Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Jerks’ Category

So I have some friends who are screaming about Snowden being a traitor. I have friends who are saying he’s a hero.

To my friends saying he’s a traitor: We’ve had an out-of-control, lawless federal government for the last 5 years, that has been allowed to do so without any real consequence. Sooner or later, it was bound to spill over from the top on to the cogs.

To my friends saying he’s a hero: MAYBE letting the cat out of the bag before the election might have made him a “hero”. He didn’t do that. He admitted to holding back because he thought Obama would be better with this stuff than Romney. So the knowledge of the citizenry of it was still subject to someone’s political considerations…his.

But the questions I want to hear asked and answered are:

1. Who, specifically, decided to use the 4th Amendment as toilet paper on this particular subject?

2. Are our intelligence agencies STILL wiping their butts with our privacy rights?

3. Why are we supposed to think that there were “other avenues” for spilling the beans that would actually be effective when Representative Issa has being “gathering” data on Fast and Furious for how many years?

4. How long before the various organs of government shift from tacitly acting on what it they are learning to openly acting on the knowledge?

5. Is NOTHING sacred? Is NOTHING to be retained by the citizens to themselves, but for the thoughts that they do not speak or write, or does the “terrible burden of governing” come with the expectation that the governors must know all in order to “keep us safe”? And if the answer to the last question is “Yes”, then how long before we the people are relieved of the terrible burden of having to make any choices?

I’d like to see some outrage from the likes of John Boener on the intrusion on our liberties, but I guess that was too much to ask.

Read Full Post »

The world is upside down when the people who make the law show so much contempt for it.

Read Full Post »

The Blaze today has the story of Hustler’s photoshop of S.E. Cupp.  While this is emblematic of the REAL “War on [Conservative] Women”…the one that the usual suspects have no interest in talking about, it has been rightly pointed out that all though Hustler was both good enough to provide a disclaimer next to the photoshop…which will undoubtedly NOT accompany the image as it makes its way around the web, and was also good enough to be honest about the reasons for doing so, in creating this image, they have forever marked her in a graphically sexual manner over a political disagreement.

While the National Organization for Women has not yet issued a statement, it is not anticipated that it will offer anything more than a pro forma protest, if any.

The Hustler explanation states:

S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.

President Obama, who inserted himself in a similar controversy earlier this year when he personally called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law Student and Activist who was called a “slut” on air by Rush Limbaugh, has so far remained silent on this matter.  Fluke, despite voluntarily enrolling at a Catholic school, testified in a public hearing about the need for the school to offer health care plans that would pay for the birth control of female students, which she claimed could cost upwards of $3000 over the course of a standard law school attendance.  The number was claimed to be based not on a standard that would use either condoms, or “generic” birth control pills available at the nearest Target or Wal-Mart Stores, but upon the exceptions to the rule, who claimed the more expensive formulations were necessary to treat other conditions, an explanation not given until after the figure was criticized and ridiculed by Limbaugh and others.  For the school to offer such a plan , it would have to go against church teaching and doctrine on the issue of birth control.

So because Ms. Cupp opposes PUBLIC funding of Klanned Parenthood, an organization that has undoubtedly been of great utility over the years to a readership that was more than happy to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood that would have been incurred by sport screwing and the objectification of women, she deserves to be photoshopped with a penis in her mouth…an image that will undoubtedly be seen one day by her children, and the rest of her family.

It seems a far cry from a January day in Tucson, Arizona when President mustered enough sincerity to say these words with apparent conviction:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

But then talk is cheap, and Ms. Cupp’s conservative views and opposition to Klanned Parenthood undoubtedly make a similar intervention by the President in this matter quite impossible.

 

Read Full Post »

…the only person who would pay real money to watch Judge Vinson school Eric Holder?

(A guy can dream, can’t he?)

Read Full Post »

For a while now, the NAACP has been incrementally moving closer to irrelevance.  For most of my life, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has been seeking advancement through victimhood.  The problem with such a strategy is eventually, as the successes pile up, they become harder to attain, and as a result, the causes to champion increasingly grow absurd.

Whether it is reading a racial slur into the use of the term “Black Hole” in the context of an office in city government where things go in, and never seem to come back out, or getting their undies in a bunch about a talking greeting card that uses the same term, despite their insistence that it actually says something very different, the politics of victimhood has ill-benefitted those it was intended to help, first by selling the beneficiaries into a modern-day dependency by constantly telling them what they cannot do without the “help” of others, and then by making them look ridiculous with the progression of OUTRAGES! over the years.   Lately, this has been accomplished by acting as if being offended makes them victims, as the “black hole” episodes have demonstrated.  This still isn’t enough for them though.  Now they have taken up the habit of ridiculous hyperbole to condemn activities they find offensive.  Case in point?  A recent formal event in South Carolina honoring the Confederacy, where guests celebrated the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War.  Protestors could not wait to register their displeasure with the attendees of the Secession Ball:

As blacks and whites gathered in the twilight with electric candles and signs for an NAACP protest, a predominantly white group of men in old-fashioned tuxedos and women in long-flowing dresses and gloves stopped to watch and take pictures before going into the Charleston auditorium where the ball was taking place.

Now I found this turn of phrase interesting.  “Predominantly white men”.  Are they predominantly white because the reporter was too lazy to find out if indeed there were non-white men present?  Are they predominantly white because an honest accounting might reveal enough non-whites in attendance to make the protesters into the ones with the problem?  I guess we’ll never know.

NAACP leaders said it made no sense to hold a gala to honor men who committed treason against their own nation for the sake of a system that kept black men and women in bondage as slaves. They compared Confederate leaders to terrorists and Nazi soldiers.

While it would be foolish to deny that slavery was one of the issue that the Civil War was fought over, it is foolish and disingenuous to pretend that it was the only issue.  And the comparison to terrorists and Nazi soldiers?  I don’t believe that these comparisons in any way seem serious when one looks to Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, Jefferson Davis, and other prominent Confederates. Why is it whenever someone on the left doesn’t like someone on the right exercising their freedom of association or their freedom of speech, the disfavored are suddenly equated with Nazis and terrorists?  I can acknowledge that it might have been a shocking charge at one time.  Hell, it might have actually had the desired effect of “SHUT UP!!!” that certainly motivates such comparisons in the past.  However, as more and more people are painted as Hilterian, and it starts to be applied to Uncle Ron, and Great-Grandpa, Fred from down the street, and the Barber, the less it seems like an epithet, and for some people, it becomes an indication that they are pissing all the right people off.

“The Germans had a heritage too. Why does South Carolina and America think this is the right thing to do?” said Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The more appropriate question to ask, Lonnie, is why do you feel it is your place to question their pastimes?  Seriously.  I didn’t read in the story where the period dress included black slaves in chains, and without, waiting on the attendees hand and foot, with the “Yes, massa” and “No, massa” issuing forth from downcast faces.  I’m pretty sure if that had been the case, the event would have received far wider coverage, and in that event, I would have had some outrage of my own to spare.  But between the protest, the hyperbole, and the unflattering and untrue comparisons, it just smacks a little too much of the thought police.  And that is really the point of the politics of OUTRAGE!!!  By claiming offense, and acting as if there is a right to not be offended, the claimant is really saying “Your thinking is wrong, and you must stop before you offend again.”  Before you know it, the enablers in the Press pile on, implying that there not only is a right not to be offended, but that it also trumps other, real rights, and that if you believe otherwise, then you too, my friend, are somehow a Nazi and a terrorist.  Thankfully, it has been carried to such absurd extremes that the tactic is starting to lose its effectiveness:

Burbage said the NAACP doesn’t help its cause with inflammatory rhetoric.

“Any group that wants to call our ancestors terrorists and compare them to Nazi soldiers, we will not negotiate with. We didn’t need to get their permission to put this thing on, or will we ever seek their permission. We do our thing, they’ll do their thing,” Burbage said.

Exactly right.  And as long as these bullies keep trying to police our thoughts and actions, I foresee more pushback.  As it should be.  As long as groups such as the NAACP set themselves up as the thought police, entitled not just to question the thoughts of others, but to sit in judgment of those thoughts, and vested with the authority to prevent others from feeling the shame and anguish of being offended, the more cartoonish they will become.

I hear a timer ringing.  The time for their relevance must be up.

Read Full Post »

…he doubles down.

And we see another of his prophecies fulfilled.  He is doing something that is unprecedented and historic.

I have to confess that this one baffles me.  Is he so sensitive to criticism that he brought back Billy Jeff, a person who was rightfully reviled by many pundits and adored by the electorate as a means to reduce the heat he feels from both the right and the left?  Is it an admission that he is in over his head, and he needs help by someone skilled in removing the chastity belts that members of his own party have strapped themselves into?  Is it a last ditch to save legislation that could save his shot at a second-term?

I’m not sure that I can recall another time when a sitting president lent the gravitas of the White House to a predecessor, and one who was part of a rival campaign in the previous election, so that the current president could leave to scamper into the presence of his wife.  After taking yet another glance at the staggering per-job sums of money that were spent by the Government on the Spendulous Jobs, it occurs to me that the money could be better spent just writing checks for $50,000 a piece to people to go out and look for a spine…any spine to give to Obama, since he clearly lost his.

As for the rest of it…I’d love to savor the moment of the hard lefties being pissed with Obama over the tax deal (I refuse to say “cuts”, because when they have been in place for more than 8 years, we are talking about increasing the current rates), but the fact is if he gets it passed, he gets a metric butt-load of spending that they government has no business committing to at the moment.  Especially since the courageous confiscatory lions of Congress that gave us a takeover of one-sixth of the economy have stubbornly refused to do their duty and set a budget.  What this means is that it was coordinated in a plan to try to Brer Rabbit the republicans into passing a bill with irresponsible and idiotic spending (“Oooohhh, Congressional republicans!  Pleeeeeeease don’t make us pass a bill keeping the tax rates the same while allowing us to spend stupid sums of money!!!”) or he didn’t share the purpose of the compromise, and the hard lefties are too dense to see through their OUTRAGE!!111!!!! and understand how this could ultimately benefit them.  I think Billy Jeff’s presence at the podium yesterday explains which one actually occurred.  

This will cost Obama.   This made him look weak to those in the world seeking a sign of weakness, and frankly, this makes him look bad here at home.   Some on the left who saw the Brer Rabbit as have made much of the idea that republicans tried to sell conservatives out.  I agree, but what they fail to realize is that we aren’t above holding our elected officials’ feet to the fire, and the last election showed that we are paying attention.   The hard left apparently still isn’t getting the message.

I can think of few things more surreal, or frightening to a whole new class of White House interns.

Read Full Post »

Unless you have been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard about Juan Williams getting the boot from National Public Radio for remarks he made on the Bill O’Reilly show.  Just to refresh everyone’s memory, the statement that compelled NPR to shoot itself in the foot by firing Williams was the following:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

It seems excessive to me.  He didn’t say “As an analyst for a large liberal radio broadcaster that accepts taxpayer money, I think those darn muslims should be strip searched and singled out for that “extra” scrutiny that we usually reserve for caucasian grandmothers and small children…you know, the kind that involves rubber gloves and lube, just because they are dressed like muslims and praying before boarding the aircraft, just like the 9/11 hijackers.” 

No, for once Mr. Williams actually said something that had the unmistakable ring of truth and sense to it, and that was apparently a bridge too far for an organization that had just been the recipient of one million dollars from Dr. Evil himself, George “Shut Down FOX News” Soros.

This had nearly every talk radio host I heard today thrilled, each host gushing more than the last about how they were a friend of Juan, and how NPR would rue the day it deigned to fire Mr. Williams.  As I drove home, I heard that his role on FOX would be expanding as a result, which excited the host to no end.

My question for all of them is “What the Hell is wrong with you people???”

I have never been a fan of Juan Williams, even when I was young and dumb and listened to NPR religiously because I thought it was both neutral and smart.

I should probably disclose that during that time, Juan Williams had a short-lived show on NPR.  I remember this because I used to be a Tom Clancy fan (back when Clancy still wrote his own books) and I heard the promo for an upcoming episode where Mr. Williams was going to interview Tom Clancy.  I rearranged my lunch break that day so I could hear the show.

The appointed hour arrived, and I tuned in, munching my sandwich while sitting in my car.  What I did not know is that while I was a fan of Tom Clancy, Mr. Williams was not.  I know this because by the third question, it was painfully apparent to anyone listening that Mr. Williams did not only not read the novel that Clancy was promoting (I think it was Debt of Honor, but its been over ten years, so give me a break), but hadn’t ever read anything that Clancy had written.  What saved the interview from being a crashing bore was the fact that it was apparent to Clancy, too, and he didn’t just sit back and take it.  Again, after all this time, I’m paraphrasing, but what I recall was Clancy asking him point-blank if he’d even read the book.  The tone was somewhat impatient, which I understood, as Mr. Williams’ questions were insipid.  Williams’ with all the defensive guilt of a teenager caught sneaking in after curfew, brusquely made a remark about how busy he was, and how he hadn’t had the time to read more than a few pages.  Clancy wasn’t having any of that, noting that the questions he’d asked indicated that he’d never read anything Clancy had written, and so he somewhat sarcastically asked how it was Williams could help his listeners to understand anything about the book or the character if he hadn’t done his show prep.  He also threw in a bit about Williams’ lack of professionalism.  Williams remained defensive and defiant, and Clancy walked out.  

Again, if I got some of that wrong, I do beg forgiveness.  This was broadcast around 1996-1997, so exact words faded from my mind some time ago, but the general gist has always remained.  Lest you think that this a hatchet job by a conservative, let me repeat something in case you missed it:  At that time I was young and dumb; that is to say, I identified as a liberal, and Clancy’s impressions were the same as mine; the only difference being that he could actually say so to Williams’ face.  

Shortly thereafter, Williams’ show was cancelled, but he remained as a commentator long after I left NPR behind.  I never did lose the impression of Williams.  Some people I know might say that the interview with Clancy was an example of how the left does things.   Fail to do your homework, yet pretend to know what you’re talking about, and when you get caught, be defensive and try to redirect.  I know I have never really lost that impression of Williams, and with good reason.

I’m not a big FOX watcher.  I will occasionally watch Hannity for the Great Great Great American Panel.  When he gets the right mix, it sometimes reminds me of Politically Incorrect when it was on cable.  Entertaining and sometimes thought provoking.  Williams is a regular guest.  He’s never dazzled me with his keen intellect, as more often than not, I find much of what he says to be what I would expect any left-leaning pundit to say.  In other words, it could be anyone from the New York Times, any other alphabet network, the KOStards, the Dummie Underground, or the DNC.  Sometimes he employs the other tactic, the “Yes, but…” so as to not completely surrender his integrity like a certain rotund and grinning-like-an-idiot Press Secretary who ignores things that that the lifelong blind can see, which is the one thing that sets him apart from the Left’s other talking heads, but frankly, it still isn’t enough for me.  He may bring the Left’s perspective, but there is nothing fresh in the way that he does it, and he doesn’t entice me to reconsider my own views when he dutifully repeats what I can hear from any other lefty.  Case in point:

Admit what cannot be denied.  Obfuscate what can.  Redirect to Leftist boogeyman.  Repeat.

I admit to savoring this moment.  How awful it must have been for the True Believers in the MulticultiPoliticallyCorrectIdentityPolitics Crowd at NPR to have to make such a decision.  Fire one of the only two black on-air personalities they have and run the risk of offending black Americans and the large crowd of non-blacks who are often offended on their behalf, or keep him, and run the risk that his “offense’ to members of the Religion of Pieces is imputed to them.  Trapped between two different groups of the perpetually offended when you want nothing but to champion them both.  What to do?  But in the end, their fear of the perpetually offended who cut people’s heads off (and Soros cash) won out.  Either way, it was a popcorn-worthy moment for conservatives, as the left ate one of their own for parting from the Official Dogma™ in a public forum.

But I still remain suspicious.  By making his very public termination a cause celebre’ for Conservative talking heads, NPR draws renewed attention to itself in a time when the public is restless over government spending.  Public broadcasting has never been a favorite of the right, representing as it does, a government expenditure that does not obviously fit into the enumerated powers of Congress that so many pissed off voters are rediscovering.  In some quarters, the growling about cutting off the taxpayer funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has already started, and given the public’s mood, is likely to be an agenda item for several of the new members of Congress who will be elected in November.  It seems to be the NPR would be a sucker to keep relying on that Soros cash to continue to make up what they have to lose by being cut off from the taxpayers.  Especially after they either succeed or fail in the objectives that their new master has set forth for them, and they are no longer useful to him.

And for Williams himself, this may end up being a payday, as FOX will “expand his role”, whatever that means.  I’m not sure I like the idea of more Juan. In twenty years, he’s never impressed me and never left me with a “Things that make you go “Hmmmm”” moment.   Sure he represents a different view, but why move into “the belly of the beast” if your intention is not to bring the other side around to your way of seeing things?  And if that is his intention, can we expect a change in his style?  I suppose we’ll all find out, but as conservatives tire of pointing out how this firing demonstrates exactly the kind of tolerance that can be expected of a viewpoint that makes much more out of preaching it than delivering it, and the left gets tired of pretending they have no idea what conservatives are talking about when they point this out, what then?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 376 other followers