Archive for March, 2009
Is Barack Obama Evil?
Friday, March 27th, 2009For the last eight years, the Left labeled George W. Bush evil. I found this amusing since many doing the lecturing viewed any judgment or condemnation of nearly anything to be unacceptable, as only a post-modernist can. Radical Islam? Not evil. Using human shields? Not evil. Saddam Hussein? Not evil. The Axis of Evil? Not evil. However….Bush? Evil. Cheney? Evil? Haliburton? Evil.
You get the idea. The notion that George Bush was “evil” was so preposterous, such over-the-top nonsense that it hardly deserved any attention–except that it was everywhere. A person couldn’t escape mention of his soulless nature. By maligning President Bush so, true evil was obscured and diminished. Labeling President Bush minimized the horrors many people have endured by true evil tyrants.
Along comes Barack Obama, The One, deified by the press and elevated by followers in all his beatific magnificence. The Left needed a devil now they made their god.
Well. Some are seeing evil in the sparkly-eyed one. Is Barack Obama evil? Personally, this polarizing language irritates me. Barack Obama isn’t evil. He’s misguided. He is so convinced of his own rightness that he is pursuing absolutely devastating policies that are sure to harm and he pursues them with frenzied abandon.
The fact is, it’s a rare socialist/statist who starts with evil intent. In fact, many start with pure intentions. Crafting a more noble society, making a better world, and doing all sorts of things that will force utopia on ignorant, and otherwise unwilling miscreants.
Obama’s not evil. He’s flawed. And his ideology is wrong. And it’s bad enough that it needs to be stopped. No need to resort to moralistic harping to vilify the man.
When Are Women Going To Own Their Sexuality?
Thursday, March 26th, 2009Women have marched toward equality and besides being deprived of male gonads, mostly have it in modern America.
So a post caught my attention last night about Justin Timberlake. The title of the post was, “How Can Justin Timberlake Still Objectify Black Women And Get Away With It“. Hmmm… The song and music video in question is called, subtly, “Love Sex Magic”. It’s not the best JT song by a long shot and the real star is Ciara. Timberlake is more of a background singer. Ciara’s career has been spotty and this “duet” has put her in the Top 40. She made a very good business decision partnering with the golden boy.
The video, as one might imagine, is, like many these days, soft porn. Watch it here. Ciara is,….limber. Clearly, she enjoys her body and would have a good back-up career as a stripper. Here’s what Ro of Soul Bounce says:
It’s not even his song but in the video he’s in the opening scene, pulling on a chained Ciara. Whenever the two are interacting she is doing all kinds of sexy acrobatics for him–crawling over him, stick out her ass for him to lean on, bumping him with her breasts–but he can barely be bothered to look her in the face half of the time…and he’s on screen a lot. She looks desparate, and he looks like a pimp. As the video progresses and their roles become more evident it gets more disgusting.
Well, I watched the video and what I found disgusting was that teenage girls were watching a woman portray herself that way. She’s free to do it. She’s a grown woman, an “artist”. Like Madonna or Britney Spears or the rest of the slutty pop tarts, she’s liberated to express her sexual nature.
Why don’t the same people who pushed for this liberation own the results? How is it Justin Timberlake’s fault that he enjoys a woman bumping and grinding? And I heard Oprah once give black rappers a hard time for having scantily clad women dancing around in their videos–objectifying women. And then, the same Oprah, had Beyoncé on to teach her how to shake her butt.
Just so I understand the rule: It’s okay for a woman to act like a sexpot but it’s not okay for a man to enjoy it? A woman can climb a pole in her own music video but if it’s a male artist’s music video, the women should be prim and proper?
It’s time for women to own their choices sexually. That’s what this revolution business was about. Blaming men for being objectified when women choose to portray themselves in a provocative way puts women in the one-down position again. Women are now equally skanky as men. Rejoice.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
The Government Bans Books
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009“Despite not one case of a child being harmed by lead in books, all books published before 1984 cannot be sold, distributed or given away.”
Selling a book made before 1984 (when ink might have lead in it) can garner a $100,000 fine.
Via Instapundit
Obama’s Press Conference
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009Still fluish, and trying to sleep while I can, I’m late to the party. I watched Obama’s snore-fest press conference. Here are my impressions:
1. The Press was not as servile as in times past. No, they are no where near the sneering contempt levels that President Bush enjoyed right out of the gate, but they were marginally less earnest and tentatively more questioning.
One thing concerned me. Many press members seemed obviously nervous. Obama ran the press conference by letting reporters know before the conference who would be called upon. No one from the NYT, Washington Post, USA Today, or any of the other big news papers got a question. An Ebony writer, asking about “all the homeless children in tents and under bridges”, did get a question. Politico also got a question. And then, Obama asked Ann Compton for a question. She was clearly unprepared and did not expect to be called upon.
There was/is a method to Obama’s madness, in my opinion. He is training the press. They will be off-center, unsure. They won’t know if they’re “in” or “out”. And oh, do they want to be “in”. He plays with them like dogs and they will do what they can to stay in the good graces of the master. It’s interesting psychology and it was a masterful use of behavioral therapy. He is molding them by a subtle system of rewards and punishments.
2. Obama is incapable of a straight answer. As usual, it sounds good but is empty. John Hawkins points out the worst examples of double-talk.
3. Oh yes, Obama will cut. He demonstrated his loathing for the military, again. He went after charitable giving. Pejman Yousefzadeh says this[H/T Instapundit]:
Finally, when it came time to address the Obama Administration’s decision to reduce the tax deduction for charities, we got this beaut of a rationale for the Obama Administration’s stance on the issue:
People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means if you give $100 and you’re in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 (percent) or 39 percent, you’re writing off 28 percent. Now, if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that hundred dollars to the homeless shelter down the street.
It would be delightful to think that people give to charities purely out of the goodness of their hearts. But those of us for whom the color of the sky is blue know that there are some cold, hard calculations that go into decisions concerning charitable giving and while the President may choose to be sarcastic concerning his answer on the issue–and make no mistake, the sarcasm is redolent in the President’s answer. Verily, it drips off the computer screen–the fact of the matter remains that by reducing the charitable contribution deduction, the Obama Administration is reducing the ability of charities to receive contributions. “War On Philanthropy”?
So good is evil and evil is good. Those who sacrifice and serve–soldiers and charities–will suffer in Obama’s budget. Underperforming schools, and every form of social service will get big, blank checks. The government will control every part of the economy by taking it over.
In sum, Obama without a teleprompter is a fine thing. I hope he has a press conference every week. Is it boring? Oh yeah. Is it illuminating? Only in that his deception is illuminating. He hates and has contempt for anything described as good and noble. He just doesn’t believe it exists. And my thinking is that he can’t believe it exists. In order to believe that, he’d have less justification for his own experience.
Whatever Barack Obama is, he’s an interesting psychological study.
