At the Playland Amusement Park in Rye, NY, they have rules about headgear being worn on certain rides. Why? Simple: people could get injured.
Enter: Muslim women wearing the hijab. "A scarf could potentially choke a person, a park spokesman told the newspaper." No matter. These women want to get on these RIDES, dammit! Thus, when they make a scene about it and the cops have to be called in, we get the inevitable "This all happened because we're Muslim." So, I'm sure Playland awaits a lawsuit. Of course, if something had happened to one of the [Muslim] women wearing the hijab while on the ride, you can bet your ass they'd be sued then, too.
A solution? Maybe have people who demand to wear headgear on a ride sign a waiver absolving the park of any responsibility.
Actual poll up at idiot Ed Schultz's MSNBC.com page: "Do Republicans Care About the Victims of Natural Disasters?" Choices: Yes, No.
Here are some upcoming polls at Ed's site:
Felicia Sonmez, in a report about loathsome Indiana Rep. Andre Carson's (D) remarks about the Tea Party "view[ing] African Americans as 'second-class citizens'" and wanting "to see them 'hanging on a tree'” repeats the never-proven canard that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were the victims of racial epithets during the 2010 healthcare debate at the Capitol.
In March 2010, tea party members protesting the health care reform legislation uttered racial epithets at Carson and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) outside the Capitol.
Both lawmakers told reporters that the protesters used the N-word toward them.
Well of course they did! It's part of the strategy and The NARRATIVETM! Nevertheless, since Sonmez writes that the lawmakers reported that the protesters "used the N-word," why does she state as a fact beforehand that the protesters definitively did spew the epithets? Andrew Breitbart still has never had to pay the $10,000 he offered for proof that this actually happened.
Reason-Rupe poll: Only 27% of Americans believe Congress would use money from tax increases to pay down national debt.
The 73% of Americans who don't believe it have damn good cause, too: Congress never does it!
It's not the federal government anymore, folks. It's ... your Federal Family:
How freakin' pathetic is this? Gives a whole new meaning to "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," huh? (And by the way -- you spelled "preparations" wrong, Mr. Federal Family.)
To quote Mike Protack (in reference to, ridiculously in that case, Bill Lee hanging out in bars to meet women), it's just "creepy."
Initially invited to speak at a Tea Party rally headlined by Sarah Palin, Delaware's own (yes, we have to claim her) Christine O'Donnell was later dropped from the appearance line-up.
Tea Party of America had announced late Monday that O’Donnell would speak shortly before Palin at its “Restoring America” event in Indianola, The Des Moines Register reported.
But by Tuesday morning, the group had uninvited O’Donnell, but for differing reasons.
Ken Crow, founder of Tea Party of America, said he overbooked the lineup of speakers and that he believed O’Donnell would drop by the event to sign copies of her new book.
“It is all my fault. I’m taking the sword. Ms. O’Donnell did nothing wrong. I did,” Crow told The News Journal in a telephone interview Tuesday. “It was my fault.”
However, Tea Party of America’s co-founder, Charlie Gruschow, told the Wall Street Journal that the group decided to drop O’Donnell from the lineup after receiving numerous “emails from a lot of tea party folks that were very disappointed that she would be speaking.”
“We decided not to have her speak,” Gruschow told WSJ’s Washington Wire. “We felt it was in the best interest of the movement.”
Looks like people are finally getting tired of the "oh, poor little me" and "I didn't do anything wrong/it's not my fault" m.o. of Ms. O'Donnell. Not only are her book signings drawing paltry "crowds," the Tea Party itself is recognizing that she is a liability.
UPDATE 2: COD is out again! And, oh gee, wonder if now COD will go on the attack against Sarah Palin for this:
The Palin source said O'Donnell's representatives misled the tea party group about the extent of the governor's relationship with O'Donnell.
O'Donnell's representatives told event organizers that she would be in Iowa on the date of the rally and would like to come by and "say hi" to Palin, the source said. O'Donnell was then added to the speaking agenda.
The source told CNN that O'Donnell aides lied to organizers and said Palin had been communicating via text message with O'Donnell about the rally.
"The governor hasn't spoken to her in a year," the Palin source said of O'Donnell.
Christine O'Donnell -- LIE??? Noooooo .....!!
Elmhurst College is the first college in the country to query incoming students about their sexual orientation:
“Would you consider yourself to be a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community?”
With that one line, though, they became the first college in the country to ask potential students directly about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Increasing diversity is part of our mission statement,” said Gary Rold, Elmhurst’s dean of admissions. “This is simply closing the loop, in many ways, of another group who has a very strong identity. It may not be race and religion but it’s an important part of who they are.”
Being a private institution, Elmhurst certainly can do as it wants. However, once again, we see an educrat spewing the utter nonsense that diversity is of some paramount importance. As we've noted numerous times at Colossus, studies show otherwise. Not only that, why is a person's race "an important part of who" someone is? Answer: Because "progressive" educrats think it is, that's why. And that's all.
Consider this statement from towards the end of the article:
“It’s important that these youth have a way to express their sexual identity, like their racial identity,” he (Rold) said. “Colleges ask those questions so they can give them the resources to get them to be successful.”
I wonder: If a group of white students got together to express their "racial identity," what do you think the reaction of university officials would be? Do you think them throwing Rold's words back at him -- that "it’s important that [us] youth have a way to express [our] racial identity" would work? Or would Rold then regurgitate some socio-edu mumbo jumbo about "white privilege," etc.?
Blogging will be light as I've been without power now for 36 hours, and my basement is flooded with about three inches of water. The good news is none of my major appliances -- washer, dryer, hot water heater, furnace -- appear to be affected.
I'm at my girlfriend's place now, so hopefully power will come back some time today as my first day of classes is tomorrow!!
Staying with our local illustrious News Journal, they also have up an editorial blasting ESPN for its decision to show Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick in "whiteface" based on a column by Touré.
And although he (Touré) posed the question: "What if Michael Vick were white?" he specifically asked ESPN magazine not to use that as a headline. Why? Because for Touré, changing Mr. Vick's race would be to fundamentally change the athlete so much as to render him unknowable, as one critic wrote.
Yet ESPN posted a Photoshopped image of a "white" Michael Vick to rack up page hits on its website.
Stop the presses! Such an affront is worthy of a state's largest daily op-ed!!
I wonder -- did the News Journal deem it worthy to note that Touré is a 9/11 Truther? Nope. Of course not. That doesn't fit THE NARRATIVETM.
RELATED: Touré is now an "expert" on how Hurricane Irene is a result of global warming.
Presidential vacations are a kind of on-the-job benefit that is rarely scrutinized in the best of economic times.
But these are troubling times of high unemployment, a seesawing stock market and faraway wars and skirmishes that strain the United States' defense resources.
As a result, where, how and when Barack Obama and the first family take time off has generated waves of criticism that borders on the irrational.
Comparisons of when and where Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush spent their days off have sent Internet alarmists into overdrive. At times it seems every minute the Obamas have spent away from the White House is fodder for some sort of conspiracy theory.
U.S. presidents are never off the job.
I don't think they did, if my prodigious Googling was accurate. Such an editorial is expected now, though -- since a liberal Democrat is in the White House.
But consider how many other MSM outlets felt about GW Bush's vacations, usually at his Texas ranch. Here's a sampling:
What liberal media?
Great. Here we go with another Anthony Weiner-style scandal, this time featuring Puerto Rican Senator Roberto Arango:
Senator Roberto Arango of Puerto Rico has been accused of posting naked pictures of himself on mobile gay hookup site Grindr.
The Puerto Rican TV show Dando Candela presented the conservative lawmaker with a photograph of a man, naked except for a pendant necklace, whose face was obscured by an iPhone as he snapped a photo of his reflection in a mirror.
Arango didn't exactly deny he was the subject in the photograph: “You know I've been losing weight. As I shed that weight, I've been taking pictures. I don't remember taking this particular picture but I'm not gonna say I didn't take it. I'd tell you if I remembered taking the picture but I don't.”
“It would be my pleasure to tell you I'm the person in this photograph, but honestly I don't remember,” he said with a big smile.
Indeed. What better way to document your weight loss than by uploading your pics to a gay website -- especially a pic like this! (Warning: despite pixelation, sort of graphic.)
Arango was vice-chair of the 2004 George W. Bush reelection campaign. He also voted to ban gay "marriage" in Puerto Rico back in 2009.
Worried about Irene? Follow this:
Via The Blaze:
Uh, Al? Your analogy is [obviously] flawed in several respects. One, believing it was OK to discriminate against blacks in the old South was largely a majority view back when ... just as belief in global warming/climate change is today. The minority who said "Hey! This is stupid" back in the old South is akin to those who today say, "Hey! Placing severe limits on what we can/cannot do/buy because it may affect the climate."
Second, there was no rational basis to treat people differently just because their skin color is different. There is, however, a rational basis to be skeptical about what people (like Gore) scream about regarding climate change. (By the way, notice how the term has been subtlely changed to "climate change" from "global warming." Why is that?) We've all read and heard about the East Anglia e-mail scandal where devotees like Gore actively suppressed/altered various bits of evidence and contrary views. Why does something that is supposedly "concretely rational" need such actions in its defense? Why is something that is supposedly "concretely rational" make contradictory statements as to its actual effects? Why does something that is supposedly "concretely rational" need to advocate for immediate regulations and lifestyle changes ... when their own science says that the current quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere means climate change is irrevocable for at least a millenium?
And, again, why are devotees to "real science" apparently so fearful of Darwin's greatest contribution to science -- evolution and adaptability? Not only has the climate changed (at times severely) many times in the planet's history, but for as long as man has been present on the globe it has always successfully adapted to environmental changes.
Grow up, Al.
Front page of the LA Times business section, August 25th: Carmakers' rebound is driving jobs in U.S. -- The industry that once needed bailing out could be the one to stave off recession.
Page A-8 of the same paper that day: Another year of economic shortfalls predicted -- The Congressional Budget Office says the federal deficit is projected to hit $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011, the third year of shortfalls at levels not seen since World War II.
And that would be, unbelievably, former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin.
UPDATE: CBS does the same thing!
ESPN clamps down on Paul Azinger's tweets about Obama's golfing:
ESPN is coming down on Paul Azinger for mocking President Barack Obama on Twitter. The golf analyst tweeted Thursday the Commander-in-chief plays more golf than he does -- and that Azinger has created more jobs this month than Obama has.
On Friday ESPN 'reminded" Azinger his venture into political punditry violates the company's updated social network policy for on-air talent and reporters.
"Paul's tweet was not consistent with our social media policy, and he has been reminded that political commentary is best left to those in that field," spokesman Andy Hall told Game On! in a statement.
Well, gosh. And what about their show "The Sports Reporters?" And Mike Lupica, a frequent guest to name one, occassionally opines on matters political not via social media but in big media? Mike Wilbon, also a co-host of "Pardon the Interruption," is another. Does ESPN have a "big media policy" ... and are these pundits "reminded that political commentary is best left to those in that field"?
UPDATE: It appears ESPN has a double standard on the social media policy itself:
UPDATE 2: Much, much more on ESPN's hypocrisy. Looks like other employees -- who have opined against conservatives -- don't get reprimanded.
And the non-Council winners are here!
COD was just on Bill O'Reilly's show and claimed that she was leading Democrat Chris Coons ... until the GOP establishment turned on her.
I just spent Lord knows how long on Google using several search permutations and found ZERO evidence to support this assertion aside from a Free Republic comment (whose link did not work) stating that he/she heard Rush Limbaugh say he saw a poll showing O'Donnell leading by 4%. Everything else reports Coons leading COD, usually by double digits.
Chalk about another one, folks.
UPDATE: As Paul Smith noted in the comments, this must be the poll to which COD was referring. Two things: 1) It was taken before the GOP primary was decided, and 2) she had a lead of two points -- within the margin of error and nine points less than Mike Castle's then-lead over Chris Coons at that time.
... that the New York Times is liberally biased, outgoing executive editor Bill Keller recently compared belief in God to ... belief in space aliens:
If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?
Yet when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively...
Hmm, considering that over 90% of Americans believe in God (or a god), isn't it just a bit insulting to compare that to extraterrestrials? (Not to mention, isn't there a distinct difference between believing that aliens "walk among us" and believing that they merely exist?)
Keller even mailed the following questions to some GOP candidates (because, after all, their beliefs are inherently dangerous, dont'cha know?):
– Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or a “Judeo-Christian nation?” and what does that mean in practice?
My answer: Yes. However, I would clarify the point by saying it is a predominately Christian nation. Anyone who disputes this most salient fact is simply delusional. And many of the country's political and cultural belief systems have their basis in Judeo-Christian principles.
– Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? What about an atheist?
My answer: Not at all. As long as they shared my political and legal philosophies/beliefs, I'd have no qualms about appointing them.
– What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution, and do you believe it should be taught in public schools?
My answer: Certainly, it is a legitimate scientific theory and yes, it should be taught in our public schools.
Of course, as Clay Waters points out, Keller and his paper didn't really have too much of a hassle with candidate Barack Obama's religion or choice of pastor:
The Times didn’t do much pressing of Obama on his toleration of Wright’s radicalism. It took the paper months to accurately quote one of Wright’s most inflammatory sermons: "Not God bless America, God damn America!" The Times also glossed over Wright’s despicable ranting “sermon” five days after the 9-11 attacks. In Wright’s rant, September 11 was a sign that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for supporting “state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans.” After Obama was obliged to address the issue in a speech on March 18, 2008, the Times fell over itself to praise the politically necessary address as Lincolnesque.
Surprise that, eh? But the truth is, Keller and the Times probably agreed with Wright. "Progressives" always side with the underdog no matter how ludicrous it is: The Palestinians want to obliterate all Jews, yet it is Israel who's the bad guy; the Japanese began WWII (for us) by bombing Pearl Harbor and four years later refused to surrender after the first A-bomb, but it's the US who's the bad guy ...
Excellent article today by Reason's David Harsanyi about the laughable contradiction doltish liberals find themselves in when they sanctimoniously mock conservatives' supposed "disbelief" in science.
Now, I have no interest in watching my kids waste their time with creationism, but unlike progressives, I have no interest in dictating what other kids should learn. Remember that these folks, bothered by the very thought of their offspring's hearing a God-infused concept in school, have no problem forcing millions of parents to accept bureaucrat-written curricula at government-run school monopolies. They oppose home schooling. They oppose school choice. They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars.
As a voter, like me, you may find Perry's view on creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated candidate. But the fact is that the progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.
Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science—real science—is rarely controversial. It's politicized science that is prickly. And science is easy to politicize. Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo, and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.
No, my kids haven't been chewing over Charles Darwin text or the Holy Bible in elementary school. There's simply no time. Not with global warming out there.
Indeed. There's "much debate" about what we should dub the thing that results when a human sperm and egg join together; however, predicting what the climate will be in 100-200 years, despite virtually innumerable variables, is "settled science," and unquestionable. This, despite scandals that show contrary opinions and studies were suppressed, not to mention that many of these "settled science" studies can't seem to keep their story straight -- will global warming result in us never seeing snow again, or will it lead to a colder climate, especially here in the northern hemisphere? Or, since the "settled science" says that the current quantity of carbon dioxide in the air means that climate change is inevitable for at least 1,000 years after CO2 emissions cease ... why are we so worried now? We can't -- and won't -- cease CO2 emissions anytime in the forseeable future, and who says that some future technology won't be able to counteract the effects of today's CO2 gasses? Again, we're in it for at least a millenium, the "settled science" says!! Why not just accept it for what it is, then?
Further, as Harsanyi notes, since libs are so keen on studying Darwin to the exclusion of everything else, why can't they then accept Darwin's major scientific contribution, evolution, as proof that humans will adapt to any changing climatic conditions ... just as they always have?
But even if one believed the most terrifying projections of global warming alarmist "science," it certainly doesn't mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not "science." The left sees civilization's salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do, and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment. Yet there is no real science that has shown that any of it makes a whit of difference.
The dolts at MSDNC really do make it easy, don't they? They're the first to bitch about incivility in political discourse, yet they're always the ones leading the way with the epithets, insults, and infantile jibes. And then there's the riduclously blatant hypocrisy:
And the non-Council submissions are here!
Ah Joe ...
"But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net,” Biden said in the prepared remarks. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”
“So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that,” he continued.
Although he highlighted the demographic concerns, his statement that the United States is “not second-guessing” the forced-abortion, one-child policy and his essentially ignoring the forced abortions, sterilizations and other human rights abuses that accompany it, will surely upset pro-life advocates who have campaigned extensively against the one-child policy and supported the victims of it.
I like Doug Powers' take: "Mass forced abortions is an entitlement sustainability problem but climate change is a moral dilemma? Sure, put Joe in charge of our health care!"
Last Thursday, Delaware Politics had put up a post about Christine O'Donnell walking off the Piers Morgan Show. A little while later, however, we get this when we go to the link.
Via Twitter, I asked the group there what had happened to the post. The response?
I just think that crowd is mad because Piers didn't grant this type of interview to COD -- about the only kind she can handle.
... in what he dubs his "shortest interview ever."
That is about the only type of interview COD can handle.
Last month, with the federal government on the precipice of default, President Obama & Co. repeatedly warned that any cuts in government would amount to a terrorist Tea Party attack on assistance to the poor and elderly.
Funnily enough, they failed to mention the recent $4.5 billion expansion of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which will now provide free lunches to ALL — rich and poor, needy and non-needy — of Detroit’s 65,800 public school-students. (Detroit is one of three pilot programs starting this month for a free-for-all that will ultimately cover similar districts nationwide.)
This new program is part of Obama’s orgy of spending, a binge that has ballooned the federal budget by 25 percent since his inauguration. But the program’s logic is even more insane than the price tag: The administration says it is giving rich kids free food to eliminate the shame that less-fortunate students may feel in receiving free food. We’re not making this up.
“We’ve worked very hard to reduce the stigma,” Aaron Lavallee, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman, told the Detroit News. “We’re seeing a lot of working-class families who’ve had to turn to free school meals to feed their children.”
Considering how I mentioned in last week's post that way too many kids getting free meals seem to have little difficulty purchasing cell phones, iPods, and pricey basketball shoes, is it really a hardship for working-class families to pack a PB&J sandwich and, say, a box drink in a brown bag for their kids?? My family was certainly working-class, and this is precisely what my mom did for my sisters and I each and every school day. That would sure heavily assist in avoiding any stigma, right? But no -- you and I have to pay these families so they can avoid "stigma."
What did I [snarkily] pen last week? "Wondering why that person is using food stamps to buy a bunch of junk instead of actual food at the grocery store? Who are you to judge? Just keep your mouth shut, dammit!"
And we wonder why we have an ever-growing sense of entitlement among our populace? As Henry Payne says regarding the Detroit lunch nonsense, "What’s next — handing out free Chevy Volts to all 16-year olds in order to reduce the stigma that low-income kids feel driving used 1990 Geo Metros?"
A week ago we were "treated" to the "insightful" wisdom of several "progressives" courtesy of Philly.com. And why would we expect things to change? This week we get attorney Louis Lombardi invoking -- wait for it -- Jim Crow in response to Philadelphia's curfew for adolescents:
America has had plenty of experience with status crimes. The most obnoxious example is the Jim Crow laws of the South, which criminalized people based on the color of their skin. Another example is vagrancy laws, which in effect criminalized homelessness. Such laws were eventually abolished as an affront to constitutional principles.
Although imposing a curfew on young people may not be as offensive as Jim Crow or vagrancy laws, it is nevertheless an extraordinary assertion of government power that dictates where certain people may lawfully be present. How can this be reconciled with our system of government?
And what does Lombardi suggest as an alternative? Again, wait for it -- outreach programs. *Sigh* Oh, and an "increased police presence in the affected areas." Except, of course, that with Twitter and Facebook, there are no specific "affected areas."
As usual, the comments section add a well needed dose of common sense.
Via the News Journal:
On Friday, just a handful of book buyers reportedly showed up to meet [Christine] O'Donnell at the Barnes & Noble in Exton, Pa.
"There were maybe six to eight people in line," said Bill Russo of Exton, who dropped by the store after learning she was running late via a post on Twitter.
You might recall our post about Image Comics' upcoming The Big Lie, which supposedly [re]examines the events of 9/11/01 aimed "straight at the middle." That initial article shows how that proclamation itself is likely a big lie, and Comic Book Resources' latest article about the work does its darndest to make it appear as if this comic will merely be some sort of historical retrospect.
Uh huh. Just don't glance at these two panels from the premiere issue, then. Blowing up a tall building? Bush needing to take Saddam out? Check. Author Rick Veitch might as well write for the Democratic Underground or the Daily Kos.
(h/t to FCMM)
That's right -- "Winning the Future" ... or W.T.F.
Never let it be said our own Wilmington News Journal doesn't disappoint when it comes to spouting the 'ol "progressive" MSM party line. In an editorial against the Tea Party (surprise there, eh?), we read this predictable crap:
"They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do."
Political myopia is more likely at fault here.
Americans just can't connect with a party that seems to have a one-track mind when it comes to making the economy work for the broadest swath of the population.
Right. As opposed to the current president's unfavorability rating and his one-track mind when it comes to policy. But, how about the more-than-gratuitous race-baiting -- that Tea Partiers are racist more than "other white Republicans." Exactly how is this "low regard for blacks" determined? (The "low regard for immigrants" is easy -- "progressives" posit that any support for greater border enforcement, etc., is by its very nature "anti-immigrant.") By opposing policies that African-Americans prefer? Does this then mean on the other hand that African-Americans have a "low regard" for whites? After all, African-Americans support Barack Obama in excess of 90%.
And what about Tea Party support for people like Herman Cain and Allen West? How is it that "racists" vigorously support these African-Americans? Are Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and David E. Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame whose studies the News Journal uses for this silly op-ed, of like mind to Janeane Garafolo -- who believes black candidates supported by the Tea Party are being paid off and/or suffer from Stockholm Syndrome?
Two disturbing stories from the education realm today. First, a Missouri district failed to report the rape of a seventh grade girl, but unbelievably also made the girl write an apology to her attacker -- and hand deliver it! The girl's family is suing; part of the [shocking] district response is that the girl “failed and neglected to use reasonable means to protect herself.”
Meanwhile, in Florida, a school's "Teacher of the Year" -- a 22 year veteran -- was suspended for his Facebook comments against gay marriage:
Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.
The school system declined to comment on the specific Facebook messages that led to their investigation, but Buell provided Fox News Radio with a copy of the two Facebook messages that he said landed him in trouble.
The first was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news.
“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”
Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”
According to the school system, what Buell wrote on his private account was disturbing. They were especially concerned that gay students at the school might be frightened or intimidated walking into his classroom. Patton also disputed the notion that Buell’s Facebook account is private.
The report notes that Buell has over 700 friends on his account, so the district claims that hardly makes it "private." But other legal experts say that the district is on shaky [legal] ground as it pertains to the First Amendment:
“It’s a little bit more complicated with a school teacher,” said Brad Jacob, a law professor at Regent University. “The first question you have to ask, did this context communicate that the teacher was speaking on behalf of the government?”
But what about on social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter? “School teachers generally have free speech rights, and the government may not censor the private speech on public school teachers,” he said.
Even though his comments may have been inappropriate, as long as Buell didn't proselytize about such opinions in his classroom, doesn't he have free speech rights like anyone else? After all, as his attorney says, Buell's views are hardly radical. I may personally disagree with Buell on this topic, but I think his lawyer is correct -- many do object to gay marriage on religious grounds.
What do you think?
And the non-Council winners are here!
Here we go AGAIN. The Queen of Embellishment, Christine O'Donnell, now claims that she "was close to snagging one of the co-host chairs" of ABC's "The View."
There's just one problem: ABC has no such recollection:
The Joy Behar Show reached out to a rep for "The View", who responded with the following statement: "We have no memory of her and no record or contract nor does Ms. Walters remember meeting her."
Well that's awkward.
When Behar's guest host, E.D. Hill, pointed out the discrepancy to O'Donnell, the former Delaware GOP Senate candidate said “You can check with Bill Geddie we did meet we did have the interview but I guess they just chose to go in a different direction and I was okay with it because I do believe that all opportunities are not good opportunities.”
Let's guess what'll happen if/when Mr. Geddie is contacted. First, notice what COD says -- that they "did meet" and "did have the interview." But that's not what she wrote in her book. There, she pens "The interview with Walters went so well they drew up a proposed contract, but ultimately the job went to Lisa Ling." So, the script, if followed as usual, will have COD claiming "perhaps she 'misremembered' who did the interview" (as if one could not remember an icon like Barbara Walters doing the interview), and/or she'll outright completely ignore the fact of the actual person who did the interview, and just concentrate on the fact that she had an interview. Her handlers will likely follow this latter tact -- just continue to emphasize that COD had an interview; it's not all that important who conducted it, or that ABC claims that no contract was ever drawn up.
And if you continue to question these discrepancies, you're just part of "the state GOP establishment" which has been "out to destroy COD from the start," or you're part of the liberal MSM which has done same.
Which begs, again, why the hell is COD even going on shows like Piers Morgan and Joy Behar when their political bent is so freakin' obvious? The answer, in my opinion, is a calculated one: COD and her handlers are hoping for dust-ups like that which happened on Morgan's show ... in hopes of generating sympathy.
Good luck with that.
And with this post, we inaugurate the new Colossus category "Right-Wing Nuttery."
Keith Olbermann, on his new cable access show which draws less than 100K viewers in the key age 25-54 demographic, had old pal Janeane Garofalo on to tell everyone that black people who are part of the Tea Party and the GOP suffer from Stockholm Syndrome:
"But, Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go like 'I love that, that can't be racist. He's a black guy, a black guy asking for Obama being impeached.' Or 'it's a black guy whose anti-Muslim. It's a black guy who is a Tea Party guy.'"
"He's a businessman," she said sarcastically. "Who ever pays him. And there may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome. There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican party or the conservative movement or the Tea Party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry with the oppressors. Is it Stockholm syndrome or does somebody pay them?"
Yeesh. There's nothing more racist (and sexist) than "knowing" that blacks, women, or whoever are not acting in what they feel are their best interests.
Christine O'Donnell walks off an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan:
Unbelievable. COD is at it again -- why does she even agree to do interviews, then? She got miffed at questions from Delaware radio hosts Dan Gaffney (WGMD) and Rick Jensen (WDEL) during last year's campaign ... and they're conservatives! (Watch her angrily gesture to her "handlers" to "do something" during Jensen's interview of her at about the 11:40 mark. Priceless stuff.)
So, what the f*** did she expect from Piers Morgan, then? Morgan's questions were hardly out of bounds, just like Gaffney's and Jensen's were not out of bounds. COD should know Morgan's political bent (and CNN's, for that matter), so either do the damn interview or don't agree to do it at all. Period.
Your act is now old Christine, and more than just a little pathetic.
UPDATE: Heh -- COD not only ditched Piers Morgan, but earlier that day she also stopped a radio interview with a Salt Lake City station because she didn't like the questions.
... maybe we can make some judgments based on his teaching. Remember Doug Ross's recent post about how the media wasted absolutely NO time tracking down recent GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry's college grades, yet our current president largely remains an academic question mark.
Take a gander at the following files courtesy of edu-blogger extraordinaire Matthew Tabor of Education News.org. It contains Obama's law course syllabus, exams and a few memos. You decide about the course's intellectual and academic rigor. (The entire syllabus packet was too large to upload to our server in its entirety; therefore, I've broken it down into several image files, per page. To start off, check out the requirements for 1994's "Current Issues in Racism and the Law":
What do you think? Rigorous or not? The entire syllabus is below:
Matt, three years ago, originally solicited opinions on Obama's syllabus -- but without identifying the professor! Here was his own take (my emphasis):
1. For 40% of the grade for a graduate level class, a 3,000 word paper that requires no research at all is anything but rigorous.
2. Encouraging students to draw on material/discussion exclusively from class can limit the intellectual breadth of the assignment.
3. Engagement/effort is a low bar. This is a graduate level course, not high school. I expect more than comprehension and trying hard.
4. Sections 2) and 3) from the syllabus – “thorough examination” of opinion and “concrete proposals” – are solid requirements. The problem is that the paper is likely too short and will draw on far too few sources to realize either of those goals.
Here's some other assessments from Matt's post's comments:
- For one- the length is way too long for this project. Second, the value is too low for the length. Third, WHAT the heck is this prof thinking with not having the students research and use peer reviewed research? “Minimum” of 12 pages on a vague topic… If I were a student in that class, I’d be screaming in frustration. (Link)
- I suspect I would have a problem with 60% being devoted to a group project and participation. Show me the rubrics of both of these activities. The idea that I could pass this class just coming to class, interjecting comments and loafing in a group blows my mind. Now the group project may be more rigorous and intense than any of the group projects I’ve had the displeasure of participating in, but I base my assumption on my own experience for now! (Link)
- Graduate syllabi are rarely complete guides to assignments or classes. Two points here:
1. The paper is to be a minimum of 12 pages with no maximum. A graduate student with any brain at all will see that as saying that a brilliant student with a thorough grasp of the subject will just barely be able to do it in 12 pages, and will think “I need to write a lot more than 12 pages.”
2. Graduate courses require conversation about ideas. This assignment is an invitation to the students to converse with their professor and refine their understanding of things. (Link)
- “Fully engaged” and yet may only draw exclusively on the material and discussion presented in class. The dichotomy of thought is astounding! Sounds more like “I want to make sure you think as I do.” (Link)
Latinos protest deportations at Obama campaign HQ (my emphasis):
(Reuters) - Latino activists held a protest outside President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign headquarters on Tuesday to ask him to end a criminal deportation program they say is snaring large number of illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
Via The Corner:
This is simply brutal. That keeper was arrested for assault and rightly so. He should be banned from ever playing the game again. He literally could have killed the guy.
This is one of two reasons I don't watch South American or Italian soccer. They either fake injury in the most overdramatic fashion possible or they sneak attack like this. Either way they're completely devoid of any form of sportsmanship.
Premier League doesn't put up with this crap. Try it and you'd be out of a career, writing a huge check to the league and then be in court facing both civil and probably criminal charges.
Because she always does:
Former Republican operatives in Delaware are challenging assertions made by former Senate candidate and conservative activist Christine O'Donnell in her new book.
Among other things, O'Donnell claims former Delaware GOP chairman Tom Ross snubbed her at a 2008 fundraiser by acknowledging all the Republican candidates in attendance except her while introducing Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.
But Ross does not recall speaking at the fundraiser, and an audio recording released Monday by Maria Evans, [Bill] Lee's communications director at the time, shows Barbour was introduced by former congressman Mike Castle.
In her book, O'Donnell claims that Barbour
"... stood right up there and gave me my own little shout-out. He said he was grateful to see his old friend Christine O'Donnell in the audience, or words to that effect. He even took it a little further, saying that I'd done a great job back when I worked for him, that the party should be proud to have me as their candidate, and that he had no doubt I'd do a great job in Washington if I was elected."
On the recording, Barbour says of O'Donnell only that she once worked with him at the Republican National Committee.
O'Donnell also claims in the book that she was left with no money and no prospects after a failed 2008 Senate bid.
But in an email to former Wilmington GOP region chair Rick Carroll just 20 days after the 2008 election, O'Donnell said she was preparing for a 2010 Senate race. She also wrote that if Castle announced that he was running for Senate, she would withdraw from that race and run instead for his House seat. (Link.)
One wonders what COD's excuse will be this time. She never appears to run out of them, that's for sure.
If you'd like the audio in question to hear for yourself (the file is a bit too big for my piddly Colossus server), just send a request to me at firstname.lastname@example.org
UPDATE: Much more at Dialogue Delaware. I like what O’Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran has to say about the contradiction between what O'Donnell says in her book, and what the actual recording shows:
This is the same group that lied to the FEC and lied about Christine’s record so their credibility is shot. If the failed leadership of the old Delaware GOP this past decade and their obnoxious sense of entitlement really where interested in moving forward, they would be praising her for the bold message and insights about Barack Obama and plan she lays out for going forward. But again, they are so worried about their corrupt ways being exposed they are trying to discredit the messenger. Look at their source, as the Establishment Old Guard is rekindling their same shameless tactics they exhibited before Castle’s over six point loss last September.
In other words, you can't refute the evidence so you impugn the source. Of course.
Interesting set of e-mails sent to Insty:
Reader Isaac Vavra emails: “I’m a 20 year old who works at a McDonalds and saved up enough money this year to travel throughout South America. I met a kid in San Jose, Costa Rica: He is in his 20′s, he got laid off from his job with Medicare, and is now living down here in Costa Rica. He says he has enough to stay for five years. He is collecting unemployment and just withdraws the money in Costa Rica.” Well, that’s one way to ride out the recession. I hear Costa Rica’s nice.
Hmm, if he's in his 20s then he obviously hasn't been in the work force all that long. So, how the hell did he save enough to live in Costa Rica for five years? I can perhaps see it; however, based on my experience, he ain't gonna be living all that great. My guess is about well as, well, someone on welfare here -- at least in the capital San José and its surrounding areas. If he's living in rural areas (excluding tourist/beach zones), he'd likely be better off materially, but then again there will be very little around him to take advantage of, socially speaking.
If he's collecting unemployment from here in the US, that'd probably improve his financial lot a bit, but then again, as another Insty reader points out, isn't a requirement for getting unemployment checks that you're looking for a job? Looking for one in Costa Rica, I'm pretty sure, doesn't qualify. So this dude is probably most likely committing a crime -- fraud.
UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn at Insty for linking back! If you're coming from there, just a FYI: I studied and then lived in CR for quite a while, and was married to a tica for 20 years. Search the Colossus archives for some Costa Rica anecdotes, but here are some of my first (and best).
Unless you've been living under a rock the last week or so, you may have noticed that there are riots going on in Britain, continuing riots in Greece, and here at home there has been a small epidemic of "flash mob" violence in various large cities. There has been no shortage of explanations as to why this is all happening, including, of course, the usual "progressive" conclusions: hopelessness, economic marginalization, poor schools, excessive greed by the "rich," etc. Admittedly I don't know enough about economic stratification in the UK (as opposed to the US) to make a more informed judgment about said "progressive" reasons above; however, it appears that stratification is more rigid in the Britain (less class mobility), and this site confirms it. And it is unlikely that said "progressive" reasons for rebellion are legitimate in and of themselves. But there is an underlying dynamic -- "progressive" in nature itself -- at the root.
Let's take two of the "progressive" reasons (or, if you prefer, "excuses") above -- hopelessness and a lousy educational system. Here in the United States, the question is why are many (typically urban area) schools so lousy? Is it because of lack of funding? Many urban districts have some of the highest per-pupil spending in the country. In fact, this funding usually [far] outstrips spending by Catholic and private schools, yet these schools produce better academic results. So what gives?
Well, let's see: For one, parochial and private schools have the ability to discharge students who perpetually misbehave and disrupt classes. Public schools do too, but it is an extremely onerous process, and one that district and school administrators are loath to invoke. Why? Potential lawsuits, bad publicity, and a general reluctance to deal with upset parents (or guardians). Thus, chronically disruptive students continue to wreak mayhem in classrooms, all the while knowing that there will be little, if any, repercussions. By law, special education students can only be suspended out of school for a certain amount of days per year. Did you know that? When that limit is reached, what happens? They either remain in the classroom causing problems, or often they're huddled into what's known as "in-school suspension."
(Note: I'm cognizant that the higher per-pupil spending in public schools includes the mandatory funds for special needs children, something which parochial and private schools do not have to deal with if they do not wish it. Nevertheless, overhead and administrative costs in public schools indeed outpace their private sector competitors.)
And it all begins with the small things. One of my favorite edu-bloggers, Mamacita, recently wrote about the notion of "community school supplies." Specifically, she laments that such a concept devalues the concept of ownership -- of valuing something that you purchased and thus, have a stake in (my emphasis):
I guess so, because teachers who don’t want to bother with a child’s private property are forcing the kids to dump it all in the pot for everybody to use. “Don’t be selfish.” “Share.” Well, you know what? I don’t like that kind of forced sharing. I had to share everything, EVERYTHING, and that little pile of school supplies was my only private stash of anything. I do not feel it was selfish, or is selfish, to want to keep school supplies that were carefully chosen, to oneself. Children who have their own things learn to respect the property of other children. Children with no concept of personal property tend to view the world as a buffet of free, unearned delights awaiting their grasping, grabbing hands. Both tend to grow into adults with the same concepts learned as children.
This business of everything being community property in the classroom causes problems in the upper levels, too. Junior high, high school, even college students, are expecting things to be available for them without any effort on their part. Upper level students come to class without pencils, erasers, paper, etc, because they’re used to having those things always available in some community bin somewhere in the room. They have never been required, or allowed, to maintain their own things, and now they don’t know how to. The stuff was always just THERE, for a student to help himself to. And now that they are supposed to maintain their own, they really don’t know how. Plus, why should they? HEY, I need a pencil, Teach, gimme one. No, not that one, that other one there.
In my own classroom, I've occasionally gotten grief(!) from parents and/or school personnel for my refusal to supply chronically unprepared students with pencils, paper, or whatever. Hey look, everyone occassionally forgets something at one time or another, I know that. I'm not that unreasonable that I won't lend a pencil out to a kid who usually is always prepared. I'm talking about the chronic offenders. All my school's teachers are given a fistful of pencils at the beginning of the year for a combo of personal use and for forgetful students. Being the "seasoned veteran" that I am now, I've tried just about all the "tricks" involved in lending things out and making sure I get 'em back: "minus points" for no return, kids give me something in return for a pencil (or whatever), a sign-up sheet ... Eventually I came to realize that, at my students' age, there should be no reason for such measures. That, and it always cut into instructional time more and more. Why should I waste minutes on the same unprepared kids day after day? So, today, when I hear "I don't have a pencil!" my usual retort is "And that is my problem how ...?" Then I'll say "Look around. There are around 30 others in here. I'm sure at least one of them has an extra writing utensil, so start asking." Hard-ass? Perhaps. Or, my little contribution of preparing kids to act more responsibly and to get ready for the real world. Or, at least the real world as it currently still is, God willing.
This sense of entitlement, whether it is the "rights" of chronically disruptive students to remain in classrooms to the detriment of everyone else, or the beginning seeds of "gimme" attitudes in the early grades noted by Mamacita, is not the result of an "oppressively hierarchical neo-conservative state." On the contrary, it is the direct result of progressive theories and teachings -- social, educational and beyond. In essence, when you are given things instead of having to put forth effort to acquire them, you value them a lot less, if at all.
This progressive theory also condemns any sort of "shaming" of bad behavior, often on the pretext that it will result in still more bad behavior. Notice I said I would sometimes get some grief for my stance on giving things out in my classroom to perpetually lazy students. Wondering why kids who get free breakfast and lunch have cell phones, iPods and $200 sneakers? Don't dare say anything. Don't these kids have the "right" to feel "included" by having what a lot of other kids do? Wondering why that person is using food stamps to buy a bunch of junk instead of actual food at the grocery store? Who are you to judge? Just keep your mouth shut, dammit!
During the so-called "Great Society" era we began to fundamentally alter society by giving people things. Housing. Vouchers for food. Extra money when you have another kid. Meals in schools. Transportation for after-school activities. Now I, like the vast majority of conservative-leaning folk, have little qualms about assisting people in need -- real need -- whether it's via private assistance or even some governmental help. But we've bastardized the original intent of such assistance so that the personal incentive to better one's own situation has plummeted to negligible levels. Some have recognized this perverse situation and sought remedies. Former VP candidate Jack Kemp, when he was Secretary of HUD (Housing and Urban Development), championed a program by which people in public housing could eventually assume [private] ownership of their homes. While it was not as roundly successful as one would hope, Kemp nevertheless had the right idea. After all, consider: why do public housing units quickly become blighted areas of disrepair? Is it because there is little-to-no incentive for residents to maintain upkeep ... because they have no stake in it? If it's not theirs, why should they care what happens to it? Someone will eventually come and fix it.
Ironically, what then happens when you take something away (or merely threaten to take something away) from a culture that has grown accustomed to getting something for virtually nothing ... and for whom there are little consequences for negative behavior? We witness something like that in the United Kingdom. Here in the US, on the other hand, you don't even need the former aspect; the mere fact that consequences for anti-social behavior are slim-to-none is sufficient alone for the recent series of "flash mob" violence witnessed in various big cities of late.
The good news is the public at large by and large no longer subscribes (if they ever really did) to the progressive BS about an "oppressive" society "holding down" the participants of these riots and flash mobs. Just scan through reader comments on the online reports and editorials about these events. What they recognize is that the anti-social behavior of these hooligans is largely the result of poor individual lifestyle choices made by themselves, their parents, their friends, their relatives, or any combination thereof -- and you and I who work hard, behave civilly, and act responsibly aren't accountable for it.
The best part of this comes at about the 43 second mark when a Durbin crony says, "You can stand and listen but you can't ask questions during a press conference." The guy must be a big fan of this MASH episode where General Miitchell says "This is a press conference! The last thing I want to do is answer a lot of questons!"
... but our current president? Still an academic enigma.
In 2004, Barack Obama's GOP opponent for Senate -- Jack Ryan -- "mysteriously" had his sealed divorce records un-sealed. But I'm sure that's just coincidental.
You know, I find the media quite honest and diligent. It mocks and vilifies Rick Perry's college transcripts, yet somehow forgot about checking:
1. Occidental College records and transcripts -- Not released
2. Columbia University records and transcripts -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard University records and transcripts -- Not released
5. Medical records -- Not released
6. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
7. Illinois State Senate records -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate -- Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
12. Record of Baptism -- Not released or 'not available'
But I'm sure that's just an innocent oversight.
The most unbelievable of all the above is the Illinois State Senate records. WTF? Isn't that public domain?
The last two days have seen two consecutive ridiculous editorials at Philly.com that make preposterous comparisons and ludicrous excuses for the epidemic of flash mobs the city has seen of late. The first one, yesterday's, was written (remarkably) by a not-yet-in-the-real world intern. He spews:
Police blame the mobs' swiftness on their use of social media - a medium as accessible as it is uncensored. But social media deserve our thanks yet again.
Haven't we heralded them before? Think of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt. There, social media grew so essential to rebels that dictators blocked access to the websites.
Twitter didn't win those revolutions, but it helped illuminate huge social problems that had been ignored for way too long. Finally, a new voice for the voiceless, right?
Perhaps Philadelphia's flash mobs are no different.
Ah yes. The thuggery in the City of Brotherly Love are akin to those who've lived under Islamist dictatorship for decades. What a terrific analogy. Right. Intern Drew Singer, obviously very short in the common sense department, is nevertheless in perfect suck-up mode to his ivory tower elitist a-holes who opine at the Inquirer and Daily News.
Then today we're treated to the "wisdom" of the Rev. Kevin Johnson -- an Ed.D., which explains a lot right there -- who espouses the usual "root causes" argument:
Observing the unrest of his day, Malcolm X said, "We are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter."
From the streets of Philadelphia, to the streets of London, to Cairo's Tahrir Square, Hama in Syria, and Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia, there is a revolution erupting that is being led by the children of the digital age. Their outcry ranges from concern for political clout to governance, jobs, education, economic freedom, and simply being acknowledged as a valued human beings.
What are the young people in Great Britain, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, and, yes, Philadelphia, saying that we are not hearing? Young people don't just magically appear en masse. What pain are they experiencing that we cannot see or feel?
"A riot is the language of the unheard," said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Hence, when we see young people rioting or in flash mobs, it is because they feel powerless and want to be heard. Those with a clear sense of hope and a bright future don't cause havoc simply because they have nothing better to do.
Indeed! What can the mobs in the UK and US do but take advantage of their free education, free breakfasts and lunches, free or subsidized housing in many instances, get a job and work to better themselves!? (Notice I excluded Egypt, Syria and Tunisia since, again, any comparison to what the population experiences -- and has experienced -- there is way beyond laughable.)
We can no longer ignore the cries of our children. They need more than tough talk, a few recreation centers, and inevitable profiling by the police. They need involved, loving parents, quality education, jobs, and mentors. They need community-focused churches, mosques, and synagogues. They need us.
Hey Rev -- see that bold text above? That is of paramount importance and deserves to addressed by itself ... because that is the single greatest problem facing the majority of those who make these flash mobs. Once this problem is resolved, the rest either become moot (no need for mentors) or take care of themselves (quality schools/education).
Thankfully, Philly.com temporarily overcame its PC instincts and allowed reader comments on both of these op-eds. As of this moment, these comments are trending about 99% against the Rev and intern Singer. Which is what you might expect from people who live outside the comfortable womb of a big city newspaper office.
Via the AP:
A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, which is considered the centerpiece of the law, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."
"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.
Which makes perfect sense. That is, to anyone concerned with personal freedom. And I thought "progressives" were all about that ... or is that only for stuff like getting rid your unborn child?
Chuck Raasch informs us of what the Right knew from the start:
Here is an anonymous, "prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House" quoted in Politico this past week about Obama's re-election strategy should Mitt Romney win the Republican presidential nomination in 2012:
"Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to 'kill' Romney."
By "kill," this strategist and others quoted in the Politico piece appear to mean that Obama, unable to win on his record, will have to shred the former Massachusetts governor's character, relentlessly attack him as a soulless shape-shifter, as "weird" in the buzzword of the week for the Obama crowd, to make Romney appear so unseemly and incapable that voters would have no other choice but to choose Obama, the principled one.
No, Chuck, it's not "appear to mean," it is what they mean. But thanks to your profession in large measure (accompanied by the usual large swaths of "progressives"), we've been told that such figurative language is not acceptable. Such politically harsh lingo wasn't a problem though ... until the Left saw an opportunity in the Giffords shooting.
That was the whole reality: The Left and MSM wanted it to be not acceptable for conservatives to use such language. The whole "new civility" thing was a totally "progressive"-contrived bunch of garbage designed to muzzle the Right.
The talk of the political tough guy — and it is always a guy — is often crudely anatomical. "Rip out his liver," "gut him," "take out his heart," and then the endless variations of the things that one man would do to another's testicles, often with tools.
But "kill?" That's breathtaking, even in this hot-air fraternity.
No, it's not, really. Or, rather, would not be if your brethren in the MSM and so-called "progressives" wouldn't perpetually sit in wait, pouncing on any sort of minor slight, or worse, a tragedy like the Giffords shooting, to ostracize conservatives.
The liberal fraternity never wanted a more civil tone. Just like their like-minded cohorts that run American campuses, they really want a clamp down on views different from their own. Period. And if you insist upon dissent, you're to be treated like someone in need of therapy ... or worse -- a criminal.
And the non-Council results are here!
White House mouth Jay Carney had a distinctly different outlook when a Republican president was getting out and about among the people a decade ago ... back when Jay was a bigwig for Time magazine:
A Vacationing Bush Works Hard for His Photo-Ops
The image-makers who advise George W. Bush got what they wanted this week: a photograph, taken by the Associated Press and published in seemingly every newspaper in the country, of the President lifting a telephone pole as he "helped maintain" a nature trail in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park.
Back in July, when they were planning what the President should do during his month-long vacation (as part of their effort to persuade the public that he wasn't actually on vacation in the generally accepted sense of what vacation means — i.e., having fun and not working), the image-makers hit upon a clever idea. Every week, they decided, they would send the President somewhere outside Texas for a day or a day and a half to hold an event of some kind in which he would mix with "real Americans."
... The President's most glaring weakness is the public's perception that he is pro-business and anti-environment. Given the high marks he's getting for his overall job performance and his deft handling of the stem cell research question, some might even say it's his only weakness. The question now is whether a few photo-ops will fix the problem — or just make it worse.
Ah, Jay. Will you wonder similarly that your now-BOSS will fix his much greater problem -- or just make it worse -- with his Midwest "job creation" tour and vacation (again) to Martha's Vineyard? And how about this Obama photo-op, Jay?
The remains of the 30 Americans killed in the recent crash in AFPak returned to the US today, and that return was the occasion for a cynical photo-op that ignored the wishes of both the Pentagon and the fallen warrior's loved ones.
A White House photographer was allowed to take and widely distribute a photo from the ceremony Tuesday, showing President Obama saluting and other officials in attendance. An official White House photo of the saluting was widely distributed and published by the media. It also was posted on the White House website as the "Photo of the Day."
[And] according to the Pentagon, during initial notification of next of kin, 19 of the 30 families said they did not want media coverage.
At the time, The Pentagon was still debating whether to release publicly the names of the Americans who died in the Chinook crash because doing so might endanger families of the SEAL Team 6 troops, because of the Team's involvement in killing Ossma bin-Laden.
The Pentagon's policies, the wishes of the dead heroes' families - none of it mattered to President Obama or the White House in the least. Not when there's an election coming up and a photo-op to be had.
Oh, and gee -- y'think this is a coincidence? Opening October 12, 2012. Uh huh.
Government isn't able to allocate money properly. It's a point I argue over and over again with Leftists and other Statists. I never get anywhere but I thought I'd cite another prime example:
Fort Hood jihadist murderer is still receiving paychecks. But the two heroes who stopped him are going to lose their jobs due to cuts
Whenever I argue government spending or even it's role in society I'm given the old saw of "schools, roads and hospitals". That is, without government money, those things would not exist. Delaware is rife with private schools, Christiana and A.I. are both private hospitals and private roads exist elsewhere if not in Delaware. Sweden's roads have been run by a private company for years and their maintenance is half of what the state was spending.
We have private trash collection here and it works rather well. Not so in NJ where the taxes reflect that monopoly. Or in NYC where the Sanitation Department shrewdly schedules their contract negotiations in the dog days of summer. That way when they strike the garbage piles up and it fouls the entire city. (Granted it's been some time since they've had a strike)
Delaware, by some estimates, has about 20% of the population employed by government in one capacity or another. Is every one of those jobs necessary? Should all of those functions be handled by the government? Is it not wiser to create more private sector jobs and relieve the public sector of non-essential functions like trash collection?
What say you? Are there any things you think should be privatized or conversely, private things that should be state run?
What is perhaps just as disturbing as the rioting is what will surely follow: the orgy of “outreach” and “understanding” and “communication” and all the other non-judgmental drivel that some will attempt to substitute for the public condemnation the rioters deserve. The lesson of the riots, whether in Los Angeles or London, is a simple one: When you tolerate bad behavior, you get more of it.
"Resist we much!"
And the non-Council nominations are here!
The British state lectures, hectors and micro-manages the law-abiding. When it comes to defending them, it is, all too often, AWOL.
The common sense statement is the fart he lets out (seriously):
The bloated Michael Moore wants President Obama to arrest the head of Standard & Poor’s:
Liberal firebrand Michael Moore called on President Obama to respond to the U.S. credit downgrade by arresting the leaders of the credit-ratings agencies.
On his Twitter feed Monday, the Oscar-winning film director also blamed the 2008 economic collapse on Standard & Poor’s — apparently because it and other credit-ratings agencies did not downgrade mortgage-based bonds, which encouraged the housing bubble and let it spread throughout the economy.
“Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008 & now they will do it again,” Mr. Moore wrote.
Mr. Moore went on to note that the “owners of S&P are old Bush family friends,” continuing a theme he has developed through several films about capitalism as essentially a crony system for the rich and Wall Street, especially the Bush family.
I knew it! This, too, is George W. Bush's fault!!
At 2:59 PM my wife and I welcomed our daughter into the world. 7 lbs 4 oz and 19". Mom and baby are doing well. Pix soon as I can muster the energy.
Inspired by this Cracked.com article (which is incredibly funny, by the way) and being the movie culture maven that I am, I just had to chime in with my own takes on some of the most ridiculous match-ups in action film history ... as usual because no one demanded it!! Now, keep in mind I tried to be 100% original and come up with my own fracases, but some of Cracked's were just too good to skip over. Like the first one here:
JOHN MATRIX vs. BENNETT in COMMANDO.
This is Cracked's #1 such fight, and deservedly so. In fact, if you're not cracking up very early in the film when you realize that Bennett is supposed to be Matrix's (Ah-nuld Schwarzenegger) arch-nemesis, something's wrong with your WTF meter. Bennett looks like he's spent the last decade or so trying to win the National Couch Potato contest. Heck, the only thing that even gives Bennett ("I feel good, Jawn!") a chance in hell is that he pops a bullet into Ah-nuld's shoulder before their scuffle ensues.
ROCKY BALBOA vs. IVAN DRAGO in ROCKY IV.
Let's be real here: Drago killed Apollo Creed after just a bit over a single round in the ring. Later we see that, after a punch, Drago's pressure per square inch figure rises to superhuman levels. Meanwhile, Rocky insists on training "naturally," which in this case means chopping wood, dragging sleds, and climbing mountains so he can shout Drago's name at the top of his lungs. All of which would more likely get Rock a nasty cold or virulent flu rather than prepare him to defeat Drago. Even if you buy that the Italian Stallion could best the towering Russian, the fact that Rock's face looks like he's only been through a minor sparring exercise after the fight is laughingly ridiculous. At least as ridiculous as his Cold War kumbayah speech after his victory.
ROGER MOORE vs. JUST ABOUT ANY VILLAIN in ANY JAMES BOND FILM.
Moore is by far the least believable Bond in terms of being able to kick your ass. Every other dude who played the role looked like he could, especially Connery and the new Daniel Craig. What's even funnier is that Moore had to go up against probably the most physically powerful Bond baddie ever -- Jaws -- not just once, but twice! (The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker.) By Moore's last flick (A View to a Kill), he'd have had a hard time taking down his co-star, The Avengers' Patrick Macnee.
CHANCE BOUDREAUX vs. EMIL FOUCHON in HARD TARGET.
That'd be Jean Claude Van Damme vs. Lance Henriksen, for the uninitiated. Let's see ... Van Damme is a martial arts expert whereas Henriksen is best known for playing the android Bishop in a couple Aliens movies. Yeah, sounds fair. I dunno, for some reason, for a few years there, some folks in Hollywood though Lance would make a good bad-ass. A few years before Target, he locked horns with NFL bust Brian Bosworth in the dreadfully bad actioner Stone Cold.
MICHAEL HARRIGAN vs. THE PREDATOR in PREDATOR 2.
Er, that'd be Danny Glover vs. the nasty (and huge) alien hunter. Let's face it: Ah-nuld in the original barely bested the creature -- and he's the best special forces badass any government could possess. And what's Harrigan? A freakin' street cop in Los Angeles. He'd have, what -- a tiny fraction of the training that Ah-nuld had. Not to mention, Harrigan just happens to school some special ops dudes who've been tracking the Pred since shortly after Ah-nuld's original mission (reuniting Glover and Gary Busey from Lethal Weapon) ... as if they wouldn't know more about the alien than he. YEESH.
GABE WALKER vs. ERIC QUALEN in CLIFFHANGER.
This is also on Cracked's list, and again very deservedly so. Not only is this flick ridiculous in that the surroundings are snow covered mountains and Sly Stallone is meandering around in a f***ing tank top most of the time, but Qualen is played by ... John Lithgow. The only thing I could envision that would allow Lithgow to even get one good shot in on Sly is being his still being miffed that he couldn't see Debra Winger anymore. Or, perhaps, still being miffed that his town of Bomont threw in the towel and allowed dancing.
UPDATE: A good buddy of mine e-mails me one that has just got to be added:
DALTON vs. BRAD WESLEY in ROAD HOUSE.
OK, yeah, Wesley (Ben Gazzara) had bruiser Jimmy do most of his dirty work throughout the flick -- that is until Dalton (Patrick Swayze) beat the living sh** out of him. Ultimately, it came down to the two protagonists as we all knew it would ... and would the outcome ever be in doubt? Heh. Except that Dalton gets overcome by a nasty streak of morality at the critical moment. No worries; Wesley's long-time victims blow the SOB away with multiple gunshots.
Why did Fox feel the need to discuss Cole Hamels' bathroom habits this past Saturday?
Venezuelan Ozzie Guillen, manager of the Chicago White Sox, gives idiot Sean Penn a what-for:
Just like some other well-known venezolanos, Los Amigos Invisibles, Guillen is 100% correct that uber-rich limousine liberals like Penn only see what proto-dictators like Hugo Chávez want them to see when they're in the country. And no wonder it makes Ozzie so upset -- because he knows his country is going to hell in a handbasket, and cretins like Penn aid and abet it by coddling Chávez.
I could only frown and shake my head as mis panas in Los Amigos told me their own personal stories of the slow death their country is suffering because of the maniacal pseudo-Castro.
Picking up on a post by Ace, I've read with some interest about how Marvel plans to kill off Peter Parker as Spider-Man. Well, not really Spider-Man, but the Spider-Man of the popular (alternate) "Ultimate" universe (on which much of their movie franchise is based).
And Parker's replacement will be a half-black, half-Latino kid.
Some have an issue with this -- not because of the new Spidey's heritage, but because the usual peons in the MSM are highlighting this very facet, complete with silly statements:
It’s not simply about publicity and stirring things up to get people talking (although Marvel surely welcomes those, too). It’s about a black kid in D.C., a Dominican kid in the Bronx or a young Mexicano from California being able to read a comic and come away from it saying, “I can be Spider-Man.” Generations of minority comic-book fans before this day, couldn’t say such a thing.
Come on. Marvel's been on the cutting edge of societal change since it exploded on the scene with the Fantastic Four in 1961. And there have been plenty of minority superheroes created by Marvel who have been positive examples and have been quite popular. And how much of a ... conceit is it to claim that a minority kid can't dream of being a [white] superhero? And why would it have to be a white superhero anyway? Why can't it be just a superhero in general? Ridiculous. This is akin to the preposterous "minority kids can only learn with a minority teacher" mantra (which also has no basis in reality).
And for some, the fact that the new Spidey is of mixed racial heritage ain't enough. He might be gay. Sheesh.
Overlooked in all this is the fact that Marvel already has a mixed heritage Spider-Man: Spider-Man 2099. His real name is Miguel O'Hara, a Latino-Irish mix. Miguel's mom's name is Conchata.
Avi Green over at Four Color Media Monitor has more.
Overall, I think this move by Marvel is A-OK. I mean, why not? Their "Ultimate" universe, like their many other alternate realities, exist precisely to create new (and possibly controversial) stories. The folks making the biggest issue of this are the lefties, who are, as always, obsessed by race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation. The rest of us just want good superhero stories, and could care less that characters like War Machine, the Falcon, Luke Cage, Firebird, Living Lightning, Cyborg, and now the new Spider-Man, are minorities. And as a kid, I couldn't have cared less what their color is. I'd just fantasize about having their powers and abilities!
Excuse me while I give a sh**.
... there would be NO problem with it being sold:
Breath mints are usually refreshing, but a Knoxville legislator believes a University of Tennessee bookstore’s selling of novelty candies mocking President Barack Obama stinks.
UT officials pulled the mints poking fun at Obama from store shelves after state Rep. Joe Armstrong, a Democrat, visited the bookstore and told the director he found the satirical mints offensive.
“When you operate on state and federal dollars, you ought to be sensitive to those type of politically specific products,” Armstrong said. “If it was a private entity or corporation or store, (that’s different), but this is a state university. We certainly don’t want in any way to put the university in a bad light by having those political (products), particularly aimed at defaming the president.”
The tin can of mints has a blue and red image of the president with the words: “This is change? Disappointmints.”
Armstrong had received a call from an offended student. Oh my!
Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds (also a law professor) notes,
Free speech is free speech. If you make fun of the president in a mint, it is just as much free speech as it is if you make fun of the president in a political cartoon.
So, I wonder if Armstrong would demand the college newspaper cease "offensive" political cartoons and editorials because “when you operate on state and federal dollars, you ought to be sensitive to those type of politically specific [messages] ..."
Does Biden drink? Who would know the difference?
Not only does syndicated columnist Froma Harrop prove herself a hypocrite, but she doubles down:
Yes, I was angry, but I’m engaging in the defense of my country. I know the tea partiers say the same, but their behavior is that of a national wrecking crew. Most may be nice people who don’t know what they’re doing, but many a country has foundered on the passions of nice people.
As far as the facts are concerned, I stand my ground. Terrorism is not confined to physical attacks.
*Sigh* You think a conservative pundit could get away with such a justification? Cheeyeah, right.
Just look at her quote. Now imagine a reactionary conservative doing the same about, say, anti-war protesters. "Terrorism is not confined to physical attacks" would be the aid said protesters give to the enemy by speaking out against our military efforts. "I’m engaging in the defense of my country" speaks for itself. "But their behavior is that of a national wrecking crew" is the protesters tearing up needed national unity during a war effort. Lastly (and this is perfect against "progressives"), "but many a country has foundered on the passions of nice people" describes myriad liberal policies to perfection: cradle to grave welfare, weak immigration policies, weak law enforcement efforts, head-in-sand foreign policy ... the list is virtually endless here.
Watch as the media and politicians twist themselves into pretzels over this.
UPDATE: Right Truth has a lot more.
And the non-Council winners are here!
I've been a fan of the Ape movies ever since I was a little boy. And why not? They had it all for a budding science fiction fan: space travel, time travel, intelligent apes, Armageddon ... so, I just may have to venture out and catch the new Rise of the Planet of the Apes which comes out tomorrow.
But now -- because no one demanded it!! -- here is your guide to the Ape movie franchise, just so you'll have some inkling of what's happening in the new flick (if you don't already, that is).
PLANET OF THE APES (1968)
Why it's cool: The ultimate catch-you-off-guard twist ending, superb Cold War-era moralizing, classic catch phrases, Chuck Heston in his heydey, and the very hot Linda Harrison as Nova.
Why it blows: It doesn't! Although you might have a few in-depth questions like "Why was their spacecraft so damn small for an interstellar voyage?"
BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (1970)
Why it's cool: Funky human mutants living beneath Earth's surface worship a doomsday weapon, and Linda Harrison is back as Nova.
Why it blows: Totally unnecessary, really; gratuitous Chuck Heston appearances. And a cobalt bomb is not a doomsday bomb because of devastating megatonnage -- it's deadly because it produces extremely long-lasting radiation. Thus, the Earth would not blow up at film's end.
ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES (1971)
Why it's cool: Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter are terrific as Cornelius and Zira who've been hurled back in time to present-day Los Angeles (1973, that is) after using Taylor's (Chuck Heston) repaired spaceship to escape the destroyed Earth (from Beneath). Lots of humor and a neat continuum tie-in make for a cool story.
Why it blows: How in the hell did Cornelius and co. salvage Taylor's ship, let alone repair it and get it flight-worthy? The apes were essentially at the technological level of the 16th century!
CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (1972)
Why it's cool: At the very least shows how the hell apes came to rule the planet in the first place: The intelligent offspring of Cornelius and Zira (from Escape) lives a hidden life until adulthood, and then leads the ape revolution against an oppressive fascist [human] state in 1991; apparently good enough to spark a 2011 remake (Rise).
Why it blows: A limited budget hampers better plot development by limiting the scenery to just one city; more explanation of how America (and elsewhere) became fascistic would've been nice; how does one smart ape lead a revolution with all the other apes -- who're dumb?
BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (1973)
Why it's cool: Only redeeming facet: Shows that time is not immutable. Apparently, Caesar (Cornelius and Zira's child) changes the future by establishing a society where apes and humans live in harmony.
Why it blows: Talk about stretching things just to make more cash. This flick is ten times more unnecessary than Beneath. The "battle" scenes totally suck, the scenery of the nuked city is cheesy beyond belief, and well, everything else.
PLANET OF THE APES (2001)
Why it's cool: A remake 33 years later? Sure, why not? Better make-up and special effects!
Why it blows: It didn't work. The plot sucked and we didn't see anything novel or inventive save, perhaps, the ending. Which, by the way, I thought would be tied in to the coming Rise. But apparently not.
RELATED: Check out MSNBC.com's "Best and Worst" of the Planet of the Apes.
Victor Davis Hanson has a spot-on article today at The Corner. He writes,
For example, on his (Obama's) fiftieth birthday, instead of hosting a $40,000-a-person fund raiser for “millionaires and billionaires” and “corporate jet owners,” he could have a picnic in a small farm town, eating hot dogs with rural folks and staging a photo-op driving a tractor (though I acknowledge the risk of a Dukakis-tank moment). Then, given that there are three wars ongoing, he could have renounced all golf outings until the troops are out of harm’s way; horse-shoes at the White House or jogging would send a better message for an era of 9.2 percent unemployment.
During the August vacation time, Obama could veto the now accustomed first-family junkets to places like Costa del Sol and Martha’s Vineyard, and instead try a middle-class American favorite like a trip to Yosemite or Yellowstone. Given the president’s emphasis on green energy and rising gas prices, coupled with the current difficulty with the Chevy Volt, Obama might occasionally, for short trips, trade the huge SUV caravan for a motorcade of Volts.
Indeed. In yet another bullet point of "progressive" hypocrisy, why is it that libs like Obama -- who doesn't even come from money, unlike folks like the Kennnedys -- perpetually do the swanky vacation and cater to the uber-wealthy ... when it is so contrary to their constant [populist] rhetoric?
As Hanson notes, even Ronald Reagan and George Bush hit their respective ranches and chopped/chainsawed wood. Even though they're wealthier than a pol like Obama, this at least made a connection to their foundational constituents. How does The Messiah make such a connection other than to the [relatively small in number] insanely rich Hollywood types and faux guilt-ridden wealthy east coast white liberals?
Speaking of which, in a semi-related matter, I was flipping through the TV guide the other night and was amused by [Verizon-penned] synopsis for the film "Bob Roberts." It was pretty much like this: "A rightwing politician uses folk songs and manipulates the media during a Senate campaign." Heh. Just switch a few terms around and this describes election 2008 to the proverbial tee, eh?
Big Al advocates for an "Arab Spring"-like revolution in the United States:
“[I] want to focus on one particular suggestion you had about using the wonderful digital tools that are newly available for the reinvigoration of democracy,” Gore said. “Now, they have been around for a while, but they are spreading far and wide and more people are getting involved. We need to have an American spring — you know, the Arab spring. The non-violent part of it isn’t finished yet, but we need to have an American spring, a kind of an American non-violent change where people on the grassroots get involved again. Not the, you know, not in the Tea Party-style.”
Wait -- is the guy who couldn't even win his home state in 2000 actually saying that the Tea Party is violent? Is this the next "narrative" to use against the group now that the "racist" and "terrorist" epithets have petered out?
At any rate, good luck. The Coffee Party (which Gore also mentions) lasted about as long as Mike Damone with Stacy in the pool house. Air America lasted similarly. MSNBC is perpetually in the cellar in cable ratings. Hell, Olbermann's new show on Gore's own network (and on which Gore appeared to make the above statement) has largely bombed.
Once again, libs just don't get it.
All the above (and more) don't make it because 1) libs already have the mainstream media, and 2) libs already have Hollywood and other (big) aspects of popular culture. These right here preclude mass participation in other movements because they already advocate for what groups like the Coffee Party do. And contrariwise (and which libs perpetually fail to grasp), this is the same reason why conservative talk radio and Fox News skyrocketed in popularity and remain so today.
Video at the top link, too.
Alice van Buren Kelley of Wayne wants the government to make her pay more taxes:
I am distressed at the unwillingness of Congress to consider raising taxes to help lower the deficit. My husband and I make a bit more than $250,000 a year. Both of us believe that it is only fair for us and those like us to share a larger portion of the burden of this debt than those who earn less. In the days of Reagan and Clinton, top earners were taxed at a higher rate than is the case today, and the national debt was under control.
My husband and I donate to charities, but private charities cannot offer the support for those on the brink that is given by programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Nor can they improve education, mend our infrastructure, or pay for other projects crucial to the health of our nation.
I suppose since "progressives" want government to do everything for everybody that it is not surprising they would also need it to make them pay more to the government! Hey Alice -- what precisely is preventing you (and other "progressives") from sending in extra cash to Uncle Sam right now?? Get out your freakin' checkbook and write "United States Treasury" where it says "Pay to the Order of." It's very simple ... simple enough that even a wealthy "progressive" can grasp it.
Or maybe not -- especially since Alice actually believes higher taxes would be used to pay down the deficit and debt, instead of going to the usual wasteful endeavors.
Love it: Moron offset credits and hate speech credits!
(h/t to NB for the photo.)
And the non-Council nominations are here!
Since Hube didn't post it:
So we're terrorists for "holding the country hostage"? Okay, then: For what you're doing to future generations, you are pedophiles. Own it.
Our illustrious veep joins the "progressive" crowd in referring to Tea Partiers as "terrorists":
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” angry Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat from PA, said, according to sources who were in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.
Maybe Biden will try to charge the Tea Party Caucus rent to have their offices on Capitol Hill.