Archive for July, 2008
I don’t know what the details are about this story, but I read it and thought, dang! Don’t mess in Texas:
A man holding a woman hostage in a north Harris County trailer was fatally shot by Harris County sheriff’s deputies Wednesday evening.
Deputies were called to the 1400 block of Aldine Mail Route about 5:45 p.m. and found the man holding the woman at gunpoint, said Harris County sheriff’s Lt. John Denholm. The man was shot after pointing the weapon at deputies, he said.
The woman was not injured and the incident remains under investigation.
Save the taxpayers the trouble of a trial. Glad the police have good aim.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
The first question that popped into my head while reading about Obama’s the notion of reparations: Will Obama receive 50% reparations since hes 50% black? But wait just one little minute….. His dad isn’t an American citizen and Obama’s family were never slaves–well, not American slaves. Slavery was and is alive and well in many parts of Africa so maybe he should get money for the oppression that happened there.
The second thing that popped in my head was damn, it’s hard to pander to the oppressed and deprived, and to the people who do the oppressing and depriving. I mean, it’s a tightrope. On the one hand, it’s difficult to convey how bad life sucks for black people. On the other hand, it’s tough to get votes from white people when you call them racist bigots. It’s especially hard when a good bunch of Americans (my family, for one) never owned a slave, believe slavery is reprehensible, but don’t feel the guilt because, well, they’re not guilty.
So Obama doesn’t think reparations are a good idea but as Karl notes, he’s all for socialism:
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past, and I’ll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have brought applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy.
Not to mention a strategy that Obama believes will cost billions of dollars and involve universal healthcare. But it apparently will not involve reparations [as such are typically defined – K], which is a point worth clarifying.
The answer to past oppression is to oppress everyone today. An Obama administration we will all be “free at last” alright. We’ll be free to enjoy the socialist suckitude that England now enjoys (the good news is that there’s drugs coming that reverse Alzheimers, the bad news is that under socialism, your taxes will go so high that you can’t afford the new drugs that aren’t approved by the government):
The drugs are expected to cost the same as current treatments for the illness such as Aricept, which are £2.50 a day.
However, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) the Government’s drugs watchdog, ruled that Aricept, which has been shown to improve the memory and day-to-day life of those in the late stages of the disease, was too expensive for widespread use in Britain.
Terry Pratchett, the best selling author who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, disclosed earlier this year that he was being forced to pay for the drug himself.
Of course, if Obama wins the presidency, you might want to forget the good old days, so it could all work out.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
Here we go again….
I wrote about this boring topic a couple years ago, last year and again here and my opinion hasn’t changed. Women are discriminated against on the web just like men are discriminated against. That is to say: life is not fair. People discriminate when it comes to what they want to read. Stomp my feet, there are women who get more readers than I do! Couldn’t possibly be that they’re more talented or interesting or funny. It must be The Man.
Oy vey, nothing reinforces the stereotype of whiny women like women whining. Newsflash ladies: If you’re blog isn’t being read, it’s not because you have ovaries. It’s because no one gives a shit about what you’re saying. Newsflash #2: There are lots of men who have blogs that suck that no one reads, too. Are they being discriminated against? Newsflash #3: You can be writing like Shakespeare himself, and there are a gazillion other talented people writing, too. It’s called scale. The internet is a big place, finding more than a handful of people who are remotely interested in what you have to say might be a problem.
Robert Stacy McCain says this:
And as for you, you idiot HuffPo woman whining because the New York Times ran this story in the “Style & Fashion” section: Look a gift horse in the mouth, why don’t you? You’re lucky they even bothered to cover your stupid “BlogHer” conference. As for your big claim, “Women are outnumbering men on the web” — you know what that is, don’t you? It’s (a) my sister-in-law forwarding me spam e-mails about Obama-the-secret-Muslim, (b) my daughter MySpacing “OMG ROTFLMAO” to her friends, and (c) desperate, slightly overweight 37-year-olds with “nice personalities” trying to find a date on Craigslist.
Snort. Too funny. As an aside, in real life, I’m not interested in hearing about the constitution of a baby’s poop or the state of your lactation, unless, that is, you’re my patient and you’re paying me to give an opinion about said topic. Otherwise, save the discussion for your doctor or mother’s group. Bleh. Speaking of lactation or is menstruation? Anyway, Rachel sez:
Anyway, so the BlogHer chicks were upset about not being taken seriously, and then the fembloggers spontaneously menstruated when they noticed the article was in the Fashion/Style section of the Times. I would like to thank the writer of that post I just linked to for reminding me how important it is to use the F-bomb in moderation. Jesus. Also, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d find it easier to take the feminists seriously if they didn’t express their displeasure like this:
“Yeah, those fucking laydeez are so heinous, they even took over the manly-man bathrooms!! And they’re such feeble-minded superficial silly bitchez, all they care about is “nurturing messages”, neck massages, and the trappings of femininity. LACTATION!!1!!!!11!1!! Why aren’t those bitchez at home taking care of the damn baybeez properly, anyway!?!?”
Yes of course, that is exactly what the NYT was thinking. Pigs!
Oh, those lovely BlogHer ladies. I got in their cross-hairs two years ago about this topic. Don’t tangle with those women. They’re brutal. And don’t disagree with abortion either. The hate mail, I’d be distressed, but then again. I’m not. Because I blog like a real woman and can take it. They’ve got nothing on the Obamacons who bring the hate to a whole new homicidal level.
Meh. Life is hard. Life on the internet is no different. If anything has pissed me off, it’s been having my ideas, whole sentences lifted without attribution. Now, that gets my dander up. Haven’t been quite sure how to handle it. But discrimination? Bull and shit. Men have linked my blog as much or more as women. And as a sign of honor, men have derided and hated my views and spewed their venom to my face, man. Actually, not. Mostly, the girly-men have posted shitty anonymous comments that sound a lot like whining. So, actually, the BlogHer women are in great company.
The blogosphere is full of whiners. Just get better at it ladies and maybe someone will give flying flapjack about yours.
You know those light poles in England that line the streets? The old iron ones that survived the Luftwaffe and would probably survive a loaded cement truck driving into them, yeah those? Word to the wise: Don’t walk at full speed into them head first. Yeah, I did that on the bonny streets of London a couple decades back and as my friend japed, “the light post never recovered.”
Hey, just because I’m an uncoordinated bumbling buffoon….
Well, now there’s news, via Futurepundit (who, I must say I picture as wearing silver-rimmed goggles and a shiny cape on the top of the Chrysler building scanning the horizon for …..dramatic, soaring musack here….The Future–I know, I’m on the internet waaaaaay too much), that dumbasses like me are running into things because they are looking down at their phones texting. Being future oriented, he has a solution:
The texters would be less dangerous to themselves and others if they didn’t have to look down to see the screen. What is needed: Head Up Display Glasses tied to a cell phone. Then one could look ahead and see the text mixed in with sidewalk or whatever else is in front of you.
But how to type when walking? Avoid the need to type with voice recognition software. Except, people can hear you then. How to maintain the privacy that typing provides? The in-brain implant cell phone that “The Phone Company” tried to convince The President’s Analyst (1967 with James Coburn) to tell the US President to allow transplanted into everyone’s brain.
Another alternative: develop a drug that breaks down the text messaging addiction.
Now why would Captain Future ruin all the fun with a drug to break down the addiction? I like the in-brain implant idea way better. Also, I’d have less of a chance rear-ending the idiots who come to a complete freaking stop, for no reason whatsoever, on the interstate while I fiddle with the radio dial while struggling to find a radio station, or even better, some Ryan Seacrest inspired, pop-music treacle, onto my car stereo. I could think the song into being. How cool would that be?
Brain implant, good. Brain on lamp post, bad. Brain on windshield, fatal.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
You absolutely must read the whole thing, but here’s my favorite one:
Style, style, style. Remember socialist Europe is where we get our designer eyeglass frames, Gucci bags, and French fashions. Instead of a strutting, Bible-quoting Texan, replete with southern accent and ‘smoke-em’ out lingo, they get an athletic, young, JFK-ish metrosexual, whose rhetoric is as empty as it is soothing. The English-only Obama lectures America on its need to emulate polyglot Europe; while a Spanish-speaking George Bush is hopelessly cast as a Texas yokel.
When I saw Obama stride down the steps of his jet, carelessly throw his jacket over his shoulder and put on his shades like a movie star or music mogul, I laughed out loud. The man is a caricature! But I knew the Europeans would love it and the Left here at home would love it too.
Ooooo la la! It’s Obama, he is tres chic!
I remember reading about how Saddam and his two insane sons would torture professional soccer players when they lost. Aside from the sheer horror described by the people who endured the abuse, it struck me as supremely stupid to expect players to perform their best when they cowered in fear.
Communist leadership in Eastern block countries before the wall came down and Russia and the fascists in Germany, Italy and Japan before them, just didn’t get it. National pride is fine and dandy, but if the athletes aren’t competing for the love, for themselves, the game will be a losing proposition.
At the Olympic level, the athletes excel physically and genetically and discipline-wise. Often what separates winners and losers is psychological and emotional: mental stamina and courage. A terrified athlete running away from losing is not the same as an excited athlete running towards winning.
So China harasses their athletes. Some kids who have worked their whole lives were just booted from the team. Other athletes who deeply desire retirement are being forced to compete. Does this sound like a winning formulation to you?
Although China is determined to top the medal tables at the Beijing Games next month, its sports administration has taken the draconian decision to drop 22 gold-medal winning athletes.
China won a total of 32 golds in Athens, and is hoping to top the 40 mark in Beijing.
Some of the athletes were forced out by injuries or strong competition, but the China Daily newspaper, thought to be the mouthpiece of the government, also said “politics” had played a part.
“There were some surprising exclusions … who would have a realistic shot at winning gold next month,” the paper said.
The most obvious political victim was Tian Liang, nicknamed the “diver prince” after winning gold medals in the ten-metre platform dive at both the Sydney and Athens Olympics.
Tian, 28, was kicked off the national team in 2005 for unashamedly endorsing everything from wooden floors to seafood snacks. “He was producing a negative influence on the preparation for the 2008 Olympics,” said a sports official.
He also hit the gossip columns for his relationship with fellow diver Guo Jingjing and they were dubbed the “Posh and Becks” of Chinese sport. She managed to stay on the team after she publicly denounced her behaviour.
Since then, Tian has tried to rehabilitate his career by competing at provincial level and refusing to criticise the administration for what happened. He carried the Olympic torch as it passed through Xi’an. However, he was still left out of the team and has voiced his “regrets”.
Yeah, China will win loads of medals by kicking their superstars off the team because they don’t toe the party line. But this is why these regimes die anyway.
When people are restricted from pursuing their dreams because some bureaucrat believes his talents lie elsewhere, people give up. A whole society of people not invested in their own success won’t be invested in the country’s success. So, the dictators get the exact opposite of what they hope for. Domination can come at the point of a gun, but sustained success and winning comes from from freedom to pursue what one loves.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
I’m stunned. I shouldn’t be at this point but I am.
That someone would steal a prayer was absolutely outrageous. And I 100% agreed with The Anchoress’s take about it:
That is the trend, these days, of course. Name-call, deride, mock, disbelieve and in all ways go negative – on every issue, in every instance, unto perpetuity – on any politician with whom you disagree, and any pundit you don’t like, and any blogger who does not see things the way you see them. In that way, they immediately become less human to you, and the less human they seem, the easier they are to hate, and continue to hate.
But I didn’t blog about it because something felt wrong. Well it wasn’t something. It was some ONE. Barack Obama himself released the prayer before he went to the wall. (Well, his handlers or someone did, the denial will be coming post-haste.)
Is nothing sacred?
Evidently not. The Anchoress says this:
I want to believe he did not…but it must be said that his team’s placement of “Obama” signs at the Kotel – which was pretty inappropriate in that holy place – may well indicate that the prayer was released intentionally.
To which I cannot help but think: Senator Obama, we knew John Paul II, and you are no John Paul II. The prayer – not being a historical document – should not have been released.
Meanwhile…we wait to see if the press will cover any of this.
I hate going here…it makes me feel dirty. But if the Obama team played this card, it needs an answer – a definitive one – and going here is now legitimate.
That’s it, right there. Dirty. I was so angered that the prayer got “stolen”. Who would do such a thing? A prayer, a man’s relationship, is between God and him. And then, to find out that the prayer was released before it got put in the wall….
Who the frack does this man think he is? No, Anchoress, Barack Obama is more important than the Pope–every word uttered by him is history in the making. Evidently, his prayer for humility wasn’t answered.
Longtime readers know that I’ve stuck with my premise that one day, we’ll look back to the time President George W. Bush presided with fondness. These have been a good eight years even with a difficult war in a difficult land.
The Anchoress writes about the President’s humanity (she has good pictures, too):
Obama could take a few lessons from Bush.
It is easy to be loved when you look good, give a great speech and do nothing, and it’s easy to be hated once you’re actually engaged in making decisions and standing by them. A real leader has to – like a parent – be willing to be hated. I’ve always thought Bill Clinton’s greatest weakness as a president was his need to be loved. It kept him beholden to polls instead of possibilities.
I still like President Bush, too. I disagree with him sometimes. I never had a crush on him or felt the blind adoration that the Left feels for Obama. What I liked was this: he seemed like he’d do his best, be a man of his word and stick to his convictions. And, he has done just that. I’m proud to have voted for him twice.
After seeing everyone from Joan Rivers to Madonna manage their aging faces, I have come to the conclusion that facial plastic surgery does not work. Well, if your definition of beautiful is a strangely shiny and taught skin and bizarrely jutting cheekbones, it works. Otherwise, it’s just plain freaky.
Madonna was never the most beautiful woman, but she wasn’t ugly. She had an interesting face, nice skin and expressive eyes. But, look at her now. Her face is just…..wrong.
Meanwhile aging gracefully never looked so good. I wonder, though, if she’s had work too or is her beauty just good genetics?
I’m thinking that plastic surgery, especially for the face, is something to avoid.
Men are no better. Ew!
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
The comparisons being made between John Edwards and Larry Craig make little sense. Craig was convicted of solicitation, a crime, if a feeble one. Edward’s only crime is a moral one–if you have morals or believe in a moral code, which the Left does not. “Edwards Love Child, Yawn” is about the reaction.
The better comparison is between John Edwards and that big-church pastor in Colorado. I can’t even remember his name, but one look at his picture and I thought, “he is so gay”. A vindictive gay lover outed the pastor’s proclivities and alleged drug use. The media didn’t just investigate, they gloatingly relished reporting this man’s shame. Ace’s headline said it all, “Biggest Story Of The Century: Some Guy You Never Heard Of Is A Homo”. The pastor was not elected. He was not running for office. No crime had been committed (that had been confirmed). And the Left and press doesn’t give hare’s hootenany who screws who unless exposing the screwing person will benefit the Left somehow. Then all bets are off. But the pastor was conservative and extolled virtue, which made him a target if he ever displayed anything but virtue. In Edwards case, he’s a ambulance-chasing attorney who bloviated populist tripe–so he clearly has no virtue to besmirch. Oh, and he’s a Democrat.
Exposing Edward’s infidelity, love child, and the fact that it occurred while the loving father just happened to be running for president while his cancer-stricken wife campaigned for him benefits no one on the Left. In fact, it makes Edwards look like a scumbag and those who trusted his word a few months ago like a bunch of willful ignoramuses.
Thus the American media silence. Thus the media’s shameful bias.
If you read a newspaper in England, you’ll get the obvious conclusion. Not so, in America. Just try to imagine what the media storm would be like had Mitt Romney hid some love child somewhere. Imagine. Yeah.
Some people on the Left are getting the implications. The Google search is still amazingly thin. I did find pictures of Edwards with his new baby, though. Was it at the New York Times? No. The Washington Post? No. Was it at a right-wing blog? Yes.
No matter how you cut this story, it’s news. Well, it would be if Edwards had an “R” after his name.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before, but just for giggles, I searched The New York Times for references to Ted Haggard.
Here’s the Washington Post.
Anyone want to explain why that guy was news but John Edwards isn’t?