It Gets Worse...
The Left's criticism of Sarah Palin gets weirder and more vicious as the days pass. I wish I had the time to link to every bad thing that's been said, but there isn't enough bandwidth, and there's maybe an FCC rule against that sort of foul language.
The funniest part (if there is one) of this criticism, is that it's being delivered by people who would normally tsk-tsk the very notion of flinging invective, considering it beneath their station, and intelligence, to engage in common verbal mudslinging. Unless, of course, there's a presidential election to be won, and their side seems to be losing it.
Then, not only are they out in force slinging mud, they're out in legions flinging their psychoses around, too. It's as if the great mental constipation of the True Left was suddenly relieved by a dose of Ex-Lax in granny glasses, and all the foulness and dishonesty in the soul of a committed Leftists flows through the flapping rectum that is the collective mouthpiece of their cause: the media.
The problem seems to have affected the staff at Salon (http://www.salon.com/) the worst. Here are two posts from Salon in which Sarah Palin is compared to Usama Bin Hidin', and another that purports to explain how she's really not a woman. A third post from Politico (http://www.politico.com/) has a democratic state chairwoman saying Palin was only selected because she 'hadn't had an abortion." Really. I can't make this shit up, no matter how drunk I get.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall
Now, for sheer stupidity, here's one from someone who is supposed to be a professor -- a responsible position, no doubt, one where one can have enormous influence over young, malleable minds -- who writes for Newsweek, a supposedly responsible publication with a responsibility to inform the public of that which it should, reasonably, know. If my kids were in her class, I'd sue the University for child abuse, and then burn down every newsstand that sold Newsweek.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/wendy_doniger/2008/09/all_beliefs_welcome_unless_the.html
Dennis Miller summed it up nicely last night on the O'Reilly Factor (paraphrasing): "This chick is in their melons..." The panic is fun to watch, but the vitriol is frightening. As a society, we'd better start reigning these folks in, and then somehow find a way to bring intelligence and reasonableness back into our public discourse.
A good start might be beating the people who write slop like this into a coma...
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
She, at least, Seems to Get IT...
I'm not a fan of Camille Paglia, but I've always considered her an honest writer. Here's some really good, and fair, commentary on the State of Things (that it was allowed to appear on Salon.com was near-miraculous):
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/print.html
I'm not a fan of Camille Paglia, but I've always considered her an honest writer. Here's some really good, and fair, commentary on the State of Things (that it was allowed to appear on Salon.com was near-miraculous):
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/print.html
This Man Might be a Heartbeat from the Presidency...
Joe Biden...that about says it all *shaking head sadly*.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/10/bidens-stevie-wonder-moment/
Joe Biden...that about says it all *shaking head sadly*.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/10/bidens-stevie-wonder-moment/
Now You Know How They Think...
Without a doubt, one of the most disgusting things I've read for quite some time. It was written by Heather Mallick, for the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It is a full-blown, double barrel ass-rape (whooops! Heather might be threatened by such references to oral sex, guns and sodomy) of Sarah Palin, Republicans, and finally, Americans, from a Canadian 'journalist' who apparently does not get out much. Or who might be a lesbian with a very bad rash, confined to a wheel chair. Take your pick. Anyway, here it is -- be ready to call your Congresscritter to demand an invasion of Canada before the retardation (and venom) spreads south:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html
To balance this slime, I give you the inestimable James Lileks, who put out this flaming heap of dung much better than I ever could (Thank God for Lileks!):
http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/08/0908/091008.html
This is what the True Left believes. This is how the True Left thinks. The True Left is a collection of elitist snobs who have invaded the institutions of the West; the universities, the media, the law courts, and finally, our politics. It's not about regular folks -- you know, the ones who run the world-- it's about the Left. It's about scratching their peculiar itches, be they political, cultural, economic, sexual or psychological. These are the kinds of people who are deathly embarrassed about standing at attention during the Star Spangled Banner, but who would show no shame if they were caught stealing from a poor box (after all, the anthem is a celebration of evil jingoism, and the church is a sham and blight on the culture that deserves to be robbed --- like Microsoft or McDonald's ) . They don't know anything about regular folks; the True Left only talks to itself, and in a jargon which only it can understand. Conversely, they live in a high-minded fog of ignorance of the fact that there is a far wider variety of opinion, and a far-more varied population, than what is apparent to them on the brie-and-chardonnay set.
This is a prime example.
Blowback: Via Kathy Shaidle (http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/) and BlazingCatFur (http://www.blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/), Heather Mallick responds to her hate mail. (Please make a stop at both links so that you may get the full effect. Kathy absolutely savages Mallick).
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/09/mallick-speakson-babble-about-rsponse.html
Without a doubt, one of the most disgusting things I've read for quite some time. It was written by Heather Mallick, for the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It is a full-blown, double barrel ass-rape (whooops! Heather might be threatened by such references to oral sex, guns and sodomy) of Sarah Palin, Republicans, and finally, Americans, from a Canadian 'journalist' who apparently does not get out much. Or who might be a lesbian with a very bad rash, confined to a wheel chair. Take your pick. Anyway, here it is -- be ready to call your Congresscritter to demand an invasion of Canada before the retardation (and venom) spreads south:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html
To balance this slime, I give you the inestimable James Lileks, who put out this flaming heap of dung much better than I ever could (Thank God for Lileks!):
http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/08/0908/091008.html
This is what the True Left believes. This is how the True Left thinks. The True Left is a collection of elitist snobs who have invaded the institutions of the West; the universities, the media, the law courts, and finally, our politics. It's not about regular folks -- you know, the ones who run the world-- it's about the Left. It's about scratching their peculiar itches, be they political, cultural, economic, sexual or psychological. These are the kinds of people who are deathly embarrassed about standing at attention during the Star Spangled Banner, but who would show no shame if they were caught stealing from a poor box (after all, the anthem is a celebration of evil jingoism, and the church is a sham and blight on the culture that deserves to be robbed --- like Microsoft or McDonald's ) . They don't know anything about regular folks; the True Left only talks to itself, and in a jargon which only it can understand. Conversely, they live in a high-minded fog of ignorance of the fact that there is a far wider variety of opinion, and a far-more varied population, than what is apparent to them on the brie-and-chardonnay set.
This is a prime example.
Blowback: Via Kathy Shaidle (http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/) and BlazingCatFur (http://www.blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/), Heather Mallick responds to her hate mail. (Please make a stop at both links so that you may get the full effect. Kathy absolutely savages Mallick).
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/09/mallick-speakson-babble-about-rsponse.html
Of Cosmetics and the Porcine...
Just watched Obama's whiny complaint that was supposed to 'explain' the 'lipstick on a pig' comment. After the usual cries of 'this is a distraction' and 'they took it out of context', followed by the de rigeur refrain of 'let's deal with the real issues instead of this phony one' (or words to that effect), Obama went on to once again remind us what's at stake for this country should he succeed in talking a good game all the way to the White House.
You see, Obama never says anything wrong. It's all about context -- and the media and the peasants are simply too stupid to correctly divine his intent, or worse, able to grasp the subtle nuances in his gossamer rhetoric, or somesuch nonsense like that thar. This is the seventy-fifth time (or so it seems) that the man has said something that three days later he has had to either refine, explain, recant, put into focus, revise, reverse, diavow, dissemble about or flat-out lie about.
Was Barack Obama talking about Sarah Palin and making reference to her lipstick joke, while simultaneously attempting to paint her (and McCain, y implication) in an unfavorable light? You betcha! After all (tot he best of my knowledge, Iwill try to post evidence), Joe Biden used the same lipstick line that day (or the day before) -- only no one listens or watched Biden, so no one knew about it. Two people using the same phrase in everyday parlance is mere coincidence. Two people using the same phrase in the context of a political campaign is a strategy.
I suggest that Mr. Obama stop crying about how unfair he's being treated (because he sure as hell isn't), and start to remeber that what he says is important. How he says it is sometimes more important, as much of politics is about perceptions rather than truths. When you make jokes like that, be prepared to get some blowback, and then take it like a man. Michelle is not going to come to your rescue, baseball bat in hand, to beat off the sharks you personally chummed. She probably would, because she apparently is the one who at least has the courage to stand behind the half-assed things that come out of her pie hole. By comparison, she's better prepared for this job, in this regard, than you are.
But, please, stop with the phony sanctimony, already?
Just watched Obama's whiny complaint that was supposed to 'explain' the 'lipstick on a pig' comment. After the usual cries of 'this is a distraction' and 'they took it out of context', followed by the de rigeur refrain of 'let's deal with the real issues instead of this phony one' (or words to that effect), Obama went on to once again remind us what's at stake for this country should he succeed in talking a good game all the way to the White House.
You see, Obama never says anything wrong. It's all about context -- and the media and the peasants are simply too stupid to correctly divine his intent, or worse, able to grasp the subtle nuances in his gossamer rhetoric, or somesuch nonsense like that thar. This is the seventy-fifth time (or so it seems) that the man has said something that three days later he has had to either refine, explain, recant, put into focus, revise, reverse, diavow, dissemble about or flat-out lie about.
Was Barack Obama talking about Sarah Palin and making reference to her lipstick joke, while simultaneously attempting to paint her (and McCain, y implication) in an unfavorable light? You betcha! After all (tot he best of my knowledge, Iwill try to post evidence), Joe Biden used the same lipstick line that day (or the day before) -- only no one listens or watched Biden, so no one knew about it. Two people using the same phrase in everyday parlance is mere coincidence. Two people using the same phrase in the context of a political campaign is a strategy.
I suggest that Mr. Obama stop crying about how unfair he's being treated (because he sure as hell isn't), and start to remeber that what he says is important. How he says it is sometimes more important, as much of politics is about perceptions rather than truths. When you make jokes like that, be prepared to get some blowback, and then take it like a man. Michelle is not going to come to your rescue, baseball bat in hand, to beat off the sharks you personally chummed. She probably would, because she apparently is the one who at least has the courage to stand behind the half-assed things that come out of her pie hole. By comparison, she's better prepared for this job, in this regard, than you are.
But, please, stop with the phony sanctimony, already?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Why Baby Boomers Suck, Part II...
With props to the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html
The sooner all these folks die or get Alzheimers and start wandering into traffic, the better. Yeah, that was mean, but I'm sick and tired of the "Me Generation" and the stupidity they regurgitate.
With props to the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html
The sooner all these folks die or get Alzheimers and start wandering into traffic, the better. Yeah, that was mean, but I'm sick and tired of the "Me Generation" and the stupidity they regurgitate.
I Guess Shoe Leather Must Taste Good...
Someone should tell Joe Biden to shut up. Correction: first, they should tell him to tell the truth, and then shut up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-goes-afte.html
Now, normally, I wouldn't care what Joe Biden said. Caring about what what such a non-entity has to say is really hard work, because you first have to decide for yourself if it's really worth the effort, and if you do, carefully parse what was said.
How about this, Joe: first, stop framing the issue of stem cell research without first admitting the facts.
First fact: no one actually knows how, or if, stem cell research (particularly embryonic stem cell research) will be a medical panacaea. It's only conjectured that it might be.
Second fact: There is a major difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cells research. Make certain you explain the distinction. Republicans do not oppose adult stem cell research, but they do oppose embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because one destroys an embryo, which under normal circumstances, would develop into a person. It might become a living, breathing person, if it were to be implanted into a womb. When you lump the two methods together, you give the impression that opposition to one method implies opposition to all methods. Of course, you know that (you only look stupid), but do it anyway, believing us peasants are too dumb to know the difference.
Third Fact: The main reason democrats (small 'd' intentional) favor embryonic stem cell research is because it provides yet one more reason for unfettered abortion. It's a neat argument to say that the destruction of potential human life is counter-balanced by the possibility that such destruction might cure disease or save lives, but it's a false argument. Simply making the argument that without such potential therapies, someone might die of a horrible disease, ignores the fact that someone is being killed in order to make that possible. This is either true dis-ingenuousness, or demented. Democrats push embryonic stem cell research precisely because it provides a semi-moral cover to help prop up Roe v. Wade, and curries favor with feminazis.
Fourth Fact: There is not a single scientific institute, research lab, medical research facility, anywhere on the globe, that is experimenting with embryonic stem cells, and that where progress has been made with such experiments, it has, thus far, been made with adult stem cells. The idea that embryonic stem cell research is necessary cannot be supported by the data collected thus far, and the argument "well, we know until we actually try" sounds blood-chilling, and says far more about your morality than it does about your concern for the sick. In fact, it makes you sound sick.
Of course, Joe, you also claim to be a Roman Catholic, and were you a true one as opposed to one when it's convenient for you to be, you would know that your Church has characterized stem cell research as being the next best thing to another holocaust (second only to the real, modern holocaust of abortion on demand). That you can take this position, and harpoon your political opponents while doing it, makes you either a liar or an opportunist.
Hardly representative of the 'change' that Barack wants to mandate on us, whether we want it or not.
So, after you manage to, finally, hash out a clear position on this issue which is not so-obviously tainted by the concerns of identity politics and stupidity, you might want to tell the truth.
And then quietly retreat back into the shadows from whence you came.
Someone should tell Joe Biden to shut up. Correction: first, they should tell him to tell the truth, and then shut up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-goes-afte.html
Now, normally, I wouldn't care what Joe Biden said. Caring about what what such a non-entity has to say is really hard work, because you first have to decide for yourself if it's really worth the effort, and if you do, carefully parse what was said.
How about this, Joe: first, stop framing the issue of stem cell research without first admitting the facts.
First fact: no one actually knows how, or if, stem cell research (particularly embryonic stem cell research) will be a medical panacaea. It's only conjectured that it might be.
Second fact: There is a major difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cells research. Make certain you explain the distinction. Republicans do not oppose adult stem cell research, but they do oppose embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because one destroys an embryo, which under normal circumstances, would develop into a person. It might become a living, breathing person, if it were to be implanted into a womb. When you lump the two methods together, you give the impression that opposition to one method implies opposition to all methods. Of course, you know that (you only look stupid), but do it anyway, believing us peasants are too dumb to know the difference.
Third Fact: The main reason democrats (small 'd' intentional) favor embryonic stem cell research is because it provides yet one more reason for unfettered abortion. It's a neat argument to say that the destruction of potential human life is counter-balanced by the possibility that such destruction might cure disease or save lives, but it's a false argument. Simply making the argument that without such potential therapies, someone might die of a horrible disease, ignores the fact that someone is being killed in order to make that possible. This is either true dis-ingenuousness, or demented. Democrats push embryonic stem cell research precisely because it provides a semi-moral cover to help prop up Roe v. Wade, and curries favor with feminazis.
Fourth Fact: There is not a single scientific institute, research lab, medical research facility, anywhere on the globe, that is experimenting with embryonic stem cells, and that where progress has been made with such experiments, it has, thus far, been made with adult stem cells. The idea that embryonic stem cell research is necessary cannot be supported by the data collected thus far, and the argument "well, we know until we actually try" sounds blood-chilling, and says far more about your morality than it does about your concern for the sick. In fact, it makes you sound sick.
Of course, Joe, you also claim to be a Roman Catholic, and were you a true one as opposed to one when it's convenient for you to be, you would know that your Church has characterized stem cell research as being the next best thing to another holocaust (second only to the real, modern holocaust of abortion on demand). That you can take this position, and harpoon your political opponents while doing it, makes you either a liar or an opportunist.
Hardly representative of the 'change' that Barack wants to mandate on us, whether we want it or not.
So, after you manage to, finally, hash out a clear position on this issue which is not so-obviously tainted by the concerns of identity politics and stupidity, you might want to tell the truth.
And then quietly retreat back into the shadows from whence you came.
Always Listen to What They Say...
The old joke goes: "How can you tell when a politician is lying"? The Answer: "His lips are moving". I would like to turn this saw somewhat upside-down:
"How can you tell when Barack Obama is lying"?
"His lips are moving, and what comes out of it has to be explained away as a 'slip of the tongue'".
Hence, this little gem:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/
For the record, I believe that Obama is a Muslim, at least at heart, and that his conversion to a brand of whacky Christianity was simply opportunism, political for the clout it gave him in Chicago electoral politics, and personal, because I believe (but can't prove, alas) that Michelle would never have married him unless he joined her church. That having been said...
We've already seen McPain's gaffes explained to us (by Obama and the democrats) as something akin to the onset of Alzheimers and indicative of a man who's "out of touch". Let''s see if Sarah Palin gets that sort of treatment, too. Notwithstanding that Obama once claimed to have campaigned in '57 states', and that today (or yesterday, I forget which) announced that he was happy to be in 'New Pennsylvania' (maybe one of them extra seven states he's visited), I begin to wonder whether this continual examination of a candidate's gaffes is going to be as productive as the democraps believe it will be.
The old joke goes: "How can you tell when a politician is lying"? The Answer: "His lips are moving". I would like to turn this saw somewhat upside-down:
"How can you tell when Barack Obama is lying"?
"His lips are moving, and what comes out of it has to be explained away as a 'slip of the tongue'".
Hence, this little gem:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/
For the record, I believe that Obama is a Muslim, at least at heart, and that his conversion to a brand of whacky Christianity was simply opportunism, political for the clout it gave him in Chicago electoral politics, and personal, because I believe (but can't prove, alas) that Michelle would never have married him unless he joined her church. That having been said...
We've already seen McPain's gaffes explained to us (by Obama and the democrats) as something akin to the onset of Alzheimers and indicative of a man who's "out of touch". Let''s see if Sarah Palin gets that sort of treatment, too. Notwithstanding that Obama once claimed to have campaigned in '57 states', and that today (or yesterday, I forget which) announced that he was happy to be in 'New Pennsylvania' (maybe one of them extra seven states he's visited), I begin to wonder whether this continual examination of a candidate's gaffes is going to be as productive as the democraps believe it will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)