The Colossus of Rhodey http://colossus.mu.nu/ Culture warriors with an ersatz ne'er-do-well attitude. en-us colossusofrhodey@gmail.com Copyright 2012 2012-02-10T16:24:32-05:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Tweet of the Day II http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326602.php Jonah Goldberg: So it sounds like Obama's "accommodation" is like Darth Vader's alteration of his deal with Lando. 326602@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Jonah Goldberg:

So it sounds like Obama's "accommodation" is like Darth Vader's alteration of his deal with Lando.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

]]> Tweet of the Day 2012-02-10T16:24:32-05:00 Tweet of the Day http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326599.php Christine O'Donnell shows off her prodigious intellect: Although we support different candidates, Victoria & I agree Obama's got to go! How about that! COD, a Republican, wants Obama out! 326599@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Christine O'Donnell shows off her prodigious intellect:

Although we support different candidates, Victoria & I agree Obama's got to go!

How about that! COD, a Republican, wants Obama out!

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

]]> Tweet of the Day 2012-02-10T15:45:58-05:00 It's not a popularity contest http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326598.php That's what Michael Potemra rightly says today about the controversy over religious hospitals, etc. being forced to provide health coverage that runs counter to their religious doctrine. I've see/heard a lot of "progressive" supporters of the Obama administration's position make this case, such that it is -- that a "majority of Catholics" agree with the president, and that "a majority of Catholics use birth control." To which I say, "So what??" Or, as Potemra lays out: But this approach betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of human rights — the American understanding of which is not one of “group rights” but one of individual rights. Consider, for example, a handful of local moderate Muslims who want to build a mosque in a particular county. Let’s say, arguendo, that opponents of the mosque conduct a national poll of Muslims, in which it turns out most American Muslims don’t want a mosque built by that small group, some of them because they would rather have a more sharia-compliant, pro-Wahhabi mosque built there. Would that hypothetical national Muslim majority have a right to veto the religious free exercise of that little group of Muslims who want their own mosque? Of course not. Similarly, think of the famous controversy in the 1940s about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Pledge of Allegiance. What if a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses said, “Darn it, we want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, even though the church disapproves!”? Would that make it okay for the state to force the ones who agreed with their church’s teaching to say the Pledge? Or, let's take an example straight out of the news this week: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Proposition 8 in California -- effectively nullifying not only a poll of popular sentiment, but an actual popular referendum. "Progressives" the land-over celebrated the decision. But ... the popular will was against them. Yet, "progressives" now use the popularity factor as a supposed legitimate basis for keeping Obama's healthcare mandate. UPDATE: Obama has offered a compromise. But opponents are not happy with it. Peter Kirsanow says about it, "Everything You Need to Know about the HHS Mandate ‘Compromise’: 1. The administration thinks Americans are idiots; 2. The administration is confident it will be assisted in its chicanery by the mainstream media." Indeed. How can Obama say that insurance companies will "now handle the contraception coverage," but yet it's the religious-oriented employers who PAY for the insurance?? Kirsanow's 100% correct. Tweet 326598@http://colossus.mu.nu/ That's what Michael Potemra rightly says today about the controversy over religious hospitals, etc. being forced to provide health coverage that runs counter to their religious doctrine. I've see/heard a lot of "progressive" supporters of the Obama administration's position make this case, such that it is -- that a "majority of Catholics" agree with the president, and that "a majority of Catholics use birth control." To which I say, "So what??" Or, as Potemra lays out:

But this approach betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of human rights — the American understanding of which is not one of “group rights” but one of individual rights. Consider, for example, a handful of local moderate Muslims who want to build a mosque in a particular county. Let’s say, arguendo, that opponents of the mosque conduct a national poll of Muslims, in which it turns out most American Muslims don’t want a mosque built by that small group, some of them because they would rather have a more sharia-compliant, pro-Wahhabi mosque built there. Would that hypothetical national Muslim majority have a right to veto the religious free exercise of that little group of Muslims who want their own mosque? Of course not.

Similarly, think of the famous controversy in the 1940s about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Pledge of Allegiance. What if a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses said, “Darn it, we want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, even though the church disapproves!”? Would that make it okay for the state to force the ones who agreed with their church’s teaching to say the Pledge?

Or, let's take an example straight out of the news this week: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Proposition 8 in California -- effectively nullifying not only a poll of popular sentiment, but an actual popular referendum. "Progressives" the land-over celebrated the decision. But ... the popular will was against them. Yet, "progressives" now use the popularity factor as a supposed legitimate basis for keeping Obama's healthcare mandate.

UPDATE: Obama has offered a compromise. But opponents are not happy with it. Peter Kirsanow says about it, "Everything You Need to Know about the HHS Mandate ‘Compromise’: 1. The administration thinks Americans are idiots; 2. The administration is confident it will be assisted in its chicanery by the mainstream media."

Indeed. How can Obama say that insurance companies will "now handle the contraception coverage," but yet it's the religious-oriented employers who PAY for the insurance?? Kirsanow's 100% correct.


TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

]]> Obama Lameness 2012-02-10T15:36:08-05:00 Watcher's Council results http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326586.php *First place with 3 2/3 votes! Joshuapundit – Glorifying Evil Second place *t* with 2 1/3 votes – The Mellow Jihadi- Slab City, Navy Town Third place *t* with 1 vote – The Razor- Automate This – The Nature of Work in the 21st Century Third place *t* with 1 vote – VA Right!- For Unto Whom Much is Given Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Colossus of Rhodey-OK to rip the KKK; al Qaeda, not so muchFourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Noisy Room-On the Road to Armageddon – Moving Ragnarok to the Middle East Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Political Commentator – Obama: Are Jews finally catching on? Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Bookworm Room –The Narcissistic Mindset of Today’s World Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Simply Jews –Tehran: HOT under the collar Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – New Zeal –“Iran’s Latin America Ties Pose Threat to US” Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Rhymes With Right – Is The Tea Party Dead? The non-Council winner was Armed Forces Journal with Truth, lies and Afghanistan. Full results are here. Tweet 326586@http://colossus.mu.nu/
  • *First place with 3 2/3 votes! Joshuapundit – Glorifying Evil
  • Second place *t* with 2 1/3 votes – The Mellow Jihadi- Slab City, Navy Town
  • Third place *t* with 1 vote – The Razor- Automate This – The Nature of Work in the 21st Century
  • Third place *t* with 1 vote – VA Right!- For Unto Whom Much is Given
  • Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Colossus of Rhodey-OK to rip the KKK; al Qaeda, not so much
  • Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Noisy Room-On the Road to Armageddon – Moving Ragnarok to the Middle East
  • Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Political Commentator – Obama: Are Jews finally catching on?
  • Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Bookworm Room –The Narcissistic Mindset of Today’s World
  • Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Simply Jews –Tehran: HOT under the collar
  • Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – New Zeal –“Iran’s Latin America Ties Pose Threat to US”
  • Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Rhymes With Right – Is The Tea Party Dead?

    • The non-Council winner was Armed Forces Journal with Truth, lies and Afghanistan.

    Full results are here.


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Blogging 2012-02-10T15:27:14-05:00     Dance over time http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326553.php Tweet 326553@http://colossus.mu.nu/


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Culture 2012-02-08T20:02:58-05:00     The criminalization of America http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326547.php Interesting graphic here courtesy of reader Frank E. Tweet 326547@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Interesting graphic here courtesy of reader Frank E.


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Culture 2012-02-08T17:39:12-05:00     Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326546.php Thomas Reynolds of Wilmington, while reflecting a good sentiment, makes a whopper of an error: The United States of America was founded as an Anglo-Saxon country with English as the official language and Christianity as the dominant religion. Sorry Tom, the United States has no official lingo. Never has. English is the dominant language. Only. Tweet 326546@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Thomas Reynolds of Wilmington, while reflecting a good sentiment, makes a whopper of an error:

    The United States of America was founded as an Anglo-Saxon country with English as the official language and Christianity as the dominant religion.

    Sorry Tom, the United States has no official lingo. Never has. English is the dominant language. Only.


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Dopey WNJ Letters 2012-02-08T17:25:14-05:00     Just a bit of driving information for y'all http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326545.php When you're driving on a four-lane road -- y'know, two lanes in each direction -- the two lanes approaching a school bus DO NOT HAVE TO STOP for the bus's flashing red lights. Repeat: DO NOT. In the last week I have seen (no joke) five instances where traffic in both directions stopped in such a situation. In one of those, a car beeped its horn at me because I actually followed the rules of the road and kept moving (I was going in the opposite direction of the bus). And just in case you think I'm full of doo-doo, check it: (d)(1) Overtaking and passing school bus. -- When a school bus is stopped and displays flashing lamps in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, the driver of any vehicle approaching the school bus from the front or from the rear shall stop before passing the bus and remain stopped until such bus begins to move or no longer has the red stop lamps activated. On roadway or roadways with 4 or more lanes, the driver approaching from the front shall not stop. Thank you very much. Tweet 326545@http://colossus.mu.nu/ When you're driving on a four-lane road -- y'know, two lanes in each direction -- the two lanes approaching a school bus DO NOT HAVE TO STOP for the bus's flashing red lights. Repeat: DO NOT. In the last week I have seen (no joke) five instances where traffic in both directions stopped in such a situation. In one of those, a car beeped its horn at me because I actually followed the rules of the road and kept moving (I was going in the opposite direction of the bus).

    And just in case you think I'm full of doo-doo, check it:

    (d)(1) Overtaking and passing school bus. -- When a school bus is stopped and displays flashing lamps in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, the driver of any vehicle approaching the school bus from the front or from the rear shall stop before passing the bus and remain stopped until such bus begins to move or no longer has the red stop lamps activated. On roadway or roadways with 4 or more lanes, the driver approaching from the front shall not stop.

    Thank you very much.


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Culture 2012-02-08T17:19:56-05:00     Good to know these folks are on our high court http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326518.php Via Hans Bader: "Liberal Justices Complain About American Law Being Too Protective of Civil Liberties and Colorblindness." In it, we read that some of our "progressive" justices aren't very keen on the document they're sworn to uphold: When describing the nature of a constitution, Justice Ginsburg did appropriately recognize the importance of a constitution and the duty of the citizens to defend it. Justice Ginsburg did not, unfortunately, take her own advice. She undermined insight of its crafters and stated, “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution.” (Link) What makes South Africa's constitution, for example, so admirable to Ginsburg? Let's see: South Africans have the right to "make decisions concerning reproduction," "form a political party," or "form and join a trade union." The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. It also stipulates that citizens have the right to housing and adequate healthcare. As you can see, the above is a statist's wet dream come true. South Africa's constitution contains so-called "positive rights" -- rights that "affirmatively provide socio-economic necessities." Human rights groups divide rights into three "generations," the second and third of which are the so-called "positive" ones: First generation rights are political and civil, and are usually negative rights. Second generation rights involve the government's socio-economic obligations, and are frequently positive rights. Finally, third generation rights are exemplified by the right to a clean and healthy environment, and are commonly called "green" rights. I'm fascinated as to how governments would be obligated to provide -- and that's what it is, after all -- these rights. Can people sue if they've lost their home and there's no shelter immediately available? The SA constitution's Section 10 protects "human dignity;" is it "dignified" to live in a small phone booth-sized room which is a government-provided "positive right?" Who gets to determine what is "dignified?" If you're Ginsburg and those who constructed the SA constitution, it's the government -- specifically the courts. The government can merely insist such a situation is "dignified," despite it obviously not being so, so you can see the inherent contradictions that occur when modern "progressives" get to devise a foundational legal document. In addition, Section 12 of the Bill of Rights addresses the "freedom and security of the person." This section specifically bans torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, general violence, detention without trial, and deprivation of freedom without just cause. Nevertheless, despite a recent drop in some areas of crime, South Africa remains one of the most violent countries on the planet. Who do people sue in court for the government's failure to enforce the ban on "general violence?" Again, the courts do. Consider: "The Court's overall responsibility is to determine whether the infringement on the right is proportional to the resulting societal benefit." You can see how such power can be infinitely greater in the hands of such jurists as opposed to those here in the US. The US Constitution's First Amendment for example, virtually unique among legal concepts worldwide, could be vastly misapplied were it in the hands of SA judges. SA judges, like many jurists in other countries, are permitted to use precedents from other countries to justify their decisions. So, since so-called "hate speech" is illegal in many countries, SA-style judges could use these international legal bases to essentially dismantle our free speech rights. Remember -- is "the infringement on the right proportional to the resulting societal benefit?" You can bet that SA-style judges would rule "no;" in other words, the societal benefit, in their minds, would be greater if "hate speech" were disallowed. Whereas, of course, many others would -- rightly, in my opinion -- claim that the suppression of speech is a greater negative to society than a benefit, especially since the question is, as always, "who gets to decide what's 'hateful?'" Do we want our courts continually to decide such matters for us? An even bigger question is, how is this the essence of freedom?? Mark Steyn puts it thusly: The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state’s Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at. Then there's the UK forbidding a group to advertise that God can heal illnesses. Obviously, for Sweden, Canada and the UK (and the list is endless, really), the infringement on those individual rights wasn't "proportional" to the resulting "societal benefit." But, again, it's the societal benefit that "progressives" believe in. And now, this philosophy is really beginning to assert itself here in the US: The Obama administration has mandated that religious-oriented employers (not actual churches or institutions) provide contraception, birth control and drugs that may assist abortion. This is almost unprecedented in its legal audacity, not to mention that it has actually served to unite, however briefly, many people on both sides of the political aisle. Nevertheless, witness: Separation of church and state -- for "progressives" -- is of paramount import ... unless THEY deem it otherwise. A kid bringing a Bible to public school runs counter to the "societal benefit," but forcing people to act completely contrary to their conscience is as well. Go figure. Our system of government -- our Constitution -- indeed may not be ideal, or the "best," for other countries. If a country doesn't have a tradition of democratic principles, it'd be difficult to see it formally incorporate such a model. But it's distressing to see one of our Supreme Court justices demean our founding document's greatness by not pointing out its unique -- and most important -- emphasis on individual liberties. For, if these are not protected, then eventually -- inexorably -- even those "positive rights" that the "progressives" adore will vanish ... all at the whim of The State. Tweet 326518@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Via Hans Bader: "Liberal Justices Complain About American Law Being Too Protective of Civil Liberties and Colorblindness." In it, we read that some of our "progressive" justices aren't very keen on the document they're sworn to uphold:

    When describing the nature of a constitution, Justice Ginsburg did appropriately recognize the importance of a constitution and the duty of the citizens to defend it. Justice Ginsburg did not, unfortunately, take her own advice. She undermined insight of its crafters and stated, “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution.” (Link)

    What makes South Africa's constitution, for example, so admirable to Ginsburg? Let's see:

    South Africans have the right to "make decisions concerning reproduction," "form a political party," or "form and join a trade union."

    The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.

    It also stipulates that citizens have the right to housing and adequate healthcare.

    As you can see, the above is a statist's wet dream come true. South Africa's constitution contains so-called "positive rights" -- rights that "affirmatively provide socio-economic necessities." Human rights groups divide rights into three "generations," the second and third of which are the so-called "positive" ones:

    First generation rights are political and civil, and are usually negative rights. Second generation rights involve the government's socio-economic obligations, and are frequently positive rights. Finally, third generation rights are exemplified by the right to a clean and healthy environment, and are commonly called "green" rights.

    I'm fascinated as to how governments would be obligated to provide -- and that's what it is, after all -- these rights. Can people sue if they've lost their home and there's no shelter immediately available? The SA constitution's Section 10 protects "human dignity;" is it "dignified" to live in a small phone booth-sized room which is a government-provided "positive right?" Who gets to determine what is "dignified?" If you're Ginsburg and those who constructed the SA constitution, it's the government -- specifically the courts. The government can merely insist such a situation is "dignified," despite it obviously not being so, so you can see the inherent contradictions that occur when modern "progressives" get to devise a foundational legal document. In addition,

    Section 12 of the Bill of Rights addresses the "freedom and security of the person." This section specifically bans torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, general violence, detention without trial, and deprivation of freedom without just cause.

    Nevertheless, despite a recent drop in some areas of crime, South Africa remains one of the most violent countries on the planet. Who do people sue in court for the government's failure to enforce the ban on "general violence?"

    Again, the courts do. Consider: "The Court's overall responsibility is to determine whether the infringement on the right is proportional to the resulting societal benefit." You can see how such power can be infinitely greater in the hands of such jurists as opposed to those here in the US. The US Constitution's First Amendment for example, virtually unique among legal concepts worldwide, could be vastly misapplied were it in the hands of SA judges. SA judges, like many jurists in other countries, are permitted to use precedents from other countries to justify their decisions. So, since so-called "hate speech" is illegal in many countries, SA-style judges could use these international legal bases to essentially dismantle our free speech rights. Remember -- is "the infringement on the right proportional to the resulting societal benefit?" You can bet that SA-style judges would rule "no;" in other words, the societal benefit, in their minds, would be greater if "hate speech" were disallowed. Whereas, of course, many others would -- rightly, in my opinion -- claim that the suppression of speech is a greater negative to society than a benefit, especially since the question is, as always, "who gets to decide what's 'hateful?'" Do we want our courts continually to decide such matters for us? An even bigger question is, how is this the essence of freedom?? Mark Steyn puts it thusly:

    The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state’s Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at.

    Then there's the UK forbidding a group to advertise that God can heal illnesses. Obviously, for Sweden, Canada and the UK (and the list is endless, really), the infringement on those individual rights wasn't "proportional" to the resulting "societal benefit." But, again, it's the societal benefit that "progressives" believe in. And now, this philosophy is really beginning to assert itself here in the US: The Obama administration has mandated that religious-oriented employers (not actual churches or institutions) provide contraception, birth control and drugs that may assist abortion. This is almost unprecedented in its legal audacity, not to mention that it has actually served to unite, however briefly, many people on both sides of the political aisle.

    Nevertheless, witness: Separation of church and state -- for "progressives" -- is of paramount import ... unless THEY deem it otherwise. A kid bringing a Bible to public school runs counter to the "societal benefit," but forcing people to act completely contrary to their conscience is as well. Go figure.

    Our system of government -- our Constitution -- indeed may not be ideal, or the "best," for other countries. If a country doesn't have a tradition of democratic principles, it'd be difficult to see it formally incorporate such a model. But it's distressing to see one of our Supreme Court justices demean our founding document's greatness by not pointing out its unique -- and most important -- emphasis on individual liberties. For, if these are not protected, then eventually -- inexorably -- even those "positive rights" that the "progressives" adore will vanish ... all at the whim of The State.


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Law 2012-02-08T17:14:03-05:00     OK to rip the KKK; al Qaeda, not so much http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326517.php Cool little tidbit today over at Robot 6 about a 1946 Superman radio show that took on the Ku Klux Klan -- certainly ballsy considering the time period. Fast forward to the 2000s where creator Frank Miller wanted to have Batman take on ... al Qaeda. Then, Miller had to move his project elsewhere as DC executives were "squeamish" about the story. And after Miller altered the story (putting in out under a different label and changing some names), people are still upset. Like here: Having read the book, I can only describe it as anti-Muslim propaganda of the worst type. The Muslim characters portrayed are uniformly bloodthirsty, deceitful and misogynistic, displaying total hatred of non-Muslims. Also see here. Yeah, I bet countless people in 1946 were upset that the Superman serial was "anti-white propaganda of the worst type," right? Please. Somehow, in our modern age, it's acceptable -- even laudable -- to portray a mainstream political movement like the Tea Party as a threat to American society, but when someone rightly portrays a group like al Qaeda for what it truly is, well-o-well, then the usual "progressive" political correctness kicks in with a vengeance! I like Douglas Ernst's take: Frank Miller’s Holy Terror: If You Hate It, Blame The Terrorists. The Comics Alliance review by David Brothers asserts that the work is bigoted, the artwork at times incoherent in indecipherable. He complains about a panel of oblivious, Transformers-watching American teens juxtaposed against the stoning of a woman in the Middle East. Dear David, The artwork is incoherent and sloppy at times (and at times truly touching) because it reflects the confused and complex feelings of the artist. It’s in black and white, but it’s still difficult to follow—just like the subject of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism! Detached, clueless teenagers who say “Kewl” and “Awesome” in Holy Terror are propped up against a stoning because real life Americans are clueless and detached from the very real stonings and state sponsored murders that go on today in places like Iran. For the first time in a comic book, someone had the guts to shed light on the barbaric practices going on, in 2011, in the Middle East. Bravo. (This too, sickens David Brothers.) In a word: Yep. Seriously -- al Qaeda is pure evil. Just like the KKK is pure evil. Why is the former so hard for some to accept? Tweet 326517@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Cool little tidbit today over at Robot 6 about a 1946 Superman radio show that took on the Ku Klux Klan -- certainly ballsy considering the time period. Fast forward to the 2000s where creator Frank Miller wanted to have Batman take on ... al Qaeda. Then, Miller had to move his project elsewhere as DC executives were "squeamish" about the story. And after Miller altered the story (putting in out under a different label and changing some names), people are still upset. Like here:

    Having read the book, I can only describe it as anti-Muslim propaganda of the worst type. The Muslim characters portrayed are uniformly bloodthirsty, deceitful and misogynistic, displaying total hatred of non-Muslims.

    Also see here.

    Yeah, I bet countless people in 1946 were upset that the Superman serial was "anti-white propaganda of the worst type," right? Please.

    Somehow, in our modern age, it's acceptable -- even laudable -- to portray a mainstream political movement like the Tea Party as a threat to American society, but when someone rightly portrays a group like al Qaeda for what it truly is, well-o-well, then the usual "progressive" political correctness kicks in with a vengeance! I like Douglas Ernst's take:

    Frank Miller’s Holy Terror: If You Hate It, Blame The Terrorists.

    The Comics Alliance review by David Brothers asserts that the work is bigoted, the artwork at times incoherent in indecipherable. He complains about a panel of oblivious, Transformers-watching American teens juxtaposed against the stoning of a woman in the Middle East.

    Dear David,

    The artwork is incoherent and sloppy at times (and at times truly touching) because it reflects the confused and complex feelings of the artist. It’s in black and white, but it’s still difficult to follow—just like the subject of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism! Detached, clueless teenagers who say “Kewl” and “Awesome” in Holy Terror are propped up against a stoning because real life Americans are clueless and detached from the very real stonings and state sponsored murders that go on today in places like Iran.

    For the first time in a comic book, someone had the guts to shed light on the barbaric practices going on, in 2011, in the Middle East. Bravo. (This too, sickens David Brothers.)

    In a word: Yep. Seriously -- al Qaeda is pure evil. Just like the KKK is pure evil. Why is the former so hard for some to accept?


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

    Comments on this Entry:

    (Cav on Feb 7, 2012 7:16 PM) And no one really seemed to have a problem with the evil Americans in Avatar!

    ]]>     Comics 2012-02-07T16:54:10-05:00     Get a freakin' LIFE! http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326492.php 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. Tweet 326492@http://colossus.mu.nu/ 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.


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     "Progressive" hypocrisy 2012-02-06T19:41:50-05:00     More GIANTS! http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326490.php To follow up on Duffy's post, I too want to give a shout out to the G-Men for their second consecutive Super Bowl victory over the hated Patriots. Why "hated?" Simply put, because they denied my beloved Rams a place on the mantle of greatness by besting them in Super Bowl 36. They shouldn't have even been there (remember the infamous "Tuck Rule" call?), and then there was the whole issue of videotaping the Rams' practices and late hits (beyond five yards) on the Rams' receivers the whole game. Yes -- they deserve kudos for the game they played; they would have lost nine out of ten to that 2001 Rams team, though. Don't worry, Bill -- Mike Martz looked like this after Super Bowl 36. Tweet 326490@http://colossus.mu.nu/ To follow up on Duffy's post, I too want to give a shout out to the G-Men for their second consecutive Super Bowl victory over the hated Patriots. Why "hated?" Simply put, because they denied my beloved Rams a place on the mantle of greatness by besting them in Super Bowl 36. They shouldn't have even been there (remember the infamous "Tuck Rule" call?), and then there was the whole issue of videotaping the Rams' practices and late hits (beyond five yards) on the Rams' receivers the whole game. Yes -- they deserve kudos for the game they played; they would have lost nine out of ten to that 2001 Rams team, though.


    Don't worry, Bill -- Mike Martz looked like this after Super Bowl 36.


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Sports 2012-02-06T18:59:17-05:00     News roundup http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326484.php 326484@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Remember when Global Warming was killing the coral reefs across the globe?  Not so much: Scientists say WA reef growth unsustainable

    Scientists are finally asking the question:  What do dead salmon think about when they see pictures of humans?

    In sports:  Was Bill The Cheater's call the "ballsiest call in Superbowl history?"  I'm not so sure but it was damn smart coaching.  As much as I dislike the guy he's a first rate coach.

    Here's an article about the French Art of Parenting.  Intriguing.  

    Liberals always complain that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".  Here's a guy with a tax rate of 102%.  I suspect even that isn't a high enough rate.  

    This one gets my hope up.  The stock market is, in essence, a huge futures market.  That is, spikes or drops today are predictive.  They are estimating what the economy and the market will be like in 12-18 months time.  This article speculates that the recent market spike is a strong indicator that Obama is a one termer.  I really really hope they're right on this one.  I cannot imagine how much more damage Obama will do given a second term and no fears of re-election.  


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     2012-02-06T14:41:23-05:00     GIANTS! http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326481.php Yes! Once again the mighty G-Men denied Bill The Cheater and the Patriots. Tom Brady was smart enough to keep his pre-game bragging in check but it did not help him. Overall I'd call the game lackluster (especially compared to their last meeting) but the ending was a nailbiter. I've attached some images just because. Tweet 326481@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Yes! Once again the mighty G-Men denied Bill The Cheater and the Patriots. Tom Brady was smart enough to keep his pre-game bragging in check but it did not help him.

    Overall I'd call the game lackluster (especially compared to their last meeting) but the ending was a nailbiter.

    I've attached some images just because.

    Sb_jpg_475x310_q85.jpg

    Screen-shot-2012-02-06-at-8.48.09-AM-e1328536172120.jpg

    226679-new-york-giants-win-super-bowl-2012.jpg


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

    Comments on this Entry:

    ]]>     Sports 2012-02-06T14:32:02-05:00     *Sigh* http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/326458.php Watch this video and scratch your head: Some are using this to go after teachers unions. I suppose that's understandable; when we have idiots like this in our profession -- who believe it's their mission to indoctrinate kids instead of educating them, and allowing them to be critical thinkers -- well geez. But allow me another explanation (or two. Or three): [Some] Teachers who really want to hold their students academically accountable can sometimes find "opposition" on two fronts: 1) their administration, and 2) parents. Administration: "Why are your students' grades so low?" Parents: "How can Johnny be failing your class?" Administrators want the "numbers" to look good, and parents (obviously) want their kids' grades to be good, even when they don't actually deserve it. If you were a teacher and faced these ... "obstacles," what would you do? If you're human (and if you're reading this I assume you are), you'd probably want to keep your employment, hence you'd "adjust" some of your methods and/or grading. Granted, this is not a blanket "indictment," so to speak ... many good teachers would battle through these obstacles, and there are many admins and parents who support high standards and sticking to them. In addition, let me offer another tidbit: Kids today have so many more things to occupy their attention than ever before. The Internet. Facebook. Twitter. Cell phones/texting. YouTube. In my school years we had the [rotary] telephone and ... TV (sans cable). We went outside to play -- football, wiffleball, army, "I-Spy," even basic tag ... the only time we remained inside was when it was raining. In "down" times (and when nature called!) I'd grab an encyclopedia or one of those Time-Life books that my parents bought for my sisters and I. I've always had a thirst for general, abstract knowledge. (Ironically, a week ago, a current student of mine in the middle of class said, "Mr. So-and-So said you're that pretty smart -- that when you pop into his class and he has his [science] students ask you questions, you usually always know the answers." I replied, "Really? That was nice of him ... perhaps I get the correct answers because I just like to know things. Don't you like learning new things -- y'know, knowledge just for knowledge's sake?" His retort? "Nah, not really.") So where am I going with this? I suppose it's to say that it's easy to bash teachers for videos like this ... but it's just that: easy. Keep in mind that there are a lot of conservatives in teachers' unions, and that many, many teachers (regardless of politics) do not always share the unions' official stances on matters. In addition, there are myriad factors within and without schools that affect educational progress (or lack thereof). That's all. ;-) Tweet 326458@http://colossus.mu.nu/ Watch this video and scratch your head:

    Some are using this to go after teachers unions. I suppose that's understandable; when we have idiots like this in our profession -- who believe it's their mission to indoctrinate kids instead of educating them, and allowing them to be critical thinkers -- well geez. But allow me another explanation (or two. Or three):

    [Some] Teachers who really want to hold their students academically accountable can sometimes find "opposition" on two fronts: 1) their administration, and 2) parents. Administration: "Why are your students' grades so low?" Parents: "How can Johnny be failing your class?" Administrators want the "numbers" to look good, and parents (obviously) want their kids' grades to be good, even when they don't actually deserve it. If you were a teacher and faced these ... "obstacles," what would you do? If you're human (and if you're reading this I assume you are), you'd probably want to keep your employment, hence you'd "adjust" some of your methods and/or grading. Granted, this is not a blanket "indictment," so to speak ... many good teachers would battle through these obstacles, and there are many admins and parents who support high standards and sticking to them.

    In addition, let me offer another tidbit: Kids today have so many more things to occupy their attention than ever before. The Internet. Facebook. Twitter. Cell phones/texting. YouTube. In my school years we had the [rotary] telephone and ... TV (sans cable). We went outside to play -- football, wiffleball, army, "I-Spy," even basic tag ... the only time we remained inside was when it was raining. In "down" times (and when nature called!) I'd grab an encyclopedia or one of those Time-Life books that my parents bought for my sisters and I. I've always had a thirst for general, abstract knowledge. (Ironically, a week ago, a current student of mine in the middle of class said, "Mr. So-and-So said you're that pretty smart -- that when you pop into his class and he has his [science] students ask you questions, you usually always know the answers." I replied, "Really? That was nice of him ... perhaps I get the correct answers because I just like to know things. Don't you like learning new things -- y'know, knowledge just for knowledge's sake?" His retort? "Nah, not really.")

    So where am I going with this? I suppose it's to say that it's easy to bash teachers for videos like this ... but it's just that: easy. Keep in mind that there are a lot of conservatives in teachers' unions, and that many, many teachers (regardless of politics) do not always share the unions' official stances on matters. In addition, there are myriad factors within and without schools that affect educational progress (or lack thereof).

    That's all. ;-)


    TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

    Comments on this Entry:

    (tennessee walker on Feb 5, 2012 2:55 PM) There are conservatives teaching in public schools but political correctness rules the day especially at the administrative level. In addition liberal propaganda arrives weekly in terms of communications from either the DSEA or the NEA.

    ]]>     Education 2012-02-05T12:26:09-05:00