March 31, 2014

Quote of the Day

Victor Davis Hanson: "Modern elite liberalism is based on the simple creed that one’s affluence and education, one’s coolness and zip code, should shield him from the consequences of one’s bankrupt thoughts that he inflicts on others."

Posted by Hube at 06:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"I had a better chance in Vietnam"

That's what Philly HS teacher Stephen Pfeiffer said about teaching at Bartram High School.

Let that sink in for a minute. A Vietnam veteran says he had a better chance in a war situation than in a high school. And based on what solutions are being planned out, it looks like Pfeiffer's chances ain't gonna get a whole lot better:

[Superintendent William R.] Hite also said he, the assistant superintendent responsible for the school, and its principal, Kimberly Collins, would work together on Bartram's discipline plan and to emphasize restorative practices, a program that stresses building relationships to prevent conflict.

Yeah, that'll work alright. Read the whole [frightening] article and tell me how "restorative practices" (edu-jargon at its finest) is going to turn Bartram around. Someone like Joe Clark is needed, and needed desperately.

Posted by Hube at 06:52 PM | Comments (39) | TrackBack

March 30, 2014


Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:

I will never understand it when a comicbook creator goes online and bashes those who don't share his/her politics. Especially those who would otherwise purchase his/her creations.

Posted by Hube at 06:05 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Cape Henlopen school board censors?

It seems there was some pretty provocative happenings at this past week's Cape Henlopen (Sussex County, Delaware) school board meeting. Colossus has learned via an attendee of the meeting that it seems a couple of school board members cited Delaware Code Title 11 Section 1361 -- that related to obscenity -- regarding a teacher assigning the novel Brave New World to her high school class. That's right -- school board members insinuated that a teacher could be hauled out of his/her classroom in handcuffs, and arrested on obscenity charges ... for having his/her high school students read the eighty-plus year-old classic novel by Aldous Huxley.

The problem? GASP! There's an "orgy" scene in the book. Yep. But as anyone who has read the novel can attest, it's hardly written in language you'd encounter in a book today. It's full of figurative language, metaphors and other imagery. The book was written in 1931. School board member Jennifer Burton was the one who referenced the "relevant" Delaware Code in regards to the novel. A man who identified himself as a Delaware State Police officer spoke at the meeting and agreed with Burton's assessment of the novel with regards to Title 11 of the Delaware Code.

Part of the catalyst behind this whole affair is that it seems the same teacher who assigned BNW had also given a homework assignment involving the video for the hit song "Blurred Lines." When students Googled the vid to check it out, apparently they discovered there are several other versions of it that are very inappropriate. It seems the teacher was unaware of this. (Note: In my opinion, the teacher should have been.) What the assignment was and how it pertained to the class is still unclear. With regards to this whole matter, Cape school board member Sandi Minard went on Dan Gaffney's radio talk show to discuss it. This was a violation of the "current [Cape Henlopen] Contract, Board Policy and Delaware State Law," according to the Cape Henlopen Education Association. However, Ms. Minard remained undeterred, saying "I will not be intimidated nor will I be silenced." On the radio with Gaffney, Minard remarked that she (and parents) were (paraphrase) "prepared to move forward" past the issue, but then had heard about the assignment of Brave New World and ended up right back at "the beginning," so to speak.

Attempting to keep the issues separate, I ask: When hasn't a teacher been questioned about an assignment ... especially when the topic is something (even remotely) controversial? This happens all the time, especially in the humanities courses (English, social studies). Isn't the proper course of action, as the CHEA noted above, to follow procedure -- you know, like contact the teacher about any concerns first, and then [school-based] administrators if no satisfaction is given by the teacher? Dan Gaffney, on his blog, notes that Minard went public "after the complaints didn't seem to grab any traction with superiors within the school." But what does that mean, exactly? Does not "grab[bing] any traction" mean that the explanations given by the teacher and administrators weren't good enough for the [questioning] parents? What were the explanations by the school? Were there assurances by the school that steps would be taken to rectify lapses in judgment/procedure? We don't know.

But then ... how does all the above evolve into attempting to censor one the greatest classic novels of the last 200 years? Our source at the school board meeting said that school board member Burton remarked that dystopian novels should contain "positive" messages. Apparently irony escapes Ms. Burton ... in more ways than one. And if she (and her constituents) really want to see teachers taken away in handcuffs for having students read classic literature, then go for it. This may assuage a hard-right conservative base, but it'll scare the beejeebees out of many others, libertarians especially, left and right. And it will also assist in keeping the state GOP a statewide non-force for decades to come.

Here's the American Library Association's list of Banned and Challenged Books based on reports from the Office of Intellectual Freedom. Yep, some real head-scratchers on there for sure.

UPDATE: The class in question (reading Brave New World) is an 11th grade Advanced Placement class.

Also, as kavips notes in the comments, here's more from Delaware Beaches. Comment of the day by a father concerned about the book:

“Why would we teach kids what is negative in society?” he said. “Let’s teach them what is right, to become good citizens and improve the fabric of society.”

Irony really does escape a lot of people, doesn't it?

Posted by Felix at 02:10 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

This week in comicbook-related political correctness

And what a week it was! First up, apparently it's major news that a Native American -- oops, First Nations -- Cree member has joined the Justice League. Her name is Equinox. The writer is a plain 'ol white guy, but don't worry -- the article notes that he was "keen to check his privilege."

Next up, Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnston (who wrote the above article) seems to have a thing about "white privilege" as, for some reason on a comics site, he felt the urge to discuss the recent "racism" flap surround Stephen Colbert. It seems Johnston has suffered the fate that Colbert is now dealing with from the radical PC (and perpetually offended) Left, despite the fact that Johnston has "checked [his] privilege so often that I qualify for air miles." What a [hilarious] shame, that.

By the way, speaking of the whole Colbert imbroglio, our pal Douglas Ernst got some ink in the BBC about it, especially since he's been a very vocal opponent of that "everything offends me" social media "activist," Suey Park

At Comics Alliance, Andrew Wheeler is a bit miffed at an Iron Man film universe-related video featuring Ben Kingsley (the Mandarin) and Sam Rockwell (Justin Hammer). He devotes a large article to the -- wait for it -- inherent "homophobic" message. If you can make it through the whole thing, Wheeler basically comes off as another aforementioned Suey Park, albeit probably a bit less angry. I tell 'ya, if these yahoos ever get some real power, we'll be facing a society similar to that of this not-very-well known Christian Bale movie.

Avi Green discusses the New York Magazine's "puff piece" about G. Willow Wilson, the post-9/11 Muslim convert who authors Marvel's new (Muslim) Ms. Marvel.

Oh gosh, look -- there was an ECCC (Emerald City Comicon) panel titled "Comics and Healthcare." I'm sure Boss Obama is all tickled pink.

Posted by Hube at 12:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 29, 2014

Watcher's Council winners

The non-Council winner was John Hinderaker/Powerline with Washington Post Falls For Left-Wing Fraud, Embarrasses Itself [Updated With Post's Response].

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 09:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 27, 2014

College football players can unionize?

You may have heard that the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern football players could form a union. SB Nation's Patrick Vint explains why this decision is stupid:

In order to find that the Northwestern players could form a union, [NLRB Region 13 director Peter Sung] Ohr had to find that the players were employees of the University. An "employee'" is a person who [1] is under contract of hire to [2] perform services for another, [3] subject to the employer's control, and [4] in return for payment.

Almost nobody (this author included) thought the players could meet this standard. To do so, they would have to show that they were hired, controlled, and paid by Northwestern. From inside the system, finding that players are being hired by coaches and paid in scholarship money feels absurd.

Ohr, though, is not in the system. Ohr's opinion reads like that of someone who has not watched college football for one minute of his life, was told the basic premise for the sport's existence and amateurism rules, and rejected all the inherent contradictions.

Be sure to read the whole thing at the link above. For me, the answer is simple: The players are already being paid via scholarships -- scholarships that, at the most elite colleges, can run over $40K per year. A "salary" of that magnitude for a non-college graduate is pretty damn good.

If college athletics want to better compensate their players (as many players desire), then lift the bans on various forms of compensation players can get: Let 'em get cars, apartments, and get paid for their autographs, etc.

Posted by Hube at 04:47 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Yawner of the Day

The Occupy Comics Collection arrived in stores yesterday. It's supposed to show "some of the ways in which comics can protest inequalities in society." But if you're a Tea Partier, all you get is a major Marvel superhero coming after you.

The link above displays some of the art from volume, mostly folks singing and playing music. Conspicuously missing is art showing Occupy violence against police, vandalism (including shitting on cop cars), rape and other sexual assaults, and drug use.

Posted by Hube at 04:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Takedown of the Day

My blog "godfather," John Rosenberg of Discriminations, shows the zeal by which "progressives" detest religion and the free exercise thereof via the following exchange with our Chief Justice and US Solictor General Donald Verrilli during arguments in the "Hobby Lobby case":

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Now, does the government have a position on whether corporations have a race?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. We think those are correct and that this situation is different.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So that — so that a corporation does have a race for purposes of discrimination.

GENERAL VERRILLI: No, not that the corporation has a race, but that corporations can bring those claims. But you’re not interpreting — in that situation, all you’re interpreting is the word “person” in a statute, not exercise of religion, which is what makes it different here.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So those — those cases involve construction of the term “person”

GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, but only “person.”

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So the person — the corporation can bring as a person a claim of racial discrimination.

GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s correct, but not exercise of religion.

As Rosenberg says, "I would like to conclude with a zinger here ... but I can’t think of anything that tops this exchange standing alone." Indeed. For the current administration, a corporation is a "person" for racial discrimination purposes, but a corporation is not a "person" for religious discrimination (freedom) purposes.

Got it.

Posted by Hube at 04:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 26, 2014

Watcher's Council nominations

Honorable Mentions:

And the non-Council nominations are here!

Posted by Hube at 07:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Dems attempting to play on Repubs' supposed "lack" of education?

Andrew Johnson at The Corner reports on the latest -- Iowa Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley diss of Chuck Grassley, suggesting the GOP senator "isn't qualified" because he doesn't have a law degree. Braley later apologized, but Charles Cooke notes a "progressive" website that refers to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as "College Dropout Scott Walker." Cooke notes,

I don’t care whether you love or loathe Scott Walker and his politics, the use of “college dropout” as a pejorative is absurd. The increasing fetishization of education is leading us all to some pretty bizarre places, not the least of which is to the conflation of one’s educational achievement and one’s intellect or worth.

Indeed. Maybe Boss Obama could lead the way by releasing his college transcripts so we could see Just how "smart" he really is. Another example of what Cooke is talking about is Sheila Jackson-Lee, whose education includes UVA law school. This cretin thinks the US Constitution is 400-some years old, and can't even put a coherent English sentence together. (And that's just for starters.) And what about Rep. Hank Johnson, another law school graduate, who once hilariously worried about the island of Guam tipping over if too many Marines were stationed on it?

How can one forget Delaware's own Joe Biden? Here's yet another law school graduate whose list of microcephalic utterances may know no equal. One of my favorites is this, regarding AZ Rep. Gabby Giffords: "Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.” Except she's, y'know, still alive. And doing quite well.

Just as Hillary Clinton plans to make climate change a big part of her 2016 campaign, I sure do hope Democrats attempt to portray Republicans as stupid. It'll make folks look like the entire Boss Obama administration -- "progressive" elitists who think they know it all, yet in practice are complete idiots. (Um, just look at the last six years.) It's like those who like to point out that those who watch Fox News rank lowest in terms of overall education -- what these buffoons omit is that, unlike the vast majority of the LIV American public (a majority of whom voted for Obama), at least the FNC-watching folks are interested in the news, and don't rely exclusively on quick sound-bites (if on anything at all) like Boss Obama's Lie of the Year, or tweets / Facebook posts which frequently carry nary a nugget of truth.

Posted by Hube at 07:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Looks like a charge is missing

That of hate crime.

The District Attorney's office will charge three teenage girls as adults in connection with several assaults on Temple students that took place Friday.

Najee Bilaal, 16, Zaria Estes, 15, and Kanesha Gainey, 15, have already been arraigned, D.A. spokeswoman Tasha Jamerson said. Estes and Bilaal are being held on a $100,000 bail, and Gainey's bail was set at $75,000.

Bilaal, Estes and Gainey have been charged with aggravated assault, conspiracy, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.

But ... no hate crime. For the obvious reasons, natch.

Posted by Hube at 07:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Laugher of the Day

Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania governor Robert McCord has put out a campaign spot which hilariously states the following: That, because of "hard times," he didn't eat any meat from age 4-10 ... because his mother couldn't afford it. WPHT's Dom Giordano this morning put the proverbial kibosh on that inanity by noting how ridiculously cheap various meat prices were (tens of cents per pound) in the early 60s, when McCord was in that age range.

Here's the dopiness:

Posted by Hube at 07:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 25, 2014

Do it. Please.

Via the WaPo: "Hillary Rodham Clinton said here Saturday night that she is weighing another presidential campaign and is 'very much concerned' about the direction of the country, citing climate change as a particular focus."

Yeah, jobs, high energy prices, the debt, IRS and other governmental abuses ... f*** all that! Let's go all out against what used to be called global warming!!

Indeed. Please do just that, Mrs. Clinton.

Posted by Hube at 05:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Felix's Education Round-Up

* Education spending has skyrocketed since 1972, but kids have gotten dumber, according to the Cato Institute.

* A must-read is this Heather Mac Donald article on another completely misguided federal "report" on racial school suspension disparities. Here's something you'll rarely, or never, hear in "honest" (or "courageous") conversations about race:

Actually, what Ms. Smith-Evans should be trying to fathom is the black crime rate, which explains the school-suspension rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males of the same age combined. Given such high crime rates, what do the civil-rights advocates and the Obama administration think is going on in the classroom — docile obedience and strict self-discipline? In fact, the same weak impulse control that leads to such high crime rates among young black males inevitably means more disruptive behavior in school.

Also on Friday, the New York media reported that a 14-year-old boy riding a bus in Brooklyn the previous night had opened fire on the bus and fatally shot an innocent 39-year-old passenger in the head. Did anyone doubt the race of the killer, even though the media did not disclose it? Blacks commit nearly 80 percent of all shootings in New York City, even though they are only 23 percent of the population; whites commit less than 2 percent of all shootings in New York City, though they are 35 percent of the population. The chance that that young bus killer was a model pupil, quietly paying attention in class and not disturbing his fellow students and teacher, is close to zero. (Follow-up stories revealed that the shooter was a member of Bedford Stuyvesant’s Stack Money Goons crew, and had been moved to open fire when three members of the rival Twan Family boarded the bus.)

And this doesn't even begin to address illegitimacy, over 80% in some [black] urban areas. The AP's predictable article on the matter is here.

* David French notes how a conservative professor was denied tenure because of his beliefs; he went to court and won.

* Go figure: A high school "conflict-resolution specialist" was attacked and knocked out by a 17 year-old student at a Philly school.

* Speaking of Philly, Temple University officials are warning students about attacks from a group of girls after a student of the college was smashed in the face with a brick, and another student faced unknown injuries. The assailants are described as "as black girls who were about 16 or 17 years old." No doubt these girls are model students in the high schools they attend and have never had to be suspended, thus not requiring Arne Duncan's and the feds' intervention on behalf of "disproportionate" discipline statistics.

Posted by Felix at 04:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

X-Men: Days of Future Past trailer

Here it is, and Newsarama has 10 Things Worth Noticing about it:

As we've noted previously, "DOFP" shows a dystopian future where mutants are hunted down to almost extinction. In the comics (X-Men #s 141-142) Kitty Pryde's mind is shunted back to her younger self's body in the hope of convincing the X-Men to thwart the assassination of Senator Kelly (seen fairly prominently in the first X-movie). It's his murder by the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants that is the catalyst for the mutants' deadly future. However, in the film, it'll be Wolverine's mind which does the "switching" (and why not, as his character and Hugh Jackman are much bigger draws than Kitty Pryde/Ellen Page).

As this is one of my favorite comicbook storylines ever, I'll certainly be heading to the theatre.

Posted by Hube at 03:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Laugher of the Day

Via Ace comes word about yet more college nuttery, this time a "seminar" at Swarthmore College called “Fat Justice and Feminism.” It's led by "feminist activist" Cora Segal and self-identified “angry, man-hating lesbian,” Nicole Sullivan who, among other things, blame Ronald Reagan for the bloated among us's suffering, and claim that the inventor of the BMI -- Body Mass Index -- had "direct links to a white supremacist." These dolts also claim that “there is no scientific consensus whatsoever that fat people need to exercise more, or that fat is unhealthy," and (surprise!) provided no back-up to their claims about Reagan and the inventor of the BMI.

Posted by Hube at 03:55 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

New at the Watcher's Council

Forum: What Is The Meaning Of ‘Spirituality’ To You?

Posted by Hube at 03:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 24, 2014's "5 Disastrous Attempts at Political Commentary in Comicbooks"

Thanks once again to the incomparable Nate Winchester, I was alerted to this latest offering. I'm a big fan of the site (hence its listing in Colossus's "Favorite Reads"), with contributor "Seanbaby" being my fave. However, especially within the last year, there seems to be too many of their writers who display a copious degree of cluelessness about that which they are opining. Case in point is Henrik Magnusson with his article about what this post's title says. It all begins with #5 in which, by any objective person's view, Superman makes a compromise decision which placates both sides of a situation. But since Supes doesn't side with the environmentalists, well, he's such a dick!!! Magnusson would have the Man of Steel give the middle finger to average workers who plead with him not to put the kibosh on their only source of income. These workers know the plant has been an environmental clusterf*** for years, but with Supes' help, an agreement is forged by which the company will do what's right. (A little Superman threat doesn't hurt, either!). Magnusson also thinks that Lois Lane's 1st Amendment rights supercede all this -- she should have the right, dammit, to out this plant and expose them! Maybe Magnusson could put some of this fire behind our real lapdog mainstream media so they'd do some actual reporting on President Lemon.

Also included -- predictably -- is Frank Miller's Holy Terror. Shunned by DC because of its ... "sensitive" nature, Miller took what was originally a Batman tale and turned it into one starring the generic hero The Fixer. Magnusson's title for this section is "Not-Batman Stars in Islamophobic Propaganda." Because the Fixer goes after al Qaeda. Got it? It's Islamophobic to have a good guy go after murderous terrorists just because they happen to be Muslim. Consider: It's really hard to imagine someone screaming "Germanophobia" over the cover of Captain America #1, isn't it?

Yep, that's Cap socking 'ol Uncle Adolf in the kisser. How is this different, again, from what the Fixer does to al Qaeda? Someone explain this to me. Because all I can come up with is that today, contemporary political correctness doesn't like the latter ... because Muslims are supposedly a "protected class." Or something. I know, we hear that "not all Muslims are terrorists" and all, and this is true -- just like not all Germans were Nazis, either.

Furthermore, if Holy Terror is so reprehensible, then why not include Truth: Red, White and Black on the list? One could easily label Truth "anti-white" and/or "anti-American," after all. The 2003 tale deals with "never-before-seen" issues surrounding the origin of Captain America, specifically how the US government attempted to recreate Professor Erksine's super soldier formula -- how the government tested imperfect copies only on African-American soldiers. This is supposed to be an analogy to the infamous Tuskegee experiment where hundreds of black farmers, most of whom were already infected with syphillis, were monitored for several decades, never being told they were ill. But the US government certainly didn't single out specific races in its various questionably unethical experiments over the years. The TV film Nightbreaker starring Martin Sheen and his son Emilio Estevez, for example, details what soldiers (of all colors) were exposed to in the early nuclear, post-WW II age. Not to mention, the Tuskegee experiment has often morphed into the legend that US operatives gave those hundreds of black men syphillis. This isn't too surprising with Joe Quesada-era Marvel as their knowledge of actual history has been found wanting. Quesada, when once discussing Truth, for example, ridiculously stated that "most of the US military" is black. He also wrote in an Iron Man tale from the early 2000s about the "extensive US nuclear testing during WW II." I'll let you figure that one out because I know you're not dumb.

An image from Marvel's Truth: Red, White and Black.

There's also the question of moral equivalence with Truth, something with which the Left has an almost biological need to do when it comes to comparing the United States to other nations. Truth would put us in pretty much the same category as the above-mentioned Nazis, which, as with just about every other such comparison the Left makes, is smirk-inducing.

Magnusson's #1 entry is really a head scratcher as it's the Captain America "Secret Empire" storyline which I've written about previously. While "Empire" can be a bit hokey, it is a clear sign of its times, and is hardly a worthy example of a "disastrous" attempt of politicking. But Magnusson's #4 entry is his best: the ridiculous Marvel 9/11 tributes that featured its most murderous villains weeping over the infamous terror attacks. That's right -- Dr. Doom, Magneto, Dr. Octopus, the Kingpin ... you name 'em. As Magnusson writes, "they went with three guys who have a bigger body count individually than all of al-Qaida combined." Marvel claims the panels in question are "symbolic." I call 'em "idiotic."

Conspiculously missing from Magnusson's article are the numerous examples regarding The Authority, J. Michael Strazynski's Supreme Power, Image's The Big Lie, Captain America vs. the Tea Party, and the myriad other instances we've noted throughout our almost nine years of blogging here at Colossus. But should we really be surprised??

Posted by Hube at 08:18 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

March 23, 2014

Today's HuffPo inconsequential Republican report

Today it has discovered a state rep. in Louisiana who wants to make The Bible the state book:

House Bill 503 was filed in Louisiana this session by state Representative Thomas Carmody (R-La.), reports KTBS. The bill proposes making La.'s oldest state-owned Bible the official state book.

Randy Dill of Shreveport, La., came up with the idea in 1988, but had failed to find a lawmaker willing to back his proposal until now.

"The Bible was their main inspiration along with our forefathers--Washington and all of them," Dill told KTBS. "They looked to it for their inspiration for our country. They called upon God to help us."

Remember, despite the virtual 100% inconsequential nature of this dope, the HuffPo will continue such reporting ... to help offset the huge advantage the GOP has heading into November.

Posted by Hube at 12:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

B-b-b-b-but ... I thought we could keep our doctor and premiums would go down!

Via the Wilmington (DE) News Journal: Delawareans experience health care sticker shock.

Who'da thought?

Posted by Hube at 09:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Laugher of the Day

Ah, that 'ol insulated "progressive" bubble: David Brooks: Obama Would Have to 'Ride With Miley Cyrus On The Wrecking Ball' to Seem Unpresidential

Indeed. Filling out NCAA brackets on several TV shows and lobbying for ObumbleCare with cheesy "comedy" bits while Russia takes Crimea and threatens Ukraine is as "presidential" as it gets!

Posted by Hube at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

There's a petition to change Marvel's Iron Fist to an Asian guy

... for a potential Iron Fist TV series, that is. We've been back and forth on this subject matter; on the one hand, making superficial changes in what seems like a mere nod to political correctness is silly (a la making the Human Torch a black guy and/or Dr. Doom a chick), on the other there's the [legitimate] matter of rectifying issues associated with the times in which most of the classic superheroes were created.

Reading through Andrew Wheeler's article about Iron Fist I was struck with a memory of watching the very good Bruce Lee biopic Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. I recall how incredibly disappointed Lee was when his idea for a TV show -- Kung Fu -- was picked up by a network ... but cast a white actor (David Carradine) to play the title character instead of Lee. Sign 'o the times, unfortunately. And hell, this happened all the time, from the 40s (and before, natch) through even to the present day.

The other aspect that the character of Iron Fist possesses is that of the "Great White Hope" where a white character is "needed" to somehow "save the day" after being placed in an "alien" situation. "Enlightened" Hollywood still follows this mantra religiously, notably with teacher movies like Dangerous Minds where a cultured, white educator comes in to "save" hardened, inner city toughs. Is this not patronizing to the Nth degree? Kevin Chow, who's taken up a petition to make Iron Fist's Danny Rand an Asian guy, notes the "GWH" aspect with regards to Asian culture:

“Never mind Danny Rand, you have Snake Eyes, Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai, Daniel-san [in The Karate Kid], Wolverine, every Steven Segal and Jean-Claude Van Damme movie ever, hell, even Batman for chrissakes!”

Point taken. But Chow would be a lot better received if he didn't dawdle in the ridiculous notion of "cultural approbation," as if that in itself is a bad thing. (Just recall this recent inanity from If anything, it should be considered a compliment if someone desires to "appropriate" an aspect from another culture; again, the patronizing comes in when the "appropriators" are somehow "needed" to do some "saving."

Chow also glosses over the fact that by making Danny Rand an Asian guy, Marvel'd be perpetuating the stereotype that all Asians know martial arts:

I don’t think so. Look, the problem with the Asian martial artist stereotype is not the art itself. The problem has always been how Asian martial artists have been portrayed in Western media. As someone who has practiced martial arts and admires and respects it, I don’t run away from that aspect of my heritage.

That's pretty lame, if you ask me. It also reminds me of the scene in Revenge of the Nerds where a football player asks nerd Takashi if he "knows karate." Y'know, because he's Asian:

Would Chow say "I don't think so" if one assumed all African-Americans know how to play basketball? Or would that, too, be merely "how it's portrayed?" I doubt it.

All this being said, overall I don't believe it to be a big deal if Iron Fist is altered to be an Asian guy. After all, I.F. is a B or even C-list Marvel character, and this potential series will be on Netflix, not even network or cable TV.

Posted by Hube at 09:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 22, 2014

Watcher's Council winners

The non-Council winner was Victor Davis Hanson with A New Obama Doctrine?

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 12:03 PM | Comments (152) | TrackBack

HuffPo continues to highlight no-name GOP morons

Hey, remember back on the 19th when we showed you how outfits like the Huffington Post will continue to highlight nutjob-yet-inconsequential Republicans throughout the year ... to hopefully negate somewhat the obvious GOP advantage heading into November? Well, here's their latest:

A Republican candidate who believes that God dictates weather patterns and that tornadoes, autism and dementia are God's punishments for marriage equality and abortion access won the GOP nomination to challenge Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) in the Chicago-area 9th Congressional District.

Susanne Atanus, of Niles, Ill., garnered 54 percent of the vote in her Tuesday win over David Earl Williams III.

"I am not in favor of abortions, I am not in favor of gay rights," Atanus told the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago newspaper, in January.

She blamed natural disasters and mental disorders on recent advances in LGBT equality and legal abortions.

"God is angry. We are provoking him with abortions and same-sex marriage and civil unions," she said. "Same-sex activity is going to increase AIDS. If it's in our military, it will weaken our military. We need to respect God."

Why is Atanus (nice name) inconsequential? Because the partisan breakdown in her district is overwhelmingly Democratic -- about 2/3 Democrat to 1/3 GOP. In other words, she has no chance. Naturally, the HuffPo highlights the story despite this, and despite the fact that the state and Chicago GOP chairs condemned her lunacy.

Posted by Hube at 11:46 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Captain America film franchise has the potential to be a lefty's wet dream

Big Hollywood is reporting what I already suspected about the upcoming Cap 2: Winter Soldier flick: That SHIELD's secrets will reveal a government conspiracy of some sort (hell, we already wondered that from watching The Avengers; recall Nick Fury yapping with that mysterious quartet on video, seeking approval for various actions ... who were they?), and with far-lefty Robert Redford starring in a villainous role, this virtually confirms such. This doesn't concern me as much as what I read about the second Cap sequel:

“We’ve definitely set out on a more realistic road in the Cap movies, you know,” [screenwriter Christopher] Markus told Den of Geek. “Even more grounded than in the other MCU movies. And so it kind of rules out Cap fighting the Dinosaur Man or something like that. There are some that aren’t gonna start and other ones that — I mean there’s a couple we’re playing with right now that we really want to take elements from. Which we’ll not reveal. … All I’m saying is psychotic 1950s Cap.”

Spinoff in the link above offers an in-depth analysis of just who the 1950s Captain America is (was); his initial introduction into the Marvel mythos, despite its politics, is one of the more well-done 1970s offerings by noted creator Steve Englehart. It began in issue #153 when "a" Captain America and, then, of all people, "a" Bucky, were raging through Harlem beating the snot out of people. Cap's partner, the Falcon, stumbled upon them, and virtually immediately knew they were imposters. The ersatz duo then proceed to hatch a plot to capture whom they believe to be the fake Cap (our own Steve Rogers, the real Cap), and in the process we learn just who this Capt. America and Bucky are ...

The 1950s Cap is really William Burnside, a fanatical devotee of the real Captain America. He was such a fanatic that he wrote his college thesis about Cap, and in the process discovered files regarding Project: Rebirth (that which created the real Cap) as well as details about the super soldier serum used to turn Steve Rogers into that super soldier. Later (get this), he underwent the 'ol plastic surgery to turn himself into a copy of Steve Rogers, and became a government agent as a new Cap during the Korean War. But the war quickly ended, and the gov. ended Burnside's new career. (All this was told in Capt. America #155, see above left.)

Burnside subsequently became a teacher, but when the Red Skull attacked the UN building, he and his new pal, Jack Monroe, took a chance and injected themselves with that serum Burnside had discovered years prior. They took on the Skull as the new Cap and Bucky, and won. But by taking just the [super soldier] serum and not being exposed to other parts of the process (like "vita rays"), Burnside and Monroe experienced psychotic episodes. The government quickly put the kibosh on their fledgling careers, and placed them into suspended animation.

Here's where the "worrisome" (so for those right-of-center, of course) comes in: Years later, an anti-Communist zealot freed Burnside and Monroe, hopefully to assist against the commies in the continuing Cold War. This Cap and Bucky saw Communists everywhere, including among historically oppressed African-Americans. (This is where the Falcon first notices them, as noted above.) Englehart's story is a masterwork of Marvel continuity; however, as he did with the also-masterful "Secret Empire" story some twenty issues later, his villains are fanatical, power hungry rightists who are beyond devoted to snuffing out any who oppose them. In retrospect, what Richard Nixon did during Watergate (the analogy for "Secret Empire") pales in comparison to what we see today, currently. And Englehart's message via the 1950s Cap is that anti-communism equates to Joe McCarthy-style witch hunts ... not to mention that you're nuts.

The real Cap finally dispatches of the Cap of the 1950s (issue #156).

Englehart's stories are a product of their times, to be sure. Which means translating the 1950s Cap to 2016 or 2017 whenever Cap 3 comes out has the extreme potential to be just another Hollywood "blast conservatives" slug fest. Which, in these times won't be received very well. Consider: Englehart made the Capt. America who fought Communists in the 1950s a psychotic nutjob. Aside from the Silver Age 1960s (Marvel Comics' own "rebirth," so to speak), fighting Communists was mostly anathema for superheroes. Fascists? Not so much. (If you've taken a poli sci course you know that far-left=communism, far-right=fascism ... but in a circular political spectrum model the extremes are essentially the same and meet.) Captain America continued his battle against fascists into the next decades, including, but not limited to, the Grand Director (who was actually Burnside himself, natch), The Watchdogs, Crossbones, Dr. Faustus, Karl Stryker, and the Super-Patriot. Another version of that last one, named John Walker, ironically eventually assumed the role of Capt. America after the US government used its "muscle" (including, ahem, the IRS) to demand Steve Rogers serve it. Rogers resigned the role of Cap and Walker took over. But writer Mark Gruenwald portrayed Walker as -- wait for it! -- mentally unstable. Walker became more bloodthirsty, killing his enemies, something Steve Rogers would never do if it could be helped.

See the message? "Patriotic"="unstable" and "visceral." This was during the 1980s, natch, and we all know who was president then! The writer even showed Steve Rogers, when contemplating resigning as Cap so as not to be a government lackey, thinking of possible missions he could be sent on -- with a panel detailing a hypothetical replacement fighting (gasp!) Communists in Nicaragua. In recent years, we've seen Captain America investigate the Tea Party, for cripe's sake.

And hey, maybe that's precisely who the villain, if the 1950s Cap is revived in the present day for Captain America 3, will be -- an "anti-government Tea Party type." Knowing Hollywood (and contemporary comicbook creators), this would make perfect sense. To them. Because the insulated "progressive" bubble in which they live tells them so.

Posted by Hube at 11:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 20, 2014

A nice (comics) change of pace

While perusing some of my favorite comics blogs and news sites, I came across an article about an all-gay super-team called The Pride. Writer Joe Glass wanted to do what hasn't been done in the medium before -- take on issues surrounding the gay community head-on, and his team is assembled "in order to improve the image of gay people worldwide." Hannah Means Shannon at Bleeding Cool says that

Going in, I expected another product along the lines of Spandex, which combines infectious enthusiasm with amateurish execution. The Pride surprised me by being nothing of the sort, instead produced very much in the style of a traditional superhero comic, with a strong sense of structure, solid pacing and polished visuals.

The Pride may play it straight but it has its humorous moments as well – moments where you can laugh with the characters rather than at them. I suppose it speaks to my own prejudices that my inner Mary Whitehouse was pleasantly surprised to find that the content was clean of offensive swearing, explicit sex references or graphic violence. This family-friendly approach could make it a great educational tool in tackling homophobia in the future.

That last sentence is significant as too often in the media we see caricatures of gay people (in TV, movies, and even in news media). Anyone who knows and/or is friends with someone who is gay knows this is ridiculous. Most gay people are just like you and me. They get up in the morning, go to work, come home and relax, eat dinner, watch a little tube and then go to bed. It looks like writer Glass wants to portray just this, and correct many of the misconceptions ... not to mention, assist those who face bullies, the worst of whom are young teens as shown in these heartfelt panels.

One thing that struck me, however, about the premiere issue's synopsis was the apparent too-easy approach to the villain of the story -- "a cabal of Bible-bashing villains." I was a bit confused by the term "Bible-bashing;" was it someone trashing the Bible, or, as I thought, religious zealots using the Bible to attack homosexuals? I took to Twitter to ask author Glass about it, and to my surprise, he responded quickly, and best of all, cordially. (I say "surprised" because most of my experiences with comics creators on Twitter and elsewhere haven't been exactly enlightening or friendly despite my attempts to keep them so.) I asked about going with the "easy" villain, a Fred Phelps-like baddie who everyone despises, not just the gay community. Guys like Phelps are like Nazis, after all, when it comes to entertainment: They're the obvious choice because, again, no one likes them. I went further, asking why the religious bigots couldn't have been, say, Muslim fundies, especially since their views towards homosexuality (and even those of non-fundies) are much less ... "enlightened" than those of the majority of Western Christian religions. Glass replied:

You can be the judge as to whether Glass's reason for his villain choice is still too easy; for me, at least, it looks like he's just utilizing something deeply personal for him, which can often make for some good storytelling. And, best of all, he was open about all this, (again) quick to reply, and thankfully didn't sink to the usual P.C. accusations and epithets that too many in his profession go right to in an instant. (Yeah, I'm talking to you Ron Marz, Gail Simone and Tom Brevoort, among others.)

Posted by Hube at 07:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Most Useless Main Page Story of the Day

Unbelievably, this was the absolutely first story at around mid-day today:

Posted by Hube at 07:37 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

Laugher(s) of the Day

Two items via Newsbusters today: First, Ellen Degeneres tells Boss Obama "everyone's very grateful" for ObumbleCare and that "I think everyone’s very grateful that you did this." Ahhh ... the "progressive" Bubble, dont'cha know.

Next, founder of the leading moonbat site on the 'net, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, says (with a straight face)

We still have to contend with that GOP gerrymander in the House and at the state level (2010 was a huge step backward), with a conservative Supreme Court, and a media and political establishment that still overly defers to increasingly fringe Republicans.

Anyone who really believes the US mainstream media "still overly defers to increasingly fringe Republicans" is insane. Really and truly. And that's why he runs the moonbat site that he does.

Posted by Hube at 07:30 PM | Comments (58) | TrackBack

March 19, 2014

Watcher's Council submissions

Honorable Mentions:

And the non-Council submissions are here!

Posted by Hube at 05:51 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Laugher of the Day

Hot Air details the Catch-22 the diversophiles frequently find themselves in again. In this case, it's the Ferndale Public School District in Michigan where there's a contract which contains some usual affirmative action-associated mumbo jumbo, but also some legally curious and unintentionally funny words/clauses:

Should there be two (2) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications for the position and one (1) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications is a current employee, the current employee with the greatest seniority shall be assigned. Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith. However, in all appointments to vacant positions, the Board’s decision shall be final.

First, why would women be granted "special consideration" for an education position? They make up approximately three quarters of all teaching positions and about 62% of administrators. But worse, how in the hell would the district determine an employee's religion? It's impermissible to inquire about such let alone promote somebody based on it.

Not too surprisingly, the local ACLU is incurious about all this.

Posted by Hube at 05:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week 2

Jan Roulstone of Newark claims that "ObamaCare is not failing," because she is an example of someone it actually helped.

Earth to Jan: Remember what the Lie of the Year was? What about these myriad ObumbleCare horror stories? The latter, especially after the former, is what makes ObumbleCare a sad joke. (This isn't including the ridiculous website hassles, natch.) Oh, and don't forget about these.

Indeed, a one-size-fits-all system based on one big lie which harms at least as many as it [supposedly] helps "isn't a failure." This is why Jan is our second winner this week.

Posted by Hube at 04:54 PM | Comments (53) | TrackBack

Least Surprising Story of the Day

Yale students, faculty criticize Coons' recent vote.


Posted by Hube at 04:48 PM | Comments (86) | TrackBack

As Democrat prospects dwindle for November

... expect to see more and more stories of incredibly obscure -- and moronic -- state and local GOP lawmakers who do really ridiculous stuff. Why? Because the Democrat-allied MSM has to somehow "even up the score," eh?

But as a rule, if you see the phrase "GOP lawmaker" in a headline, your click will usher you into a world of back-benchers from Bismarck and Jackson and Dover and Sacramento, not the people currently threatening to take the Senate back from Democrats. The Lawmakers are anonymous until they screw up, and when they do, they are often easier to grab hold of then, say, front-running South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rounds. If the lawmaker were famous, his name might make it into the hed. But he's not famous, so the story is about right-wing insanity that happens to come from a politician who may or may not represent you—click to find out.

Article author Dave Weigel notes just a few examples, all taken from the HuffPo, to make his point, including the number of votes the dude actually to demonstrate just how freakin' obscure he really is in the whole scheme of things:

  • March 17: GOP Lawmaker Says Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Services To Black People. Votes won in last election: 5,722.

  • March 14: GOP Lawmaker: 'Public Education In America Is Socialism' Votes won in last election: 31,385.

  • March 11: New Hampshire GOP Lawmaker Jokes About 'Battered Women': 'I Still Eat Mine Plain.' Votes won in last election: 3,469.

  • February 28: Republican Lawmaker Apologizes For Saying Men Should Be Able To Rape Women If Abortion Is Legal. Votes won in last election: 2,188.

  • February 18: GOP Lawmaker Claims We 'Could Use' Twice As Much Carbon Dioxide In The Atmosphere. Votes won in last election: 6,476.

That Feb. 28 story -- just a tad under 2,200 votes, huh? The guy's a real influence! Yet, that story got 30,000 shares/likes on Facebook. Look at the other vote-to-like/share ratios.

Hey, we ourselves certainly highlight instances of "progressive" state/local lawmaker idiocy from time to time. But we certainly ain't the HuffPo now, are we?

Expect to see a LOT more of this in the months to come.

(h/t to Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt")

Posted by Hube at 04:45 PM | Comments (47) | TrackBack

Because imagination and creativity have left us

Ghostbusters is the latest act of Hollywood "reboot" non-imagination. But there is hope: Star Wars: Episode VII is a genuine sequel, and takes place thirty years after Return of the Jedi. Which is nice, 'cuz the actors from Jedi are all, like, thirty years older ...

Posted by Hube at 04:39 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 18, 2014

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

The letter isn't so much dopey as hypocritical. Willis Weldin of Wilmington is miffed that some people scoff at global warming because of all the snow we've had this winter season. But the thing is ... that's precisely what global warming alarmists do all the time when it's unbearably hot! At this point, EVERYTHING is because of global warming. And it's ridiculous. Indeed, as global warming skeptic Marc Morano says,

And of all people in the world to say we can't use our weather or specific outbreaks, when every single event that happens - be it a typhoon in the Philippines or Hurricane Sandy or a heat wave in Moscow, almost every single event - they cherry pick it and claim it's part of a larger trend."

For starters, we were told snow "is a thing of the past."

Al Gore said in 2008 that the "polarized" ice caps would be gone in five years.

Olympians in Sochi, Russia, blamed the hot weather on global warming. No one told them to shut up about that.

Nature blamed the heatwaves of 2012 on global warming. So did NBC News. But I thought one couldn't blame GW (that's for "global warming," not "George W. Bush") for weather.

The Financial Times ran an article blaming this year's Australian heatwaves on GW. Except they called it "climate change." Does changing the terminology mean one is allowed to blame weather on GW? Or is that only permitted for the alarmists/true believers?

You can't win. With "progressives," just as virtually everything has a racial connotation, so is global warming/climate change responsible for virtually anything weather/climate related.

Posted by Hube at 05:13 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

March 17, 2014

Once again, the local MSM cannot find a better example for pulling at the heartstrings

Will "Panties In A" Bunch at the Philly Daily News notes with predictable glee that the "Fast-food-worker movement [is] coming to Philly." The poster child of the story this time is one Sean Caldwell, who, at 35 years of age, is working at McDonald's for eight bucks an hour:

Caldwell, 35, started a neighborhood lawn-mowing business and takes other odd jobs, such as cleaning out garages, but when he did his 2013 taxes he still saw that he'd made only $9,000. To bridge the gap, Caldwell, like many workers in the fast-food industry, received food stamps and other taxpayer-funded benefits, such as Medicaid.

This December, Caldwell saw a cable-TV news report about workers from McDonald's and other fast-food restaurants in New York City staging a one-day strike. "I was excited - I wanted to see where this thing could go, if it could gain traction," he said. "I said, 'I sure hope it comes to my city!' "

He saw it on cable-TV, eh? And he makes only $9K per year. Seems like a common refrain. Now, look what Bunch waits to the very end to deliver, too:

Not surprisingly, there are complicating factors. Caldwell, a graduate of Bishop McDevitt High School, in Montgomery County, who's worked a variety of jobs while seeking a Harcum College associate degree, has fathered eight children, two of whom live with him. He concedes to some "immature decisions, but I don't regret any of my children." He said he sees all of them every week, while he decides whether to pay for a son's football trip or instead for bunk beds for three girls who now must sleep together.

I mean, really? REALLY?? These are the best examples guys like Bunch can discover to make the public sympathetic to these folks? And Sean, I got news for you, brah: $15/hour still ain't gonna be enough to support eight kids. Cripes, what was I thinking, twenty years ago, when I meticulously planned out how I could be the sole breadwinner for five years so my wife could stay home with our [one] newborn, eh? Doing the complete opposite would have garnered me the sympathies of guys like Will Bunch! And maybe a "heart-wrenching" news article! (Cheeyeah, right -- I'd be beyond mortified to have such an article written about me given that most-probably-purposely-left-'till-the-end revelation.)

The best thing about this is, the article comments, thankfully, reflect reality, not Bunch's limousine "progressive" theoretical utopian vision. Kudos to for allowing such.

Posted by Hube at 10:49 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Boss Obama fills out his NCAA bracket:

At least he's transparent about this!

Posted by Hube at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Accurate on race?

Kevin D. Williamson at The Corner:

The fundamental fact, I think, is that when a white American sees a black American, he sees history, and that history looms far more significantly over black Americans than it does over Hispanics or Asian immigrants or other minority groups. Conservatives see that history and generally don’t want to think about it; progressives see that history and want to use it for their own political ends.

Generally speaking, as Williamson notes, I think this accurate. But for those more intimately involved in history and politics, it boils down to fundamental -- and honest -- disagreements over how to best deal with that history. Even in that regard, conservatives have to walk on eggs for fear of "progressive" use of the modern Scarlet Letter, the "R" word. Just ask Paul Ryan, for the most recent example.

Posted by Hube at 09:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"Ban the Bossy" -- unless you're Republican, natch

Forty People Who Called Mitt Romney "Bossy" during the 2012 Campaign. Once again, many "progressives" just make sh** up in order to have a cause, in this case the word "bossy" is an epithet aimed at women. Except, y'know, that it's not. We showed that already:

And much more recently are these examples contra the GOP presidential candidate of 2012:

Color me shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you! And best of all:

The irony is delicious.

Posted by Hube at 08:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

New at the Watcher's Council

Forum: If You Had The Opportunity, What Would You Discuss With President Obama?

Posted by Hube at 08:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 15, 2014

Watcher's Council winners

The non-Council winner was Zombie with Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 07:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ban the "Bossy"

There's probably no better take down of this latest bullsh** politically correct nonsense than Matt Walsh's:

Bossy liberal feminists have just invented another ridiculous reason to be offended.

Sheryl Sandberg, a Facebook executive, has partnered with the likes of the Girl Scouts, Condoleezza Rice, Beyoncé, Jennifer Gardner, and Google to promote the “Ban Bossy” campaign. Calling it the new “B-word,” Ms. Sandberg claims that women — especially young girls — are typically dismissed as “bossy” when they attempt to take charge and assert themselves, whereas men and boys are praised as leaders.

She says that “bossy” has a specifically female connotation, and the word is partly responsible for holding women back and making them feel timid and self-conscience.

Now, as much as I appreciate Ms. Sandberg, Beyoncé, and the Girl Scouts chiming in to tell us all what we mean when we say things (kind of bossy of them, actually), I still prefer to consult the dictionary on these matters.

According to that old misogynistic book of lies, bossy means “given to ordering people around, highhanded, domineering, overly authoritative, dictatorial, abrasive.”

Be sure, as they say, to read Matt's whole post. But ... "a specifically female connotation?" Tell that to Larry:

Even better is Walsh's response to the purveyors of PC feminism who were miffed at his "Bossy" post!

Posted by Hube at 06:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Not even "a smidgen"

That's what Boss Obama said to Bill O'Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday regarding alleged wrong-doing by the IRS -- "not even a smidgen of corruption."

Uh huh:

In one email, [former director of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division Lois] Lerner referred to the Tea Party cases as “very dangerous” and suggested the Chief Counsel’s office should be involved in the review process.

In another email, Lerner forwarded an article to Nanette Downing, director of exempt-organization examinations, from the liberal news site Mother Jones about how “dark money” was being used to influence the political process.

Lerner expressed concern that the Citizens United vs. Federal Elections ruling would hurt Democratic senators seeking re-election in 2012. In response to an article sent to her by a colleague about Senate Democrats’ complaint to the FEC that political-oriented nonprofits were violating election law, Lerner writes: “Perhaps the [Federal Election Commission] will save the day.”

“The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns,” Lerner said at an event sponsored by Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy in October 2010. “And everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it. The [FEC] can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.”

Feel safe yet?

Posted by Hube at 06:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Mainstream media bias in a nutshell

'Ya gotta [sadly] laugh at how the AP frames this story (my emphasis):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Calling their opponents Satan worshippers and savages, anti-abortion lawmakers on Wednesday insisted that Republican contenders keep an intense focus on social issues in the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.

Wow. That's harsh, huh? But then later on in the article we read this:

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is a favorite of the tea party, said supporters of abortion rights chant “Hail, Satan” to silence their enemies.

“Arm-in-arm, chanting ‘Hail, Satan,’ embracing the right to take the life of a late-term child,” Cruz said of supporters of abortion rights.

He was referencing protests in Austin, Texas, last year over an abortion bill. While anti-abortion activists were giving speeches and singing “Amazing Grace,” others tried to drown them out with chants.

The Washington Free Beacon (link above) notes that the AP didn't even bother to find out if Cruz's claims were true (they were), which a simple Google search would have shown in a matter of seconds. There were also "great parenting examples" like this:

Yep, the little girl on the left is holding a placard that reads ”If I Wanted the Government In My Womb I Would F*** A Senator!”

The AP later amended their story, but it was possibly even more ridiculous than the original.

Posted by Hube at 06:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 13, 2014

Hube's worst live-action superhero/villain outfits

Newsarama has up a list of the Ten Worst Live-Action Superhero Costumes Ever, and their choices leave a lot of room for some head-scratching. So, we decided to help them out (because no one demanded it!) with what they missed, including a few notable villain outfits that deserve a mention:

TV HULK. Although it was one of the more popular TV shows based on a comicbook character, compared to how the Jade Giant should look, Lou Ferrigno's physique just didn't cut it:

1960s BATMAN. If you're going to have such a list, this Batman costume has got to be on it. Maybe it's the painted-on eyebrows. Maybe it's the chest emblem that looks like it was made in a 4th grade art class. Or maybe it's just Adam West's completely average physique. Whatever the case, it's lame:

DOLPH LUNDGREN'S PUNISHER. While the actual movie isn't any worse than the supposedly "better" later films, Dolph's outfit is far from anything special:

ROGER CORMAN'S THE THING. Granted, the film never saw the light of day aside from bootleg copies sold at conventions and on the 'net, but if you're going to include Michael Chiklis's version on a "Worst" list, then this has to be there, too:

1990 CAPTAIN AMERICA. In a word (or three letters), "WTF??"

1990 RED SKULL. Slightly better than his American rival from the direct-to-video film, this Skull was -- wait for it! -- Italian. His cheesy accent throughout the flick and his penchant for sending his kids to do his dirty work only added to the lameness:

CATHY LEE CROSBY WONDER WOMAN. A 1970s TV version before Linda Carter's iconic role, this outfit is, well, pretty pathetic:

ORIGINAL TRILOGY X-MEN MAGNETO. How uninspired was Ian McKellen's costume from the first three X-flicks? Very. Especially when you see what Michael Fassbender's costume looked like in the prequel. (That's right, a 1960s version of his suit is far superior to the 2000 version. Go figure!):

2002 GREEN GOBLIN. Even though it's one of the highest-grossing superhero films ever (and features one of the coolest costumes -- the hero's), how could the villain's outfit be so awful? Willem DaFoe has one of the most sinister busts in all of Hollywood; why the directors didn't make use of it, and instead gave us this, I'll never know:

TV THOR. One of my personal faves for outright heavy cheese, this Thor was actually featured in a 1980s Hulk TV movie. Don Blake turns into the Thunder God by -- wait for it! -- yelling "ODIIIIINNNNNN!!!"

Posted by Hube at 06:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Nate's right ...

Nate Winchester, that is: If guys like Angry Mark Waid don't want our business because we disagree with them politically, we gotta support those who not only share our values and beliefs, but want our business:

Sarah A. Hoyt

Larry Correia

John C. Wright

Please check out their blogs and give them your support!

Posted by Hube at 05:09 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Hey, didn't we learn in Civics class that ...

... the Legislative Branch makes the laws, and the Executive Branch enforces said laws?

Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law. Further, White House, Democrats cry foul over GOP push to enforce immigration, other laws.

Boss Obama is supposed to be a "constitutional lawyer." How does he not know this?

Remember the "good 'ol days" when images like these
featuring George W. Bush were commonplace?

Posted by Hube at 10:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 12, 2014

Comicbook lefties strike AGAIN!!

We've certainly had our experiences with Mark Waid's anger issues, with fellow blogger Doug Ernst asking him once straight up "Why are you so angry?" Instead of getting an answer, we were blocked (on Twitter). It seems Waid's anger hasn't subsided; indeed, it's gotten worse -- so much so that the Twitter compilation site Twitchy took notice:

Boy, we're familiar with that sort of lingo from Waid, aren't we? He really likes that phrase "Go f*** yourself," doesn't he? And let's go for that race card while we're at it, natch:

And best of all, he tells someone not to buy his stuff because his poor widdle self was "attacked" by someone with the AUDACITY to disagree with him:

Hey, no problem, Mark. We'll happily oblige -- and we'll tell all our friends to do the same ... and about what an intolerant, angry jerkoff you are.

Elsewhere, Marvel's Tom Brevoort, who likes to talk a lot about diversity, yet won't act and step aside so that his old, white guy self can be replaced with someone of the appropriate color, attempts to discredit Bosch Fawstin, a born/raised-and-now-reformed Muslim, because, y'know, DIVERSITY (or something):

Brevoort's ultimate recourse? Block them. Y'know, because someone who disagrees with a "progressive" is anathema. Especially when he's made you look foolish:

It's a lot easier than thinking, Tom. (Sadly, Brevoort is Delaware native. But he'd fit in perfectly again here, given its solid blue nature.)

Posted by Hube at 04:54 PM | Comments (705) | TrackBack

Have you heard about California Senate Bill 967?

Hans Bader has the horrifying details:

How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims? As a lawyer who has handled rape and sexual harassment cases, I have no idea, but this radical result is what some want to happen in California. In endorsing a bill in the California legislature that would require “affirmative consent” before sex can occur on campus, the editorial boards of the Sacramento and Fresno Bee, and the Daily Californian advocated that sex be treated as “sexual assault” unless the participants discuss it “out loud” before sex, and “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.” Never mind that consent to most sex is non-verbal, and that rape has historically been understood to be an act against someone’s will, rather than simply an act that they did not consent to in advance. Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in.

The affirmative-consent bill, Senate Bill 967, does not explicitly require verbal permission to demonstrate consent, although it warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.” But supporters of the bill are very clear about their desire to require verbal discussion or haggling prior to sex. The Fresno Bee praised the bill because ”it adopts in campus disciplinary cases the ‘affirmative consent standard,’ which means that ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said out loud.” The Daily Californian declared that ”the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction.” Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists. By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion.

I've read through Hans' article and one thing sticks out (as it should for you, too): Even if there's a "verbal agreement" to engage in sexual activity on the part of a couple of people, how exactly would that prevent an assault and/or rape? Wouldn't it still be one person's word against another's?

"She said 'yes' out loud!"
"No I did not!"

Further, if a female gives affirmative consent before any activity is started, but in the middle of said activity changes her mind, would the guy have to stop? I mean, he was given consent, right?

This is just nuts. It reminds of a science fiction story, the name of which I cannot recall, where everyone had to have a lawyer at the side constantly -- even for usual everyday activities.

Posted by Hube at 04:27 PM | Comments (721) | TrackBack

March 11, 2014

New at the Watcher's Council

Forum: What are Your Predictions For The 2014 Midterms?

Posted by Hube at 06:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Evil is "very relative"

So says writer Geoff Johns. Johns is the guy whose "Forever Evil" story arc in DC Comics features ... Superman arch-nemesis Lex Luthor joining the Justice League. This is the Lex Luthor who in contemporary comics does this sort of stuff:

  • Blows up a space shuttle just to make Superman look bad
  • Pushes his female assistant off a roof when she attempts to report the above
  • Looses one of his creations on a hapless security guard just to "test it out"
  • Said creation rips the security guard's head off
  • Threatens to kill a guy who won't sell his business
  • Drives said guy's wife to suicide by turning their son into a junkie
  • Kills five of his employees as a "test of loyalty"

But "evil is very relative."

Does anyone recall DC's (or Marvel's) "old fashioned" real heroes ever doing anything like that? I don't. Hell, if anything, the heroes were constantly grappling over the morality of actually following through and executing heinous villains -- villains that clearly deserved it. Just look at the classic DC Kingdom Come, for example, where Superman has taken the homicidal Joker into custody after a murder spree. Suddenly, one of the "new breed" of heroes, Magog, shows up and blasts the Joker to ashes for his crimes, right in front of the Man of Steel (see below). Magog's popularity skyrockets as a result of what he did, while Superman's approval rating plummets. Much of Kingdom tussles with the "appropriate measures" taken by the costumed vigilantes known as superheroes.

In the pages of the X-Men for the longest time the same debate took place. Storm, for one, refused to kill anything, even the savagely brutal Alien-esque Brood. Not to mention, the team perpetually struggled to keep the killing instincts of Wolverine in check. But this premise has long since gone out of date.

But, the above is what's actually a legitimate debate about the nature of "evil" and what to do about it, not declaring that "evil is very relative" and then showing one of your most vicious villains casually murdering people, followed by ... turning him into a "hero." It's also laughable how creators like Johns view evil as being "very relative," yet before Barack Obama's reign as president the nature of "evil" seemed quite clear to them:

  • Image Comics creator Erik Larsen said George W. Bush's "criminal activity dwarf[ed] Richard Nixon's by a wide margin," and "who cheated his way into the Oval Office -- twice"
  • Mr. Bush was "treated" to the superhero Savage Dragon slugging him in the face for his misdeeds
  • Artist Alex Ross sure showed who he thought was evil, and who was good ...
  • Superman enemy Lex Luthor, who was once elected president, cited "circumstantial evidence" as an excuse to invade the nation of "Qurac." Get it? Lex Luthor=George W. Bush, Qurac=Iraq.
  • Who can forget when Captain America went after the Tea Party?

Indeed. Evil wasn't "very relative" between 2000 and 2008. It was quite clear. Hell, Batman couldn't even go after al Qaeda -- AL QAEDA!! -- without there being a politically correct controversy, and when the creator of the tale, Frank Miller, morphed the story into one featuring a generic hero, he still got a ton of flak for it from "progressives."

Let's summarize:

Evil is "very relative." Unless a Republican sits in the White House.

Evil is "very relative." So relative so that one of the most popular superheroes ever cannot even go after the world's premiere terror organization, the one responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

Evil is "very relative." So much so that the current president gets comicbook "fist bumps," superhero endorsements, and numerous comicbook covers ... even though his lawlessness while in office equals and even surpasses that of his predecessor. That which these same creators didn't think were "very relative."

Guys like Geoff Johns are beyond boring already. The only thing "relative" to him and his comicbook cadre is how their stories will portray the political philosophy and party you agree/disagree with.

(Thanks to Nate for the tip to the original article.)

Posted by Hube at 06:11 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

March 09, 2014

What's wrong with "progressive" government in a nutshell

Frank Knotts nails it over at Delaware Right regarding yet another supposed-to-be "tug at the heart-strings" piece in the News Journal (my emphasis):

And even with these numbers, we are told that “ONLY” 77% of eligible citizens have signed up for food stamps, even though the state actively recruits people with marketing and advertisement. Also Delaware expanded eligibility to make it possible for even more people to obtain food stamps.

Of course the economy has played a large role in driving more people to depend on government subsidies to survive, but we cannot completely ignore the personal choices of some of the people receiving these hand outs.

The WNJ article of course had a couple of examples of people suffering because the amount of food stamps they receive is not enough.

One was about a sixty-eight year old grandmother raising her grandchildren. She stated that she couldn’t afford the juices and vegetables for a balanced diet, but I couldn’t help noticing that in the photos of her and her grand-daughter, she was looking at TV dinners and that is what the child was eating. These are the most expensive foods in a store. For what she pays for five of these, she could buy a cheap cut roast, or a chicken and get several meals out of it. Of course this would not be as convenient as TV dinners in the microwave oven.

Then there was the story of a mother of seven, ages 18-2 years-old, with another on the way. Really? Do I have to point out the personal choices that this woman has made that make her life more difficult?

And, Frank continues, with all this the Democrat one-party state that governs us wants to raise our taxes (gas and property being the latest). They actively advertise about food stamps, but they want to raise our taxes. How about using the monies for getting people on the relief rolls for a little common sense education instead -- like inexpensive and smart food purchases choices, not to mention labeling what it is -- ridiculously stupid -- that is having a gazillion kids without adequate means to support them?

Posted by Hube at 03:35 PM | Comments (41) | TrackBack

Florida's Charlie Crist: "God bless Obama" for ObumbleCare

But that's not even the best line. That would be his rationale for ObumbleCare for those who have lost their insurance because of it: "... that’s exactly why we have the Affordable Care Act. Exactly why is to make sure that they don’t lose it in the future.”

Um, whaaaaat???

Sounds about as logical as just about everything else associated with this trainwreck.

Posted by Hube at 11:24 AM | Comments (47) | TrackBack

Let's check in with the moonbat comics creators!

Our pal Gail "The Movement was Canceled" Simone retweets this gem from Media Matters:

Of course Gail, being the complete LIV that she is, wouldn't likely know that the important thing in this whole deal isn't how many died, but how and why they died. Why wasn't the counsulate equipped with more security after requests? And even more shockingly, why was a man thrown in jail for making the video on which the attacks were [falsely] blamed?

As you'd expect, the post brought out the true moonbattery:

Elsewhere, a fan realizes how futile it is to disagree with a 'bat like Ron Marz, because, well, he's just "smarter" than you, dammit!

Yep, "total dick" about cuts it. That's how the radical moonbats roll, unfortunately. Disagreement with them is worse than an al Qaeda terror attack.

UPDATE: Speaking of Marz, here he is on Dr. Ben Carson, a guy who has about 100 IQ pts. on him:

There's nothing more threatening to a white "progressive" than a potential black candidate who goes against everything he holds dear ...

Posted by Hube at 10:40 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

March 08, 2014

Meltdown of the Year

By way of Big Nate: Guy gets way more than fully funded on Kickstarter; then, doesn't fulfill promises and goes on anti-capitalist rant to diss "greedy" donors.

Posted by Hube at 11:05 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

No thanks

Just saw this advertised on the tube. Produced by Robert Redford and narrated by Susan Sarandon? Gee, what ever would the political bent be??

Posted by Hube at 10:59 AM | Comments (158) | TrackBack

Oh, gosh -- the News Journal is mad at Chris Coons for his Adegbile vote

Unsurprisingly, a search of their site did not produce any results of how they opined about Miguel Estrada, who I asked about yesterday.

The NJ's anti-Coons article is here.

MOST RELATED: The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers ain't very happy at Mr. Coons, either. Here's Delaware Douche, that wisher of death upon all Republicans: "Yeah, you can go fuck yourself, Senator Coons."

Lovely, eh? Here's more:

I am ashamed to have voted for you. I regret ever shaking your hand. We Delawareans desperately need to replace you in the Senate, for you do not possess the skill, principle or fortitude for the job.

cassandra says, "I’m done with the guy. If anything because he completely refuses to represent me — At All." Awww, I'm sure he's all broken up, sweetheart.

El Somnambulo, in his rage, laughingly states "He now has a constituency of one. Maureen Faulkner." Except for the other 75% of the public, I guess. El Som is a lot like Pauline Kael. No surprise there, really; "progressives" are typically like that.

stan merriman adds "So much for me celebrating that I was finally a voter in a Blue state. What dark place did this guy crawl out of?" Cheeyeah -- except for the fact that both senators, representative, governor, and both state chambers being controlled by Democrats, Delaware is a red state.

Geezer chimes in with "The only thing to do here is to direct the anger of the black community at Chris Coons, and hope we can find a non-white-male Democrat to challenge him." Yeah, like I'm sure he advocated "channeling Hispanic anger" at the Democrats who shot down the aforementioned Miguel Estrada.

Posted by Hube at 08:03 AM | Comments (57) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council winners

The non-Council winner was Allen West with Obama and Hagel have surrendered our military.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 07:51 AM | Comments (35) | TrackBack

Boss Obama as Dan Quayle

It's fine -- being a verbal klutz and a Democrat is A-OK:

Posted by Hube at 07:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 06, 2014

Where's this sentence from?

"No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living.” This sentence is from this article, uttered by the director of the Philly EEOC, about a Muslim man employed by the Philly School District who, in conjunction with the US Justice Dept., sued the district because it wanted him to trim his beard. Apparently, it is against Islam to cut a beard. (One may wonder, then, why so many Muslim males do not have beards. Must be infidels.) That's right, the same Justice Dept. who dropped charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at a Philly polling place several years back is now suing because they're pro-beard.

Well, actually it's suing because of religious discrimination. Because, after all, No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living, right? I wonder, then, why didn't the Justic Dept. sue on behalf of the Christian couple who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple that was getting married? Was this couple "forced to violate their religious beliefs in order to earn a living?" If they can be so forced to go against their religion, why can't this Muslim gent?

We're not taking sides here; we're just pointing out the ridiculous (PC) inconsistencies and priorities of the current administration. I can see why the Muslim guy has a beef ("What does it really matter that my beard be a certain length to work in a school?"), and I can see why the bakery couple has a gripe, too.

Posted by Hube at 07:29 PM | Comments (53) | TrackBack

"Acceptable" racism

Via Insty comes this absolutely ridiculous article where an Arab woman is miffed -- miffed, I tell you! -- that (GASP!) white women engage in belly dancing:

Google the term “belly dance” and the first images the search engine offers are of white women in flowing, diaphanous skirts, playing at brownness. How did this become acceptable?

Women I have confronted about this have said, “But I have been dancing for 15 years! This is something I have built a huge community on.” These women are more interested in their investment in belly dancing than in questioning and examining how their appropriation of the art causes others harm. To them, I can only say, I’m sure there are people who have been unwittingly racist for 15 years. It’s not too late. Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s.

That's just a sampling. There's much more neo-decontructivist PC goodness at the link.

The article is even titled "Why I Can't Stand White Belly Dancers." What might the reaction be if an article was headlined "Why I Can't Stand Black Hockey Players"? Based on author Randa Jarrar's premise, Caucasians should have a right to be upset about blacks "appropriating" a sport like hockey for their own amusement/well being/pleasure. Blacks should question how their playing hockey "causes others harm," and how they're "playing at whiteness."

Gad, PC radical feminists are just too easy to make fun of ...

Posted by Hube at 07:25 PM | Comments (45) | TrackBack

Shocker: NAACP and libs blame racism for Adegbile confirmation failure

Supporters were outraged -- outraged, I tell you -- that Adegbile lost the Senate vote:

"You hate to raise that (racism) up, but it smells very bad," said Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington office of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned Republicans just before the vote that if Adegbile lost there would have to be a "broad discussion" of civil rights in America.

Oh gee, would that be like having an "honest discussion" about race? Y'know, because, as Eric Holder has said, "we're a nation of cowards" when it comes to race? Puh-lease. Race only matters in instances like these -- when a "progressive" Democrat meets a failure like Adegbile. After all, remember Miguel Estrada? He was nominated by George W. Bush for the DC Court of Appeals ... but the Democrats in the Senate used the filibuster to block the nomination. The Dems said Estrada was "far beyond the mainstream," to quote New York's Chuckie Schumer. Estrada would have been the first Hispanic to sit on that court, and is an immigrant from Honduras who immigrated to the US at age 17, not knowing a lot of English. But he ended up graduating from Columbia and then Harvard Law School.

I wonder -- did Ms. Shelton of the DC NAACP speak out against this "bad smelling" defeated nomination of an obviously qualified Hispanic?

Cheeyeah, right. If Estrada was "far beyond the mainstream," then Adegbile was in an alternate reality.

ELSEWHERE: As could be predicted, is all pissed off about Adegbile's defeat. What a shame.

Posted by Hube at 07:23 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


Hey, remember when all the GOP wanted in exchange for extending the debt ceiling was a delay of ObumbleCare's individual mandate by one year? And remember how the Democrats reacted? Here's Boss Obama, for starters:

A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they’ll somehow be sticking it to me. But they’d just be sticking it to you.

Democrats called Republicans who wanted a delay -- a delay, mind you, not a repeal or anything -- were called "terrorists" and "extremists," among other colorful terms. Democrats chided the GOP: "[ObumbleCare] is THE LAW OF THE LAND!! NO CHANGES OR DELAYS!!"

But not only has Boss Obama change and/or delayed provisions of the "law of the land," he's done it several times. The latest came yesterday:

In a move that was pre-emptively attacked by House Republican leaders, the administration said plans that were grandfathered for one year after millions received cancellation notices in the individual market will now be able to continue, but will not be able to be renewed after Oct. 1, 2016. The announcement means an estimated 500,000 people in those plans won’t get cancellation notices right before the midterm elections, but does set up a situation where some could get cut off right before the next presidential election.

To coin a cliché, this is beyond parody. The administration, of course, [laughably] denies a political motive. But each and every GOPer running against a Democrat for the House or Senate should pound the airwaves with the numerous contradictions and lies of this pathetic cadre in the White House. And the future Republican chief exec should always remember the precedent President Lemon has set for him: Change laws as you see fit, enforce laws you like, and don't enforce laws you dislike.

Posted by Hube at 07:12 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 05, 2014

New at the Watcher's Council

Forum: Is President Obama’s New ‘My Brother’s Keeper’ Initiative Directed Towards Young Men Of ‘Color’ Racist?

Posted by Hube at 06:57 PM | Comments (502) | TrackBack

Debo Adegbile nomination goes down

The Hill has the story. The vote was 52-47 and of course couldn't have happened without Democrat support for defeating the nomination. Congrats to Delaware's own Chris Coons for joining in opposition to this far-left radical train-wreck.

Posted by Hube at 06:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council nominations

Honorable Mentions:

And the non-Council nominations are here!

Posted by Hube at 06:41 PM | Comments (33) | TrackBack

IRS officials take Fifth so as to say nothing about a "non-scandal"

So committee chairman Darrell Issa proceeded to halt the hearing. But Dem. Rep. Elijah Cummings said he had questions for Lois Lerner, the IRS official who had already previously pleaded the Fifth. Why she would answer him after pleading the Fifth I don't know, but Cummings had no questions; instead he went on a tirade about "one-sided investigations," showed how self-important he is by yelling "I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America," and resorted to the McCarthyite "un-American" charge.

Issa cut Cummings off, saying the hearing was over. I'm sure Cummings will call Issa a racist for doing so.

In related news, Ms. Lerner said she felt "pressured" by the IRS to "fix the problem" in response to the Citizens United decision: "They want the IRS to fix the problem … Everybody is screaming at us right now: ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’"

Who's "they," Ms. Lerner? I'm willing to bet it all that it certainly wasn't the GOP who wanted you to "fix the problem."

David French has lots more:

Not only did the IRS target conservative tax-exempt applications for delays and excessive, unconstitutional scrutiny, it also flagged already-approved conservative groups for excessive surveillance, exclusively audited conservative nonprofits, leaked conservatives’ confidential documents to a liberal media outlet, and engaged in potentially improper coordination and communication with the Federal Election Commission. Taken together, this level of corruption may have had a material influenceon the outcome of the 2012 election.

With a partisan Democratic IRS represented by a partisan union, it’s hardly surprising that the IRS has taken it upon itself to respond to specifically Democratic complaints and work to effectively reject the First Amendment and do all it can to overturn the Supreme Court of the United States’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – even to the point of going “off-plan” to draft draconian new speech-restrictive regulations. Is it the IRS’s role to restrict free speech?

Posted by Hube at 04:51 PM | Comments (36) | TrackBack

The Democrats' War on Women

The execrable Democrat representative from Florida, Alan Grayson, has been accused of domestic violence.

A judge has granted a temporary protective injunction against U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson after his wife filed paperwork accusing the Orlando congressman of shoving and injuring her during an incident this past weekend.

Lolita Grayson's petition for the injunction, dated Monday, says her husband pushed her against a door, causing her to fall to the ground, during a confrontation Saturday at their home on Oak Park Road near Windermere.

Mrs. Grayson, in her complaint, notes that her husband has a history of such incidents. The representative, natch, denies the allegations and claims that it was the wife who began the violence during the encounter.

In such an ordeal one should be very careful about making judgments; however, Rep. Grayson's antics and shrill attacks against anyone who disagrees with him over the years make such even-handedness less likely. Grayson's press secretary said that his wife's allegations "are absolutely false, completely unfounded, and clearly designed to vilify and harm Congressman Grayson.”

No, do NOT take "left hook" literally. Maybe.

Is that so? What a shame. After all, were Grayson's claims "completely unfounded and designed to vilify and harm" his numerous political opponents, not to mention people who he doesn't like in general? Y'know, like his former opponent Daniel Webster whom he dubbed “Taliban Dan” and claimed he "hated women?" That said opponent Webster "wanted to ban divorce and deny battered women medical care?"

In addition, "in 2012, Grayson highlighted an accusation of abuse made by the ex-wife of Todd Long, his opponent in the race to represent Florida’s Ninth District." He also made a Facebook post which said “just imagine what Todd Long did.”

Grayson deserves anything that comes his way, the f***ing creep.

Posted by Hube at 04:42 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 04, 2014

If she wins, the country is already down the tubes

Student sues parents to pay for college, financial support:

MORRISTOWN, N.J. — A northern New Jersey honor student who says her parents kicked her out of the house when she turned 18 is now suing them, asking a court to make them support her and pay for her college.

A judge in Morristown has scheduled a hearing Tuesday in the lawsuit filed last week by Rachel Canning.

Court documents show frequent causes of parent-teenage tension — boyfriends and alcohol — taken to an extreme. In court filings, there are accusations and denials, but one thing is clear: the girl left home Oct. 30, two days before she turned 18 after a tumultuous stretch during which her parents separated and reconciled and the teen began getting into uncharacteristic trouble at school.

In court filings, Canning's parents, retired Lincoln Park police Chief Sean Canning and his wife Elizabeth, said their daughter voluntarily left home because she didn't want to abide by reasonable household rules, such as being respectful, keeping a curfew, doing a few chores and ending a relationship with a boyfriend her parents say is a bad influence. They say that shortly before she turned 18, she told her parents that she would be an adult and could do whatever she wanted.

Canning claims her parents "are abusive, contributed to an eating disorder she developed and pushed her to get a basketball scholarship." The parents deny all of that; indeed, they say they even paid for private schooling so that their daughter would get more playing time than she would have at a public school.

If this spoiled brat wins, kiss the country goodbye. Common sense and just regular, everyday sanity has departed. I mean, hell, even a divorced father gets to end child support payments when a kid turns 18.

God help us all, and especially this girl.

UPDATE: A judge ruled that the parents do not have to pay the brat's high school tuition and associated living costs; however, the judge delayed a ruling on whether they'll have to pay the [upcoming] college costs. The next hearing is April 22.

Posted by Hube at 03:59 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

Well, for starters

Via Insty: The NY Times on how Democrats are wooing -- wait for it! -- white men.

Missing from the analysis: The constant race (and gender)-based attacks on 'em. Funny how this wasn't thought of.

Posted by Hube at 03:31 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Tweet of the Day

MSNBC useful idiot Howard Fineman on how to counter Russia's Putin:

This was so f***ing stupid, even Fineman's wife called him out for it.

Posted by Hube at 03:30 PM | Comments (273) | TrackBack

MSM Prediction of the Month

Via Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt":

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer says Boss Obama is "living in a fantasy world," and John McCain says President Lemon's foreign policy is "feckless." But George Will grants that there's little Obama could have done about Ukraine.

Posted by Hube at 03:28 PM | Comments (47) | TrackBack

March 03, 2014


Posted by Hube at 09:18 AM | Comments (44) | TrackBack


Here's the ever-smug douchebag Chris Matthews chiding Mitt Romney on calling Russia "our number one geopolitical foe" during the 2012 campaign:

That aside, I wonder how Mitt would handle the "uncontested arrival" of Russian troops in Ukraine.

Posted by Hube at 08:33 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 02, 2014

Crimea River

Posted by Hube at 08:16 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Tweet of the Day

As Douglas Ernst says, "President Euphemism: Obama ‘concerned’ Russia’s ‘uncontested arrival’ to incite ‘man-caused disaster.’

Posted by Hube at 08:04 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Hollywood still in their "progressive" bubble

Via Chicks on the Right: Liam Neeson's new flick Non-Stop features villains all-too typical by contemporary "progressive" standards ...

SPOILER ALERT!! See spoilers "below the fold" ...

...the villain is not a hijacker but a terrorist -- someone who wants to murder everyone on the plane to further a political goal.

The terrorist is a 9/11 family member. Yes, you read that right; the terrorist is a 9/11 family-member who lost a loved-one in the World Trade Center on that terrible September morning.

It gets worse…

After 9/11, this 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist then joined the military but found himself disillusioned by the pointless wars.

And now…

The 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist is upset because America hasn’t done enough to ensure there will never be another 9/11. And so he figures that if he can get an air marshal blamed for a terrorist attack, America will wake up and anally probe us before we're allowed on a plane, or something.

It gets worse…

The villain's sidekick is a member of the American military willing to murder 150 innocent people for a payday.

It gets worse…

The one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.

Of course! But I especially like how the villain was disillusioned by the "pointless wars," but at the same time is pissed off that the US "hasn't done enough" to thwart another 9/11. That's some logic gold, there, eh?

Posted by Hube at 08:58 AM | Comments (47) | TrackBack

News Journal pays no mind to Harry Belafonte's radicalism

Great job, robin brown (yes, that's how she spells her name, in lower case; she must think she's the next e.e. cummings). You really did some terrific reporting on Harry Belafonte's appearance at the University of Delaware and didn't write a single word about how ridiculously radical this guy has become:

"If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy," Belafonte once said, "you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!"

Also in the eighties, Belafonte praised Soviet “peace efforts” around the world. Speaking in October 1983 at a "World Peace Concert" run by East Germany's official Communist youth organization, Belafonte gave his blessings to the Soviet-sponsored "peace" campaign pushing unilateral Western disarmament -- at a time when the USSR was deploying SS-20 missiles in East Germany.

In June 2000 Belafonte was a featured speaker at a rally in Castro's Cuba, honoring the American Soviet spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. He lauded Cuba's efforts to "kee[p] the principles the Rosenbergs fought and died for alive."

Belafonte is also now known for his denigration of other African-Americans if they have the gall to be Republicans and/or work for GOP administrations, using the most offensive terminology possible. And the attacks of September 11, 2001? America's fault, natch.

Maybe Robin (oops, excuse me, robin) can ask Mr. Belafonte the next time he's in town how black Americans would fare under a system like Casto's Cuba.

Posted by Hube at 08:34 AM | Comments (135) | TrackBack

Wearing the American flag to school can now be prohibited

Just when you think life can't get any more insane, the most overturned Circuit Court in the country -- the 9th -- comes up with this ruling:

A California high school is allowed to bar students from wearing T-shirts with the American flag on them during a Cinco de Mayo event after a 2010 incident involving white and Mexican students, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.

The court found that administrators had reason to believe displaying the American flag would lead to violent confrontation, so it was justified in removing the students displaying it. Because only students wearing the American flag were threatened, students could still wear other national flags, such as Mexico’s, the court found.

The 1969 Tinker case ruled that schools can ban items or actions if they can “forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.” However, Volokh notes that the 9th Circuit is likely to be overruled again by the SCOTUS as this decision essentially establishes a "heckler's veto" -- "in which speech can be limited to prevent violence from a group of individuals, rather than punish the individuals threatening the violence."

This is especially [worrisome] because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed, then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays, the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?

I was beginning to have some hope for the 9th Circuit as they recently made a favorable ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment. But this is just nuts. Displaying or wearing clothing with an American flag?? Schools pledge allegiance to it. But it can then be banned??

I've opined in the past very much in favor of Tinker and allowing school-based administrators to make common sense decisions. (See the various posts here.) There certainly is a fine line between keeping an orderly academic environment and protecting free expression rights, but I definitely think the school (and the court) are wrong on this one. Again, the school flies the American flag and pledges allegiance to it ... but it won't allow students to display or wear it?

Posted by Hube at 08:12 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Because you're too f***ing stupid, that's why!

First Lady Michelle Obama has taken the lead in the administration's latest effort to fix something that doesn't need much fixing: Changing food labels.

The Obama administration has unveiled the most sweeping update to nutrition labeling on food packages in more than two decades — and Americans are in for a reality check about how many calories and how much sugar they are consuming.

What’s considered a serving size would get larger, the type used to display calories would get bolder and added sugars would have to be listed on about 700,000 consumer products — from cereal to energy drinks — in a proposal released Thursday morning by the Food and Drug Administration.

The total cost of this? Only about $2 billion. Where food companies will pass on this cost to consumers. In an economy which blows. When people have less take home pay than virtually ever. Makes sense, right?

Basically, this boils down to, once again, the federal government thinking you're just stupid. Compare the new proposed label to the old one. Gosh, thanks for making my food prices go up by making that calorie figure REALLY jump out at me! But notice -- the "calories from fat" figure disappears on the new label. Huh?

Y'know, government bureaucrats like those at the FDA are a lot like edu-crats -- supposed education "experts" -- that are routinely featured at inservices and such. They need to find something to do ... to make them feel like they're "accomplishing something." As such, we get inane "improvements" like these labels, and ridiculous theories about how to "improve" teaching. And the 'crats pat themselves on the back saying "Good job!"

Posted by Hube at 07:53 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Watcher's Council winners

The non-Council winner was Mark Steyn with Hath not a Jew Eyes.

Full results are here.

Posted by Hube at 07:37 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack