Read this speech by President Odickhead to the Parliament of Ghana, and then try to maintain a straight face...and your blood pressure.
Talk about sheer gall!
Does no one in the White House have even the slightest bit of respect for the intelligence of anyone in this country?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Now You Know Why There's a 'Health Care' Problem...
Megan McArdle in the Atlantic takes on the Health Care issue, explaining just why a government-run plan is simply the rationing of resources, and does not improve anyone's quality of life. The article itself, to me anyways, is dry and a rehash of everything I already knew, but what makes this remarkable is the Comments section, where one poster actually had the unmitigated audacity to actually type this:
"...Oh, and I forgot to say, they billed my insurance 40,000 for 4 days in the hospital, and my insurance company made me pay 4,000 dollars of it. That is 1000 dollars a day for my hospital stay, even though I HAD INSURANCE!!!! (I am a grad student living on 1400 a month.)
Nobodies' assets are safe under our current system. It just costs whatever they think they can confiscate from you..."
And therein is the problem! This deluded woman's insurance company shelled out $36,000 to save her life, and restore her to health, but that $4,000 (a mere 10% of the total cost!) that she is asked to pay is an undue burden, approaching an unfair confiscation of her assets!
Look, I've had my own problems with the insurance companies in the past, but this is a very petty complaint, indeed,
But it is indicative of the mentality of many who scream 'Health Care Crisis' summed up very nicely. The poor naif is a 'grad student' (like this is supposed to impress me? She's basically a dictator in training, if you ask me, and the sense of entitlement just fairly oozes out of that revelation. I hope she's a grad student in something useful, like engineering, or chain-saw juggling, and not one of those Gender Studies faux-PhD's), living on a fixed income (probably a stipend paid for by the taxpayers who support her university). She's probably receiving financial aid, too. Her whole lifestyle may have been subsidized by the taxpayer during her academic career, so why shouldn't it also cover that last 4k?
This same mentality is prevalent in all other wards of the state -- welfare recipients, Social Security recipients and Public Unions: they have a lifestyle subsidized by the state in one way or another, and probably receive much more in compensation from society than they ever really contributed to it (this is especially true of the so-called Greatest Generation of Social Security recipients, and the Welfare-as-family-tradition section of the so-called poor). So why shouldn't government go whole hog and save them that last 10% of the bill?
The 'debate' is not about Health Care. It's not about access, cost or quality. It's about people who don't perform useful work getting something for free , and having it established as a 'right'.
"...Oh, and I forgot to say, they billed my insurance 40,000 for 4 days in the hospital, and my insurance company made me pay 4,000 dollars of it. That is 1000 dollars a day for my hospital stay, even though I HAD INSURANCE!!!! (I am a grad student living on 1400 a month.)
Nobodies' assets are safe under our current system. It just costs whatever they think they can confiscate from you..."
And therein is the problem! This deluded woman's insurance company shelled out $36,000 to save her life, and restore her to health, but that $4,000 (a mere 10% of the total cost!) that she is asked to pay is an undue burden, approaching an unfair confiscation of her assets!
Look, I've had my own problems with the insurance companies in the past, but this is a very petty complaint, indeed,
But it is indicative of the mentality of many who scream 'Health Care Crisis' summed up very nicely. The poor naif is a 'grad student' (like this is supposed to impress me? She's basically a dictator in training, if you ask me, and the sense of entitlement just fairly oozes out of that revelation. I hope she's a grad student in something useful, like engineering, or chain-saw juggling, and not one of those Gender Studies faux-PhD's), living on a fixed income (probably a stipend paid for by the taxpayers who support her university). She's probably receiving financial aid, too. Her whole lifestyle may have been subsidized by the taxpayer during her academic career, so why shouldn't it also cover that last 4k?
This same mentality is prevalent in all other wards of the state -- welfare recipients, Social Security recipients and Public Unions: they have a lifestyle subsidized by the state in one way or another, and probably receive much more in compensation from society than they ever really contributed to it (this is especially true of the so-called Greatest Generation of Social Security recipients, and the Welfare-as-family-tradition section of the so-called poor). So why shouldn't government go whole hog and save them that last 10% of the bill?
The 'debate' is not about Health Care. It's not about access, cost or quality. It's about people who don't perform useful work getting something for free , and having it established as a 'right'.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Cyberwar...
Article in today's New York Post about North Korea's Cyber nastiness this past week. Something clicked for me upon hearing more about this yesterday, bear with me.
I remember reading a report online this past October, just as John McCain was 'suspending his campaign to focus on the economy' that the economic issue's first manifestation was in the Federal Reserve 'losing' half a trillion dollars in cash in a twenty-minute period (I have tried, but I cannot find that post anywhere) on the day the markets first began to tank. That's $500 billion electronically transferred by someone, or several someones, someplace where the Federal Reserve was unable to follow it, or get it back. Someone suddenly drew on huge reserves of cash and took it clean out of the monetary system. The next day, the Fed was looking for $700 billion; 500 to cover the losses, 200 more as a cushion. (Disclaimer: I do not know for a fact that any of this is factually true, but it fits a theory based on what I know and see. I spent 20 years in data processing in the financial industry, so bear with me).
Now, the Fed is perfectly capable of tracing that money, or at least , it should be. So far as I know, it still has not explained where that money went. There could be two reasons for it:
a) They honestly don't know.
b) You really don't want to know.
Why wouldn't you really want to know? Because what if that cash was vaporized in a cyber attack? How safe would you feel your money was? Markets are all about security, if nothing else; people have to believe the system is secure and within reasonable limits, predictable. How secure and predictable is a system where someone could electronically siphon off half a trillion dollars with no one noticing or being able to stop it?
The timing of the debacle was suspect too. An October Surprise of epic proportions. Perhaps someone was giving G.W.B a final "fuck you!" on his way out the door, and at the same time ensuring that John McCain would be fatally wounded? When one considers the speed with which the Obama Administration, and the democratic party apparatchiks have shown in insinuating itself into American industry and finance, and destroying what's left of financial confidence from within the system, the more paranoid, tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists begin to sound.
Just a hunch, but I gather we're not being told the entire truth behaind this economic crisis, because the truth is that this country was attacked, sans bombs and airplanes, electronically with a cyber assault on the financial system. I think the government knows it, and knows who did it -- but not how it was done -- and that this helps explain some of the recent chaos.
Or, I could be talking out of my ass. Until more facts are available, your guess is as good as mine.
Article in today's New York Post about North Korea's Cyber nastiness this past week. Something clicked for me upon hearing more about this yesterday, bear with me.
I remember reading a report online this past October, just as John McCain was 'suspending his campaign to focus on the economy' that the economic issue's first manifestation was in the Federal Reserve 'losing' half a trillion dollars in cash in a twenty-minute period (I have tried, but I cannot find that post anywhere) on the day the markets first began to tank. That's $500 billion electronically transferred by someone, or several someones, someplace where the Federal Reserve was unable to follow it, or get it back. Someone suddenly drew on huge reserves of cash and took it clean out of the monetary system. The next day, the Fed was looking for $700 billion; 500 to cover the losses, 200 more as a cushion. (Disclaimer: I do not know for a fact that any of this is factually true, but it fits a theory based on what I know and see. I spent 20 years in data processing in the financial industry, so bear with me).
Now, the Fed is perfectly capable of tracing that money, or at least , it should be. So far as I know, it still has not explained where that money went. There could be two reasons for it:
a) They honestly don't know.
b) You really don't want to know.
Why wouldn't you really want to know? Because what if that cash was vaporized in a cyber attack? How safe would you feel your money was? Markets are all about security, if nothing else; people have to believe the system is secure and within reasonable limits, predictable. How secure and predictable is a system where someone could electronically siphon off half a trillion dollars with no one noticing or being able to stop it?
The timing of the debacle was suspect too. An October Surprise of epic proportions. Perhaps someone was giving G.W.B a final "fuck you!" on his way out the door, and at the same time ensuring that John McCain would be fatally wounded? When one considers the speed with which the Obama Administration, and the democratic party apparatchiks have shown in insinuating itself into American industry and finance, and destroying what's left of financial confidence from within the system, the more paranoid, tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists begin to sound.
Just a hunch, but I gather we're not being told the entire truth behaind this economic crisis, because the truth is that this country was attacked, sans bombs and airplanes, electronically with a cyber assault on the financial system. I think the government knows it, and knows who did it -- but not how it was done -- and that this helps explain some of the recent chaos.
Or, I could be talking out of my ass. Until more facts are available, your guess is as good as mine.
What Overpaid State Workers think of us Suckers...errr...Taxpayers.
I've found this mentality to be prevalent in indsutries that are dominated by union workers, btw, a few of whom also seem to be some of the most insecure, and mentally unstable human beings I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. This is probably because they fear the loss of the (extorted) golden calf of union employment more than they do AIDS.
Note the frequent retort of 'burger-flipper' and references to 'I took a test to get this job'. I've just recently taken a Civil Service exam, and if that's anything to judge by a retarded Irish Setter with dyslexia and one good eye could probably pass whatever exam they gave in California. Tell me there isn't some kind of pathology at work here...
I've found this mentality to be prevalent in indsutries that are dominated by union workers, btw, a few of whom also seem to be some of the most insecure, and mentally unstable human beings I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. This is probably because they fear the loss of the (extorted) golden calf of union employment more than they do AIDS.
Note the frequent retort of 'burger-flipper' and references to 'I took a test to get this job'. I've just recently taken a Civil Service exam, and if that's anything to judge by a retarded Irish Setter with dyslexia and one good eye could probably pass whatever exam they gave in California. Tell me there isn't some kind of pathology at work here...
But Only White People Can Be Racist...Rev. Al Said So...
Two Hundred NY State employees fired for being white. Being a resident of the People's Republic of New York, I can easily believe this. Race permeates everything in New York, and our black politicos are very good at screaming racism when it's partly-cloudy-with-a-chance-of showers, and recycling 1960's boilerplate about The Man, and the "lack of resources (i.e. someone else's money doled out by government) in the Black Comm-unnn-itttaay". So, I wouldn't be surprised if they did this at all. It's par for the course.
Th NY State Legislature hasn't met for a month now to conduct any public business, as there's some silliness afoot over 'leadership' with the other. Neither side could lead a three year old to the crapper, in this state. When you stop to consider what they apparently do when they're working, this might be a good thing.
It's really true: people get the government they deserve. You only have to look at New York State to see this maxim illustrated; a Mayor of NYC who thinks he has the right to overturn the will of the voters to run for a third term, a governor who's only in charge because his predecessor was an aficionado of courtesans, and who is, literally, blind to what goes on in Albany, a State Legislature that has come to a complete halt -- except to scream that they should still be getting paid -- over a power struggle about who gets to divvy up the public pie...and the citizenry is happy to have them not work at all. In fact, it hardly notices, mostly because a certain segment of the citizenry couldn't spell 'legislature' is you spotted them the first 10 letters.
Apparently, that segment of the population have all found gainful employment in Albany.
Two Hundred NY State employees fired for being white. Being a resident of the People's Republic of New York, I can easily believe this. Race permeates everything in New York, and our black politicos are very good at screaming racism when it's partly-cloudy-with-a-chance-of showers, and recycling 1960's boilerplate about The Man, and the "lack of resources (i.e. someone else's money doled out by government) in the Black Comm-unnn-itttaay". So, I wouldn't be surprised if they did this at all. It's par for the course.
Th NY State Legislature hasn't met for a month now to conduct any public business, as there's some silliness afoot over 'leadership' with the other. Neither side could lead a three year old to the crapper, in this state. When you stop to consider what they apparently do when they're working, this might be a good thing.
It's really true: people get the government they deserve. You only have to look at New York State to see this maxim illustrated; a Mayor of NYC who thinks he has the right to overturn the will of the voters to run for a third term, a governor who's only in charge because his predecessor was an aficionado of courtesans, and who is, literally, blind to what goes on in Albany, a State Legislature that has come to a complete halt -- except to scream that they should still be getting paid -- over a power struggle about who gets to divvy up the public pie...and the citizenry is happy to have them not work at all. In fact, it hardly notices, mostly because a certain segment of the citizenry couldn't spell 'legislature' is you spotted them the first 10 letters.
Apparently, that segment of the population have all found gainful employment in Albany.
The REAL Micheal Jackson Memorial Service...
Here's the real story behind it. It's rather sad, but somehow appropos. After all, if you invite 'Reverend' Al Sharpton to anything, there must be at least one scam running somewhere.
UPDATE: Here's what that travesty cost the city of Los Angeles.
Here's the real story behind it. It's rather sad, but somehow appropos. After all, if you invite 'Reverend' Al Sharpton to anything, there must be at least one scam running somewhere.
UPDATE: Here's what that travesty cost the city of Los Angeles.
Reason #3,105 Why Your President is an Asshole...
Unilateral disarmament is basically what it amounts to.
I found it rather strange that President YesWeCan can go to Russia to talk about nuclear arms, and apparently the words "Iran" and "North Korea" never even get mentioned. What DOES get mentioned is something about the United States reducing the number of it's own warheads and launchers, and oh, we'll not expand our missile defense systems, which a) work and b) are needed now that North Korea is flinging missiles around the Western Pacific.
Good 'ol Hopenchanger, in full 1970's NoNukes dudgeon, apparently has forgotten what decade he lives in. Just before his trip, someone dug up an old essay of Obambi's from his Columbia Dayz, a rambling bit of hippie-speak about the total elimination of nuclear weapons, flower power, and the healing qualities of crystals when the moon is in the fifth house of Aquarius. We can assume he still thinks this way, and that this is the cornerstone of his nuclear arms policy because he basically gave up the farm in Moscow, and got not one iota of help in the fight against proliferation, while ensuring that Europe is now naked in the shadow of Russian nuclear power.
I'm sure we'll be sold this crap as another significant step on the way to world peace, yet one more way in which the United States can improve it's world image. Like kind of crap actually matters. We live in a dangerous world, with other states who possess such weapons, many of which are hostile to us either because of who we are, or what we represent. No amount of playing nice, no amount of bribery, no amount of marketing, is ever going to change that. A deterrent is necessary to keep those people from deciding that we're a soft mark (although with Obama in charge, that's a very hard front to maintain) and doing us harm.
Even the Brits have taken notice of how Obama is rushing headlong into disarmament.If the British have noticed, you know it must be obvious.
Unilateral disarmament is basically what it amounts to.
I found it rather strange that President YesWeCan can go to Russia to talk about nuclear arms, and apparently the words "Iran" and "North Korea" never even get mentioned. What DOES get mentioned is something about the United States reducing the number of it's own warheads and launchers, and oh, we'll not expand our missile defense systems, which a) work and b) are needed now that North Korea is flinging missiles around the Western Pacific.
Good 'ol Hopenchanger, in full 1970's NoNukes dudgeon, apparently has forgotten what decade he lives in. Just before his trip, someone dug up an old essay of Obambi's from his Columbia Dayz, a rambling bit of hippie-speak about the total elimination of nuclear weapons, flower power, and the healing qualities of crystals when the moon is in the fifth house of Aquarius. We can assume he still thinks this way, and that this is the cornerstone of his nuclear arms policy because he basically gave up the farm in Moscow, and got not one iota of help in the fight against proliferation, while ensuring that Europe is now naked in the shadow of Russian nuclear power.
I'm sure we'll be sold this crap as another significant step on the way to world peace, yet one more way in which the United States can improve it's world image. Like kind of crap actually matters. We live in a dangerous world, with other states who possess such weapons, many of which are hostile to us either because of who we are, or what we represent. No amount of playing nice, no amount of bribery, no amount of marketing, is ever going to change that. A deterrent is necessary to keep those people from deciding that we're a soft mark (although with Obama in charge, that's a very hard front to maintain) and doing us harm.
Even the Brits have taken notice of how Obama is rushing headlong into disarmament.If the British have noticed, you know it must be obvious.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Yet MORE 'Smart Diplomacy'...
If you really wish to cut Federal Spending in this day and age, might I suggest that you start with the State Department? They apparently aren't doing anything; they don't have anyone around who can spell 'Reset' in Russian. They don't seem to have anyone who can tell President Hopenchanger who his French counterpart is. Yesterday, it seemed as if no one was available to tell the President "don't insult the Russians when you go over there. They get testy".
And now, for want of that sort of Civil Servant -- the one who can actually chew gum and walk at the same time -- the President of the United States kicked his Russian hosts square in the balls with a single sentence. You can read it here.
Money Quote:
"Bottom line: The guy is a smooth-talking ignoramus: not all that smart, not well-read, with a wafer-thin resume. "
If you really wish to cut Federal Spending in this day and age, might I suggest that you start with the State Department? They apparently aren't doing anything; they don't have anyone around who can spell 'Reset' in Russian. They don't seem to have anyone who can tell President Hopenchanger who his French counterpart is. Yesterday, it seemed as if no one was available to tell the President "don't insult the Russians when you go over there. They get testy".
And now, for want of that sort of Civil Servant -- the one who can actually chew gum and walk at the same time -- the President of the United States kicked his Russian hosts square in the balls with a single sentence. You can read it here.
Money Quote:
"Bottom line: The guy is a smooth-talking ignoramus: not all that smart, not well-read, with a wafer-thin resume. "
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
More Palin...
You have to love National Review Online. It's definitely not the same NR that Mr. Buckley crafted (Rich Lowry somehow evokes the image of short pants and the Headmaster's Office), and that Florence King once graced,although I can never get enough Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or John Derbyshire, so that it remains a guilty pleasure, if you discount much of the crap that has crept into it's pages in recent years.
But, you really have to love NR when they get naughty and post something thing like this on their website. It is a stirring defense of Sarah Palin and a perhaps more clear-headed exposition of today's 'liberals' and how they operate than anything I've seen in ages. Kudos to David Kahane!
If you don't think this is how so-called liberals really operate, one need look no further than Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, aka Chris Matthew's Token Mouthpiece. He posted this piece of garbage in today's Trib. Whatever they're paying Clarence, I'm certain it's probably enough to just barely avoid the discrimination lawsuit, while still allowing him to pretend he's a journalist.
And here's what Maureen Dowd, the staunch feminist, Bill Clinton Alleged-Rapist Fan-Club President, and bitter sixty-year-old-teen-aged-girl, puked up earlier this week. The piece I've been railing about all week. If it doesn't fairly scream "I'm jealous! Why can't I have what Sarah Palin has? Oh, right: because I'm barely a human being and little more than a life-support system for a vagina that no one wants", I don't know what else does. Perhaps if Maureen stopped talking long enough, she might find someone drunk enough to throw her a mercy bang.
You have to love National Review Online. It's definitely not the same NR that Mr. Buckley crafted (Rich Lowry somehow evokes the image of short pants and the Headmaster's Office), and that Florence King once graced,although I can never get enough Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn or John Derbyshire, so that it remains a guilty pleasure, if you discount much of the crap that has crept into it's pages in recent years.
But, you really have to love NR when they get naughty and post something thing like this on their website. It is a stirring defense of Sarah Palin and a perhaps more clear-headed exposition of today's 'liberals' and how they operate than anything I've seen in ages. Kudos to David Kahane!
If you don't think this is how so-called liberals really operate, one need look no further than Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, aka Chris Matthew's Token Mouthpiece. He posted this piece of garbage in today's Trib. Whatever they're paying Clarence, I'm certain it's probably enough to just barely avoid the discrimination lawsuit, while still allowing him to pretend he's a journalist.
And here's what Maureen Dowd, the staunch feminist, Bill Clinton Alleged-Rapist Fan-Club President, and bitter sixty-year-old-teen-aged-girl, puked up earlier this week. The piece I've been railing about all week. If it doesn't fairly scream "I'm jealous! Why can't I have what Sarah Palin has? Oh, right: because I'm barely a human being and little more than a life-support system for a vagina that no one wants", I don't know what else does. Perhaps if Maureen stopped talking long enough, she might find someone drunk enough to throw her a mercy bang.
Some Thoughts on Michael Jackson...
Preface: It's a terrible thing when someone dies.
Now what do I really think?
First, I can't say that I was ever a fan. I thought the music was pretty good, though. I would say that I preferred the Jackson 5 to Micheal's solo stuff, though. Note: I grew up in an era (late 70's/80's) where the three biggest stars of the day were Madonna, Cyndi Lauper and Micheal. Cyndi was the best singer, Madonna was every teenaged boy's fantasy. Michael, however, was the best all-around entertainer. I can remember the teenage frenzy surrounding "Thriller" which I thought was pretty cool...the first three times I saw it. The allure quickly wore off after that, and I can't recall being impressed with the music much after that. Particularly that Jackson/McCartney rubbish. It wasn't to my taste; I was still listening to the Beatles, and discovering Led Zepplin and Rush at the time.
Second, this week-long orgy of grief is a bit over the top. Turning it into some sort of racial kerfuffle was way over the top, as some of the usual suspects did. You know who you are. I'm fairly certain that if we scanned YouTube, some of the very same 'Civil Rights' leaders and entertainers who greedily 'claimed' Micheal Jackson as one of their own in death, lampooned him mercilessly in life for his skin bleaching, predilection for young male companions, his wedding to Lisa Marie Presley and the effeminate demeanor. I guess he wasn't 'authentically black' enough for them when he was alive, because I can recall an awful lot of African-American entertainers making a decent-enough living satirizing Jackson. Don't even start with the Civil Rights Hero nonsense. That assertion doesn't even deserve a place in this discussion.
Third, all this talk about how Micheal 'broke barriers', particularly racial ones, and he should somehow be sainted for it, overlook some tremendous personalities in the entertainment world who brought black and white together musically long before Micheal Jackson arrived on the scene. Nat "King" Cole, Louis Armstrong, Aretha Franklin, Sammy Davis Jr., Tina Turner, Jimi Hendrix, Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Lena Horne (and how can anyone forget Stevie Wonder?) were giants in American musical culture. If anything, they were the pioneers; Micheal Jackson could only become the entertainer he did because those people were here first. Motown was already a household name, cultural phenomenon, and musical genre before Micheal Jackson even spoke a word, let alone sang a note.
I think the people who have exaggerated Micheal's impact on the culture have gotten it all wrong; he was an entertainment giant who stood upon the shoulders of even more titanic talents.
And see? Not a word about pedophilia and drug abuse (allegedly).
Naturally, there will be those who disagree, and maybe I'll even get a few e-mails accusing me of a) stupidity and b) racism. I know at least one of them will include the phrase "you don't get it; it's a black thing", or words to that effect. You're right; I don't.
Now ask me if I care.
I'm sorry that a man is dead, but no amount of news coverage, no amount of political correctness, and certainly no amount of whitewashing (ooops!) about his place in history or the culture is ever going to convince me otherwise. So, y'all can stop trying so hard.
Preface: It's a terrible thing when someone dies.
Now what do I really think?
First, I can't say that I was ever a fan. I thought the music was pretty good, though. I would say that I preferred the Jackson 5 to Micheal's solo stuff, though. Note: I grew up in an era (late 70's/80's) where the three biggest stars of the day were Madonna, Cyndi Lauper and Micheal. Cyndi was the best singer, Madonna was every teenaged boy's fantasy. Michael, however, was the best all-around entertainer. I can remember the teenage frenzy surrounding "Thriller" which I thought was pretty cool...the first three times I saw it. The allure quickly wore off after that, and I can't recall being impressed with the music much after that. Particularly that Jackson/McCartney rubbish. It wasn't to my taste; I was still listening to the Beatles, and discovering Led Zepplin and Rush at the time.
Second, this week-long orgy of grief is a bit over the top. Turning it into some sort of racial kerfuffle was way over the top, as some of the usual suspects did. You know who you are. I'm fairly certain that if we scanned YouTube, some of the very same 'Civil Rights' leaders and entertainers who greedily 'claimed' Micheal Jackson as one of their own in death, lampooned him mercilessly in life for his skin bleaching, predilection for young male companions, his wedding to Lisa Marie Presley and the effeminate demeanor. I guess he wasn't 'authentically black' enough for them when he was alive, because I can recall an awful lot of African-American entertainers making a decent-enough living satirizing Jackson. Don't even start with the Civil Rights Hero nonsense. That assertion doesn't even deserve a place in this discussion.
Third, all this talk about how Micheal 'broke barriers', particularly racial ones, and he should somehow be sainted for it, overlook some tremendous personalities in the entertainment world who brought black and white together musically long before Micheal Jackson arrived on the scene. Nat "King" Cole, Louis Armstrong, Aretha Franklin, Sammy Davis Jr., Tina Turner, Jimi Hendrix, Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Lena Horne (and how can anyone forget Stevie Wonder?) were giants in American musical culture. If anything, they were the pioneers; Micheal Jackson could only become the entertainer he did because those people were here first. Motown was already a household name, cultural phenomenon, and musical genre before Micheal Jackson even spoke a word, let alone sang a note.
I think the people who have exaggerated Micheal's impact on the culture have gotten it all wrong; he was an entertainment giant who stood upon the shoulders of even more titanic talents.
And see? Not a word about pedophilia and drug abuse (allegedly).
Naturally, there will be those who disagree, and maybe I'll even get a few e-mails accusing me of a) stupidity and b) racism. I know at least one of them will include the phrase "you don't get it; it's a black thing", or words to that effect. You're right; I don't.
Now ask me if I care.
I'm sorry that a man is dead, but no amount of news coverage, no amount of political correctness, and certainly no amount of whitewashing (ooops!) about his place in history or the culture is ever going to convince me otherwise. So, y'all can stop trying so hard.
Some Thoughts on Palin...
The biggest news of this past week has been the resignation of Sarah Palin. There has been an awful lot of entrail-reading, and I won't attempt to do very much of my own, but there have been a variety of ulterior motives attributed to this event(other than she's sick to death of having her children attacked and ridiculed by a vicious media) that others have divined.
James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal gives Sarah the benefit of the doubt and takes her at her word; she needs to see to her children and family. Plausible enough. The New York Times (that's right; the New York Freakin' Times actually printed an opinion on Palin that wasn't a smear job, unlike this one. Maureen Dowd needs to get laid.) says she's a victim of a political elite who are obsessed with race, class, gender and educational pedigree. I happen to agree with that. I am absolutely stunned that something that makes sense actually was printed in the NYT. This theory is further reinforced here, at NewGeography.com with a very insightful piece...by a dem, no less.
I'm not convinced of the "Sarah: 2012" gambit as I was three days ago. I don't think she would have given up her post as Governor of Alaska had that been the case. Better to launch yourself with a little altitude under you.
I am totally convinced that Sarah Palin might, that's might, return to politics relatively soon, but at the head of a either a new movement in Republican politics, or at the head of an entirely new political party, more genuinely conservative where it counts (spending, smaller government, strong economic policies and national defense), and less obsessed with other people's sexual organs and the Rapture.
Time will tell. But, I wouldn't count her out. For all those democrats (small 'd' intentional) who have been drooling this past week, believing that they have destroyed a budding counter-force to their mindless stupidity, you're in for a rude shock. This woman is your worst nightmare. Like Jason or Freddy Kruger in a skirt, she'll keep coming back to terrorize you. Be afraid, democrats, be very afraid.
Update: I do not ascribe to the theory that Palin is hated in Republican circles, and therefore will not run for higher office in future, a canard which has been often-attributed to former McCain campaign staffers (who always seem to remain anonymous -- they're either cowards, or they don't exist.). If there are such weasels about, have them try to explain why their man was losing...until Sarah showed up. If you buy the "Palin-sunk-us" routine you have to ignore some very inconvenient truths (the only time that phrase might actually be useful!):
* McCain was hated by the Uber-right even more than Satan is. One only needs to hang around FreeRepublic to see this, where John McCain is considered the Ur-RINO. Many of this sort of Repub would have voted for Hillary before they pulled the lever for McCain.
*McCain shot himself in the foot with his 'suspending his campaign' stunt. He went back to Washington to stop that ridiculous, dangerous, disastrous, deadly TARP monster....and then voted for it anyway (after Harry Reid made an asshole out of him on national TV). Barack Obama, in a foretaste of things to come in his August reign, simply voted 'Present' and stayed out of the fray (i.e. avoided making a decision). McCain made himself look foolish.
*McCain was just a rotten candidate, through and through. The telling moment for me, in retrospect, was that meeting in Wisconsin (I think it was) where folks were yelling at McCain about how pissed off they were about things, and Johnny hemmed and hawed and ummm'ed his way through it, applying Senatorial Crapspeak where he thought appropriate. Palin took the microphone from him ...and got that room all jazzed up, ready to vote republican and perhaps eat vulcanized rubber. McCain was making them angrier and would not say what they wanted to hear (that things could be different and that Washington was a place where the mediocre and untalented went to get rich).
I hear one more person say 'even the Republicans/McCain people don't like her', I will batter them bloody with a blunt instrument.
The biggest news of this past week has been the resignation of Sarah Palin. There has been an awful lot of entrail-reading, and I won't attempt to do very much of my own, but there have been a variety of ulterior motives attributed to this event(other than she's sick to death of having her children attacked and ridiculed by a vicious media) that others have divined.
James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal gives Sarah the benefit of the doubt and takes her at her word; she needs to see to her children and family. Plausible enough. The New York Times (that's right; the New York Freakin' Times actually printed an opinion on Palin that wasn't a smear job, unlike this one. Maureen Dowd needs to get laid.) says she's a victim of a political elite who are obsessed with race, class, gender and educational pedigree. I happen to agree with that. I am absolutely stunned that something that makes sense actually was printed in the NYT. This theory is further reinforced here, at NewGeography.com with a very insightful piece...by a dem, no less.
I'm not convinced of the "Sarah: 2012" gambit as I was three days ago. I don't think she would have given up her post as Governor of Alaska had that been the case. Better to launch yourself with a little altitude under you.
I am totally convinced that Sarah Palin might, that's might, return to politics relatively soon, but at the head of a either a new movement in Republican politics, or at the head of an entirely new political party, more genuinely conservative where it counts (spending, smaller government, strong economic policies and national defense), and less obsessed with other people's sexual organs and the Rapture.
Time will tell. But, I wouldn't count her out. For all those democrats (small 'd' intentional) who have been drooling this past week, believing that they have destroyed a budding counter-force to their mindless stupidity, you're in for a rude shock. This woman is your worst nightmare. Like Jason or Freddy Kruger in a skirt, she'll keep coming back to terrorize you. Be afraid, democrats, be very afraid.
Update: I do not ascribe to the theory that Palin is hated in Republican circles, and therefore will not run for higher office in future, a canard which has been often-attributed to former McCain campaign staffers (who always seem to remain anonymous -- they're either cowards, or they don't exist.). If there are such weasels about, have them try to explain why their man was losing...until Sarah showed up. If you buy the "Palin-sunk-us" routine you have to ignore some very inconvenient truths (the only time that phrase might actually be useful!):
* McCain was hated by the Uber-right even more than Satan is. One only needs to hang around FreeRepublic to see this, where John McCain is considered the Ur-RINO. Many of this sort of Repub would have voted for Hillary before they pulled the lever for McCain.
*McCain shot himself in the foot with his 'suspending his campaign' stunt. He went back to Washington to stop that ridiculous, dangerous, disastrous, deadly TARP monster....and then voted for it anyway (after Harry Reid made an asshole out of him on national TV). Barack Obama, in a foretaste of things to come in his August reign, simply voted 'Present' and stayed out of the fray (i.e. avoided making a decision). McCain made himself look foolish.
*McCain was just a rotten candidate, through and through. The telling moment for me, in retrospect, was that meeting in Wisconsin (I think it was) where folks were yelling at McCain about how pissed off they were about things, and Johnny hemmed and hawed and ummm'ed his way through it, applying Senatorial Crapspeak where he thought appropriate. Palin took the microphone from him ...and got that room all jazzed up, ready to vote republican and perhaps eat vulcanized rubber. McCain was making them angrier and would not say what they wanted to hear (that things could be different and that Washington was a place where the mediocre and untalented went to get rich).
I hear one more person say 'even the Republicans/McCain people don't like her', I will batter them bloody with a blunt instrument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)