (It seems to to jibe with the info from this post, made last October.)
I've no doubt (isn't science all about "doubt?") that stalwart worshipers of the Church of Man-Made Global Warming will not be dissuaded from their beliefs. People like our 'ol friend Perry, and several other commenters over at Common Sense Political Thought (commenters, not the contributors!)
(h/t to Insty.)
I'm sure he thought it all along; now that his mental state has deteriorated beyond all rationality, the execrable Keith Olbermann has now stated it plainly: George W. Bush is to blame for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"Perhaps no one says it because it is such a painful, awful truth to confront, 3,000 people dead because Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and others simply had other agendas than fighting terrorism."
Keithy is just miffed at GOP criticism of Barack Obama and his handling of terrorism/the War on Terror. But here's the deal: Obama is operating post-9/11. And that makes all the difference. I'm on record as saying that I don't blame Bill Clinton for not acting more swiftly and more decisively against al Qaeda, et. al. during his tenure as president -- because, even though there were numerous attempts and [smaller] attacks against us and our interests, there wasn't a major attack for him to respond to. (I have countered, against the various moonbats that, like Olbermann, seek to blame Bush for 9/11, that Clinton could have stopped bin Laden years before 2001, but chose not to. If you wanna play that game ...!)
Unfortunately, it usually always takes a large tragedy for complacency to end, and unfortunately that was 9/11.
Olbermann's ever-creeping insanity is only magnified by the fact that his audience is disappearing faster than the Arctic ice that global warming true believers continually cite!
Via Soccer Dad comes word of a couple of liberals who think that ... Iron Man was right during Marvel Comics' "Civil War" story -- a thinly veiled look at George W. Bush's "War on Terror." In it, Iron Man (Tony Stark) was pitted against Captain America (Steve Rogers) -- the former favoring government registration of superheroes, and the latter against. Personally, I was already getting turned off to Marvel at that time, but still followed much of "CW." And, frankly, it turned my stomach what Marvel did to Stark -- not only because he had been my favorite character since I was a boy, but because so much of it was completely out of character for him (the agreement of these two liberals notwithstanding).
First up is Ezra Klein:
I agree with Spencer [Ackerman] entirely: Iron Man was unequivocally right in the argument over superhero registration. I'm not even sure what the case for the other side is, and the libertarians I've asked haven't been able to come up with one. If the state has any legitimate function at all, it's to train and regulate people who could accidentally kill everyone in a hundred-mile radius.
Which makes perfect sense, even for liberals after all. Aren't libs the staunchest proponents of gun registration -- even restrictions and outright bans on them? Of course. Why, all of a sudden, in the name of "civil liberties," these folks would want to "protect" people (as Klein notes) who can "kill everyone in a hundred-mile radius" boggles the mind.
The aforementioned Spencer Ackerman adds to the scenario:
In the ‘Civil War’ storyline, Iron Man responded to a superhero-wrought tragedy by coming out for a Superhuman Registration Act, which would allow the government to register and regulate heroes and give them training. Cap and a band of likeminded heroes fought this — literally — and Cap died. But what Iron Man was really saying was no different than the uncontroversial principle that the state needs a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. When Cap launched his “the government will pick the supervillains” monologue, I was surprised that someone — like She-Hulk, who’s a lawyer — didn’t reply, “Wait, no. We have laws criminalizing certain behavior. We’ll have to follow those laws. That’s why the cops and the firefighters and the military and the intelligence communities don’t just go around legally killing members of the out-of-power party. Why would we be any different?”
Which just adds to what Klein stated above. But Ackerman's best point follows, and ties in to the current Captain America controversy regarding the Tea Partiers:
And the problem was that the guy making this dubious case wasn’t Yellowjacket or Goliath (RIP) or Daredevil (a really bad lawyer, evidently). It was Captain F***ing America. A walking American flag and war hero who still manages to find Nazis to beat up. If that’s not an editorial thumb on the scale, I don’t know what is. Cap’s right because he’s Cap. It’s downright un-American when you think about it, but there it is.
So I get you here, teabaggers. It’s dirty argumentative pool to throw Captain America at you. If Marvel’s really going to go after you, it should come out explicitly on-panel and make the case that the teabaggers are acting against the best interests of the country.
Indeed! That line -- "Cap’s right because he’s Cap" -- should be reserved for only the most concrete examples of moral clarity, and nothing more, if you insist on utilizing the character for [more overt] political purposes/messages. Remember, Cap once turned down the chance to become president ... because he could not become associated with any message other than "the dream" that is America.
In the past when the government has acted against what Cap has thought wrong, he merely gave up the role of Captain America and acted solo (as the Nomad and later as the Captain). He even went to jail. When Iron Man went after government installations and personnel during the classic "Armor Wars" storyline, Cap felt it his duty to stop him -- even though he was then operating as the Captain, not Captain America! Iron Man felt it his duty to stop his technology from falling into the wrong hands; Cap felt that no one was above the law. "Civil War" changed all that, eh?
Years ago when Marvel and DC had their marquee heroes square off against one another, Cap was matched up against Batman. (They also met again later in the Avengers/Justice League four issue miniseries earlier this decade.) In various forums across the 'net, I lost track of how many folks said Cap would win the fight -- simply because he always finds a way. That's all. And I agreed. Cap, in a way, is the ultimate hero ... because he embodies the ultimate vision for civilization. The results of that vision haven't always been right or just, but as Cap said when he considered the presidency, "But it is the Dream ... the Hope ... that makes the reality worth living." Cap isn't perfect, sure, because he's human. But he should be above the "dirty argumentative pool" that Ackerman notes above that some of the modern crop of writers utilize (like Ed Brubaker, currently).
By the way, Marvel toyed with something similar to the "Superhero Registration Act" back in the late 70s when comics man-extraordinaire Jim Shooter introduced Henry Peter Gyrich in The Avengers. In the classic Avengers #181 (cover above left) Gyrich dictates who the team members will be, and if the group doesn't cooperate, they'll be essentially powerless (pardon the pun) as no government agency will cooperate with them in their missions against bad guys! Ironically, it was Cap who took the government's side (albeit grudgingly) while Iron Man was much more vociferous against the government intrusion! (Look at the cover -- Iron Man has his fist raised in anger at Gyrich, while Cap is restraining him.) And in an interesting twist, we see a debate about racial preferences as Cap's partner the Falcon is made a team member (even though he'd never been an Avenger before) -- just because he's black. (My fave comics author Kurt Busiek neatly revisited this issue in early volume 3 Avengers issues with the character Triathlon.)
(In another neat aside, Avengers #181 was written by long-time Delaware resident David Michelinie, best known for his stints on writing Iron Man in the late 70s and again in the late 80s.)
Nevertheless, such boycotts/protests are as American as apple pie, so go to it. (This one just ain't gonna work, though.)
The severely writing-impaired Nancy Unwilling quotes someone (no link given; a typical occurrence) regarding "pulling one's self up by his/her bootstraps":
Still, perhaps we can start by being honest, by demythologizing, by pointing out that one who attempts to pull himself up by his own bootstraps is far more likely to fall over than to succeed in elevating himself to a higher SES. Government has a major role to play in providing an opportunity for advancement. Even those who claim to have done it on their own often conveniently ignore the benefits of government policy that have provided opportunity and sometimes comparative advantage, whether those policies be education (of their workers at public expense), transportation (the interstate highway system, government management of air traffic control and public funding of airports), taxation (especially the comparative advantage of capital gains, but also depreciation of equipment and the ability to expense things not available to individual taxpayers), and so on.
So let's get this straight -- especially with regards to education, which is free across the board -- it doesn't matter what the individual makes of that education? And if you want to argue that said education is "unequal," just take a gander at where "progressive" visions of learning have held the most sway. (Hint: It ain't in the Kansas breadbasket.) The other facets listed are just so much nonsense.
cassandra over at the LGOMB laments the non-closure of Guantánamo prison. She calls the camp "an abomination." Yeah, right. Compared to any state pen Gitmo is a country club -- but you won't hear that from the 'bats. In the comments "anonone" nails it: "Obomba [sic] is the Commander in Chief. He could shut Gitmo down tomorrow if he wanted to."
Just one of many "hope and change" promises down the proverbial tubes, I'm afraid!
Y'know, despite voting against the surge, and telling supporters in 2007 that “preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.” (Link.)
I mean, this takes balls:
DE's own Joe Biden uttered similar hilarities.
Hey, look fellas -- I was against the war and all too, but if I voted [how] and said [what] I did like our two top guys did, I wouldn't be as brazenly shameless as to claim credit for the success the situation now seems to have become ... y'know, in spite of my actions.
Debra Medina, GOP candidate for Texas governor, is toast. Here's why:
UPDATE: Gotta love Medina's "explanation" of her comments: "The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government."
MSDNC and its MSM buddies would be hammering this for weeks as yet another "constitutional violation" by that "democracy-hating" George W. Bush.
You know it. I know it.
Sarah Palin recently said this:
“Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risk because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this,” Palin said to thunderous applause. “They know we’re at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”
Whereupon yet another person with way too much time on his hands chimes in:
[Harvard Professor Charles J.] Ogletree, founding and executive director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, says he sees the “professor” label as a thinly veiled attack on Obama’s race. Calling Obama “the professor” walks dangerously close to labeling him “uppity,” a term with racial overtones that has surfaced in the political arena before, Ogletree said.
Yeah, right. OK. Just remember:
I've seen the first three episodes. Well, some of the second and third. The pilot I watched via a friend's lent DVD. And frankly ... whatever.
Set about a half century before the time of "Galactica" (BSG), we see the bare beginnings of the creation of the Cylons. There's lot of intrigue dealing with family, race, and religion, but ultimately to what avail? Why do I want to watch a soap opera set some 150,000 years ago (recall BSG's finale) in another solar system? Why do I care about seeing the origins of the Cylons ... when I know the ultimate outcome?
The answer is "I don't." I'd much rather see the upcoming (upcoming on SyFy, that is; already released on DVD) one-time flick "The Plan" which details just what it was the Cylons had, well, planned during BSG. Which had better be good since the writers of BSG pretty much ditched the "plan" stuff during the show's last season and a half.
Add Bill Nye "the Science Guy" to the list of "progressives" who believe that if you don't tow the ideological line, you're "unpatriotic." And for of all things: denying [man-made] global warming.
"[T]here's more energy in the atmosphere and this is stirring things up," Nye said. "If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic. It's really, they're denying science. So they're very happy to have the weather forecast be accurate within a few hours, but they're displeased or un-enchanted by predictions of the world getting warmer. It's really, it shakes me up."
Nye went on to tout the credentials of the IPCC, that they had earned a Nobel Prize for their work on climate change. (As if that means anything these days; Barack Obama also got a Nobel ... for what, again?) He neglected to make any mention of "Climategate" which has cast a lot of doubts on the IPCC's credibility.
Look, some people may not believe in global warming at all; they're in a distinct minority. The REAL issue (again) is the role man plays in the whole deal. Contrary to what Nye and others like him believe, that matter is FAR from settled, and it is that which many so-called "climate change deniers" question, not the fact that the world has been getting warmer over the last century or so.
Elsewhere in a related matter, "Vagina Monologues" author Eve Ensler sought to mock Sarah Palin as a "global warming denier," and ended up making herself look a lot dumber than she believes Palin to be:
ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn't believe in global warming is bizarre.
BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn't believe in it.
ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.
ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it. But I think that idea that she doesn't believe in global warming and she could actually run for vice president, and we have a country where that is possible, it seems insane.
BEHAR: It's unbelievable. It does seem insane and the fact that she has not negated the possibility of running in 2012.
ENSLER: But we have. We have negated the possibility of her winning.
First, Ms. Behar, it is far from accurate to claim that "every scientist at every note" believes in [man-made] global warming. But how about Ensler claiming that ... earthquakes and tsunamis are a result of global warming! And Sarah Palin is dumb?
What's next -- an asteroid pummeling the Earth is also the fault of global warming?
* Mere Rhetoric - Wonderful: Obama Blocking Apache Sales To Israel, “Dismayed” At Use During Cast Lead
* Wolf Howling - Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Change
* Rhymes With Right - Obama Supports Jim Crow Law To Oppose Free Speech Ruling
* The Colossus of Rhodey - Why I haven’t bought a Marvel comic in a couple years
* The Razor - Symbols Aren’t Leaders
* The Provocateur - A Conversation with Wade Rathke
* Right Truth - Palin’s RINO Problem
* Bookworm Room - San Francisco mulls expanding gay rights program at expense of academic programs
* The Glittering Eye - Whose Deficits?
* American Digest - Barack Obama: Imaginary Friend of Democrats. Cause and Cure.
* Soccer Dad - The inconvenient blizzards
And also check out the non-Council submissions!
One of the things that I think is nice about the Heroic Age is that we have this idea of hero and villain. Because over the years we've taken a lot of the cooler villains and, because people like them so much, they sort of make them into good guys.
No way! An "idea" of a hero ... and a villain! In superHERO comicbooks!! Who'da thunk it??
They are called "superheroes," Ed. Unless (and it wouldn't suprise me in the least) you and your pals are thinking of changing the term to "super-characters" ... y'know, to fit in better with your moral relativism.
Check out this memo from Nancy Pelosi in 2003 -- bitching about the Bush administration ... and the 6.2% unemployment rate.
Sounds nice these days, eh?
(h/t to Campaign Spot.)
Says Ted: "I think most of them (Palin supporters) don't follow what's really happening, but they're upset, they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, and Sarah Palin's one that appeals to them." (h/t to Discriminations.)
Yeah, Ted -- and all of you dolts in DC really know what's up in the real world, right?
Thank God you'll be history later this year ...
... did you catch the "controversial" Tim Tebow ad? After I saw it, all I could say was "WTF was the big issue with THAT??"
Nevertheless, the Women's Media Center, also known as TWL (Those Without Lives), thinks there was ... "something more to the ad":
The Women's Media Center, which had objected to Focus on the Family advertising in the Super Bowl, said it was expecting a "benign" ad but not the humor. But the group's president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.
"I think they're attempting to use humor as another tactic of hiding their message and fooling the American people," she said.
My guess? Miz Greene has a unibrow, never wears any make-up whatsoever, could be mistaken for a male at a casual glance, and believes that a guy even merely kissing a woman is actually "rape."
If you wanna see a Super Bowl ad that showed violence against women, check out what happens to poor Betty White in this commercial!
My fave scifi author Larry Niven and friends were pretty darn prescient. First, the ad:
Niven and co.'s look into the "future?" The novel Fallen Angels. In it, Green Parties have come to power in various governments and have a police force eerily similar to that in the Audi commercial! The world is enveloped in an "anti-science/anti-technology" ambience (just take a gander at the "Climategate" scandal and how that put PC and politics over actual science) (not to mention a new Ice Age) and several scientists and science fiction fans have to successfully rescue a couple of satellite dwellers who've crashed to Earth -- before the Greens get a hold of them!
The story, while at times wildly implausible and darkly humorous, does seem prescient about what would happen if radical Greens ever got power. While searching the net for info on the book, it seems the entire novel is available online!
... for being elected Costa Rica's first female president!
I've decided to nix my experimental comics blog, The Comics of Rhodey, for the time being -- "time" being the operative word. There just ain't enough of it!
I'll be back blogging about comics and related matters right here, as I have in recent days.
Hmmm ... take a look:
"The costume is a flag, but the way we're getting around that is we have Steve Rogers forced into the USO circuit. After he's made into this super-soldier, they decide they can't send him into combat and risk him getting killed. He's the only one and they can't make more. So they say, 'You're going to be in this USO show' and they give him a flag suit. He can't wait to get out of it."
"So he's up on stage doing songs and dances with chorus girls and he can't wait to get out and really fight. When he does go AWOL, he covers up the suit but then, after a few things happen, he realizes that this uniform allows him to lead. By then, he's become a star in the public mind and a symbol. The guys get behind him because he embodies something special."
I think it'll work. Remember, comics fans -- the story has to appeal to the general public, especially those not familiar with Cap other than his name. He couldn't just put on a flag suit after his physical transformation and say "I'm a hero and I'm going to represent America."
I also like how the article plans on making use of the "traditional" Cap suit designed by Jack Kirby, and the more recent uniform:
In the first USO sequences, the frustrated patriot will be wearing a version that is closer to the classic Jack Kirby-designed costume, but then later as the super-soldier hits the war zone he will be wearing a sturdier, more muted version that he makes himself that is more like battle togs. The stripes across his mid-section, for instance, will be straps, not colored fabric.
Sounds promising! But what will be really interesting is how Marvel/Hollywood deal with a character that is supposed to embody the promise of the United States' values. Will Cap be that "traditional American values" type of hero (truth, justice, freedom, hope, etc.), or the modern Left's version utilized by guys like Ed Brubaker and Mark Millar?
In related news, the heirs of comics creator genius Jack Kirby are busy trying to get a portion of the entertainment biz's fortunes -- because they've been made [partially] on the back of their dad's creative wizardry:
Four children of Kirby, who co-created a number of Marvel's best-known superheroes in the 1960s including the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Thor and the Hulk, have served 45 "notices of termination" to Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Universal Pictures. The notices seek to regain copyright control of certain characters.
The children of Kirby, who died in 1994, are being represented by Los Angeles law firm Toberoff & Associates, which has represented the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel in a similar claim against Warner Bros.
Kirby served as artist and co-plotter with writer Stan Lee on most of the characters in question. Whereas Lee has been a public face of the company for decades, Kirby is less known.
While I'm usually fairly skeptical of those trying to get an "easy buck" via lawyers, the Kirby case is an exception. I've read enough about "The King" to know that his contribution to Marvel's universe -- and subsequent massive popularity -- is vastly understated. In the 60s, Kirby would virtually map out story plots himself -- via copious notes in the margins of his penciled pages -- leaving [Stan] Lee to just type up some dialogue. But it was Lee who always got top billing in the comics' credits, and Lee was also the "big" public face of the company.
Just keep in mind when you read those back-issues (or the great Marvel Essentials, which collect them) that it was Kirby who was primarily responsible for the outstanding stories you savor.
I suggest that they also remember, while they’re at it, who put us in this mess to begin with.
A circulated internal memo states that the Republican Party’s main goal is to bring the president down. They’ve chosen to do that by insuring that President Obama’s programs to save this nation fail. Unfortunately, that approach brings us all down as well. It appears that they are Republicans first, Americans last.
WTF is this "internal memo?" Is it that "health care is Obama's Waterloo" stuff? Oh, puh-lease.
Look, Bob -- every party in opposition to the president will do what it can to get political advantage. Period. But the GOP has been in opposition to Clinton-style national health care since, well, Bill Clinton! Obama's plan is much more sweeping in scope and at least as expensive, so why wouldn't the Republicans be against it, hmm?
Did the Democrats "do all they could" to bring down George W. Bush? They were for the Iraq War when all seemed to be going well; they became vehemently against it when things turned sour. Their "Bush lied about WMDs" directly contradicts many of their own party members' comments and testimony before GW Bush took office -- and during his tenure. Were the "Democrats first, Americans last," Bob?
Bush is indeed responsible for his share of what the nation currently faces -- economically and even moreso in terms of foreign policy. But it sure doesn't absolve Obama of his responsibility (or that of the Democrats) -- especially when their policies arguably are making things much worse!
Voters upset about this are right not to forget who's in office when election time rolls around.
I am cheering for the Saints; however, I think the Colts are too much for the Cajun boys.
Colts 35, Saints 23.
First place in the Council category was Mere Rhetoric with Yahoo Wipes “Ariel, Israel” Off The Map, Replaces It With “Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories”
First place in the non-Council category was Atlas Shrugs with From Himmler with Love: “His Eminence, the Grand Mufti, In Remembrance”
Full results are here.
Why Are Liberals So Condescending? by Gerard Alexander at the Washington Post. A lot of what I've written in the last few months echoes Alexander's article.
Remember the maxim: If a Republican makes a grammatical goof, it's MSM fodder forever, and proof that he/she is stupid. If a Democrat makes one, well, there must be some excuse (like being tired, overworked, etc.). This holds especially true if you're Barack Obama. Because everyone knows that he is so intelligent, there must be some reason why he mispronounced "corpsman" not once, but twice. (Video at link.)
OK, sure, Obama was never in the military. Well hell, neither was I, but even I knew how to pronounce "corpsman" if only by watching freakin' M*A*S*H! And you know what? You'd never have known Obama even made this goof 15 or 20 years ago. Because then, all we had was the mainstream media.
AP report (via the Wilmington News Journal) on Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's ouster from office.
What's missing? You guessed it.
The AP (via the News Journal):
The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said today.
The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.
Uh huh, yeah, OK.
Then there's "Round Up All Republicans And Shoot Them" Delaware Dem over at the LGOMB, quoting the AP:
The number of employed Americans has risen by 541,000 since the last Jobs report, while an additional 20,000 jobs have been lost.
All told, the Labor Department says the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs. That’s the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls. Thanks Republicans for your wonderful stewardship of our economy.
Of course, one who wishes to kill others for mere political disagreements has the mental state to simply ignore what has transpired over the last year, where the GOP has had little-to-no political power. Del Dem's ability to think is as heinous as his appearance.
Then, we actually get an inkling of the truth:
While a sharp increase in the number of people giving up looking for work helped to depress the jobless rate, some details of the employment report were encouraging. The number of "discouraged job seekers" rose to 1.1 million in January from 734,000 a year ago.
Aside from the fact that somehow an increase of about a quarter million of "discouraged job seekers" is "encouraging" (whaaa?) we see that the lowering of the unemployment rate is due ... to people giving up looking for work!
Now THAT is "encouraging!" LOL!
Check out the NBC cafeteria's "celebration" of Black History Month here.
Steve Krakauer at Mediaite reports that Questlove, the leader of the band for the late-night Jimmy Fallon show, complained to his more than 1 million followers on Twitter that NBC's cafeteria at 30 Rock in New York offered fried chicken "in honor of Black History Month."
NBC Universal replied on Twitter: "The sign in the NBCU cafeteria has been removed. We apologize for anyone who was offended by it." There's no word on whether the chicken special was removed along with the sign. (Source.)
Anyone remember what happened here in the First State one year ago?
Yep, that's an Acme circular for Black History Month which includes items such as cornbread, collard greens, flavored soda, and hot sauce. The local NAACP supposedly got over 100 complaints about the flier; the question is now, will the group protest NBC -- this, the same company that ditched shock jock Don Imus for using a racially-charged term in one of his broadcasts?
This all reminds me of the classic M*A*S*H episode "Dear Dad ... Three" where Hawkeye describes how he and pal Trapper dealt with a bigoted [wounded] soldier who wants the "right kind of blood" during his operation. While the soldier is recovering (still unconscious), Hawk and Trapper use some iodine mixture to darken the soldier's skin! When he wakes up, he summons Trapper, who's carrying a tray.
Soldier: "Hey, doc ..."
Trapper: "Hey boy ..."
Soldier: "Doc, what's going on -- did you guys give me the right color blood??"
Trapper: "Take it easy! Have some food first."
Soldier: "W-what is it?"
Trapper: "Just what you ordered -- fried chicken and watermelon!"
What to do when a minority ... makes offensive statements about another ... minority?
This is the problem that faces Vanderbilt University where a Muslim chaplain was quoted as "saying he would have to 'go with what Islam teaches' regarding the imposition of capital punishment on practicing homosexuals." Some Islamic countries put those "caught" practicing homosexuality to death, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a statement, Vandy said that Awadh A. Binhazim's comments were part of "Project Dialogue," "a series meant to bring 'diverse viewpoints' to campus."
Uh huh. Anyone who has followed as I have the folly of political correctness that infects American campuses to the Nth degree has to chuckle at that statement. Y'know, American campuses -- where conservatives routinely get shouted down and even attacked for saying something contrary to the prevailing campuse orthodoxy. Of course, most of these conservatives are white, so there's not really an "inner struggle" among diversophiles/multi-cultis about what to do, unlike Binhazim's case.
Vandy went on to "reaffirm" it commitment "both to free speech and to non-discrimination." Let's wait and see if that's really the case when someone like, say Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter or David Horowitz is invited to speak there. If they're even invited, that is.
Mere Rhetoric - Yahoo Wipes “Ariel, Israel” Off The Map, Replaces It With “Jenin, Palestinian Occupied Territories”
Rhymes With Right - But If She Wanted An Abortion, It Would Have Been No Big Deal
Soccer Dad - The goldstone rumor mill
Bookworm Room - Leftist tactics to scare the uninformed about America’s religious freedoms *UPDATED*
Wolf Howling - The Three Stooges Meet Al Qaeda In Undiegate
The Colossus of Rhodey - The Colonel’s Tiger
Right Truth - GOP: You blew it!
The Glittering Eye - The Really Hard Choices We’re Avoiding
Joshuapundit - The Valley Of Decision : Iran Crosses The Nuclear Threshold
American Digest - Last Light
The Provocateur - Dr. Chacko to Afghanistan?
And be sure to scope out the non-Council submissions as well!
The esteemed Reuters pulls a story on Obama administration "backdoor" middle-class tax increases ... after the White House complains to them about it.
... you disagree with a "progressive" leader. Here's Newsweek's Jonathan Alter on the GOP's criticism of Obama's handling of the War on Terror (or, I should say, "Overseas Contingency Operations"):
"I wish they (Republicans) would look into their souls a little bit, is that if they convey over and over again that the president of the United States is weak, what does that do? It emboldens the terrorists."
Really? Like the following?
"You don't have the money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.....President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress." -- Rep. Pete Stark, CA Democrat.
"It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe." -- Harry Reid, [Democratic] Senate Majority Leader.
"They (the Bush administration) are wrong, and they are leading American in a radical and dangerous direction (in Iraq). We need to get back on the right path.'' -- Howard Dean, Democrat Party Leader.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." -- Harry Reid, [Democratic] Senate Majority Leader.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings." -- Dick Durbin, Illinois [Democrat] Senator, on supposed US treatment of prisoners at Gitmo prison.
And so on.
Maybe these "progressives" ought to read what Slate's William Saletan wrote about patriotism and criticism of President Bush back in 2004:
When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window ...
If you dare to say these things, you're accused—as [Senator John] Kerry now stands accused by [Dick] Cheney and [Zell] Miller—of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat."
Then there was this about the then-approaching 2004 election:
So now you have two reasons to show up at the polls in November. One is to stop Bush from screwing up economic and foreign policy more than he already has. The other is to remind him and his propagandists that even after 9/11, you still have that right.
Just as the GOP -- and the public -- still have the right to stop Barack Obama from further screwing up economic and foreign policy more than Bush -- and he himself -- already has.
I caught an interesting post over at Media Blog last week where apparently our local Philly Inquirer engaged in a bit of anti-Obama censorship. Since I check out the Inquirer quite often, I fired off an e-mail to the alleged censor, Dick Polman. I simply asked him if the account in Media Blog was accurate. His reply was simply "no."
Wanting more information, I did a Google search for the e-mail of he who was allegedly censored, Professor Chris Harper of Temple University. Prof. Harper promptly responded to my e-mail, and directed me to his own blog account of the incident. After making a comment unfavorable to the president on the Inquirer's State of the Union blog, he was unable to post additional comments:
After that, I could not post on the site. I was cut off from making any other comments on the blog. I really couldn’t believe it. The father of a Temple undergraduate saw the exchange and wrote to Polman and me. Here was Polman’s response:
If he [Chris Harper] wants to say on Facebook that this was some kind of conspiracy, and if you want to believe that, well, it’s a free country. I was just trying to field as many folks as possible, nothing more.
OK, perhaps. But Harper isn't exactly just an "average joe" throwing out an opinion. As he noted in an e-mail to me:
I spent more than 20 years in the news business at the Associated Press, Newsweek and ABC News in Chicago, New York, Rome, Cairo and Beirut. Also, my research in academe over the past 15 years has been most about the Internet and the Web. Five edited and written books, including a recent paper on how the Web has taken over the role of media criticism. I gave the paper at MIT in April. Seems appropriate about this scuffle. ;0). I am co-director at www.philadelphianeighborhoods.com, which is the capstone course for all journalism majors at Temple.
And gee, Temple is located in Philadelphia -- home of the Inquirer.
As I said in the post's title, you be the judge.
You know we're dealing with a "progressive" administration when we see stuff like this in a job posting for a lawyer at the Dept. of Justice:
The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division is seeking up to 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in the Voting Section in Washington, D.C. The Civil Rights Division is primarily responsible for enforcing federal statutes and executive orders that prohibit, among other things, unlawful discrimination in voting, education, employment, housing, police services, public accommodations and facilities, and federally funded and conducted programs. The Voting Section enforces federal statutes designed to safeguard the right to vote. These statutes include the Voting Rights Act, as amended; the National Voter Registration Act; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; and the Help America Vote Act.
Trial attorneys are responsible for conducting investigations, litigation, and other activities addressing all aspects of the Voting Section's enforcement duties. These positions may require extended hours and some positions may involve significant travel.
The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation, mental illness, severe distortion of limbs and/or spine.
The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer, and encourages qualified applicants from all backgrounds to apply. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination for or against an applicant because of color, race, religion, national origin, politics, marital status, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as a parent, membership or non-membership in an employee organization, or on the basis of personal favoritism. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities.
OK, now while I certainly understand that "mental illness" is a broadly defined attribute (depression, for instance, is classified as a mental illness, and surely a person can be a damn good attorney whilst taking Prozac or some other anti-depressant), WTF is the deal with "encouraging 'qualified' applicants" who are ... mentally retarded?? (I believe there are degrees are retardation; however, the very term itself denotes an intellectual disability! How does one get through law school with such?) Even if there actually are practicing, qualified attorneys out there who are mentally retarded, why encourage them to apply?
Pardon the "insensitive" slap, but it's kind of ironic that this advertised position deals with voting rights, because based on how the DOJ has handled instances like the New Black Panther intimidation case in Philly, it seems the dept. already has a few of these desired applicants on the payroll.
It seems that even the most [what appears to be] level-headed of comics writers these days just can't resist the pressure to delve into the "progressive" political cesspool. This time it's Captain America scribe Ed Brubaker. Hunting Muses lays it out (h/t to Paul Smith Jr.):
Enter Captain America. You know, the WW2 hero who died recently and just came back to life to fight a 20 ft tall Red Skull in front of the Lincoln memorial. I had heard a lot of good things from Ed Brubaker. I picked up some trades shortly before Cap’s death, read them, and then finished out Bru’s run because they were great. Right up there with Geoff John’s Green Lantern series as what I want from a comic. Then Brubaker had to go and not only insult me, but violate the core of what Captain America is all about in issue 602 “Two Americas part 1″. Here are 3 consecutive pages from the comic to help you get a full context:
Savor the lines a moment: “A grassroots anti-government army”
“…looks like some kind of anti-tax thing”
“I don’t exactly see a black man from harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks…”
Of course they’re all being led by an insane man according to the comic, and Captain America is there to stop them.
First of all, the very idea that the tea-party movement is “whites only” is not true (but then, how many black people are in Boise Idaho in the first place?). Second of all, let the full idea sink in: Captain America is going to fight an “anti-tax, anti-government” movement.
What’s next? Captain French is going to fight wine makers? Is Captain Britain going to beat up some… British stereotype? Hey, I remember an anti-tax, anti-government from around the late 1700s. They had some real rebels in there with names like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, etc etc. How about after this Cap beats up on today’s tea-party movement, he go back in time and beat up those protesters?
What’s even worse is seeing the reaction around the internet. Some people are cheering at the thought of Cap beating up “tea-baggers”.
I've written enough about this sort of nonsense over the years; it got to the point (along with the ridiculously pricey issues) where I asked myself "Why do I continue to support these guys?" I don't mind if occasionally a writer goes off on a storyline like this, better still if the writer at least tries to balance out their inherent liberalism put to paper. A lot of comics writers were lefties in the 70s and 80s; however, their biases were not nearly as overt as that of the current crop of authors. Steve Englehart's awesome "Secret Empire" series in Cap in the mid-70s was a not-so subtle analogy of Watergate. Yet even Steve didn't hit us over the head with a brick ... even though he could have (Richard Nixon was pretty much thoroughly disgraced on the left and the right). In the 80s Mark Gruenwald's superb "The Captain" storyline, which had Steve Rogers replaced as Captain America was decidedly leftist, yet again not brick-over-the-head so. John Walker, the new Cap, was a manic reactionary, but he certainly wasn't a racist (his partner, Battlestar, was black), and if anything he had an excuse for his mental state: Gruenwald made a right-wing extremist group murder his parents (ironically, the same one Brubaker is currently using as his "Tea Partiers").
All Brubaker is doing is echoing the same tired, old media elitists that continually denigrate and belittle folks like the tea partiers and those who elected Scott Brown in Massachusetts. "Racists." "Bigots." "Stupid." "Crazy." "Childish." Etc.
And y'know what, Ed? Keep it up and you and your company are gonna go the same route that Air America and MSNBC are following. Straight. Down. The. Toilet. And I'll keep spending my money elsewhere -- outlets that don't insult my intelligence or my beliefs, thank you very much.
UPDATE: Just read more about this "Two Americas" stuff and it's made me even more nauseous:
Where has the Captain America from the '50s been the past few months, and what part of our modern world has welcomed him? And what will Steve and Bucky do when an old enemy tries to become a revolutionary? TWO AMERICAS begins here!
If Brubaker means to have the Tea Partiers "welcome" the Cap of the 1950s, then, frankly, he is even more of a radical "progressive" loon than I had thought. In the 1970s, aforementioned Marvel scribe Steve Englehart decided to "explain" the story behind the Captain America that was seen in the 1950s. (You may be aware that in "standard" Marvel continuity, Cap was thrown into suspended animation at WW II's end and thawed in the mid 1960s.) Essentially, a guy had stumbled upon, while doing research, the formula by which Steve Rogers became Capt. America. He approached some government highers-up and proposed that the "super soldier" program be started anew. However, the formula that had been unearthed isn't the perfected version that was used on Rogers. Tests showed that it caused the subject to slowly go insane. Nevertheless, our researcher befriended a new "Bucky" (the name of Cap's original partner) and both decided to use the [unperfected] formula on themselves. They then briefly go about "resuming" the roles of Capt. America and Bucky for a time.
In issues #153-156, we see that the new crime fighters personify anything but America's ideals, not to mention those of the original Cap. They're basically Joe McCarthy on steroids, with a mix of J. Edgar Hoover thrown in for good measure (remember -- they're slowly going "insane"). The real Cap's then-partner, the Falcon (who's black), not to mention the black population in general, are called various racial epithets by the crazed duo, but eventually the real Cap and Falcon defeat the reactionaries. They're put into suspended animation, and eventually [re]surface later -- the fake Cap as the Grand Director, the leader of a Neo-Nazi movement.
Associating a few characters that possess some of the worst attributes imaginable with the contemporary Tea Party movement is just plain disgusting, period. Brubaker isn't even original as he's basically rehashing an old storyline done by former Cap scribe Mark Gruenwald (may he RIP) in the 1980s, even using the name of the group "Watchdogs" to "represent" the Tea Partiers, that "right-wing extremist group" noted previously above.
Gag me with a spatula. I'll just reiterate what I said in my last paragraph before the update.
UPDATE 2: Fox News.com is reporting that any future references to "tea baggers" in the book's title will be removed:
A "tea bag" reference in a recent Captain America comic book that has angered the Tea Party movement will be removed by Marvel Comics in future editions, the story's writer told FoxNews.com.
Ed Brubaker, who wrote the story, told FoxNews.com he did not write the "Tea Bag The Libs Before They Tea Bag YOU!" sign shown in the edition, insisting that the words were added by someone in "lettering or production" just before being shipped to the printer. It will be changed in subsequent editions, he said.
"I don't know who did it, probably someone who thought it was funny," Brubaker wrote in an e-mail. "I didn't think so, personally. That's the sign being changed to something more generic for the trade reprint, because I and my editor were both shocked to see it."
Personally, I doubt that, else why didn't Brubaker and Marvel apologize to -- or at least inform -- the Tea Party of the "mistake" (and let them know that no further references would be made) ... when they first noticed the "letterer's addition"?
(Cross-posted at Newsbusters.)