tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-301142422024-03-07T08:52:52.460-05:00Lattices of BogosityWe are engaged, as a civilization, in a deadly struggle, and its prosecution is being hampered by twisted thinking and deliberate disinformation. It is fueled by a virulent ideology and by childish self-interest which is rampant, persistent and utterly without moral compass. It constructs lattices of bogosity to obscure our vision. I'll try to help dismantle them...but mostly I'll be venting my spleen.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-33040839535597365672016-06-29T14:36:00.001-04:002016-06-29T14:36:53.213-04:00Pathfinder History of Golarion<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4F7OMT9bstw" width="459"></iframe>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-9857705149730427142013-12-13T19:55:00.004-05:002013-12-13T19:57:44.170-05:00Nature is Trying to Kill YouWas working on a larger post along this theme, but saw <a href="http://nypost.com/2013/12/12/beneath-yellowstone-a-volcano-that-could-wipe-out-u-s/">this</a> and decided to elaborate a little bit on the more basic theme.<br />
<br />
NATURE IS TRYING TO KILL YOU<br />
<br />
Even in our modern age and westernized culture, where we have overcome much of the day to day threats which plagued our ancestors, things like starvation, ferocious animals, weather, and disease, Nature, that cold hearted bitch, has all sorts of nasty surprises yet in store. This is why I find it irksome when environmentalists talk about "communing with nature" or how we are "offending the planet" and have made it angry with our progress.<br />
<br />
Folks, Gaia in all her splendor, started this shit. She has been killing us, in the billions since time began. And even if we were fast, strong and smart enough to survive all her traps of death, she designed us with an expiration, with a ticking time bomb called age which will finish off what the animals, bugs and environment could not.<br />
<br />
My point is, I don't want to, nor feel the need to, "commune with nature". I like camping and hiking in the worlds and the beauty of the natural world, yes, but I wish to be in a position of power, of mastery over it, so it does not kill me prematurely. Nature and I (and you) have an adversarial relationship.<br />
<br />
What this super-volcano emphasizes is that we live in a hostile world, one that could kill any one of us, or a whole LOT of us, in blink of an eye. Think of Pompeii, what happened to an entire city full of people, and then imagine a good portion of North America being laid to waste either through fire or ash.<br />
<br />
Yes, we live in a hostile world, and when you think about the tremendous forces around us in space, from a sun that might belch and fry us, or asteroids that might bring cataclysm or other even more random but catastrophic shit that could befall, you realize that is is a hostile universe.<br />
<br />
THE UNIVERSE WANTS TO SEE YOU DEAD.<br />
<br />
You, and your civilization, and well, pretty much anything you love and care about.<br />
<br />
You have a right to fight back.<br />
<br />
Of course, you will eventually lose that fight, but until you do, you have the right to keep swinging and slashing.<br />
<br />
Yes, if you fully absorb what I am saying, this is not exactly a upper of a post. It is meant, however, to put some things into perspective. Hell, it is trying to put EVERYTHING into perspective.<br />
<br />
It IS possible, folks, that the entire human race, not only all the people, but everything built and produced throughout could suddenly disappear. Zip.<br />
<br />
The only thing left would be our clunky interstellar probes and communication broadcasts bouncing around forever.<br />
<br />
I don't say this with a SEIZE THE DAY mentality feverishly burning up my soul, trying to rally you. I am largely sitting on my ass, trying to fully absorb this message, trying to use it to spur myself, and it still ain't easy.<br />
<br />
But what I DO know is that I don't owe Nature shit. She supplies much, yes, but she also takes much, and often cruelly, so we're even.<br />
<br />
One could say the same thing about God, I guess, and I admit I have thought the same thing. It is easy to be all philosophical about the "duality of life" and how we must accept the bad with the good, but it's a bit harder when you see your family destroyed, or even your entire civilization overnight.<br />
<br />
The only saving grace would be if the promises of some sort of afterlife were true, if, no matter what happens here, it is not meaningless and it is only a very dark time in a much better story. I know some people, many, think it's a fairy tale, and perhaps it is. But in the end, we have to accept that THIS life, while certainly being less "nasty, brutish and short" than it has been throughout history, it has horrors aplenty for us.<br />
<br />
A bummer, yes, but there seems little point in not being honest about it.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-56967579423302006102013-07-01T20:46:00.001-04:002013-07-01T20:48:02.393-04:00Racism is Ugly...<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 26px; text-transform: uppercase;">ROSEANNE BARR...WISHES TRAYVON MARTIN SHOT GEORGE ZIMMERMAN FIRST"</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/01/roseanee-zimmerman-guns-arm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/01/roseanee-zimmerman-guns-arm</span></a><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Wow! </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Obviously Roseanne hates Hispanics. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Fucking racist...</span>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-8436983269167834472013-05-19T19:06:00.001-04:002013-05-19T19:06:41.162-04:00Kind to the Cruel...<br />
Young Co-ed is <a href="http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2322929">taken hostage</a> by thug...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8R8-rvah6UdPlFsgpZQ9rA_gxJrLSpbfdASGtiD6OPEPaeRbiihmSYFUR2KhyphenhyphenkT2lKhN5_0ElU3rokaT_xQ6GAy8N9kYgaRhyphenhyphenej_4pPSu7rWcdxIKVfGsZufiPh_kS5rTp1JFkg/s1600/image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8R8-rvah6UdPlFsgpZQ9rA_gxJrLSpbfdASGtiD6OPEPaeRbiihmSYFUR2KhyphenhyphenkT2lKhN5_0ElU3rokaT_xQ6GAy8N9kYgaRhyphenhyphenej_4pPSu7rWcdxIKVfGsZufiPh_kS5rTp1JFkg/s1600/image.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Police officer responds to situation.<br />
<br />
Thug...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8bJgSe21CHQzHU8ap8HR5fBdg7Sj_zzYlMGThHQkH9VgKmQ6tej7J5Tw9Sfuzw9yKMpb14R0KY3ImjUjIp0s7AZCWWD5bxLBNQnoe02BH5ziz-MMyHbDYTrElMfnmAvNM94lz3A/s1600/dalton-smith-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8bJgSe21CHQzHU8ap8HR5fBdg7Sj_zzYlMGThHQkH9VgKmQ6tej7J5Tw9Sfuzw9yKMpb14R0KY3ImjUjIp0s7AZCWWD5bxLBNQnoe02BH5ziz-MMyHbDYTrElMfnmAvNM94lz3A/s1600/dalton-smith-2.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
...confronted by cop, puts girl into headlock, gun to her skull, and threatens to kill her. <br />
<br />
He then reportedly turns gun toward cop, using girl as shield. Cop opens fire, killing both him and the woman.<br />
<br />
Who's to blame for <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Andrea Rebello's death</span>?<br />
<br />
Interesting back and forth at <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/169167/">Instapundit</a> via reader emails, and some other in the comments of the article linked above.<br />
<br />
I think there is some validity to the idea that the cop might have responded to the call differently, as he was fully aware that a hostage situation was in play. <br />
<br />
A roommate of Andrea's was sent out to an ATM by the thug to get cash, and she instead called police, so the police knew the somewhat what they were dealing with here.<br />
<br />
Perhaps surrounding the house with police might have been better, or perhaps not openly confronting the criminal in a position where the officer could have been fired upon and thus be forced to respond in kind.<br />
<br />
As someone mentions on Instapundit, it appears the officer was NOT trained to deal with the kind of shot required to kill Dalton and spare Rebello. That takes specialized training. It would have been better had he gotten that kind of training, in hindsight.<br />
<br />
All good points.<br />
<br />
Now, having gotten that out of the way, let's also realize that second-guessing is real easy in the aftermath. <br />
<br />
The police had no idea what was exactly happening in that house when he got there.<br />
<br />
For all the police officer knew, Dalton Smith was torturing, raping and/or murdering Ms. Robello and other people in that house. He went into that house most likely thinking that some truly horrendous could be happening to 3 innocent people while he waited, so he chose to go in. He had every reason to fear for his life, but he went in anyway, hoping to prevent a tragedy. The fact that a tragedy occurred is not his fault, because he was not he one who created the situation in which Andrea Robello lost her life.<br />
<br />
Let's assign the blame firmly where it belongs.<br />
<br />
Dalton Smith.<br />
<br />
You'll notice Mr. Smith is wearing some sort of orange shirt. That is not some sort of bold fashion statement, or part of a pumpkin costume from a Halloween past. It is from a jumpsuit, the kind supplied to you when you have been behind bars.<br />
<br />
Dalton Smith was a repeat offender. News reports I have read claim he had previously been convicted of such crimes as armed robbery, assault, auto theft. At the time of this shooting, he was wanted for violating his <b><u>parole.</u></b><br />
<br />
Dalton Smith broke into the house where Andrea was sleeping, he took her and others hostage and he put the gun to Andrea's head, and then pointed a gun at a police officer.<br />
<br />
Dalton Smith is the one responsible for Andrea's death. <br />
<br />
But, he is not alone.<br />
<br />
The society that left Dalton Smith roaming the streets after he had proved multiple times to be unfit to be walking around free is guilty. I would love to get a final tally on his rap sheet, being that he was only 30 years old when killed, but suffice to say he was not some wayward youth. He was a grown man for whom the thug life was a way of life.<br />
<br />
The society that decided that such a reprobate, who had on multiple occasion committed acts of violence and criminality, should have the freedom to do what he did, leading to Andrea's death, is guilty as well. By being kind, or at least indulgent, to a person who had shown they could not behave in a lawful and civilized manner, they were in the end very cruel to Andrea Rebello, and to the officer who will now have to live with what he was forced to do.<br />
<br />
At the time he was standing in a sorority house, holding a gun to the head of a young woman who I am betting was about half his size, Dalton Smith deserved to be chained up, breaking rocks or picking up garbage. Had be been so, not only would Andrea be alive, but perhaps in 10 or 20 years, Dalton might have been tame enough, or broken, enough, that he could have returned to society and live out some semblance of a decent life.<br />
<br />
INSTEAD, he's lying in a morgue somewhere, as is Andrea, and he will go to the afterlife with the death of a young woman added to his list of sins.<br />
<br />
Good job, indulgent society!<br />
<br />
Now, those of the progressive ilk (I don't call them liberals, I will explain why in another post), will try and blame society for not "helping" Dalton Smith, for "failing him", forcing him into his life of crime. Instead of condemning society for not keeping an animal off the streets, for exposing innocent people to violence and death, they will bemoan how poorly society performed in assisting Mr. Smith, leading to his villainy.<br />
<br />
Bullshit.<br />
<br />
First, society will never completely eliminate men like Dalton Smith, and that being the case, it has a duty and obligation to keep them apart from the people who don't make theft and violence a way of life. When it fails to do so, it fails, period.<br />
<br />
Second, progressives will always credit the idea of a systemic failure of society creating criminals by failure to care or empathize enough with them, but never seem willing to embrace the idea that the systemic coddling and leniency of deviancy they advocate might in fact be a contributing cause.<br />
<br />
They will also accept no criticism of cultural practices and behaviors which they view as being politically incorrect, no matter the evidence indicating they are indeed contributing factors to the creation of a "man" like Dalton Smith.<br />
<br />
Why? Because reducing violent crime, even against women, is of minor importance when it comes to maintaining certain narratives.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-78002344304311954342013-05-16T12:05:00.001-04:002013-05-16T12:05:15.564-04:00Dance, Monkey, Dance...<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the things I try to warn my progressive friends about government largesse (which is really taxpayer fleecing and redistribution) is that when you come to rely on it, the government gains power over you.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Whether it is housing or food stamps or loans or WHATEVER, when you come to rely on it, the government can then threaten to take it away unless you do their bidding.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">HOW people do not understand this principle, I cannot fathom. It is a common theme in entertainment, i.e., someone gets in deep with someone for money or a favor granted, and then is horrified when the bill comes due.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another </span></span><a href="http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/05/15/lukianoff-unconstitutional-speech-code-m"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">case</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> in point...</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 21px;"></span><br />
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<i>"sweeping speech codes just imposed by the Departments of Justice and Education on virtually every college campus in the United States...states "sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as 'any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct." </i><u><b><i>The new rules apply to all colleges and universities receiving any sort of federal money, including Pell grants, federally backed student loans, and more.</i></b></u><i> </i><a href="http://thefire.org/article/15767.html" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; color: #f37221; cursor: pointer; font-size: 21px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><i>The letter contends</i></a><i> the conduct in question need not be offensive to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation." That means that there is effectively no check on what might count as harassment. Course materials, overheard comments, stupid jokes - it's all potentially actionable."</i></div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Now, many politically correct progressive nimrods may be perfectly FINE with these speech codes, and would welcome the Feds getting involved.</div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
But the point here is that if you DON'T agree with this policy, if you think it is utter horse shit and/or a gruesome example of fascistic overreach by a government out of control, then suck it up unless you go to one of the FEW institutions of learning which don't take handouts.</div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Even if you are independently supporting yourself in a university or college, the institution to which you go IS not. It relies on that government cheese. SO, if it wants to keep raking in the Federal money (which is yours, BTW, or it WAS), it will clamp down on you and your speech to remain compliant.</div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
This, in another form, is the same scam the IRS was pulling with its intimidation audits. They have the power to hurt or even ruin you financially if you DARE speak out about things they don't want to hear.</div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
If you are not chilled by this, you are either a blithering idiot, or a closet fascist. </div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-69607503477962033752013-05-15T16:53:00.001-04:002013-05-16T11:50:16.169-04:00Passive Aggressive Planners...Not sure if the above is the right term, but I am going with it right now.<br />
<br />
I am annoyed by the people who will NOT make a decision about something when you offer them choices, but will THEN do so after you go ahead and make a decision to cut short the back and forth, vetoing what you suggested/offered.<br />
<br />
Example:<br />
<br />
"Where would you like to eat?"<br />
<br />
"I don't know. Somewhere close."<br />
<br />
"Well, there is A, B and C..."<br />
<br />
"OK, but how about D, E and F?"<br />
<br />
"Okay, how about we meet in front of F?"<br />
<br />
"Uhmm, let's meet in front of E. It has X..."<br />
<br />
"Why the F*** did you not just suggest that in the first place."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-64063102453865765802013-05-15T15:59:00.001-04:002013-05-15T15:59:52.729-04:00Yeah, I Guess the Debate IS Over...<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have not posted in over a year, but I had written something some time ago, just after the 2012 election which I never posted, apparently/. Just reading the first sentence, it seems like it might be curiously appropriate for today, considering everything which is going on. Let's take a look...</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">**************</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is interesting to try and form a snapshot of the world around us today, and wondering how that picture will look in a year, two years, and then 5. I am betting it will not look pretty, but am I wrong?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We have a president in office, elected for a second time, who truly seems to believe in autocracy. He is not the first to exert his executive power overzealously, no doubt, but it is more troubling this time. Why? </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He, and his administration, truly don't seem to give a damn what a good portion of the country thinks, even the majority on certain issues, and seems determined to </span><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/277459-whole-foods-ceo-obama-health-law-is-fascism-"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">rule</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> rather than govern. He seems openly contemptuous (and he is not alone) of anyone or anything that seems to challenge his will. And the same seems to go for much of the "watchdogs" who are supposed to guard against such hubris and protect the little people, but whom seem just as disgusted by the peasants who refuse to get with the program.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps it does not help that a professor of constitutional law at a major university thinks the </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">constitution is passe'</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, and that the "newspaper of record" would publish it without comment, let alone rebuttal.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps it is also that he is not the first person of supposed position and esteem who has espoused the same view in recent years. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps it is some of the same people, and certainly the same side, which just a few years earlier was screaming "Fascist!" when a different man held the office.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps...</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Could it be that I am wrong about that future when a nation which already has the best armed, by far, populace in the world, feels the need to buy even more guns, or guns for the first time, even as the political class talks about "getting them off the streets". People even like my spouse, who two years ago, did not want ANY gun in the house, and now ponders whether we should get a second?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Am I in error to worry about a worldwide financial system which seems increasingly based on </span><a href="http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/was-the-treasury-and-the-fed-right-to-to-take-the-1-trillion-coin-off-the-table/a-trillion-dollar-coin-would-compromise-the-federal-reserve"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">cheap parlor tricks</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> to keep it chugging along, even as the wheels falls off?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Am I paranoid to think that an Arab Spring which supposedly would usher in a new era of freedom and democracy more resembles the lights going out in Europe circa the 1930's or the </span><a href="http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/15/mali-dien-bien-phu-all-over-again/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">march of Communism</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> post 40's? </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Maybe. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As Hindenburg reportedly claimed, maybe God does look after drunks, little children and the United States of America. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, we are busy pushing God out of the public square, mocking him in the private, except when he is worshipped by those who take such actions as legitimate cause for murder. So, God may decide to sit events out for a while. Sorry.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The point of taking this snapshot now is to keep in mind these kind of </span><a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/mitt-romney-knew-about-the-brewing-mali-conflict-b"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ironies</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">...</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 21px;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib0c__ic6hkhY0h-MuI0xa7Etut_pWdoo_sIE5ot7Gq-PUhpkprlqE98n5M3fuh4YcqjNgm378nt8p5hinbv1RdbWi7Wsvzw0oqpB0pLpt37BC3AsYuB5uAGI8FJxoIcJdcZ66xA/s1600/Mali.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib0c__ic6hkhY0h-MuI0xa7Etut_pWdoo_sIE5ot7Gq-PUhpkprlqE98n5M3fuh4YcqjNgm378nt8p5hinbv1RdbWi7Wsvzw0oqpB0pLpt37BC3AsYuB5uAGI8FJxoIcJdcZ66xA/s1600/Mali.tiff" height="544" width="640" /></a></div>
<h1 id="post-title" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; clear: left; color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 38px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 36px; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></span></span></h1>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 38px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">...in the future as events unfold, in the vain hope some might understand how we got where we end up.</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">I say vain because I don't think it will happen, at least not until the shit well truly hits the fan, and, to paraphrase Herman Wouk, the scales don't fall from people's eyes, but are shot off.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">I told a friend of mine today that I had found a new kind of loathing for the Left to describe my changed feelings toward them, but I realize that was not quite right. I always had loathing for the Left, and it's not really a matter of degree that has changed.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">What is different now is that previously, I felt it was important to try and engage in some sort of discussion or dialogue with them, to argue or even beat them over the head with facts and logic in an attempt to get them, at least some of them, to see reason.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">I no longer feel that. What I feel is that the Left, the hard core liberal cult, is not interested in facts, logic, fair play, consistency or anything else. None of that matters when it does not suit them. Their agenda matters in the ultimate expression of the ends justifying the means.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">So, the Left, having made it clear to me and others with differing views that nothing we do or say, nothing we prove or disprove, nothing experience reveals nor common sense dictates will ever divert them from their goals, have made my task in dealing with them far simpler, if not easy.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">Resistance. Pure and simple.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"> </span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">*No energy to be burned in pointless arguments with those not interested in debate. </span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">*No effort exerted to master or organize facts or issues.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">*No time wasted trying to convince those whose faith trumps all reason.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">No, that time is past. What remains is to decide what core principles and beliefs we hold dear, and to hold on to them without any negotiation or equivocation. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">******</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">Interesting that I would return to this blog, to find this unpublished post, at this time, when much evidence of what I am talking about is coming to light.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;">"</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We have a president in office, elected for a second time, who truly seems to believe in autocracy."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The IRS admits to using the power of it's organization for partisan political ends.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Allegations that the EPA did very much the same thing.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Department of Justice secretly obtaining phone records of a media outfit, and then hedging on who ordered it.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The continuing Benghazi cover-up.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There have been plenty more indications that this administration simply does not care about the rule of law and simple accountability, but this week seems to a particularly busy one for scandals. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Will it amount to anything?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well, if history is any measure, no.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> A compliant press corp, even if annoyed at being bullied and spied, will likely fall back in line as it has done before.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A Republican leadership, too drunk on the same power which fuels their opposition, will be unwilling to pursue this kind of malfeasance far enough to make a difference because that will mean diminishing governmental power when it's their turn.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem is, that it is not the administration alone, not the entire left, and sadly, even the politicians on the right. This administration has been the most blatant in its abuse of power, but it is aided and abetted by a Left wing for which standards are applicable only when they view it as beneficial. That things that were unspeakable abuses of power before, are shrugged at now, if even acknowledged. In some cases, there is literally an attitude of, "Well, it's us, doing it, so it's cool." The Left as a whole has gotten used to not being called on things, and for obvious reasons they wish that to continue. Ideals and standards are simply tools to be picked up and put down as needed. What matters is POWER.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, this is where the Right comes in, insofar as the establishment Right.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They like power just fine, even if they make the obligatory protestations about the encroachment of governmental reach. After all, if we really did reduce the size and power of government, it would reduce the stature and power of ALL members of government.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Who readily gives up power and prestige, particularly when you have come to rely on it as your only means of subsistence? </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The American people sense this increasing sense of entitlement to rule autocratically in much of the government structure, and they are making preparations for it, because it does not seem it will stop and recede on its own. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One can label all those people buying guns and ammunition as militia crazies, but when one looks at all the corruption, abuse of power and haughty denial of responsibility rampant in government, one has to ask; when does it stop?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And if you cannot answer that question, then you will understand why people are preparing themselves for some of the worst possible scenarios.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; line-height: 38px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 38px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: ProximaNovaSemibold, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 38px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-10556138723304110702011-05-02T02:03:00.004-04:002011-05-02T02:10:06.667-04:00Got you......you mother-Fucking prick.<div><br /></div><div>Oh, it took almost 10 years after you brought murder and chaos here, but in the end, we tracked you down, ran you to ground, and fucking ended you.</div><div><br /></div><div>I sat up late at night almost 10 years ago (God, how recent that seems to me) and watched the aftermath of what you and your fucking twisted ideology wrought.</div><div><br /></div><div>I sat up again this night, drank a whiskey in tribute to the brave and intrepid heroes who hunted you down, and to the souls of all those you viciously murdered.</div><div><br /></div><div>I hear your son also died in the attack.</div><div><br /></div><div>GOOD.</div><div><br /></div><div>I just kissed my child goodnight. Tomorrow they will wake up in a world which does NOT have you fucking in it...</div><div><br /></div><div>...and that is JOYOUS! God IS good.</div><div><br /></div><div>Enjoy Hell, you fucking goat molesting genocidal ass-wipe.</div><div><br /></div><div>Burn in fucking Hell!</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-33749019006447592922011-01-13T10:19:00.004-05:002011-01-13T10:34:12.521-05:00Idiocy Keeps On Coming...Mediocre film director Spike Lee <a href="http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110112123203.aspx">weighs in</a> on the Tuscon shooting, taking to heart the calls to "tone down the rhetoric":<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Here's my, my take in it. I think that, as film makers, as politicians, as artists, we have to understand that all, whatever we do goes out in the universe. And you should be aware of what you're doing. And you cannot just say "Well I just did this and, and my - had nothing to do with what happened." That's, that's not, that's not the case. </span><strong style="font-style: italic;">Also the United States of America is the most violent country in the history of civilization. And this NRA thing. We gotta turn this around. You know these, these guns are out of hand. And I know they have a very powerful lobby but something has to be done about the gun control in this country. That's my opinion.</strong><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><br /><br />Hat tip:Media Research Center<br /><br />And the left gets SO annoyed when they are accused of hating their country.<br /><br />Spike was on the Today to promote his line of children's books, but maybe if Spike cracked open a few books himself, he might actually be embarrassed to be spewing such laughably false bullshit.<br /><br />I don't care what metric you try to use, that is nothing but an American-hating fantasy. Don't make me have to break it down for you. If you can't think of something to dispute it right off the bat, you are an ignorant jack-off.<br /><br />But the real kick is this little <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000490/bio">biographica</a>l note:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"His personal life has become somewhat well known, too. He had a relationship with </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000932/">Halle Berry</a> and started a family with <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1416174/">Tonya Lewis Lee</a><span style="font-style: italic;">, with whom he has two children."</span><br /><br />Got that? This guy has two kids and unless I missed his move to France, he still resides in the good ole' USA. So, he chooses to raise his children in "<strong style="font-style: italic;">the most violent country in the history of civilization."<br /><br /></strong><strong style="font-weight: normal;">Me? I like children in general, and am really fond of my own, and if I found myself living in the demonic abattoir that he apparently believes the United States to be, I would move them the fuck out, especially if I had the juice to do it. Spike sure does, so I can only surmise he really does not care about his kids all that much, or he REALLY digs violence. Maybe both. </strong><strong style="font-style: italic;"><br /></strong><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Lee is also known to have an obsessive love of the New York Knicks."</span><br /><br />Interesting. Spike hates his country enough to slander it viciously, but he has a profound love for perpetual losers.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-13450918259102457802011-01-12T11:46:00.008-05:002011-01-13T06:46:44.349-05:00Left Continues to Spin TragedyI have noticed that some people on the left, some I know, have had the brains or basic decency to STFU when it comes to making ANY sort of opportunistic comment on the Tuscon shooting. Others are so fucking morally bankrupt that they can't help spinning shit any which way they please to self-gratify their limp egos.<br /><br />Case in Point: Gawker<br /><br /><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://gawker.com/5731564/sarah-palin-blames-the-media-for-blood-libel"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"</span>Sarah Palin Blames the Media for 'Blood Libel'</a> <p style="font-style: italic;"><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/01/palingetty3.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/01/340x_palingetty3.jpg" class="right image340" alt="Sarah Palin Blames the Media for 'Blood Libel'" width="340" /></a><br /></p><p style="font-style: italic;">After the horrific Tucson shootings last weekend, future U.S. president <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #sarahpalin" href="http://gawker.com/tag/sarahpalin/">Sarah Palin</a> retreated to her prayer cave and prayed for guidance. Today, she's <a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=487510653434">announced</a> her findings: The real tragedy here is "journalists and pundits" who "manufacture a <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged #bloodlibel" href="http://gawker.com/tag/bloodlibel/">blood libel</a>."</p>See, after days of a left-wing orgy of accusations that Sarah Palin was a blood-soaked murderer for all intents and purposes, the editors and readers of Gawker are now pissed at her for calling bullshit on bullshit.<br /><br />It is now readily apparent to anyone with remaining brain cells, or who is not a complete ideological hack, that the tragic shooting in Tuscon was in no way related to ANYTHING happening in this reality politically, despite numerous claims to contrary from the left. Everyone from Palin, to Rush Limbaugh, to Republicans, the Tea Party to the right in general were told "YOU DID IT, YOU BASTARDS!" by the media and the left-wing moonbats, but then I repeat myself.<br /><br /><br />It is also BLINDINGLY obvious that despite the lack of facts early on, and then in spite of them later, the left attempted to exploit the tragedy in Tuscon for political gain, trying to stoke incendiary anger against the right while decrying all things incendiary. Oh, wait, did I say "attempted", as in past tense? It still continues with fucktards like Bill Maher and the cretins at Gawker.<br /><br />Of course, this is, in a sense, brilliant. Having being caught out, AGAIN, as dishonest fanatics, the Left will try to Ju Jistsu the discussion back to Palin, the topic of discussion being, as always, "Sarah Palin is an asshole because we were losers in high school, and still are. So there!"<br /><br />Apparently, Gawker feels it is unfair and insensitive for Palin to use the term "blood libel" when describing the vicious smear campaign the Left engaged in over the shooting in Arizona.<br /><br />STOP.<br /><br />First, we would not really need to go further, would we?<br /><br />Pot. Kettle. Unfair Asshole.<br /><br />Basically, Gawker is saying:<br /><br />"How DARE you use overheated rhetoric and make ridiculous accusations that point out our overheated rhetoric and ridiculous accusations!!"<br /><br />Short note to Gawker.<br /><br />Fuck you.<br /><br />Longer note....<br /><br />Is "blood libel" really an unfair use of the term? Let's see how Gawker explains their umbrage:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Maureen O'Connor pointed out that "</span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel">blood libel</a><span style="font-style: italic;">" actually "refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays." Is Sarah Palin accusing the liberal media of murdering Jew babies? Where does the ADL stand on this? "</span><br /><br />The whole accusing the media of murdering Jewish babies line is not just meant as a witty crack. It's meant to distract from the fact that the metaphor immediately previous is actually pretty accurate when read.<br /><br />The Left is continually trying to pin the actions of lunatics who go on murderous rampages on the right, either by claiming they were of the right (when they are most typically, NOT) or that the right influenced their decision to kill. As has been pointed out numerous times over the last few days by others, it was done in the case of JFK, RFK, Oklamahoma City, and even 9/11. It happens when the maniac is even demonstrably of the left mindset.<br /><br />So the left is repeatedly making collective <span style="font-weight: bold;">false accusations</span> of <span style="font-weight: bold;">murder</span> against<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>sections of a population, claiming they do so to further their ideology, <span style="font-weight: bold;">libeling</span> them.<br /><br />So, HOW does this analogy not work again?<br /><br />Of course it does. It's accurately pretty on target (heh) as analogy or metaphor, but it cuts way too close to the truth; it demolishes yet again one of the Left's precious narratives that make them feel superior despite their bitter mediocrity.<br /><br />So Gawker and its cretinous cohorts act like it is some sort of bizarre comparison, claiming Palin was saying something she was not, making cracks about "prayer caves", because, you know, anyone who prays is a primitive.<br /><br />It would be entirely infuriating if it were not for the fact that their smug delusional asses are getting whacked in public opinion. Our job is to make sure to kick them while they are down, and if you have a trouble with that violent rhetoric, kiss my fucking ass!<br /><br />UPDATE:<br /><br />Hey, looks like a whole lot of people <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/113065/">agree</a> with me, right and left!Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-66493094219981436062011-01-11T10:10:00.005-05:002011-01-12T12:28:00.322-05:00Bullshit Flying Fast And FuriousI have been observing with ever increasing disgust the darkly cynical machinations of the left, trying to exploit the Tuscon shooting for partisan advantage, whether it is over particular issues like gun control, or an overall smearing of the right/tea party/Sarah Palin and whoever the fuck else stands in their way to power.<br /><br />Even for someone who loathes the Left, and sees their worldview as destructive, I am in awe of the balls on display here. There is just simply too much bullshit to tackle out there, but luckily there are many people on the case. Let me focus in on a particular piece of trash that I just came across:<br /><br />"<br /><div class="pane-node-title"><h1>Democrats move to limit guns, threatening language in shooting's wake</h1></div> <div class="tags"> </div> <div class="image-insert-right"><div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-blog-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div style="display: block;" class="field-item odd"> <a class="lightbox-processed" href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/blog_images/mcc.jpg" rel="lightshow[field_blog_image][Evan Vucci/AP]"><span></span><img src="http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/imagecache/large_scaled/blog_images/mcc.jpg" alt="Evan Vucci/AP" title="Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips." width="300" height="222" /></a><br /><br /> </div> </div> </div> <div style="font-style: italic;" class="photo-caption">Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips.</div> </div> <div style="font-style: italic;" class="content field-field-body"> <p>Reacting to the assassination attempt on one of their own, two House members on Monday said they will introduce legislation that would ban certain ammunition clips and make it illegal to threaten a federal official, both of which they say contributed to the mass casualties in a shooting rampage in Tuscson over the weekend.</p> <p><br />Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips like the one used by Jared Loughner, the gunman accused of killing 6 and injuring 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., as they gathered at a “Congress on Your Corner” event.</p> <p><br />And Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., <span style="font-weight: bold;">will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to uses threatening words or symbols or incite violence against a lawmaker or federal official</span>."</p></div> <a style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153);" href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/01/democrats-move-limit-guns-threatening-language-shootings-wake#ixzz1AjwjOc1s">http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/01/democrats-move-limit-guns-threatening-language-shootings-wake#ixzz1AjwjOc1s</a><br /><br />The gun control issue is a farce in its own way, but I want you to reread that last bit.<br /><br />At least 2 levels of bullshit here...<br /><br />First, why make it illegal to just threaten or incite violence against a Federal official or lawmaker? Don't we ALL deserve equal protection under the law? Is what we need right now even more special privilege for our Lords and Ladies?<br /><br />If I am a working dad, or single woman, who has some psycho stalking me, sending me or my family psycho shit, should I not also get to drop the legal hammer on his ass?<br /><br />Second, can we make this more vague? Make it illegal to use threatening words or symbols? And what, pray tell, would be defined as threatening words or symbols, and who would get to define them?<br /><br />Why, I do believe it would believe it would be some of the same Lord and Ladies who feel themselves worthy of special treatment!<br /><br />This is a bad, bad, BAD idea, wrapped in supposedly good intentions with a crunchy, candy coating of crisis. What it will be used for is make, with the force of law behind it, freedom of speech unacceptable when it comes to close to challenging authority. What is "threatening" will be applied both liberally and selectively, to suit the needs of those already wielding power.<br /><br />We already have laws covering harassment, terroristic threats and the like to deal with true threats from fanatics and nut-jobs. Making certain terminology or metaphors verboten is just one more way the authorities try to rig the game in their favor.<br /><br />NFW!<br /><br />Sorry. We are paying attention now, and are onto your game.<br /><br />****<br /><br />BTW, I have gone back and forth over using strong language and frothing at the bit, or trying to be more measured on this site. I have decided I can't do either exclusively. I will try to be measured in my words and tone as much as possible, but when something pisses me off, I intend to vent. God KNOWS I need to vent. If you have a problem with that, then fu-, er, go away....Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-56594822675076982032010-09-23T11:29:00.003-04:002010-09-23T11:42:04.089-04:00What Did I JUST Say...Considering my last post, these two news items just seem to fit in horribly well, don't they?<br /><br /><em>"A </em><a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/neighborhoods.html?region=66084" target="_blank"><em>Northwest Side</em></a><em> man has been charged with plotting to bomb a strip of crowded </em><a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/neighborhoods.html?region=105471" target="_blank"><em>Wrigleyville</em></a><em> night spots around the time people were leaving a Dave Matthews concert at the ballpark over the weekend. Sami Samir Hassoun, 22, of the 4700 block of North Kedzie Avenue, was arrested as he placed a backpack containing what he thought were high-explosives in a trash can in front of Sluggers on Clark Street, about a block south of Wrigley Field, according to the FBI."</em> - <a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/muslim-plotted-to-bomb-wrigley-nightspots-post-dave-matthews-concert-targeting-thousands.html">LINK</a><br /><br /><em>"Sonia Nassery Cole knew that shooting a movie on location in Afghanistan could get her killed. The most vivid reminder came a few weeks before filming, she said, when militants located her leading actress and cut off both of her feet."</em> - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/movies/22tulip.html?_r=1">LINK</a><br /><br />CUT OFF HER FEET!<br /><br />Hmm, it seems that neither one of these news stories is going to get ANYWHERE the coverage that one yahoo down in Florida got for <em>threatening</em> to burn Korans.<br /><br />Funny, that.<br /><br />Yeah, I know, the last item was not someone in America who had her feet cut off. I guess that its irrevelevant to that whole "irrational fear" thing I was speaking off, right?Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-51866796850105641552010-09-21T10:38:00.017-04:002010-09-23T11:40:39.098-04:00Islamophobia? Really?-<br />A recurring theme for the last 9 years, but one which seems particularly <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">prevalent</span> now, is the worrying tide of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Islamophobia</span> that is supposedly sweeping the US. As I have found, when one examines the actual meaning of words, you discover a clever manipulation has occurred in order to bolster a narrative.<br /><br />The definition of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia">Phobia</a> as listed by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Wikipedia</span>:<br /><br /><em>"A phobia is an <strong>irrational</strong>, <strong>intense</strong> and persistent fear. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared stimulus. When the fear is beyond one's control, and if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.[1]"</em><br /><br />So, to accurately describe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Islamophobia</span>, we would get this:<br /><br />"<em>"<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Islamophobia</span> is an <strong>irrational</strong>, <strong>intense</strong> and persistent fear of Islam and/or Muslims. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid Muslims or Islam. When the fear of Islam or Muslims is beyond one's control, and if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.[1]"</em><br /><br />So, as defined, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Islamophobia</span> is an irrational, intense fear of Islam and Muslims.<br /><br />Consider this <a href="http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm">List</a>.<br /><br />Even discounting some of the incidents cited as questionably more domestic violence related than Islamic terror AND allowing that some incidents listed are misreported, the totality of it still comes down to an inarguable fact.<br /><br />There have been dozens of religiously inspired attacks by Muslims on Americans, ON American soil, over the last 3-4 decades, and they seem to be escalating. 3,000 Americans of all religions, colors and creeds have been targeted for murder by members of a self-identified group.<br /><br />The only known incident of anti-Muslim violence was a Sikh man murdered by a couple of yahoos that were too stupid to know he was not a Muslim.<br /><br />Even considering that the vast, VAST majority of Muslims in America do not approve, let alone participate in these violent acts, it brings into question whether Americans' fear of Muslims is irrational OR intense. If it does not qualify for either or both, it's not a phobia of any sort.<br /><br />So, considering the record of attacks, and the body count resulting over just the last 10 years, and the motivating factor in all those attacks, there is nothing <strong>irrational</strong> about the fear. Irrational is defined as:<br /><br /><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">ir</span>•<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">ra</span>•<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">tion</span>•<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">al</span></strong><br /><br /> ɪˈ<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">ræ</span>ʃ ə <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">nlShow</span> Spelled[<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">ih</span>-rash-uh-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">nl</span>]<br /><br />–adjective<br />1.<br />without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.<br />2.<br />without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.<br />3.<br />not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.<br />4.<br />not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.<br /><br /><strong>irrational (ɪˈ<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">ræ</span>ʃən ə l)</strong><br /><br />— adj<br />1. inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd<br />2. incapable of reasoning<br /><br />Now, one can argue about the degree of threat Islam or Muslims present; what should be done about it; how much it can be attributed to the fringe as opposed to the mainstream; etc.<br /><br />However, there is nothing irrational about the fear, since there is some logical basis for it when looking at the known facts and the record. Those who are "fearful" (and we'll get to that term in a second) do not utterly lack reasons for their fear, nor can their concern be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">labeled</span> absurd:<br /><br /><br /><strong>ab·surd </strong><br /><br />–adjective<br />1.<br />utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.<br /><br />In regards to intensity, the word "fear" does not even apply, further discrediting the use of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Islamophobia</span>.<br /><br />A real, intense, <strong>uncontrollable</strong> fear of Muslims would result in weekly or daily attacks on Muslims or their Mosques, attempts to ban their religion from being practiced or at the very least protests at Mosques across the nation. This has not been happening, thank God, although the media loves to dress it up as such.<br /><br />No, the Ground Zero mosque controversy does not count because the concern is those building it appear to be less moderate than they portray themselves, and are doing it for political or ideological, rather than religious, reasons.<br /><br />A better, much more appropriate word is not "fear" but "concern". Americans of all stripes, including other Muslims, are concerned that a militant faction of Islam, present even in the United States, is at war with us and has the blood on its hands to prove it.<br /><br />Now, since the definition of "phobia" is not a "<strong>irrational</strong>, <strong>intense</strong> and persistent concern" we need to resist the liberal (pun intended) use of that word.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-12202084727139470362010-09-09T08:37:00.003-04:002010-09-09T09:13:00.711-04:00Tea Party Extremism......is a fantasy, particularly when one recalls the vitriol we've endured from the Left over the last 10 years.<br /><br /><a href="http://washingtonisbroke.com/content/The-Audacity-to-Complain-About-TEA-Party-Signs-R">Washington is Broke</a> has a fantastic, and I mean FANTASTIC, little video exposing the hypocrisy of both the Left and the Media over supposed extremism from Tea Party people.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ua45SaQHMM0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ua45SaQHMM0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />WARNING! You are going to see some disturbing images and ugly language, but that is entirely the point. <br /><br />Let's remember how aghast the media and the Left were over the Joker poster images, and the few depiction of Obama as Hitler (mostly from Larouche nutballs, not tea partiers) and their contention that ANY disagreement with Obama's policies was merely hatred boiling to the surface. <br /><br />Note particularly the number of images and signs that directly call for the ASSASSINATION of Bush and other politicians.<br /><br />Note the kind soul whose sign tells us that the removal of the World Trade Center was an improvement for New York.<br /><br />Also note that this video, as well done as it is, is merely a small taste of the nasty swill the Left has been spooning out for decades, let alone the last 10 years.<br /><br />Once again, the utter lack of consistency rears its head. Its do as I say, not as I do from the Left, ad nauseum, and the media for the most part plays right along.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-27010709386196377852010-09-09T05:55:00.010-04:002010-09-09T06:52:28.326-04:00Who's Intolerant?In this back and forth over the Cordoba Mosque, and now this bible burning story in Florida, I keep hearing that people are becoming more and more bigoted against Muslims.<br /><br />We are then told not to confuse the small number of radicals in that faith with the vast majority of moderates.<br /><br />Then we are told that if the Mosque is NOT built, or if the Korans ARE burned, the Muslim world is going to explode with anger and violence, because the extremists (the ones who oppose the mosque) have taken over the debate.<br /><br />????<br /><br />I'm sorry?<br /><br />The extremists are the ones who oppose the Mosque, not the ones who threaten riots and murder and mayhem if they don't get their way?<br /><br />This kind of blatant hypocrisy, seeking of special <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">privilege</span>, and the propensity for violence over any slight, is WHY people are so wary of Islam in the first place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n3/pisschrist.htm">Piss Christ</a> was a work of "art" where a crucifix was dropped into a jar of URINE, and was exhibited with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">NEA</span> support, IE, tax-payer funds.<br /><br /><a href="http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g67/dd_doubletap/Political/?action=view¤t=pisschrist.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g67/dd_doubletap/Political/pisschrist.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a><br /><br />Let me restate that:<br /><br /><strong>A crucifix, an object symbolizing and representing the most important figure and most sacred event of his life to Christians, was put into a jar full of excrement.</strong><br /><br />HOW MANY people were killed world-wide when Christians rioted in protest?<br /><br />ZERO. Zip. Nada. None.<br /><br />Ditto for when a image of the virgin Mary was covered in elephant dung and pornographic images.<br /><br />Ditto for when a play was done representing Christ as homosexual.<br /><br />Somehow, SOMEHOW, Christians manage to endure this insults and provocations without mass violence, or violence in micro, and protested these things as unfair and bigoted. That's how religions on liberal (old school) democracies are supposed to react.<br /><br />Too many in Islam, however, wants it both ways. They want tolerance and understanding and sensitivity, FOR THEM, but don't want to hear about any of it when it involves something that is not to their liking. And if they really don't like it, some of them will kill you over it, and others may say, "Well, what did you expect?"<br /><br />Build a mosque right by Ground Zero? We demand the right under the first Amendment!<br /><br />Burn the Koran in protest of Islamic terror and violence? You better *$^%* not or so help us, Allah, we won't be held responsible for the murder and destruction we wreak!<br /><br />The American public has picked up on this very selective outrage and the underlying threats that come with it, and are fed up. When, with a straight face, Mayor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Bloomberg</span> says he thinks the Times Square bomber might have been someone upset with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Obamacare</span>, they know they are being fed a diet of BS for politically correct purposes<br /><br />For the record, I don't support the burning of Korans, because I think people's religious symbols should be respected, and that antagonizing them by displaying blatant provocations is not kosher. Its an a-hole move in most situations.<br /><br />That's the same reason that while I understand legally the Mosque at Ground Zero may be built, it should NOT be. It's a provocative act, something which many Muslims also believe, and for people to see it for what it is and decry it, they are called bigots.<br /><br />Sorry, that is not going to wash anymore.<br /><br />Now the media is trying to stir up a narrative that the protest against Muslims is going nationwide, leading to things like arson and general bigotry against them.<br /><br />As usual, this is something the media will create with whatever disparate incidents that occur, ignoring the larger picture of tolerance in this country despite the facts.<br /><br />However, I think there is some truth here in the sense that people's tolerance for being played for fools is wearing thin. As a 9/11 family member said on Anderson Cooper last night, the Mosque controversy is a microcosm of the way the middle class in the country has been ignored on any number of important issues.<br /><br />People who dare speak their minds, who dare to question the powers that be, to question the narratives being spun are called radicals, or bigots, or extremists.<br /><br />They know they are no such thing, and that those accusations are code for, "We don't care what you think or what your concerns are. We intend to do exactly as we please, so shut up and take it."<br /><br />Well, they are not going to take, and how hard they push back will be determined by how hard they are pushed in the first place.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-3404134775502067542010-06-17T06:58:00.016-04:002010-07-02T06:21:43.804-04:00Europe wants a Batman...Obama Ain't Him...<p><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>In a much earlier post, I did an </strong></span><a href="http://latticesofbogosity.blogspot.com/2009/01/nature-of-threat.html"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>analysis</strong></span></a><strong><span style="font-family:arial;"> ("The Nature of the Threat") of the film <em>“The Dark Knight”</em> as an allegory to the war on terror, and a particularly good one:</span><br /></strong><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">"To see The Dark Knight as anything OTHER than a pro-war on terror film takes some pretty fancy mental gymnastics. The funny thing is that it is not pro-war or war-on-terror out of some ideological partisanship, but an understanding of common sense, history, and human nature. The characters of Batman and the Joker were written long before the War on Terror, or Bush, or Bin Ladin, and the struggle they represent is as old as history, but they fit so well already to our modern issues.</span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:85%;">Batman is born in a society which has become rotten to the core, where criminals run amok due to both their ruthlessness and avarice, and the corruption of the state, which refuses to reign in them out of fear or in complicity. </span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:85%;">In short, they support one another in preying on the citizenry, with no one able to stop them.Batman is necessary because there is no one else; no one who is in “official” authority can or will do anything either of fear or self-interest or both.”</span></em></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>I loved the film although the very ending, with Batman agreeing to take the rap for the murder of those killed by Two Face, did not sit well with me. I did not get the ending at first, but upon subsequent viewing and reflection, I began to understand the point. </strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>As I alluded to in that post, the problem Batman runs into when trying to defeat the Joker is that the fear he generated among criminals has been eclipsed by the white faced psychopath:</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>"</em></span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000616/"><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>Salvatore Maroni</em></span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>: No one's gonna tell you anything. They're wise to your act. You got rules. The Joker, he's got no rules. No one's gonna cross him for you. You want this guy, you got one way. And you already know what that is. Just take off that mask and let him come find you. Or do you want to let a couple more people get killed while you make up your mind?"</em></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>As I wrote:</strong></span></p><p><em><span style="font-size:85%;">"In order to truly combat such a demon, Batman cannot operate by all the rules of society, even one that was less corrupt and more capable than his. The Joker operates so far out of norms of civilization that Batman has two choices; let him do his evil work and accept the losses, or follow him out just far enough out into the darkness to grab his scrawny little neck and drag him in."</span></em></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>This post came right back to mind when I came across an </strong></span><a href="http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/06/war-and-history-ancient-and-modern.php"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>interview</strong></span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong> of Victor Davis Hanson conducted by Michael Totten, the very end of which COMPLETELY validates the metaphor of the film:</strong></span></p><p><em><span style="font-size:85%;">"I had an interesting conversation two years ago just before Obama's election with some military people in Versailles. They were at a garden party, and everybody was for Obama. But an admiral said to me, "We are Obama. You can't be Obama." </span></em><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">Everybody looked at him. And I said, "What do you mean?" </span></em><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">He said, "There's only room for one Obama."<br /></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">I said, "So we're supposed to do what? Take out Iran while you trash us?"<br /></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">And he said, "Right out of my mouth. I couldn't have said it better. Bush understood our relationship. We have to make accommodations with our public, which is lunatic. You don't really believe there's going to be an EU strike force, do you? Nobody here believes that. If you become neutral, what are we supposed to do?"</span> </em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-family:arial;">At the end of <em>The Dark Knight,</em> Batman takes the rap for killing people he did not because he realizes that by doing so, not only does he preserve a sense of hope for Gotham who won't see their Golden Boy Harvey Dent corrupted, but because he regains the sense of fear and dread among the criminals who had come to view Batman as the lesser of possible evils.<br /><br />Europe wants us to be the bad guy, to be the Batman, because we have the means to fight the bad guys, the aggressive attitude they seem to have lost, and because they don't want to get their hands dirty, to be the bad guy. They want the security that comes from a Dark Knight prowling the streets and back-alleys, roughing up the criminals and psychos, but they don't want to assume the risk to either body or reputation that entails.<br /><br />I guess that would make this Admiral a Commissioner Gordon of sorts, who knows the threat and what is needed to deal with it, but needs to deal with the public and politicians who want their city safe and quiet, but don't want any of the ugliness and politically incorrect trouble that results when fighting monsters.<br /><br />The Joker understood this even better than genius Bruce Wayne:</span><br /></strong><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">"</span></em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005132/"><em><span style="font-size:85%;">The Joker</span></em></a><em><span style="font-size:85%;">: Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve. </span></em></p><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/"><em><span style="font-size:85%;">Batman</span></em></a><em><span style="font-size:85%;">: Where's Dent?</span></em><br /><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005132/"><em><span style="font-size:85%;">The Joker</span></em></a><em><span style="font-size:85%;">: You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you."</span></em><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-family:arial;">Europe wants the ability to treat Americans as rogue cowboy yahoo neanderthals they are superior to, even as we keep the psychos off their throats. We foot the bill, in blood and cash, take the wrath of the collective world over our "brutality", even as we keep the really brutal from storming the gates to rape and murder at will.<br /><br />Hat's off to that Admiral for having the guts to say what he did, but the problem remains that the farce we are part of will end in disaster. As Hanson states at the very end:</span></strong><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;">"I was surprised at his candor. And it's worrisome. On the one hand I like it because they're getting just what they asked for, but on the other hand, it's tragic. And it's dangerous. We shouldn't be doing this."</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></em><br /><strong><span style="font-family:arial;">No, we should not, because it is not sustainable, and at some point the European populace* will need to man and pony up or we will all pay a heavy price. That means bolstering their military expenditures, authorizing their armed forces for more serious and sustained missions, and taking some of the heat, or learning to ignore it, when things get rough.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br />David S. Goyer and Christopher Are credited with the story, and Chris and brother Jonathan Nolan wrote the screenplay for Dark Knight. The more you peel back the layers on this script, the more astounding it is.<br /><br />Freakin' brilliant.<br /></span><br /></strong><em>*There are European men and women with their asses in the field, fighting or at least helping with the war against terror. This statement does not dimish their efforts and sacrifices, but calls upon their governments and population to treat with more seriousness and honor the job they do with money, respect and support.</em> </p>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-58016980586311429512010-06-09T07:46:00.007-04:002010-06-09T07:58:04.445-04:00Messages and Massacres<span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><span style="color:#660000;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"><strong>From the </strong></span><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/10251827.stm"><span style="font-family:verdana;"><strong>BBC</strong></span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;"><strong>:</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#660000;"><strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">"Britons link Islam with extremism, says survey</span></strong><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Half of those questioned linked Islam with terrorism, according to the survey .</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Most people in the UK associate Islam with extremism and the repression of women, a survey has suggested. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The online YouGov poll found 58% of those questioned linked Islam with extremism while 69% believed it encouraged the repression of women. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The survey of 2,152 adults was commissioned by the Exploring Islam Foundation."</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"><strong>Now, how did my British bretheren come to THAT conclusion?</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#660000;">"The organisation has launched a poster campaign on London transport to combat negative perceptions of Muslims. "</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"><strong>Hmm, maybe the reason for the negative perception was the last time Muslims put things on London transport, they </strong></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings"><span style="font-family:verdana;"><strong>exploded</strong></span></a><strong><span style="font-family:verdana;">.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">You know, this may sound crazy, but a better way to "combat negative perceptions of Muslims" may be for Muslims to openly and continually denounce the radicals who preach hatred and Jihad, particularly those IN London and the UK. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Organizing fellow Muslims to rat out the bad guys to MI5 might also do the trick.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Just a suggestion.</span><br /></strong><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;"></span>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-16739192883805136222010-06-06T14:17:00.003-04:002010-06-06T14:20:07.247-04:00Buried in TimeI happened to find this video on YouTube while setting up an account...<br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f9_bP219ehQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f9_bP219ehQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />I did not know what to think, because I had never heard these lyrics before, and while they and this guy's rendition were pretty stirring, I am wary of plants in Tea Party crowds.<br /><br />Knowing how the left thinks, and knowing it has no scruples, I worried that the guy had made them up, and worried that things like him holding up his hand like many singers or a preacher might do, would be taken by the left as a cryptic neo-fascist sign.<br /><br />God bless Al Gore and the inter-tubes, I Googled it, and damn if I did not find this:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,<br />What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,<br />Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,<br />O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?<br />And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,<br />Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;<br />O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave<br />O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?<br /><br />On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,<br />Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,<br />What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,<br />As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?<br />Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,<br />In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:<br />'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave<br />O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.<br /><br />And where is that band who so vauntingly swore<br />That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,<br />A home and a country should leave us no more!<br />Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.<br />No refuge could save the hireling and slave<br />From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:<br />And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave<br />O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.<br /><br />O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand<br />Between their loved home and the war's desolation!<br />Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land<br />Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.<br />Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,<br />And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."<br />And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave<br />O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span><span><span style="font-size:100%;">I had no $%#* idea that there were other lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner. How is that possible? Now, I get that the version sung at most events would be shorter, but did I learn this in school and forget it, or did they not bother to teach it?<br /><br />I would love to find a version of this entire thing sung with fervor. Some of the lines fill you with a pleasant chill:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">"</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,<br />Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">"</span><br /><br />Has a Tolkienian quality to it.</span><br /><br />This reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson's book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Carnage-Culture-Landmark-Battles-Western/dp/0385500521">Carnage And Culture</a>:<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >"No refuge could save the hireling and slave<br />From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:<br />And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave<br />O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />What strikes me about all this is the feeling that as Americans we are re-awakening to our history and our legacy, one that has been buried slowly over time. Some of it was merely covered over with the silt of years, others of it purposefully covered over to hide it.<br /><br />Let's all grab a shovel and dig it out.<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-62429483981482566012010-05-24T07:35:00.012-04:002010-05-24T10:18:23.267-04:00Heroes without a ClueI somehow missed this news from last week:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/05/14/nbc-cancels-heroes/">'Heroes' Canceled</a><br /><br /><br /><em>"NBC is no longer holding out for </em><a href="http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/nbc-cancels-heroes.html"><em>'Heroes.'</em></a><em>According to the </em><a href="http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/nbc-cancels-heroes.html"><em>Live Feed</em></a><em>, the network has officially axed the series, about ordinary people with extraordinary powers, after four seasons.The news ends a rocky ride for 'Heroes,' which premiered in 2006 to a staggering 14.3 million viewers and a 5.9 rating among adults 18-49, making it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">NBC's</span> highest-rated fall drama premiere in five years. The show continued to hit ratings gold in subsequent episodes, including its season 2 premiere, which attracted 14.1 million viewers."</em><br /><br />The show attracted viewers because the first season was astounding, although low-key in a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217869/">"Unbreakable"</a> way, which was its main strength. It was a super-hero show, or was supposed to be, and its first season did a masterful job in building the reality of a world where super-heroes could actually exist. It was not easy taking what could easily seem like a silly premise of men and woman dressed up in tights flying around with flaming fists, and turn it into a eerie, haunting and fascinating journey into the realm of what just might be, if only things were a little more strange in our reality.<br /><br />It was also a great time for such a show, seemingly with the stars aligned, as our real world seemed to tumble out of control. What better salve than seeing a weekly show where empowered individuals could set things right. Super-hero movies like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Spiderman</span>, Batman, X-Men had all done very well at the box office, with other titles doing decent business.<br /><br />So, it seemed like the perfect time, and the perfect start, for a super-hero television series.<br /><br />And, of course, they pissed it all away:<br /><br /><em>"But numbers fell sharply by season 3, due in part to a messy second season and the now-famous writers guild strike of 2007-08 that kept it off the air for months. Only 9.9 million viewers tuned in to watch 'Heroes'' third-season premiere, marking a 25 percent drop from season 2.And that was just the beginning: Season 4 averaged just 6.5 million episodes, with 4.4 million viewers tuning in to its season finale, on Feb. 8."</em><br /><br />I may do a larger post on this, because it deserves a more detailed examination and explanation, but for now, a mini-rant.<br /><br />I stopped watching <strong>Heroes</strong> I think around the last part of the second season. The writer's strike did indeed make for a little confusion in the series progression, but to blame its ultimate demise on it is frankly bullshit. The blame rests squarely on the writers, and ultimately on the creators, who failed to keep a steady hand on the production.<br /><br />I LOVED the show in its first season, and even my wife found it fascinating and watched every week. I was astounded at how well done it was, amazed that network TV was still capable of delivering something like it. To have two demographics like me and wife watching it says <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">alot</span> about why it had so many viewers initially.<br /><br />In the second season, however, the show began to run off the rails, alternating from meandering aimlessly, to making jarring transitions for plot, character nature and motivations, and recycling certain devices to the point of inanity.<br /><br />Case in point was the threatening future premise, where a character would go to the future, find it was all *#&$* up, and then had to try and prevent it. Once, interesting. Twice, well, okay. Three times, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">ZZZZZzzzzz</span>.<br /><br />There is plenty to cite, and maybe I will go back to it, but let me get to the core problem of the show, because it speaks to a larger issue with a LOT of Hollywood fair.<br /><br />The show was called HEROES, but what was lacking in most all of it was the HEROIC. The characters were doing pretty much everything BUT being heroes in the series, from out-maneuvering one another, to continually questioning and/or tentatively testing their powers to the point of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">OCD</span>, to following any number of small quests to solve the riddle of why they were what they were.<br /><br />Now, don't get me wrong, ALL of this would have been fine grist for the story-line mill, and entertaining. However, what was lacking was almost ANY super-hero like action, of one or a small group of these people using their powers to help someone, even while they were running around with the various other subplots.<br /><br />NOT doing this for the first season was fine, as it set the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">tableau</span>, but what looked like atmosphere and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">mythos</span> building turned to apparent uncertainty about where the show was going and even what it was about. It got tedious as not only all the characters had this continuing existential crisis, but the entire show seemed to develop one as things went on.<br /><br />As I said to my wife as my frustration grew, "All this background and mood-setting is great, but at SOME point the audience wants to watch some Heroes kick some bad guy ass!" It was about this time she stopped watching.<br /><br />All of the characters, except maybe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Hiro</span>, were absolutely self-centered and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">narcissistic</span> when it came to their powers, with very brief and fleeting exceptions.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Hiro</span> seemed to be the idealistic core around which the series would be based, the nerd who in his heart understand what it meant to be a hero, which had little to do with your abilities, and in large part depended on WHAT YOU DID WITH THEM! I thought, I think many did, that Hiro would eventually pull the heroes together, remind them and convince them that what they possessed was a responsibility.<br /><br />Instead, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Hiro</span> became a bumbling joke, the comic relief to break up the dreary angst fest all the other heroes were wallowing in.<br /><br /><br />I think I really got aggravated during the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">plot line</span> where Peter gets trapped in the body of a super-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">villain</span> who escapes with two others as they go on a crime and killing spree. The suspense builds as Peter can't use his range of powers, on the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">villains</span>, and goes along with the gang for the moment.<br /><br />Now, a true Hero, limited as he was, would try to do something anyway, but let's give the benefit of the doubt to the writers and Peter, in that he thought he could nothing and maybe is the most reluctant of the heroes.<br /><br />However, at one point Peter GETS HIS POWERS BACK while in the midst of bank robbery, but instead of allowing us even a minute of him kicking some major bad guy ass to punish them, stop them, and protect the innocent, someone stops time (I forget who) and whisks Peter away so <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Sylar</span> can stop them.<br /><br />DIS-SATISFYING to say the least.<br /><br />About the only character who was somewhat immune to this, and thus the most interesting, <em>was </em>that of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Sylar</span>, the lead <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">villain</span> in the series, played by <a href="http://www.tv.com/zachary-quinto/person/65120/summary.html">Zachary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Quinto</span></a>. His character, evil though he was, as complex as they managed to make him, seemed to know what he wanted. It was clear what drove him, and he did not vacillate too much, even with his doubts. HERE was the guy who was not afraid to use his powers.<br /><br />I say <em>somewhat</em> immune because even <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Sylar</span> got the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">wishy</span>-washy treatment as they had him turn to a good guy, then a bad guy again, then a good guy (in the future), then bad, then in love and good, and then bad at a flick of a switch, killing his love interest.<br /><br />"So what?" one might say, "It's bad writing. Happens all the time."<br /><br />Well, that explains part of it. As I understand it, the creator and original team of writers left the show, and the new crop were either incompetent, or really did not have a good grasp of the show, which may be the same thing. So, fair enough.<br /><br />However, I think the bigger issue is that Hollywood is uncomfortable with the concept of heroes. To be a hero means you have to stand for something, have to declare lines of right and wrong, good and evil, and ACT of them, accepting the consequences.<br /><br />They were afraid to take any stances on anything as writers, and so left their characters helpless and timid when courage and conviction were needed.<br /><br />In a scene in season 2, when Peter and Nathan are down in Haiti, confronting the evil brother of the Haitian who has become a super-powered warlord, Nathan sees a young girl in the prison with him. He realizes that at some point she will be forced to be a soldier prostitute, and gives a speech about those unable to protect themselves, and the role of others to be the protectors.<br /><br />FINALLY, I thought, the series will get some firm grounding, and how nice a twist that Nathan, potentially a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">villain</span> in Season One, will be one of the first to recognize it.<br /><br />What does he then do?<br /><br />Returns to Washington DC and rats out the other super-heroes to the President, who then begins rounding them up and putting them in a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Gitmo</span> style prison.<br /><br />WHAT. THE. ****?<br /><br />Now, one could argue that this set up an interesting dynamic where Nathan comes to view the super-powered as being the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">victimizers</span>, or the threat, but it would have been nice to have seen some balance to this with the super-powered defeating some regular criminals. It would have been a nice ongoing conflict, and one suitable to the genre; is a super-hero a hero or vigilante?<br /><br />However, we were not really GIVEN the opposing view, shown the positive side of being a super-hero, of helping defend the weak. It was almost all inter-supers intrigue and combat and hand-wringing.<br /><br />Again, this is just one TV show, but the fact that writers whose success depends on the success of a show CANNOT understand or so ideologically driven that they can't supply the basics of a comic book story, speaks volumes.<br /><br />I will maybe come back to this and better organize my thoughts on it, but I am a little too disgusted at the ruin of so much potential to think clearly.<br /><br />RIP, <em><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Heroes</strong></span></em>, we hardly knew you...the way we wanted to.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-36400020863438950922010-05-21T07:23:00.006-04:002010-05-21T07:53:56.380-04:00The Cult of PersonalityI think it is hardly news to say the conservatives lag far behind in the message conveyance area.<br /><br />They don't have the left's skill, ability and experience for creative ways to spread their message, thinking that being right, as in correct, should be sufficient to get their point across.<br /><br />Sadly, it is not, and the left steals marches on them all the time by propagandizing their message in all sorts of flashy, creative and entertaining ways, even if that message is poison.<br /><br />However, I have lately seen more and more evidence that conservatives and libertarians are getting more and more savvy in this area, trying to compete against the left in their own media arena, and getting progressively (if you will excuse the expression) better at it.<br /><br />Iron Man 2, for one, has themes and dialogue in it that astounds me.<br /><br />“I’m tired of the liberal agenda” - Tony Stark<br /><br />Huh? What? How did this get in a Hollywood movie?<br /><br />Well, the dirty (joyous) little secret may be that stars like <a onclick="(new Image()).src='/rg/castlist/position-1/images/b.gif?link=/name/nm0000375/';" href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000375/">Robert Downey Jr.</a> and directors like <a onclick="(new Image()).src='/rg/directorlist/position-1/images/b.gif?link=name/nm0269463/';" href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0269463/">Jon Favreau</a> may not be down with the whole Progressive liberal agenda. My post about the <a href="http://latticesofbogosity.blogspot.com/2009/01/nature-of-threat.html">Dark Knight</a> also showed that not everyone in Tinsel Down is a mindless liberal drone. I suspect that there are others, and their numbers are swelling.<br /><br />This is all well and good, but we need more of this, need it to build to a maelstrom of media bombarding the public with the facts, layed out in an engaging style.<br /><br />Case in point is this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQuxJIVpOCM&feature=player_embedded#!">video</a>. (Hat-Tip <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/">Instapundit</a>)<br /><br />I myself had thought "Cult of Personality" would make a great political music video, along these lines, but Rachel here went ahead and actually did, driven to it to express her outrage over what is going on with the country. I would have done some things a litte differently, put a little more damning facts in, but the point is, Rachel did it her way, and it comes off as stirring.<br /><br />Now, one can make the point that this woman may not be conservative or libertarian, in the sense that as a Democrat, her party has shifted out from under feet and lurched far left, leaving her stranded. She mentions joining the Tea Party, not the Libertarian or Republican.<br /><br />I think that's a pointless distinction. Who cares? She's taking a stand, thinking for herself, and acting.<br /><br />The point is that the growing Progressive monster which the government is becoming is being met by a growing insurgency of opposition which is using more of the Progressive's own tools against it.<br /><br />The propagandist masters are finding that the enemy can play at their own game. I get a chill thinking about the ideological media war to come.<br /><br />This makes me think I need to do a post redefine the battle lines in the United States. I am sure someone else more politically savvy and smart has done it, and if I find it, I will post and comment.Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-48290008668924347622010-05-21T06:18:00.007-04:002010-05-21T07:04:53.502-04:00Age of Hypocrisy - Mondale and the FilibusterEarlier this week, in the <a href="http://latticesofbogosity.blogspot.com/2010/05/found-my-focus.html">"Found My Focus?"</a> post, I said that this may very well be the Era of Hypocrisy, so widespread and accepted the practice is today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026344.php">Powerline</a> has another example of this, where Walter Mondale, democratic stalwart and ex-Vice President of one of the worst Administrations ever, has a history of contorting his principles to fit current political needs.<br /><br /><span >Read</span> it for yourself, but what it boils down to is Mondale is for the practice of filibuster when it works for democrats, and against it when it does not.<br /><br />Now, a life-long democrat and party faithful politician like Mondale can maybe be expected to be so blatantly partisan and hypocritical, although I think tolerating this level of dishonesty in our leaders is a large part of our problem. In fact, I am convinced of it.<br /><br />However, as <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026344.php">Powerline</a> points out, the local newspaper which runs Mondale's conflicting editorials fails to even note the opportunistic change of position:<br /><br /><em>"The Star Tribune of course omits any mention of Mondale's support for "the filibuster paralysis" in its own pages back in 2005. To Star Tribune reporters Kevin Diaz and Eric Roper, I offer a hearty congratulations. It takes two reporters to cover up relevant information from the Star Tribune's own archives that belies today's party line."</em><br /><br />So, not only do we have a politician being blatantly hypocritical, but we have a news organization playing "See no evil", aiding and abetting the dishonesty. What happened to the journalist "speaking truth to power" and their duty of informing the public?<br /><br />Again, hypocrisy is NOT a new thing to the world, but never in the history of the world has it been part of so a well organized machine in a democratic state. Sure, in Stalin's Russia and the Third Reich you had well-heeled state media running the party line, but then what does that say about us?<br /><br />If you wonder why Fox News, the internet, and talk radio are so vehemently HATED by the left it is because it refuses to tow the party line, to sustain the narrative, to look the other way when a left-wing politico is making a mockery of principles and integrity.<br /><br />And if all those sources are imbalanced in their own way, then they need to be called on it, but until integrity in the media suddenly makes a comeback, they will serve as a needed check on the state-run media we have.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026344.php"></a>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-31667106905014159062010-05-19T16:39:00.033-04:002010-07-02T06:41:23.135-04:00Iron-Dong and Sponge BrainsA certain Natalie Wilson, writing for Ms. Magazine, does an laughably inane and politically correct <a href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/05/11/gender-101-from-iron-man-2/">review</a> of Iron Man 2.<br /><br />(Hat tip - <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lscott/2010/05/18/ms-magazine-trashes-iron-man-2/#idc-cover">Leigh Scott</a> @ Big Hollywood)<br /><br />What's not so funny is that this woman is a professor teaching other women, indoctrinating others in both Gender-Feminist twaddle and perpetuating absolutely abominable critical thinking skills. This will soon become evidently apparent.<br /><br />I was not going to be this harsh or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">snarky</span></span> with my critique, but after calling Ms. Wilson out on two salient points in the article, my comment was deep-sized by the moderator. That kind of cowardice makes me cranky, so excuse my snark when it rears its head, but I think you'll see I've got more than my share of valid points.<br /><br />Her words in italics, mine normal<span class="Apple-style-span"><br /><br /><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"><a name="0.1_graphic02"></a><p><span style="color:#000099;"><img height="1" alt="Your browser may not support display of this image." src="https://mail.google.com/mail/?name=d33be9805ff33117.jpg&attid=0.1&disp=vahi&view=att&th=128b149899ba46a8" width="1" /></span><span style="color:#000099;"><i>It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but </i>male<i>.</i></span><br /></p><p>Right. Sexism detected right in the title of the movie.<br /></p><p>How DARE they not title the movie <strong>Iron Human</strong>! Or <strong>Iron Person</strong>! Or <strong>Iron Carbon Based Life Form of Indeterminate Gender</strong>!!</p></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Hey, based on this logic, why isn't it then sexist to call it "Woman's Studies" and not "Human Studies"?<br /></div><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>As I sat watching the movie with my 13-year-old son (and cringing at the overt <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">sexualization</span></span> of females),</i></span><br /></p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">I bet your son was not cringing at the females, unless of course you have been programming him to feel dirty and sexist for being heterosexual.<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span">I could do a lot of dissecting what "overt <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">sexualization</span></span>" means to Ms. Wilson, but I think we'll get an idea below.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><br />I just hope the poor kid got to enjoy his damn movie without being lectured on sexism afterwards.</p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>I realized that </i>Iron Man 2<i> is about the glory of males, the fact they are indeed “iron” and that, with their strength and ingenuity, the world will be saved.</i></span><br /></p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Well, gosh. I obviously misjudged Ms. Wilson. She actually does seem to get the gist and concept of the film, and that she appreciates the role of males in society. I'm a bit of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">pre</span></span>-judging pig I am.<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>A number of other significant gender lessons are imparted in the film.</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span">Uh-oh...</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i></i></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i></i></span> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>First, on men and masculinity:</i></span><br /><span style="color:#000099;"><i>1. Men don’t cry, they scream, as Ivan (played by Mickey Rourke) does when his dad dies.</i></span></p><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Actually, Ivan (<em>Mickey Rourke</em>) did both, granted more the latter than the former, but right at the start we get our first warning sign that Ms. Wilson is not really paying attention to the film she is reviewing, but will merely be using it as the whipping boy on which she can flog various pet issues.<br /></div><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span">Oh, but thanks Natalie for judging someone else on the way they display emotional trauma. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i></i></span> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>2. Men like power tools, technology, welding and weapons. Talking, not so much.</i></span></p><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Correct, correct, correct, <em>and</em> correct on the first four.</div><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Talking to YOU, a humorless, tiresome, liberal gender-feminist scold? Yes, probably not so much. Guilty.<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Too harsh?<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span">Well, consider the rest of this woman's article before you judge, but I've got some personal experience with the type so I feel justified.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><br />I was once out with a small group of friends in college, one of whom was a young woman who was deep in the Woman's Studies realm of academia. We knew each other already, had been friendly, and there was some attraction there, but in the course of the conversation, she asked me something along the lines of, "Have things been tough?" in regards to my week.</p><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Laughing and congenially, I replied, "Lady, you don't know the half of it!" I thereupon received a cold look and an admonition about using a colloquial, sexist term when addressing her.</div><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">"<em>My name is X</em>," she lectured me, miffed. </div><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span">Needless to say, the rest of the night was spent talking to other people, as I had no desire to be chided for being sexist for using a harmless turn-of-phrase. It was the first time I had direct experience with the grievance mining mind-set of the gender-feminist, of which Ms. Wilson is evidently not only a practitioner, but also instructor.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>3. Men are big wheels and lone gunmen. They may say, “It’s not all about me,” as Tony Stark (played by Robert <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Downey</span></span>, Jr.) does at the beginning of the film, but, really, it is.</i></span></p><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Yes, in both <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">mythos</span></span> and real life, heroes tend to be stand-outs, and often have to go beyond the safe limits where other men fear to tread. Kind of part and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">parsel</span></span> of the whole Hero thing, particularly in literature.</div><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span">Female <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">heroes</span> often do the same. If everyone acted like a hero, the term would be meaningless.</span></div><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Oh, and we all know woman are never of the “its all about me” attitude…(insert your own snort here). </div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span">Anyway, the mere fact that Tony Stark actually puts his ass on the line (and considerable amounts of his cash) to help others in his Iron Man persona is lost on Wilson. Either that, or it does not count, because of his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Neo</span></span>-Imperialist Tendencies, blah-blah-blah.</span></div><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Is Stark a bit of a egoist, dare I say an ego monster?</p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="blsp-spelling-error"><span class="blsp-spelling-error"></span></span> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="blsp-spelling-error"><span class="blsp-spelling-error">Shure</span></span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">nuff</span></span>! </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">But that is part of his character, and it still does not change the fact that he makes it "more than about him" with his actions.<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>4. Men need to leave a legacy and build a better future</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">I am not sure why Wilson has a beef here. What's wrong with leaving a legacy and building a better future? Is that not a good thing, the kind of thing liberals are always telling us they are trying to do, "Build a better world"?<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Its called civilization, Ms. Wilson. Bask in its glory…</p><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>The best way to do this is via weapons, wealth and womanizing.</i></span></div><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Oh, okay, so we see maybe the real issues. It's the wrong kind of legacy. Let's examine this...</div><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">In regards to <strong>weapons</strong>... they win wars against oppressors and fascists, so they are kind of useful. Other ways of achieving legacy are possible, but Tony’s found his niche, building weapons to kill bad guys. Why can’t we appreciate his achievement in finding his life’s calling and talent? </div><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Oh, and Tony ALSO builds a totally new form of energy production, which seems to be pretty carbon neutral, so one assumes Wilson would be okay with THAT, but it receives no mention.</div><br /><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"><strong>Wealth</strong> helps pay for all this civilization we mentioned earlier, and allow for societies where woman can make a living writing shallow, polemic movie reviews and teaching false premises for a living instead of toiling in fields or carving up dead animals for dinner.<br /></div><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Wealth also pays for all those social programs liberals are always haranguing us to fund, but wealth needs people to create it, something too many liberals don’t seem to get nowadays.<br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">In regards to “<strong>womanizing</strong>”…</p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">There's a lot to dissect with this topic, but I'll stick to one <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">tack</span> right now, which is personal </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">peeve of mine...</p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">HEY! Natalie!</p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">How about respecting male heterosexuality as much as everyone else’s sexuality gets respected nowadays? Do homosexual men get crap from you for “<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">manizing</span></span>”? No, I did not think so.<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Heterosexual men LIKE woman. We like to have sex with woman, and despite what you deny to yourself, most woman like to have sex with men. Somehow, the latter is okay now, no shame or regrets, but the former is some sort of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">patriarchal</span> master plan of objectification and subjugation.</p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Blogger <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">SQT</span>, a woman,</span> does a pretty nice job <a href="http://sqt-fantasy-sci-fi-girl.blogspot.com//">summing up</a> the double standard here:</p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><em>"Here's the thing. Modern feminism is schizophrenic. One one hand, women want to have the freedom to behave like sexual predators-- in the vein of "Sex in the City" -- with no repercussions. Shows like "Cougar Town" celebrate the single woman as someone who can pounce on young men as if it's no big deal. And don't even get me started on the reality-television culture that makes celebrities out of women like Paris Hilton who are famous precisely because of their aggressive sexuality. How are men supposed to view women when this has become the norm? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that Ms. Magazine understands that you can't behave like Paris Hilton and expect to be treated like Mother Teresa. Let's face it, "Iron Man 2" is more accurate in it's portrayal of the women likely to throw themselves at Tony Stark than Ms. Magazine would like to admit."</em></p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Read the whole thing, as they say.</p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><i>5. Men’s hatred of women is cute and humorous–or as one </i><a href="http://i-eat-pie.livejournal.com/189701.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0000ff;"><i><u>blogger</u></i></span></a><i> puts it, “Tony Stark’s privileged sexist playboy antics are hilarious,” teaching viewers that “Men’s sexism is funny and endearing, as is their greed.”</i><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">How is Tony Stark hateful of woman? How is he sexist? Because he desires beautiful woman, and wants to have sex with them? Because he's successful at it? </p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">See Point #4 above again. </p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Its called biology. Look it up. </p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Why is it okay to encourage woman to be sexually adventurous and “go for it” okay, but not okay for men to play the field? </p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Again, some respect for OUR sexuality, dammit! </p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>6. Men are fabulous at business–so fabulous that they can successfully privatize world peace.</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Many men <em>are</em> fabulous at business; this is something odd? Something tells me Wilson has problems with <strong>anyone</strong> fabulous at business, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">ie</span></span>, because of their “greed”.<br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">BTW, just out of curiosity, IF world peace could be achieved through privatizing it, would liberals prefer war and strife? One wonders.<br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>7. Real men (aka Tony Stark) think the “liberal agenda” is boring.</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">It is boring, and more than just “real men” think so. Many real women think so, too.</p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">It used to be amusing to point it out, but now the lack of deep thought it often displays is tedious. </p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">That's partly because much of liberalism has been discredited as either being unrealistic and/or a cynical deception for other agendas. </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"> </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">It's also because liberals tend to be harping bores who demand certain behaviors out of others which they don’t seem obligated to follow themselves, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Ie</span></span>, Global warming nags who have multi-multi-million dollars homes and private jets.<br /></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Wilson's article is a decent example of why, which is why I am <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Fisking</span></span> it.</p><br /><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Look, I have liberal friends and have read some liberals who are entertaining and provoke serious thought, raising good points even though I disagree with them. Sometimes they get me to re-examine an issue, which is as it should be.</div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"> </div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">However, I find too much of liberal 'thought' is not really thought at all, but regurgitation ideological talking points. They simply assume that they "think the right way" so anything that comes out of their mouth or keyboards must be right. This piece from Wilson if rife with that kind of entitlement as she uses worn cliches and mile wide holes in her arguments, and completely ignores the facts in many cases.</div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"></div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"> </div><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">Oh, and "real men" may be so contemptuous and scornful of the liberal agenda because so many liberals like Wilson are contemptuous and scornful of them.</div><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>8. Men will always need to be in the theatre of war. As such, they might as well turn their bodies into weapons.</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Well, as long as war exists, this seems pretty obvious. If you question this, then who will be in the theatre of war? Woman only? Dogs?<br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">And men have turned their bodies into weapons since the very first time they developed martial arts, through the development of armor, tanks, aircraft, and beyond. Your contention that this is something new here is wonderfully baffling.</p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Tony Stark/Iron Man is basically a 21st century knight, running around in wonderfully upgraded plate mail. </p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Many World War II fighter pilots talk about how the really great pilots seem to fuse with their aircraft, literally becoming one with their machine.</p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">How is this a concept worthy of derision?</p><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>9. In fact, the male body </i>is<i> a weapon.</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Well, Bruce Lee seemed to think so. So did millions of people in Asia who learned and taught how to fight and kill people with just their bare hands. How dare you not respect their cultural history. And you call yourself a liberal!!</p><br /><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">BTW, the female body is also shown to be quite a weapon in the movie, ANOTHER point Ms. Wilson ignores in order to make hers.</div><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>Literally, figuratively, metaphorically. Man is iron. Or, as </i></span><a href="http://www.salon.com/author/andrew_ohehir/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>Andrew O’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Hehir</span></u></i></span></a><span style="color:#000099;"><i>’s naming of the Iron Man suit as “impenetrable iron-dong costume” in his </i></span><a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/05/07/iron_man_2/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><u>Salon</u></span></a><span style="color:#000099;"><i> review suggests, the iron suit allows for the fulfillment of the male body not only as weapon but as walking erection–hard and ready all the time.</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Question: wouldn</span>’t an “impenetrable iron” costume be really uncomfortable with a hard-on? </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Being impenetrable, would it not keep Stark from getting some "action" with the ladies? </p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"></p><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Does this in fact mean Iron Man 2 is a statement about the emasculating nature of modern technology?</p><br /><br /><div style="MARGIN: 1ex">See how fun it and easy is to create "themes" and "subtexts" out of whole cloth?</div><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex"><span style="color:#000099;"><i>Secondly, on females and femininity (these lessons are longer, you see, because females need a lot of teaching):</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p style="MARGIN: 1ex">Hey, YOU said it, not me!<br /></p><div style="MARGIN: 1ex"><ol type="1"><li><span style="color:#000099;"><i>Women are for dancing, either around poles or on stage as props. Wherever they are dancing, they should be scantily clad. Note to cameraman: Shoot women dancers from behind so as to get maximum amount of booty shots, as in the opening scene of </i>Iron Man 2<i> where our gaze is directed to numerous bent-over butts in red spandex hot pants. As </i></span><a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/05/07/iron_man_2/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>O’He</u></i></span></a><a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/05/07/iron_man_2/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>r</u></i></span></a><a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/05/07/iron_man_2/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>ir</u></i></span></a><span style="color:#000099;"><i> points out in his </i>Salon<i> review, there is “no irony” in these “loving, loop-the-loop tracking shots of these dancin’ hoochie-mamas with their spray-bronzed legs and perfect Spandex asses.” Rather it is, as this </i></span><a href="http://reelthinker.com/2010/04/29/iron-man-2-review-no-girls-allowed/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>blogger</u></i></span></a><i><span style="color:#000099;"> aptly names it, “a vomit-inducingly sexist scene involving various swooping close-ups of womens’ body parts as they gyrate.”</span> </i></li></ol></div><p>Women are NOT for dancing? Well, best tell Twyla Tharp and all those ballerinas to sit the %&* down, then. Sexist sell-outs!<br /></p><br /><br /><p>BTW, if someone REALLY feels vomit building in their throat viewing womens' body parts (assuming they are still attached to the women) it seems Wilson's blogger friend is<strong> </strong>the one with problems with women and their sexuality. This kind of hyperbolic outrage, intended to instill indignant rage, merely makes me want to roll my eyes. </p><p>What's becoming clear, here, is that when people have their noses to their ideological grindstones, its hard to see much else.</p><p>This, of course, totally ignores the strong roles of woman as more than just T and A in the movie, like <strong>Pepper</strong>, who is a smart, capable and somewhat wiser and more mature than Tony businesswoman. Ditto for the Scarlett Johannsen’s character, <strong>Natalie Rushman</strong><em> ,</em> but more on her later.<br /></p><br /><br /><p>This also AGAIN goes back to point #4 before about respecting the sexuality of men, who, please forgive us, find attractive women and their various parts, attractive. </p><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>2. Women are objects. When Tony is shown his new car, he makes a joke about the woman standing next to the vehicle: “Does she come with the car?” In other words, women, like cars, should be sleek, good looking, fast and expendable. Tony assesses new female character Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson) using the same parameters: Her intelligence, multi-lingual skills and martial arts training don’t seem to matter;</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p>Okay, wait, I am confused…<br /></p><br /><br /><p>I thought the movie only thought woman were for dancing around poles or being props, that it only was interested in them as body parts. Wilson <em>just</em> got through telling me this, but now we have her citing a female character’s intelligence as well as impressive language and combat skills. </p><p>Sorry, now matter how you feel about gender issues, feminism or Iron Man 2, this is SLOPPY thinking, and writing. Bad, BAD academic!</p><p><em>"Wait,"</em> you say, "<em>She only meant how Tony viewed woman!"</em><br /></p><p>Read on...<br /></p><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>he uses Google to find her old modeling pictures. As </i></span><a href="http://reelthinker.com/2010/04/29/iron-man-2-review-no-girls-allowed/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>Froley of </u></i><u>ReelThinker</u></span></a><span style="color:#000099;"><i> notes, she is put “in her underwear just for the hell of it” and her character is no more than a “near-cameo.” This incites Froley to assume that director “Jon Favreau must be some kind of chauvinist dog, because he takes every opportunity to objectify women.”</i></span></p>Just so we're clear, she's indicting the whole movie and the director with the sexist attitude, not just the character of Tony Stark.<br /><br /><br /><p>See, Ms. Wilson, trying to pay attention to character and plot might be useful here, except if maybe it would tend to undermine your woman’s studies talking points.<br /></p><br /><br /><p>As Wilson herself points out, Tony Stark IS a bit of a womanizer.</p><p>That’s PART OF HIS CHARACTER. </p><p>If I could point out story-telling 101 to you, characters have traits, and those traits make them unique, and also propel the story as those traits determine how a character reacts to unfolding events. Some of these traits are strengths, and some are weakness, and they will have varying effects on our hero’s tale. We call this PLOT.</p><p>Now, far from being an opportunity to simply objectify women, this scene is actually part of the plot. Let’s see if we can apply two seconds of thought to figure this out. </p><p><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>(SPOILERS FOLLOW):</strong></span> </p><p>S.H.I.E.L.D., the super-secret agency, wants to spy on Tony Stark to see if he is A) suitable for recruitment, or B) a potential threat to American Security. To spy, you need a spy, and preferably one in his company, and the BEST spy would be one that has day-to-day interaction with him. So, how do they accomplish this?</p>Well, they get a S.H.I.E.L.D agent planted in the Stark organization, and knowing what kind of guy Stark is, they exploit one of his weaknesses, which is he has a eye for the ladies and sometimes thinks with his “iron-dong”. So, they send in Romanov, who is extremely attractive, and then to make sure they get Tony to swallow the bait, they put pictures of her online that displays all of her “visual attributes”. In short, they know Tony Stark, his weaknesses and how to exploit them to get close to him.<br /><br />See how that works? What looks like simple exploitation is actually something meant to propel the story along. We call this a PLOT DEVICE.<br /><br />Also, in that sense, the womanizing of which Wilson is not fond, is actually portrayed <em>negatively</em>, <span style="color:#cc0000;">as a weakness</span>, by the film she so wants to hate for praising womanizing.<br /><br />Wilson might have seen this for herself had she not been so intent on seeing rampant sexism and misogyny everywhere she looked.<br /><i></i><br /><span style="color:#000099;"><i>3. Women need to have good make-up know-how. Both Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Natalie are not only beautifully made-up themselves, but also have the skills to mask Tony’s various bumps and bruises with foundation. This skill, along with their ability to take precarious, mincing steps on incredibly high heels, frames femininity as a performance that benefits males.</i></span><br /><br />I, quite frankly, don’t know exactly *what* point Wilson is trying to make here, but it seems to contradict numerous facts in the movie, and herself, AGAIN. I could parse this part out, but I have got to move on.<br /><br /><br /><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>4. Women’s most important asset is their bodies. Even when they are in full-on battle mode, they should remain hyper-vigilant about their bodily display. They don’t get to wear “iron man” suits, but really tight body suits. What fun would it be if their boobs and butts were hidden under metal?</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p>Okay, sorry to be a picker of nits here for a sec, but EVERYONE’S most important asset is their body, as we all tend to live in them. They allow us to exist, and enjoy life. Sorry to have to point this out, but this is a poorly worded sentence which relies on us to have certain pre-conceived notions so “we get it”. Sorry, homey don’t play that.<br /></p><br /><br /><p>Anyway, what I think Wilson meant is that woman are valued for their bodies above all else by sexist pigs like Tony Stark, Jon Favreau, America, the western world, all men, etc.<br /></p><br /><br /><p>Really big topic, too big to get into here, but let’s be honest. </p><p>Here’s where the woman’s studies crowd are going to get crazed, but yes, ladies, while your body is perhaps not your most important asset as an individual, it does rank up there when it comes to male interest. </p><p>Again, the hetero male sexuality, biology thing. Don’t blame us. We were born this way, like homosexuals, except, you know, digging women. </p><p>Part of it is that men are programmed by biology to appreciate and desire the female form, part of it is the acknowledgement that woman bring forth life, our children. Aesthetically, we just think the female form is fascinating and objectively beautiful, something me and a bi-sexual date once both agreed on heartily. </p><p>So, yea, guilty as charged. Woman's bodies <em>are</em> a major asset for them, something which most women acknowledge and use, whether they admit or not. Blame nature, though, not western civilization or a freakin’ comic book movie. </p><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>5. Women are petty and jealous. Make fun of their jealousy by telling them “green doesn’t look good on you,” as Tony says to Pepper when his ogling of Natalie is obviously bothering her.</i></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p>Again, take your umbrage as you will, but most men, and many woman, will admit that woman can be pretty petty and jealous when it comes to other woman, particularly went it involves a man.<br /></p><br /><br /><p>Many men are also jealous when it comes to their woman as well, but something tells me you would not have a problem with someone putting this into a movie or casual conversation, probably because it would highlight how much men think of woman as possessions and add grist for your mill.</p><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>6. The female body is weak. Pepper, after being saved by Tony near the end of </i>Iron Man 2<i>, says “I quit…My body can’t take this stress.” After two hours of watching Tony’s body take bullets, bombs, electric shocks and poisoning, we hear that poor Pepper can’t take the stress–of being a CEO for a week.</i></span> </p><p>If Wilson had any real appreciation of the affect of the female body on the average male, she would know that first sentence to be unbelievably laughable. But, she's a woman, so I'll give her mostly a pass.<br /></p><br /><br /><p>In any event, this is directly contradicted by her own descriptions above, as well as the movie:<br /></p><br /><br /><p><span style="color:#6600cc;"><em>“<strong>Her (Romanov) intelligence, multi-lingual skills and martial arts training don’t seem to matter;”</strong></em></span></p><p>So, which is it? Are all the woman in IM2 portrayed in as weak eye-candy props, or NOT, Ms. Wilson? </p><p>We, in fact, see Romanov as being far from weak in her scenes, and is in fact tougher than any of them men without any of their technical props. </p><p>So, is that a sexist message that women are stronger than men without their powered toys?</p><p>Funny how Wilson did not see it that way. </p><p>Regarding Pepper, if Wilson had bothered to pay attention to the movie, her stress comes from more than being CEO, but also being baby-sitter to Tony whom she is in love with, but who seems to be on a self-destructive streak and is making her job more of a pain in the ass. </p><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>7. Women are very forgiving. Ignore her, lie to her, bring her the one food she is allergic to as a gift and make it known that you are a lifelong womanizer: None of that will matter as long as you kiss her at the right moment</i><span class="Apple-style-span">.</span></span></p><p>Again, this is a much larger conversation, involving both realistic sexual dynamics and politics, and elements of comedy which would make it more tedious than its worth.</p><p>Anyone want to debate this one is a seperate topic, let me know.</p><p>But I'd like to point out how Pepper walks out on Stark when he tries to charm his way into her good graces half-way through the movie.</p><p><span style="color:#000066;"><i>as </i></span><a href="http://kylesmithonline.com/?p=1227" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000066;"><i><u>Kyle Smith</u></i></span></a><span style="color:#000066;"><i> gleefully notes, “The Gwyneth Paltrow character is comfortable with being Tony Stark’s assistant instead of judo-chopping and blasting away at bad guys herself, in the somewhat silly manner of virtually every female lead in action movies these days.” Yes, it’s soooo silly when we act as if females want to be part of the action! As one </i></span><a href="http://i-eat-pie.livejournal.com/189701.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000066;"><i><u>blogger</u></i></span></a><span style="color:#000066;"><i> put it, “If I were Gwyneth Paltrow and I just played the role of a stiletto-heel-wearing submissive secretary cleaning up after some rich white chauvinist asshole, I’d send back my Oscar.”</i></span><br /></p><p>1) Paltrow's character Pepper is made CEO of the freakin' company, and is not just his "assistant" or a submissive secretary</p><p>2) She IS involved in an action scene where she helps save Tony</p><p><span class="Apple-style-span">3) The Romanov character is a BIG part of the action and she's a WOMAN</span></p><p>4) Did Wilson pay attention to ANY part of the movie?</p><p>We see several parts of the grievance mill agenda here with the" rich white chauvinist asshole" comment. Ms. Wilson, having spent all that time and education and making a career about being politically correct and liberally conscious, displays her bona fides to her fellow travelers.<br /><br />Make no mistake. For Ms. Wilson, "rich" and "white" are as much epithets as "chauvinist" and "asshole". It's all part of the oppressive white Imperialist oligarchy, much like the Boy Scouts of America which she describes in the comments as:<br /><br /><em><span style="color:#000099;">"The Boy Scouts is indeed more than homophobic — in fact it started as a way to teach white youth about their duties to empire and to inculcate them into idea colonization was both good and necessary."</span></em><br /><br />Oy, VEY!<br /><br />You see what I am talking about, here?<br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;"><i>Finally, the film provides lessons in racism and homophobia:</i> </span></p><ol type="1"><li><span style="color:#000099;"><i>Tony Stark explains his desire to no longer making weapons with, “I saw Americans killed by my own weapons in Afghanistan! I can’t put it better than </i></span><a href="http://i-eat-pie.livejournal.com/189701.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>this blogger</u></i></span></a><span style="color:#000099;"><i>: “Do I even need to mention how stupid and racist it is to say that he was OK with his weapons being used to kill all those other non-Americans?”</i></span></li></ol><p>Yeah, see, this is not racism, you dim-witted slacktard... </p><p>Man, even while trying to slander and villify someone, left wingers are slackers in thought.</p><p>"American" is NOT a race, you freakin' geniuses! "Non-Americans" is also NOT a race, and considering as a catagory it would include ALL races on the planet, it's a ridiculous use of the word, making absolutely no sense in this context. YET, its worthy of quotation.</p><p>If you want to be an INTELLIGENT policitically-correct nimrod, it would be best be called "nationalistic" in its most pejorative sense, if you were wont to go there, or maybe "jingoistic". But racism does not even fit here. Jeez...and you dare use the word "stupid" to describe other people?<br /></p><p>And "stupid", how? Unless one is of the “war is never the answer, ever” crowd. </p><p>Weapons are not SUPPOSED to kill those on YOUR side. Does that really need an explanation? </p><p>Yes, I guess it does, because besides all the typical tired tropes (remember why liberalism is boring?) about sexism, racism, etc., we have this idea that we are all one great big family on this planet who can all get along if we just sat down and got to know each other.</p><p>Over 5,000 years of history says different, but what does the collective experience of humankind know.</p><ol type="1" start="2"><li><i>In this same vein, as noted in </i><a href="http://professorwhatif.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/what-if-peace-was-profitable-a-review-of-iron-man-2/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0000ff;"><i><u>my earlier pos</u></i></span></a><a href="http://professorwhatif.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/what-if-peace-was-profitable-a-review-of-iron-man-2/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0000ff;"><i><u>t</u></i></span></a><i>, various Others are framed as “evil terrorists,” namely Middle Easterners and North Koreans.</i><br /></li></ol><p>Okay, so it should be obvious by now that this is not really a review of Iron Man 2, but an opportunity for Ms. Wilson to do a commentary on the entire present day world, or more like it, regurgitate AGAIN all the left-wing tropes about Imperialism, American racism, etc.</p><p>I was going to do the whole <em>"there ARE others you are evil terrorists, no scare quotes. The kind of people who, oh, stone woman to death for dishonoring their family, or who rape woman systematically because they are of different faith"</em> thing.<br /></p><p>But, as Ms. Wilson might say about her gender-feminist viewpoint, you either "get" the presence of evil or at least terrorism in the world, just by paying attention, or you don't. </p><p>Ms. Wilson has made it abundantly clear that she does not pay attention to even a movie she's supposed to review, so how solid would her take on current events and history? </p><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>2. Black actors are exchangeable. Swap Don Cheadle (</i>Iron Man 2<i>) for Terrence Howard </i>(Iron Man 1<i>). No one will notice.</i></span> </p><p>This is simply idiotic and at this point Wilson is truly pulling things out of her ass in order to make sure she props up all her absurd liberal talking points. </p><p>So, let me get this straight, Favreau, by <em>keeping</em> a black character, but having a different actor play him, is performing some sort of super-secret sign conveying contempt of black people without actually getting them out of his movie entirely? So, does this make Don Cheadle an Uncle Tom for playing along? I’d love to see Wilson call Cheadle that to his face.</p><p>This is one of the things I called Wilson out on at the website when my comment was tanked. She admitted, when confronted by someone else with fact that it was a contract dispute of some sort, that she was be wrong. Good.</p><p>But then I asked; "WHERE did you get this idea what it was based on racism, except to pull it out of thin air to fit your agenda."</p><p>There is absolutely NOTHING but the feverish workings of the liberal mind to support that claim of racism here. She just made it because she is used to making all sorts of BS claims and not being challenged by them. Again, lazy thinking.</p><ol type="1" start="3"><li><span style="color:#000099;"><i>Organizations which discriminate against homosexuals deserve huge donations. In the sequel, Tony donates a modern art collection, which Pepper has collected over 10 years, to the Boy Scouts of America.</i></span></li></ol><p><em><span style="color:#000099;"></span></em>Wow! I did NOT think you could pull the homophobia angle out of the tired tropes closet, but I underestimated you. You DO have talent, Ms. Wilson.</p><p>Question is, is she upset so much about a donation to a "homophobic organization", or that a rich guy could even have the ability to give away his own wealth as he sees fit.</p><p>The Boy Scouts were concerned that homosexual scout leaders left alone with groups of boys would create potential for abuse. </p><p>MANY feminists believe all men are potential rapists, and seek to punish them pro-actively for it.</p><p>Can't wait for for Ms. Wilson to denounce "heterophobia" in her ranks.</p><p><i><span style="color:#000099;">Bonus note:</span> </i></p><p>Oh, yes, PLEASE! This whole thing has been so fascinating and valuable, please give us one little tidbit more of your wisdom, Ms. Wilson!</p><p><span style="color:#000099;"><i>The sexist message of the </i>Iron Man <i>films spills off the screen and into our fast-food culture, with </i></span><a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/burger-kingr-restaurants-nationwide-launch-the-whiplash-whopperr-for-paramount-pictures-and-marvel-entertainments-iron-man-2-2010-04-27?reflink=MW_news_stmp" target="_blank"><span style="color:#000099;"><i><u>Burger King</u></i></span></a><span style="color:#000099;"><i> offering </i><b><i>“</i></b><i>four lifestyle accessories for girls and four action-packed toys for boys</i><b><i>.” </i></b><i>Girls, get busy accessorizing! Boys, take action!</i></span></p>Oh, come on! Are you serious? You write for Ms. Magazine! How many articles on fashion every month as opposed to building a shed?<br /><br />How many ads for makeup of clothes grace your pages as opposed to power tools or sporting equipment?<br /><br /><strong>POT. KETTLE. BLACK. YOU.</strong><br /><br />If you have a beef with women being a little too obsessed with fashion, then you need to perhaps to indict your entire sex, and maybe not lay it all on the lap of a freakin' comic book.<br /><br />Or, maybe give women a break too, relax, and realize that while everyone is an individual, there just might be some common traits among a group of people of a common gender.<br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;"><i>For this feminist, one thing’s certain: I won’t be stepping out in my non-high heels in order to see the sure-to-follow </i>Iron Man 3<i>.</i></span><br /><br />We’ll be happy as it will mean that you won’t be writing another mindless piece of trash like this, so we’re both winners.<br /><br />Notice how she makes sure to mention she does not wear high-heels by the way, because she's not going to be objectified by The Man! Or is it The Men!<br /><br />So, there you have it. As good an example as illustrating the intellectual bankruptcy of the left. A woman who is a professor at a college who cannot put together a cohesive and logical MOVIE REVIEW.<br /><br />And as good a reason for me to NOT pay for my daughter's college tuition if she plans to major in "Woman's Studies".<br /><br /><p>As much fun as I had with this, there is a tragic, TRAGIC side of this, and we're all paying the price.</p><p></p><br /><br /><br /></span><p><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-17976957704081835712010-05-18T16:05:00.006-04:002010-05-21T07:01:39.417-04:00Puh-leeze...<span class="Apple-style-span" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 16px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;font-size:13;" ><span style="font-size:100%;">From the AP via <a href="http://www.njherald.com/story/news/Blumenthal2010-05-18T15-28-55">NJ Herald</a>:</span></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 16px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;font-size:13;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 16px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;font-size:13;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><em>"Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal on Tuesday said he had "misspoken" in claiming more than once that he served in Vietnam, dismissing the furor that threatened to endanger a seemingly safe Democratic seat as a matter of "a few misplaced words."<br />At a news conference backed by veterans, the popular Connecticut attorney general and front-runner to replace the retiring Sen. Christopher Dodd, said he meant to say he served "during Vietnam" instead of "in Vietnam." He said the statements were "totally unintentional" errors that occurred only a few times out of hundreds of public appearances."</em> </span></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 16px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;font-size:13;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />Anyone believe this? Anyone?<br /><br />Some no doubt will, or at least claim to, because ideologically, they agree with Blumenthal, and the agenda is what matters; truth can take a flying leap.<br /><br />So, let me parse this out for those that would take that route.<br /><br />"He meant to say, 'I served DURING Vietnam'. He simply misspoke when his said 'in'...a few times."<br /><br />Okay, so, he MEANT to say he served DURING Vietnam.<br /><br />So, why tout this as part of your campaign and/or your resume? Serving period is of note, and laudable, and something you could tout. Fine. Mention that.<br /><br />Saying you served DURING Vietnam, while actually going nowhere near it seems...odd, no?<br /><br />Why point out you served during a period of one of our major wars, when you actually did not fight in it?<br /><br />Most with a shred of intellectual honesty will no doubt have gotten the point from the start.<br /><br />The true believers, however, would no doubt see NO oddness with this.<br /><br />The fact one would have to even spell this out to prevent someone from spinning it is sad.</span></span>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-63802868741732549932010-05-18T15:55:00.003-04:002010-05-18T16:02:13.657-04:00Sleepless in New YorkAmazing how after getting up @ 2:30am, working/driving for over 12 hours, on a shitty, rainy day, I can't get to sleep for a nap.<div><br /></div><div>I have noticed that there is a wall one hits when tired that if you push through instead of succumbing, you are pretty much screwed if sleep was your aim. Your body reboots, or calls on power reserves which you thus cannot turn off when desired. Happened to me last night when I had to do the same shift.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am sure there is a term and explanation for that, but I am too tired to look it up, or maybe I really don't give that much of a shit...probably because I am tired...</div>Weary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114242.post-82127011930823581892010-05-14T09:13:00.006-04:002010-05-14T11:34:43.836-04:00Found My Focus?While I had some concrete concept for this blog when I created it, I think I lacked a real focus for it, something unique I could really say amidst all the fantastic work being done by others.<br /><br />The whole "Lattices of Bogosity" theme was a good one, and still is, but I don't think it formed fully in my mind before. While the outline was there, I think it lacked sharp clarity. That, along with somewhat ADD personality, helps explain why I actually do so little on it.<br /><br />However, over the last year or so, I had a growing realization and definition of what my core issue is, that which drives me absolutely bat-shit amidst all the other insanity we witness everyday. In fact, much of what drive me crazy has a common denominator.<br /><br />It is also one that cuts across party and ideological lines, or at least it <em>should</em> if intellectual integrity were universal.<br /><br />What the <strong>Lattices of Bogosity</strong> name was meant to illustrates was the building of entire ideologies and polices on false premises, and the further construction of absurd notions on top of that, and so on. All of this of course leading us into blind and dangerous alleys or twisting mazes of self-deception. Some of this was honestly intentioned, while others are deliberate, in order to bring us to ruin.<br /><br />Debates as to what is true or not, and what the motivations are of those pedaling falsehoods are as needed as they can be lengthy and exhausting.<br /><br />However, what I began to notice was something that was not really debatable for anyone except the most dense or the most ideologically corrupted. To deny its existence HAD to identify someone as either so dim as not worthy of debate, or so contemptuous of the truth as to view it as a whore to be used and abused and then abandoned.<br /><br /><strong>HYPOCRISY.</strong><br /><br />Sheer, blatant, bankrupt, venial hypocrisy. It's like a negative <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_(Star_Wars)">Force</a>, surrounding us, penetrating us, tearing us apart and destroying us.<br /><br />It's one thing to declare X is true and Y is false. One can debate those premises with (one hopes) facts and logic, although sadly that often is not the case.<br /><br />It's entirely another to declare X true, and Y false, and then declare the complete opposite when convenient, and then reverse it again, when it proves inconvenient. It is the most despicable and cynical of practices.<br /><br />Whether its the feminists and liberals decrying sexism and patriarchy and then <a href="http://gawker.com/5052733/sandra-bernhard-on-sarah-palin-controversy-get-raped">viciously</a> attacking Sarah Palin in <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/10/usnews/whispers/main4513351.shtml">sexist</a> and <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/05/EDD613BV04.DTL">mysogynistic</a> terms, or Global Warming alarmists buying <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428">multiple</a> <a href="http://weaselzippers.us/2010/04/26/un-environmental-ambassador-gisele-bundchen-builds-20000-square-foot-mansion/">multi-million</a> dollar homes or flying <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64907">private</a> <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-with-five-private-jets-travolta-still-lectures-on-global-warming.do">planes</a>, or supposed courageous social critics mocking one religion's central <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i8f1f42046a622bdaaccc74ab015c5bdf">figure</a> while <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/04/muslim-threats-to-south-park-did-comedy-central-cave-in-to-knuckleheads-.html">cow-towing</a> to another, Hypocrisy has become THE major theme of our age.<br /><br />As I wrote in comments on Tim Blair's blog, if there was an Age of Enlightenment, and an Age of Discovery, then what I think this era will go down as is the Age of Hypocrisy.<br /><br /><br />Its not that hypocrisy is new. Far from it. But what is astounding is the degree with which hypocrisy is ignored and/or accepted in order to keep certain narratives going.<br /><br />EVERY DAY we see different standards applied depending on who the players are, their ideological bent determining which end of the prism we are supposed to be looking through to determine what we are actually seeing.<br /><br />What's particularly galling about much of this is that one does NOT need to be on a particular side of an issue to notice the rank hyprocrisy. It SHOULD be so self-evident that only the most ideologically fanatic could ignore it.<br /><br /><br />The Left is quick to, and with justification, point out the hyprocrisy of a politician that speaks of Family Values, but is hitting some coochie on the side. Its like a veritable feeding frenzy.<br /><br /><br />However, when it comes to *their* ideological stands, one has to look far and wide for any willing to speak out against the hypocrites amongst them.<br /><br />Case in point, and what I think FINALLY set the 10,000 watt light-bulb off in my head was the Arizona immigration law; the reaction of the American Left and some Latino protestors; illegal and citizen; and the reality of MEXICO's policy toward illegal immigration.<br /><br />Unless you are under a rock, you know that Arizona, its governor and residents, and the new law passed ther<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhse2QQKTgPuD5bZQ6ECBn8zhqSm9fBlR5UN_drStDJdeVgInA6O0_xS6_0IXLeUj-9I_OLrf40ljx5KvvMUJCUehlDfMIIRzS6TFdwU7ePBVE-6CE7sVHHNtfiYbeLYZbzh6yuw/s1600/MexicanFlagOverUs.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5471144880561109906" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhse2QQKTgPuD5bZQ6ECBn8zhqSm9fBlR5UN_drStDJdeVgInA6O0_xS6_0IXLeUj-9I_OLrf40ljx5KvvMUJCUehlDfMIIRzS6TFdwU7ePBVE-6CE7sVHHNtfiYbeLYZbzh6yuw/s320/MexicanFlagOverUs.jpg" border="0" /></a>e has been called racist, bigoted, Nazi-like and all the other typical left-wing boilerplate. Some of those throwing this language are with either Mexican, or of Mexican descent and apparently extremely proud of it to the point of obnoxiousness, if not downright blatant disrespect of THIS <a href="http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/004863.html">country</a>.<br /><br /><br />Well, let's take a look-see at what Mexico's policies are in regards to immigration. As reported by the talented and tenacious <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/28/police-state-how-mexico-treats-illegal-aliens/">Michelle Malkin</a>:<br /><br /><em>"– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?<br />– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.<br />– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be </em><a href="http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22430"><em>kicked out of the country</em></a><em> without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, </em><a href="http://michellemalkin.com/?s=zeituni"><em>President Obama’s illegal alien aunt</em></a><em> — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).<br />– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.<br />– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens."</em><br /><br />ADD to this the f<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2503514/posts">ollowing</a>:<br /><br /><em>"MEXICO CITY - Amnesty International called the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human-rights crisis Wednesday and accused some officials of turning a blind eye or even participating in the kidnapping, rape and murder of migrants.<br />The group's report comes at a sensitive time for Mexico, which is protesting the passage of a law in Arizona that criminalizes undocumented migrants.<br />The Interior Department acknowledge that the mainly Central American migrants who pass through Mexico on their way to the United States suffer abuses, but it attributed the problem to criminal gangs branching out into kidnapping and extortion of migrants. Rupert Knox, Amnesty's Mexico researcher, said in the report that the failure by authorities to tackle abuses against migrants has made their trip through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.<br />"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses," Knox said. Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.<br />Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process. "</em><br /><br />And Arizona is lectured and villified by Mexican government officials, illegal immigrants residing safely here and various Left-wing America haters about how hateful and unjust Arizona's law is?<br /><br />No matter WHERE someone stands on the issue of the Arizona law, or illegal immigration, to ignore this ENORMOUS hypocrisy, whether as a partisan or a member of the media is indefensible.<br /><br />Of course, this is not addressed, because it does not fit with desired narrative. Our task is to keep throwing these things in the Left's faces, forcing them to address them, putting them on the defensive for a change.<br /><br />I hope to post illustrations of these often, if for no other reason that vent and maintain my own sanity. IWeary Ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668846743042276026noreply@blogger.com0