How delightfully delicious.
Dan Slott, writer of Spider-Man and more hypocritical than a Bill Clinton-loving feminist, sniveled before the social justice warrior crowd a week and half ago after he supposedly was "insensitive" -- insensitive to an apparently gay comicbook fan who stated he was metaphorically "bleeding" (because of lack of progress on the comics diversity front. I guess.)
It seems Danny Boy was defending Marvel editor-in-chief Axel Alonso who had also taken issue with the race/gender/sexual orientation SJW bean counters in an interview.
Of course, Alonso incurred that group's wrath -- for the "crimes" of giving creator chores for Blade to white guys, and stating that Hercules would be straight (not gay or bi) in his new upcoming series.
But, after Slott's initial defense of his editor, check out his mewling apology to the SJW snowflakes:
An apology to any & all LGBTQ readers and fellow geeks and fans.
I screwed up. I was so focused on seeing a situation from my side of the equation, I didn't come to the table with enough empathy for others. That's all on me.
Saying the equivalent of "change is coming" and "can you cut us some slack" is a pretty awful thing to say to someone who's hurting-- to someone who wants, needs, and deserves change NOW. Not tomorrow. Now.
Not going to couch this in "Here's what I was thinking", "here's how you misread what I said", or "here's how I have been trying to bring diversity into comics". Because the word that keeps popping up in any of that is "I", "I", and "I". And, end of the day, "I" don't matter in any of this.
This is about the people who are being effected by the actual injustice and unfairness of it all. And the only thing you really need me to say that starts with "I" is:
I screwed up. And I am genuinely sorry.
(Um, you'd think a writer of a Marvel flagship title would know the difference between "effected" and "affected.")
Alas, Slott is attempting to maintain his "progressive" bonafides by getting on his knees and seeking forgiveness from a perpetually aggrieved group.
But he'll keep shitting on right-of-center fans who arguably make up a (much) larger percentage of comicbook readers and fans than the eternally angry SJWs.
And so it goes ...
The victims: Ed Schultz, Alex Wagner and the quartet of idiots at "The Cycle."
It's beyond hilarious when so-called "progressives" can't keep track of the politically correct hierarchy and f*** up. Such was the case this weekend at the annual Nutroots Nation lunatic fringe conference in Phoenix.
MSNBC reported that Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders both failed to appease the angry protesters chanting “Black lives matter,” who forcefully approached the stage partway through O’Malley’s conversation with journalist Jose Antonio Vargas.
“It’s not like we like shutting s**t down, but we have to,” Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors said. “We are tired of being interrupted,” she asserted with no apparent sense of the irony.
“Every single day folks are dying. Not being able to take another breath," she explained to any listeners who might be unclear on the concept of dying. "We are in a state of emergency. If you don’t feel that emergency, you are not human.”
Translation: if you don't side with us unequivocally, you're not worthy of consideration or conversation.
O'Malley made the fatal mistake of saying "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.”
He should have stopped right before that first comma.
"Proudly undocumented" MC José Antonio Vargas couldn't regain control of the conference after O'Malley's "gaffe," and then Bernie Sanders' attempt at placating the crowd. And he really didn't try:
She at one point said "There is something profoundly wrong when African-American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts."
How about this: There is something profoundly wrong when people with little-to-no power are far more likely to be charged with crimes and thrown in jail than people with a lot of power and a great many political connections.
In other words, Hil, "F.O."
Marvel's Joe Quesada:
It has never ceased to amaze me how some people, in defense of their favorite fictional characters or stories, treat creators and each other, flesh and blood people living actual lives with actual feelings and families, with such disrespect and cruelty as though they were two-dimensional, fictional villains who merely exist on a page or the imagination.
And it never has ceased to amaze me how some creators, in defense of their own creative product, treat long-time fans, flesh and blood people living actual lives with actual feelings and families, with such disrespect and cruelty, due only to honest disagreements over (story) direction, politics, and/or culture, as though they were two-dimensional, fictional villains who merely exist on a page or the imagination.
And by whom were Quesada's words retweeted? Yep, Dan Slott.
You just can't make this sh** up.
Pelo-Tox on Bibi Netanyahu's speech yesterday:
I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech -- saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation. (Source)
Awwww, is that right?
Pelo-Tox back in 2007 (y'know, when George W. Bush was president):
I'm saddened at the insult to the intelligence of the American people that lunkheads like Nance, Boss Obama, Hair-Plugs Biden, and Harry Reid exhibit each and every day.
Oh, and Nance? Using your own playbook, you're an anti-Semite.
... the Congressional Black Caucus says Rand Paul's opposition to A.G. nominee Loretta Lynch is -- WAIT FOR IT!!!!!! --
Tribute to NBC's Brian Williams:
Well, gosh -- when you give the middle finger to everyone and do things your own way, you don't expect some of that in return?
The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' Delaware Douche:
And it is the only thing I can think of to explain the outrageous overreaction of a few on the right to the horrible and evil murder of two police officers in Brooklyn this weekend. NYPD Union President Pat Lynch and Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani went out of their way to directly blame President Obama and Mayor de Blasio for the murder of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
Indeed. This, from the guy/crew who constantly go out of their way to blame any right-leaning outfit the actions of some barely-associated lunatic. The Tea Party. The GOP Congress. Anti-abortion protesters. Anti-tax groups.
Hell, Delaware Douche once blamed the entire GOP for the poor economy and wanted them all shot.
And their buddies in the mainstream media do, too. And even presidents. Bill Clinton blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on talk radio, anyone?
If there was one person carrying, say, a "Go Back to Kenya, Obama!" placard at some Tea Party rally, well, then, the entire organization is suddenly the lunatic fringe.
If some guy who shot up a tax preparer's office had a Tea Party website in his Internet browser's cache, well, then, the TP is partly (mostly?) culpable for the dude's actions.
However, in the case of the cop killings of this past Saturday, some of the recent anti-cop protests actually had people shouting for the death of police officers: "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"
But don't you dare implicate in any way President Lemon or Comandante De Blasio! Or even Al Sharpton.
These LGOMB ... "specimens" are so full of hypocritical arrogance that to even begin to take them seriously should make one question his very sanity.
We saw a few days ago how one blogging Delawarean thinks about disagreeing with President Lemon; now, our old pal Perry has finally chimed in -- not only about the mid-term election results, but offers up a similar sentiment to "Progressive Populist" of the LGOMB.
Let's take the latter from Perry first, regarding ObumbleCare:
Sometimes the ends justify the means, and this is the perfect case for it. As a result, there are millions of people relieved who now have coverage which they could not have had before this law.
There you have it -- because Perry is a fervent believer in ObumbleCare, it should be implemented by any means necessary. Just imagine if George W. Bush and the GOP ... well hell, you know.
Next, here's some of Perry's nonsense about November 4th (my comments are in italics):
Republicans won without much of an agenda, but with lots of negative campaigning and racism in the South. (What about the racism of the Left/Democrats of which there was MUCH more?)
Republicans won without a mandate, with only a plurality of less than 50%, reminiscent of GWB. (And Bill Clinton in 1992.)
Democrats must retake the Senate and retain the White House to curb Republican extremism. (Uh, that's why the GOP won two weeks ago -- to curb Democratic extermism.)
Republicans, starting with Reagan and continuing with GWB, cut taxes, increased spending, therefore increased the deficit. GWB doubled it. (Selective amnesia, natch. Obama skyrocketed both the deficit and the debt. In fact, he increased the latter more than all presidents combined before him!)
Democrats under Clinton and Obama enabled the country to recover, prosper, while still slowing the deficit. (Nonsense. Clinton did so because he worked with the GOP landslide Congress of 1994; Boss Obama's policies have done nothing to initiate a "recovery;" indeed, the unemployment figures are largely smoke and mirrors as we've seen record numbers of people leave the workforce, and most of the new jobs aren't good-paying full-time jobs anyway.)
Yeah, 'ol Per sure is an easy target, but it sure is fun -- and scary -- to check in once in a while on how these not-so-closeted authoritarians think.
The fun-extinguishing SJWs are out in force again, this time moaning about two t-shirts featuring three classic DC superheroes.
The first shirt shows Superman embracing Wonder Woman, kissing her, and the caption reads "Score! Superman Does It Again"
The second has the very recognizable Batman symbol with the caption "Training To Be Batman's Wife."
Robot 6's Brett White writes "Both shirts present undeniably sexist messages" and
These shirts are problematic because they presume that women need men — either to save them or to marry them — in order to get them interested in superheroes.
Best comment: "It never ends…. This site should just be in an Ad Lib format. ______ outrages fans. 'Fans outraged about lack of things to be outraged about!!' It’s outrageous!!"
Check out what comics writer Brian Michael Bendis tweets:
.@twitter someones job should be to search rape, whore, or slut. anyone using those words unsolicited at someone is gone & police called— BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS (@BRIANMBENDIS) September 1, 2014
I get wanting Twitter to scan the medium for harassing garbage like that, but ... calling the cops? Aside from an actual threat of rape, alerting the authorities for someone calling you a "whore?" Or "slut?" I can't even see a harassment charge given that Twitter has a "block" function.
And here's a thought, Bendis: How 'bout clamoring for same w/regards to some of your foul-mouthed colleagues?
Should we call the cops for someone telling me (and others) to "Go f*** yourself?" Or what about telling someone to "STFU" (short for "Shut the F*** Up")? Or, what about demeaning comments in general towards those who don't share their political beliefs?
I won't hold my breath.
Naomi Shihab Nye in today's News Journal, like way too many other anti-Israel zealots, omits tons of key facts regarding the current plight of Palestinians/Gazans.
Oppression makes people do desperate things. I am frankly surprised the entire Palestinian population hasn’t gone crazy. If the U.S. can’t see that Palestinians have been mightily oppressed since 1948, they really are not interested in looking, are they?
*Sigh* If I've documented once, I've documented it a million times. You have only your Arab neighbors to blame for any oppression you suffer, Ms. Nye. If "the entire Palestinian population hasn’t gone crazy," it sure isn't because of lack of effort by the likes of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et. al.
For they gobbled up the land allocated for the Palestinians in 1948, and then they, along with the Palestinians, attacked the nascent Israel. They lost. And they kept losing every other time they tried.
You casually mention the Six Day War without reference or context. This is not, sadly, surprising in the least.
It's really just boring already, Ms. Nye. Sympathy and needed change begin with taking responsibility. Try taking a page from the late Anwar Sadat and see if things don't begin to look different.
It's bad enough when the vice-president -- a man in government for over forty years whose specialty is supposed to be foreign policy -- refers to the continent of Africa as "a nation" ...
... it's worse when a major news network -- which is supposed to have those "layers upon layers of fact checkers" -- botches a basic map of the same continent:
Oh, and how much you wanna bet that if the veep was currently a Republican, and if the network was Fox News, "progressives" and the mainstream media would be dubbing the goofs as "racist?"
Africa, after all, right?
... object to what they regard as blatant objectification — scantily clad women were still used as decoration for some presentations, and costumed women were described as “vaguely slutty” by panel moderator Craig Ferguson.
The group claims "groping, cat-calling and other forms of sexual harassment" are prevalent at events like cons. Three points: 1) The claim that groping is a big problem appears ludicrous on its face. We're talking about geeks here, for cripe's sake -- guys that can't muster the nerve to even talk to a girl let alone grope one. I'm not saying incidents haven't happened, but given the penchant for "feminists" to label virtually anything as objectionable, let's just say be wary of taking that claim at face value.
To be clear, groping certainly is way over the line.
2) Really? You're pissed off about cat-calling? Then here's a clue: Don't dress up like comicbook characters. If you put on a Wonder Woman costume, or Power Girl costume, or an Emma Frost outfit, then don't be f***ing surprised if some dudes whistle, howl, or make a remark like "Hey, baby!" (That is, if you got the chops, so to speak.) Because here's a clue (and it's amazing this even needs to be said given these chicks are supposedly comicbook readers): Women in comicbooks dress provocatively. Again, look at Power Girl, for heaven's sake.
And spare us all the "It shouldn't matter how I dress" garbage. If a well-muscled, good-lookin' dude comes dressed as Superman or Thor, don't tell me girls at the con wouldn't be similarly "cat-calling." It's called sexual attraction, Ms. Feminist. Humans are hard-wired for this sort of thing, whether you like it or not.
3) What are these "other forms of sexual harassment?" Again, as noted above, feminists object to virtually anything, the wackiest ones even claiming all sex is "rape." As such, feminists should be allowed no ambiguity with remarks like "other forms ..." After all, a feminist could have a seizure if she saw the word "sex" written on someone's notepad.
Lo and behold, way down in the article, we get to the Geeks' real motivation:
She and her colleagues developed a comic book on the subject in hopes of engaging middle- and high-school students, which is what brought them to Comic-Con.
Best comments about the article:
I'll add one, if you'll pardon the cliché: Get a life.
Feel for Madison Miller, everybody. Because "it happened to her." She was -- gasp! -- denied an IUD because of a religious exemption, just like Hobby Lobby.
Quote of the article: "I’m a little tired of having to stop whatever I’m doing to take a pill at the same time every day."
That's like a guy saying "I'm a little tired of having to open up that damn condom wrapper right at the key moment."
But, alas, it's a whole new world in this, the Age of Obama. Ms. Miller's learned well from the Boss, he who once noted that he didn't want his daughters "punished" with a pregnancy if/when they had sex and made a "mistake." Miller likens having the "right" to prevent a pregnancy to a runner having the "right" to prevent a twisted ankle.
"Let me be clear: An attack on Rick’s integrity is an attack on Marvel’s integrity."
Is that so. Gosh.
As was the point of this post last week, many of the creators at both Marvel and DC have helped create the very atmosphere which led to the silly Remender situation. Anything anybody says/does that (seemingly) goes against the prevailing "progressive" wisdom is immediately pounced upon by these creators ... unless it's (seemingly) done by one of their own. And then the self-righteous indignation begins in earnest.
It's quite obvious Alonso doesn't really believe what he said about Marvel, above. If he did, he'd tell guys like Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, and Gail Simone to curb their condescending, hostile, rude, and factually challenged social media behavior towards those who differ politically from them.
And just in case, spare me the free speech "argument." No one is saying those named above cannot say what they want. It's merely a matter of manners but most especially business sense. One wonders why Alonso hasn't said something like "When you behave like that on social media, it reflects poorly on Marvel."
Well, the Supreme Court is on the contemporary comicbook crews' collective moonbat minds after yesterday's rulings, in particular with regards to the Hobby Lobby case. And they ain't happy. First up, our good pal Dan Slott compares the high court's conservative bloc (and contemporary Christians) to ... 16th century Spanish conquistadors:
You know who imposed their religious beliefs on others? The Conquistadors. And you know what they were? Assholes.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
I'd ask the gnomish one to explain how the SCOTUS (or modern Christians) "imposed" religious belief upon society (well, women, really in this case), but that would require an IQ over 90 and I don't think Dan qualifies. Not to mention, someone responded to Slott's tweet (supposedly humorously) "ask the Aztecs." Yes, indeed -- also ask what would have worse: The Spanish imposing Christianity upon the natives, or the Aztecs imposing their religion ... which routinely (and barbarically) included human sacrifice.
If Hobby Lobby were a Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish owned company, we would not be having this discussion. Is that a fair assessment?— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
Then, there's this retweet by the gnome:
A message to SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby from WW pic.twitter.com/4kuW6jVZ57— Pia Guerra (@PiaGuerra) June 30, 2014
Classy, eh? All because Wonder Woman can't have her employer (who knew she worked at Hobby Lobby?) pay for certain forms of birth control. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. Like this, too (retweeted by comics 'bat Gail Simone):
Indeed -- the company that pays your salary should just STFU and give you whatever benefits you desire. The hell with what their beliefs (or wants) are. They just give you a living, after all.
Along those same lines, here's Tom Brevoort, another political/legal mental midget, chiming in:
@DanSlott Yes, it's an absurd argument. You don't get to decide what taxes you get to pay. Corporations aren't people, aren't human.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) July 1, 2014
Earth to Tom: Certain contraceptive benefits paid for by your employer are NOT taxes. And corporations ARE people in many (most?) legal realms, including this one. The predilection among modern "progressives" to bring up this corporation stuff ignores over 200 years of legal precedent.
Lastly, here's 'ol Ron Marz who obviously didn't feel like putting as much "effort" into the whole pile-on as Slott, et. al. did:
Actually, if the US soccer team does as well as the SCOTUS did yesterday, we'll be moving on to the quarter finals, thank you very much.
Be sure to check out, too, Douglas Ernst's reaction to these geniuses.
UPDATE: Also check out Truthwillwin1's reaction to the tweets in question.
UPDATE 2: The gnomish one is having a fit because "right-wing bloggers" took him too "literally." Funny, if a "right-wing blogger" had used "Muslims" without the requisite "some" or "radical" inserted in there, guys like Slott would be screaming bloody "Islamophobia" on social media for days.
It's still making a ton of cash and critics love it, but the radical PC crowd still has its collective panties in a bunch over X-Men: Days of Future Past. This past week we've seen articles lamenting its "lack of diversity;" now, because Wolverine replaced Kitty Pryde in the crucial story role, the film is "sexist."
Do it with me: Y.A.W.N.
Once again, who's a bigger box office draw -- Hugh Jackman or Ellen Page? Who's by far the more popular comicbook character, Wolverine or Kitty Pryde?
If you answered the first choice for each, you win.
Movie makers wanna make money. Case closed.
(Thanks for Carl for the article tip!)
The chutzpah knows no bounds. "Wheel of Fortune" host Pat Sajak tweeted the following yesterday:
I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) May 20, 2014
Now, anyone with half a brain should pick up the sarcasm and baiting instantly. But not so David Shuster, former MSNBC dimwit (that is, former in that he used to work for the low-rated cable network, not that he is a former dimwit):
The issue @patsajak is that your bizarre rant diminished the significance of actual racism. For that, you should apologize.— David Shuster (@DavidShuster) May 20, 2014
'Ya just gotta love it. A guy from the network that specializes in diminishing the significance of actual racism has the stones to seriously tweet the above. Chutzpah at its pinnacle.
From the Philly Daily News today:
DANIELLE WILSON can't afford to give her 3-year-old son gifts on holidays and birthdays. Munira Edens broke her phone three months ago and now goes without one because a repair is too costly.
That irks workers like Glenn Davis, 44, a father of three who marched yesterday with a sign ...
These three fast-food workers were among more than 100 minimum-wage laborers and activists who marched along Broad Street yesterday morning to demand an end to poverty pay and the right to form a union without retaliation.
We've been through this before. I'm actually starting to wonder if outfits like the Daily News purposely note things like above -- number of kids, cell phone -- because they know the inherent contradictions and want commenters to point them out.
Hey, look -- you want a raise? Fine. Do you deserve one? Maybe. But I'm willing to bet that folks like Wilson, Edens and Davis didn't give much of a sh** all through middle and high school, and hence pretty much have little-to-no skills to speak of. And whose fault is that? The CEO of McDonalds?
Stuff like this will only become more common, I fear:
A Montgomery County couple recently sued their son's private school in Potomac because they say the school let their son fail academically.
The parents of Max Bramson sued the Bullis School saying the school breached their contract by not giving their son the attention he deserved.
The mom says the school didn't notify her "that he was doing poorly" and that his advisor "never advised him." Thankfully, a judge with a modicum of common sense threw out the lawsuit, but the Bramson's are appealing. They say that Max was "rejected from every school (college) he applied to," so now he attends Montgomery Community College.
Um, I kinda doubt one "D" in Honors Biology is the cause of all those rejections. Seems to me there must quite a bit more, academically speaking, that we don't know about. And mom? You had no idea Max was doing poorly? How is that possible? Do you talk with your son? And a check of the school's website shows that teachers have pages for listing assignments and homework. Did you keep up to date on those, mom?
Erik Grove pens an op-ed today at Bleeding Cool which addresses, in part, a post of mine from yesterday. It's titled "8 Things that Need to Change in Comics – Threats, Harassment And Understanding," and not surprisingly, many of these changes need to occur from within. Let's take a look at these eight:
Grove's main point is sexual harrassment of females among the "comic community" spurred (in part) by this article regarding the supposed [in]appropriateness of a DC Comics cover. It's directed mostly at fans (the "community") but there's also this issue among the professionals. And Groves' point about hate speech and "endeavoring to understand" also needs to extend to the professionals. We've often documented here -- as have Doug Ernst and Avi Green -- how comicbook professionals (maybe I should put that term in quotes?) have often used, if not "hate" speech as it's typically defined, at the least vile speech ... and little-to-no inclination to "endeavor to understand."
Is Mark Waid telling me to "Go f*** myself" hate speech? Does it demonstrate an "endeavor to understand?" I mean, even if I was 100% wrong (I wasn't), what is up with a so-called professional responding in that manner? What about these comments?
There's also, of course, Ron Marz, Gail Simone, Erik Larsen and Dan Slott, among others. (Please venture over to Doug Ernst's place today to see how an insanely obsessed Slott is STILL ranting about Ernst's criticism of him. Check out the last update at the end of the post.) I wonder: Is a lot of their unreasonable attitude towards guys like Doug, Avi and me due to frequently dealing with ludicrous fanboy types who are completely irrational ... so that when one of us brings up a calmly worded criticism or question these guys are ready to rip our heads off? Maybe. I could see that. But, again, these guys are supposed to be professionals.
Alas, "progressivism" such as that practiced by these folks, is loaded with contradictions -- some (most?) of which aren't even noticed (or cared to be noticed). Like, for example, Grove not explicitly mentioning the comicbook professionals' behavior in "the community." And, even better, Ron Marz lamenting a lack of civility(!) regarding his article about boycotting Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. I mean, really??
Ultimately -- and ironically -- the online behavior of many of these "professionals" is astonishingly akin to that of "rabid [comicbook] fanboys" whose stereotypical image is that of egotistical, socially inept, creepy, and condescending quasi-nerds.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was "hurt" -- HURT, I tell you! -- about the "attacks" on her supposed Native American ancestry during her campaign:
Perhaps the most hurtful and high-profile attack thrown against Warren by Brown had to do with her heritage. At the height of the 2012 campaign, it was reported that Warren had listed herself as having Native American roots at Harvard University. Soon, there was a “full-blown campaign frenzy,” Warren recalls, with Republicans demanding that she prove her Native-American roots and accusing her of getting her job at the elite university by making false claims about her personal background.
Things only got worse when the Brown campaign asked whether her parents had lied to their children about her family. “He attacked my dead parents,” Warren writes. “I was hurt, and I was angry.”
Brown’s allegation that Warren had used her background to get ahead “simply wasn’t true,” she writes. “I was stunned by the attacks.”
First, she didn't use her supposed Native heritage to get ahead ... in the academic world?? That rates about a minus 5 on the Believability Meter. Second, she was only "stunned" by the attacks because she was so well insulated in said academic world where any such questioning of her background would have been met with accusations of "hate speech," and moves to subject the questioner to "re-education," "sensitivity" training, and even a disciplinary hearing.
RELATED: Funny, I don't remember hearing about this incident during the Warren-Brown Senate campaign. Surprise, that, eh?
Those at Rolling Stone magazine, that is:
That's supposed to be the Constitution on Julia Louis-Dreyfus's back. Except that ... John Hancock never signed the Constitution. He signed the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution: For "progressives," a document so living, it grows on it signatures never before present ... like magic.
A member of national champion UConn men's basketball team, Shabazz Napier, claimed he "goes to bed starving" because he doesn't have enough money for food.
Let that sink in for a moment. A player on a full scholarship at one of the elite sports team universities in the country ... goes to bed "starving."
Anyone buying this BS? Be sure to read the comments at the article.
Of course, ideologues in the Connecticut state house jumped on Napier's remarks. State Rep. Matthew Lesser (party unidentified by CNN, of course; he's a Democrat) said he and others "are considering legislation that would allow athletes at the University of Connecticut to unionize."
"He (Napier) says he's going to bed hungry at a time when millions of dollars are being made off of him. It's obscene," Lesser said. "This isn't a Connecticut problem. This is an NCAA problem, and I want to make sure we're putting pressure on them to treat athletes well."
Since Lesser looks like the only sport he ever played in his life is Xbox, it's no wonder he actually buys into the utter garbage that Napier goes to bed "starving." This reminds me of the hilarious quote from former Philadelphia Eagle Terrell Owens when he said he needed a new contract from the team in order to "feed his family."
Let's be real: My daughter is a college sophomore on a partial academic scholarship. She's never once complained about "going to bed hungry." Her freshman year she often made that college student staple Ramen Noodles to satisfy any off-dining hall hours munchies she had. So,a guy on a full ride at one of the most prestigious sports colleges -- a member of a group who are notoriously pampered on campus -- goes to bed hungry??
Pardon my guffaws.
Weird Salon interview with @suey_park where she says intelligent things and every attempt is made to make her seem incoherent. Point?— Gail Thorkenstonen (@GailSimone) April 3, 2014
OK, well, I lied about "no comment." Go to Doug Ernst's to see why Ms. Park certainly needs NO help (or "editing") to sound incoherent. And besides, why would Salon.com, of all places, do such a thing? I mean, this is the site that gave us this masterpiece!
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 Philly.com for allowing such.
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?
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.
We always knew it'd happen fairly soon; it was just a question of when:
Less than three weeks after the final issue of DC Comics’ The Green Team: Teen Trillionaires arrived in stores, Gail Simone has announced the cancellation of its companion series The Movement with May’s Issue 12.
"Unfortunately, this book just never found a big enough audience,” the writer posted Sunday on her blog. “The people who loved it, loved it hard, but that number was too small. I am bummed about it, we wanted to do a book that didn’t read or look like anything else out there, and I think we accomplished that. I take the responsibility, I think it took a little while for people to really adopt the characters, which was a conscious choice but also a risky one in this very cautious market where people have to be extra careful of which books they choose.”
Gosh, what a shame. Not.
Best comment at the story link is this one.
Boss Obama lashes out at Fox News during O'Reilly interview. He blamed the network for promoting the notion that he didn't call the Benghazi attacks "terrorism," and for clamoring about the IRS scandal: "These kinds of things keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them," President Lemon said.
Correction, Mr. President: Fox News mentions them because they're doing the job the rest of your lapdog media won't do.
As we posted back here, some fans of Simone's comic The Movement were miffed that the TV show Arrow (based on the DC character Green Arrow) utilized a group by the same name who were a bunch of terrorists. We wrote "Isn't that pretty much the case?" and posted several images from various Occupy Wall Street demonstrations exhibiting violence, clashes with law enforcement, and holding up placards advocating violence and anti-Semitism. It seems The Movement aficionados are still miffed:
But that's how the feds see the Movement, as terrorists. @fodigg— Gail Cup Avenger (@GailSimone) January 23, 2014
So, Simone believes the feds view Occupy Wall Streeters as "terrorists?" Hmmm, well the head of "the feds" is a guy named Barack Obama, and here's his view on the Occupiers:
President Obama on Thursday called the "Occupy Wall Street" protests a reflection of a "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works" and pledged to continue fighting to protect American consumers.
"I think it (Occupy Wall Street) expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. I think people are frustrated."
Does that sound like the feds view "The Movement" as "terrorists?" Quite the contrary, actually. On the other hand, again, look at how comics treated that other protest movement known as the Tea Party:
“A grassroots anti-government army”
“I don’t exactly see a black man from harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks…”
And our president's view on them? Well, let's see: The IRS targeted the Tea Party and similar groups for years. Powerful Obama allies even actively advocate this action. Obama thinks race plays a "key component" in Tea Party protests. And -- wait for it! -- the White House itself used the term "terrorists" for Republicans and groups that agree with them ... because they want federal spending cuts. Numerous Democrats have repeatedly used the term "terrorist" to describe Tea Party Republicans. And lastly -- are you ready for this? -- Obama supporters view the Tea Party as a bigger terror threat than ... radical Islamists!
All this, and the Tea Party has never engaged in the sorts of actions that the Occupy Movement has. Violence. Rape. Depravity. Property damage. Anti-Semitism.
But ... Gail Simone thinks our government views the Occupy Wall Street Movement as the "terrorists." Still yet another example of a "progressive" living in "the bubble" where The NarrativeTM never changes.
UPDATE: It's entirely possible Simone, in her tweet above, is referring to the feds of Arrow and how they view The [fictitious] Movement. But considering how the comicbook version is based on OWS, one would have grant us some leeway if we mis (or over) interpreted Simone's remarks.
Outspoken Dem. Congressman Alan Grayson fell for a ponzi scheme that swindled him out of ... $18 million.
That's a real shame.
Nothing of this sort surprises me anymore:
In a letter sent to colleagues in the department after the sit-in, [professor emeritus Val] Rust said students in the demonstration described grammar and spelling corrections he made on their dissertation proposals as a form of "micro-aggression."
Student demonstrators alleged that there is a “toxic” racial climate in the graduate school, including in Rust’s classroom. Organizers told the Daily Bruin last week that they decided to host the demonstration after a recent report examining racial discrimination among the university’s faculty stated that UCLA’s policies and procedures do not sufficiently address racially motivated instances of discrimination.
Yes, you understood that correctly -- minority graduate students are claiming racism because their professor emeritus had the gall to correct them.
The hilarious thing is, such departments are staffed and headed by some of the most "progressive" individuals you will ever encounter -- people who would be eternally cognizant of such "micro-aggressions" in and out of the classroom -- but they still get eaten alive by the very "philosophies" they guard and/or espouse.
(Via Fausta's Blog.)
That's a shame.
The people who shut down the government are going to be in charge of your healthcare. If they will shut down monuments as a political stunt, you can be damn sure they'll use your access to healthcare as the greatest leverage this country has ever seen.
I just had to laugh softly and shake my head at this story today at Philly.com. A dad is suing the "coach, athletic director, principal, superintendent, and school board" of Sterling Regional High School in Camden County. Why? His son was booted from the track team. Dad thinks his son is a total track stud and as such should be able to run whatever the hell he wants.
I just loooooove that. A perfect example of WTF is wrong with our modern culture.
Let's take a gander at some of dad's moronic statements:
Uh, no they don't. That's why they're children. They can't vote, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, drive, etc. This isn't to say they have no rights, just not "like any adult."
Uh, no it's not unfair, especially in the sport of track and field. As noted in the article, track coaches always have to balance the needs of individuals on the squad with that of the entire team. After all, the ultimate goal is for the team to win.
A total crock. Participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege, nothing more. If one does not want to do as the coach asks, then that person should either not try out or, if already on the team, quit/resign.
Hilarious. I wonder if the coach (and/or school, et. al.) have thought about counter-suing daddy on the same grounds.
Translation: Coach didn't do precisely what I wanted, so now I'm gonna act all pouty.
This may be the "best," however: Dad also says that his son was "'undefeated champ' in the 200-, 400-, and 800-meter runs as an eighth grader at a Catholic school in 2010." Which, for dad, "should have translated into a key spot on the team when, as a ninth grader." Whaaaa ...? As a runner myself, I was undefeated in the 400 and 800 while in middle school, much like this kid. Did I -- and my dad -- demand that, upon entering high school, I get a "key spot" on the track team? Hell no. And when track season (in the spring) arrived, it was soon apparent that there were many on the squad -- sophomores, but especially juniors and seniors -- who were better than me. And that's a key aspect not mentioned in this article; what were Mawusimensah's times compared to those of his teammates? Was he better in the 200, 400, and 800 meters than all, most, or even some of his peers? The article states the son wasn't permitted to run "even though he may have been faster than some seniors who raced." What does that mean? Was he or wasn't he? And if he was, does anyone buy that this track coach would not enter him to run in those events during meets?
Being a long-time educator and coach, my [educated] guess is this: Dad constantly complained to coach (and others) about what he perceived as "slights" to his son because of not getting what he wanted based on his [now-irrelevant] performance in middle school. When dad didn't get "satisfaction," he told his son (or implied it) to bag a few practices to "show the coach." (After all, the official reason Mawusimensah was booted from the team was unexcused absences. Dad claims there was a family death and an injury to his son. If so, where were the notes to that effect?) These absences then became the official means (or, if you prefer, "excuse") by which to dismiss Mawusimensah.
I also wonder why the Philly Inquirer ran a story like this. Well, not really. After all, as easily predicted, it is guaranteed to elicit a ton of comments, the vast majority of which side with the school and coach. (In fact, I haven't yet seen one siding with the dad and his son.) From a purely business POV this makes sense for the paper. But, I can't help but wonder if the paper ran with it out of a degree of sympathy for this family's "plight." Admittedly, there's really nothing in the narrative to indicate such (at least to me), but what is the reason for granting this dad the exposure?
UPDATE: Yesterday Philly.com switched article pictures to a more "plaintiff-friendly" one. The new one remains on the site's main page today; however, the actual article page has put back the original. Also (telling), the site has discontinued comments for the story. No surprise there for, as noted above, the comments were incredibly one-sided against the father and son.
That would be "the advocacy group" Gender Justice. Here's why:
Jill Gaulding, a cofounder of the advocacy group Gender Justice, claims that the University of Iowa is engaged in “pink shaming” and “cognitive bias” by making its football team’s opponents dress and undress in a locker room that is painted . . . pink:
“Most people understand the pink locker room as a taunt against the other team, calling them a bunch of ladies/girls/sissies/pansies/etc.,” according to an information sheet Gaulding and Gender Justice law partner Lisa Stratton distributed to the workshop attendees.
Gaulding’s handout quoted a passage from [former Iowa football coach Hayden] Fry’s autobiography where he said pink was a “passive” color and might put opponents in a passive mood. “Also, pink is often found in girls’ bedrooms, and because of that some consider it a sissy color,” according to a quote Gaulding said she took from Fry’s book.
Gaulding believes -- wait for it! -- that U.I. could face a lawsuit for ... gender discrimination(!!) based on Title IX and Title VII rules.
“What I am trying to accomplish is multifold,” he told Merica. “I consider myself working on the next civil equality movement, just like women’s rights, LGBT rights and African-American Civil Rights. We are still in the early stages of eliminating discrimination against atheists and humanists. That is something I really want to accomplish.”
I guess the one thing I am missing here -- as is Mr. Stiefel -- is just how are atheists "civilly unequal" in the US today. Even among elected officials there is no test of religion permitted ("... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.") If no atheist ever gets elected, it certainly ain't the Constitution's fault.
What atheist can't marry?
What atheist can't vote?
What atheist doesn't get equal pay for equal work (with all else being equal?)
Where are atheists being disallowed housing? Loans? Education?
Answer: None/They're not. Stiefel even agrees -- but not citing one single thing in which atheists are discriminated. And atheism won't be the "next civil rights issue" because about the only thing that's really offensive to atheists is any public display of religion. And that's just too damn bad. Being offended isn't a civil rights matter. Oh, and when it comes to intrusive (and clearly illegal) attempts at prayer and religious prosthelytizing in a place like a public school, it certainly isn't only atheists who make a fuss.
Sorry, Mr. Stiefel. You might have had me thinking differently had you actually made a case. But you cite nothing. Using your money for rallies and bringing in possibly the currently most famous atheist around, Richard Dawkins, to say “Discrimination comes from ignorance, and in this case it is ignorance about our beliefs” without noting what discrimination you all face is, well, pointless. I'm glad you're doing good things with your millions (like helping with cancer research), but otherwise *yawn*
As one commenter put it,
What do you want? A constitutional amendment reaffirming that 'Yeah, we're cool with Athiests'? Things have a habit of gaining acceptance with the times, and what is essentially a new religion stomping it's feet and shouting 'Recognize me, too!' does not ease the process along.
And it doesn't have to be accepted by anyone as long as the people who believe as they do are treated equally under the law. Period.
Embattled NJ Senator Bob Menendez is using the RACE CARD to blame all his woes on the GOP:
At a Black History Month event held at a Trenton, N.J. church on Sunday, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez blamed conservatives for his ethics scandals, framing them as a racial attack on him because of his Hispanic heritage. “I have felt the sting of discrimination,” he told approximately 300 worshipers, according to the Bergen Record. ”It has never been easy.”
“Now we face anonymous, faceless, nameless individuals from right-wing sources seeking to destroy a lifetime of work,” Menendez said at Shiloh Baptist Church.
*YAWN* Hey Bob, at least Anthony Weiner had the dignity not to claim his accusers were anti-Semitic.
In today's News Journal article titled Mom faces hard truth as son tied to cop shooting, said mom says, “I didn’t give birth to a murderer. I didn’t give birth to a monster. I didn’t give birth to a thug.”
Uh, yes, you did. To the latter two, and if convicted, all three. Face the facts. I mean, c'mahn:
When her son was 16, he was involved in a shooting on Dec. 30, 2007, at 39th and Shipley streets. Though a juvenile, he was prosecuted in adult court and convicted of first-degree assault, conspiracy and a weapons charge.
In addition to the attempted murder charge Frederick Gray is facing, officials charged him Tuesday with robbing a gas station a day before the shooting.
But "he's not a thug."
Next, mom echoes the usual "progressive" "not totally [our] fault / result of being too dependent" BS:
“There is nothing for these kids to do,” she said. “I respect our mayor, but he can jump out of vans, he can do all he wants to do, but until he gives these kids something to do, it’s going to be a recurring thing.
Nice attitude there, "mom." How utterly ridiculous is this -- since government won't give kids something to do, then naturally we should expect them to succumb to a life of thievery and murder.
Un. Real. Civilization continues to crumble.
So writes the WaPo's Krissah Thompson:
The first lady’s critics “are reacting to the culture in which they’ve grown up or they are using it as a code to racialize Michelle Obama and remind people that she’s black,” says Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University. “It is unreasonable to expect a nearly 50-year-old woman to have the body of a 25-year-old. She looks great for her age.”
Who knew? Everyone I know who says Michelle Obama has a fat ass says so because ... Michelle Obama has a fat ass.
Once again, we see how so-called "progressives" are uniquely "qualified" to ferret out the clandestine racism of the body politic. Whether it's using golf to equate Boss Obama to Tiger Woods' extra-marital dalliances, or noting how referring to the president as "cool" is racist, to claiming peanut butter sandwiches are racist ... the typical garden variety American hears all this and goes "WTF??"
And here's a little advice for Boss Obama and crew, and the racer mainstream media: Obama and co. are from Chicago, for cripe's sakes. So grow up. If you can't stand the legitimate political heat and political comedy, make way for someone who can.
Boss Barack Obama has won a second term by a wide electoral margin, but the Left is still crying "racism" every chance they can get. And why not, really? As utterly ludicrous as many -- most -- of the charges are, apparently enough bozos buy 'em ... and then vote on 'em. Whether they're black or white.
The most recent case in point is a former far-left Delaware blogger who wrote on Facebook last evening (no link provided as I am not certain he would appreciate and/or authorize such, especially as I am FB friends with him) that the GOP was showing its "true" racist colors because they apparently only go after the African-Americans in the Boss Obama administration. (He writes that Republicans have "hated" Obama, Eric Holder and Susan Rice "the most.") The most recent of these is the last listed, our UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice has gotten heat for going on numerous Sunday talk shows right after the Benghazi attacks in Libya, and parroting the now-debunked line that a silly anti-Islam YouTube video. Boss Obama acted all tough yesterday in defending Rice stating, "Come after me." (Of course, he made little sense in that defense for, if Rice "knew nothing" of Benghazi, then WTF was she doing out there on all those talk shows??)
Then there's Eric Holder. Indeed, I suppose "Fast and Furious" has absolutely nothing to do with how the opposition views him, not to mention his department's views on enforcing civil rights laws.
Heck, I'll even add Van Jones in there for good measure. Indeed, why in the world did he get so much crap? I mean, it's not like he was a well known 9/11 Truther or anything!!
But this is all beside the point. This far-left former DE blogger only has his [very] skewed opinion that the blacks in the administration are "hated" more than others. He has absolutely no proof of this other than some GOP legislators criticizing them. Obama appointed numerous African-Americans to various positions, and if they suck at the job, what are people -- especially the opposition -- supposed to say? "Oh, sorry, you're black. You're doing just wonderfully!!"?? This, I believe, is known as the bigotry of low expectations. Does anyone seriously believe that if this was a GOP administration that the attorney general would not get any heat from a Democratic House about "Fast and Furious"? Does anyone seriously believe that members of a Democratic House would not excoriate a GOP-appointed UN ambassador for going on myriad Sunday talk shows to forward a lie about an attack on a US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador?? If you do not believe these things wouldn't happen, you're a nut. Period.
Our former far-left DE blogger conveniently forgets administration members like Tim Geithner. The GOP was all over him for not paying his taxes, and most recently about the Libor rate-rigging scandal. Then there's the favorite target of Delaware edu-blogger Kilroy, Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Duncan's tenure as head of Chicago schools has been panned by many, not to mention the whole federal Race to the Top initiative (frequently -- and rightly -- dubbed "No Child Left Behind on steroids") is one huge wasteful boondoggle. Ask any teacher that is signed on to it (like here in DE), conservative or liberal. They'll confirm such.
It's pretty damn unbecoming that a person such as this former blogger who prides himself on being such an intellectual (and he is) so easily falls prey to the specious "racism" canard whenever it's convenient, or when there's some heat being put on a few officials who just happen to be black. On the one hand, it's not surprising that so-called "progressives" feel that African-Americans, whether gov. officials or not, should be held to a different -- i.e. lower standard. They feel this way in other realms of life, after all (employment, education). On the other, if this is the excuse that will continually be utilized, then why not just give their positions to some Caucasians so at least critics can question them and complain about them without the PC police constantly harassing them?
He was only off by a few years.
The mainstream media is (surprise!) all self-righteously indignant about this (supposed) "gaffe" by Mitt Romney; I just have something to offer up in return:
And then what about the tape of Boss Obama heaping praise on Yassir Arafat mouthpiece Rashid Khalidi in 2003 -- which the Los Angeles Times still hasn't released??
So, spare us all you phony "progressives" and sanctomonious a-holes in the MSM. Until you begin really doing your job as you're supposed to, go pound sand.
Somehow, the word "pu**ies" comes to mind:
U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement -- September 11, 2012
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Uh, no. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American democracy, and the respect for religion, such that it is a "cornerstone," applies only to government. The only reason these PC dolts in our Cairo embassy are issuing this statement is the same reason hypocritical socialists like Lawrence O'Donnell act the way they do: because when fanatical Muslims act like spoiled children when someone says/does something which offends their precious religion ... they're scared to death of them. Period. O'Donnell admitted as much. On the other hand, when someone (like Muslims, for example) criticizes/offends Christianity or Judaism, then free speech is of paramount importance. That's brave, then, after all, because no Catholics and Protestants went on a rampage through the streets when Piss Christ, for example, was displayed. Indeed, that work of "art" was partly funded by our government.
Hilarious. Jonathan Krohn, who at age 13 "took the political world by storm at 2009’s Conservative Political Action Conference when he delivered an impromptu rallying cry for conservatism that became a viral hit" has "grown up" according to Politico. he's now that ripe old age of seventeen and has shifted leftward. So, y'know, again, this means he's "grown up." At age 17.
But Krohn, has a "defense": “Come on, I was thirteen,” he said. “I was thirteen.”
Gosh. You sure sold me!
Via the 24/7 Wall St. Wire: Ten Brands That Will Disappear In 2013.
#3. Current TV.
Al Gore’s Current TV was on life support even before it fired its only bankable star, Keith Olbermann, in March following a set of battles with the host over his perks. He was replaced by serial talk show host failure Eliot Spitzer. Compared to Olbermann’s March figures, Spitzer’s ratings in April were down nearly 70%, according to TV audience measurement firm Nielsen. At the time, The Hollywood Reporter wrote, “Replacement Eliot Spitzer pulled an anemic 47,000 total viewers in the first outing of Viewpoint, with just 10,000 among adults 25-54. The weeks since saw an early rebound, particularly in the demo, but in its four weeks on air Viewpoint has steadily declined in both respects.” Reuters recently reported that Current TV’s audience had fallen enough that cable giant Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) may have the right to discontinue carrying the channel. The closest Current TV has to a star is talk show veteran Joy Behar, a former cast member of “The View,” who had her own show canceled by CNN’s HLN in November. Gore does not have the pockets to keep a network with no future going.
Gosh. That's a shame.
MSNBC's Al Sharpton claims the GOP used "'fraudulent tactics' to win yesterday's gubernatorial recall vote in Wisconsin."
Well, I suppose it's all they have left, right? Just make friggin' sh** up!!
As you'd expect, it's with a combination of profanity, classlessness, derision, and elitist snobbery. Let's take a sampling, shall we?
Jason "Trust Fund" Scott (the founder of the LGOMB):
Chris Matthews is pissed that people still bring up his "thrill up my leg" comment.
Ain't that a damn shame.
Democratic Senators Chuck You Schumer of NY and Bob Casey of PA are miffed -- MIFFED! -- at Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin for renouncing his American citizenship to avoid paying a huge amount of taxes ($67 million) on his Facebook profits.
"It's infuriating to see someone sell out the country that welcomed him and kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire," said Senator Charles Schumer at a news briefing. "We plan to put a stop to this tax avoidance scheme."
"We simply cannot allow the ultra-wealthy to write their own rules," Casey said.
"Mr. Saverin has benefited greatly from being a citizen of the United States but he has chosen to cast it aside and leave U.S. taxpayers with the bill. Renouncing citizenship to simply avoid paying your fair share is an insult to middle class Americans and we will not accept it," he said.
I love how these House of Lords dolts impugn someone for dodging that kind of hefty tax bill. Here's a clue, idiots: Stop spending OUR money like drunken sailors and maybe guys like Saverin won't do what they did. And Mr. Casey? Who's been leaving US taxpayers with the bill, you a-hole? YOU have. You, Schumer, and everyone in Washington. We currently have over a trillion -- TRILLION! -- dollar deficit, and over $15 trillion in debt. And those are both the result of YOUR actions.
And dig how Schumer attempts to make Saverin feel guilty. First, how did the US keep Saverin safe from ... Brazil?? And how did it "help" him become a billionaire?
Look, if I were Saverin my own values wouldn't permit me to do what he did. Maybe it's because I'm American and Saverin is originally from Brazil. But I sure as hell wouldn't be happy with that immense tax bill knowing that guys like Schumer and Casey could give two sh**s about how they spend my money.
Via Rhymes with Right: Mom who thinks that disabling 58 school buses, disrupting the education of thousands of students, and costing the district lots of money constitutes a "senior prank", not a crime.
"It’s an emotional time for our family. Our kids have been plastered all over the news like they’ve committed a crime," said April Soza, Nick’s mother.
The students, their parents, lawyers and school administrators met on Friday to discuss future punishment.
Newsflash Mrs. Soza-Idiot: they did commit a crime. A real mom would have said "My son acted like a complete moron. He deserves whatever the school district and law enforcement decide."
And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career. And something that, could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot. Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling. And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work. And I know when she was with the girls she’d feel guilty that she wasn’t giving enough time to her work, and when she was at work, she was feeling guilty she wasn’t giving enough time for the girls. And like many of you, we both wish there were machines that could let us be in two places at once.”
Awwww ... poor baby!
Look, let's be 100% real here: The Obama's certainly DID have the luxury for Mrs. Obama not to work. My wife and I had that option, and I was then a lowly public school teacher with a mere three years experience under my belt. What was my salary back then -- the high $20 thousands? Low $30s? Obama was all the things he mentioned above; think he made more cash than I did? Without a doubt -- and a lot more.
As mentioned, this nonsense preceded idiot Hilary Rosen's remarks that Mitt Romney's wife "never worked a day in her life." Of course, Mrs. Romney was a stay at home of five children. "So what," many a "progressive" have said today on Twitter. "She probably had numerous housekeepers, au pairs, etc. doing all the work for her." Well, Mrs. Romney may have been like Sean Young as Mrs. Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, but Rosen doesn't know that, nor does any other idiot liberal gabber. Knowing the many Mormons as I do, I would tend to doubt it considering their views on family -- like the "Family Home Evening" just to name one example.
Honestly, I hope The Messiah and his acolytes keep this nonsense up. Mitt Romney is in a much better situation poll-wise than Ronald Reagan was at this time back in 1980; Obama's continued idiocy will only make this even better.
That would be one Keith Olbermann, of course. Details are emerging surrounding his ... departure from the barely-watched Current TV, and they paint a picture that should have been well known -- except that "progressives" perpetually kept their blinders on.
According to Mediaite, a source at Current TV said the former Countdown host went through eight different car services while working at the network, complaining that the drivers “smelled” and “talked to him.”
Furthermore, though Olbermann’s $250,000 studio was built to his exact specifications, he allegedly refused to use the set when there were lighting problems back in December. Not only that, but he refused to let guest hosts use the elaborate studio.
Current TV is also claiming that Olbermann refused to publicize the network and the show when he wasn’t hosting his program (and he took about half of January and February off). They say he even barred his staff from sending out related Twitter updates, and prevented guest hosts from promoting the show. (Jealous that they would get better ratings, perhaps?)
Just remember though -- he's on YOUR side!!
a) It wasn't autographed by Snoop Dogg
b) It wasn't an Abercrombie & Fitch
c) It didn't have that "new hoodie smell"
d) A guest host had wanted to use it
e) It was only 50% cotton
UPDATE: The Daily Beast has more details, including this:
Olbermann never came close to the more than 1 million viewers he had averaged at MSNBC, but his Current show was drawing more than 100,000 in the prized 25-to-54 age group last summer—and that gradually dwindled to 30,000.
Numerous people complained about Florida Democrats using a version of Old Glory ... with The Messiah's image on it:
And think I'm joking about the title? Try again:
[Chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party Nancy] Hurlbert said Tuesday's incident was the first time anyone had complained about the flag, which she received as a gift two months ago. "It leads me to believe that it's not about the flag," she told FoxNews.com. "Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president."
But of course.
So, not only is it acceptable for only leftist pundits to make vile comments about women (but not conservatives), it is also perfectly fine for leftists to refuse apologies -- if they from conservatives.
"Progressives" indeed. They're progressively more disgusting by the day.
UPDATE: All American Blogger has the perfect illustrated summary of this "progressive" hypocrisy.
The Tea Party is composed of violent-minded extremists, but the Occupy Wall Streeters are made Time's Person of the Year.
Right-winger "extremist rhetoric" is responsible for the dissolution of civil discourse and for incidents like the Gabby Giffords shooting, but far-leftist rhetoric -- arguably a lot worse -- is permissible because it's "based in reality" and because conservatives "deserve it."
And now the latest (predictably): the "progressive-sphere," local and national, is showing their hypocritical idiocy once again by foaming at the mouth at Rush Limbaugh's recent inappropriate comments to a college law student, yet have -- and had -- absolutely nothing at all to comment on when people like Bill Maher and Ed Schultz belittled women arguably more than Rush. Member of the LGOMB Pandora whines about the GOP's treatment of women (surprise). Our old friend Perry (aka Wagonwheel) has been practically rabid in demanding each and every conservative denounce Limbaugh.
You "progressives" really care about women? Really? Prove it. But so far all you've done is show you're silly, pathetic, partisan political hacks.
So I reiterate: So until you reconcile all this, "progressives," simply STFU about Limbaugh's comments.
UPDATE: Though I'm not that big a fan, Newt Gingrich shreds NBC's David Gregory on this whole silly matter:
"You know, David, I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the President's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week."
They avoid it because they're on Obama's team, after all.
Tell 'ya what, "progressives": You start blasting your own when it comes to outrageous and hateful statements towards those on the right, then maybe I'll give a sh**. But you don't and won't, so I won't.
Ever listen to HBO's Bill Maher, who just donated $1 million to President Obama's campaign? He regularly says things 100 times more vile than Limbaugh. I wonder if Obama will call those whom Maher's trashed (like Sarah Palin) to offer support, like he did the subject of Limbaugh's rant.
There's a lot more here. So until you reconcile all those, "progressives," simply STFU about Limbaugh's comments.
Listen to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke tell Congress that her birth control should be free:
Why wasn't this idiot laughed out of the room? When she said, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” I'd have responded, "Don't worry, you'll be able to make that in a few hours once you get your license."
Then there's this:
$3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it. [...]
At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year…
Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn’t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).
GLADD is upset at CNN [very liberal] anchor Roland Martin because of a perceived anti-gay slur:
GLAAD wants CNN to fire Roland Martin after a series of tweets about David Beckham that they consider homophobic.
Martin commented on David Beckham's H&M ads during the Super Bowl.
He tweeted: "Ain't no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear!...If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!...I bet soccer fan Piers Morgan will be in line at H&M in the morning to get his hands on David Bechman's (sic) underwear line!"
He was accused of being homophobic by those on Twitter, and GLAAD commented: "Advocates of gay bashing have no place at CNN."
Look, I think Martin is a first-class douche, but demanding that he be fired from the network for the above tweet?? Liberal Fascism, anyone? Still, it's always amusing when left meets left in battle of politically correct self-righteousness. Martin, after all, could scream "racism" if he gets too much heat from GLADD.
A Colorado teenager whose yearbook picture was rejected for being too revealing is vowing to fight the ban with her high school’s administration, but the editors of the yearbook insist it was their decision alone on the photo.
The five student editors of the Durango High School yearbook in Durango, Col., told the Durango Herald they were the ones who made the call not to publish a picture of senior Sydney Spies posing in a short yellow skirt midriff and shoulder-exposing black shawl as her senior portrait.
“We are an award-winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional,” student Brian Jaramillo told the paper on Thursday.
The girl's provocative attire violates the school's dress code, too, which, if the school wants to maintain any credibility along those lines, it's proper to disallow the photo. But here's the part that really gets me:
Spies was joined by her mother, Miki Spies, and a handful of fellow Durango High students and alumni in a protest outside the school Wednesday after, she said, administrators informed her the photo would not be permitted because it violated dress code.
Look at the photo. And the mom is out protesting that it should be allowed? Call me ridiculously old fashioned but if I saw that pic and was informed that it was the one my daughter wanted in the yearbook, I'd be protesting too -- to my daughter ... telling her "What the HELL were you thinking???"
Nice job, "mom." Cripes.
It just doesn't stop. In Houston, some local "activists" want Michael Jordan and Nike to be "part of the solution" to the problem of violence surrounding their sneakers:
Yep, that was the execrable Quanell X saying that the sale of sneakers -- SNEAKERS!! -- is a "public safety issue" ... with [at least part of the] responsibility being Jordan's and Nike's. Y'know, because sneakers are like ... drugs, tobacco and alcohol. Or something.
Still more inanity:
Outside Greenspoint Mall on Wednesday activist Quanell X and ministers called on Jordan and Nike founder Phil Knight to lower the price of the shoes and meet customer demand.
Basic economics, idiots: Demand is being met and then some at the current price. Nevertheless, what is this -- a call for "sneaker welfare?" Ye gad.
"The people that can least afford these shoes are buying them, and what happens as a result of that? Well there's more crime," said Ben Mendez, a Hispanic business leader.
Yeah, since a couple hundred was just shelled out on some Jordans, looks like people'll have to steal to eat that week. Or something.
Ah, but all is not lost, thankfully. At the bottom of the article we read this:
"I don't think it's their (Jordan's, Nike's) responsibility. I think honestly it starts at home with the parents," said Steven Lozano.
Check out the following actual tweets by these ... "people" disgruntled at the gifts they received (or didn't receive). Language warning.
And there's plenty more here.
UPDATE: Paul Smith Jr. did some investigating and at least two of the Tweets in question were claimed to be jokes, while a third is an active duty soldier overseas who claims he bought the items for himself. Just an FYI.
Jimmy Fallon's bandleader has been the target of some very nasty Tweets since he and his co-horts played "Lyin' Ass Bitch" when Michelle Bachmann was introduced as a guest:
I've seen some really colorful epithets in the past four days, but "ni**er fuckhead ghetto stick" (spelled out in the original) is probably the one that takes the cake. I'm still trying to get my head around that one. Blocking 3,500 tea party extremists [on Twitter] in a three day period is no fun, especially when you're a drummer dangerously close to carpal tunnel. In the end, was it worth it? Absolutely not.
I'd never condone using the "N" word no matter how miffed one may get, but what the hell does this guy expect when he pulls a stunt like he did? And how the hell does he know they're Tea Partiers? He doesn't -- it's yet another cheap shot at Bachmann and her supporters.
This putz has about as much class as a razed school building -- especially since it was Bachmann who very probably saved his very job!!
A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high demand, he went looking for work at his old school. The intervening years had been brutal to the city’s school budgets—down about 14 percent on average since 2007. A virtual hiring freeze has been in place since 2009 in most subject areas, arts included, and spending on art supplies in elementary schools crashed by 73 percent between 2006 and 2009. So even though Joe’s old principal was excited to have him back, she just couldn’t afford to hire a new full-time teacher. Instead, he’s working at his old school as a full-time “substitute”; he writes his own curriculum, holds regular classes and does everything a normal teacher does. “But sub pay is about 50 percent of a full-time salaried position,” he says, “so I’m working for half as much as I did four years ago, before grad school, and I don’t have health insurance…. It’s the best-paying job I could find.”
Life is all about choices, Joe. You freely left your job as a full-time teacher to pursue a degree, and then hopefully subsequent career, in puppetry. You freely understood that jobs in such a field aren't very numerous, and the pay (and bennies)? Better than that of a NYC public school teacher? Heh.
"Surprisingly," when this didn't work out, you found you couldn't be hired back at your old gig. At least not full-time. So, naturally, instead of accepting the consequences of your free (and poor) choices and either waiting it out until times improve and/or still looking elsewhere, you've decided to join the OWS movement to ... protest the result of your freely chosen career moves.
Indeed, the article goes on to note Joe "was 'totally won over by the Occupation’s spirit of cooperation and selflessness,'” and
... has already produced a museum’s worth of posters, poetry readings, performance-art happenings, political yoga classes and Situationist spectacles like the one in which an artist dressed in a suit and noose tie rolled up to the New York Stock Exchange in a giant clear plastic bubble to mock the speculative economy’s inevitable pop.
Just imagine how Joe could be supplementing his income using that energy at a part-time job (or two).
Let's see if THE NARRARIVETM is true to reality:
Three people arrested Thursday night inside the Occupy Boston camp have been charged with dealing crack cocaine ... "Things have changed drastically. It seems to be deteriorating,” the man told Carl. “A lot of drug use, alcohol use, people getting into fights… It’s deteriorating pretty quick.”
In Los Angeles, OWSers shut down a Burger King in "protest":
Lauren Gill, an organizer at the camp, said the woman apparently died of a drug overdose. She said the death highlights the need for more addiction services because drugs are such a big issue in the city.
Three people were arrested Saturday as part of the ongoing Occupy Phoenix protest. Sgt. Trent Crump, a spokesman for the Phoenix Police Department, said two people were arrested at Cesar Chavez Plaza in downtown Phoenix for breaking urban camping laws. One person was arrested on a felony warrant.
Here in Delaware, protesters are in danger of following in Phoenix's footsteps:
Occupy Delaware protesters, who are railing against perceived economic inequality and corporate control of government, thumbed their noses at Gov. Jack Markell again Sunday, rejecting a state permit to camp out in Wilmington's Brandywine Park.
But the protesters' decision to migrate to Peter Spencer Plaza, next to the Boggs Federal Building, could lead to a confrontation with Wilmington police this morning.
As you've no doubt surmised by now, my main objection to OWS is the preposterous media double standard with regards to it and its coverage of the Tea Party. Not to mention, the preposterous double standard by OWS-supporting "progressives" themselves. For example,
And on and on it goes. In other words, do not listen to one word of protest from a so-called "progressive" about the coverage/treatment of the OWSers ... until you've established that he/she wasn't ridiculously critical of the Tea Party and its motives/actions.
Bryant Gumbel says that NBA commissioner David Stern is like a "plantation overseer."
Stern's version of what has been going on behind closed doors has of course been disputed, but his efforts were typical of a commissioner who has always seemed eager to be viewed as some kind of modern plantation overseer, treating NBA men as if they were his boys. It's part of Stern's M.O., like his past self-serving edicts on dress code and the questioning of officials. His moves were intended to do little more than show how he's the one keeping the hired hands in their place.
If he's really a modern-day slave master, then why does "Ole Massa pay players an AVERAGE of $4.75 million or $92,199 per week," as Larry Elder notes?
I must be magnitudes less than a "slave," then. Sheesh.
Try reading this and not either 1) laughing hysterically, 2) shaking your head in disgust, or 3) #s 1 and 2, along with many other other forms of derision.
How utterly ridiculous can Media Matters get now? Answer: Pretty damn ridiculous.
At the Fox News-Google GOP presidential debate, co-moderator Chris Wallace used the pejorative term "illegals" to refer to undocumented immigrants and read a question from the public that used the term, as well. Journalists have called on the media to stop using the term "illegals," but Fox's "straight news" shows use it consistently nonetheless.
Wallace Tells Romney, "You Vetoed Legislation To Provide Interstate Tuition Rates To The Children Of Illegals." From the debate:
WALLACE: Governor Romney, I want to continue a conversation that you had with Governor Perry in the last debate. In Massachusetts, you vetoed legislation to provide in-state tuition rates to the children of illegals. Governor Perry, of course, signed the Texas DREAM Act to do exactly that."
Get it? Because some journalists got together and "called on the media to stop using the term 'illegals,'" it is thus now a "perjorative" term. And since FNC's straight news shows use the term, this means that these straight news shows ... aren't really straight news shows.
This PC nuttery sure sounds familiar.
"Shared sacrifice" my ass.
The Messiah wastes half a billion of OUR money to back a company which he was warned was no good. Now there's news of some ObamaCare accounting fraud. And it certainly ain't just limited to Democrats/liberals (although usually it ain't the GOP clamoring to raise taxes): George W. Bush's ill-advised sojourn into Iraq has cost us what -- over a trillion by now? And for what? Bush himself said in 2000 that he didn't believe it was the American military's role to play "nation-builders." And no -- I don't buy that 9/11 "changed things" with regards to Iraq. It wasn't, frankly, worth the money we put into it and the lives of over 4,000 Americans to "build" a nation at the point of a gun. Indeed,
... "nation-building" has been effective only 27% of the time since 1850, and he argues that these sucesses were not the products of military intervention. One group of countries that seem especially resistant to democracy-building efforts are the Arab lands. There have been are nine interventions in Arab countries in the past century. In no case did stable democracy follow the military occupation.
And on and on and on. This is why people are fed up -- fed up with politicians and government in general. Dick Morris pointed out last night on O'Reilly that presidents always get a 5-6% jump in the polls after a speech to a joint session of Congress. Obama got just a one percent jump after his last week. People are just tuning out. And it ain't beer and skittles for the GOP: Just six percent believe the GOP-majority Congress is doing a good or excellent job. In addition, O'Reilly pointed out how, despite reports about how income tax levels are at the lowest level in a generation, Americans are getting socked by other taxes on just about everything. He went on to list other "hidden" taxes in New York State that blew my mind.
So spare me about "shared sacrifice." When our government and politicians begin exhibiting some of that sacrifice, maybe I'll be inclined to go along. Until then, STFU, thank you very much.
Only at the modern American campus, folks. Only at the modern American campus.
Of course, if you bring this stuff up, you're "mean-spirited," "heartless," yada yada yada ...
● Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
● Fully 92 percent of poor households have a microwave; two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR.
● Nearly 75 percent have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
● Four out of five poor adults assert they were never hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
● Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
● Half have a personal computer; one in seven have two or more computers.
● More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation.
● Just under half — 43 percent — have Internet access.
● A third have a widescreen plasma or LCD TV.
● One in every four has a digital video recorder such as TiVo.
● At a single point in time, only one in 70 poor persons is homeless.
● The vast majority of the houses or apartments of the poor are in good repair; only 6 percent are over-crowded.
● The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.
● Only 10 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers; half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, while 40 percent live in apartments.
● Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home; on average, it’s a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
As one who has seen true poverty in a Third World country (and not just while on a vacation, thank you very much), it's sorta hard to fathom how such people/households are considered "poor." I think perhaps the most staggering of those stats above is how American "poor" have more living space than non-poor folks in various Western European countries. And, I can attest to that, too, having spent quite a bit of time in that continent. I was quite amazed (and thankful) how we Americans have so much more to tend to our personal comfort and convenience than our First World colleagues.
... comes from Pandora over at the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB) where she unbelievably excoriates Delaware Politics' Don Ayotte for censoring comments he doesn't like. The censoring of the comments isn't the issue (I happen to think it's stupid, too, for the reasons Don gives) but the outrageous hypocrisy by ANY member of the LGOMB for complaining about censored blog comments. Because they do it all the time to anyone who dares not toe their belief system. It doesn't matter if they're conservative or a fellow progressive. They don't like what you say, you're deleted ... or even banned.
So please, Pandora -- spare us the utter nonsense. And grow the hell up.
At the Playland Amusement Park in Rye, NY, they have rules about headgear being worn on certain rides. Why? Simple: people could get injured.
Enter: Muslim women wearing the hijab. "A scarf could potentially choke a person, a park spokesman told the newspaper." No matter. These women want to get on these RIDES, dammit! Thus, when they make a scene about it and the cops have to be called in, we get the inevitable "This all happened because we're Muslim." So, I'm sure Playland awaits a lawsuit. Of course, if something had happened to one of the [Muslim] women wearing the hijab while on the ride, you can bet your ass they'd be sued then, too.
A solution? Maybe have people who demand to wear headgear on a ride sign a waiver absolving the park of any responsibility.
Excuse me while I give a sh**.
Man, the News Journal has never been a paragon of journalism, but the pathetic writing/editing of today's Rhonda Graham column is head-shaking. Check it:
And there certainly may be more that I missed.
All of which is a shame -- because, for once, with her topic of the week, Graham actually makes sense -- and that would be the buffoon that is Christine O'Donnell. Because CREW's allegations against the failed Senate candidate did not pan out, COD wants the feds to revoke the group's tax-exempt status for "knowingly filing false claims against her, damaging her reputation, and racially discriminating against black members of Congress." That last bit is what -- as you'd expect -- Graham concentrates on given her penchant for digging into all things racial. But in this case she's spot-on ... because it's so preposterously transparent on COD's part.
Puh-lease, Christine. This is just the latest bit of inanity from you in a long string of inanities. Don't go away mad, just ... go away.
That's what now-executed killer Humberto Leal shouted as he was injected with the lethal mix of drugs that would kill him.
Now, was this a deliberate play for the media, attorneys and politicians since there was a whole imbroglio over his citizenship leading up to his execution ... or was it an expression of his true nationalistic pride? Keep in mind that the guy has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. Check it:
Leal was just a toddler when he and his family moved to the U.S. from Monterrey, Mexico, but his citizenship became a key element of his attorneys' efforts to win a stay. They said police never told him following his arrest that he could seek legal assistance from the Mexican government under an international treaty.
Consider: As I noted here, Mexicans (and other foreign nationals) who've been here that long are considered "essentially Americans" because they're granted driver's licenses, in-state college tuition, and the like. In addition, we've seen how "progressives" and the Left have portrayed efforts like Arizona's in dealing with the huge influx of illegals, so just imagine the hassle the police that arrested Leal would have dealt with had they made an issue of determining his actual residency status. I can hear it now: "police state!" "Nazis!" "Papers please!" Etc.
All of which makes me salute the US Supreme Court 1) for initially saying "sorry" to our government because, since no legislation was passed by Congress to properly enact that appropriate international convention, it therefore didn't legally apply (which allowed Leal contact with a Mexican consulate), and 2) for refusing to stay Leal's execution last night on the basis of this still-unpassed legislation. (Congress had over two years to pass the damn law, after all.)
¡Viva El Tribunal Supremo de Los Estados Unidos!
Al Sharpton on GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain: He's too racially obsessed.
Chris Hansen, "To Catch a Predator" host, caught cheating on his wife ... by hidden cameras.
From the News Journal: Wilmington man shot dead.
The New York Times notes about Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin:
Neither Ms. Abedin nor Mr. Weiner earn lucrative salaries, and Ms. Abedin is worried about her husband, who has been in politics much of his adult life, finding work. Mr. Weiner would still be eligible to collect his pension after his resignation.
Interesting choice of terminology by the Times -- not "lucrative." The couple's combined salary (as of last year) is $310,000. But ... according to President Obama and the Democrat Party, people making over $250,000 ... are "rich!"
But no one ever said the Times was consistent ... or fair, for that matter.
You knew this would be coming from the usual suspects: "At least Weiner is not a hypocrite." Right. Aside from the fact that he's an immense hypocrite to his still-newlywed wife, Zombie dissects this whole "not a hypocrite" nonsense:
it hasn’t just emerged in regards to Weinergate: It’s actually one of the bedrocks of the liberal worldview: Conservatives are hypocrites concerning moral issues, whereas liberals are not.
Which got me to thinking: This has to be the weakest philosophical argument I’ve ever encountered. Not just weak: self-extirpating.
Essentially, this "progressive" argument works like this:
Which do you think the general public prefers: An ideology that at least tries to champion a moral code, but whose adherents sometimes fail to live up to it; or an ideology that by its own definition is inherently immoral and whose adherents don’t even have a moral code to violate?
Meanwhile, the Weiner may be in trouble more than he'd like to think. It seems he instructed the [former] porn star he followed (on Twitter) to lie, and even made available his PR team if she so wanted:
On June 2, Weiner emailed Lee, "Do you need to talk to a professional PR type person to give u advice? I can have someone on my team call. [Yeah, my team is doing great. Ugh]."
On June 2, Weiner sent Lee a proposed statement she could give to the press: "I have nothing to do with the situation involving Rep Weiner. I follow his twitter feed. And for a brief time he followed me. Much has been made of the fact that I have posted about my admiration for Rep Weiner and his politics. All I can say about that is that I'm a fan of his. Rep. Weiner sent me one short direct message thanking me for following him. I have never met Rep. Weiner and he has never sent me anything innappopriate (sic) ..."
Weiner then asked Lee directly, "How's it [the proposed statement] feel?"
But he won't resign. Heh.
Lastly, here's the best headline of the last week or so regarding the Weiner: Erections have consequences.
From the WaPo: American Indians object to ‘Geronimo’ as code for bin Laden raid
In a triumphant moment for the United States, the moniker has left a sour taste among many Native Americans.
“I was celebrating that we had gotten this guy and feeling so much a part of America,” Tom Holm, a former Marine, a member of the Creek/Cherokee Nations and a retired professor of American Indian studies at the University of Arizona, said by phone Tuesday. “And then this ‘Geronimo EKIA’ thing comes up. I just said, ‘Why pick on us?’ Robert E. Lee killed more Americans than Geronimo ever did, and Hitler would seem to be evil personified, but the code name for bin Laden is Geronimo?”
OK. Look, the term "geronimo" is used as "an exclamation occasionally used by jumping skydivers or, more generally, anyone about to jump from a great height." The WaPo article states that "It was his name that the U.S. military chose as the code for the raid, and perhaps for Osama bin Laden himself, during the operation that killed the al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan." So, since it was the code for the raid, why cannot the connotation be the military "jumping in" (they arrived by helicopter, after all) to bin Laden's compound to off the sucker? No, of course we have to reflexively ask the opinion of a few grievance-mongers who automatically think that the US is equating bin Laden with the Native American leader.
If these folks are so upset, why aren't they upset that "Geronimo" is not even the Native leader's real name? It's actually Goyaałé, meaning "one who yawns." Perhaps Goyaałé is yawning right now over this ridiculous instance of PC ...
Perhaps the WaPo's Neely Tucker (author of the article) ought to expand her opinion base for Native Americans. Those interviewed seem to confirm what Sports Illustrated wrote about back in 2002 -- that Native American activists' views differ substantially from those of the Native population as a whole ... in this case, regarding Indian names for sports teams. Indeed in the WaPo article, Suzan Shown Harjo, president of the Morning Star Institute, a Native American advocacy group, said she has "long fought" against Native imagery in American culture -- including the Washington Redskins mascot. However, according Sports Illustrated's poll on that issue,
Indeed, a recent SI poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently. Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols. Opinion is far more divided on reservations, yet a majority (67%) there said the usage by pro teams should not cease, while 32% said it should.
Tucker's article continues:
But not all code names and nicknames have been loaded terms, even when the stakes were high. The plan to build the atomic bomb (the Manhattan Project) resulted in two atomic bombs (“Little Boy” and “Fat Man”) being dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber that dropped the bombs was nicknamed “Enola Gay,” after Enola Gay Tibbets, mother of the pilot, Paul Tibbets.
But if these code names were utilized today, it wouldn't matter what their real symbolic reason was. "Manhattan Project?" It'd piss off New Yorkers -- "Why are you associating us with nuclear destruction?" "Fat Man?" Insulting to the overweight. "Enola Gay?" Insulting to homosexuals.
And so on ...
Via Soccer Dad at the WaPo: Some Muslim scholars say bin Laden’s sea burial violated Islamic traditions.
A radical cleric in Lebanon, Omar Bakri Mohammed, said, “The Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial, and I don’t think this is in the interest of the U.S. administration.”
An unnamed American responded, "No one should give a flying f*** how Osama bin Laden is buried -- period."
... with a story of yet another invention-of-convenience that is "killing" the planet.
I've soooo had it with these pretentious preachy elitists. But I'm tired of endlessly rebutting their idiocy and hypocrisy, so I'll just give them this very useful link.
Nancy Pelosi earlier this week: "... the fact is that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do..."
Listen to how one lives "paycheck to paycheck" on $174,000 per year:
Mom complains of "excessive force" when police use pepper spray on her kid:
Teachers were so scared of the boy that they barricaded themselves in a room and called police because he was "spitting" at them and had broken "wood trim off the walls and [was] trying to stab [them] with it."
The report said the boy, identified in the news report as Aidan, told police, "I wanted to make something sharp if they came out because I was so mad at them. I was going to try to whack them with it."
The report also said when police arrived Aidan "was holding what looked like a sharpened one-foot stick and he screamed, 'Get away from me ...'."
Police told the boy to drop the stick twice but he refused so officers used two doses of pepper spray to subdue the youngster.
Mom said "I'm sure what he was doing wasn't right, but he's eight years old..." and that the police used excessive force. Well that's a relief! She's sure what her kid was doing wasn't right! Remarkably, mom said the kid wasn't on any meds nor has a mental illness. Might wanna look into that, mom, as well as examining the rationale that police were not only protecting other people from your kid, but from himself, as well.
And now, former Christine O'Donnell goon Evan Queitsch has inserted himself into the whole ordeal.
Aside from his myriad obnoxious comments and posts across the local blogosphere, Queitsch might be best known for his thuggish behavior towards anyone who dared to ask the aforementioned O'Donnell a question that required an answer of words of more than one syllable.
Hey Queitsch -- how 'bout this: I move in next door to you and let my grass grow to about chest-high height. Now, don't dare get upset and/or complain to the county. After all, remember -- "It irritates [you] when the government starts encroaching on people's freedom and taking their property." It's my "freedom" to grow my lawn as a I wish, and the grass is my "property."
Following up on yesterday's basketball hoop issue where Delaware's DelDOT took away several hoops that were put up too close to the street in a local neighborhood, the News Journal opines correctly on it today:
As DelDOT crews and police removed street-side nets from other residents in Radnor Green and Ashbourne Hills -- who also object to the law -- Mrs. McCafferty's kids got the message they are above the law. And that's unfortunate. One wonders what the parents would have done if a wayward car crashed into a lively game outside their home, or a youngster chased a ball into a passing car. Sue the state for not following up on its own pre-identified safety concern?
Mrs. McCafferty's husband, John, said he is considering emergency court action to prevent DelDOT crews from returning. That's extremely admirable parenting: Take appropriate legal action after you knowingly violate the law.
One message was clear, though: Even when the state sends out a warning months in advance that you are violating the law, ignore it until you can get some news coverage of your complaint.
Extremely well-stated. As I wrote yesterday,
I also don't think the parents are setting a particularly good example (like the mom climbing on top of her family's basket) for their kids. What's that say to the youngsters? "It doesn't matter what the law, or other neighbors, say -- we're gonna do what we want"? Great lesson, there. And they did receive warnings from the state about this, too. They just ignored them.
I'd also add, with this sort of situation, it's no freakin' wonder teachers bang their collective heads against the wall on a daily basis. Myriad methods of communicating grades and behavior are either ignored or not cared about ... until teacher takes some sort of disciplinary action against their child. Then mom or dad show remarkable speed in communicating and/or getting to school ... to complain about how those dastardly teachers and administrators are treating their kid!
... and why Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq were stupid too.
Here's Salon.com's execrable Joan Walsh:
Well, it’s so shallow, too. You know? And that is what you’re saying, Chris. It doesn’t matter. If something different happened, they would have a different principle. So they’re not, they’re not applying any kind of coherent principle of foreign policy or of domestic policy. They’re just looking for opportunities to cheap shot the President. The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view, where as here, I think you’re exactly right. They would just be trashing him whatever he did, and it feels that way. It feels cheap, it feels shallow. (Link.)
Got that? Criticism of George W. Bush's sojourn into Iraq was "coherent," but criticism of Barack Obama's adventure into Libya is merely "trashing the president."
Let's put it this way, Joan: You are an incoherent elitist POS.
Vikings running back Adrian Peterson compared NFL owners' treatment of players to "modern-day slavery," according to an online interview published Tuesday by Yahoo! Sports.
Yahoo's Doug Farrar, who conducted the interview Friday with Peterson, removed that comment from the story later Tuesday, explaining on Twitter that he wants to give Peterson the chance to provide context.
"The players are getting robbed. They are," Peterson told Yahoo. "The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that."
When discussing other players feeling the same way, Peterson said: "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too."
Except, of course, that most "people working at regular jobs" 1) aren't stupid enough to call their situation "slavery," and 2) don't make one iota of what YOU make for a living ... and you play a freakin' game.
Perhaps Peterson can get some of our usual [local] "activists" to take up his cause, because it surely can't be any sillier than the cause they're currently working on.
Poor Bill Maher is tired of Red Staters thinking they're "better than him." Oh, gee -- you mean after you constantly reinforce how "superior" YOU are all the time, Bill?
Nevertheless, his point about agricultural subsidies is spot-on. The other day I saw a half gallon of milk for ... $3.99?? Gimme an F'in break.
The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof on NY Rep. Peter King's upcoming House hearings on radical Islam in America:
I'm sure that at mosques around this country, especially the more radical mosques, this is going to be seen as one more evidence that people are picking on us.
Indeed. As if those "more radical mosques" need someone like King to "pick on them." Yeesh.
First we witnessed the so-unbelievably-hilariously-hypocritical-comment-it-just-had-to-be-a-joke by the self-righteous Bill Maher in regards to Bill O'Reilly's Super Bowl interview of President Obama. (In case you missed it, here's what the douche said):
I just feel like the most difficult part of his job must be to quelch the rage that somewhere must be inside him to say ‘I’m the President of the United States, you don’t talk to me like this. I’m not some left – I’m not Al Sharpton you know, I won this job.’ And Bill O’Reilly who claims he’s such a patriot – how unpatriotic it is in my view to treat a President that way. How does that look to other countries when you’re interrupting and belittling?”
BILL MAHER said this. It doesn't get more knee-slappingly delicious than that, folks.
Now big Obama booster Oprah Winfrey is on the bandwagon:
Of the negative mood of the country, Oprah added, “I think everybody complaining ought to try it for once.”
She said the presidency is a position that “holds a sense of authority and governance over us all,” and that “even if you’re not in support of his policies, there needs to be a certain level of respect.”
George W. Bush, when asked about these remarks, said "Heh. Where was all this concern about 'respect' in the mid-2000s?"
... but nobody really cares. "Death" in comics, after all, is just a money-making GIMMICK. PERIOD.
"Fantastic Four" #588, the series' final issue hitting stores February 23, is meant to serve as a good bye to the Human Torch as well as the idea of the Fantastic Four. "In this issue, everyone is struggling with Johnny's death. They're family. That's one of the reasons [we killed Johnny]. It creates even more tension within the family dynamic," [writer Jonathan] Hickman said. "Regardless of the situations that the group has found themselves in my run so far, they've remained a happy, loving family for the most part. Regardless of the external circumstances, they've had solidarity, but this is the kind of thing that can cause a schism within that."
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Remember - No. One. Cares. Anymore.
Manning related to me on December 19 2010 that his blankets are similar in weight and heft to lead aprons used in X-ray laboratories, and similar in texture to coarse and stiff carpet. He stated explicitly that the blankets are not soft in the least and expressed concern that he had to lie very still at night to avoid receiving carpet burns.
That would be Bradley Manning, accused of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks. He previously bitched about not having a soft pillow.
I suppose we can next prepare ourselves for his next complaints:
Via Ace: Wikileaks to reveal Obama opinions of world leaders.
With some 2.7 million communications from the US State Department about to be published online, Mr Obama is bracing himself for revelations that would not only be embarrassing but could also seriously damage his foreign policy.
Thousands of these documents are believed to be diplomatic cables from Washington to the US Embassy in London, including brutal assessments of Gordon Brown's personality and cold-eyed judgements of David Cameron's capabilities.
The ramifications for Mr Obama could be enormous. With his popularity flagging at home, one of his remaining political strengths has been his high standing abroad - assiduously cultivated in a series of speeches in which he apologised for past US actions and promised a kinder, gentler America. (Link.)
Is this why the Dept. of Homeland Security is going all-out seizing domain names?
There isn't a container big enough for this jackass's ego:
Kanye West is still angry at Taylor Swift.
At a surprise performance of his acclaimed new album at NYC's Bowery Ballroom around 1 a.m. Wednesday, West, 33, launched another attack against the country star, 20, whom he famously ambushed at the 2009 Video Music Awards.
During his rant, West seemed to suggest that the Speak Now singer used the VMA brouhaha to bolster her fame.
"Taylor never came to my defense at any interview," West ranted. "And rode the waves and rode it and rode it," he sniped of Swift.
Uh, exactly why would Swift feel any need to come to your "defense," Kanye, after your ridiculously a-holed move during her getting her award that night?
Any additional fame Swift may have gotten from that incident is 100% entirely of your own doing, Mr. West. Now, grow the f*** up and realize that there are many [much] more talented artists than you out there.
I'd give Dennis Kucinich the benefit of the doubt, but does the Left ever do that for conservatives?
Reports of racial tension and personnel management issues within his office may have ended Dennis Kucinich’s run for the top Democratic spot on the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
As PJM reported, tensions exploded in Kucinich’s office between his staff director Jaron Bourke and 35-year staffer Jean Gosa, who is African-American. According to sources familiar with the situation, when word of the dispute got to [Congressman Edolphus] Towns he stepped in to attempt to mediate the situation.
According to a September 10 story in the Huffington Post, Gosa had complained repeatedly about the atmosphere within the office — using words like “plantation, slave, and overseer.” Her complaints were backed up by former staffer and current Huffington Post blogger Noura Erakat. (Link.)
"Progressives" (like the LGOMB) love it when a "family values" conservative get involved in some sex and/or marriage scandal ... y'know, the 'ol "hypocrisy" charge, "not living up to their rhetoric," etc. There's no benefit of any doubt at all given. So, as the Left is supposedly the ultimate bastion of racial tolerance and understanding in the US (and world), it should be quickly pointed out when one of their own is not "living up to their standards," right?
Q: As the speaker of the House of Representatives, where Democrats just lost 60-odd seats as well as their controlling majority, you led your party into the worst electoral defeat in decades. And yet you chose to run for Democratic leader in the next Congress. Why not just step down?
A: Well, don’t forget that I led the party into the strong victories of ’06 and ’08. And now we are prepared to win again.
"And now we are prepared to win again"?? WTF??? You were just handed the worst congressional defeat since 1938 and now you're "prepared to win again??" Give me what she's inhaling!
Q: Your decision surprised many Democrats, who say you’re a poor communicator.
A: The thing is, I keep saying — show me all these men who are very communicative!
WTF does gender have to do with it??
Q: Ha. What about John Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is expected to succeed you as House speaker in January? Did you see him tearing up on election night as he addressed his supporters?
A: You know what? He is known to cry. He cries sometimes when we’re having a debate on bills. If I cry, it’s about the personal loss of a friend or something like that. But when it comes to politics — no, I don’t cry. I would never think of crying about any loss of an office, because that’s always a possibility, and if you’re professional, then you deal with it professionally.
Ah, so Boehner is not a professional, but you are. Check. Maybe Boehner oughta bring gender into this subject!
Q: O.K., but you could admit to having deep emotions about your setback in the House.
A: I have deep emotions about the American people. If I were to cry for anything, I would cry for them and the policies that they’re about to face.
Can anyone BE so delusional, clueless and sanctimonious?
Q: Are you referring to the repeal of the health reform law, which the Republican leadership is threatening to do?
A: That’s why I ran. That’s one of the reasons I ran for leader — to fight any changes. Any undermining of the health care bill, of the Wall Street reform bill, of the consumer protection bill — I’ll fight that.
Earth to Nance: THIS IS LARGELY WHY YOU LOST OVER SIXTY F***ING SEATS, YOU CRETINOUS SOD!!
Q: In what ways is politics harder for women than men?
A: For example, when I became the speaker, we won 30 seats. It was a victorious thing — I was the first woman speaker. It didn’t get that much play. And I’m not a publicity seeker, so it was O.K. with me. Boehner, before the election, they had him on the cover of Newsweek. Now he’s on the cover of Time, and women are coming to me and saying, “Is the job less important when a woman holds it?”
Yeah -- Time and Newsweek, those bastions of liberal PC and dogma, are biased against women and Democrats! But look at it this way: You're "more professional" than Boehner because he cries.
Nance, get some lithium. Quick.
Yes, the commonwealth’s senior senator engaged in what can only be described as a 40-minute whine-fest at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce appearance yesterday, customizing congressional Democrats’ pre-election talking points for a local audience.
He complained at length that his party isn’t getting the credit it deserves for rescuing the economy - indeed the very nation - ever since a “pale and agitated” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came to Democrats begging for a Wall Street bailout in the fall of 2008.
Heck, why talk about practical realities when you can point your finger at (sigh) Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?
“It’s absurd. We’ve lost our minds,” Kerry said. “We’re in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don’t weigh in. It’s all short-order, lowest common denominator, cheap-seat politics.”
Sort of like "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty," maybe?
Good thing this gold-digger wasn't up for re-election next week.
... I won't have to hear anymore about this walking train wreck:
During the interview Tuesday on WDEL-AM, [Christine] O'Donnell snapped her fingers and beckoned a spokesman to her side after the host of "The Rick Jensen Show" pressed her on how she would have handled the New Castle County budget differently from her Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who is the executive of the state's largest county.
Jensen told The Associated Press that O'Donnell said after the interview that she would sue if the video was released. O'Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran then called WDEL general manager Michael Reath, demanded that the station turn over the video and threatened to "crush" the station with a lawsuit if it did not comply, Reath said.
"He accused us of creating a story to garner ratings because we must be hurting since the (Philadelphia) Phillies were no longer on the air," Reath said, adding that Moran accused Jensen of "grandstanding."
The woman is a NUT. And more and more people are realizing it. I just heard on the drive home from work today that opponent Chris Coons' lead over her is now around twenty points. I mean, c'mon -- look what idiot O'Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran said about the incident: "This is another example of the liberal media shamelessly attacking Christine O'Donnell to boost their ratings."
Earth to O'Donnell campaign: Rick Jensen is about as conservative as they come. Do you ever stop to consider how loony you dolts sound? You did it with downstate conservative Dan Gaffney back around primary season; now it's Jensen. Sheesh.
O'Donnell's crew eventually apologized, for what it's worth. Great.
You've probably seen coverage of "The View's" Joy Behar and Rah-Rah Rabinowitz (aka Whoopi Goldberg) walking off the set of the show in protest of Bill O'Reilly's pointing out that it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. If not, here it is:
Is there a bigger self-righteous sanctimonious bit** than Joy Behar? She chats with 9/11 Truther idiot Jesse Ventura about O'Reilly's "hate speech," but let's take a gander at some of her own:
Don’t you think it shows their true colors – these mama grizzlies so-called? I mean she is against a federal program to help poor kids get health insurance, Michele Bachmann. She is no mama grizzly. She is against children. Who is she fooling?
Yeah, this "anti-child" representative has five children of her own and 23 foster children. How many kids does Behar have? (And if she has kids, who was drunk enough to actually make it with her??)
because maybe you felt that that would make more of an impact on Republican congressmen and people who tend to, you know, veto any kind of help for people on the, you know, because the, oh, you know what I`m saying.
The examples of virtually endless. So, if I was O'Reilly, I would've told Behar, "Stay off-stage you sanctimonious hypocrite. And how is it that you have your own show again? What exactly is your claim to fame??"
Seriously. Is this woman supposed to be a comedian? Since when?
"Democrats in Illinois are in an uproar because Republican Senate nominee Mark Kirk used the word 'jigger' in connection with expressing concern about election fraud."
Kirk did not know he was being taped and certainly did not expect the recording to end up on YouTube. Now, Democrats are demanding that Kirk explain himself and apologize to African-American voters.
The Kirk campaign confirms the congressman was secretly taped this week while telling state Republican leaders about his hiring of a voter integrity squad to concentrate on four regions that happen to be areas populated by large numbers of African-Americans who vote heavily Democratic.
"These are lawyers and other people that will be deployed in key, vulnerable precincts, for example, South and West sides of Chicago, Rockford, Metro East, where the other side might be tempted to jigger the numbers somewhat."
Lyle, a Democratic Committee member and an Alexi Giannoulias supporter, and others were offended by Kirk's use of the verb "jigger" when talking about regions heavily populated by black voters.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary says "jigger" does mean "to alter, re-arrange, or manipulate" and has been used by many politicians to describe election fraud.
"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.
Next up (some courtesy of the comments from the link above): A "civil rights" movement to change English language comparatives so that "bigger" is now "more big." Oh, and Winnie the Pooh's buddy Tigger better switch monikers. And, what will bartenders use now?
Florida US Senate candidate Charlie Crist tosses the first pitch at Tampa Bay's playoff game:
Departing WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on The Messiah:
[President Obama is] "the toughest leader any country could ask for, in the toughest times any president has ever faced." (Link.)
Since we're living in an age where every kid is "special," I suppose nonsense remarks such as these shouldn't come as a surprise. I also think folks like Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington, among others, might quibble just a bit with Rahm.
Check out a-hole Tony Auth's latest cartoon in the Philly Inquirer.
Oh, so NOW it's important for guys (however stupid and vacuous) to keep zipped lips (figuratively and literally), eh? Now that Democrats are in charge in the White House and Congress!
How many US troops' lives were put in danger by these reckless comments, Mr. Auth?
At least we'll all have the last laugh as Auth will soon be out of work as his paper continues to sink into ideological oblivion.
I wish that I were surprised, but I’m sure that it’s just a lone wolf or that the tree of liberty needs watering or something…
I wonder how many people have to die for Christine O’Donnell to be a Senator.
Now, keep in mind that these pathetic creatures knowingly and willingly blog with a guy who wrote this.
According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600 percent in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.
Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States — and civil libertarians and Muslim activists insisted it was 1930s Germany all over again. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.
Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?
No, it doesn't. In fact, it sounds quite remarkable. Radical Islamists turn New York City into chaos killing almost 3,000 people -- and hate crimes against Muslims go down every year -- despite the continuing threat from them?
Goldberg notes that, consistently, anti-Jewish hate crimes outnumber anti-Muslim hate crimes by a ratio of six to one. But no one talks about an "anti-Jewish backlash" in America, nor does Time ask on its cover "Is America Anti-Semitic?"
Obama and Co. automatically proclaim that such orchestrated terrorist attacks are “isolated” events. But when it comes to mainstream Americans, veterans, Obamacare opponents or (shudder) tea partiers, there’s no generalization too broad or too insulting for the Left.
Amen. This is a point I've made a lot recently here and at other blogs. People like our old "pal" Perry and those at the LGOMB have absolutely NO qualms about calling those noted above the ridiculously over-utilized "racist" (among a lot of other epithets). They have absolutely no qualms about using bogus and totally unsubstantiated claims to bolster their "arguments." Just check out what frequent LGOMB commenter "a. price" said over at DE Politics yesterday:
Let’s review what the Teabags DONT consider racist….
Holding all of Islam responsible for 9/11 (btw, way to whine about your Constitutional rights for almost 2 years than INSTANTLY telling a whole group of people they should give up theirs cause it makes you sad.. hypocrites)
Who precisely is holding ALL of Islam responsible for 9/11? Are 70% of Americans "Teabags?" Does this mean that Jews held all Catholics responsible for the crimes at Auschwitz when they expressed displeasure at the nuns who occupied a building there in 1993? Does this mean that Al Sharpton and co. believe that only blacks can take inspiration from Martin Luther King Jr.? *Sigh* Just another progressive strawman.
Having police officers look at a person and decide if they should ask for proof of citizenship
Except, that, NOWHERE in that Arizona immigration law -- currently on hold -- was there such a provision. In FACT, it specifically spelled out that immigration status could ONLY be inquired about in the process of some other law enforcement matter. Another strawman.
Politicians who ignore signs like “Barack the Magic Negro”
Except that that very phrase was created by a LIBERAL writer!
A TV host who thinks that people in Harlem order food like this “HEY M F-ER! BRING ME SOME ICED TEA”
I am assuming this is in reference to Bill O'Reilly's trip to a Harlem restaurant with the Rev. Al Sharpton, and is a textbook example of lifting remarks completely out of context. If anyone with half a brain actually SAW O'Reilly's report/discussion on the matter, it is crystal clear that he was discussing how black America is not just the snippets of rap videos seen on, say, MTV, and that unfortunately many Americans may believe just that. Even NBC's Matt Lauer recognized this.
A radio host who thinks black people should “get over” the N word…. than proceeds to yell it at a black woman 11 times before telling her she shouldnt have married outside of her race.
This refers to the recent situation with now-retired radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Of ALL of "a. price's" gripes only this one has even a hint of merit. What Dr. Laura did was wrong and incredibly insensitive; however, it doesn't make her a racist. Her point in doing what she did was to state that people are too sensitive today, and that blacks themselves use the "N" word fairly gratuitously. I, and others, do not agree, but -- again -- this does not make Schlessinger a "racist."
Goldberg continues, "Here’s a thought: The 70 percent of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from Ground Zero are the real victims of a climate of hate ..." Indeed, from Time magazine to the usual MSM pundits lecturing the masses, these masses are getting fed up. From the 2008 campaign where any criticism of Barack Oama was dubbed "racist," to last year's townhall meetings where constituents were called "Nazis" (and, again, "racists"), to Tea Partiers being labeled (libeled) "racists" and "extremists," to the recent mosque controversy ... the masses will exercise the ultimate power they wield over the Ruling Class nonsense: the vote.
Semi-related: Rhymes With Right points to yet another double standard on "tolerance" and "sensitivity": You can burn a flag or burn a cross … and it is called free speech – but if you plan to burn some Qurans, you need a permit which can be denied by a government official.
... and now is resigned to saying "YOU deal with this, you high and mighty elitists."
A response to this Philly Inquirer cartoon.
... a big, fat middle finger:
There's a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama's waffling on the issue, they're calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America's relationship with Islam. It's an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America's image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States. Nevertheless, they are now seeing a different side of the former president.
Author Byron York quotes libs Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson and Peter Beinart. As for the former president, he "has declined to comment on the mosque affair."
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this silence is twisted into the whole mosque affair somehow being W's fault.
Recall back on the 10th Greg Gutfield's idea of building a gay bar near to the Ground Zero mosque? Gutfield said,
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
Now, check out what the official Twitter account of the Park51 Lower Manhattan community-center project -- the Ground Zero Mosque -- has said in response:
You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog.
Why exquisite hypocrisy! What better example of the hilarious two-facedness that is political correctness! Sensibilities of almost 70% of Americans regarding the mosque? No big deal. (Included: Lectures on "religious freedom," "the need for tolerance" and "open discussions.")
Sensibilities of Muslims regarding homosexuality? A "dialogue killer."
I wonder if The Messiah is aware of this ridiculous double standard? Of course he is! He's a living, breathing example of political correctness. Meaning, some things are "worthy" of people's feelings, while others are not.
Every August, there's always a few ... "know-it-alls" who come out of the woodwork to "educate" us peons that there was no reason to drop the [newly developed] atomic bombs on Japan to hasten the end of World War II. This year, one of those is Michael M. Burns, an adjunct lecturer in history at Saint Joseph's University:
The anticipated invasions, only necessary if Japan did not surrender, would likely have incurred casualties of 20,000 to 40,000 men, not between a quarter of a million to a million. Not a number to sneer at, but still far fewer than the 200,000 civilians, the majority women and children, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Y'know, I was just watching a show on one of the History Channel cable offshoots that utterly and directly refutes this ... notion, and this is not to mention the irrefutable on-the-ground platoon-grunt facts. To say that US casualties in an invasion of Honshu (the main Japanese island), let alone the southernmost main island of Kyushu, would "only" cost 20K-40K men is simply laughable. The battle of nearby Okinawa -- a tiny "rock" in comparison -- cost the US "over 62,000 casualties of whom over 12,000 were killed or missing." And civilian casualties? Okinawa's were
estimated to be between 42,000 and 150,000 dead (more than 100,000 according to Okinawa Prefecture). The U.S. Army figures for the campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those who were killed by artillery fire, air attacks and pressed into service by the Japanese Imperial Army.
It is just inconceivable that, given the utter, no-surrender tenacity of the Japanese on Okinawa (not to mention on Iwo Jima -- a mere eight square mile island which cost the Americans almost 7,000 dead and over 19,000 wounded) an invasion of the main Japanese islands would "only" cost the US between 20,000-40,000 men.
Burns further states (in response to a previous pro-atomic bombing article) that "[such] comments run counter to the best research of recent decades." Is that so? Maybe he ought to check out what D. M. Giangreco, editor for the US Army's professional journal, Military Review, had to say about researchers like Burns:
Now, this is particularly interesting because, in recent years, some historians have promoted the idea that Marshall's staff believed an invasion of Japan would have been essentially a walk-over. To bolster their argument, they point to highly qualified- and limited- casualty projections in a variety of documents produced in May and June 1945, roughly half a year before the first invasion operation, Olympic, was to commence. Unfortunately, the numbers in these documents- usually 30-day estimates- have been grossly misrepresented by individuals with little understanding of how the estimates were made, exactly what they represent, and how the various documents are connected. In effect, it is as if someone during World War II came across casualty estimates for the invasion of Sicily, and then declared that the numbers would represent casualties from the entire Italian campaign. Then, having gone this far, announced with complete confidence that the numbers actually represented likely casualties for the balance of the war with Germany. Of course, back then, such a notion would be dismissed as being laughably absurd, and the flow of battle would speedily move beyond the single event the original estimates- be they good or bad- were for. That, however, was fifty-plus years ago. Today, historians doing much the same thing, win the plaudits of their peers, receive copious grants, and affect the decisions of major institutions.
Be sure to check out Giangreco's assessment of what officials thought real casualty figures would be in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
As for Burns' concern over the civilians killed in the atomic bombings, I suggest he consider the number of civilians killed by the "conventional" bombing of Tokyo in early 1945 -- which killed more people than the immediate effects of either of the atomic bombs. This isn't to say that targeting [primarily] civilian areas was a ... "good thing;" however, WWII was total war, and such targeting of civilians was applied by the Axis powers to a hugely devastating effect (see, ahem, China and the Holocaust, to name but two).
They just can't let up, folks.
CBS's Bob Schieffer blasts bloggers and "some of the cable folk" as irresponsible for the Sherrod affair; claims MSM "never publishes or broadcasts anything unless they think it's true."
Elsewhere, Salon.com's Joan Walsh said that since Shirley Sherrod's father was killed by a white man, "She's entitled to talk about race any way she wants to," all the while claiming Sherrod's statements that Fox News and Andrew Breitbart "are racists" is true:
I'm not giving her a pass. But I think the idea that she shouldn't be able to say Fox or Breitbart is racist preposterous. She gets to say that because it's true, and because from her vantage point it's especially true.
Using such a "standard," it is then acceptable for anyone can talk about race any way he/she wants to. As Noel Sheppard notes in the link above, "I've got relatives that died in Nazi concentration camps. Does that mean my views on racism are incontestable and that I'm allowed to call anyone I want an anti-Semite regardless of merit?"
According to Walsh, yep. That is, if she is consistent. But more likely her standard applies only to select groups -- those "approved of" by the liberal Ruling Class.
Then there's 'ol Sam Donaldson who compared Fox News to -- wait for it -- Senator Joseph McCarthy:
I believe in the first amendment, there’s nothing you can do about it, although you wish for Joseph Welch to say as he did to Joe McCarthy, when Joe McCarthy was destroying someone on television: “Have you no decency at last?”
Who are these people that they should pay attention to and be afraid of? Who’s Glenn Beck, I mean, who’s Bill O'Reilly? Who’s Bret whatever his name is?” Donaldson recalled how FDR proclaimed: “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” So, the retired ABC News veteran advised: “President Obama, don’t be afraid of them. Take ‘em on and let the people judge.”
"Who's Glenn Beck?" "Who's Bill O'Reilly???" I mean, really? And Sam -- Obama and co. tried precisely what you suggest last year. Remember when they all went out claiming Fox wasn't "a legitimate" news organization, etc.? That didn't last very long, did it? The people have judged, Sam you idiot. That's why FNC kicks its competition's ass day after day after day.
As for your desire for "decency," stick it up your ass, Donaldson. Clean out your own house first before demanding such of your competitors. Need I offer reasons? I could make this post the longest I've ever written if I did.
Michael C. Moynihan at Reason nails the recent race imbroglios nicely:
But false (or flimsy) accusations of racism abound—they are everywhere one looks—though they rarely provoke the level of outrage seen in the Sherrod affair. This week, in a fit of boredom, I found myself leafing through a deeply silly book by William Kleinknecht, a crime reporter for a newspaper in New Jersey, portentously called The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America. If it wasn’t enough that Reagan betrayed, attacked, humiliated, and sold Main Street to corporations the reader is informed that after the 1980 election the United States was “turned over to...thinly-veiled racists.” Nowhere does Kleinknecht substantiate the charge, but when the accused is Ronald Reagan, why bother?
This whole “debate,” if we can charitably call it that, is a mess of straw men, hypocrisy, stupidity, and reflexive defenses of one’s own tribe. It has nothing to do with fairness, journalistic ethics, or the immorality of dragging the reputations of innocents through the mud in an attempt at scoring political points.
Racism is the most powerful and toxic accusation in American discourse, one that derails careers and destroys futures. Yet despite its toxicity it is also the one that requires the least amount of evidence; the racism, we are told, is institutionalized or subterranean, so trust that it’s being divined in good faith. Well, that won’t do. Because there is no penalty for unfairly calling someone a racist, as David Frum points out—if it sticks, a point for your side; if it doesn’t, who cares?
Indeed, and it "sticks" a helluva lot more often when faux "progressives" do the "sticking." Folks like Olbermann (and practically everyone at MSNBC) spent weeks -- months! -- maligning the Tea Party movement as racist by nitpicking rare tasteless placards; in addition they (and others) constantly repeated the vicious lie that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were victims of racial slurs (see our predictable faux "progressives" locally and the local big papers which just in the past few days showed predictable paroxysms of indignation over the Sherrod affair).
The "bad guy" in the Sherrod matter, Andrew Breitbart, still hasn't gotten a taker for his offered $10,000 for proof that members of the CBC were yelled at by racists -- despite a plethora of cameras filming the protests at the time (including one held by the son of a notorious race hustler).
So, forgive me if I don't shed many tears for Ms. Sherrod's predicament. I've already opined what was done to her was wrong and that she should get her job back. But it'll be a very cold day in Hades if we ever see folks like Olbermann apologize, or the way-moonbatty LGOMB.
UPDATE: A lot more here.
... that, according to our old friend Perry, the Energizer Bunny:
Thus, this so-called “JournoList” is the same thing, an attempt initiated by Tucker Carlson, to demonize individuals who participate in an exchange of observations and ideas, as if it is some sort of a conspiracy of the left to control and manipulate the media and the news. Other than a list of names, where is the specific evidence?
If there ever was a bigger "head-in-the-sand" denial of basic reality, please show it to me. But Perry gets even "better":
Let us be honest, there is the same sort of inter communication among the opinion makers on the right, as evidenced by the talking points promulgated instantly amongst them on key issues, as they act in lock step. In fact, I will suggest that this sort of thing is more organized by the propagandists on the Right, taking their lead from Limbaugh and the FoxNews folks.
YEAH! So, even though there's no evidence of rightist journalists doing what lefties did via JouroList, they have a JournoList type of organization, and in fact they're even more organized than the lefties. And while the lefties merely "participate in an exchange of observations and ideas," the righties engage in "propaganda."
There's your comedic respite for the day, folks.
Lib talker Bill Press:
Best part: "Lincoln couldn't have governed today." Yeah, he only had to govern through a CIVIL WAR -- the most destructive conflict by far in our NATION'S HISTORY!!
(h/t: The Corner.)
Man, wish I had a nickel for every time I heard that line ...
A group of furious parents gathered Tuesday on South Street, at the foot of what used to be the public housing apartments where they grew up, to decry the police chief's labeling of their children as street gang members.
Investigators say the gang -- the 819 Boyz -- takes its name from the former 100-unit complex called the Martin Luther King Jr. Apartments at 819 South St.
Last week, Police Chief Mike Chitwood and officials with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, announced the conclusion of a 20-month investigation that netted 40 people for drugs and firearms violations. One suspect is still on the run, police said.
Many of those arrested will face federal charges because of their criminal histories, as well as the amount of narcotics and the types of guns they sold to undercover ATF agents, Chitwood said Tuesday.
Regardless of the charges and the detailed arrest affidavits that underscore an intricate network of crack cocaine and gun sales to undercover federal agents, the parents of the suspects insisted their children are no angels, but they're no gang members either.
"Our kids are not perfect, but they're not notorious gang members," said Tommy Jackson, whose son Tyrell Jackson is one of the 40 nabbed in the sting. "Show us the evidence that our children are gang members." (Link.)
Yeah, that's it. Gather to protest the use of "gang" by law enforcement and then march on city hall(!) about it next. That's the problem, right? Not that your kids are total miscreants involved in guns and drugs, but that authorities dare to use the term "gang" when describing them.
God help us.
Uh oh -- LOOK OUT! Obama is ANGRY! Check out the all-caps MSNBC.com headline:
The story is here.
'Ya think the MSM would be all bent out of shape about a general speaking out about George W. Bush? Or would that be "speaking truth to power"? That said, word has it that General McChrystal will get yelled at by Obama -- as soon as The Messiah gets off the golf course.
UPDATE: Knew it. Here's an example of how the MSM treated military opinion during GW Bush's tenure.
What is their deal? People have come out claiming that Alvin Greene (at left) is a "GOP plant" and shouldn't get the party nod -- despite winning the Democrat primary there.
David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama, said Greene's victory "was not legitimate."
“It doesn’t appear [legitimate] to me,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “The whole thing is odd. I don’t know how really to explain it. I don’t think anyone else does either.”
Axelrod must be ... A RACIST!!
Keith Olbermann asked Greene if he was a GOP plant. RACIST!!
And then there's the execrable Jim Clyburn of South Carolina who wants a federal investigation into the whole deal. And most recently, he accused fellow SC congressman Jim Wilson's campaign manager of being behind Greene:
We see that Joe Wilson, the Republican congressman -- who I asked the House to censure for disrupting the President's speech -- his campaign manager was managing my opponent's campaign and so they were running my opponent's campaign, Alvin Greene's campaign and Ben Frasier, down in the first congressional district. The only federal campaigns on the ballot, all three of those are being run [by] either the same shop and that shop was Joe Wilson's campaign manager and former staffer on his Congressional staff. So, that's all the proof I need. (Frasier denies the whole thing.)
Is Clyburn, too, a RACIST??
UPDATE: This guy must a RACIST too: Vic Rawl, former SC state Representative and Greene opponent, filed a formal protest about Greene's election:
"We have filed this protest not for my personal or political gain [LOL!! -- Hube], but on behalf of the people of South Carolina," the Democratic hopeful said in a statement on his official Web site.
"There is a cloud over South Carolina, that affects all of our people, Democrats and Republicans, white and African-American alike," he said. "At this point, the people of our state do not have the basic confidence that their vote will be counted."
UPDATE 2: Now Clyburn's venturing into moonbat territory -- like that of Keith Olbermann about Ohio after election 2004, and virtually the whole MSM during election 2000:
Clyburn says South Carolina used voting machines that all other states rejected. In fact, they were bought from Louisiana, he said.
"Something went wrong with these machines," Clyburn said. "They were very unreliable," he added.
"All you need is a magnet" to compromise the machines, Rep. Clyburn said.
Who would have a motive? "The motive could very well be to embarass the Democratic party. This could be embarassing if we do not get it worked out. Or this could be someone who wanted to ensure a victory [for incumbent Sen. Jim DeMint]," Clyburn said.
Clyburn concluded there is a "great possibility" that someone paid for him to run and tampered with the machines.
UPDATE 3: Jon Stewart on the Greene win:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Alvin Greene Wins South Carolina Primary|
Delaware Governor Jack Markell, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said this about our president and the BP oil spill:
The President is demonstrating he is in charge. He is showing he is going to do everything he possibly can to help people get through this ordeal.
(Obama) has made clear he’s going to make the full resources of the federal government available. And he has also said he is going to insist that there be accountability for BP. And I think that is exactly what the people of this country are looking for. And when he does that, when he keeps saying it and follows through on it, I don’t think there is a big effect on our races. I think that’s what people are looking for from the president and I think that’s what he’s delivering.
He's in charge and showing he's doing everything he possibly can? Really??
It happened in New Zealand, but of course only an American could conceive of such a suit:
A woman is suing Google for more than US$100,000 after following directions on Google Maps and being hit by a car.
Lauren Rosenberg, from Utah, using her Blackberry phone, followed the site's directions onto Deer Park Drive, which turned out to be a rural highway with no footpath.
Instead of looking for an alternative route, Rosenberg tried to follow the road for the half-mile Google Maps had suggested, but was hit by a passing vehicle.
I like this from the comments:
That is quite typical american - in every other contry of the world this woman would risk to be judged as mentaly handycapped for walking on a motorway because her mobile told her so...what is coming next - does google have to take care of every chuckhole on every street before giving you a route?
Digby explains:But here’s the thing. [snip] There is no winning with these noise machine pseudo-scandals. They have an alternate media structure that is designed to stoke scandal fever and the way they keep the mainstream media on the hook is with “smell tests” and demands that the person address the claims, apologize or make amends, none of which will be deemed adequate and all of which necessitate another round of investigations, demands etc. With every impossible requirement that isn’t met, the press will become more convinced that the person must be hiding something, is too hot to handle and will eventually agree that he has to step down or quit the race because “the scandal” is devouring him.
It seems that the law that might have been violated is sufficiently vague enough that, as Digby stated, nothing will ultimately come from this. Obama will come off looking like the typical hack politician (something he promised NOT to be -- big time), and some official may offer his/her resignation (to "spend more time with his/her family"), but what would the GOP (in this case) ultimately hope to gain? Obama's impeachment? Really??
I wouldn't even begin to attempt it.
One, the GOP is poised to gain BIG this coming November. There'd be no better way for Obama and the Dems to mobilize their base than by a Republican overreach.
Two, Bill Clinton's impeachment hurt the GOP in the long run. They lost seats in 1998 (when they were supposed to gain), and IMO led to the overconfidence and arrogance that cost them in 2006 and 2008.
Three, many many liberals still want George W. Bush impeached (and convicted) for anything from lying to war crimes. Since that can't happen now, they'll settle for the Hague trying him for whatever. Impeaching Obama for violating some law worded with typical labyrinthine legalese -- while articles against Bush got absolutely nowhere -- will backfire big time.
Four, Obama is inept enough. If he were a Republican, the press would have eaten him alive three times over already. Let him continue doing what he's doing. He shown he's no different from any other politician -- indeed, he's probably worse than a lot of them. Continuing to press for straight answers regarding this mess is sufficient, and since the MSM isn't likely to hound Obama for the truth, use this campaign hypocrisy against him in November.
The public is thoroughly fed up with the same old political crap-as-usual. Granted, the GOP isn't much different, but keep in mind Obama promised everyone "change" and swore that he was different.
He swindled us, period. It's time to remind him of this fact in Novermber.
New Jersey teachers don't like their new governor very much, that's been made clear. But some of them sure aren't helping their cause:
RealClearPolitics has a video circulating of an exchange between Governor Chris Christie and Rita Wilson, a school teacher in the Rutherford School District.
The teacher demands more salary, telling Christie, “if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she’d be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.”
Christie told her that teachers go into teaching knowing the salary. The teacher tries to claim she does it as a calling, but clearly thinks she should be doing it to earn a cushy living.
There’s just one problem. There is one Rita Wilson working for the Rutherford School District. Assuming the teacher confronting Governor Christie is the same lady, she has no freaking clue what she makes.
Public records from the school district show her making $86,000+.
Nice work there, Rita.
Yet another lefty forgets it's merely been a year and a half since he felt completely differently:
Governor Deval Patrick, even as he decried partisanship in Washington, said today that Republican opposition to President Obama’s agenda has become so obstinate that it “is almost at the level of sedition.”
Patrick said that even "on my worst day, when I’m most frustrated about folks who seem to rooting for failure," he doesn't face anything like the opposition faced by the president.
"It seems like child’s play compared to what is going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels to like me,” Patrick said.
George W. Bush, when asked about Patrick's comments, merely looked down and let out a big sigh.
The Lilith Fair's July 8 date in Phoenix at the Cricket Wireless Pavilion has been canceled.
Although no reason has been given, Belinda Carlisle posted her objections to the Phoenix gig on Facebook earlier this month - "in protest of the new immigration law in ARIZONA."
Carlisle's post went on to say the Go-Go's "condemn the law and want the date moved."
Tour co-founder Sarah McLachlan has been saying sales are soft for the entire tour, but if you go to lilithfair.com, you can see that Phoenix is no longer listed but 35 other cities are.
Good luck, Sarah. Sales are about to get a lot softer, you dopes.
(h/t: Exurban League.)
Anyone remember this gem of a column by the NY Times' Tom Friedman?
There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.
Yeah, y'know, never mind the gulags for political prisoners, one-child per family program, massive censorship and routine human rights abuses, etc.!! They can get stuff done!
Now, that savvy political mind Woody Allen offers this brilliant insight:
"It would be good...if (Obama) could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly. I am pleased with Obama. I think he is brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him."
One can only imagine (gee, I've been saying this a lot of late!) if right-leaning celebs said that George W. Bush should become a dictator for a few years ... and that the Democrats should just "get out of the way" so that Bush could win Iraq and Afghanistan without all the negative "hoopla."
Yeah. Just imagine -- the incredibly swift condemnation by the usual MSM suspects. (They'd be right, of course; it'd be refreshing, however, to see them be just a little even-handed.)
Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat (of course), laments the lack of a Fairness Doctrine so that those who oppose the new Arizona immigration law would get a, well, "fair" hearing:
"I think it goes back to the Reagan era when the fairness doctrine was dropped, and instead of requiring both sides of a debate to be aired, only one side was given the chance depending on who was providing that."
"But more importantly, language that was never acceptable became maintstream. Those that were deemed to be in disagreement with those on television or radio were demonized as traitors and extremists and hateful and language that we have never heard or seen.
"So it became acceptable in the mainstream media, it became acceptable in debates. And as a result the wedge issue that came about as a result of the economy over the last four years immigration became front and center."
Dude, wake up and smell the reality. The MSM reported negatively on the new law by a 12 to 1 margin. Is that "fair" enough for 'ya, Mayor?
Second, who's being demonized in this debate? It certainly isn't those in favor of the law -- they're being labeled "racists," "Nazis" and "fascists."
Once again, all this is is yet another liberal who hates the fact that opposing voices actually have an outlet for their views -- and that he can't control those outlets. (Which are, mainly, talk radio and the Internet.)
70%, Mr. Mayor. That's the figure you're dealing with who oppose your opinion on this subject in your home state. No amount of favorable MSM coverage has changed it, and no Fairness Doctrine will. Your only hope may be to adopt an Hugo Chávez-style censorship program. Good luck with that.
Y'know, with countries like North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and just about the entire Muslim world, ya'd think UN human rights "experts" would have plenty on their plate. Not so fast:
In a joint statement, five independent U.N. experts expressed concern that Hispanics could be subject to discriminatory treatment in the border state.
"The law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics," they said.
"In Arizona, persons who appear to be of Mexican, Latin American or indigenous origin are especially at risk of being targeted under the law."
The U.N. experts decried a "disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants" in Arizona, which passed the United States' toughest immigration law last month.
The U.N. experts voiced concern at the "vague standards and sweeping language" of Arizona's law, saying it raised "serious doubts about the law's compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party."
"States are required to respect and ensure the human rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction, without discrimination," they said.
First, notice the use of "could," "may" and "at risk."
Second, AZ's legislative activity is only "hostile" to ethnic minorities who're illegal immigrants because -- get this -- 99% of the illegal immigrants in the state happen to come from Mexico. Yet, how is enforcing immigration law a "hostile" act? Mexico's immigration laws must border on the murderous, then.
Lastly, the only thing "vague" about Arizona's law is the knowledge of it by these supposed "experts." Maybe they ought to try reading it before making asinine statements.
Especially with countries on our planet like North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and just about the entire Muslim world. Y'know, where real human rights abuses are rampant.
When these young men refused Assistant Principal’s Rodriguez’s request to turn their shirts inside out, they were standing up for their First Amendment rights and pride in their nation. Hispanic students at the school threw a hissy fit. Roughly 200 Hispanic teens protested, claiming they were slighted by the young men wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. They chanted “We want respect!” and “Si se puede!”:The group — mostly high school students — walked out of school this morning after the story of four students who were sent home because they wore American flag T-shirts went viral on TV and online. Many wear red, white and green and two large Mexico flags can be seen at the front of the line.
The students say they want people to know they’re proud of their heritage and they believe wearing red, white and blue on Cinco de Mayo is disrespectful.
I mean ... cripes -- what can anyone actually say to such outright stupidity? Some educators "tried to use the bizarre argument that wearing the U.S. flag to school on Cinco de Mayo was the equivalent of wearing the Mexican flag on the Fourth of July," but Cinco de Mayo isn't even Mexican Independence Day ... not to mention it's not even widely celebrated in Mexico! And why does this high school officially sanction MEChA -- the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán -- a group which desires that much of the [US] southwest be returned to Mexico? Can you imagine the reaction if, say, an Idaho high school sanctioned a student "militia" group that wanted the northwest to be "purged of all foreigners?" Yeah, I'm sure you can -- MSNBC and the rest of the MSM would be tying it into the Tea Party movement and blaming it on the fact that Barack Obama is a black guy!
As I said in my original post on this matter, "Only in America, folks." Only in America.
Michelle Malkin reports on a "unity" stunt by the Phoenix Suns basketball team -- they will wear jerseys that say "Los Suns" on them tonight for their playoff game.
Besides the stupidity of the team owner for needlessly injecting politics into his sport (good luck on that revenue next year, pal; up to 70% of your state favors the new immigration law), what -- didn't the team know the Spanish word for "suns?" At least AllahPundit was almost correct: He said "First, shouldn’t 'Los Suns' be 'Los Sols'?" Not quite. Nouns in Spanish that end in a consonant add "es" to make the plural. Therefore, it would be "Los Soles."
Well, partly anyway. Just check out the local editorials regarding Arizona's new immigration law. First, here's our own Wilmington News Journal -- screen caps of the only op-eds on the AZ law:
Surprise, eh? Not a single opinion in favor of the law! (You can read both articles here and here.) Meanwhile, over at the Philly Inquirer, no surprise there either: Arizona Gets It Wrong. The Daily News? Even worse with The problem with Arizona's 'papers, please' immigration law.
Funny how the latter two were just sold. Philly.com laments: New owners know money, but how about media? Put it this way -- it probably couldn't be much worse for these papers now, right?
Though, as noted previously that it's not the only reason for these papers' woes (and that of many others), perhaps if they balanced out their ridiculously slanted editorials which condescendingly mock the views and values of half their readership, as well as how they cover "hard" news stories, they might actually not bleed readers. After all, just check out this graphic. Yes, it's a few years out of date, but it shows that while major left-leaning papers have been hemorrhaging readers, centrist and right-leaning dailys have picked them up -- the latter moreso.
What can one say? If conservative pundits were yapping about such during George W. Bush's presidency, these same dingbats would be screaming constitutional bloody murder:
"I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious." -- Time magazine's Joe Klein.
New York magazine's John Heilemann added, "And Joe's right and I'll name another person, I'll name Rush Limbaugh who uses this phrase constantly and talks about the Obama administration as a regime."
What did they keep telling us, these "progressives," during the previous administration? Oh, right -- "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." They just left off the second part during the Bush era: "... as long you don't dissent from US."
From the WaPo:
As word of [Mohammed al]-Madadi's fate traveled quickly through Washington's diplomatic community, the reaction at Arab and Muslim embassies was twofold. There was widespread agreement that Madadi appeared to have done a dumb thing. But many think that profiling was involved, and that the situation would not have gone so far if Madadi were not Arab.
"We all share the same concerns about profiling of Arabs and Arab Americans in a time of strong anxiety, particularly in the air travel industry," said one ambassador. Enhanced security, he said, is in "everyone's best interest, and we hope and expect the security procedures are implemented uniformly."
One of his colleagues was more blunt, saying that the incident "never would have happened if [Madadi] were Swedish."
Indeed! How dare everyone react to a middle-eastern man named Mohammed who said he tried to set his shoes on fire in an airplane's restroom! I mean, what were they thinking, the insensitive bastards??
My God. Do any of these cretins have an original thought? Do they all write from the same script? Do they have even the slightest clue as to the actual truth of their supposed "facts?"
Meanwhile, their viewer/readership continues to dwindle. And they'll keep making excuses for it, still failing to grasp the actual reasons for the plummet.
The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school's first black student, bravely tried to walk to class.
Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock's Central High School in 1957.
Hence, an explanation for the familiarity of faces: today's Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies.
Keep it up. The "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario has reached such a fever pitch that it must means one thing: Real racism is virtually extinct. But that cat can't be let out of the bag because 1) people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need employment, and 2) modern "progressives'" would lose their a recruitment tool and political weapon.
Latest results in a Philly Daily News poll which asks "Who most needs to step up for today's students?" As of right now, 87% say "parents," 11.7% say "students themselves," and a mere 1.3% say "teachers."
Related in the Daily News: The founder of the Mathematics, Civics & Sciences Charter School, Veronica Joyner, says that "teachers need to 'step up' and do whatever is necessary for kids -- even combing their hair, washing their clothes, and bringing them prescription glasses. "When a parent wasn't involved, it gave me more motivation to do a better job," Joyner said of her days as a teacher. "They're blaming the parent when they're the professional."
Wow, eh? Funny, then, that this same Ms. Joyner seemed to have quite a different attitude about a decade ago when she booted a kid from her school because he may -- may -- have suffered from ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Joyner said her school "was not equipped to deal with [such] a child."
So much for doing "all that is necessary," huh Ms. Joyner? Guessed you "blamed the parents even though YOU were the professional" ... ?
Or, in other words, folks, beware false prophets.
Also related: Bill Cosby says "Parents at fault."
John Rosenberg notes:
I have MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on to provide background noise, and I just heard (about 7:45 AM) Sen. Dick Durbin give a breathtakingly novel defense of why Rep. Charlie Rangel should keep his chairmanship. You have to understand, Durbin said, that when Rangel went in the army he was assigned to a segregated barracks, and that’s why we have to keep him.
John said he'd have a transcript when available; I'll do that better -- here's the video (fast forward to approx. 8:35). Though Durbin doesn't say that because Rangel served in a segregated unit he should therefore keep his post, he sure does appear to use it as some sort of an excuse. And just look at his reaction to Joe Scarborough's question regarding Rangel not knowing about $500,000! Unreal.
Later that day, Democrat strategist Steve McMahon offered up a similar defense:
I think Charlie Rangel deserves his day in court, if you will. This is somebody who served in the Korean war, was put in a segregated unit, fought in a segregated unit, came home to serve his country, and has been there for a long, long time.
McMahon is a bit more critical of Rangel than Durbin, but the point remains: Why even bring up Rangel's segregated unit in Korea at all? Do they mean to argue that since Rangel once faced the burden of segregation and discrimination that he therefore does not have to follow rules? Or the law? Or, as Rosenberg notes (always more succinctly than I ever could),
a) that the House needs the “diversity” that having a Ways and Means chairman who experienced segregation can provide;
b) that Rangel deserves compensation in the form of suspending rules and regulations that apply to other Congressmen; or
c) that those who personally experienced segregation have been so damaged by their experience that they cannot be expected to meet the same legal and ethical standards expected of others (but they can be trusted to write the tax laws that others must obey) ...?
... and I bet he'll keep insisting on that even as he fails to sell tickets to his shows:
Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly did a show at Westbury in January. So did Bill Maher. Westbury is on Long Island and the theatre is small, perhaps 3000 seats. It is theatre in the round and sometimes they run it as half round.
The Beck/O'Reilly show started out 1/2 round and sold out in minutes. People called for hours wanting tickets. Then Westbury decided to go full round the next day and the rest sold out within an hour. People called for weeks wanting tickets.
On the other hand, the Bill Maher show only sold about 70% of the 1/2 round at Westbury. The show sold so poorly that they closed the back seats and moved people forward to make it look better.
Yeah, but y'know -- Beck and O'Reilly just "appeal to the worst in us," while Maher is so very intellectual -- so much so that "dumb" America must just not "get him." And don't take my word for it -- he said so himself!
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has criticized NBC for its "lack of diversity":
Two members of the Judiciary panel - Reps. Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) - ripped into (Comcast Chairman Brian) Roberts and (NBC President Jeff) Zucker for what they saw as the lack of diversity in programming and in the executive ranks at either company.
"There is no diversity on the Sunday morning talk shows," Jackson-Lee told NBC's Zucker.
Armed with lists of board members for both companies, Waters asked Roberts why Comcast had only one woman and one black man on its board. She then asked Zucker why NBC didn't currently have any black programming on NBC. "Is there some assumption that black programming is not profitable?" she asked him.
Zucker said that diversity was one of his strategic goals and that the company was trying to do better.
Not only is the irony delicious because MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has been recently ripping the Tea Party movement as "undiverse" (and hence, "racist"), but here we have members of a racially-exclusive group chastising others for ... their own lack of diversity.
Before the commission was yet another appeal from a Philadelphia-area family, again seeking a break on unpaid electric and gas bills that by last year were closing in on $30,000.
This family lived in a $986,000 house on the Main Line. The breadwinner, until recently, had earned well more than $100,000 per year. Yet he and his wife were in hock to creditors, ranging from Uncle Sam to their former synagogue - and had regularly been stiffing Peco Energy for five years, breaking payment plan after payment plan.
"Our procedures," the commission's Tyrone J. Christy wrote in a Dec. 17 motion, "were not meant to allow customers living in $986,000 houses, with incomes in excess of $100,000 per year, to run up arrearages approaching $30,000."
Longtime Peco spokesman Michael Wood said this week that the family's debt was the largest household delinquency he could recall, except for one theft-of-services case.
In addition to the Peco debt, the PUC noted, the Robbinses had been hit with numerous civil judgments in recent years totaling more than $365,000.
According to court records, their unpaid debts range from $62,692 owed to the IRS to lesser debts of a few thousand to their dentist, their former synagogue's preschool, and a Montgomery County lawyer.
Michael Robbins is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with his former employer, Interstate Motor Carriers Agency Inc. of Freehold, N.J.
In a federal lawsuit filed by Haltzman last year, Robbins contends that Interstate owes him about $5 million in commissions. Bill Buckley, an attorney for Interstate, declined to comment.
Huh. Could it be that this laptop controversy was the "perfect vehicle" by which this family could recoup some cash?
Did anyone catch the brief statement by Lindy Matsko, assistant vice principal at Harriton High School yesterday? I've rarely seen someone so adamant in their own defense, not to mention genuine. Robbins' lawyer Mark S. Haltzman said "he had warned the [Robbins] family that its members' lives would be placed under a microscope" -- and he's right. Though he says this laptop lawsuit should be viewed independently of the family's past legal troubles, I wonder if he actually said that with a straight face -- especially since it seems professional litigant-to-be Blake Robbins' (the son/student) story seems sketchy. Blake said "Ms. Matsko does not deny that she saw a Web-cam picture and screenshot of me in my home;" yet the vice-principal had stated "At no time have I ever monitored a student via a laptop Web cam." Maybe that's a substantive difference, but I sure doubt it.
Sorry, but I feel little-to-no sympathy for people that refuse to pay their bills -- and get sued for it -- especially when they're living in the lap of luxury. Hey Robbins family -- Your rights were [supposedly] violated by the school district? What about the rights of all those you've bilked out of rightful payments?
(Story h/t to Colossus R&D man Gooch!)
2005: The year the Democrats couldn't believe the GOP would use the so-called "nuclear option" to get their agenda through Congress:
Note what Obama says at the beginning of the vid: "Majoritarian, absolute" rule and that's "not what the Founders intended."
Check out one of the latest from our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers): Recent electoral upset king Scott Brown of Massachusetts gave a somewhat garbled and confusing reply to Fox News's Neil Cavuto regarding the recent airplane rammer-into-IRS-building guy, and suddenly (yet expectedly) ... Brown is endorsing what this idiot did:
Uh….really? Scott Brown thinks his voters are like homicidal lunatic Joe Stack? I really am scared now.
Unstable Mental Case is ... scared of Scott Brown voters? Yet ... she freely chooses to blog with a "man" who once wrote this:
"You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously."
Then there's the moral fraud known as pandora who writes:
Did Scott Brown just justify this nuts actions? Know what else he did… he single-handedly moved the crazy guy into the Republican camp. WTF?
Seriously, WTF are they doing?
Introducing Grover Norquist, Human Events Editor Jed Babbin said, “He was getting a little testy in the past couple of weeks, and I was just really, really glad that it was not him that was identified as flying that airplane into the IRS building.”
Besides not being funny, they, yet again, link this guy to themselves.
She writes this -- and yet once was appalled when I called her a "moral fraud" over at an old thread at DE Politics because, like Unstable Mental State, I pointed out that she freely chooses to blog at the very same place as Delaware Dem -- the same guy who, once again, wrote
"You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously."
I mean, really. These self-righteous arbiters of correctness get their panties all in a bunch at the slightest hint that any act of violence may have a nebulous "connection" with the right-wing ... yet (and I'm sounding like a broken record, but it's quite necessary) they freely choose to associate with the piece of scum who once wrote the above, and who continues post some of the vilest, hateful pieces around.
So I'll say it again, loud: You are moral frauds, U.M.S. and pandora.
But maybe Jesse Jackson will offer to pay her bail ... like he once did for her tuition after he hoped against hope that her "rape" story would be accurate.
... did you catch the "controversial" Tim Tebow ad? After I saw it, all I could say was "WTF was the big issue with THAT??"
Nevertheless, the Women's Media Center, also known as TWL (Those Without Lives), thinks there was ... "something more to the ad":
The Women's Media Center, which had objected to Focus on the Family advertising in the Super Bowl, said it was expecting a "benign" ad but not the humor. But the group's president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.
"I think they're attempting to use humor as another tactic of hiding their message and fooling the American people," she said.
My guess? Miz Greene has a unibrow, never wears any make-up whatsoever, could be mistaken for a male at a casual glance, and believes that a guy even merely kissing a woman is actually "rape."
If you wanna see a Super Bowl ad that showed violence against women, check out what happens to poor Betty White in this commercial!
A sampling around the local blogosphere of opinion on the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts last night. First, let's head to the LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers):
I’ve been thinking… if Coakley loses, is that really the worst thing? Bear with me for a second. The 60 senate majority has been a political mess, and raised the bar to unrealistic levels. It also lays the blame entirely on Democrats. Every time we call Republicans obstructionists, the response has been, “You don’t need Republicans, you have 60 votes.” So then when things get messed up, we end up fighting with, or wooing, Democrats. Republicans get a pass.
Keep calling the GOP "obstructionist" on healthcare, cap and trade, "stimulus" packages and the like, pan. That'll just keep demonstrating how freakin' CLUELESS you all are about Brown's victory. He actively campaigned against these things!!
congrats Teagabgs. you kept millions of americans form getting health insurance. hope you feel good about yourselves.
See above, you idiot.
One thing they should have paid attention to is the fact that Massachusetts doesn’t often elect women.
So ... this means the bluest state in the Union is sexist and anti-woman?? LOL!! And then check her response to her nonsense when called out about it by various commenters:
Sooooo sorry. I thought we were having a discussion as to why this happened and all the factors that contributed to it. If you choose to take my point and make it my only point… knock yourself out.
A. Price then contemplates suicide:
i was getting the proverbial hose hooked up to the proverbial tailpipe and turning the proverbial car in the the proverbial garage on ...
Unstable Isotope believes in the delusion that the [mainstream] media are conservative:
The reason conservatives have gotten away with this is because the media repeats their talking points unchallenged.
I mean, whoa -- what can one say to this complete unreality? If people actually believe this, is it any wonder Coakley lost?? Oh, but wait -- U.I. ain't finished with the delusions:
The Great Recession is the culmination of the Reagan era of slashing taxes for the wealthy and lax regulation.
Obama and the Democrats need to forcefully sell a counter-narrative if he wants to succeed.
Earth to U.I.: They tried. The public ain't buyin'. And now Reagan is the target and not G.W. Bush?? LOL!!
Kudos to Steve Newton (formerly of DE Libertarian) nemesis "anonone" who has been busy calling the LGOMB (in various threads) for their myopia.
Elsewhere, Delaware Politics has much more sensible posts up regarding the Brown victory.
Ah yes. Once upon a time -- namely, during the George W. Bush administration (or any Republican administration) -- dissent was the highest form of patriotism. 'Member how the "progressives" would -- rightly -- denounce those who called their [mostly] anti-war protests "unpatriotic" and "un-American"?
Now, however, such dissent is ... well, "unpatriotic" and "un-American"!!
The climate right now is that Republicans use everything they can to undermine and delegitimize this president. And it‘s actually un-American. It‘s traitorous, in my opinion. Do you want to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Continue to treat this president like he wasn‘t elected and he doesn‘t know what he‘s doing! He knows what he did. He knows what he‘s doing. I‘m proud of him. I believe that he has the stalwart, resolute nature to get this done... -- Salon.com's Joan Walsh. (Source.)
I seem to remember how folks like John Ashcroft (among many others) were blasted by the Left when they voiced such sentiments a lot more tactfully (by saying things, in the post-9/11 atmosphere, like "be careful what you say") I mean, how pathetically and hypocritically brazen is it to use such similar terminology -- and much worse -- when the patron saint of hate of the Left, G.W. Bush, is barely a year out of office??
UPDATE: More on this idiot Walsh here.
Aww. The LGOMB's pandora is upset about the filibuster. Oh, because, of course, the GOP is now using it to their advantage.
Of course, if the situation was reversed, she and the rest of the Gaggle would singing the tactic's praises to no end. Count on it. Hell, even so-called "professional" jounalists can't resist being total a-hole hypocrites on this topic.
Good (surprise, at that) editorial in the Philly Daily News dealing with the attacks on Asian students at South Philly High over the past month or so. Like Mayor Nutter's ridiculous statement: "All of us responded very quickly, very swiftly and very directly." Um, twelve days after the attacks is "very quick/swift?" Nutter also stated that Philly Superintendent Arlene Ackerman "jumped on [the matter] in the most immediate fashion." To Nutter, "immediate" equals eight days.
In a related matter, Sgt. Robert "Sarge" Samuels is a police officer who was reassigned to South Philly High because he speaks Mandarin and Cantonese (both Chinese lingos that are quite distinct from one another, FYI). But -- uh oh -- some people think Samuels is a "bully":
... his detractors say that he's a bully with a short fuse and a penchant for violence. Yesterday, Samuels allegedly handcuffed a student for mouthing off.
The controversy about Samuels surfaced after two Frankford High School police officers were accused last month of beating a student who had arrived late.
On Monday, members of the local chapter of the National Action Network, the group led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, called for the district to investigate the Frankford matter and Samuels' reassignment.
The group said that complaints had been lodged against Samuels for alleged actions during his time at Olney High, including accusations that he put on boxing gloves and roughed up students.
Other complaints are that he handcuffed students for various infractions, including lateness. Oh, and what a surprise -- Sharpton's group is right on top of the Olney student complaints, but as existent as Pres. Obama's deficit reduction plan regarding the abuse of Asian students nearby.
OK, obviously I've no idea whether these issues/complaints (against Samuels) are legit or not. But what I do know is that school students are among the very best embellishers of stories that I know. For instance,
[Tamika] Brown said that Samuels ordered her handcuffed in Room 106, the room where students are interviewed by school police. She said that her infraction yesterday was being late for one of her classes.
After being turned away by her teacher, Brown said, she hung out in a stairwell with another student. She was later caught and escorted to Samuels, who she said was yelling at other students.
Now, in my almost 20 years of teaching, I've heard MANY excuses along the lines of these. In other words, some school authority's actions were entirely unjustified because a student essentially "did nothing." Handcuff a student ... for lateness? Yeah, sure. I'm certain that was the ONLY thing Tamika was doing. And oh no -- a school cop ... yelling at students!! Like, that's NEVER justified! I've done enough "time out" and in-school suspension room duties (among other things) to know that the vast majority of this sort of student beef is total nonsense. Much more often than not there was some other misbehavior going on other than, for example, mere lateness. After all, take Tamika's case -- there is NO place for students who arrive late to go? She HAD to hang in the stairwell? So then why does the article say that she was "caught" and taken to Officer Samuels?
But hey -- even if every single allegation against Samuels is true, why not just use the 'ol Philly School District method of treating the problem? Y'know, blame "society at large" for his behavior (or no one in particular), and have him attend a diversity seminar.
(Thanks for Colossus R&D man Gooch for the assist on this post.)
Unstable Mental State at the LGOMB posts about how a member of the Ugandan Parliament -- who's a member of the religious group “The Family” -- is sponsoring a bill there "under which any person 'convicted of gay sex is liable to life imprisonment.'”
This is a quite ridiculous idea, to be sure. But UMS doesn't just post about that. She "convicts" several members of the US legislature (John Ensign, Tom Coburn, Mark Sanford and Bart Stupak) because they're also members of this group. Get it? Since Ensign, Coburn, Sanford and Stupak are members of this same [worldwide] organization, they therefore must share the beliefs/values of this Ugandan dude. Does this then signify that all folks within an organization must share the same views? What sort of organizations would be "exempt" from such?
The reason I ask is because the LGOMB (and the Left in general) indulge in this sort of "kindred spirit" argument quite often. Like, somehow, Ensign, Coburn, Sanford and Stupak also believe that those who have gay sex should be imprisoned. Or, because Rush Limbaugh et. al. regularly talk about the evils of a large federal government, they then are "complicit" when some lunatic goes off and shoots some federales. Etc.
Which then begs the question: Why is another member of the LGOMB so upset with me for questioning why she freely chooses to associate with [the other] quite caustic -- not to mention hateful -- "people" at the LGOMB?? I mean, isn't choosing to blog with a [small] number of people quite a bit more ... "intimate" than belonging to some same worldwide organization? Or being just one of millions of radio listeners? Sure it is. Not to mention that setting up one's own blog is 100% cost-free and pathetically easy to do.
Yes -- pandora got all in a tizzy because I dared to suggest she "look at her own [political] house" before casting judgments on those of others. But to her this brief suggestion was "thread-jacking." Also, I should cease my "constant sniping."
But ... why?
This is the sort of stuff the LGOMB does each and every day. And "civil discussions?" The LGOMB knows not the meaning of the term, especially since they delete comments en masse simply when they don't like them. And pandora is part of this. She chooses to be part of it. The LGOMB isn't a worldwide group or a radio audience numbering in the millions, after all.
This is why I called her a fraud. It is hypocrisy, pure and simple. You simply cannot freely associate with such a small group of people who say what they do ... and then not only make lame excuses ("I am my own person!") but then also blast those on the other side of the aisle for what they say and do. pandora (and LiberalGeek) are usually fair and rational people. I've said as much numerous times before here and there. It thus ill-behooves me why they choose to remain at the LGOMB.
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.
Are you freakin' serious?? These folks falsified data because of pressure from ... skeptics?? It's the skeptics who have been maligned left and right (not politically) for voicing any criticism of the GW alarmists' [supposed] facts. Internet founder, Nobel Laureate, and GW Alarmist-in-Chief Al Gore has declared that the debate "is over" on global warming, after all.
If GW alarmists are "having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny," they have no one to blame but themselves -- and their allies -- for it.
It's bad enough that the MSM was twisting itself into pretzels to be politically correct in reporting the Hasan-Fort Hood matter; now Canadian officials are apologizing for not being PC after arresting a couple of FBI terror suspects:
Windsor police chief Gary Smith has apologized to members of Windsor's Islamic community for offending their beliefs after officers arresting two FBI suspects at gunpoint patted down one of their wives.
"It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community," writes Smith in a press release issued by police this morning. "The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community."
Smith will answer questions at a 3 p.m. press conference at police headquarters.
A review of the incident highlighted the need for additional "cultural sensitivity training," said the release, and Dr. Murad Aktas has been tapped to provide it...
Uh huh. I like what Mark Steyn says: "It's surely only a matter of time before authorities apologize to Major Hasan for being so insensitive of his religious beliefs as to have him shot by a woman."
Amid increasing incidents of climate protesters disrupting the operations of fossil-fuel industries and airports in Britain and elsewhere, Gore suggests the scale of the emergency means non-violent lawbreaking is justified. "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play," he says. "And I expect that it will increase, no question about it."
Yes, it will be interesting when we see a combination of the "progressive" elites and the usual hippies out in the streets of Vermont, Massachusetts, San Francisco, as well as the usual European metropolises, being civilly disobedient. Garnering a lot of MSM attention, but little overall public sympathy.
Bruce Dudley thinks that both Fox and MSNBC are "outrageous and opinionated" ... but of course Fox is just worse:
One would be remiss, however, not to focus on the serious shortcomings of Rupert Murdoch’s conservative news organization and its devotees. It ought to be noted that Fox News, as personified by the often supercilious Sean Hannity and a frequently ranting Glenn Beck, go overboard in their blatant appeal to raw emotion.
As opposed to Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments," Ed Schultz's baby-like name-calling and/or Chris Matthews' outlandish metaphors!
More damning, though, are numerous findings, including a study conducted by the prestigious Annenberg School of Communications, that viewers of Fox News are among the most misinformed and uninformed citizens in the body politic.
Really? Let's see. What I found after surfing around for a while was this consistently linked poll. Check out the graphic below:
In it, yes, Fox News Channel viewers in general do not rank very high based on the study's criteria. However, viewers of FNC's most popular program, "The O'Reilly Factor," rank near the top as do listeners of -- uh-oh -- the Rush Limbaugh program. NOOO! I wonder what Bruce thinks of that? Further, the "knowledge" percentages of major network news viewers and ... readers of blogs(!) are just a tad higher than FNC's.
Noticeably missing from the study? MSNBC. How convenient.
Bruce might also be interested in (or, I could say, "I would be remiss if I didn't note") a Center for Media and Public Affairs study that said Fox News was the most balanced in its coverage.
Sorry, Bruce. Your letter is just yet another example of purely partisan hackery maquerading as thoughtful opinion.
This is what we find on the OPN -- Obama Preferred Network:
Well OK, they sure don't look alike, but is there even one iota's difference between these race hucksters?
That’s true even though the motivations of the White House are clear: Fire up a liberal base disillusioned with Obama by attacking the hated Fox. Try to keep a critical news outlet off-balance. Raise doubts about future Fox stories.
But most of all, get other journalists to think twice before following the network’s stories in their own coverage.
"We're doing what we think is important to make sure news is covered as fairly as possible," a White House official told POLITICO, noting how the recent ACORN scandal story started because Fox covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.”
“And then you had a couple days of breast-beating from The Washington Post and The New York Times about whether or not they were fast enough on the ACORN story,” the official said. “And it's like: Wait a second, guys. Let's make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what's being driven by a network that has a perspective. Being able to make that point has been important.”
Yeah, let's "wait a second guys" and take a gander at "what are the most important stories" on the MSM websites as of this hour today:
And just off the top of my head: If Fox really covered the ACORN scandal "for weeks," what, then, about the other networks' interminable coverage of Cindy Sheehan and her protests against George Bush's efforts in Iraq?
Liberals are beginning to get fed up at The Messiah's perpetual whining about the ONE network that asks the current administration actual tough questions. Can't have journalists asking pointed questions, eh? Especially not when Obama and co. has been soooo used to controlling the debate, atmosphere and questions!
It's bad enough that the MSM is slowly falling apart. These are The Messiah's greatest allies. It's worse that talk radio and Fox News continue to grow. And as I've written myriad times, it's perpetually hilarious to hear the twisted explanations of liberals as to why Fox has been successful. Occam's Razor applies here as it often does anywhere else: Fox is successful because it has filled a niche previously unoccupied by the other networks -- namely, it actually covers the conservative point-of-view (predominately so, yes). Doesn't logic dictate that those fed up with not hearing "the other side" -- so often neglected by the MSM -- would flock to a new network that actually gives it credence?
Of course it does.
And that just royally pisses off not only the most lefty administration in recent memory, but also those whose livelihoods are threatened by their now-dominant competitor. Instead of trying to recognize what has made FNC successful, the goal is delegitimize it as a worthy source of information. "Their panels are dominated by conservatives!" people bitch about Fox. Never mind that the MSM pundit shows are dominated by liberals! "They're not real journalists over there!" people complain. Never mind that folks like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace were perfectly legitimate professional journalists before they went to work for Fox. "Their opinion shows are dominated by conservatives like Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity!" people whine. Never mind that MSNBC has far-lefties Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow; CNN has Larry King, Rick Sanchez and Anderson Cooper (though, admittedly, all less lefty and virulent than their MSNBC brethren), and, the major networks news shows are all dominated by liberal voices: Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, George Stephanopoulis, David Gregory, Brian Williams, Bob Schieffer ...
And just so you remember [yet another] Obama whopper, he once said about Fox News "I think it's fair to say that I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here, and you've always been very gracious to me and..."
At any rate, just keep on attacking Fox News, Obama and co. Because, in the end, to quote a certain Ivan Drago, "You vill lose."
Or, at least, attempts to:
Having lived illegally in the United States for 13 years, a 24-year-old native of Guatemala realizes he's not legally entitled to much.
But the Georgetown resident still hopes he'll have access to the swine flu vaccine that will start arriving in Delaware this week.
"It's important that all people get this opportunity," said Perez, who would give only his last name. "This is a virus that has caused deaths, not only in Mexico. This is something we're all aware of.
"Status should not matter."
Writer Esteban Parra must have a knack for these sorts of [front page] stories. This past Mother's Day he had a front page "tear-jerker" about illegal immigrant moms here in the state.
I really can't fathom what the WNJ thinks it's doing for its readers witgh such tales other than pissing them off and having them think that the paper's just yet another media outlet that's sorely out of touch. I mean, just look at the last line of the story:
"There's a lot of people who are afraid of accessing the vaccines because of anti-immigration feelings going on in this country," he (Esteban Hernandez) said. "But this is very important because this concerns everyone's health."
No, Esteban, it is anti-illegal immigration feelings. There's a huge difference, which the WNJ and many other left-leaning outlets always conveniently omit or gloss over. The article notes that illegals getting shots benefits the general public safety. That's true; however, we heard the exact same argument in the state regarding giving illegals drivers licenses. Where does the line get drawn, if at all? I mean, how 'bout this method of flu prevention among illegal immigrants and the general public: Enforce the border and immigration laws!
As for the overall premise, I have little problem with illegal immigrants getting flu shots since it is a public health matter. Just don't make me pay for them, OK?
Comment rescue from a moonbat at our LGOMB:
Please explain how American could possibly be “defeated by terrorists.” Terrorized by terrorists, yes — you conned-servatives shit your pants at the very thought that terrorists are breathing the same air as us. But how could they possibly “defeat” us with the one nuclear bomb you’re afraid Iran will give to terrorists? I realize that your life is so empty you will actually answer the question, but it should be good for shits ‘n’ giggles.
(BTW, the comment was regarding another Neanderthalic post by "Delaware Dem" -- y'know, the guy who wants all Republicans rounded up and shot -- who's REEEAAAALLY upset that Chicago lost the Olympics. He, of course, blames Republicans.
In other news, the sun rises in the east.)
Gee, what bummer -- all the force of the mystical Obamas couldn't get Chicago the 2016 Olympics. Which, in my view, makes sense if the IOC really wants to be fair. After all, South America has never hosted a Summer Olympics and thus Rio de Janeiro is the logical -- and fair -- choice. Even FIFA -- the governing body of soccer -- recognized fairness and put next year's World Cup in the African continent for the first time.
But check it -- even Michelle Obama isn't immune from telling a tall tale:
"Sports were a gift I shared with my dad, especially the Olympic Games," Obama said in her portion of the U.S. delegation's final presentation to the International Olympic Committee. "Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga [Korbut] and Nadia [Comaneci], Carl Lewis and others for their brilliance and perfection.
Carl Lewis?? Michelle Obama is 45 years old. Carl Lewis first ran in the Olympics in 1984. That means Michelle was 20 years old, then. 'Ya think she was "sitting on her dad's lap" at age 20?? Even the Nadia Comaneci bit is a stretch. Mrs. Obama was 12 in 1976, which was when the Montreal Olympics took place (when Comaneci nailed those first-ever "10s" in gymnastics). I know when my own daughter was 12, sitting on my lap became more along the lines of horsing around, not the "endearing" quality it had of the earlier childhood years.
How fall has the NAACP fallen over the years? This far: NAACP Protests Obama Joker Banner at Strip Club.
The banner hangs outside [Richmond, VA's] Club Velvet, and the club's owner, Sam Moore, said in a statement that the display is not intended to make a racial statement, but rather to express his displeasure with the Obama administration, according to WTVR-TV.
"This country is going to hell in a hand bag and the current administration is making things irreversibly worse," Moore said.
Some locals said they were offended by the banner, while others said it is a sign of freedom of speech.
Representatives from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam(!) and other groups gathered outside Club Velvet at noon Monday to protest what they called an affront against the nation's first black president and "veiled attacks on all African people."
First, any time the Nation of Islam is involved, any serious consideration of what they're miffed at should be discarded. Second, while the NAACP is -- or, at least used to be -- more reputable, this "veiled attacks on all African people" nonsense is yet another example of how the organization's [original] purpose has dissolved into rancor over petty, ridiculous racial grievances.
You knew it was coming, didn't you? Yes, the freelance sting artists who zapped ACORN are being -- and have been -- referred to as "racists" and puppets of conservative radio and Fox News. In addition, ACORN is utilizing a tried and true (but not very successful) tactic: Explaining that they were just "playing along" with the "ridiculous scheme."
I'm old enough to remember the famous (or infamous) Abscam sting of the early 1980s. One of the representatives who was convicted of taking bribes -- Richard Kelly -- famously (and hilariously) defended his illegal actions by claiming he was "undertaking his own investigation" and "spent part of the [bribe] money to maintain his cover."
It didn't work. Kelly spent thirteen months in the federal pen.
More interestingly, NPR's Frank James blames not the organization itself, but society:
It's also important to keep in mind that ACORN's workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves, with all that entails -- poor schools, high crime and the sorts of social problems that have been documented for decades.
So the flaws conservatives are pointing out about ACORN are not so much problems associated with that organization per se but more about the problems of being poor and minority in urban America.
'Ya got that? "Being poor and minority in urban America" means ... enabling illegal immigration and child prostitution? Breaking tax laws? And since this is "just part" of being poor and minority in urban America, we should just continue to throw taxpayer money at it? Can you imagine the MSM outcry if a conservative had made such an ... insinuation as to why ACORN acted as it did on the sting videos? Then it would be the "most virulent form of racial stereotyping" in which people can possibly engage.
(Also at Newsbusters.)
And, unfortunately, a former GOPer -- RSmitty -- used the willing forum given him by our LGOMB to rant about it.
It was laughably predictable that the LGOMB would get all self-righteously indignant about ONE Republican representative yelling "liar" when President Obama said his healthcare plan (remember though -- he doesn't even have a plan out there yet!) would not cover illegal aliens.* But RSmitty ... using the LGOMB to likewise get self-righteous? That's a real shame.
Hey 'bats -- I'm curious. What did you think of this:
Oh gosh -- was that Democrats ... booing over what THE PRESIDENT is saying in his speech? How disrespectful! How rude! How awful! And that wasn't just one guy (who apologized profusely later, by the way) like Rep. Wilson last night. Yet, our MSM is covering this like it was political Armageddon, and as if the precedent hadn't already been set -- by the Democrats above. And cripes -- just imagine if this was Britain. There, the prime minister gets a LOT worse than that ... something our own president (of either party) would never subject himself to.
The next question is, when will Rep. Wilson be accused of racism?
Reason #9765 (a better number, Paul?) why the LGOMB has the cranial capacity of a beetle. And Smitty? You're a joke now, too.
* Democrats voted down -- on party lines -- [GOP-offered] amendments that would have required verification of residency status before receiving any [healthcare] benefits. So, although Obama wasn't outright lying as Wilson accused him of, he certainly wasn't being completely truthful.
UPDATE 3: LOL! Remember above where I asked, "The next question is, when will Rep. Wilson be accused of racism?" MSNBC is always happy to oblige.
From the LA Times: Obama is fast losing white voters' support.
Paul Krugman's, that is. His NY Times blog is dubbed "The Conscience of a Liberal," and today he writes
Since I have decent Internet access for a couple of hours, let me weigh in a bit on the craziness sweeping America.
Joe Klein reports on a town hall meeting where people think that Obama has larded the government with communists. Bizarre — but I’ve been getting equally bizarre claims in much of my mail. And what’s striking is the intensity.
I’ve mentioned before that my hate mail has reached levels I haven’t seen since 2004 or so. But back then, the hate was in a way understandable. People like me were questioning Bush’s bona fides as the great protector against terrorism, were claiming that he deliberately misled the country into an unnecessary war. Those were strong charges, and in a way you could understand that people who idolized Bush (believe it or not, there used to be a lot of them) were upset.
Yep, that's pretty much the "conscience of a [modern] liberal," all right. It's "bizarre" that Obama has hired communists (ahem, Van Jones, ahem) and the "intensity" and "hate" in politics today is "crazy." But of course, back during the Bush era such "intensity," "hate," and "craziness" was ... "understandable."
... but, of course, was that the case 18 years ago moonbats?
House Democrats criticized President [George H.W.] Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.
The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "
Two [Democrat majority] House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]
Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.
Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits. (Source.)
Hearings! Congressional criticism! Waste of needed funds!
But hey, the moonbats believe that Obama's speech is "historial" (it's not -- and don't ever bother attempting to decipher this guy's writings), and even though some admit that they'd have a problem with a Republican giving such a speech (like all the above liberal/Democrats did), it still "wouldn't be as bad" as the current situation.
Uh-huh. Now excuse me while I clean up my keyboard from the coffee I just spit up all over it ...
Delaware Dem over at our LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers):
“I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today,” [Baptist Pastor Steve Anderson] told MyFOXPhoenix on Sunday...
As I said, we live in a violent world. Even a supposed Man of God, a preacher, a Christian, hopes for the death of those he opposes politically. And not just any death. A horrible painful death of brain cancer.
There is no wonder why cops are being killed. There is no wonder why random killings happen all. the. time. I mean, even a fucking priest thinks death is cool for someone he just disagrees with!!!! A fucking priest!
Like I said, there is no hope for our society. On days like this, when two unrelated stories merge together to provide reveal the true nature of our nature, I become despondent.
DD becomes ... despondent? The very same DD who wrote this? This is the same LGOMB where horrific wishes are thrust upon the conservative dead or dying on a regular basis, too.
Indeed, if "there is no hope for our society," our LGOMB is surely leading the way. The [sadly] hilarious thing is that they often write garbage like DD did above, pretending like they're some paragons of virtue.
And they really want to be taken seriously? Really??
... and our LGOMB (local gaggle of moonbat bloggers) offers tribute and rips anyone who says a bad thing about him.
Yep, that's right -- the same LGOMB that wrote awful things about Bob Novak, Ronald Reagan, and Lord knows who else on the conservative side. Take a good gander at what commenter "DC" noted over at the LGOMB site earlier today:
Here are some quotes from the progressive, liberal brain trust of this website after [Robert] Novak’s recent passing:
Anonone: I guess he won’t be running over anybody with his car anymore. I wonder how many people were killed because of his outing of Valerie Plame?
Donfeces: Well done Anon1, well done!
Nemski: Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way to Hell.
Dorian Gray: He was just another star fucker with an agenda in the media industrial machine. Fuck him and fuck his memory.
Jason: Nemski beat me to my comment.
El Somnambulo: Sorry, but Novak was a total prick.
Von Cracker: My only regret is he cannot die again.
It's simply beyond parody, folks. (I would add, however, kudos to LGOMB contributors Unstable Isotope and Liberal Geek who actually brought a sense of civility -- and sanity -- to that whole hate-filled fiasco.)
Victor Davis Hanson reminds us all.
Much has been made of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's note that
These (townhall) disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
So, is it "un-American" to "drown out" opposing views? I wonder, especially considering these examples of discussions about privatizing Social Security from 2005:
"a boisterous crowd which frequently interrupted the discussion with shouts and hard nosed questions. ... Democrats in the audience who were interrupting the panel.... the crowd erupted in anger... Democrats in the audience started shouting him down again."
"By now, Jack Kingston is used to shouted questions, interruptions and boos. Republican congressmen expect such responses these days when they meet with constituents about President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security."
"Shaken by raucous protests at open "town hall"-style meetings last month ... Santorum was among dozens of members of Congress who ran gantlets of demonstrators and shouted over hecklers at Social Security events last month. Many who showed up to protest were alerted by e-mails and bused in by anti-Bush organizations such as MoveOn.org and USAction, a liberal advocacy group. They came with prepared questions and instructions on how to confront lawmakers."
Not only are these folks "un-American" using the Pelosi-Hoyer standard, they also did precisely what the Left is accusing the GOP of doing now -- planning on how to disrupt meetings.
Did any GOP lawmakers refer to these protestors as "un-American?" I don't know. I sure didn't hear about it. If they did, you can be sure we would have heard about it in the MSM, just as we did when the occasional conservative/Republican called an anti-Iraq War protestor "un-American" or something similar. But I did hear about these Social Security protestors, though -- and it was usually referred to positively by the MSM. After all, can't have anyone touching Social Security now, can we? But when folks are concerned about a federal takeover of 1/5 of the US economy, well, they're somehow "overreacting!"
And where are Pelosi and Hoyer (not to mention their defenders noted above) when this "un-American" prevention-of-discussion" activity happens regularly on American college campuses? Anecdotes abound of conservative speakers on campuses being heckled, shouted down and even physically attacked. Again (as I've noted many, many times here), this happens all the time. And this doesn't even take into account the myriad speech codes, kangaroo college "courts" and so-called disciplinary procedures that universities utilize to suppress views contrary to the "prevailing orthodoxy."
But if the Left suddenly has determined that "loudly protesting" something is "un-American," then why do we make such a big deal of the McCarthy Era in American history? After all, there were Communists that had infiltrated our government (and other cultural institutions) and Communism was dedicated to destroying the United States one way or another. Was Elia Kazan wrong to expose those who were associated with Communism? The conventional wisdom (mostly among the Left) is that what Kazan did was "un-American," not what those who he exposed did!
So, which is "un-American?" Actively supporting an ideology that wishes to annihilate our own system of government ... or boisterous protests in favor of preserving our system of government? If the Left really believes that the latter is "un-American," then they also need to believe that the former is likewise so. If not, then they have a rather unique view of "American."
Personally, I feel that the current anti-Obama healthcare reform protestors should indeed be respectful and allow our elected officials to say their piece. Contrariwise, our elected officials need to listen to THE PEOPLE, and deal with the bit of anger they may express -- and even the occasional "boos" and shout-outs. After all, that's what our elected officials are -- elected officials. WE are THEIR bosses, not the other way around.
And while I certainly feel that the Communists of the 50s (and before and after) are "un-American" (again, their very belief system desires the demise of America), the mere fact that they reside in the United States gives them the right to hold their beliefs, and to be free of government coercion and investigation unless of course, like anybody else, they become an actual threat. (Holding beliefs and informing others of said beliefs is not an actual threat -- as long as the beliefs and informing are sans violence.)
Overall, it seems to me that the Left is extremely touchy about being called "un-American," but are awfully quick to use the term (and similar epithets) when their opponents do something that they do not like. And it's bolstered by the fact that the MSM will immediately jump on a conservative that has dubbed a liberal politician so ... not so much the other way around. Thankfully, the new media is changing all that -- and exposing long-known hypocrisies.
UPDATE: How easily predictable.
... or something like that.
I love this e-mail sent to National Review's Jonah Goldberg:
Okay, so Nancy Pelosi has now put down in writing that voters protesting at Town Hall meetings are unAmerican. We just spent eight years with the President Bush repeating ad nauseam that protestors are engaging their right to free speech as Americans, and eight years of Nancy Pelosi screaming that dissent is the greatest form of patriotism, and eight years of Nancy Pelosi practically begging some elected Republican to call left-wing activists unAmerican (although to no avail).
And now, BANG—protesting is suddenly unpatriotic and unAmerican. WHAT IS THE POINT of arguing with the Pelosi-Obama left? Perhaps it shores up the troops on our own side; that's about all I can come up with. It sure isn't entertaining. The arguments are so infantile, it's as intellectually engaging as watching a three day marathon of The View. Watching Pelosi/Obama is a little like watching my dog battle the dog on the other side of the mirror, except my dog is pretty damn funny.
Headline in the Washington Post: Obama as The Joker: Racial Fear's Ugly Face.
Of course. It just couldn't be anything else, could it? Y'know, like maybe The Messiah's ridiculous policies? But hell, anyone with half a brain knew that when the heat got too hot, the administration always had "that" card up its proverbial sleeve -- the race card.
And since the Angry Left has its panties in such a bunch over this poster, here's a trip down memory lane.
UPDATE: MSDNC is on the "case" now, too.
Via the NY Times:
Shepard Fairey pleaded guilty in Boston Municipal Court to one charge of defacing property and two charges of wanton destruction of property under $250, all misdemeanors.
The 39-year-old Los Angeles street artist, who became famous for plastering his posters and stickers throughout cities, must pay $2,000 to a graffiti removal organization and cannot possess tagging materials -- such as stickers or paste -- in Boston except for authorized art installations. He also must tell officials when he plans to visit Suffolk County, where Boston is located.
Hmm. I thought they might get him on libel charges for all those "Hope" posters!
Via MSNBC: $60,000 in debt, and nothing to show for it.
Mary Uhazi has more than $60,000 in credit card debt and, by her own account, “nothing to show for it.”
“You have some clothes, you have some dinner, you have a handbag, you have whatever, but it’s not $11,000 worth or it’s not $60,000 worth,” Uhazi said.
Uhazi is drowning in a sea of debt. And, like millions of other Americans, it is a debt load that she built up slowly over more than two decades of easy credit that made it all too simple to spend. Now she worries she won’t be able to pay it off because of the recession, which has led to a reduction in her salary and an increase in her credit card bills.
OK? Ms. Uhazi didn't suffer any major medical bills or something similar. On the contrary, she actually received a $20K inheritance at one point, $15K of which she used to pay down her debt. But said debt shortly creeped right back up!
So, again -- tell me why MSNBC features this woman's [sob] story on the main page of their website??
PETA is miffed that Barack Obama killed a fly:
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
"Swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."
And I'm happy to say that you're a freakin' lunatic, Bruce.
... unless, of course -- again -- one dissents from [faux] progressive orthodoxy. The latest example is MSDNC's Ed Schultz going off on conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt:
They worship money. They don't value human life the way they claim they do. That's a hoodwink.
So I guess Hugh Hewitt has never taken out a loan in his life. He's never had to depend on anybody else. He's probably the worst neighbor in the neighborhood. That's just a guess, I don't know that.
But I'd bring him over for a cocktail party. Sure, then I'd urinate on him, 'cause that's all he's worth.
Anybody who talks like that about the American worker is not an American, is anti-American and wants to see this country fail. (Source.)
Remember when, oh, I don't know -- when anti-Iraq War protestors [rightly] complained about various conservatives' similar labels?
We've come full circle.
"This is the equivalent of Martin Luther King being assassinated ... This is the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania and any other major historic event where we've tolerated the intolerable for too long."
Besides this remark being beyond asinine, I'm curious: How did we "tolerate" Pearl Harbor (and the Lusitania, for that matter) for "too long?" How did that work, exactly?
Not only for this ... "family," but for the News Journal and the Wave, which covered this story first.
A complete dolt of a "student" threatened bodily harm to a teacher, and so the school district refused to allow the kid to attend the school's graduation:
Robert Storms Jr. will receive his high school diploma in the mail after he threatened to punch a teacher and was ultimately placed on social probation.
During that type of punishment, a student's classes are continued on a homebound basis, but he or she is not allowed on school property or at school events.
Sure makes sense and seems quite fair, right? Oh, but that is just TOO MUCH for poor Robbie and his family, who suddenly have discovered a "purpose" in life ('cuz for mom and dad it sure ain't parenting, that's for sure):
"It makes me angry to see my parents so upset about this," the senior said, donning his cap and gown on the edge of school property Monday night. "I went through 12 years of school here and they're not gonna let me walk?"
Storms' parents, Edith and Robert Sr., along with a group of friends and extended family members gathered outside the complex prior to the ceremony to protest.
Awwwww, it makes poor Wobbie angry!! I bet he's sooooo angry that he wants to bop another teacher!
The [unintentionally] hilarious part of this sordid tale comes later in the article. We get to see what type of ... "family" Robbie is a part of:
His (Robbie's) aunt, Lillian Mitchell, said her son, Anthony, graduated from SCHS last year despite being caught with drugs on school property.
"He was found getting high in school and all they did was make him get drug rehab," she said. "And even though he failed all them drug tests, they still let him walk. All Robert did was threaten someone verbally."
"I'm puzzled ... just real puzzled," Edith Storms said. "There's these other kids with more serious charges, like my nephew, and they let them walk. It's not right."
I'm puzzled too, Mrs. Storms. I'm puzzled at how so ridiculously misplaced your freakin' priorities are. I mean, check it:
"I don't care if I have to sell my house, I'm going after the school by any means needed," Robert Sr. said. "I spent all day today driving between here and Dover, talking to the boards of education, and got no answers. I want some answers."
Amazing. How 'bout selling your house to take some much needed parenting classes? How 'bout selling your house to get your kid (and nephew) some much needed counseling? How 'bout selling your house to purchase some much needed COMMON SENSE AND DECENCY???
Oh, and doesn't it seem like these folks are graduates of the Delaware Liberal School of Grammar?
UPDATE: Uber edu-blogger Joanne Jacobs has picked up the story, offering up her always-dry sarcasm (which I love!).
... is how it shows "progressives" to be the most ridiculous moral hypocrites. These arbiters of all things racially and sexually "just" in society have no hassle with the judge's statements (like this, for instance), and now they're warning us to watch our language regarding her:
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate. . . .
Indeed. But recall their outrage after 9/11?
In 2001, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer drew criticism in the press for suggesting Americans “need to watch what they say” in the overheated aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
But of course! Just like how Judge Sotomayor's life story is "compelling," yet folks like Miguel Estrada and Clarence Thomas, two other minorities whose life stories are equally, if not more, compelling, were largely castigated by "progressives" -- and the MSM.
So, even though this is largely, well, silly, in my opinion, I definitely get a chuckle out of how it turns the tables on the faux progressives.
That would be Esteban Parra's article about illegal immigrants facing deportation. Yep, Esteban oozes with the viscous craving for sympathy for Carmen Irineo, whose hubby(?) was deported back in February. Here's the title, for starters: For many, deportation forces agonizing decision. Now check it:
"Diana and Ana Ramírez don't know how much time they have with their mother."
"This leaves Irineo with a heartbreaking decision if she loses her deportation fight: Leave her daughters here with friends ..."
"'I don't have any family here I can leave them with,' Irineo said."
"'It's extremely disruptive,' said Rick Hogan, a Wilmington immigration attorney."
"This Mother's Day, 'the share of adult women living with their children (64 percent) is substantially higher than the share of men (38 percent) among unauthorized immigrants.'"
"President Barack Obama is expected to address immigration reform later this year, including a proposal to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Any solution may not come soon enough for Irineo, who has an immigration hearing in July to decide her fate."
Sub-headline: A family torn apart.
"'Often the children of immigrants, living in a country other than the father or mother, they go through all this stress and pain and depression,' [Brother Chris Posch, director of Hispanic ministries for the Diocese of Wilmington] said. 'Then when they become adolescents, they become high-risk youth. If this isn't terrorism, I don't know what is.'"
"The community is living in fear ..."
It's almost as if the News Journal really does have a circulation death wish by using Mother's Day to run a story like this -- which is virtually guaranteed to be savaged by the online version's commenters. And while I don't agree with the tone of many (most?) of said commenters, the overall point of many is well-taken: Mrs. Irineo knew the chance(s) she was taking and knowingly broke the law. And now the state's largest newspaper is taking up her cause -- on Mother's Day -- as if there weren't any other human interest stories out there for this holiday.
I also found this quote quite interesting, since it totally goes against the politically correct grain of what bilingual "advocates" say, as well as those concerned with minority "cultural destruction":
This leaves Irineo with a heartbreaking decision if she loses her deportation fight: Leave her daughters here with friends, in a culture they know, in a place where they can get a good education; or, take them with her to her small town in Mexico, where they don't speak the language fluently and where there are limited educational opportunities beyond sixth grade.
Whaaaat? Irineo's daughters aren't familiar with Mexican culture? They don't speak Spanish?? How can this be?? Doesn't Irineo know what she's "doing" to her own children? Once again, Mrs. Irineo's example directly contradicts what elitist "experts" say about the "melting pot" concept. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing despite Parra's ridiculously sympathetic portrayal. Unfortunately, I'd bet good money that Irineo is in the minority on this front.
And did Parra slip here?
Carmen Irineo, 38, is fighting deportation. Her husband, Herón Ramírez, was deported in February.
Then there's this:
At 24, she left Mexico and crossed illegally into the United States.
She arrived in Delaware 14 years ago after hearing of work in the poultry industry, where she met Heron.
The two dated and, within a matter of months, were living together. A year later, Ana was born. Her sister, Diana, arrived two years after that.
Nowhere is "marriage" or "got married" mentioned in that second quote.
I know, I know ... I'm just being so "cold-hearted" for making this post. I forgot how I'm supposed to get all weepy for someone who knowingly broke the rules -- law -- and now is reaping the consequences. It's fascinating that Esteban Parra could not discover someone in the area who was, say, an Army widow and mother, or a widow of a policeman with children. Y'know, how are they doing, dealing with someone apart from them who did the "little thing" of, y'know, dedicating their very lives to protecting others from harm?
... a woman decides to sue McDonalds -- after she attempted to give a homeless dude a cheeseburger.
A Cheatham County woman who said she was beaten after giving a homeless man a cheeseburger outside a Nashville McDonald's last year is suing the restaurant, a nearby liquor store and her alleged attacker.
Fran MacLaren and her husband, Thomas, filed suit in Davidson County Circuit Court on Monday. They are asking for $2 million in damages.
MacLaren gave Craig the cheeseburger as he was lying down in a parking spot outside the restaurant. Craig shouted he didn't want the burger, just money and threw the burger at MacLaren, she testified.
"I told him he was an ungrateful bastard,'' she testified.
Craig went after her, she said. He struck her repeatedly, broke her nose, fractured her wrist, cheekbone and cracked a rib, she said. She also injured her knee.
According to the suit, both husband and wife allege that the McDonald's and the nearby liquor stores, "knew, or should have known, that their mode of operating their particular stores attracted persons prone to criminal acts and provided an environment to crime."
McDonalds' "mode of operating" ... ?? Like what -- selling food to people?? That provides an "environment to crime?"
A two year old girl's aunt is accused of beating the little one to death. 55 separate bruises were all over her body.
In a videotaped confession made after police found Bhia's "cold, lifeless body" at the Hadid family home Sunday night, Nour Hadid confessed to beating the child "with her hands and a spoon" and to "biting and pinching" her repeatedly since Thursday, Lawler said.
Nour Hadid told police she was angry because her husband, Alaeddin Hadid, had accused her of stealing some money hidden under a mattress and that she also was angry he'd "called her names," Lawler said.
The hubby's reaction? Concern for the death of the 2-year old? Hell no! He's miffed that his wife's mug shot is an "insult to Islam!"
The police booking photo of alleged child killer Nour Hadid released Tuesday is an "insult against our religion," says Hadid's husband, Alaeddin.
The Hadids are Muslims and Nour "never leaves the home without covering up," said Alaeddin, who's vowed to sue.
By custom, some practicing Muslim women wear the hijab, or headscarf, and cover their arms and legs when in public.
In the mug shot, a bare-headed and obviously emotional Nour appears to be protecting her modesty with her hands.
"It is against our religion; we do not do this in our culture," Alaeddin said.
The way that religion treats its women oughta catch up to at least the 20th century there, pal.
Alaeddin said that the police are "really going to be in big trouble" for releasing his wife's photo.
Gee. I'm sure every molecule is quivering among the police!
... if the speaker had been a former right-wing domestic terrorist.
Here's part of an e-mail from Dr. Alan Leis, Superintendent of the Naperville School District (forwarded to me from a tipster) regarding the cancelled speaking engagement of former Weather Underground-er Bill Ayers:
Over the weekend, however, it became clear that this issue was not really about where Dr. Ayers was speaking, but that he was speaking at all. Each day, the level of emotion and outrage has seemed to increase, along with the number of emails and phone calls received. What was most unfortunate was that a few directed their anger toward an outstanding high school and at a well-regarded, award-winning teacher who encourages students to think for themselves.
Now if you've been reading Colossus for any length of time, you should know I am loath to ditch almost anyone from a speaking gig. But just imagine for a second if Ayers was a right-wing former terrorist that was invited to speak at a [public] high school? Keep in mind that Ayers is unrepentant for his actions. This is not a guy who has mended his ways, so to speak. Would such a person be given a forum like this in the first place had he been from the opposite side of the political spectrum?
Hell, plenty of non-terrorists from the Right cannot get to speak at colleges, even when invited. They are victims of disruptive protests that prevent them from giving their talk, or, in the middle of a speech they are continually shouted down and heckled. And this is all because they represent a supposed "hateful" point of view from the perspective of the Left. But these speakers never engaged in terrorist activity. Bill Ayers has -- and isn't the least bit sorry for it. Would Dr. Leis put forth an invitation to an unrepentant racist? A unrepentant homophobe?
Dr. Leis really finds some folks' anger "unfortunate?" Really? (I must confess that it isn't clear from the tip whether Leis is referring to Ayers as the "well-regarded, award-winning teacher," or some other teacher at the high school who may have invited him. I do believe he's referring to Ayers.)
For HYPOCRISY, that is:
I pulled up to Al [Gore]’s house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm – right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.
In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching “Cheaters” or “Chelsea Lately” reruns.)
The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.
I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees. (Source.)
I'm sure there's a good explanation for this. Perhaps our resident Apologist-in-Chief Perry has the answer!
A News Journal editorial from yesterday expresses the phony self-righteous anger that way too many politicians are showing these days:
In a year when the insurance giant American International Group almost toppled and came close to bringing down the entire economy with it, AIG’s leaders believe the financial geniuses behind those developments earned generous bonuses for outstanding performance. Fortunately, no else does.
In the same year, said geniuses also destroyed an estimated $100 billion in shareholder value and accepted $170 billion in taxpayers’ money.
Yet the company’s leaders want to hand them $165 million in bonuses.
It’s outrageous and insulting.
President Barack Obama has ordered the Treasury Department to see if there is a legal way to stop this travesty.
That's mighty big of Barack. Especially since it was HIS ADMINISTRATION that 1) ordered that language allowing the bonuses to remain be kept in the recent stimulus bill, or 2) flat out acted irresponsibly by insisting that said stimulus bill be passed IMMEDIATELY so that hardly anyone could take the time to read the freakin' bill and realize that language allowing the bonuses was in there!
This episode has angered a lot of voters, and that anger could interfere with any new plans the Obama administration wants to enact to stem further deterioration in the economy.
The president is right. Every legal step must be taken to prevent this latest outrage before it is allowed to happen.
Oh please. Again, it was the very administration that allowed AIG to give out these bonuses!! Voters' anger should be directed at those idiots now running the country a hell of a lot more than at AIG.
As for "every legal step," the government ought to be mighty careful here. Since it was it that f***ed up in the first place, passing an ex post facto law to attempt to remedy their asininity -- a blatantly unconstitutional act -- sure won't help matters. Those in charge of upholding the Constitution might wanna read the following part of it:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
That's from Article I, Section 9. And I'll repeat what I wrote two days ago, from Madison's Federalist 44:
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."
Despise the AIG a-holes all you wish. They deserve it. But your politicians deserve it more. The AIG bonuses were a contract which, via fluctuating policy and sudden change and legislative interefence the Congress is attempting to undo -- that which it allowed in the first place.
Unemployed artist Jennifer Stone-Anderson of St. Petersburg, Florida has turned her car into a rolling dedication to The Messiah. But there's a problem -- she ain't making the car payments:
Stone-Anderson missed her car payments in December, January and February and has started receiving calls from Chrysler. She has ignored them.
She said that Chrysler has the paperwork to repossess the car, and it's really just a matter of the company finding it at this point. The car is hard to miss, but Stone-Anderson said she's not worried about the company taking it.
"Barack says he's an eternal optimist," she said. "We're like minds."
Stone-Anderson must be like this woman. Remember her? She believed that electing Obama would mean she wouldn't have to pay for gas for her car, not to mention her mortgage!
... might wanna add another chapter: We wished for a president's failure too. Patterico has the details:
Let’s put aside arguments about Rush Limbaugh for the time being and recognize that he’s undeniably right about this:
"Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?"
I think we all know the answer to that — but here’s some hard proof. Reader jimboster passes along a 2006 poll (.pdf) that proves the point. Check out question 10 — and pay particular attention to how the answers break down by party.
Yep. It shows that 51% of Democrats said they did not want President Bush to succeed. In the middle of a war.
But the general public really didn't need to see such a poll. It was pretty much common knowledge that [much of] the Left didn't want Bush to succeed. And y'know what? I don't blame them. Because just as Rush Limbaugh (and many others) vehemently disagree(s) with Barack Obama's ideas and policies, much of the Left vehemently disagreed with George Bush's ideas and policies. It human nature. People have disparate political philosophies, and even if the country seems to be doing OK, folks are still going to want their ideas implemented!
So, in a nutshell, spare us the self-righteous indignation, lefties. You know what Limbaugh meant when he said he wanted Obama "to fail." It was the same thing as what you wished in that 2006 poll.
DE Politics has more.
Kanye West thinks we should all just give Chris Brown – who’s accused of beating girlfriend/singer Rihanna – “a break”: "Can't we give Chris a break? ... I know I make mistakes in life."
You have, Kanye? Like kicking the living sh** out of a female??
But wait, it gets better.
"O.J. Simpson, amazing. Is he not? What he did, when he did, what he did. Was he not amazing though?"
Yeah, yeah – Simpson was an amazing running back during his NFL days. Too bad he freakin’ murdered two people in the early 90s.
But c'mahn ... can’t we just give O.J. a break?
That's some real tough stuff, eh? What outrage! What righteousness!
Then you sit back and realize that these are the bloggers who write at the site where it was wished that all Republicans were rounded up and shot. That states all Republicans are evil. That sure didn't "fail to have words" for, or wasn't "sick of" this sort of garbage. Etc.
Spare us your faux outrage, moonbats. You're no different from the cartoonist who drew that NY Post cartoon. In fact, you're worse. No amount of smug self-righteousness changes this whatsoever.
(FWIW, I think the cartoon is garbage and I certainly would not have run it were I the editor.)
They're coming for your burger and fries now:
When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say.
Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.
That's because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.
Pelletier is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food from field to plate.
"Given the projected doubling of (global) meat production by 2050, we're going to have to cut our emissions by half just to maintain current levels," Pelletier said.
That's why changing the kinds of food people eat is so important, said Chris Weber, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.
"Switching to no red meat and no dairy products is the equivalent of (cutting out) 8,100 miles driven in a car ... that gets 25 miles to the gallon," Weber said in an interview following the symposium.
No red meat or ... dairy products?? I could live (maybe) with eating pork and/or chicken in place of beef; however, no cheese? No ice cream? To help forestall a phenomenon that is far from conclusively proven?
No thanks and no way.
Liberal gabber and former “Crossfire” co-host Bill Press just doesn’t get it about talk radio – like way too many other lefties. To Press, it’s a “conspiracy” that liberal talk radio doesn’t really succeed all that much:
Station owners complain they can't get good ratings or make any money with progressive talk, but that's nonsense. In Minnesota, independent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF (950 AM) profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM, 92.1 FM, just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1. Nationwide, progressive talkers Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have proven that, given a level playing field, they can more than hold their own in ratings — and make money for their stations.
As Mark Hemingway notes, is it really a surprise that lib talk radio is successful in those markets – some of the most “progressive” in the country? And precisely what wasn’t “level” in the markets that Air America floundered in?
Press is another lefty that just doesn’t get it about liberal talk radio (sort of like Randy Nelson!). It doesn’t succeed as a whole because most folks already view the mainstream press as left-leaning, and much of the popular culture (ie Hollywood and music) too. Talk radio is the bastion which conservatives dominate, largely out of necessity. But that has been changing over the years, as Fox News has now come to dominate cable news and the proliferation of Internet news sites.
Another reason lefty talk radio has been a bust is because, unlike [most] conservative talk radio, it is usually totally devoid of humor, takes itself way too seriously, and is downright vicious. If anyone actually takes the time to listen to, say, Rush Limbaugh, the “king” of conservative talk radio, you’ll notice 1) he doesn’t take himself all that seriously, 2) he (and his bits) are actually pretty funny*, and 3) you won’t hear from him (towards Barack Obama and liberals) the outright hateful epithets that the Left continually tossed towards George Bush and conservatives. Rush can get, and has gotten, close to the line, sure, but I’ve never heard him wish death upon anyone, or call Democrats Nazis or Hitleresque ... unlike lib talk show hosts. (By the way, I personally recommend Limbaugh’s show pretty much only for the entertainment value. I wouldn’t recommend listening to him for policy ideas, though admittedly I do agree with some of what he says.)
Granted, keep in mind I am speaking generally about the industry as a whole. There are certainly exceptions to what I stated above.
*(One of the funnier moments I always recall from Limbaugh’s show was during the middle of a serious discussion of some policy matter, he played some soundbites from various politicians. One of them was from Rep. Tom Lantos, now deceased, who had a rather thick Eastern European accent. Rush suddenly began yelling to his producer to “stop the tape!” and to rewind it so he could hear Lantos again. In the middle of what was a lengthy policy soliloquy, Rush asked, “Is it me or does Tom Lantos sound exactly like a James Bond villain?” Any James Bond fan worth his/her salt had to be laughing, because Lantos did indeed sound precisely like your stereotypical Bond baddie!)
Obama's call for "stimulus" house parties: A bust!
Few supporters are answering President Barack Obama's call for nationwide house-party gatherings this weekend to build grass-roots support for his economic stimulus plan.
A McClatchy survey of sign-up rosters for a score of cities across the country revealed only 34 committed attendees in Tacoma, Wash., as of midafternoon Friday; in Fort Worth, Texas, only 54, and in Sacramento, Calif., just 78.
Ouch. Yeah, well, a house party dedicated to a "stimulus" bill in Washington DC seems just a wee bit ... silly. It sure wouldn't be anything like the original House Party, that's for sure.
Just imagine Kid 'N Play rapping about jump-starting the economy ...
As if we needed further proof of the print media’s demise (due to the Internet but also the weariness of constant leftist editorial bias), yesterday’s Philly Daily News asks “Bye-bye partisanship?” Three guesses as to whose fault it is, and the first two don’t count.
NOT ALL OF THE nearly two million people who braved the cold last month to show up in Washington for Barack Obama's inauguration were Democrats. And not all were there to witness the historic swearing-in of the nation's first African- American president.
What moved some of that mass of humanity to D.C. was the hope that Obama's election signaled the beginning of a new day in Washington, one in which our elected leaders move away from bitter, polarized politics and learn to work together to solve the huge problems that our country faces.
Indeed. Like the House Democrat majority’s move to disallow Republicans various rights on the House floor? But sure – Obama has reached out to the GOP, but all he did was listen. That’s a positive, yes, but if that’s all he does, coupled with his “I won” mantra, who can honestly call that “bye-bye partisanship?
As most of us living in the real world know, solutions to big complicated problems are colorblind; they depend not on red or blue, but on a larger shared goal to work for the common good.
Last week's virtual blockade by House Republicans against support for Obama's $819 billion stimulus bill is not only worrying for the state of the economy, but deflating for all those millions who voted for a change in Washington.
Oh sure. As if a political party with a different ideology cannot legitimately differ on what is best for the common good.
How do such mental midgets get to serve on large city paper editorial boards? I mean, how can the House GOP “blockade” in any meaningful way any legislation that comes to the House? They’re outnumbered. Or, to put it in Obama’s terms, “the House Democrats won.” How does it “deflate” those who wanted change? There’s nothing the GOP can do to stop the “change!”
The Daily News surely knows this, but why pass up a chance to rip conservatives and the GOP?
Around about then, shouldn't Obama have started to wonder if Republicans have any interest in actually addressing the nation's problems - or if, like their Muse, Rush Limbaugh - they simply want Obama to fail?
So what if the country goes down with him?
Ah, yes. Can you imagine what the Daily News editors would write (and probably has written) if a GOPer had said that Democrat votes against what the GOP desired was “wishing for the country to go down the tubes?”
Hell, why even bother with maintaining our historical two-party system at all? Obama won. He’s told us that. In Democrats’ and the Daily News’s view, this means that the losers – the Republicans – should just face this fact and do whatever the hell The Messiah and his minions in Congress want – without criticism or complaint. Because the country wants “change,” dammit!!
Heh. Apparently the country doesn’t exactly want the change that this supposed “stimulus” bill purports to offer. Currently only about one-third of the public thinks the bill, in its current form, is a step in the right direction for economic recovery.
Regarding the status of the bill in the Senate, the DN writes:
But will it be bipartisan?
Depends on what you mean: According to people who worked with Obama in the Illinois Senate, what he means by bipartisan is not watering down legislation, or making concessions just to get a few "R" votes, but in changing the tone of the debate - less cynical game-playing and more honest give-and-take.
"Once in a while," Obama told NBC's Matt Lauer, "we can take the politics out of it and just focus on getting the job done for the American people."
Again, someone please help me out here: How exactly is it “bipartisan” if a side is unwilling to make concessions?? How is “changing the tone of the debate” and a “more honest give and take” – but NOT making any concessions to the other side – “getting the job done?” Have you ever read a bigger bunch of bullsh** than this? Since the Daily News is damn clueless, I’ll clue ‘em in: “Bipartisan” doesn’t mean “just talking sweet to the other side and then expecting them to vote the way you want them to.”
And then we have the big finish:
It remains to be seen if that will happen. But Republicans should remember that the millions who gathered to watch the inauguration are counting on it.
Why should the Republicans worry overmuch about what the “millions” who flocked to DC think? They voted for Obama. Why should the Republicans just brush aside their principles because they lost an election? What about the millions who voted for John McCain?
Based on the current views of the American public as a whole regarding this "stimulus," apparently the GOP’s principles still mean something to a sizable portion of the country.
Taxes: They're just for you and me. Not for Obama's choice of administration members.
... it sure would sound a lot better if someone other than a politician said it:
An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.
Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.
"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses."
McCaskill's proposed compensation limit would cover salaries, bonuses and stock options.
The sad reality is that these Wall St. buttholes are no different than you, Ms. McCaskill -- or any other politician. I certainly agree that anyone or anything that accepts federal money thus becomes bound to the whims of the loaner. However, the American public gives our moronic politicians their freakin' money each and every paycheck and with our various purchases, and what do they do with it? Social Security is a mess, Medicare's a mess, the national debt's out of control ... and these self-righteous, smug, hypocritical politicians are the ones who got us into this economic mess in the FIRST PLACE!!
So, pardon me if I don't jump and up and down and scream "AMEN!!" Senator McCaskill. What's the 'ol saying -- "Those who live in glass houses ...?"
"I'm getting uncomfortable. I'm done. I'm done, I hope you write whatever you want. I don't give a damn." -- Benicio del Toro, who couldn't handle tough questions about his new film (which he co-produced) "Che" about Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
... excludes the ending: "Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."
(The Chicago Sun-Times has the complete transcript.)
What -- is ABC throwing a bone to Mike Newdow because he lost his ridiculous lawsuit?
Yeah, proof would have been nice:
A Washington lobbyist is suing The New York Times over an article that she says gave the false impression she had an affair with Sen. John McCain in 1999.
Vicki L. Iseman filed the $27 million defamation suit in U.S. District Court in Richmond on Tuesday. It also names as defendants the Times' executive editor, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters. (Source.)
Maybe next time the GOP nominee could get law enforcement to intimidate the Times.
Volokh's David Bernstein summarizes my feelings on the matter virtually perfectly, and it's also an apt response to DE Libertarian's Steve Newton (with whom I differ greatly on this subject, but whose opinion I nevertheless respect immensely). All emphasis mine:
Glenn Greenwald, I take it, will not take me up on my offer of a free vacation to Sderot. My offer was specifically in response to his claim that Israel is engaging in a "massively disproportionate response" to the shelling of southern Israel from Gaza.
He obscures the issue by writing:
That "argument" is the same as saying to someone who objects to Hamas' suicide bombs or rockets: "I'll personally pay for your Ramallah or Gaza City vacation, so you can see what it's like to live imprisoned by walls, under a 40-year foreign occupation, with blockades that cause your children's growth to stunt and to be denied basic nutritional and medical needs."
The fact that the people of Location X are suffering doesn't mean that anything and everything their government directs to the general vicinity of those inflicting the suffering is justified.
So, now that I don't have to worry about paying for Greenwald's vacation, I can ask, rhetorically (though Greenwald is free to answer): when a terrorist entity controls territory bordering that of a sovereign nation, and indiscriminately lobs rockets into that nation's territory, terrifying the civilian population and making normal life unlivable, what is a proportionate response?
Israel has engaged in pinpoint targeting of military facilities operated by said terrorist entities, and has gone so far as to send messages in Arabic to residents of Gaza, warning them that if they allow their homes or businesses are sheltering Hamas weaponry, they will be destroyed. Even according to Palestinian sources, the overwhelming majority of victims of Israeli bombs thus far have been Hamas fighters. This is perhaps the least extreme response that any sovereign nation faced with an analogous situation has ever engaged in. Cf. Russia in Chechnya.
Greenwald's real problem, I surmise, is that he thinks that Israel's response is "disproportionate" not because its disproportionate relative to Hamas's military actions and Israel's military objectives compared to the civilian damaged inflicted (more or less the international law definition of proportionality), but because he believes that Israel is primarily to blame for the situation in Gaza, and therefore any suffering inflicted on Gaza's civilians is primarily Israel's fault. Hence his observation about Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is not at all relevant to whether Israel's response to the rocket fire is "proportionate," but rather to whether Israel is morally at fault in general.
But by putting the issue in terms of the "proportionality" of Israel's response, Greenwald (and others) are obscuring their real argument, which is that Israel is not entitled to act in self-defense because no matter how many rockets are launched into Israeli territory, Israel is ultimately the aggressor in the Gaza situation.
I find that argument hopeless naive, and, in fact, counterfactual. Let's start with the fact that the blockade was a response to Hamas's actions against Israel, not vice versa. (If Hamas had been a peace-loving entity, and Israel had nevertheless blockaded its territory, and I had attacked Hamas's military response as "wildly disproportionate", then Greenwald's counter-offer of a trip to Gaza would make sense). Now imagine for a moment that Hamas announced, sincerely, that its goal was no longer to annihilate Israel, but to establish a peaceful Islamic democracy that was willing to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to achieve a lasting agreement with Israel, and then acted on that announcement by ceasing all violence aimed at Israel and offering to commence negotiations immediately. Is there any doubt that the blockade would end forthwith? And, for that matter, that Israel would happily cooperate with a peaceful Hamas and the international community to return Gaza to the incredible rates of economic growth (and beyond) it achieved under the first 20 years of the "brutal occupation"? Hamas, however, is not interested in a peaceful settlement with Israel, and, while its leaders hide in underground bunkers, is perfectly willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian civilian.
So, to sum up, let's rephrase Greenwald's position: "I think that Israel is not entitled to cause any casualties, civilian or otherwise, in Gaza, because Israel bears the primary, indeed, almost the entire, responsibility for the conflict it is facing with Hamas. Therefore, Israeli civilians living in the range of Hamas rockets must simply bear with it until their government adopts more enlightened policies that will magically lead Hamas to prefer to live in peace with Israel."
Finally, I find it rather amusing that Greenwald refers to me as an "Israel-obsessive." I blog a fair amount about Israel, not least because I'm there twice a year and my wife is Israeli. Greenwald, meanwhile, blogs far more about Israel, without similar ties. What does that make him?
Meanwhile, CNN uses the headline "World rallies around Palestinians amid Gaza offensive" when in the article less than 3000 people in the "world" are actually noted. (The largest protest was in Germany.) And oh gee -- protests in ... Iran?? Who'da thought? Venezuela? How much did Uncle Chávez pay 'em?
Meanwhile, here's what you may not hear in the MSM: Leading Saudi paper: Hamas to blame for conflict. Not only that, but the Palestinian Authority and Egypt place the blame for the current Gaza conflict on ... Hamas, too!!
AP headline: Blagojevich questioning takes up Obama's time.
Say it with me: AWWWWWWW!!
It's only a matter of time before we begin reading "I need to get to work saving America from the last eight years of the worst [insert ANYTHING you wish here] ..."
“Muslim leaders reacted with frustration after the verdict” is a line from the AP report yesterday (via the Wilmington News Journal) regarding the “Fort Dix 5” who were convicted of conspiring to attack the Fort Dix (New Jersey) military base:
The five men were convicted Monday in federal court of conspiring to kill military personnel but acquitted of attempted murder. Prosecutors acknowledged the defendants were probably months away from an attack at Fort Dix and did not necessarily have a specific plan.
The arrests in 2007 and subsequent trial tested the FBI's post-Sept. 11 strategy of infiltrating and breaking up terrorist plots in their earliest stages. Muslim leaders reacted with frustration after the verdict.
"Many people in the Muslim community will see this as a case of entrapment,"said Jim Sues, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who attended five days of trial testimony. "From what I saw, there was a significant role played by the government informant."
With a last name like “Sues,” maybe Jim oughta become a lawyer, eh? At any rate, not surprisingly, the AP merely covers Sues’s and other “bigwigs’” beefs with the verdict, calling the conspiracy charge “far broader” than what was expected and “flimsy.” James Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at the Guantanamo Bay military prison, said, "All of this doesn't help build trust with the American Muslim community, and that is vital if our law enforcement is going to fight terrorism." It (amazingly) takes going to the New York Times to see that Sues doesn’t feel that the quintet are totally guiltless:
Jim Sues, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who spent several days in court listening to testimony, said that the men, though not innocent of any wrongdoing, were unjustifiably egged on by government informants into making conspiratorial statements about a terrorist attack on the base.
“The informant was much more than the informant,” Mr. Sues said in a telephone interview on Monday. “There was [sic] definitely some laws broken, but conspiracy to attack Fort Dix is a whole different story.”
Well that’s a relief! I suppose. Just curious, though: I wonder if Jim Sues and James Yee are at all concerned with the perception that many non-Muslim Americans have about Muslim Americans (or residents) who regularly listen/watch al Qaeda-inspired videotapes, and who purchase illegal firearms -- which then are fired at a shooting range while their bearers shout “God is great!” Think there’s something to be concerned about there?
At least the AP story delves into what some [Muslim] regular folk think, aside from Muslim “leaders” and other bigwigs:
Fuat "Mike" Mamo of Cresskill, a member of the Albanian community in New Jersey, said he feels ashamed of the three Albanian brothers who were convicted.
"I don't know what they were thinking," Mamo said of the Duka brothers. "They were just out of their mind and they should be put away for life. The Albanian community is nothing like this.
"We come from a country that has a reputation for religious diversity and tolerance. To go against the American government - that's unacceptable to our community."
I’m thinkin’ that if we had a lot more people like Mr. Mamo, that “trust” that Mr. Sues and Mr. Yee claim they’re so concerned about would be much more prevalent. It’s a two-way street, after all.
Oh, here’s a little reminder about the immigration status of the Duka brothers, three of the five involved.
... he said he met with Patricia Delgado, Mr. Waxman's chief of staff, and offered his help if Mr. Waxman wishes to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Waxman is the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.
The mayor on Monday accused WSPD of violating the principles of the now-defunct rule by not giving him equal time to respond to its "daily diatribes" against him, and said he would take it up with Mr. Waxman. The doctrine, which was eliminated by President Reagan in 1987, required radio and TV stations to give equal time to issues and candidates.
How DARE a media outlet criticize a politician? This sounds a lot like what Barack Obama's surrogates did during the 2008 campaign: You broadcast criticisms of those in power, and those in power (whose job it is to protect the population's Bill of Rights freedoms) use their power to shut you up. That's precisely what it is! Period!
As if this moron Finkbeiner doesn't have his own bully pulpit to address any of this radio station's commentaries. He's the freakin' mayor, after all.
President-Elect Obama regarding embattled IL Governor Blagojevich:
"I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."
...on November 23, 2008, his (Obama's) senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.
While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."
Check out the Blagojevich round-up here.
UPDATE: A round-up of MSM "name that party" hilarity regarding Blagojevich.
Gotta love James Taranto's highlighting of these "hard luck" stories disseminated by our illustrious MSM:
Debra, a single mother who works in health care administration, is one of millions of Americans who do their jobs, believe in paying their bills and are still facing the threat of losing their home.
Debra, who did not want her last name to be published, bought a home in the East New York section of Brooklyn for more than $600,000 in 2006. The house has plenty of room for herself, for her son and for tenants. She thought that with the help of rental income and refinancing her mortgages that she could carry the load.
"People tell you that you can refinance and get a better deal," Debra explained--an all too common assumption during the housing boom. After a few months, her tenants started to pay their rent late--and sometimes not at all. Without that income, she was stretched too thin. "Your mortgage is your priority," Debra explained, "so you pay your mortgage and wait on the other bills." She fell behind on those bills, then on the mortgage itself.
Yeah, it sure is "tough" being able to afford a house that costs over $600 grand. So, what's the supposed problem with the "refinancing and getting a better deal" bit? I refinanced years ago and got a terrific deal. I'll have my house paid off in a fraction of the time our original mortgage stipulated. Ah, but 'ya see, my wife and I don't rely on fortunes of others to assist us in paying our mortgage and other bills. We actually -- wait for it -- rely on ourselves and our own fortunes (or misfortunes). Reminds me of why I always hated waiting tables and bartending during my college years -- I had to rely on the generosity of others.
In mid-September, Gentile was finally able to land a job that includes health care benefits, but the salary is much less than she was making before. As they work to get their finances back on track, the family has had to cut back on little luxuries like dinners out, trips to the movies and buying new clothes.
One of the hardest decisions was to tell her granddaughter that she could no longer take horseback riding lessons because they couldn't afford it.
"She loved those horseback riding lessons," Gentile said.
Yeesh, how often did these folks go to the movies and out to dinner that they had to "cut back?" And cripes -- horseback riding lessons?? Gentile was probably later quoted as saying "It really hurts now, not getting picked up by our limo service. Taking a taxi sure can be tiring, you know, holding up your arm constantly trying to flag down a driver."
For years, Mike and Kelly D'Addeo planned to use their trove of Intel Corp. stock options to send their son Tony to a top college.
Tony would be a good candidate for any school: He's a straight-A senior at Bowie High School and captain of the football team, with near-perfect SAT scores. He's not interested in playing college football; instead, Tony talks about majoring in computer science or engineering.
"I'd like to have my own business someday," he said. But the plunging stock market has made their stock options worthless and crushed the D'Addeos' Ivy League dreams.
I sure hope Tony's folks aren't Ivy League graduates, 'cause it ain't all-too bright putting their kid's college fund in stock options! But that aside, c'mon -- are we really supposed to wipe away a tear because a kid may not be able to go to an Ivy League school? Especially when so many MORE folks (like me) are wondering if they'll be able to afford college for their kid AT ALL without drowning in debt or breaking the bank?
... this time locally: Former principal sentenced to prison.
Former Sussex Central High School Principal Dana I. Goodman could spend at least the next four years behind bars for having sex with a 17-year-old student.
Goodman, 38, was sentenced Friday to 32 years in prison, with all but four years suspended contingent upon completion of an intensive sex-offender rehabilitation program while behind bars.
In court Friday, Goodman broke down in tears and apologized for hurting the victim, her family and the community, describing himself as a changed man in the six months since his arrest.
"I made a horrible choice. ... I have no one to blame but myself," he said, clutching a Bible and speaking of his renewed Christian faith. "I made a mistake, and I'm truly sorry."
At least the dude seems to recognize that he has no one to blame but himself. That alone is, sadly, refreshing in today's day and age.
Meanwhile, Mike Matthews reminds us (WHY??) of a recent sex scandal between a teacher and student. Ick.
Sheesh, and folks think Sarah Palin is thick?
Pelosi: Prop 8 supporters might have been too dumb to grasp what they were doing.
From the AP:
Fuel prices have grounded an unexpected frequent-flyer: Diddy.
Sean "Diddy" Combs complained about the "... too high" price of gas and pleaded for free oil from his "Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters" in a YouTube video posted Wednesday. The hip-hop mogul said he is now flying on commercial airlines instead of in private jets, which Combs said had previously cost him $200,000 and up for a roundtrip between New York and Los Angeles.
"I'm actually flying commercial," Diddy said before walking onto an airplane, sitting in a first-class seat and flashing his boarding pass to the camera. "That's how high gas prices are. I'm at the gate right now. This is really happening, proof gas prices are too high. Tell whoever the next president is we need to bring gas prices down."
Everybody, on three: One, two, three -- AWWWWWWWW!!!
... the Left can't handle it. They wasted no time in circulating the idea that McCain "cheated" because he wasn't in the "cone of silence" and therefore heard the questions being asked to The Messiah. NBC's Andrea Mitchell, as I reported over at Newsbusters, was a willing Obama campaign surrogate, offering up the theory on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Reliable moonbat Daily Kos floated that McCain either heard the questions or got them ahead of time. Our local twits even demand proof that McCain did not cheat -- proof of a negative.
Well, well, well.
Kos actually got part of the story correct -- but not in the way they thought. Both McCain and The Messiah got two questions ahead of time, and were given the "themes" of the remaining questions. Obama actually got a third question in advance. McCain was to have gotten it too; however, logistical problems prevented such. So, if anything, The Messiah had the slight advantage. (Source.)
As for the "cone of silence," there was never any such thing. "Pastor Rick Warren was making a little joke when he used that phrase. But he was assuring the crowd that McCain was not hearing any of the questioning of Barack Obama," reports Byron York.
McCain was in his car en route to the forum for a span of 35 minutes -- while The Messiah was on stage. He emphatically states he heard nothing from the forum during that time. Once he arrived at the forum, he was directed to a holding room that had no TV, radio or anything. Could he be lying? Sure, I suppose. I don't buy it, however. But let's suppose he was -- he already knew the questions. And even if you think hearing The Messiah's responses would be an advantage, how is that any different from an actual debate when someone has to go (answer) first?
Again, I say The Messiah "cheated" because he was given a third question in advance while McCain was not. And McCain still kicked The Messiah's ass.
From -- where else? -- the San Fran Chronicle:
Joann Gardner sat forlornly on her living room floor, waiting for the final step in her home's foreclosure process. The lender's representative was due any moment to give her "cash for keys," a transaction in which she would deliver her family home vacant in exchange for an incentive payment.
"I'm glad it's done," Gardner said wearily. "I just want to sit down and have some Hennessy."
Only days earlier, the house had been jammed with boxes and bags holding the worldly goods her family had accumulated during 54 years in the cramped Oakland bungalow.
Now it was entirely empty, the possessions in storage or donated to the Salvation Army. Gardner's elderly parents, both suffering from dementia and other ailments, had moved a week earlier to a local board-and-care home whose cost would be covered by their Social Security and pension checks. Gardner, who has been her parents' full-time care provider for the past 18 months, planned to move in with her boyfriend in Vallejo and look for a job, perhaps something at Costco.
Highlighted are what should be some red flags. But hey, another "feel sorry for me because I'm being foreclosed on" story, right?
For example, how could the mortgage not have been paid off in 54 years?? Here's why:
Joann's parents, Johnnie Gardner, 87, and Estelle, 88, bought the two-bedroom in the Sobrante Park neighborhood in 1954 for $11,500. His salary as an electrician at the Oakland naval shipyard allowed them to make the payments.
But in recent years, Joann and her brother refinanced it several times for increasingly larger amounts.
The final refinance at the end of 2006 left the family owing $454,000. The monthly payments of $3,362 exceeded the household income of $3,144.
Over $400K?? Now, what in the hell was happened to all that money?
Gardner can't quite say. Some went to paying off credit cards; some was eaten up in huge loan fees.
And perhaps some went to buying a lot of Hennessy? Or something a little "harder?"
At least Gardner realizes -- somewhat -- that she bears some responsibility for her predicament:
"This is it; I can't come back here no more," she said as she walked down the front steps. "I hope it helps somebody to read about this; they won't be boo-boo the fool like I was."
Maybe Gardner could have emphasized this to the Chronicle so that they'd find something much more worthy about which to write.
Let's see .... you get a FREE house worth approx. $450,000. You get a FREE $250,000 for your kids' scholarships and for home maintenance.
More than 1,800 people showed up to help ABC's "Extreme Makeover" team demolish a family's decrepit home and replace it with a sparkling, four-bedroom mini-mansion in 2005.
Three years later, the reality TV show's most ambitious project at the time has become the latest victim of the foreclosure crisis.
After the Harper family used the two-story home as collateral for a $450,000 loan, it's set to go to auction on the steps of the Clayton County Courthouse Aug. 5.
$450K loan? Yep -- they attempted to start their own construction business. Which failed. But ... how are they "victims" of the foreclosure "crisis?" They took out a huge loan for a risky business ... and it didn't work. It's called RISK. The difference here is that the Harper's used what was given to them out of kind-hearted (and well publicized) charity, and they blew it. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them?
Some of the volunteers who helped build the home were less than thrilled about the family's financial decisions.
"It's aggravating. It just makes you mad. You do that much work, and they just squander it," Lake City Mayor Willie Oswalt, who helped vault a massive beam into place in the Harper's living room, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
You got that right, Willie.
Ken Shepherd nails it at Newsbusters. "The media has done little to prove Gramm wrong," he writes, and this MSNBC.com segment proves it without a doubt. In "Salvaging a Miserable Summer," the Democrat Party cheerleader site solicits reader tales of summer "woe."
For instance, Nancy Carol Marquand says "Given the circumstances of our economy, I think this is one summer we will always remember." A summer to "always remember??" Why -- just 'cause gas prices are higher than last summer? Man, either I'm weird or I'm very old school. For instance, I like to live by a thing called "planning." One adjusts to circumstances. It doesn't make me "miserable" as MSNBC refers to it; at worst you ... "settle" for what is best for you. Does this make it any less enjoyable? Perhaps. But "miserable??" You're still vacationing with your family -- isn't that what it's all about after all, not where you go?
Take Apple Plotnick (what a name, eh?). She had to "settle" for a cruise this year:
In years past, as a do-it-yourself traveler, I visited friends in Europe for summer vacations, staying in hostels and traveling by foot, train, and occasionally, car. I've also flown down to Florida for two-week vacations to visit family.
Putting together my own vacation is simply too expensive, with the dollar exchange being so low right now, as well as the rising costs of gas. Driving used to be a low-cost way of experiencing a new city, but it's become a financial drain.
Because of high costs of gas and a completely unreliable airline industry, I have decided to take a cruise that leaves from my state of Virginia so that I can rely solely on myself for transportation to and from my departure port. The cruise will also include all the hotel, gas and food costs, as well as combining entertainment with my interests in guided travel.
Now, I plan on exploring the ship, shore excursions, tours, and I will use my own feet as we dock at interesting ports of call.
"Settling" for ... a cruise? Instead of going to Europe and staying in ... hostels? Yeah, that sure sounds "miserable!!" Puh-lease!
Then there's Katie Poti who seems quite contradictory in her assessment of this "miserable" summer:
This summer is much different for us because we just bought our first home in March and have a baby due in October. I would say that even if gas prices weren't as high as they are we would still be spending our money elsewhere.
Uhh, 'ya think??
This summer has changed our feelings about vacations to feelings of frustration. It used to be easier to just pick up and go somewhere, but now with the expense of gasoline -- and everything else for that matter -- trips require more financial planning.
We feel like we work very hard for the money we make and the time off we get, and a vacation shouldn't feel like punishment or something we should feel guilty about doing. Instead we feel more stressed out about taking a vacation now than we would if we just took our time off and stayed home.
Maybe that's because you just purchased a home and have a baby on the way? Maybe?? Those two "little" tidbits are naturally stressful events. Sheesh -- when my wife and I found out we had a daughter on the way, get this -- we planned ahead. We agreed that we wanted our daughter to have a stay-at-home mom for her pre-school attendance years, so this meant that I had to pick up a part-time job to help make up what we lost with my wife's salary. And since we were in the market for our first house shortly after our daughter was born, this additionally meant that luxuries -- yes luxuries -- like a travel vacation were out of the question for a number of years. That's just how we placed our priorities. Call us silly.
I'm quite sure there are many folks out there who are facing REAL difficulties -- whose lives are REALLY miserable. And I seriously doubt these folks are weeping over anecdotes like the above ... and this, where a family "had" to cut a trip to the Florida Keys by two days ... and "settle" for more time in South Beach instead.
OK, so I went to the grocery store yesterday and certainly noticed that prices have gone up on most of what I bought. Some quite a bit, some not so much. So what do I (we) do? Cut back a bit on non-essentials, clip more coupons, buy more generic brands ... usual common sense measures. But totally cut out .... meat??
So Nunez and her daughter are mostly stuck at home.
The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer bags of groceries — $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now it’s more like seven or eight. So they cut back on expensive items like meat, and they don’t buy extras like ice cream anymore. Instead, they eat a lot of starches like potatoes and noodles.
Be sure to take a good look at the accompanying photo. Looks to me like that "extra" of ice cream was a major portion of their food budget. If anything, cutting back on the food budget will be a quite healthy lifestyle move.
But seriously -- is meat really prohibitively expensive? I bought a two-pound package of ground beef yesterday for a little over six bucks.
Believing in that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy:
GLAMOUR: An AP poll shows that while the positive ratings on Michelle are higher than those of Cindy McCain, her negative ratings are higher as well. I'm curious about how as a husband that makes you feel. Does it mystify you? And what do you want to say to those Americans who don't know the woman that you know?
SENATOR OBAMA: It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans. And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives. (Link.)
But Hannity, FNC and National Review aren't John McCain, so most of Obama's rant is moot. But consider: Taking Obama's logic further, one could say that he is leading McCain in the polls only because of MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, etc. "day in day out."
In other words, when it comes to media coverage, Messiah, count your lucky stars you're a liberal Democrat -- 'cause that's the only place you're gonna get any sympathy for your whiny soliloquies.
... it's forcing couples who want to divorce to stay together longer. Check out the video.
Talk about your ever-lovin' slow news day...
... is to read the comments and/or polls associated with a supposed "heart-wrenching" story. Case in point: AOL News reports on a family that was kicked off their connecting flight in Phoenix because the kids were completely out of control.
"I am furious about it," Slaughter said after arriving home in Seattle. "I just couldn't believe they could do something like that, and then, leave us completely stranded with no money and no way to get anywhere."
Slaughter said this was the first flight for her children and admits the kids were loud and kept getting up and walking around the plane.
"The children were a little bit out of control on the flight. They were restless and excited and worked up, and they're kids." (Local story link.)
One of the kids is autistic, and the other has cerebral palsy.
Now, while I feel sorry for the children's afflictions and the fact that (apparently) the airline didn't assist them with alternate plans when they got booted (it did refund their money for the lost connecting flight), frankly I am weary of people who adopt a totally self-centered attitude and the media that plays it up.
First, if I had children with the mentioned afflictions, I would have contacted the airline ahead of time and seen what accommodations could have been made -- if I even considered taking them on a flight at all. Second, I would feel extremely sorry and apologetic for the hundred or so other passengers who paid hundreds of dollars for their tickets and who had their hours-long journey turned into a hellish experience.
But that's just me. For this family, it's merely an admission that the airline's complaint was valid, but that "hey, they're just kids."
Here's a screen capture of the AOL poll accompanying its story. The family ain't getting much sympathy:
A related example (in terms of media coverage/sympathy) I saw today was this USA Today article about the difficulties the children of illegal immigrants face regarding college. Check out the comments section after the story.
Loyal Colossus reader Fred Gregory sends us word that Democrat Governor Mike Easley racked up over $170,000 in taxpayer-paid expenses during a recent trip to Italy:
Most of the bills for Gov. Mike Easley's trip to Italy were in euros. The exchange rates during most of the trip was about 1.65, which means one euro would be worth $1.65. Here are some examples of specific expenditures:
First-class tickets from New York to Rome and then Florence to London and then London to Raleigh for the governor and his wife, Mary Easley: $19,500.
Airfare for similar flights in coach for Communications Director Sherri Johnson: $2,987.
Chauffeured Mercedes sedan and van on call for North Carolina's first couple: $51,954.
Hired van or bus for the rest of the delegation: $23,584.
Lunch in Rome for the Easleys, Johnson and five others: $732.
Three-night stay for the Easleys at Starhotels Splendid Venice : $2,249.
Thankfully, Easley is close to ending his term.
Elsewhere in the state, Joy Johnson, a third vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, has been charged regarding various Satanic rituals, "that included shackling people to beds, caging them and depriving them of food and water."
Her husband, Joseph Scott Craig, 25, was charged with second-degree rape, second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for an incident in January and another in May.
The two made an appearance in court Monday morning after spending the weekend in the Durham County jail.
Mark McCullough, an assistant district attorney, urged Judge Nancy Gordon to increase Johnson’s bond to $500,000 from the $270,000 set by a magistrate. “Part of the allegations are that Satanic worship is part of this case,” McCullough said.
Gordon kept Johnson’s bond at $270,000. Craig’s bond remained at $500,000. Each was ordered to stay away from the accusers. Craig has been charged with beating a man with a cane and a cable cord and assaulting a woman with a wooden cane and raping her.
Three letters: WTF?
Oh no -- the Justice Dept. apparently favored conservatives over liberals for two years out of the last seven:
Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.
As early as 2002, career Justice employees complained to department officials that Bush administration political appointees had largely taken over the hiring process for summer interns and so-called Honors Program jobs for newly graduated law students. For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.
But in 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal — and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn't get a job offer.
In 2006, though, 83 of 150 liberals were rejected while only 5 of 28 conservatives were. My math tells me that the totals of those two years rears 87 liberals to 65 conservatives hired. Liberals still outnumber conservatives despite the "political" hiring!
But here's the laugher:
"This is the first smoking gun," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We believe there will be more to come. This report shows clearly that politics and ideology replaced merit as the hiring criteria at one of our most prized civil service departments."
What a hoot. This, from the ideology/party that backs idiocies like the University of Michigan's "critical mass" rationale for diversity on college campuses. Applicants don't get into college solely based on academic merit and the quality of their high schools, but on other "holistic" measures -- like race. After all, "critical mass" (in educational settings) means
that it is important for a sufficient number of "minorities" to be enrolled on campus so that they not feel "isolated." When the number of blacks dropped at UC Berkeley following the passage of 209, the opponents of 209 argued that the drop in black enrollment created a "hostile environment" for those enrolled. "Critical mass" theory also means that the remainder of the student body needs to see enough black faces so that they can benefit from "diversity."
Following this, er, "logic," doesn't it stand to reason that those "political" DOJ employees were just trying to create a "critical mass" of conservative hires? Y'know, make sure there was no "hostile environment" for them? So that the conservatives could benefit from the DOJ's "diversity?"
Just another notch in the belt that shows the utter illogic of liberal thought.
The full DOJ report is here (.PDF file).
Barack Obama, while speaking in Albuquerque, NM, repeated an oft-cited total myth, but still used by "good" progressives everywhere:
It starts with equal pay. 62 percent of working women in America earn half - or more than half - of their family's income. But women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In 2008, you'd think that Washington would be united in its determination to fight for equal pay. That's why I was proud to co-sponsor the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which would have reversed last year's Supreme Court decision, which made it more difficult for women to challenge pay discrimination on the job.
Obama goes on to criticize John McCain's view of that SCOTUS decision, saying that he "suggested that the reason women don't have equal pay isn't discrimination on the job - it's because they need more education and training. That's just totally wrong." It is?
That "77 cents to the dollar" (or whatever the figure du jour is) canard is meant to convey the belief -- MYTH, actually -- that women are being discriminated against by those nasty 'ol males in the workplace. Obama buys this hooey, and backs [unnecessary] legislation to "undue" it. But here's the deal:
The 74 (77 now, according to Obama) percent figure is derived by comparing the average median wage of all full-time working men and women. To obtain figures for individual states, average wages of men and women within that state are compared. So older workers are compared to younger, social workers to police officers, and, since full-time means any number of hours above 35 a week (and sometimes fewer), those working 60-hour weeks are compared with those working 35-hour weeks. These estimates fail to consider key factors in determining wages, including education, age, experience, and, perhaps most importantly, consecutive years in the workforce.
But this average wage gap, as it is known, says nothing about whether individuals with the same qualifications who are in the same jobs are discriminated against.
How much less do equally-qualified women make? Surprisingly, given all the misused statistics to the contrary, they make about the same. Economists have long known that the adjusted wage gap between men and women--the difference in wages adjusted for occupation, age, experience, education, and time in the workforce--is far smaller than the average wage gap.
The wage gap shrinks dramatically when multiple factors are considered. Women with similar levels of education and experience earn as much as their male counterparts. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, economics professor June O'Neill found that, among people ages twenty-seven to thirty-three who have never had a child, women's earnings are close to 98 percent of men's.
In other words, this "average wage gap" of which Obama speaks is mostly due to the life and employment choices that women make. Women choose to exit the workforce for a time to have children. Women tend to choose lower paying jobs (like teaching, ahem) as a whole than men. And so on. But when men and women of similar education and experience and job type are compared, the "gap" is about a mere two percent as noted above.
Is that 2% of a concern? Well, sure, but discrimination doesn't account for all of that remaining figure, only a portion of it. In other words, it could account for less than one percent of the actual wage gap between men and women. Which sort of makes Obama's criticism of that mentioned SCOTUS decision sorta silly, doesn't it?
Such a figure is just too tiny, eh Mr. Obama? But you can't get the electorate juiced about "discrimination against women" using "less than one percent," eh?
Here's what you do when you haven't produced anything worthwhile in some time: Take potshots at those who have.
Clint Eastwood folds his gangly frame behind a clifftop table at the Hotel Du Cap, a few miles up the coast from Cannes, sighs deeply, and squints out over the Mediterranean. "Has he ever studied the history?" he asks, in that familiar near-whisper.
The "he" is Spike Lee, and the reason Eastwood is asking is because of something Lee had said about Eastwood's Iwo Jima movie Flags of Our Fathers, while promoting his own war movie, Miracle at St Anna, about a black US unit in the second world war. Lee had noted the lack of African-Americans in Eastwood's movie and told reporters: "That was his version. The negro version did not exist."
Eastwood has no time for Lee's gripes. "He was complaining when I did Bird [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker]. Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that's why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else." As for Flags of Our Fathers, he says, yes, there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima as a part of a munitions company, "but they didn't raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."
If you haven't seen either of Eastwood's excellent movies, "Flags of Our Fathers" details what happened to the soldiers who raised the American flag at Iwo Jima (one of which, by the way, was a Native American ... that doesn't satisfy Spike, of course), and "Letters from Iwo Jima" was told from the Japanese perspective (and had minimal American soldier appearances).
The ever-race controversy conscious MSM quickly picked up on the story, too. Today, CNN reported on the "spat," and interviewed a few people about it. What might you think the opinion would be of a guy whose title is "Director of the Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics at UCLA?" You guessed it:
Mark Sawyer, Director of the Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics at UCLA asserts Lee's take on Eastwood's films has merit.
MARK SAWYER, DIRECTOR, UCLA: It's a fair criticism in general about films about World War II and American wars in general. Clint Eastwood's films was sort of bearing the burden of hundreds of films about World War II that have ignored the presence of African-American troops.
So, because other films in the past were historically inaccurate and/or ignored the [rightful] role of African-Americans, Eastwood's historically accurate films must "bear that burden?"
Only to "Directors of Centers for the Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics" and others who bow down to what culturally politically correct.
Of course, the Gray Lady notes this with the headline "Thoughts on Tweaking the ‘War on Terror’ Message."
“It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this,” Under Secretary Charles E. Allen said, adding that it spreads “animus” far beyond the enemy.
It's also "interpreted" by a significant portion of Muslim world that Jews are the personification of evil and that Israel should be eradicated. So?
Where in the phrase "War on Terror" is Islam mentioned? Oh, I get it! It's because at the present time the WoT is actually focused on radical Muslim terrorists! How DARE we "imply" we're battling radical Islam -- even though the term actually .... DOESN'T!!
Clear enough yet? GOOD! Because that's what asinine political correctness DOES -- makes us look like ASSES.
The "Electro-Sensitive." I kid you not.
A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they're allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings.
Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones.
"I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away," he said.
Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination. (Link.)
Do these folks have TVs? What about the innumerable radio signals that saturate urban areas, um, like constantly? Indeed, as this commenter says:
If they are allergic to wireless internet and cell phones due to electro sensitivity, that would mean eliminating tv and radio signals as well. We would pretty much have to eliminate everything that sends a signal. That just isn't possible. I can't tolerate pollen or dust well. Asking the city to ban it legally isn't logical.
I can't handle pollen either. Maybe I'll just sue, dammit. It's the American Way, after all.
In this editorial.
Oh gee. Obama is upset:
In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
Obama thought those remarks were directed at him. I wonder why? After all, Obama has said he would meet "unconditionally" with leaders such as Iran's President Ahmadinejad. But in response to President Bush, Obama said
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
How could George Bush "know" that, Mr. Obama -- when you yourself said the precise opposite?? Not only did you say you would "engage" with folks like Ahmadinejad, you said you'd do so unconditionally!
How 'bout Jimmy Carter on the Palestinians:
I don’t consider... I wasn’t equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism. But when the Palestinians commit terrorist acts, and I mean when a person blows himself up within a bus full of civilians, or when the target of the operation is women and children – such acts create a rejection of the Palestinians among those who care about them. It turns the world away from sympathy and support for the Palestinian people. That’s why I said that acts of terrorism like I just described are suicidal for the popularity and support for the Palestinian cause.
How do you like that? Missiles launched from Palestinian lands against Israel are "not terrorism" according to Carter. But ... someone blowing themselves up on a crowded bus is?? But ... what if those "not-equal-to-terrorism" Palestinian missiles just happen to, y'know, land in the middle of an Israeli apartment complex?
But Carter is right on the other point: If the Palestinians will cease their terrorism, they'll get a lot more popular support. But what Carter leaves out: It also means that Israel will then begin negotiating in earnest about Palestinian independence and return of certain lands.
I think the reason is that the U.S. wants to topple Hamas and [believes] that if it punishes the Palestinian people severely, the Palestinians will have to change their minds. I don’t know how true this is, but it’s not legal, proper, or morally right to deprive an entire people of the basic necessities of life, because they participated in a democratic process and voted freely.
(Video of Carter here, by the way.)
So, because people participated in a democratic process and voted freely -- for a violent terror group dedicated to an entire people's destruction -- it has to be "honored?" Since when? Give me a royal break.
Al Franken to pay $70,000 in back taxes.
The comedian-turned-Democratic politician announced on Tuesday that he will be paying $70,000 in back taxes and penalties in 17 states after several weeks in which the campaign downplayed the amount of money that his company owed and changed the reasons for why the taxes (and workers' compensation insurance) had not been paid. During this period of time, Franken has also been avoiding publicly commenting about the controversy, instead relying on his surrogates to offer explanations.
Initially, it appeared that the back taxes were limited to one state (California) and as a result of a minor clerical error. Now, with Franken’s decision to pay back taxes in 17 states, it appears it is more widespread.
Franken's excuse? "His accountant’s error." Uh huh.
Is there a more UNfunny guy than Franken? I think the only time I actually laughed at him (it was more like laughing at the title of a skit featuring him) on "Saturday Night Live" was during the original cast's era. They were "advertising" for upcoming new NBC fall shows and the one featuring Al was called "Frankenberg and O'Davis," (co-starring longtime cohort Tom Davis) about an "Odd Couple"-like rabbi and priest.
... but of course, it's only because George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson had the GALL to ask Barack Obama tough questions on a national stage.
Hey kavips -- where was this call when, of all people, Keith Olbermann hosted a debate among the GOP candidates? (Who, along with former Democrat staffer Chris Matthews, asked some of the most ridiculous questions ever witnessed on a political stage?) Where was this call when all the Democrat candidates boycotted Fox News? (The GOP sure had little hassle appearing on MSNBC or any other network.)
kavips masks his call for a boycott of ABC in that he is tired of "all" the media treating people as if they're stupid. (And, at least his reaction wasn't as totally pathetic as that of these cretins.) How convenient the timing, though. Just look at the lefty blogosphere's reaction to the recent Dem debate to the frenzied nuttery over Fox News. Notice any similarities? It's easy -- Fox was (is) a threat to the long-enjoyed liberal media monopoly, and Stephanopoulis's and Gibson's questions to Barack Obama were a stunning reversal from the usual softballs such major media figures throw Dems' way.
My advice: Grow some stones. Stop your crying. It's only going to get rougher. You should actually thank Charles and George for asking those questions now rather than later so Obama won't get tripped up closer to the actual election. As Hillary Clinton recently stated, if Obama can't handle the piddly questions given to him the other day by "friendly" media, how's he gonna handle the pressure of the White House?
I suppose we should be understanding. IT'S SCARY for them, folks. When you've had things go your way for SO LONG, such a turn of events can be frightening.
But for some reason, I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for you ...
UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg nails it:
The essence of the complaint against Gibson and Stephanopoulos is that they asked wedge issue questions partially intended to trip up Obama and put him on the wrong side of various culture issues in ways that conform to Republican tactics or politics. Or something like that.
Okay, complain away, I did. But I think a lot of folks fail to understand that the first 45 minutes of the debate were aimed at superdelegates, not PA voters.
But where were these people during all of those Republican debates when Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, various Youtubers and the like were constantly trying to trip Republicans in very similar ways?
The key distinction is that when Gibson & Stephanopoulos asked their questions they could rationalize their actions by saying "this is what Republicans will ask." But when the press asks these sorts of questions of Republican candidates we're told it's simply "good journalism."
Oh gosh. Their neighbors are "snobby":
Known as the "Shameless" family among horrified neighbours, the McFaddens "boast" three generations of adults who are not working.
All ten members of the clan share a council house and live off benefits amounting to around £32,000 a year. And very happy they are, too.
Matriarch is grandmother Sue McFadden, 54. "Our neighbours are so snobby - they call us the 'Shameless' family and say that we ought to go out to work. But how can we work when we have all these children to look after? The only problem is," she says without a hint of irony, "that we're living in a three-bedroom council house, which is ridiculous.
"I'm asking the council for a ten-bedroom home for all of us. We need more space. It's awful sometimes when all the children are squabbling. Still, we do have a big TV with Sky, but we need some relaxation."
And are you ready? Approximately six million British are living in a similar situation. A government adviser is quoted as saying it is a "terrible legacy" such, er, "parents" are leaving their kids. Uh, 'ya think?
Sue herself is defiant. "People don't understand how hard it is to keep a family like this going - no wonder we can't work. How could I go out to work with all these children at home? Local people call us scroungers and that is so unfair. We need the money to keep the family going."
The AP writes:
When shooting suspect Christopher Williams acted up in prison, he was given nutraloaf — a mixture of cubed whole wheat bread, nondairy cheese, raw carrots, spinach, seedless raisins, beans, vegetable oil, tomato paste, powdered milk and dehydrated potato flakes.
Prison officials call it a complete meal. Inmates say it's so awful they'd rather go hungry.
On Monday, the Vermont Supreme Court will hear arguments in a class-action suit brought by inmates who say it's not food but punishment and that anyone subjected to it should get a formal disciplinary process first.
Seth Lipschutz, an attorney with Vermont's Prisoner's Rights office, says the state has a legitimate interest in changing the behavior of inmates who misbehave.
But he says a diet of nutraloaf is punishment, plain and simple. To call it anything else is "playing with words to get what they want. It's wrong and it's sad," Lipschutz said.
Williams, 29, who is charged in a 2006 school shooting that killed two people in Essex, was given nutraloaf after he'd assaulted guards and smeared excrement in his cell.
Yes indeed. I'm entirely certain that the general public at large is just so incredibly concerned and saddened at how such inmates are "mistreated." How dare multiple murderers who assault prison guards be given poor-tasting food? OUTRAGEOUS!
As a certain demolition driver says, "'Ya gotta be jackin' me!"