Lattices of Bogosity

Got you...

2011-05-02T02:03:00.004-04:00

...you mother-Fucking prick.

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.

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.

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.

I hear your son also died in the attack.

GOOD.

I just kissed my child goodnight. Tomorrow they will wake up in a world which does NOT have you fucking in it...

...and that is JOYOUS! God IS good.

Enjoy Hell, you fucking goat molesting genocidal ass-wipe.

Burn in fucking Hell!

Idiocy Keeps On Coming...

2011-01-13T10:19:00.004-05:00

Mediocre film director Spike Lee weighs in on the Tuscon shooting, taking to heart the calls to "tone down the rhetoric":

"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. 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."

Hat tip:Media Research Center

And the left gets SO annoyed when they are accused of hating their country.

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.

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.

But the real kick is this little biographical note:

"His personal life has become somewhat well known, too. He had a relationship with Halle Berry and started a family with Tonya Lewis Lee, with whom he has two children."

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 "the most violent country in the history of civilization."

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.

"Lee is also known to have an obsessive love of the New York Knicks."

Interesting. Spike hates his country enough to slander it viciously, but he has a profound love for perpetual losers.

Left Continues to Spin Tragedy

2011-01-12T11:46:00.008-05:00

I 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.

Case in Point: Gawker

"Sarah Palin Blames the Media for 'Blood Libel'

After the horrific Tucson shootings last weekend, future U.S. president Sarah Palin retreated to her prayer cave and prayed for guidance. Today, she's announced her findings: The real tragedy here is "journalists and pundits" who "manufacture a blood libel."

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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.

STOP.

First, we would not really need to go further, would we?

Pot. Kettle. Unfair Asshole.

Basically, Gawker is saying:

"How DARE you use overheated rhetoric and make ridiculous accusations that point out our overheated rhetoric and ridiculous accusations!!"

Short note to Gawker.

Fuck you.

Longer note....

Is "blood libel" really an unfair use of the term? Let's see how Gawker explains their umbrage:

"Maureen O'Connor pointed out that "blood libel" 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? "

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.

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.

So the left is repeatedly making collective false accusations of murder against sections of a population, claiming they do so to further their ideology, libeling them.

So, HOW does this analogy not work again?

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.

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.

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!

UPDATE:

Hey, looks like a whole lot of people agree with me, right and left!

Bullshit Flying Fast And Furious

2011-01-11T10:10:00.005-05:00

I 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.

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:

"

Democrats move to limit guns, threatening language in shooting's wake

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips.

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.

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.

And Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to uses threatening words or symbols or incite violence against a lawmaker or federal official."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/01/democrats-move-limit-guns-threatening-language-shootings-wake#ixzz1AjwjOc1s

The gun control issue is a farce in its own way, but I want you to reread that last bit.

At least 2 levels of bullshit here...

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?

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?

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?

Why, I do believe it would believe it would be some of the same Lord and Ladies who feel themselves worthy of special treatment!

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.

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.

NFW!

Sorry. We are paying attention now, and are onto your game.

****

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....

What Did I JUST Say...

2010-09-23T11:29:00.003-04:00

Considering my last post, these two news items just seem to fit in horribly well, don't they?

"A Northwest Side man has been charged with plotting to bomb a strip of crowded Wrigleyville 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." - LINK

"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." - LINK

CUT OFF HER FEET!

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 threatening to burn Korans.

Funny, that.

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?

Islamophobia? Really?

2010-09-21T10:38:00.017-04:00

-
A recurring theme for the last 9 years, but one which seems particularly prevalent now, is the worrying tide of Islamophobia 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.

The definition of Phobia as listed by Wikipedia:

"A phobia is an irrational, intense 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]"

So, to accurately describe Islamophobia, we would get this:

""Islamophobia is an irrational, intense 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]"

So, as defined, Islamophobia is an irrational, intense fear of Islam and Muslims.

Consider this List.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 irrational about the fear. Irrational is defined as:

ir•ra•tion•al

ɪˈræʃ ə nlShow Spelled[ih-rash-uh-nl]

–adjective
1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.
not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

irrational (ɪˈræʃən ə l)

— adj
1. inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd
2. incapable of reasoning

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.

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 labeled absurd:

ab·surd

–adjective
1.
utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.

In regards to intensity, the word "fear" does not even apply, further discrediting the use of Islamophobia.

A real, intense, uncontrollable 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.

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.

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.

Now, since the definition of "phobia" is not a "irrational, intense and persistent concern" we need to resist the liberal (pun intended) use of that word.

Tea Party Extremism...

2010-09-09T08:37:00.003-04:00

...is a fantasy, particularly when one recalls the vitriol we've endured from the Left over the last 10 years.

Washington is Broke 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.

WARNING! You are going to see some disturbing images and ugly language, but that is entirely the point.

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.

Note particularly the number of images and signs that directly call for the ASSASSINATION of Bush and other politicians.

Note the kind soul whose sign tells us that the removal of the World Trade Center was an improvement for New York.

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.

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.

Who's Intolerant?

2010-09-09T05:55:00.010-04:00

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.

We are then told not to confuse the small number of radicals in that faith with the vast majority of moderates.

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.

????

I'm sorry?

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?

This kind of blatant hypocrisy, seeking of special privilege, and the propensity for violence over any slight, is WHY people are so wary of Islam in the first place.

Piss Christ was a work of "art" where a crucifix was dropped into a jar of URINE, and was exhibited with NEA support, IE, tax-payer funds.

Let me restate that:

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.

HOW MANY people were killed world-wide when Christians rioted in protest?

ZERO. Zip. Nada. None.

Ditto for when a image of the virgin Mary was covered in elephant dung and pornographic images.

Ditto for when a play was done representing Christ as homosexual.

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.

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?"

Build a mosque right by Ground Zero? We demand the right under the first Amendment!

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!

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 Bloomberg says he thinks the Times Square bomber might have been someone upset with Obamacare, they know they are being fed a diet of BS for politically correct purposes

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.

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.

Sorry, that is not going to wash anymore.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Europe wants a Batman...Obama Ain't Him...

2010-06-17T06:58:00.016-04:00

In a much earlier post, I did an analysis ("The Nature of the Threat") of the film “The Dark Knight” as an allegory to the war on terror, and a particularly good one:

"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.

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.

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.”

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.

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:

"Salvatore Maroni: 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?"

As I wrote:

"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."

This post came right back to mind when I came across an interview of Victor Davis Hanson conducted by Michael Totten, the very end of which COMPLETELY validates the metaphor of the film:

"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."

Everybody looked at him. And I said, "What do you mean?"

He said, "There's only room for one Obama."

I said, "So we're supposed to do what? Take out Iran while you trash us?"

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?"

At the end of The Dark Knight, 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.

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.

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.

The Joker understood this even better than genius Bruce Wayne:

"The Joker: 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.

Batman: Where's Dent?
The Joker: You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you."

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.

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:

"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."

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.

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.

Freakin' brilliant.

*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.

Messages and Massacres

2010-06-09T07:46:00.007-04:00

From the BBC:

"Britons link Islam with extremism, says survey

Half of those questioned linked Islam with terrorism, according to the survey .

Most people in the UK associate Islam with extremism and the repression of women, a survey has suggested.

The online YouGov poll found 58% of those questioned linked Islam with extremism while 69% believed it encouraged the repression of women.

The survey of 2,152 adults was commissioned by the Exploring Islam Foundation."

Now, how did my British bretheren come to THAT conclusion?

"The organisation has launched a poster campaign on London transport to combat negative perceptions of Muslims. "

Hmm, maybe the reason for the negative perception was the last time Muslims put things on London transport, they exploded.

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.

Organizing fellow Muslims to rat out the bad guys to MI5 might also do the trick.

Just a suggestion.

Buried in Time

2010-06-06T14:17:00.003-04:00

I happened to find this video on YouTube while setting up an account...

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.

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.

God bless Al Gore and the inter-tubes, I Googled it, and damn if I did not find this:

O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

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?

I would love to find a version of this entire thing sung with fervor. Some of the lines fill you with a pleasant chill:

"On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,"

Has a Tolkienian quality to it.

This reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson's book Carnage And Culture:

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

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.

Let's all grab a shovel and dig it out.

Heroes without a Clue

2010-05-24T07:35:00.012-04:00

I somehow missed this news from last week:

'Heroes' Canceled

"NBC is no longer holding out for 'Heroes.'According to the Live Feed, 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 NBC's 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."

The show attracted viewers because the first season was astounding, although low-key in a "Unbreakable" 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.

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 Spiderman, Batman, X-Men had all done very well at the box office, with other titles doing decent business.

So, it seemed like the perfect time, and the perfect start, for a super-hero television series.

And, of course, they pissed it all away:

"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."

I may do a larger post on this, because it deserves a more detailed examination and explanation, but for now, a mini-rant.

I stopped watching Heroes 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.

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 alot about why it had so many viewers initially.

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.

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, ZZZZZzzzzz.

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.

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 OCD, to following any number of small quests to solve the riddle of why they were what they were.

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.

NOT doing this for the first season was fine, as it set the tableau, but what looked like atmosphere and mythos 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.

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.

All of the characters, except maybe Hiro, were absolutely self-centered and narcissistic when it came to their powers, with very brief and fleeting exceptions.

Hiro 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.

Instead, Hiro became a bumbling joke, the comic relief to break up the dreary angst fest all the other heroes were wallowing in.

I think I really got aggravated during the plot line where Peter gets trapped in the body of a super-villain 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 villains, and goes along with the gang for the moment.

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.

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 Sylar can stop them.

DIS-SATISFYING to say the least.

About the only character who was somewhat immune to this, and thus the most interesting, was that of Sylar, the lead villain in the series, played by Zachary Quinto. 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.

I say somewhat immune because even Sylar got the wishy-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.

"So what?" one might say, "It's bad writing. Happens all the time."

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.

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.

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.

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.

FINALLY, I thought, the series will get some firm grounding, and how nice a twist that Nathan, potentially a villain in Season One, will be one of the first to recognize it.

What does he then do?

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 Gitmo style prison.

WHAT. THE. ****?

Now, one could argue that this set up an interesting dynamic where Nathan comes to view the super-powered as being the victimizers, 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?

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.

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.

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.

RIP, Heroes, we hardly knew you...the way we wanted to.

The Cult of Personality

2010-05-21T07:23:00.006-04:00

I think it is hardly news to say the conservatives lag far behind in the message conveyance area.

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.

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.

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.

Iron Man 2, for one, has themes and dialogue in it that astounds me.

“I’m tired of the liberal agenda” - Tony Stark

Huh? What? How did this get in a Hollywood movie?

Well, the dirty (joyous) little secret may be that stars like Robert Downey Jr. and directors like Jon Favreau may not be down with the whole Progressive liberal agenda. My post about the Dark Knight also showed that not everyone in Tinsel Down is a mindless liberal drone. I suspect that there are others, and their numbers are swelling.

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.

Case in point is this video. (Hat-Tip Instapundit)

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.

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.

I think that's a pointless distinction. Who cares? She's taking a stand, thinking for herself, and acting.

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.

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.

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.

Age of Hypocrisy - Mondale and the Filibuster

2010-05-21T06:18:00.007-04:00

Earlier this week, in the "Found My Focus?" post, I said that this may very well be the Era of Hypocrisy, so widespread and accepted the practice is today.

Powerline 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.

Read 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.

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.

However, as Powerline points out, the local newspaper which runs Mondale's conflicting editorials fails to even note the opportunistic change of position:

"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."

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?

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?

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.

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.

Iron-Dong and Sponge Brains

2010-05-19T16:39:00.033-04:00

A certain Natalie Wilson, writing for Ms. Magazine, does an laughably inane and politically correct review of Iron Man 2.

(Hat tip - Leigh Scott @ Big Hollywood)

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.

I was not going to be this harsh or snarky 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.

Her words in italics, mine normal

It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.

Right. Sexism detected right in the title of the movie.

How DARE they not title the movie Iron Human! Or Iron Person! Or Iron Carbon Based Life Form of Indeterminate Gender!!

Hey, based on this logic, why isn't it then sexist to call it "Woman's Studies" and not "Human Studies"?

As I sat watching the movie with my 13-year-old son (and cringing at the overt sexualization of females),

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.

I could do a lot of dissecting what "overt sexualization" means to Ms. Wilson, but I think we'll get an idea below.

I just hope the poor kid got to enjoy his damn movie without being lectured on sexism afterwards.

I realized that Iron Man 2 is about the glory of males, the fact they are indeed “iron” and that, with their strength and ingenuity, the world will be saved.

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 pre-judging pig I am.

A number of other significant gender lessons are imparted in the film.

Uh-oh...

First, on men and masculinity:
1. Men don’t cry, they scream, as Ivan (played by Mickey Rourke) does when his dad dies.

Actually, Ivan (Mickey Rourke) 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.

Oh, but thanks Natalie for judging someone else on the way they display emotional trauma.

2. Men like power tools, technology, welding and weapons. Talking, not so much.

Correct, correct, correct, and correct on the first four.

Talking to YOU, a humorless, tiresome, liberal gender-feminist scold? Yes, probably not so much. Guilty.

Too harsh?

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.

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.

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.

"My name is X," she lectured me, miffed.

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.

3. Men are big wheels and lone gunmen. They may say, “It’s not all about me,” as Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey, Jr.) does at the beginning of the film, but, really, it is.

Yes, in both mythos 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 parsel of the whole Hero thing, particularly in literature.

Female heroes often do the same. If everyone acted like a hero, the term would be meaningless.

Oh, and we all know woman are never of the “its all about me” attitude…(insert your own snort here).

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 Neo-Imperialist Tendencies, blah-blah-blah.

Is Stark a bit of a egoist, dare I say an ego monster?

Shure nuff!

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.

4. Men need to leave a legacy and build a better future

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"?

Its called civilization, Ms. Wilson. Bask in its glory…

The best way to do this is via weapons, wealth and womanizing.

Oh, okay, so we see maybe the real issues. It's the wrong kind of legacy. Let's examine this...

In regards to weapons... 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?

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.

Wealth 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.

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.

In regards to “womanizing”…

There's a lot to dissect with this topic, but I'll stick to one tack right now, which is personal

peeve of mine...

HEY! Natalie!

How about respecting male heterosexuality as much as everyone else’s sexuality gets respected nowadays? Do homosexual men get crap from you for “manizing”? No, I did not think so.

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 patriarchal master plan of objectification and subjugation.

Blogger SQT, a woman, does a pretty nice job summing up the double standard here:

"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."

Read the whole thing, as they say.

5. Men’s hatred of women is cute and humorous–or as one blogger 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.”

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?

See Point #4 above again.

Its called biology. Look it up.

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?

Again, some respect for OUR sexuality, dammit!

6. Men are fabulous at business–so fabulous that they can successfully privatize world peace.

Many men are fabulous at business; this is something odd? Something tells me Wilson has problems with anyone fabulous at business, ie, because of their “greed”.

BTW, just out of curiosity, IF world peace could be achieved through privatizing it, would liberals prefer war and strife? One wonders.

7. Real men (aka Tony Stark) think the “liberal agenda” is boring.

It is boring, and more than just “real men” think so. Many real women think so, too.

It used to be amusing to point it out, but now the lack of deep thought it often displays is tedious.

That's partly because much of liberalism has been discredited as either being unrealistic and/or a cynical deception for other agendas.

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, Ie, Global warming nags who have multi-multi-million dollars homes and private jets.

Wilson's article is a decent example of why, which is why I am Fisking it.

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.

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.

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.

8. Men will always need to be in the theatre of war. As such, they might as well turn their bodies into weapons.

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?

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.

Tony Stark/Iron Man is basically a 21st century knight, running around in wonderfully upgraded plate mail.

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.

How is this a concept worthy of derision?

9. In fact, the male body is a weapon.

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!!

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.

Literally, figuratively, metaphorically. Man is iron. Or, as Andrew O’Hehir’s naming of the Iron Man suit as “impenetrable iron-dong costume” in his Salon 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.

Question: wouldn’t an “impenetrable iron” costume be really uncomfortable with a hard-on?

Being impenetrable, would it not keep Stark from getting some "action" with the ladies?

Does this in fact mean Iron Man 2 is a statement about the emasculating nature of modern technology?

See how fun it and easy is to create "themes" and "subtexts" out of whole cloth?

Secondly, on females and femininity (these lessons are longer, you see, because females need a lot of teaching):

Hey, YOU said it, not me!

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 Iron Man 2 where our gaze is directed to numerous bent-over butts in red spandex hot pants. As O’Her ir points out in his Salon 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 blogger aptly names it, “a vomit-inducingly sexist scene involving various swooping close-ups of womens’ body parts as they gyrate.”

Women are NOT for dancing? Well, best tell Twyla Tharp and all those ballerinas to sit the %&* down, then. Sexist sell-outs!

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 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.

What's becoming clear, here, is that when people have their noses to their ideological grindstones, its hard to see much else.

This, of course, totally ignores the strong roles of woman as more than just T and A in the movie, like Pepper, who is a smart, capable and somewhat wiser and more mature than Tony businesswoman. Ditto for the Scarlett Johannsen’s character, Natalie Rushman , but more on her later.

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.

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;

Okay, wait, I am confused…

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 just got through telling me this, but now we have her citing a female character’s intelligence as well as impressive language and combat skills.

Sorry, now matter how you feel about gender issues, feminism or Iron Man 2, this is SLOPPY thinking, and writing. Bad, BAD academic!

"Wait," you say, "She only meant how Tony viewed woman!"

Read on...

he uses Google to find her old modeling pictures. As Froley of ReelThinker 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.”

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.

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.

As Wilson herself points out, Tony Stark IS a bit of a womanizer.

That’s PART OF HIS CHARACTER.

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.

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.

(SPOILERS FOLLOW):

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?

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.

See how that works? What looks like simple exploitation is actually something meant to propel the story along. We call this a PLOT DEVICE.

Also, in that sense, the womanizing of which Wilson is not fond, is actually portrayed negatively, as a weakness, by the film she so wants to hate for praising womanizing.

Wilson might have seen this for herself had she not been so intent on seeing rampant sexism and misogyny everywhere she looked.

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, 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.

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?

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.

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.

Really big topic, too big to get into here, but let’s be honest.

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.

Again, the hetero male sexuality, biology thing. Don’t blame us. We were born this way, like homosexuals, except, you know, digging women.

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.

So, yea, guilty as charged. Woman's bodies are 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.

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.

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.

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.

6. The female body is weak. Pepper, after being saved by Tony near the end of Iron Man 2, 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.

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.

In any event, this is directly contradicted by her own descriptions above, as well as the movie:

“Her (Romanov) intelligence, multi-lingual skills and martial arts training don’t seem to matter;”

So, which is it? Are all the woman in IM2 portrayed in as weak eye-candy props, or NOT, Ms. Wilson?

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.

So, is that a sexist message that women are stronger than men without their powered toys?

Funny how Wilson did not see it that way.

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.

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.

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.

Anyone want to debate this one is a seperate topic, let me know.

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.

as Kyle Smith 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 blogger 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.”

1) Paltrow's character Pepper is made CEO of the freakin' company, and is not just his "assistant" or a submissive secretary

2) She IS involved in an action scene where she helps save Tony

3) The Romanov character is a BIG part of the action and she's a WOMAN

4) Did Wilson pay attention to ANY part of the movie?

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.

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:

"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."

Oy, VEY!

You see what I am talking about, here?

Finally, the film provides lessons in racism and homophobia:

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 this blogger: “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?”

Yeah, see, this is not racism, you dim-witted slacktard...

Man, even while trying to slander and villify someone, left wingers are slackers in thought.

"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.

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?

And "stupid", how? Unless one is of the “war is never the answer, ever” crowd.

Weapons are not SUPPOSED to kill those on YOUR side. Does that really need an explanation?

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.

Over 5,000 years of history says different, but what does the collective experience of humankind know.

In this same vein, as noted in my earlier post, various Others are framed as “evil terrorists,” namely Middle Easterners and North Koreans.

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.

I was going to do the whole "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" thing.

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.

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?

2. Black actors are exchangeable. Swap Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2) for Terrence Howard (Iron Man 1). No one will notice.

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.

So, let me get this straight, Favreau, by keeping 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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Boy Scouts were concerned that homosexual scout leaders left alone with groups of boys would create potential for abuse.

MANY feminists believe all men are potential rapists, and seek to punish them pro-actively for it.

Can't wait for for Ms. Wilson to denounce "heterophobia" in her ranks.

Bonus note:

Oh, yes, PLEASE! This whole thing has been so fascinating and valuable, please give us one little tidbit more of your wisdom, Ms. Wilson!

The sexist message of the Iron Man films spills off the screen and into our fast-food culture, with Burger King offering “four lifestyle accessories for girls and four action-packed toys for boys.” Girls, get busy accessorizing! Boys, take action!

Oh, come on! Are you serious? You write for Ms. Magazine! How many articles on fashion every month as opposed to building a shed?

How many ads for makeup of clothes grace your pages as opposed to power tools or sporting equipment?

POT. KETTLE. BLACK. YOU.

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.

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.

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 Iron Man 3.

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.

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!

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.

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".

As much fun as I had with this, there is a tragic, TRAGIC side of this, and we're all paying the price.

Puh-leeze...

2010-05-18T16:05:00.006-04:00

From the AP via NJ Herald:

"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."
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."

Anyone believe this? Anyone?

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.

So, let me parse this out for those that would take that route.

"He meant to say, 'I served DURING Vietnam'. He simply misspoke when his said 'in'...a few times."

Okay, so, he MEANT to say he served DURING Vietnam.

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.

Saying you served DURING Vietnam, while actually going nowhere near it seems...odd, no?

Why point out you served during a period of one of our major wars, when you actually did not fight in it?

Most with a shred of intellectual honesty will no doubt have gotten the point from the start.

The true believers, however, would no doubt see NO oddness with this.

The fact one would have to even spell this out to prevent someone from spinning it is sad.

Sleepless in New York

2010-05-18T15:55:00.003-04:00

Amazing 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.

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.

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...

Found My Focus?

2010-05-14T09:13:00.006-04:00

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.

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.

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.

It is also one that cuts across party and ideological lines, or at least it should if intellectual integrity were universal.

What the Lattices of Bogosity 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.

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.

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.

HYPOCRISY.

Sheer, blatant, bankrupt, venial hypocrisy. It's like a negative Force, surrounding us, penetrating us, tearing us apart and destroying us.

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.

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.

Whether its the feminists and liberals decrying sexism and patriarchy and then viciously attacking Sarah Palin in sexist and mysogynistic terms, or Global Warming alarmists buying multiple multi-million dollar homes or flying private planes, or supposed courageous social critics mocking one religion's central figure while cow-towing to another, Hypocrisy has become THE major theme of our age.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Unless you are under a rock, you know that Arizona, its governor and residents, and the new law passed there 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 country.

Well, let's take a look-see at what Mexico's policies are in regards to immigration. As reported by the talented and tenacious Michelle Malkin:

"– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?
– 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.
– 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 kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).
– 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.
– 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."

ADD to this the following:

"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.
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.
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.
"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.
Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process. "

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?

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.

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.

I hope to post illustrations of these often, if for no other reason that vent and maintain my own sanity. I

You. Are. Not. Getting. It.

2010-05-14T08:37:00.004-04:00

Question is, is this person as dense as he seems, or does he ignore the issue on purpose? Hard to know with the Left.

Let me 'splain.

Christopher Dickey has a Modest Proposal

"All Americans—whether brown, white, or black—should be required to carry a passport showing they are red, white, and blue."

That sums up the crux of his argument, before he then goes on tearing tangets about xenophobia and vigilantism. You can read the blatant accusations of bigotry on the part of Arizona residents yourself, but its likely nothing you have not seen before.

I'd like to focus on the idea of this National ID solving the problem.

It won't. And I think Dickey knows it.

Quote Dickey:

"...if we're serious about drawing lines against illegal immigration—which is all about defining who is a card-carrying American and who is not—a national ID is the obvious first step."

Hmm, so the first step is a national ID, when one can conclusively prove that one is a citizen or not, and who is here legally or not.

Well, okay. That would certainly be one way to make things clear. And the second step?

...?

Huh, Dickey never seems to get to a second, or third step. He's too busy calling Arizonians racist hicks, in so many words. Why is that?

Well, could it be because Dickey (must resist temptation to mock name) knows the whole problem with illegal immigration has been the enforcement of existing law, or the lack thereof.

A National ID to identify who or who is not here legally is POINTLESS if there is no concerted and unflinching effort to detain and deport those found to be violating immigration law.

All a National ID does is put even more onus, restrictions and burdens on actual United States citizens unless it is then used consistently to enforce immigration law.

I don't think Dickey is down with that whole next step, which is why he does not even bother to mention it. What I think he is doing is distracting from that issue and substitute another in its place, because the former is much harder for him to argue on the merits.

This is classic political bait-and-switch. That's why the question of law-breaking and illegal immigration gets turned into one of "racism" and "undocumented workers".

It says I can e-mail the author. I think I will and ask him about this...

2009-07-25T22:21:00.004-04:00

This is a test.

For more ifo, check out Drudge.

The Nature of the Threat

2009-01-07T11:42:00.007-05:00

There is a new website started by Andrew Breitbart called Big Hollywood.

I highly recommend you check it out if you happen to blunder over here. It is meant to be a Hollywood conservative website, fighting back against all the liberal slop coming out of there nowadays. People are speaking out when perhaps its not wise professionally to do so, so please support them by going over there.

I have not posted anything in a long while, but a discussion at this new website got me going. Writer Andrew Klavan wrote an article called "Hooray for Big Hollywood" where he attempts to point out where, as dismal as Hollywood's left-leaning record has been, there is cause to rejoice over films with conservative themes that have come out and done well.

One film he mentions is The Dark Knight, and one poster attempts to discredit the idea that it has conservative or pro-war on terror, or even any pro-Bush sentiment.

I tried posting a response there, but it apparently was too long, so I thought I would post it here.

To see The Dark Knight as anything OTHER than a pro-war on terror films 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.

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. 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. Those few like Jim Gordon, who want to effect change, have no power, particularly working within the corrupt system. Thus, Batman must work outside the law to reform it. Of course, the powers that be don’t like this, whether criminal or legal. They would both prefer things continue as they are. If some people get hurt or killed in the order normal day to day, that is okay, as long as things stay stable and lucrative for them.

Batman refuses to comply. He sees his parents murdered before him, and thus sees the price paid for the system to continue as it is. He bears the cost of this Faustian deal and judges it an immoral exchange.

How like this is our modern day, where on the local and international level, thugs and tyrants are allowed to continue their predations every day, because no one wants to get involved, or risk injury or lawsuit, or worse, profits from it? You think the various powers that wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq were doing it of humanitarian concerns for Iraqis, or for some business interests? Why is the treatment of terrorists at Guantanamo given so much press and liberal outrage, while the abject misery, cruel oppression and systemic murder of Africans in Dufar or North Korea’s population given short shrift, if ANY mention at all?

Batman also succeeds not only because he is an outsider, but because he manages to instill fear in those who had used fear as their best weapon, because he so effectively intimidates those who had thrived on intimidation.

We have seen this in action. Tyrant punks with big mouths who get off on grinding their own people into the ground and making threats and even waging attacks against other countries tend to do so with nations either too weak of will or of might to respond. When someone lands on one of their neighbors with both feet wrapped in Marine boots, they get awful quiet for a while, and some give up the game, like Khadaffi.

Batman is also a symbol, perhaps his most important feature, something featured in the movie and so brilliantly captured in Frank Miller’s the Dark Knight Returns. He is a symbol of resistance; of refusing to become a victim, of having the will and gaining the power to fight back against those seeking to make you their victim. He will not take back Gotham city by himself, but by showing everyone decent there that fighting back is possible, that action with danger is better than fear with the same, and that the bad guys are not so tough when they meet fierce and determined resistance.

Iraq Surge, anyone?

Now, the Joker exemplifies the 9/11 terrorist, the jihadist, the madman, the fanatic for whom there are NO moral, ethical or societal compunctions or mores. His goals, his desires, his drives are paramount, and nothing, but nothing, is off limits as far as goals or methods. He is a raging ID, fully intent on doing absolutely anything he wants, because he recognizes nothing in society as worthwhile or sacrosanct except that which he desires. If true, pure nihilism had a face, it would be white, with a maniacal red grin painted on it.

He is the end result, the last bastion of evil, the final development in the evolution of evil which finds itself hard pressed, like the Uri-kai Orcs Saruman cooks up for the final battle of Middle Earth.

He challenges Batman not only physically, attacking him, attacking average citizens, attacking his friend and killing his lover, but most important, morally. The Joker realizes that he holds one trump card over Batman, and it’s a good one.

As much as Batman is an outsider, one who is willing and able to work as outcast, even an outlaw, to get things done, even HE has limits. He is fighting to preserve decent society and true justice, even if he shuns or skirts them at times.

Joker seeks to destroy all the same, and his greatest strength is the ability to do anything at any time. Period. No rules, not limits, no conscience. Not only does this free Joker to do anything he needs to further his twisted goals, but he knows the limitations Batman puts on himself as well as the ones his chosen society places on him, hang-strings him. The other bad guys know it:

"Salvatore Maroni: [to Batman who is interrogating him about The Joker] 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 your mind?"

And the Joker knows that the same society Batman is trying to protect will not support him, will even turn on him, even against their own best interest, because they cannot face up to what needs to be done:

"The Joker: 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.

Batman: Where's Dent?

The Joker: You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you."

In order to truly combat such a demon, Batman cannot operate by all the rules of society, even one what 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 just far enough out into the darkness to grab his scrawny little neck and drag him in.

The challenge for Batman is not lose himself to the Darkness in the process, but there lies the real tragedy of the tale…

"The Joker: Oh, you. You just couldn't let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You are truly incorruptible, aren't you? Huh? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.

Batman: You'll be in a padded cell forever."

But he won’t be. As part of the Batman mythos, the Joker is the modern Hydra, a deadly fanged head always popping back up in society to wreak lethal havoc, and Batman must once again catch him and put him in that cell, hoping it will be the last time.

Batman refuses to kill the Joker out of principle, to prevent taking that last imagined step into darkness, but as he will find out over the years, one can’t escape the blood on his hands. Bruce Wayne refuses to take a life, even one so deserving as this metaphysical psychopath, but in doing so, he will condemn countless others to death at the hands of the Joker.

As Batman says to himself in Miller’s TDKR on arriving on the scene of another Joker massacre:

“How many, Joker? How many have I killed by letting you live?”

One might ask the likes of Hamas, or their puppet masters in Iran, the same thing…

HEART OF DARKNESS

2008-05-08T09:29:00.003-04:00

WARNING! I am pointing to something graphically violent below!! Watch enough to get the idea. I did not watch the entire thing myself.

http://www.revver.com/video/718011/frontiers-horror-movie-trailer/

This is entertainment nowadays.

We are in trouble.

I am not some prude or wilting lilly, and I do NOT like hand-wringing over violence in movies and video games. I play first person shooters, and hack and slash type RPG's, and have even played a couple of incarnations of Grand Theft Auto.

I admit I am not a horror film fan, particularly the slasher type films, but I do watch some. I tend to like werewolf/vampire stuff, or maybe one of the not horrible Alien films, but I am not one who refuses to watch them.

I don't like the idea of censorship or lecturing adults on what they should or not watch. To each his own.

However, there are friggin' limits...

First, this is not a horror film, not even of the slasher type.

Its a torture film. TORTURE. A psychotically sadistic snuff film in every sense of the term "snuff" but the actual death of someone. There is not terror in it, but mind crushing cruelty and soul deadening brutality.

Yes, yes, I've only seen the trailer, but I've seen similar. Rob Zombie's House of a 1,000 Corpses was the same thing. And damn, if this is only what is in the trailor.

There was no horror in that film. I never felt terrified or scared, like one would think a horror film is supposed to make one feel.

I felt disgusted and psychically damaged by it. Literally.

All the film was, was 90 minutes of de-humanizing, bestial savagery displayed in graphic form.

Again, I am NOT a overly sensitive type. I love action films, and fight films, and war films and I have played more than my share of violent video games.

However, like with many things, context plays a big role.

In the games I have played, you are fighting against opponents, AI or human, who are trying to kill you. Whether its a war game, or a fantasy role playing game, the idea is that the violence means something, there is a reason for it. You are in fighting a war, as cruel and brutal as that can be, or you a fighting a supernatural threat, or whatever.

And again, there is fighting. NOT repeated torture for torture and violence and sheer suffering's sake.

This is Evil.

If you believe any war or fighting is Evil, then let's at least categorize one as necessary evil and wanton Evil.

I do not buy the normal "violence in the media" causes real world violence meme. Or at least I did not before. Maybe I still don't.

BUT, anyone who can sit through something like this, repeatedly, and finds that they enjoy it, HAS to be disturbed in one way or the other.

I find this kind of thing particularly disturbing because there are people around the world being subjected to just this kind of treatment every minute (and NO, its not at Guantanamo), and while some many reject the violence of war which might prevent some of it, they are okaying with watching the cinematic equivalent and calling it entertainment.

I just feel that there is a terrible price to pay for all this, including Karmic.

WG

2007-06-29T09:57:00.000-04:00

Check out this site.

How Memes Are Created

2007-06-29T08:14:00.000-04:00

Covering the UK car bomb story this morning, CNN seems to keep trying tie this act with the Iraq war, some of it merely on the fact that it reportedly was similiar to an IED. How they are so sure of that, I don't know.

Christiane Amanpour in particular was claiming that the Iraq war was radicalizing people in Britain, although she did admit they were already radicalized. One reason was their anger at the people who were "killing our Muslim brothers".

The name of the blog is "Lattices of Bogosity", and this is the kind of stuff that I am talking about. Not only is this absurd, but is so blatantly absurd, people like Amanpour should be pointing it out:

Al Queda and other radical Islamist groups, and Muslim tyrants have killed their "Muslim brothers" in the millions over the centuries. Hell, its probably in the millions just in the past century.

*Now there is another talking head spouting this illogic.*

Get it through your head; This rhetoric is a pretext. It is right in front of your face if you take 2 seconds to think about. It is meant to justify the unjustifiable and to hide the real agenda, cloaking it in the lofty concept of "resistence."

Radicals have been living and organizing in Britain as parasites for over a decade at least. Before they kept their attacks outside of the country, but they resent the push-back post 9/11 and are now turning against the host body.

War on Terror is a Bumper Sticker...

2007-06-29T05:42:00.001-04:00

Attached to really big car BOMB.

Next time, Scotland Yard should call John Edwards and ask him to defuse it.

Freedom of Speech is Inconvenient

2007-06-27T12:41:00.000-04:00

Rich Lowry on the Fairness Doctrine:

"The report of the Center for American Progress on “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” marks the latest phase in liberaldom’s grappling with conservative talk radio. First came the attempts to create a liberal Limbaugh — Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, et al. — that fell flat. Then an entire left-wing network, Air America, was founded, and foundered. So there’s only one option left — if you can’t beat them, and you won’t join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them."

When you couple the intent of both Dems and Repubs to completely ignore the strong opposition to the Immigration bill under review, with THIS little ramp up to outright censorship, EVERYONE should be worried.

Of course, Libs who are willing to decry everything else as a trampling of their free speech rights will agree its a "important corrective". Certain Republicans are on board as well, because they are tired of hearing from the peons on the issues. But no matter, this is an attempt to hand control of free speech over to the government. Advocates will bend logic into pretzels in order to convince us otherwise, but that what it is. If the government gets to say how much of what someone gets to say, and when they say it, its censorship.

I cannot believe this is a serious discussion in the United States of America.

"FAUX NEWS" and FAUX OBJECTIVITY

2007-06-26T07:24:00.000-04:00

"The scorecard -- 125 of 144 donations to Democrats -- provides fresh ammunition to those who say the press has a liberal tilt. It's hard to argue you don't favor one party when you've just coughed up cash for that party." - Howard Kurtz

Another factoid which will bounce off the leftist bubble, who take it as an article of faith that Fox News is some sort of Rovian propaganda machine, but scoff at the suggestion that the MSM has objectivity issues. Turns out a Brit Hume (that's Fox's Brit Hume) researcher gave $2,600 to Democrat Harold Ford, according to Kurtz. Hey, Rove! How'd that guy make it past the screening process!?

A Lacking Brain

2007-06-25T07:21:00.000-04:00

Roger Ebert, in a review of A Mighty Heart:

"The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful."

I am not even going to disect the idiocy in this; it speaks for itself. You either get it or you don't.

Thus my pseudonym.

I get physically tired and a mild headache trying to fathom the thought process that not only thinks this in the first place, but then types it out, rereads it, thinks it worthy to keep, then publishes it for a worldwide audience. It almost like trying to visualize 4th dimensional geometry, which is hard enough, but when one thinks of the ramifications of HOW MANY people operate under similar twisted thinking, its worrisome to say the least. Trying to imagine a mind which would draw such a parallel, and find it valid, is stupifying.

So, I guess people on the left (and right) who complain about Americans exercising free speech to criticize them (and being so popular with the public for doing so) are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. Reality is reality, truth is the truth, ratings are ratings and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful, no?

Idiot.

(Hat tip, New Editor)

*revised*

Great, Now Get Off OUR Ass!

2007-06-21T06:35:00.000-04:00

Apparently, China has surpassed us in CO2 emissions. Wait, how is that possible? Don't they have better auto emission standards than we do? Oh, wait, they don't.

Anyway, so, from now on, eco-fanatics and Global Warming Warriors, can you please now direct all pompous ire toward the real destroyer of the planet from now on? China. C-H-I-N-A. Not U-S-A.

Bloomberg For Prez?

2007-06-20T19:45:00.001-04:00

Michael,

Idea for a truly independent, third party candidate? Great!

You as that third-party candidate? Not so much...

Many kudos for Bloomie for keeping the city from sliding back into the sewer when Rudy left, but the nanny-state intrusions grind on me. Grind, Mike.

Not a smoker (Okay, occasional cigar), but this anti-smoking thing STILL annoys me. Don't like smoke? If it's a private establishment; don't go there!

Think you or your kids are too fat or have too much cholesteral? PUT THE DONUTS AND BURGERS DOWN!

Bloomberg has it right on some issues, but the ever growing libertarian side of me is repelled by the thought of him with national executive power.

Next!

Sorry, No Bogeymen Today

2007-06-20T19:04:00.000-04:00

As I am sure thousands, maybe millions at this point, of people have experienced by now, I received a call from the Republican National Committee, asking for donations. A young woman, sounding very much of college age, told me she was calling on behalf on the RNC for a donation.

Wow, I thought. Here's the opportunity that I have only read about here-to-for.

"Yes," I said, "What's up?"

I let her do her pitch, asking for cash ($50) politely, and then told her:

"Listen, I am sure you have heard this a lot by now, but I am waiting to see what does or does not happen with this current immigration bill. I am not happy with the current stance many Republicans are taking on it, and I won't be giving any cash for now."

She was very conciliatory, saying she understood that a lot of people are upset right now, but they are trying to get ready for this next election so they can prevent Hillary or Obama from becoming president. How about $35?

Mentally rolling my eyes (I mean, she could not SEE me do it, you know?), I replied:

"Look, a Hillary or Obama for president is not what is of concern to me. I am concerned that Republicans are not listening to their constituents on this immigration issue. I am not feeling represented, and although I have given money in the past, I have no intention of giving any money right now."

She continued on, again very polite and understanding, but I felt that I had been polite as well, and my standard rule is if you don't take my wave off at the second try, niceties are over. So I hung up the phone as she blabbed.

I did not tear her a new one because she's just some kid hired to do a job which is to collect money for an organization I had previously supported. Like most telemarketers, you could tell she was working of a script.

Regarding that script, RNC; the Obama or Hillary bogeyman is not going to work. You tried that before in previous elections, telling us how bad things were going to be under Democrats. It worked for a couple of whirls, but as you MIGHT recall, it fell flat on its face in this last election because you lot were acting not much different than them. We decided the difference was no difference, and we were fed up. Now? We're pissed. Get the hint.

Do I want to see a Hillary or Obama presidency? HELL NO! on the first, and Not Really on the second, but what does it matter if you are going to sell us down the river anyway? It appears that whether Republican or Democratic, we can expect arrogance, runaway spending and unsecured borders from our leaders. So, WHY am I going to fork over $50 to you guys again? Why not keep the money for a rainy day, or for when the world finally does go completely to hell? I might need it.

You can't dress up in a cape and plastic fangs and jump out yelling, "Blah! OBAMA! Blah-Blah! Hillary!" and expect us to scramble for the Republican ticket, guys. If we are going to get indifference and corruption either way, why spend anything extra to get it?

Bottom line?

Clean. Up. Your. Act.

True to Form

2007-02-01T07:59:00.000-05:00

This guy is a clown.

Look, everyone says something stupid in their life, more than once obviously, but what makes Biden such a joke is his timing. He announces his presidential run and the day after makes a comment like this, which IS RECORDED.

The fact that Dems and liberals in general are so self-righteous with their supposed sensitivity for minorities and are so quick to label Republicans and conservatives racist makes it all the more laughable, bitter though that laughter may be.

But, heh, its okay. Biden will survive to run for President and lose, most likely in the primaries. He IS a Dem and liberal, so racist comments from him don't really count, and after all, he went on the Daily Show and received his comedic absolution from Paster Jon.

THHHHBBBBBFFFFFTTTTT!

Back

2007-01-13T14:11:00.000-05:00

So, I'm back.

Kept away because with my last posting, I got that familiar feeling of pointlessness about the whole thing. Trying to sort through all the horseshit that is fed to us on a daily basis makes what Hercules had to do with the stables seem like a cakewalk.

I'm not perfect, and I don't think I am the most brilliant person on the planet, but I don't take stupidity well. Whether it's genuine ignorance, or ideological fanaticism or faked for other purposes (agenda, money, notoriety, just to be a $&%^!@ pain in the ass), I find it oh so weary.

Yeah, I know, stop whining. Screw you. My blog.

This past September 11th, and for a few days after I went through all these photos and memorial sites from then, and now, and I was...what? Disheartened? Disgusted? It struck me that its been FIVE fucking years since it happened, and you wonder where the time went. Then you realize it must have gone straight up the asses of so many people who have also put their heads up there, looking at all the ridiculous rantings and conspiracy theories and mainstream bullshit out there.

News organizations that are so supposedly worried that they will traumatize families by showing too much of the planes hitting and towers falling and people leaping, think nothing of airing videos of US troops being shot and kiled by terrorists thugs. Videos supplied by the fucking terrorists!

What's more glaring and infuriating? The hypocrisy of showing one without the other, or the complicity in airing enemy propaganda?? Or is it that you even need to point out either one as being heinous and vile? That you get blank stares or dismissive denials?

I've stayed away because I've got other things going on, and I do not have the most focused mind (except for following the news, which just irritates me), but mostly I've stayed away because I imagined making a difference, of somehow helping tilting the balance away from catastophe.

I don't believe that's possible anymore. I think the rot has settled too deep in for it not to give way in a disasterous way. So much of western thinking has become decadent and twisted, devouring itself, that it will take blood for things to change. People don't value their freedom, they don't value their culture and they don't value their own history. We've allowed pride in our way of life to be debased and common sense to be ridiculed.

I'm part of it. Not nearly as good a student as I could be, and with schools that expected less of us than they did our parents, I am continually amazed at how little I know, even as I learn more. If I ever won the lottery, you know what I would do? I would go to California and take classes with this man until my brain bled. Instead of sailing around the world watching it burn while drinking Pina Coladas, I would try to learn how much I did not know.

I re-read this post at the Belmont Club recently, and it still goes straight to the heart of why we are in such deep shit. We lack the will to even believe and value ourselves, let alone fight for it. Fanatic and crazy as the Islamofascists seem, and as self-absorbed and self-destructive as totalitarian regimes from Russia and China are, they are not full of a whole-lot of self-doubt as to their goals and intentions. They may have realisitic comprehension of their limitations and weaknesses, but they do not plagues themselves with thoughts of "are we worth it?" or "will we be liked by everyone if we do X?".

We are decadent. We don't get it. We don't know what its like to really frightened and we don't know what its liked to be oppressed and we don't know of genocide.

We're in for a rude freakin' awakening, and the sheer tragedy of it makes me ill and despondent.

So, no, I have not felt like writing about it much, about recording the folly as it occurs, giving the play-by-play of the downward spiral. Forgive me.

The Lost

2006-09-11T06:32:00.000-04:00

Evil Virus

2006-09-04T09:51:00.000-04:00

In a previous post regarding Mel Gibson's anti-semetic rant, I made the following point:

"Three, this hatred of Jews seems to spread like a virus and is just as virulent. One can almost sense something meta-physical in it."

Hugh Hewitt comes up with the same take in an article for Town Hall. There is indeed something very eerily unnerving to all this. I remember an X-Files episode where evil was spread as virus, and people caught it through contact, physical, emotional or otherwise. Fantastic as it sounds, it had a very resonant logic to it. What else makes sense with this kind of complete idiocy?

Perhaps the "creep" factor merely comes from seeing such irrational hatred and bigotry rear its head. Add ignorance to the mix considering what happened in the world barely 60 years hence.

The Hangman Awaits

2006-09-04T09:44:00.000-04:00

When they catch this jerkoff, he should be shot. If we lack the clarity and guts to do it, we are indeed lost.

Shocker : France Wimps Out

2006-08-21T05:28:00.000-04:00

As you should know by now, France, the one pushing so hard for a cease-fire, and touting and international force to enforce it, has begged off actually participating.

Oh, okay, they STILL have troops ready to go in, but now instead of the 2,000 or more French troops many expected to be sent on the Paris led effort, they are going to send 200. Oh, but France is still willing to lead the whole thing.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called Chirac on Thursday to plead with him to reconsider. The French president's office released a statement later indicating he had not yielded.

The statement confirmed that France would send a company of 200 military engineers to Lebanon. They would join more than 200 French peacekeepers already serving in the relatively small U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL. Chirac also told Annan that "France was prepared to assume command" of the bolstered U.N. force, according to the statement.

What commitment!

I could write a whole lot on this, but what more needs be said? This is funny in a historical/cultural stereotype kind of way, but the fact is that this kind of pointless meddling is going ensure more people are killed later on. France is feeding its need for relevance on the blood of others.

France likes to talk the talk, when it comes to walking the walk, they want no part.

Of course, France is not stupid here, but merely calculating and spineless. They know what happens to "peacekeepers" sent to keep the peace with Hezbollah in the area. They are not crazy. They are not going to send 2,000 or more of their soldiers, who are not known for their war-fighting abilities to begin with, into Lebanon with big bullseyes on their backs.

What makes it so very sleazy is that they know EXACTLY what Hezbollah is, and yet that claim that Israel can and should bargain in good faith with them.

Yes, France is more than willing to try and play the Great State, but when it came to actually backing it up, they reveal how very small they are.

A while back, the Chirac bitterly chided some eastern European nations when they had the temerity to buck his anti-American stance on Iraq, telling them that they had missed a great opportunity to "shut up".

Well, it seems to me that since France missed their chance to "put up", then they should be the one to avail themselves of the "shut up" option.

Weasals.

WTF? Color Me Happy But &*$#@# Shocked

2006-08-17T05:30:00.000-04:00

Take a guess as to what industry group this statment comes from? Go on, guess!

"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," the ad reads.

"If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die.

"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."

Article here, found at Instapundit

Now, two comments.

1) I am especially shocked and suspicious of a couple of those names on the list. I expect some weasle-like back-pedaling or alterior motives here.

2) It would have been nice to have seen more of this over the last 5 years.

More on this later, perhaps...

More of This Please

2006-08-16T06:21:00.000-04:00

We need more of this. Excerpts of a speech given by a Col. White to a graduating class of soldiers. This is the sort of thing we should be hearing from members of Congress, the White House, the Pentagon and even parts of the media. This is the kind of attitude and support that our fighting men and women deserve. It should not come only from one of their own. If those of the Democratic party and on the left could espouse at least half of the truth this man speaks, it might convince even me that are the loyal opposition that they claim.

Hat Tip Michelle Malkin

Grabbing the Troll Bat

2006-08-15T07:37:00.000-04:00

I have been having an ongoing "conversation" with someone calling himself Skeptikwon in the thread of my "How to Spot a Troll" post. What started out briefly as a decent exchange quickly degenerated into a fruitless exercise.

Skeptikwon pissed me off for, among other things, misreading things I wrote more than once, and then demanding that I answer for things I did not say.

I am posting my last post in that thread here, because it speaks not only to Skeptikwon, but to all of those who tried to feed me the same old tired dregs that are their talking points. I warned Skeptikwon that I did not suffer fools gladly, and I make good on that promise.

Portions of his post are in italics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You are extraordinarily arrogant.

First, Uh, no, I am not arrogant. I do not, however, suffer foolishness and a waste of my time gladly. I DID warn you of this, did I not? You waste my time with absurdity, I am going to point it out to you in no uncertain terms. I gave you a chance and you turned out to behave like a child, unwilling to acknowledge the simplest errors on your part.

Second, why am I the arrogant one when you are the one who makes all sorts of grand assertion without backing them up? Why am I arrogant because I get annoyed that you, more than once, misread what I wrote and then use that misreading to attack me?

Remember that pot and kettle thing I mentioned before?

Let us return to your last post so I can again point out your errors:

This is what you wrote.

"Despite hysterical rhetoric to the contrary, there was no widespread, or even appreciable, backlash against Middle Easterners and Muslims, citizens or otherwise, in the US after 9/11"

Note the or otherwise. I can read, and I can see where the confusion comes from without being rude.

Skep, the 'otherwise' in that sentence does not in anyway create confusion, except in your own mind. You took that passage and came up with this:

“I see your post on the alleged hijacking plot where you say there has been no US action against muslims for 9/11. Are you serious? How many people have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza since then in your GWOT?”

The entire post, and the passage you quoted, deals with reaction to Muslims IN THE US, whether citizens or aliens. You did not bother to actually read what I wrote the first time (probably because you have all your talking points already churning in your head) and even upon rereading it, you still try to construe some meaning which is not there. Don't try to argue it because it is staring you right in the face. Whether it is a willful disregard for what I wrote, or simply your emotions running away with you, I am not sure.

Anyway, I took your advice and reread your Gaza thing. I wish now that I'd read it before commenting. I read some ugly antiJew stuff on arab sites that make me cringe. Your essay is on a par with those..

And AGAIN, you make vile, broadbrush accusations without ANY examples cited. I'm arrogant? Please.

Oh, and, I see you can now admit that there is "ugly antiJew" stuff on Arab sites? Wow! Maybe I am making headway. From your earlier comments, it seemed like you had trouble conceiving of "non-friendly" Arabs at all. So, now you admit there are at least some Arabs filled with ugly hatred toward Jews? Excellent.

The only difference is that you have no excuse.

Oh, I understand now. Even though you now admit that there is virulent hatred of Jews among some Arabs, it is not really their fault. They are blameless for their hatred (and I assume then the violence that comes from it), but I should be full of guilt. THEY have an excuse for their hatred, so they are to be exempt from criticism let alone condemnation.

So, is this a racist thing? Are Arabs to be considered so ignorant and primitive, like children, that they can’t be held responsible? Or is it the “only the white Westerner” can be guilty of crimes and inhumanity due to the “Anglo-Saxon Patriarchal Power Structure”?

It is your country doing most of the killing and destroying.

Oh, Really? How many Arabs and Muslims have been killed by their own kind in the last 30 years? 20 score more than by the US, if not much more, and yet you seem oddly unconcerned about that bloodshed. Less than concerned, actually, because you never seem to mention it.

Let's take Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis killed nowadays are killed by US troops? Or is it by other Iraqis and fellow Muslims from other nations?

But, what about before the invasion? Who was killing all the Muslims in Iraq then? Wasn’t it Saddam and his Sunni Arab henchmen lining them up and shooting them into mass graves? Gassing them in their villages?

And destruction?

Do you know that far more damage to the infrastructure of Iraq was done by Saddam's deprivations before he was overthrown, than by US military action? He spent the billions on his palaces and his leisure while he let the country run itself down. Do you care? Of course not, because then you can't blame the United States for it, right?

And is it the US blowing up pipelines and electrical plants and hospitals in Iraq, or is it the 'insurgents'? And are the insurgents Norwegian Lutherans, or some other group?

I sincerely hope you wake up one day and see what you and many of your countrmen have become. I imagine Germany in the 30s was similar.

Spare me the Nazi comparisons. We've heard it all before, and it is not only lame but clichéd. It is, however, a nice end cap for you, I admit.

It illustrates both your historical ignorance and your lack of comprehension of current events. You ever read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? Do you know the tactics Hitler used to hoodwink the European powers? Some much of it is right out of terrorists and tyrants playbook, it is astounding.

Preach peace to the world, but call for war to your followers.

When confronted with your crimes, ignore it and point out your accusers' failings.

Play the victim while oppressing others.

Test your tactics and weapons out in proxy wars.

That the fact that you 'imagine', rather than know what Germany in the 30's was like speaks volumes. I imagine that you 'imagine' a lot about both history and current events.

Here, you want to make Nazi comparisons, Skep?

Look at them.

Who do they look like, Skeptikwon?

That salute look familiar at all, my friend?

Here's a little visual aid to help with your history lesson.

It doesn't end with a salute. The mass murder comes along with it, does it not?

Arabs and Muslims have been murdering and oppressing one another for the last century and the body count from that is in the millions. Further, Arabs and Muslims are responsible for murder and destruction the world over, from Bali to Darfur to Turkey and on and on.

Tell me, oh stalwart defender of Arab/Muslim honor, what have the Africans of Darfur done to deserve their treatment at the hands of the Janjaweed? Tell me of the 'friendly Arab' horsemen who ride into villages, raping and killing and enslaving for fun and profit.

Oh, that's right, it is hard if not impossible to somehow pin their crimes on the US or Israel, so you don't really give a shit, do you?

You're not alone, obviously. You and the UN and the feckless Europeans cry and wail over the deaths in Lebanon, but far more people are dying brutally in Darfur in what could only be called a genocide if that term means anything at all. But, you don't give a good goddamn if you even recognize it at all. You can’t, can you, because then the claim that Arabs/Muslims are eternal, innocent victims of Western Imperialism and Evil Zionism falls flat on its face.

You are a loathsome hypocrite or a mindless parrot, take your pick. You look past the mountains of bodies lying at the feet of mass murderers and tyrants because they do not represent the ideological arch-enemy you love to loathe.

Do I think all Arabs and Muslims are murdering terrorists and tyrants?

Far from it. I know that is not the case. I know that, by far, the victims of these bastards are fellow Arabs and Muslims. Just like German Jews, and others, were murdered by their compatriots, those most suffering from Islamosfacism and Middle Eastern tyranny are those two groups.

But just as not all Germans were Nazis, the vicious ideology which is fueling the Islamofascists (yeah, Islamofascists, Skep) threatens to overwhelm or cowe the rest. Just like the Nazis, opposition is met with brutal and deadly force to force others in line or to simply eliminate them. The terrorists and thugs that you refuse to acknowledge will drag the innocent into a world-wide conflagration making the deaths in Lebanon a footnote in history.

Your willful ignorance, whether born of indoctrination or simple need to be contrarian, is helping to make this coming conflict all the more possible, just like the Second World War. Lenin had his useful idiots, Hitler had his, and now the 21^st century fascists have theirs. Congratulations and welcome to the club. The blood is not only on your hands, but it is smeared all over your mouth thanks to the idiocy spewing from it. I hope you choke on it. Idiot.

(And yes, if you darken my blog door with your idiocy again, expect to get another whack with the Troll bat. Get vile, and I will delete your ass.)

UK Airline Bomb Plot

2006-08-10T05:34:00.000-04:00

Reports are coming in that a major plot to bomb Airliners traveling from the UK to the US has been foiled in Great Britain. Apparently, the groups planned to carry explosives on board. I am sure more and different details will be coming in soon.

Thank God it was stopped, at whatever stage it was . However, it is only a matter of time before something like this succeeds.

** Update **

"The foiled plot was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale," London's Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said.

The plot involved hiding masked liquid explosives and detonators in carry-on luggage, Chertoff said. ('Untold death and destruction' planned -- 2:37)" CNN.COM

Although the CNN article link does not mention it, CNN air is reporting that the people involved are most, in not entirely, British citizens of Pakistani descent. I am guessing we will discover later they were neither Buddhist, Mormons or Jews.

In addition to the looming prospect of WWIV breaking out in full soon, we now have the prospect of large sections of Western countries having to deal with their own citizens mounting attacks upon them. How will these governments react to these violent traitors, and more importantly, how will their fellow citizens respond?

Despite hysterical rhetoric to the contrary, there was no widespread, or even appreciable, backlash against Middle Easterners and Muslims, citizens or otherwise, in the US after 9/11. Aside from a very few isolated incidents perpetuated by idiots, people reached out to the Muslim community. That is something to be proud of.

However, what happens, as I asked my spouse, "what happens when a mass murder attack is pulled off in the US, one mostly committed by, and assisted by, American citizens who are Muslims?"

If a Beslan style attack occurs in this nation, for example, and some American citizens murder our children, and it turns out they were radicalized HERE, what the F**K happens then? Does backlash then still count as backlash, or does it start to look like self-defense?

Yes, it IS an ugly question, but the answer, I fear, is going to be much worse.

** Update 2 **

Think I'm a paranoid reactionary? Check out this post from Michelle Malkin regarding some strange, alarming behaviour within our borders.

All The Signs Were There...

2006-08-01T12:58:00.000-04:00

Mel Gibson - Anti-Semite?

2006-08-01T06:46:00.000-04:00

In regards to the Mel Gibson incident, I'm afraid this kinda puts me over the top as far as believing he is anti-semitic.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt throughout the rumors to the effect and despite his dad apparently a fanatic on the subject (I don't think it is fair to hold someone to account for their parent's foibles unless the person directly supports them). I thought some of the anti-semitic charges might have had to do with other biases, including anti-Christian ones. The fact that he was currently playing the role of maverick in the sleazy Hollywood biz I thought may have played a part as well.

However, this incident, with the "Protocols of Zion" rhetoric, claiming Jews are responsible for all the wars comment, is pretty disturbing and hard to excuse.

Yeah, yeah, I know he was drunk.

I know that all of us have prejudices and dark thoughts that we have to contain and control, and getting blitzed lowers those restraints.

Being a civilized, decent person does not mean your don’t have any prejudices or evil thoughts. It means being able to control them, using reason and compassion to counter those impulses.

I would never judge a person on a single incident because of all this, but as a pattern emerges, one has to draw certain conclusions.

It is disappointing for several reasons.

One, I have enjoyed Gibson as an actor, as a director, and his apparent lack of ego despite his success. I thought of him as decent guy, considering.

Two, it seems to confirm that one cannot be work in movies without being some kind of basket case or nut-job.

Three, this hatred of Jews seems to spread like a virus and is just as virulent. One can almost sense something meta-physical in it.

Now it appears Gibson is entering rehab. Hope it helps. Perhaps Hezbollah, Hamas and a good portion of the left needs to enter rehab as well.

International Force in Lebanon?

2006-07-28T12:50:00.000-04:00

Blair and Bush are holding a press conference as I type this. They are talking about an international force to go to Lebanon to help ensure a cease-fire and I believe to ensure the enforcement of UN resolutions (disarming Hezbollah).

Bottom line: I do not want to see any such thing until it is made absolutely clear that ANY attack on this force by parties there (Hezbollah) will be met with overwhelming force, and will be held against Iran and Syria. If another Marine Barracks occurs, I will be very pissed at Bush. The way to avoid that is to make it clear to the terror masters the price that will be paid, and to meet any aggression with bullets.

Update: Needless to say, when I think International Force, I mean NATO, or one of our own organization, NOT the UN. What a useless bunch of morons...

How to Spot a Troll Updated!

2006-07-27T09:43:00.000-04:00

Who? Me?!?

Recently I have come across the phenomenon of Trolls calling other people "Trolls" because those people had the gall to call them Trolls for acting like Trolls.

That is as confusing as it reads, so I though I would write some pointers for people to spot a Troll, especially if the Troll is you. People far better than me have written on this before, but allow me my take.

Hopefully, for those encountering Trolls, this will save you time and aggravation by avoiding someone who is a humongous waste of your time.

For those who are Trolls, this might help explain why despite your unparalleled genius, keen debating skills and ability to post faster that you read, people still think you are a wanker.

I will add to this as more occur to me. Feel free to offer your own suggestions.

SIGNS OF THE TROLL

The Screen Name Pun

A Troll will often reveal himself early when he makes some sort of snide comment on or pun of your screen name. While most everyone will be tempted to mock someone’s screen name during a tense argument online, a Troll grabs that bait like a Great White grabs chum-covered surfers. Usually, a Troll who is challenged will go for the screen name taunt within 2-3 exchanges. If really spooked, they’ll use it right off the bat.

Examples : “So, Wearing Me Out…”

“Tell me, Wears Garters, what do you…”

“You mean to tell me, Wear’s Your Brain…”

Free Throwing

A friend a mine once likened people who try to participate in a conversation without actually listening to anyone to a spectator at a Knicks game shooting free-throws from the stands. You can spot a Troll easy when they make a comment which is at best tangential to the flow of the ongoing conversation or post. It may be a single line, or a mighty manifesto, but in both cases you are straining to understand its relevance to the ongoing discussion.

Example: On thread dealing with drilling in ANWR, a poster pops in to state: “Of course, if Bush were really serious about fixing illegal immigration, we wouldn’t need that much oil in the first place.”

Xeroxing

If someone copies and pastes their own words from one blog’s comment thread to an entirely other blog’s comment thread, red flags should go up. It bespeaks of someone who is trying to disseminate their viewpoint and “brilliance” rather than actually, you know, engaging in a conversation. It’s sorta innovative in that it’s like mobile blogging, but ultimately it is annoying and Trollish.

Example : Poster writes: “I left a comment on Bloggerama that I think was so brilliant, you guys should have chance to read it as well.”

Verbating

There is nothing wrong with cutting and pasting material relevant to your point from whatever source (except if you're quoting you. See Xeroxing). In fact, it’s a great ability in an online forum. However, Trolls often go overboard. Instead of quoting a small portion, and linking to the original, they feel the need to put whole sections in a comment thread. This serves a couple of purposes. One, Trolls likely feel that larger quotations are more impressive than smaller ones. Two, Trolls believe that making you read a whole bunch of stuff will make you tired, sap your will and make you more likely to either succumb to their will or give up entirely. I mean, they know you have a life and job to get back to, which is your weakness.

Example : “Let me give you a quote from Moby Dick I found on page 93:

‘Call me Ishmael…’ ”

The Catch Phrase

While everyone has a favorite turn of phrase, like all good things, moderation is called for. When something is not so good to begin with, you really should drop it after the first use. Not so for Trolls, where repetition just makes it better every single time. Someone who keeps using the same phrase, particularly one of their own creation, could very well be a Troll.

Example : Well, if you Wankers of War…I would think that Wankers of War like yourself… Hail the Wankers of War!…Wanking off on your War, War Wankers?!?

Mind Reading

Some Trolls apparently think they can read your mind, knowing what you must have been thinking when you posted, rather than actually reading what you wrote when you posted. Surprisingly, they usually find out that you were a racist, fascist, homophobe, etc., and you didn’t even know it! Sometimes its pretty overt, and sometimes more subtle, but the bottom line is it’s an attempt to get you to really understand what your are all about. I also think it is a way for Trolls to write politically incorrect statements and get way with it.

Example : “The Third World is not full of the ignorant mud-people you think it is!"

Kettle Calling

As in, "Pot Calling Kettle Black". A Troll has a highly developed skill for projection of their behavior onto others. As I mentioned at the very top of this post, the most simple form is to call someone a Troll,, even when they're the one acting like a wanker. It also comes down to specific accusations, such as lambasting someone for resorting to insults after they have spent numerous posts calling people names, using the Screen Name Pun and say, questioning their intelligence.

A curious subset of this I have seen is the homophobic, gay-rights Troll. On several occasions when I was engaged in an online debate, I had people trot out the "right-wing, rethuglican gay basher" themes against me. At the same time, after they became completely frustrated when they were losing the argument, they began to insinuate I was gay and used stereotypical language to do so. No one out and out called me a "faggot" or "fruit", but I was told I was a mincing or shrieking pansy, must love show tunes, was getting boned by my boyfriend, etc. I once had this kind of crap thrown at me by a woman claiming to be a liberal and a lesbian! Pointing out the, uh, irony of this was, no pun intended, fruitless.

Oh, and the most telling thing was that of all the other left-wing progressives posting in those threads, I think ONE called the gay-baiters on it. ONE. That says much more than the random spittle of cranks, doesn't it?

Example: Not sure I need one after the preceding paragraph

** Update : Here's a great example of the Homophobic progressive that Jeff Goldstein encountered at Protein Wisdom.

The Hypocritic Oaf

While other catagories may contain elements of hypocrisy, it deserves its own catagory when it comes to Trolls. Why? Because Trolls are acutely aware of any whiff of hypocrisy in those with which they disagree, but have absolutely NO concept of it when it relates to themselves or those that agree with them. A Troll can make statement in a thread, and in the following post, they can write something completely at odds with their previous statement. Pointing this out, even quoting their own words, have absolutely no effect on them. Think of them as Hypocrisy Vampires or Werewolves; they can't be harmed by normal means.

Example : Post 1 "I don't think terrorism is really a big problem at all. It's been hyped to keep people scared."

Post 2 "Thanks to Bush's "War on Terror", the threat from terrorism has only gotten worse. If something happens, and it will, Bush is at fault."

Raging Against the Machine

This should be bloody obvious, but I added it anyway. Anyway who pops in to tell everyone and/or the host to "'eff off!", or to do something unnatural to themselves or otherwise calls them a "*$&%@" or a "$%&!*", is a Troll. True, if you were to see them in person, they would more resemble a angry, sputtering dwarf of ancient European legend, but they are still a Troll.

What's usually funny about these guys is that they usually communicate their sputtering well if nothing else. You can see them getting so animated that someone challenged their precious dogma, but are so frustrated that they have none of the ability, patience, intelligence or knowledge to argue their point. No matter what they write, its like reading:

"AAAAARGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

The Coming Carnage - Who's to Blame?

2006-07-21T12:43:00.000-04:00

The Israelis are massing more troops along the Lebanon border with the possibility of a larger scale invasion to come soon. The Lebanese government is promising to send their military to the south to confront the Israelis should they invade.

I am sure it has occurred to more than me that if the Lebanese had sent their troops south months or weeks ago to put a leash on Hezbollah, there would be no crisis here.

Instead, Lebanese leaders will send troops that might have been used and sacrificed to crush Hezbollah and instead send them to be slaughtered fighting Israel, a nation trying to wipe out a group threatening Lebanon’s government and sovereignty. The insane, stupid irony of it elicits no humor, only nausea.

Of course, Hezbollah, whatever strategic mistakes they may have made in all this, has planned as much on this. They hide amid the civilian population using them as shields and propaganda props for when the Israeli air attacks come in. Now they will use the Lebanese army to shield it from whatever ground attack ensues. The ensuing carnage, even it engulfs them, will cause great havoc amid its enemies all the same.

Well, then, isn’t Israel just playing into Hezbollah’s hands then?

No. The world is playing into all the Islamofascist’s hands will their moral equivocation and narrow self-interest. The conflict in Lebanon is but one example of this.

Disproportionate Response

2006-07-21T08:51:00.000-04:00

Keeping to my theme from the previous post, how does the media define “Disproportionate Response”? How do they define “Proportionate Response”? They should let us know because a lot of the questions I see bandied about regarding Lebanon and Israeli actions keep asking about “Excessive Force” or “Disproportionate Response”. If they are going to ask someone this question, shouldn’t they have some idea of what those terms mean to them? If not, could not an Israeli representative or Tony Snow simply just respond “No”?

“General, do you think that the Israeli response, while certainly initially provoked, has been disproportionate?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because its not. What do you think qualifies as disproportionate?”

“…Well, its not me saying its disproportionate. So and so says so.”

“Okay, what do they say they think is disproportionate?”

“Uh…”

You get the idea. The problem I am highlighting is the media's tendencyto set up a meme, or to proceed from a certain “conclusion”, and to base their coverage and questions on it. The one they seem to working from now is, "Well, Israel is really going too far here, now, aren't they? I mean, even though we know they were attacked..."

They are certainly not the only one, mind you. Various other factions, like say Hezbollah, do it for specific tactical reasons. But the press is supposed to be clarifying things, no? Getting to the truth behind the spin?

So, what IS a disproportionate response to unprovoked attacks, kidnapping and the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists?

I am not saying that there are no responses which are disproportionate or excessive. I am merely saying that those asking the question should first have some idea of what they think that means before asking the question.

How About a Little Thanks and Praise?

2006-07-20T06:57:00.000-04:00

The past week has been an exasperating experience as I watch the coverage of the Lebanon evacuations.

Gee, I wonder where people get the idea that Americans are pampered, whiny and arrogant?

I see people whining and complaining that the mass evacuation of people out of a war zone is not neat and orderly. I see people complaining that the accommodations on ships which are taking them out said war zone were not comfortable. I see complaining from many quarters that the government would have liked to be reimbursed later for getting their asses to safety.

Some news organizations complained of cramped conditions on a Norwegian cargo ship which took 1,000 people. Video of said ships showed that while people were lined up along the side walkways, there were not on top of one another. In addition, on the central part of the deck there was apparently enough room for guys to play basketball!

Apparently, the only way to evacuate for some is to take a cruise ship, or you shouldn’t leave at all.

Of course, a lot of this could be the media’s doing, which cannot go without somehow finding fault with how the government, particularly this administration, does things. The question I have is; what is the yardstick for performance? Where is it, what does it look like, and what is needed for a “good” rating?

I mean, is there ANY chance we would see a headline or chyron say “Government Does Kick Ass Job on Evacuations!” What would the government (State Department, Military, White House, etc) need to do to get such praise. We are never told.

Look, I am not a big fan of government beauracracy and I have plenty to complain about in regards to their inefficiency. My point is, if the media or anyone is going to set themselves as constant critics, shouldn’t they A) reveal their grading methods, B) sometimes be able to give a positive review?

**Update** To be fair, I have seen some people praising the efforts of the State Departement and others in facilitating the evacuation, so at least there is some attempt at balance. However, you still see the media's tendency to emphasize the negative and to ask why it wasn't done better without revealing what they view as acceptable performance. Should 24 hours been enough time to get everyone out? 36? 48?

If they had sent this ship, what would have been the reaction, I wonder. These people had a much rougher time on their vacation than any of these people have had during the evacuation.

I also noticed some statistics that indicated that the French and Canadians have gotten far fewer people out so far. If accurate, does that mean we are doing all that badly? Again, the question is not even asked from what I've seen.

Update : Blackfive puts it very nicely regarding what people should expect from the evacuation:

In my mind, if you voluntarily decide to go to a country whose southern half is controlled by a 25 year old terrorist organization that until 9/11 had killed more Americans than any other you ought to take some responsibility for your own predicament when things go sideways. I mean if you are pregnant and decide to go to Beirut on your Mediterranean vacation with 5 kids (instead of France, Italy, Greece, etc.) then perhaps you should either blame your travel agent or have a nice tall glass of shut the hell up when you suddenly are operating outside your itinerary. Should these Americans pay for their evacuation from their terrorist occupied vacation spot? Let me ask another question; why should I pay for it?

Amen.

When Trolls Get Locked Out

2006-06-29T13:32:00.000-04:00

Trolls Don't Take It Well When Locked Out of Message Boards...

Israeli Smack-Down

2006-06-29T07:21:00.000-04:00

Israel keeps up pressure on (pounds crap out of) Gaza

Palestinian officials held; settler's body found

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Striking from the air, land and the sea, Israeli forces Thursday fired on Gaza in the midst of intensified clashes with Palestinian militants (terrorist scum) who have been holding an Israeli soldier captive for four days, the Israel Defense Forces said.

Israel's navy pounded northern Gaza, firing from the eastern Mediterranean Sea, while Israeli aircraft hit targets in the north and the south. IDF tanks joined in the barrage.

The strikes came as Israeli security forces overnight arrested 64 Palestinians in the West Bank, suspected of being involved in terrorist (note, not militant) activities, the Israeli army said.

Palestinian sources said those arrested included dozens of lawmakers (thugs) from the ruling Palestinian party Hamas (like Israel said: terrorists).

Those arrested were not taken into custody as a bargaining chip for Cpl. Gilad Shalit's release, the army said. (Too bad; its a good idea).

The raids came amid word that a body found early Thursday near Ramallah was that of Eliyahu Yitzhak Asheri, 18, a West Bank settler seized by Palestinian militants (terrorists) hours after Shalit was kidnapped early Sunday, Israeli security sources. (Hmmm, where's Amnesty International when you need 'em?)

The body has been transferred to the Pathological Institute in Israel where a formal identification will be made, the security sources said.

On Wednesday, the Popular Resistance Committees (terrorists) displayed the identity card of the Jewish settler the group said it kidnapped Sunday, and said the captive would be "butchered" (I mentioned they were terrorists, right?) unless Israel stopped its incursion into Gaza. (Right, stop coming into Gaza when we kill Israelis or we will kill Israelis)

The discovery of the body was the latest in a series of events that began early Sunday, when Palestinian militants (terrorists! Hello? t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t-s!) tunneled into Israel and attacked a military post near Israel's border with Egypt and Gaza, kidnapping Shalit and killing two other soldiers.

Israeli troops immediately entered southern Gaza in the hours after the attack in an attempt to find the soldier and destroy the tunnel. After destroying the tunnel, the soldiers moved out and massed along the edge of Gaza.

The troops moved back into Gaza early Wednesday, and the operation continued Thursday with Israeli aircraft hitting targets in Khan Yunis in the south and in Gaza City to the north.

Israeli intelligence indicates Shalit is being held in the Khan Yunis refugee (terrorist) camp.

IDF distributed fliers in Beit Hanoun, Khan Yunis and the Sajaiyeh neighborhood of Gaza City, warning that the Israeli army is operating in the area for an unknown period of time in order to bring Shalit home. (The flier said, "Give us back our guy, you jihadist smacktards, or we're gonna break more shit!)

Israeli tanks could be seen firing into the area as dusk fell. An Israeli airstrike in Khan Yunis targeted what the Israeli military said was a storehouse for Qassam (translation: Goat Banger) rockets. (Hey! No fair. Those were civilian rockets!)

Defense Minister Amir Peretz told reporters Wednesday that he had approved new operations in northern Gaza in an effort to stop the firing of the homemade (made of construction paper, Elmer's Glue and macaroni) rockets into Israel.

The latest rocket attack happened early Thursday, when a Goat Banger landed in Sderot, Israel, causing no injuries, the Israeli military reported.

Cabinet members arrested

Hours before the 64 arrests in the West Bank, Israeli troops rounded up four members of the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority Cabinet (terrorists) and four other lawmakers (terrorists).

Hamas' militant (terrorist) wing (as opposed to their non-militant wing?) is one of three Palestinian groups (terrorists) that claimed responsibility for the soldier's kidnapping.

The four Cabinet members (terrorists) arrested were Labor (terrorism) Minister Mohammad al-Barghouti, Minister of Jerusalem (Main Target) Affairs Khaled Abu Arafeh, Minister of Local Governments (Enforcers) Issa al Jaabari and Religious Affairs (Jihad) Minister Naif al Rajoub, the sources said.

Finance (Extortion) Minister Omar Abdul Razek was being questioned by soldiers, the sources said.

Like the 64 other Palestinians (terrorists) arrested in the West Bank raids, Israel said the ministers (chief terrorists) are suspected of being involved in terrorist (not militant?) activities and were not taken into custody as a bargaining chip for the soldier's release.

However, chief Palestinian negotiator (liar) Saeb Erakat denied that claim and denounced Israel's "mass arrest" of the Palestinian officials (terrorists with a badge) .

"I think it's the wrong move," Erakat said in a CNN phone interview from Jericho. "First, Razek owes me 50 dinars. Second, we're all terrorists, so why pick on these 64? Wait a minute...Let me start again."

"I think that Israeli attempts to bargain through bombardment of power stations and bridges and arrests of parliamentarians and ministers is just adding to the complexities." ("I think that Israeli attempts to punish us for being terrorist dickheads by waging war on us makes it very difficult for us to wage war on them.")

The Israeli military has targeted the Palestinian (terrorist) infrastructure in its attacks over the past 48 hours.

Israeli warplanes have knocked out bridges connecting northern and southern Gaza and destroyed a power station in an effort to prevent militants (terrorists) from moving the captured soldier outside southern Gaza, according to the IDF.

On Monday, three Palestinian militant (terrorist) groups -- the military wing (there's that wing-thing again) of Hamas (terrorists), the Popular Resistance Committees (bureaucratic terrorists), and the previously unknown Army of Islam (terr-c'mon, I have to say it?) -- claimed responsibility for Shalit's kidnapping. They issued a statement saying they would exchange information about the soldier if Israel freed all Palestinian women (female terrorists) and youths (immature terrorists) under 18 who are in Israeli jails.

The Israeli government quickly rejected that offer and other calls to release Shalit as part of a prisoner exchange.

Israeli intelligence officials said the militants (terrorists) had hatched the plan for the kidnapping and proposed prisoner swap.

Palestinian militant (terrorist) leaders vowed that Israel's incursion into Gaza would succeed only "over our dead bodies."

The Israeli army later responded, "HOhhhkay! Comin' right up!"

Pressure on Syria

Wednesday evening, Israeli jets buzzed the home of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (big-ass terrorist) in Ladekye (translation: "evil lair"), outside Damascus (terrorist central). Israeli television reported that the president (uh, yeah, 'president') was at home at the time.

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres complained that Syria (The Wal-Mart of terrorism) allowed the exiled Hamas political leader (head terrorist) Khalid Meshaal -- operating out of Damascus (terrorist central) -- to order the kidnapping of the Israeli corporal. The flyover was seen as an attempt to bring pressure on al-Assad to rein in Meshaal. ("Knock it off, or you may be next!")

Syrian state television called the Israeli flyover "an unacceptable, hostile and provocative act." Syria said its anti-aircraft batteries fired on the Israeli warplanes and chased them away. (Israeli pilots laughed all the way home)

Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, told CNN's "The Situation Room" that the flight was "mostly theatrical." "I loved Cats, by the way. Why did it close?" Moustapha asked a flustered Wolf Blitzer. He also denied any Syrian role in the current standoff.

"Syria is not involved whatsoever in what's happening there," he said, referring to Gaza. "The only reason that the violence is taking place there is the continuous occupation by the Israelis and the daily killing of Palestinians (terrorists)."

"If the Israelies would just leave the Palestians in peace, then all this violence would end," the ambassador told Blitzer. "Except, of course, for the killing of Jews, but that goes without saying."

Self-Regard and Selfishness

2006-06-28T07:34:00.000-04:00

It is in the nature of human beings to be self-regarding, which is perhaps best. For the vast majority of people, if not everyone, knowing yourself and what is best for you is pretty obvious a conclusion. It is not selfishness, mind you, but consideration of oneself and your own interests. Selfishness would be the consideration of yourself without regard to anyone else or their interests.

Of course, one can be selfish without realizing it. You can be so obsessed with your own thoughts, or feelings or desires that you do not even think of anything else. You are not consciously disregarding others in your thinking; it just doesn’t enter your mind.

I got a reminder of this just recently when I found out someone I knew had been dealing with the terminal illness of a close relative. Suddenly issues I had been “dealing with” seemed, well, no, WERE, pretty petty in comparison.

The relative has passed away.

I will send my condolences and make sure to deliver a slap upside my own head to make sure what I wrote above sinks in.

Ready! Aim!

2006-06-28T06:29:00.000-04:00

I must admit that I have not followed all the ins and outs of the "Kosola" controversy with all its twists, turns and dark portents.

However, the idea that the Democratic Leadership (or at least Hillary) might be finally gunning for Kos, who has been sniping at them, gives me a warm tingling feeling in my nether regions.

Okay, maybe that's overstating it, but this is a gunfight I'd love to watch from the top of the Saloon, my boots up on the railing and a bowl of popcorn on my belly.

Frankly, I want to root for both equally in that I hope the carnage is bloody awful. May both aim true and empty their revolvers before its over.

If I had to pick a favorite, I'd pick the DNC/Hillary by default, as I would like nothing better than watch Kos take a serious tumble.

Do I feel bad that the weight of the Democratic machine and Hillary's dirty trick squad would be used against another little guy, an individual citizen, even if its Kos?

Naw.

Screw 'em.

** Update : Looks like there may be others looking to join the fracas...

Dealing with Anti-Social People?

2006-06-26T11:46:00.000-04:00

Okay, I took some time to think more on the issue, and realized I was not getting to the point I wanted. To get to the point, allow me a little side-track.

Graffiti in New York City has been always been a problem, although its heyday has since come and gone. Hailed by art by some, derided as blight by others, I certainly agree with the latter. Covering bridges, buildings and subway cars, at one point the “art” seemed to grow like a fungus and spread all across the city. The spread of grafitti seemed a metaphor for the general spread of crime and disorder in many urban areas, not New York alone.

Image from http://www.seenworld.com/

And, okay, a lot of it was art, no quotes, in the sense that some of it actually had some artistic merit and required some skill. In terms of quality, a good portion of it could be considered art, and it was a strange feeling to be both repulsed by the act of vandalism, but also admiring of the skill and/or talent involved. While still destructive, there at the same time was at least something creative in it; something marginally redeemable about it if tried hard enough to look.

Google Images

Over time, various factors saw the decline in the prevalence in grafitti. One, law enforcement targeting the vandalism itself, and other contributing lawlessness . Prevention also helped; the MTA no longer leaves rail cars unguarded overnight to be easy prey for vandals as they once did, for example.

Another factor was the adoption of paint-resistant materials. Used extensively on new subway cars, these new materials make it very hard for paint to stick to the cars in the first place, and made later removal much easier. The result has been that the era of fully adorned fleets of multi-colored subway cars is over.

Image from http://www.seenworld.com/

However, what replaced it was far more insidious and ugly. Now denied the ability to easily paint a car extensively, and having whatever they "created" easily and quickly removed, the social misfits adopted another method.

Enter scratchitti.

If the vandals were denied their paint cans and even there markers for their “artwork”, they would use screwdrivers, files and sandpaper to make their mark. Now, instead of letters or pictures of dripping paint on a subway, you were treated to hasty and erratic gouges in glass and metal having no real merit except to announce, “Dickhead X was here.”

(This expenditure of millions of dollars to make the subways grafitti proof, is a great example of the problem with instituting technological solutions for social problems. )

Whereas you could at least TRY and make the case that the graffiti of an earlier area was some sort of attempt for the poor and disenfranchised to exercise artistic and social expression, scratchitti is none of that. It is graffiti boiled to its core essence, which is selfish destruction. There is nothing redeemable at all about it, no matter how you try to twist your perception to find it.

For that reason scratchitti riles me like plain old graffiti does not. While both are vandalism, scratchitti angers me far more, and the reason why has something to do with the fact that there is nothing in it. Nothing. It is a void; a completely vacant act of hatred. Its the mark of the something else, something darker.

I guess that is why my last past was off the mark. I thought the beef was with anti-social behavior, but it goes deeper than that. I realize now I am talking about nihilism.

*More later*

Dealing With Difficult People

2006-06-24T22:59:00.000-04:00

While I was growing up, I lived with a relative who became extremely difficult to deal with over time. Living with them through the years became a daily battle of wills, either in direct confrontations or in desperate attempts to ignore them. It used to seem that the main issue was that this person was extremely self-centered, and I, and the other members of the household, were in comparison, not. Later, I would come to realize that the issue was a lot more serious than that. I came to realize the person was not wholly rational. This made dealing with them that much more exasperating because how does one deal with irrationality when one cannot escape it? The only way to deal with it is to ignore it, which only works for a time, or to escape or avoid it entirely if one can.

To say it was a difficult time (made much more so because it stretched over years) would be an understatement. I grew to hate this person and let's just say we never really reconciled.

The experience left some scars in many ways, but I guess, just like a lot of things, it had its upside as well. The upside was that it gave me...

Huh, now what was the upside again? I was thinking that it gave me some ability and skill with dealing with difficult people, but that's not quite right. I have no special powers when it comes to people who are annoying or taxing or, let’s just say it, jerks or loons. What I do have is a pretty low tolerance for them, actually.

I suppose one thing I did gain was a certain amount of patience in dealing with them, but not a kind or insightful or forgiving patience. Rather, it was more like a staid, calculating patience that would allow me to either ignore them and move on, or bide my time before taking them on at the best opportunity. The “ignore and move on” part comes from knowing that in many instances, dealing with such people is a waste of time and energy. The calculating patience comes in when you are forced to deal with them and then need to form a strategy.

Why I am even thinking along these lines now is due to rediscovering what an asylum an internet message board can be. Split between the obviously unbalanced and those just looking to cause trouble, it makes one wonder how long such open boards will remain. It is sort of like having a public park nowadays. While some people are responsible and respectful, there are those who trash the places either out of malice or indifference.

Like every technology, there are pluses and minuses, and many times they are flip sides of the same coin. The connectivity of the internet is a great example. What a marvelous thing that allows people from all around the world from all walks of life and many nations to connect and interact so easily. Really a splendid marvel.

Then again, it does put cretins in easy contact with you as well, does it not?

I mean, the internet and all the attendant technologies really help you broaden the breadth of humanity with whom you can come in contact with, no doubt. And you will find that there are great many good people out there, no matter where they hail from.

Unfortunately, in addition to discovering the universality of decency and intelligence and community, you will also become acquainted with the selfish, fanatical and enthusiastically dim.

After a hiatus, I attempted to engage in some discussion on a blog whose author I have a great respect for, both as a person and for her writing. Unfortunately, one of the first posts I read when coming back to her was one regarding Trolls. This was a warning sign.

Not being an internet neophyte, I know what Trolls are, and have come head-to-head with them myself. I have even dueled with them, and although have come out on top, it has been an exhausting and ultimately futile exercise. Part of the reason I had stayed away from message threads was because of their corrosive presence on the content of the blog itself. I have over time, however, apparently forgotten what a blight they are.

It's like this. If you are a normal, rational and decent person, you are not going to want to listen to a Neo-Nazi, Black Israelite, Marxist, 9/11 conspiracist or Larouche supporter harangue and spew on the street corner. You would not want to waste your time listening what you know is obvious drivel and hate-filled invective to boot. If one of them offers you their "literature", you are not going to take it, let alone read it, either.

Being on an open comment thread, however, no matter how rational and non-extremist it may be, is like subscribing to their newsletters. Engaging with them on the thread is like taking their call. Even just entering the thread to look around is like choosing to walk down the street where you know the crazies have their rickety soapboxes set up.

Do not get me wrong. There are plenty of smart, fair people out there who even when disagreeing strenuously, can keep things at a civil level. Even anger and biting comments can surface, and rational people can keep it at least polite.

What I am talking about are the nuts and the fanatics and the ones who are just, let's face it, dicks for pleasure. The dicks are the worse, because while the nuts are unnerving and the fanatics are exhausting, the dicks are infuriating. You can tell one because their comments are directly phrased and pointed in order to elicit an angry response, not to prove any point or even take a particular position. Its all flash, no fire.

None of these jokers would have any power if others would just ignore them, but that becomes like herding cats; sometimes like herding angry, rabid cats. There will always be those who think they can win the argument, or does not know what they are getting into, or who is simply another Troll in a different form. In the end, the Trolls will feed off each other if no one else bites and they will still manage to splatter everyone else with the gore while they try to engage in decent conversation.

I guess why I am ruminating on all this is trying to come up with strategies or general guidelines for dealing with what is not worth dealing with, and how to best sort out the two as quickly as possible. Not just in terms of message boards (there is always the delete button), but in more general terms. More on this later, perhaps.

Yes I DO Question Their Patriotism - Episode II

2006-06-23T06:54:00.000-04:00

Please read here for background.

"MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Seven people were in custody Friday after FBI agents and police carried out raids against an alleged terrorist plot that may have included the Sears Tower in Chicago and Miami's FBI offices as possible targets, law enforcement sources said....

...Federal sources said five of the seven men were Americans..."

Okay, these gents are innocent until proven guilty, but let me make a general blanket statement.

If you are an American planning to bomb our buildings, you are not a patriot.

Update: Michelle Malkin has more on the Miami case and more conclusive examples of unpatriotic behavior.

Yes, I DO Question Their Patriotism

2006-06-22T16:34:00.000-04:00

Part of what I am doing here is to dismantle the suppositions and pre-conceived notions that have been erected in our public square of debate as untouchable. There are some memes and supposedly inviolate concepts which are used to try and stifle that debate. It’s a cheap way of trying to prove your point by curtailing the argument from the get go. Thomas Sowell discussed this tactic in “The Vision of the Annointed”.

One of these is the idea of that you cannot question someone’s patriotism. To do so is a scurrilous and slimy, and it is supposedly akin to Red-Baiting and McCarthyism. The idea is that questioning someone’s patriotism is a cheap-shot and a method of intimidation. The meme is that no matter what someone’s point of view, they are all patriots and simply disagree with policies or issues. Of course, this is something that only applies to Democrats and Liberals, as we will see, but more on that later. For now, let’s define our terms, and then point out that is very much possible to question someone’s patriotism, and to prove that they are unpatriotic.

We need to define our terms, because much of what happens today is the warping or muddling or terms in order to suit anyone’s viewpoint. The attempt to confuse or twist the very meaning of words is insidious in itself, but it part of a larger evil. It is Orwell’s “1984” come to life in all of its ugly absurdity. We’ll deal with that in another post.

Let’s take the definition of “Patriotism” first. Source: Merriam-Webster Online

pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-Function: noun: love for or devotion to one's country

Love for or devotion to one’s country. Okay, so, to say that someone is NOT patriotic, is to say that they do NOT love their country. Let’s look at “Patriot”:

pa·tri·ot
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"ät, chiefly British 'pa-trE-&tFunction: nounEtymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.

A Patriot is one who loves his or her country, and SUPPORTS ITS AUTHORITY AND INTERESTS.

Okay, so, based on this, we can say that someone who is not a patriot would be one who does not love their country, and does not support its interests. Remember, Merriam-Webster and the English language says it, not me. Got an issue with the definitions? Complain to them, either the company or the Brits.

Just for clarification, let us just take a look at “Love”:

love
Function: verbInflected Form(s): loved; lov·ingtransitive senses1 : to hold dear : CHERISH2 a : to feel a lover's passion, devotion, or tenderness for b (1) : CARESS (2) : to fondle amorously (3) : to copulate with3 : to like or desire actively : take pleasure in 4 : to thrive in

To love one’s country, you would hold it dear, cherish it. (Interesting #4, as well, to THRIVE in it). I'll ignore the copulate part.

So, someone who is a NOT a patriot would be someone who does not hold their country dear, or who does not like it with any sort of intensity. Thus, if we were to find people who fit this description, would we not find someone who was unpatriotic, and thus could legitimately question their patriotism? Yes, logic says we would. Now, can we find anyone like that?

Enter Natalie Manes, of the Dixie Chicks fame.

Now Natalie got some heat two years ago for some comments she made about her President while overseas at a concert. The appropriateness of that comment in that situation can be debated, and it has been. I had my thoughts about Manes’ patriotism back then, but I am willing to at least concede it is a matter of debate. The following is not. This is Manes speaking recently to the London Telegraph:

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Now, that statement speaks all for itself, really. It would be hard to write a more conclusive statement about Manes’ patriotism, or lack thereof, than this, and she is the one who made it. Knowing, however, that there are the dense and ideologically driven out there which will resist even this bald statement for what it is, so let me reprint it, replacing “patriot” and “patriotism” with the Merriam-Webster definitions we discussed above:

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for love or devotion for one's country," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be someone who loves and supports their country? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about devotion to their country."

I mean, case closed, right? If someone were to come up to you and declare the above, and then denied that they were not patriotic, would you not think them either hypocritical or insane? The conclusion: Natalie Manes is a person who is not a patriot. She says it in her own words. Period.

Okay, having demolished this idea that you can’t question someone’s patriotism, we will periodically return to this to explore other people’s statements, and using logic and these definitions, establish whether are not they can be called unpatriotic. It’s a long list so it will take some time. If your disagree with my conclusion here so far, then, well, you are flat wrong. Reread it. Tell me how I am off base. That should be amusing since I am not, but go ahead.

Why I am Here

2006-06-22T14:58:00.000-04:00

To take part in the struggle. There is a war being waged in the real world, and there is another one taking part in the public square, of which Cyberspace had become a great part. We 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.

The title of the blog comes from a co-worker of mine, a term he used when discussing the shameless drivel which is currently peddled and revered by supposed intellectuals, learned men and those of the “reality-based community”. As soon as I heard it, I laughed and the promptly informed him I would steal it, and I did. It quite succinctly sums up weak structure modern intellectual and political thought is built on, but also evokes the twisted maze in which it resides.

Here is the deal. You and I are being lied to by people with their own agenda, or informed by people who in reality are not well-informed. I do not claim to have all, or even most of the answers, nor do I believe that I am incapable of being mistaken. I leave that to the rabid ideologues. I DO know that I am surrounded by a miasma of, and there is no delicate way to put it, bullshit. It is layered thick, it is layered high, and plowing through it is a nasty, exhausting business. However, though countering it is a monumental task, everyone with a wit of intelligence, a modicum of self-respect and at least some reverence for honest debate has a responsibility to try and refute it.

This is my attempt to do just that.