...why not people?
I asked myself that question -- again -- today as I stood on what was supposed to be an express checkout line in the local supermarket this afternoon. I say "supposed to be" because, if I have this concept down right, the idea is to move people quickly and efficiently through the checkout and payment process, thus making their shopping experience a much more enjoyable and/or efficient one.
However, when you're stuck behind an 80-year-old mutant, things don't always work out as planned.
Showing posts with label Nazis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nazis. Show all posts
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Friday, October 29, 2010
Nancy Pelosi's Daily Routine...
Oh, I'm sorry -- I meant Adolph Hitler's daily routine. I can't figure out how it is that I keep confusing the two...
As an interesting way to amuse yourself, as you read that article replace "Hitler" with "Pelosi" and "Nazi" with "democrat" (small 'd' intentional), and have yourself a laugh.
Right up until you begin to realize that you actually can imagine Nancy Pelosi and democrats operating in exactly that fashion...
As an interesting way to amuse yourself, as you read that article replace "Hitler" with "Pelosi" and "Nazi" with "democrat" (small 'd' intentional), and have yourself a laugh.
Right up until you begin to realize that you actually can imagine Nancy Pelosi and democrats operating in exactly that fashion...
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Separated at Birth?
The Fuhrer, Il Duce, and Il Doof-ay. What is it with dictatorial leftists and raised-hand salutes?
At least they caught the Teleprompter's good side.
(Note to the One Asshole-with-no-sense-of-humor-bound-to-be-offended-by-this -- I know Hitler was just waving to the crowd. Get a clue and Save yourself an e-mail).
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Building the Myth of the "Great Man" Of History, Part 2...
On the news that Syria has just given Hezbollah Scud missiles capable of hitting Tel-Aviv with a nuclear warhead;
The Obama administration has told us since it's inception that Syria is an important player, I believe the phrase is "potential ally", in the elusive quest for "Middle East Peace". The theory is that if we just "engage" Syria, and apply "diplomatic pressure" upon them, Syria will stop arming and aiding Hezbollah, and will also aid the United States in the fight against Al'Qaeda in Iraq, since many AII terrorists are operating from across the Syrian border.
To this end, the Obamatards sent John Kerry to Syria two weeks ago to "voice long-running concerns" with what passes for the leadership of Syria, and there's supposed to be a new ambassador to Syria to be named shortly, a symbol of America's willingness to go the extra mile in the name of "Peace".
Okay, a couple of things about all of this:
Why is Syria is still on the map? This is one aspect of the War on Terror that has always troubled me greatly. Of course, I say the same thing about all Muslim countries. It has been my contention since September 12, that the only way to put an end to the problem of Islamic Terrorism is to make sure there were a lot of dead Islamics, and that the United States should not limit the (armed) scope of it's War on Terror to simply those terrorists groups we currently have in our sights (Taliban, Al'Qaeda and it's off-shoots), but to every terrorist group within range of American power, anywhere.
Syria is a major supporter of terrorist groups. It has provided shelter for terrorists who have killed American troops in Iraq. It serves as a base of operations and safe-haven for Hezbollah in it's fight against Israel. It has now given Hezbollah long-range ballistic missiles; These missiles will soon be paired to an Iranian nuclear weapon (since Hezbollah is a fully-owned subsidiary of Iran) and what happens next is not difficult to foresee.
But that's okay: Obama sent a man who's only talent is for marrying the widows of even richer men to "strongly" voice our concerns, and to beg Assad to be a pal. The price of "engaging" Syria, is going to be a lot of dead Jews so that The Won can appear to be fighting terrorists without actually fighting Islam. The two are one in the same, and the sooner the American ruling asses....errr...classes, realize this, the sooner we can get onto the real strategy that will ensure that another 9/11 never happens; inflicting unspeakable and immeasurable suffering upon Muslims.
Obama doesn't realize this -- because he hasn't studied any history that doesn't begin and end with black people and their grievances -- but the nature of the foe we're fighting today in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, is the same as it was in 1941-45. The Nazis and the Japanese were fanatics, convinced of their racial and cultural superiority, determined to rule the planet, and willing to fight to the very last man. He apparently doesn't know about Kamikazes and Waffen SS, about the ruthless and pitiless determination, the racial hatreds (the only racial hatred he knows about is the stuff he didn't hear Reverend Wright talk about for 20 years), the barbarity, displayed by both in battle...and even more so against non-combatants who either just happened to be in the way, belonged to categories of "inferior beings", or who had the temerity to protest against their treatment by their conquerors.
In the end, it required the destruction of both Germany and Japan to end that conflict. By gruesome and bloody combat on the ground, relentless carpet and fire bombing, the strangulation of blockade, and a couple of atomic bombs. Both nations, and the criminal leadership that ran it all, were brought to heel. But in the meantime, the cumulative effects of all that bombing, all that starvation, all those soldiers who didn't come back to the Ancestral Rice Farm because of American firepower ruthlessly-applied, had it's effect upon the German and Japanese people and economy. They tired of war, they ran out of supplies, their morale was sapped, they hadn't the means or the heart to continue the fight, and they became committed to maintaining peace after the hostilities were over -- because the experience of war had been too terrible to ever suffer again.
That stuff works. It worked when Genghis Khan tossed plague-infected bodies over city walls, and when Scipio Africanus sowed Carthage with salt. People who have been on the receiving end of that sort of thing pretty much learn the lesson "don't screw with those guys again".
But no, we'd rather "Engage" Syria. I'm not sure what the purpose of doing so ultimately is. It's not as if Syria has anything we want, and I wouldn't consider Assad the most trustworthy person on the planet, considering that we're trying to cultivate him for the purposes of promoting peace while he arms and protects terrorists. No amount of playing nice with Syria, I believe, is going to encourage Assad to stop.
The attempt will be made, however, because Obama must be seen as a figure who managed to do what no one else, no Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, no American President, has ever done: made a Middle-Eastern Dictator see the error of his ways without a shitload of high-explosives. It will be a triumph of Smart Diplomacy applied by the Smartest Man Ever over the Neanderthal method of Brute Force, and it will be a glorious achievement in the annals of Statesmanship.
Because the New York Times will say so. That's what it's all about; getting the Times to call you One of the Greats.
If I'm an Israeli General this morning, my job is probably figuring out how destroy the Syrian Air Force on the ground as a prelude to locating and bombing the bejesus out of some mobile SCUD launchers. And that's after I've already been kept awake nights for the past year by the problem of how to defend against, or pre-emptively strike at, an Iranian nuke.
Again, if I'm that General, I'd be in my Prime Minister's office right now begging to be given The Order, and screw what Obama has to say about anything. Obama is a strutting peacock, nothing without a staged event in front of a hand-picked and fanatically loyal audience and a teleprompter filled with someone else's words, and his opinion or wishes when the subject is the survival of the Jewish State is irrelevant. Besides, the worst you can expect in retaliation for daring to disrupt his carefully-thought-out plan of cultivating dictators who support terrorists is that John Kerry will show up to waggle his finger at you and talk out of his ass.
That's a trade I'd be willing to make.
The Obama administration has told us since it's inception that Syria is an important player, I believe the phrase is "potential ally", in the elusive quest for "Middle East Peace". The theory is that if we just "engage" Syria, and apply "diplomatic pressure" upon them, Syria will stop arming and aiding Hezbollah, and will also aid the United States in the fight against Al'Qaeda in Iraq, since many AII terrorists are operating from across the Syrian border.
To this end, the Obamatards sent John Kerry to Syria two weeks ago to "voice long-running concerns" with what passes for the leadership of Syria, and there's supposed to be a new ambassador to Syria to be named shortly, a symbol of America's willingness to go the extra mile in the name of "Peace".
Okay, a couple of things about all of this:
Why is Syria is still on the map? This is one aspect of the War on Terror that has always troubled me greatly. Of course, I say the same thing about all Muslim countries. It has been my contention since September 12, that the only way to put an end to the problem of Islamic Terrorism is to make sure there were a lot of dead Islamics, and that the United States should not limit the (armed) scope of it's War on Terror to simply those terrorists groups we currently have in our sights (Taliban, Al'Qaeda and it's off-shoots), but to every terrorist group within range of American power, anywhere.
Syria is a major supporter of terrorist groups. It has provided shelter for terrorists who have killed American troops in Iraq. It serves as a base of operations and safe-haven for Hezbollah in it's fight against Israel. It has now given Hezbollah long-range ballistic missiles; These missiles will soon be paired to an Iranian nuclear weapon (since Hezbollah is a fully-owned subsidiary of Iran) and what happens next is not difficult to foresee.
But that's okay: Obama sent a man who's only talent is for marrying the widows of even richer men to "strongly" voice our concerns, and to beg Assad to be a pal. The price of "engaging" Syria, is going to be a lot of dead Jews so that The Won can appear to be fighting terrorists without actually fighting Islam. The two are one in the same, and the sooner the American ruling asses....errr...classes, realize this, the sooner we can get onto the real strategy that will ensure that another 9/11 never happens; inflicting unspeakable and immeasurable suffering upon Muslims.
Obama doesn't realize this -- because he hasn't studied any history that doesn't begin and end with black people and their grievances -- but the nature of the foe we're fighting today in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, is the same as it was in 1941-45. The Nazis and the Japanese were fanatics, convinced of their racial and cultural superiority, determined to rule the planet, and willing to fight to the very last man. He apparently doesn't know about Kamikazes and Waffen SS, about the ruthless and pitiless determination, the racial hatreds (the only racial hatred he knows about is the stuff he didn't hear Reverend Wright talk about for 20 years), the barbarity, displayed by both in battle...and even more so against non-combatants who either just happened to be in the way, belonged to categories of "inferior beings", or who had the temerity to protest against their treatment by their conquerors.
In the end, it required the destruction of both Germany and Japan to end that conflict. By gruesome and bloody combat on the ground, relentless carpet and fire bombing, the strangulation of blockade, and a couple of atomic bombs. Both nations, and the criminal leadership that ran it all, were brought to heel. But in the meantime, the cumulative effects of all that bombing, all that starvation, all those soldiers who didn't come back to the Ancestral Rice Farm because of American firepower ruthlessly-applied, had it's effect upon the German and Japanese people and economy. They tired of war, they ran out of supplies, their morale was sapped, they hadn't the means or the heart to continue the fight, and they became committed to maintaining peace after the hostilities were over -- because the experience of war had been too terrible to ever suffer again.
That stuff works. It worked when Genghis Khan tossed plague-infected bodies over city walls, and when Scipio Africanus sowed Carthage with salt. People who have been on the receiving end of that sort of thing pretty much learn the lesson "don't screw with those guys again".
But no, we'd rather "Engage" Syria. I'm not sure what the purpose of doing so ultimately is. It's not as if Syria has anything we want, and I wouldn't consider Assad the most trustworthy person on the planet, considering that we're trying to cultivate him for the purposes of promoting peace while he arms and protects terrorists. No amount of playing nice with Syria, I believe, is going to encourage Assad to stop.
The attempt will be made, however, because Obama must be seen as a figure who managed to do what no one else, no Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, no American President, has ever done: made a Middle-Eastern Dictator see the error of his ways without a shitload of high-explosives. It will be a triumph of Smart Diplomacy applied by the Smartest Man Ever over the Neanderthal method of Brute Force, and it will be a glorious achievement in the annals of Statesmanship.
Because the New York Times will say so. That's what it's all about; getting the Times to call you One of the Greats.
If I'm an Israeli General this morning, my job is probably figuring out how destroy the Syrian Air Force on the ground as a prelude to locating and bombing the bejesus out of some mobile SCUD launchers. And that's after I've already been kept awake nights for the past year by the problem of how to defend against, or pre-emptively strike at, an Iranian nuke.
Again, if I'm that General, I'd be in my Prime Minister's office right now begging to be given The Order, and screw what Obama has to say about anything. Obama is a strutting peacock, nothing without a staged event in front of a hand-picked and fanatically loyal audience and a teleprompter filled with someone else's words, and his opinion or wishes when the subject is the survival of the Jewish State is irrelevant. Besides, the worst you can expect in retaliation for daring to disrupt his carefully-thought-out plan of cultivating dictators who support terrorists is that John Kerry will show up to waggle his finger at you and talk out of his ass.
That's a trade I'd be willing to make.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
You Know, This Might Be Why More People Don't Vote...
There is a commercial running in my neck of the woods, these days. A nicely-dressed young man, filmed in extreme close-up so that he's nothing but a gigantic head-and-tie shot, tells you that He's Michael Allegretti, and he's running for Congress form New York's 13th District (Staten Island and South Brooklyn). The commercial is poorly done; it's not very informative, all you get is that Allegretti isn't a democrat, and it's on three times an hour. About the only good thing you can say about it is that he at least hints that democrats might be slightly less-attractive than influenza.
You can see the commercial at Allegretti's website. Just hang about a second, and the video will pop up on ya...along with a request for cash.
I have some problems with this sort of political advertising, because it's obviously contrived.
Allegretti bemoans the "out of control" democrats in Washington, but never says what his own party affiliation is. Not even on his website. In the first reference vis-a-vis party affiliation I could find, Allegretti describes himself in the New York Post as "an independent fiscal conservative". My, if that isn't purposely vague for a reason, I don't know what is! It's brilliant marketing, at least: he hits all the right buzzwords -- independent, fiscal conservative. He avoids any references to either the Republican or Tea Parties -- but it's not exactly clear if he's a Republican, Libertarian, or more likely, Rich Opportunist. It's almost as if you might be hiding something.
I've begun to notice a trend in political advertising here in recent years. There is a tendency in New York for many political candidates to not even make a mention of their political party affiliations, if they can avoid it. You don't see it mentioned on the television commercials, on the websites, on the campaign posters or literature -- you have to do some research to find out "R" or "D" -- and now I'm beginning to wonder if this might not be a common occurrence elsewhere; hiding your party affiliation on purpose. If anyone has seen some political advertising for a candidate lately, please let me know if they're all hiding their party affiliation now.
Incidentally, both Allegretti and democrat Michael Grimm (trying to mount a primary challenge to Congressbeast Mike McMahon) are taking great pains to make sure you know that neither is part of the Party machine (either party), and neither of them likes to use the words "Republican" or "Democrat", unless they can do so to denigrate the current political culture while making certain the words aren't applied to themselves. They are taking Populist stands and talking the Populist talk, but both are amateurish. They don't look believable when they play Populist, and you get the idea it's all a fantasy -- or a scam. This must be that new-and-improved brand of politics we've been hearing all about; shout loudly, look like a regular Joe, hit all the buzzwords in the interview, say nothing that might hurt you,or worse, inform someone, or even pin you to a position.
Would I vote for Mr. Allegretti? Based on his website, not really. Based on a crappy commercial and a campaign persona that seems tailor made by the best political advertising folks money can buy (Mr. Allegretti's family owns one of the largest Fuel Oil delivery companies in New York State), and a guy who claims he's not one of those "Washington" types, but trumpets all of his political accomplishments; He one of those guys who organizes political dinners, symposiums and gabfests, and even boasts what's probably intended to be a hint of an endorsement from Tony Blair -- the former LIBERAL Prime Minister of Britain. Like that matters to New Yorkers?
Oh, and he says New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg likes him, too. That pretty much takes you off my 10,000,000 Best Friend's List, Pal. Any Friend of Bloomberg's is an Enemy of the People.
Anyways, Allegretti is running against Micheal McMahon, the anal-retentive democrat who was tapped in an emergency election after Vito Fossella got himself caught with a Baby Mamma and a DUI. McMahon has accomplished but one thing; he said "NO" to ObamaCare, which is pretty much what this entire Island said to it. He may have the smell of "democrat" stuck to him, but he at least has the distinction of being brave enough to stand up to Nancy, Harry and Barack. I still wouldn't vote for him, either, as right about now "Democrat" comes in on my list just after "Cross-dressing Nazis" and just before "AIDS-carrying Pedophiles" on my list of "People I'd Really, Really Love To Invite to My Fondue Party".
The other candidate is a guy named Micheal Grimm, and unfortunately, he's a democrat, too. He's a veteran, though, so at least he gets some brownies for that, but when given a choice between Democrat, Democrat, Some Guy Who Thinks He's Really Slick, and Ebola, I'm taking the Ebola -- it's the best choice on the menu..
I'll be looking out to see if either democrat identifies himself as such, especially the guy who served in Iraq, because I have a feeling that while he's trying to strike the Populist tone of "for the Working Man", he'll probably only attract the usual crowd of democrat fringe elements -- the people who are STILL fighting over the War in Iraq -- and he won't accomplish anything except to split the dimwit vote in the primary.
We have a Tea Party here on Staten Island, and I've even popped over to their blog (it's here on Blogger) a few times to see what's going on. But I shan't join it, if only because they guy who posts on it sounds as if he's always in great pain....or maybe he just really has to pee really, really badly. All the time. Like he's constantly in one of those dreams where you're sliding down a banister naked, and it suddenly turns into a razor blade...and there's a vat of lemon juice and Tabasco sauce at the bottom of the stairs, just waiting for you. I swear, that man's sphincter is probably puckered so tight that he might need a colostomy bag. You can check it out, if you like, but I usually ignore anything they have to say -- even if I agree with it. I just don't like HOW he says it. It's like he's menstrual or something.
Anyways, there's going to be a primary here in Staten Island on the dem side, and then a general election in November, to see which of these three idiots gets to be our next Congresscritter. I'm so excited I could shit. Not really -- I'm apathetic for the following reason; at this point in history, when the People of this Country have an enormous opportunity to truly change the way this government does business (by tossing all the bums out, and demand that the Constitution be enforced and respected), our local political parties produce this line up of losers, or, they allow rich boys with an apparent aversion to honesty about their political leanings to buy their way onto ballots.
These are our choices:
The Democrat who was only elected because his Republican Predecessor was an adulterer and a drunk.
The Democrat unknown who won't tell you who he is, besides "I'm a Veteran!".
A Walking Television Commercial who can't be honest about his true political affiliations, and counts tyrants amongst his friends.
Between the three of them, we should be able to find one who'll be capable of turning Staten Island into the New Atlantis.
You can see the commercial at Allegretti's website. Just hang about a second, and the video will pop up on ya...along with a request for cash.
I have some problems with this sort of political advertising, because it's obviously contrived.
Allegretti bemoans the "out of control" democrats in Washington, but never says what his own party affiliation is. Not even on his website. In the first reference vis-a-vis party affiliation I could find, Allegretti describes himself in the New York Post as "an independent fiscal conservative". My, if that isn't purposely vague for a reason, I don't know what is! It's brilliant marketing, at least: he hits all the right buzzwords -- independent, fiscal conservative. He avoids any references to either the Republican or Tea Parties -- but it's not exactly clear if he's a Republican, Libertarian, or more likely, Rich Opportunist. It's almost as if you might be hiding something.
I've begun to notice a trend in political advertising here in recent years. There is a tendency in New York for many political candidates to not even make a mention of their political party affiliations, if they can avoid it. You don't see it mentioned on the television commercials, on the websites, on the campaign posters or literature -- you have to do some research to find out "R" or "D" -- and now I'm beginning to wonder if this might not be a common occurrence elsewhere; hiding your party affiliation on purpose. If anyone has seen some political advertising for a candidate lately, please let me know if they're all hiding their party affiliation now.
Incidentally, both Allegretti and democrat Michael Grimm (trying to mount a primary challenge to Congressbeast Mike McMahon) are taking great pains to make sure you know that neither is part of the Party machine (either party), and neither of them likes to use the words "Republican" or "Democrat", unless they can do so to denigrate the current political culture while making certain the words aren't applied to themselves. They are taking Populist stands and talking the Populist talk, but both are amateurish. They don't look believable when they play Populist, and you get the idea it's all a fantasy -- or a scam. This must be that new-and-improved brand of politics we've been hearing all about; shout loudly, look like a regular Joe, hit all the buzzwords in the interview, say nothing that might hurt you,or worse, inform someone, or even pin you to a position.
Would I vote for Mr. Allegretti? Based on his website, not really. Based on a crappy commercial and a campaign persona that seems tailor made by the best political advertising folks money can buy (Mr. Allegretti's family owns one of the largest Fuel Oil delivery companies in New York State), and a guy who claims he's not one of those "Washington" types, but trumpets all of his political accomplishments; He one of those guys who organizes political dinners, symposiums and gabfests, and even boasts what's probably intended to be a hint of an endorsement from Tony Blair -- the former LIBERAL Prime Minister of Britain. Like that matters to New Yorkers?
Oh, and he says New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg likes him, too. That pretty much takes you off my 10,000,000 Best Friend's List, Pal. Any Friend of Bloomberg's is an Enemy of the People.
Anyways, Allegretti is running against Micheal McMahon, the anal-retentive democrat who was tapped in an emergency election after Vito Fossella got himself caught with a Baby Mamma and a DUI. McMahon has accomplished but one thing; he said "NO" to ObamaCare, which is pretty much what this entire Island said to it. He may have the smell of "democrat" stuck to him, but he at least has the distinction of being brave enough to stand up to Nancy, Harry and Barack. I still wouldn't vote for him, either, as right about now "Democrat" comes in on my list just after "Cross-dressing Nazis" and just before "AIDS-carrying Pedophiles" on my list of "People I'd Really, Really Love To Invite to My Fondue Party".
The other candidate is a guy named Micheal Grimm, and unfortunately, he's a democrat, too. He's a veteran, though, so at least he gets some brownies for that, but when given a choice between Democrat, Democrat, Some Guy Who Thinks He's Really Slick, and Ebola, I'm taking the Ebola -- it's the best choice on the menu..
I'll be looking out to see if either democrat identifies himself as such, especially the guy who served in Iraq, because I have a feeling that while he's trying to strike the Populist tone of "for the Working Man", he'll probably only attract the usual crowd of democrat fringe elements -- the people who are STILL fighting over the War in Iraq -- and he won't accomplish anything except to split the dimwit vote in the primary.
We have a Tea Party here on Staten Island, and I've even popped over to their blog (it's here on Blogger) a few times to see what's going on. But I shan't join it, if only because they guy who posts on it sounds as if he's always in great pain....or maybe he just really has to pee really, really badly. All the time. Like he's constantly in one of those dreams where you're sliding down a banister naked, and it suddenly turns into a razor blade...and there's a vat of lemon juice and Tabasco sauce at the bottom of the stairs, just waiting for you. I swear, that man's sphincter is probably puckered so tight that he might need a colostomy bag. You can check it out, if you like, but I usually ignore anything they have to say -- even if I agree with it. I just don't like HOW he says it. It's like he's menstrual or something.
Anyways, there's going to be a primary here in Staten Island on the dem side, and then a general election in November, to see which of these three idiots gets to be our next Congresscritter. I'm so excited I could shit. Not really -- I'm apathetic for the following reason; at this point in history, when the People of this Country have an enormous opportunity to truly change the way this government does business (by tossing all the bums out, and demand that the Constitution be enforced and respected), our local political parties produce this line up of losers, or, they allow rich boys with an apparent aversion to honesty about their political leanings to buy their way onto ballots.
These are our choices:
The Democrat who was only elected because his Republican Predecessor was an adulterer and a drunk.
The Democrat unknown who won't tell you who he is, besides "I'm a Veteran!".
A Walking Television Commercial who can't be honest about his true political affiliations, and counts tyrants amongst his friends.
Between the three of them, we should be able to find one who'll be capable of turning Staten Island into the New Atlantis.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Oliver Stone: Douchebag...
Our Douchebag of the Week is Oliver Stone. Actually, Mr. Stone is one of the finalists in the Douchebag-of-the-Last-Five-Decades-Running competition, primarily on the strength of his abilities to mangle history and then make really bad movies out of it.
(Ed. Note: The Douchebag of the Week Award will now be a staple of this blog. Readers are encouraged to nominate those they believe fit the bill. Just drop a mail with your candidate's name and a link to the event, quote, action, etc, that made your candidate a good bet to win. I will select the winner, who will be announced every Monday morning.).
Stone announced this week that, having exhausted every hippie-centric view of the 1960's, he will now take a crack at the entire 20th Century, and to show you just how bad a historian Mr. Stone is and just what sort of mindset will be making this film, he has this to say about Adolf Hitler:
"...Talking to critics, Stone, a three-times Oscar winner, explained that Hitler had been “an easy scapegoat throughout history” and that his new series would put things into their proper context. “We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'. [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions,” he noted. “It's cause and effect....”
Just what we need; a therapeutic and forgiving view of Hitler, full of moral relativism, and which is yet another refight of the battle between the "Nature vs. Nuture" branch of psychology. Hitler is not an evil man driven by his personal lunacy, he's a product of his times, yet one more victim of a topsy-turvy world.
When you stop to consider the damage Stone's "historical treatment" films have already done, and here I'm speaking of the hero-worshiping "JFK", and the over-the-top surrealism of "Apocalypse Now" -- with their soft-60's-platitudes and fawning-adorational speeches placed in the mouths of people who never spoke them, the liberties taken with both fact and evidence, the outright misrepresentation of the motivations of both sides of any argument -- I can only imagine what Stone will produce in 10-hours.
Mostly, it should be reminiscent of something you occasionally have to scrape off your shoes.
We'll probably find out that Stalin murdered millions because of an extremely painful ingrown toenail that an American trade embargo prevented from being properly treated. Mao loved to collect teddy bears and hold tea parties, but Eisenhower didn't send Mao a card on Valentine's Day. Pol Pot was a cross-dresser, who wanted nothing more than to star on Broadway, but LBJ and Richard Nixon conspired to keep him in dinner theatre in Phnom Penh. All of them were driven to the acts that sullied their good memories, and ran their good intentions right off the rails (after all, they were socialists and in Stone's world, the Socialists are the heroes. Flawed Heroes, to be certain, but always the Good Guys) by greedy, ignorant, jingoistic Westerners --particularly Americans, and hopefully, Conservatives (even if Stone has to take great pains and twist the truth to portray them as Conservative). None of the true villains is ever responsible.
Murder millions on an industrial scale, deliberately starve millions more, preside over a reign of terror that makes the French Revolution seem like the Elk's Club Annual Picnic, and Stone will find some excuse to let you off the hook. A new generation of Americans which doesn't read, and which doesn't study history, will again learn their lessons from Stone's Movies, and pretty soon, they'll find a reason to excuse Osama Bin Laden...oh wait, they've already done that.
There. I've just saved you 10 hours and $50 bucks. You can thank me later.
The Telegraph has more here.
(Ed. Note: The Douchebag of the Week Award will now be a staple of this blog. Readers are encouraged to nominate those they believe fit the bill. Just drop a mail with your candidate's name and a link to the event, quote, action, etc, that made your candidate a good bet to win. I will select the winner, who will be announced every Monday morning.).
Stone announced this week that, having exhausted every hippie-centric view of the 1960's, he will now take a crack at the entire 20th Century, and to show you just how bad a historian Mr. Stone is and just what sort of mindset will be making this film, he has this to say about Adolf Hitler:
"...Talking to critics, Stone, a three-times Oscar winner, explained that Hitler had been “an easy scapegoat throughout history” and that his new series would put things into their proper context. “We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'. [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions,” he noted. “It's cause and effect....”
Just what we need; a therapeutic and forgiving view of Hitler, full of moral relativism, and which is yet another refight of the battle between the "Nature vs. Nuture" branch of psychology. Hitler is not an evil man driven by his personal lunacy, he's a product of his times, yet one more victim of a topsy-turvy world.
When you stop to consider the damage Stone's "historical treatment" films have already done, and here I'm speaking of the hero-worshiping "JFK", and the over-the-top surrealism of "Apocalypse Now" -- with their soft-60's-platitudes and fawning-adorational speeches placed in the mouths of people who never spoke them, the liberties taken with both fact and evidence, the outright misrepresentation of the motivations of both sides of any argument -- I can only imagine what Stone will produce in 10-hours.
Mostly, it should be reminiscent of something you occasionally have to scrape off your shoes.
We'll probably find out that Stalin murdered millions because of an extremely painful ingrown toenail that an American trade embargo prevented from being properly treated. Mao loved to collect teddy bears and hold tea parties, but Eisenhower didn't send Mao a card on Valentine's Day. Pol Pot was a cross-dresser, who wanted nothing more than to star on Broadway, but LBJ and Richard Nixon conspired to keep him in dinner theatre in Phnom Penh. All of them were driven to the acts that sullied their good memories, and ran their good intentions right off the rails (after all, they were socialists and in Stone's world, the Socialists are the heroes. Flawed Heroes, to be certain, but always the Good Guys) by greedy, ignorant, jingoistic Westerners --particularly Americans, and hopefully, Conservatives (even if Stone has to take great pains and twist the truth to portray them as Conservative). None of the true villains is ever responsible.
Murder millions on an industrial scale, deliberately starve millions more, preside over a reign of terror that makes the French Revolution seem like the Elk's Club Annual Picnic, and Stone will find some excuse to let you off the hook. A new generation of Americans which doesn't read, and which doesn't study history, will again learn their lessons from Stone's Movies, and pretty soon, they'll find a reason to excuse Osama Bin Laden...oh wait, they've already done that.
There. I've just saved you 10 hours and $50 bucks. You can thank me later.
The Telegraph has more here.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The REAL War...And Why No One Will Fight it...
It's not being waged on the battlefields of Ashcanistan or I-wreck. It is being fought in the minds of the political elite, and both parties being slightly smarter than a slime mold (but better dressed!), they have arrived at this fight completely unarmed.
The central point in the War on Terror is the mindset of the people who will formulate and enact The Policy by which that war will be fought. In order to make the proper decisions that will become The Policy, and ultimately The Strategy, the people making them will have to recognize certain facts:
a. The Enemy is unrelenting.
b. The Enemy is part of an identifiable group.
c. The Enemy operates on a different wavelength and by different rules than we do.
d. The Enemy is not interested in making a deal, he's not interested in anything we can offer him.
e. The Enemy considers negotiation and conciliation as forms of weakness, unless it helps him to achieve his goal, then the good-feeling this engenders in his opponent is simply another weapon at his disposal.
f. The Enemy's Goal is World Domination, defined as the ultimate ascendancy of his religion and culture, culminating in the reduction to all those outside this scope to a position of semi-slavery with few, if any, legal or natural rights.
g. The Enemy is willing to do almost anything to achieve these goals, his philosophy having elevated those goals from mere political aims to the route towards personal salvation.
h. The Enemy has been in a state of Undeclared War with the United States since 1979.
i. The Enemy believes it's victory is pre-ordained and inevitable.
j. The Enemy is merciless and pitiless, and has no regard for the humanity of his opponents.
That is the reality of Militant Islam, and the Islamonazi political regime that comes with it. That is the kind of foe we're supposed to be fighting; implacable, pitiless, single-minded, undistracted by abstract thoughts of justice, fairness or decency. He is armed to the teeth, and has a billion potential soldiers at his command. He lives by a strict code of religious discipline, and routinely clears his ranks of shirkers and traitors by means of murder. He holds his host culture hostage with a climate of fear, religious orthodoxy and systematic violence, which he claims is his ancestral right either handed down from God, or magically bestowed upon his as a legacy of (pick one or more) racism, religious discrimination, colonialism, economic exploitation, etc, etc, etc.
The response and policies of both major political opponents, viewed against these realities, leave much to be desired, and in fact, seem woefully inadequate to meet the challenge of people willing to ran airliners into office buildings, tape high explosives to their groin, or indiscriminately launch unguided rockets into residential neighborhoods.
And the reason is because the political leadership of this country, Repub or Dem, is too frightened or stupid, to tell itself the Truth about The Enemy. Because they fail to see what's so obviously plain, their policies and pronouncements, their actions and rhetoric, are divorced from reality. In the meantime, American troops pay the price with their limbs and lives. Americans pay more for their energy, more in taxes, and make ever-more personal sacrifices in order to support the War/NotWar, and have to deal with a government who's response to terrorism is to prevent blankets from being handed out, keep nail clippers off aircraft, and restrict the use of rest rooms.
Liberals (and I'm using the term loosely, because they really aren't) see the problem of terrorism in terms of law enforcement and social welfare. They do not see The Enemy as some sort of robotic, inhuman force driven by a rabid ideology, it views him through the same lens it applies to all problems. All problems, in the liberal world, can be solved by talking and symbolism, because ultimately, all issues arise from a lack of tolerance and a dearth of 'resources' -- it would rather perform 'social outreach' (Obama's "Open hand/Clenched fist"), and get to the "root causes" of the problem (Obama's Apologies to Islam for Western Civilizations very existence and intolerance), then open a "dialogue" with them (Negotiate with Admini-doo-dad without pre-conditions), and then negotiate "terms" (Discuss the size of the bribe required for "peace"). Liberalism would rather talk, and then attach a symbolic value to that talk which is of no real value, presuming that if Obama (for example) met face-to-face with Ama-dada-doo-dad that somehow gives the Iranians a feeling that we respect them as equals, and that having been satisfied with the illusion of equality, they'll be ready to cave to our other demands, they being reasonable chaps and all that. It absolves them of the Guilt they feel when they recognize that other people are making sacrifices they don't have the courage or intelligence to make themselves.
It's an extension of the "There are no truly Bad Boys..." argument; if you talk to the Islamic Radicals, show them some respect, get down on their level, and perhaps provide them with Midnight Basketball, they won't turn into cold-blooded killers. It's like watching your middle-aged dad try to relate to your teenaged friends; he starts calling everyone "Dog", pretends an interest in rap music, tries to fit in and "be hip", high-fives everyone, and he doesn't realize how ridiculous he looks, or how embarrassing it is for you.
When that strategy fails, they always fall back on the police. Liberals, despite their protests to the contrary, actually love the power of the police...when it's used in ways they want it to be. The greatest danger to American Society in the last 20 years was not, as Libs would have you believe, John Ashcroft armed with the Patriot Act --it would have been Hillary Clinton similarly equipped.
So, when talk fails, law enforcement suddenly becomes the only answer. To everything; Can't control handguns because of the pesky Second Amendment? Law enforcement is the answer! Can't fix the social problems created by bastardy, drug abuse and rampant street crime that were a result of Liberal policies in the first place? Law enforcement is the answer! Even when law enforcement isn't the answer, it's the answer -- as when Obama went to Columbus (I think) to pose in front of 25 new police officers whose jobs were "saved" by the Stimulus Bill...But I digress.
Law Enforcement must now protect us after the magical powers of talk and symbolism have failed. However, law enforcement must do it's job handcuffed by conditions the Liberal insist upon; you can't profile (that's racist), you can't treat terrorists like terrorists and prosecute them as such (lawyers solve all problems), you can't make mention of a certain religion or ethnicity (because that might make them feel persecuted), you aren't allowed to kill the enemy on the battlefield until you can prove with (incontrovertible evidence) that he is about to kill you.
This is why Obama (and before him Clinton and Carter, to be fair) cannot come to grips with the problem of terrorism. It's why the Liberal Elite have railed against the War on Terror since it's inception (even while cynically voting for the money to prosecute the War, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, voting for the Patriot Act and all the rest -- they were all symbolic, and politically-necessary, votes). Libs would rather talk than fight, and then when talking fails, pass the buck. They ultimately end up punishing the innocent while putting up yet one obstacle to bringing the guilty to heel.
On the other side, Republicans are laboring under the mistaken impression that "everyone is basically the same, underneath it all" which is kinda strange, since it's Liberals who insist on the truthfulness of that statement -- while they accuse Republicans of being racists, elitists and exclusionary.
In this case, they don't actually believe everyone is "the same" in terms of people having equal talents, capacities, needs, etc. Instead, they believe that all people have a fundamental yearning that makes them "the same", and that yearning is for "Freedom"(always defined in strictly-American terms) and that all one must to do is to "give people Freedom" and there is some human instinct that automatically 'knows' what that means -- and then it automatically follows that people unversed in the 4,000 year-old philosophies of democracy, free-market economics and political/religious pluralism will quickly accept them, and adapt their culture to accommodate them.
That this "bringing Freedom to those who yearn for it" must be accomplished at gunpoint, under the conditions and mentality of War, doesn't seem to occur to those who believe that "Inside every Afghan/Iraqi/Iranian/Radical Muslim is an American just dying to get out..." is telling. It means that they don't fundamentally understand the historical, philosophical and social conditions and processes which have resulted in their own "Freedom", and almost reduces the whole concept to the process to that by which you install software on your PC -- you simply put the disk in and the host system (in this case, culture) simply "knows" what to do with it once it's introduced. It allows them to frame the whole War on Terror as some Noble Crusade that is, ultimately, for everyone's benefit. It makes them feel better about risking (other people's) lives and cash.
Both, in their own ways, see Man as some sort of reasonable creature who knows where his bread is buttered, and which actually believes in concepts such as equality and peace.
It's why one side will insist on open-ended commitments of American blood and treasure trying to redeem the seemingly irredeemable, and the other will seek to delay the inevitable bloodshed by the process of holistic politics. Because the alternatives, being wrong (for Conservatives) and all-out War (for Liberals) are unthinkable to either, and so are the consequences.
If anyone in power today actually knew anything about history (something which is hardly studied honestly anymore) they would recognize that the Radical Islamists are no better, and in some cases infinitely worse, than the Nazis, the Soviet Communists or the Japanese Militarists.
Defeating those enemies required realism, it required great violence, and the expenditure of much blood, iron and treasure with the goal of laying them utterly low. This Islamic Enemy will only be defeated by the same means. They cannot be "reformed" until they have been defeated in unmistakable terms, which means the destruction of their culture by overwhelming force and great suffering, wherein it will become apparent to The Enemy that whatever he hopes to achieve is impossible, and that whatever he believes is a false system that cannot achieve his goals.
Nazi Germany had to be bombed flat and defeated militarily on two continents before Germans finally lost faith in National Socialism and surrendered. Japan had to be starved, terrorized and threatened with nuclear holocaust before the Japanese began to see that they weren't a divine people imbued with a natural right to conquest and Empire. Soviet Communism had to be bankrupted before it was seen as being unable to provide the standard of living that it promised to it's people, and which Capitalism did. The same needs to be done to Islamonazis.
They need to be reduced to the level of drinking out of mud puddles and picking the undigested thistles from camel dung before they begin to realize that, perhaps, all this stuff they're busily committing suicide for is not exactly the best way of life. It is only through abject misery that people begin to question their fundamental beliefs. One side won't inflict that misery, and the other will only inflict it up to a certain point, beyond that, neither is willing to go.
And that's why any War on Terror, any regime of Airport Security, no number of Patriot Acts and Guantanamo Bays, no negotiations, bribes or concessions, will ever solve the problem of Islamic Terrorism. Doing so requires great violence of the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type that both find barbaric. In the meantime, one will fight a public-relations campaign with guns to no definite end, and the other will be talking it's ass off and offering your virgin daughters up to the barbarians in order to avoid violence, and achieving even less.
Discuss.
The central point in the War on Terror is the mindset of the people who will formulate and enact The Policy by which that war will be fought. In order to make the proper decisions that will become The Policy, and ultimately The Strategy, the people making them will have to recognize certain facts:
a. The Enemy is unrelenting.
b. The Enemy is part of an identifiable group.
c. The Enemy operates on a different wavelength and by different rules than we do.
d. The Enemy is not interested in making a deal, he's not interested in anything we can offer him.
e. The Enemy considers negotiation and conciliation as forms of weakness, unless it helps him to achieve his goal, then the good-feeling this engenders in his opponent is simply another weapon at his disposal.
f. The Enemy's Goal is World Domination, defined as the ultimate ascendancy of his religion and culture, culminating in the reduction to all those outside this scope to a position of semi-slavery with few, if any, legal or natural rights.
g. The Enemy is willing to do almost anything to achieve these goals, his philosophy having elevated those goals from mere political aims to the route towards personal salvation.
h. The Enemy has been in a state of Undeclared War with the United States since 1979.
i. The Enemy believes it's victory is pre-ordained and inevitable.
j. The Enemy is merciless and pitiless, and has no regard for the humanity of his opponents.
That is the reality of Militant Islam, and the Islamonazi political regime that comes with it. That is the kind of foe we're supposed to be fighting; implacable, pitiless, single-minded, undistracted by abstract thoughts of justice, fairness or decency. He is armed to the teeth, and has a billion potential soldiers at his command. He lives by a strict code of religious discipline, and routinely clears his ranks of shirkers and traitors by means of murder. He holds his host culture hostage with a climate of fear, religious orthodoxy and systematic violence, which he claims is his ancestral right either handed down from God, or magically bestowed upon his as a legacy of (pick one or more) racism, religious discrimination, colonialism, economic exploitation, etc, etc, etc.
The response and policies of both major political opponents, viewed against these realities, leave much to be desired, and in fact, seem woefully inadequate to meet the challenge of people willing to ran airliners into office buildings, tape high explosives to their groin, or indiscriminately launch unguided rockets into residential neighborhoods.
And the reason is because the political leadership of this country, Repub or Dem, is too frightened or stupid, to tell itself the Truth about The Enemy. Because they fail to see what's so obviously plain, their policies and pronouncements, their actions and rhetoric, are divorced from reality. In the meantime, American troops pay the price with their limbs and lives. Americans pay more for their energy, more in taxes, and make ever-more personal sacrifices in order to support the War/NotWar, and have to deal with a government who's response to terrorism is to prevent blankets from being handed out, keep nail clippers off aircraft, and restrict the use of rest rooms.
Liberals (and I'm using the term loosely, because they really aren't) see the problem of terrorism in terms of law enforcement and social welfare. They do not see The Enemy as some sort of robotic, inhuman force driven by a rabid ideology, it views him through the same lens it applies to all problems. All problems, in the liberal world, can be solved by talking and symbolism, because ultimately, all issues arise from a lack of tolerance and a dearth of 'resources' -- it would rather perform 'social outreach' (Obama's "Open hand/Clenched fist"), and get to the "root causes" of the problem (Obama's Apologies to Islam for Western Civilizations very existence and intolerance), then open a "dialogue" with them (Negotiate with Admini-doo-dad without pre-conditions), and then negotiate "terms" (Discuss the size of the bribe required for "peace"). Liberalism would rather talk, and then attach a symbolic value to that talk which is of no real value, presuming that if Obama (for example) met face-to-face with Ama-dada-doo-dad that somehow gives the Iranians a feeling that we respect them as equals, and that having been satisfied with the illusion of equality, they'll be ready to cave to our other demands, they being reasonable chaps and all that. It absolves them of the Guilt they feel when they recognize that other people are making sacrifices they don't have the courage or intelligence to make themselves.
It's an extension of the "There are no truly Bad Boys..." argument; if you talk to the Islamic Radicals, show them some respect, get down on their level, and perhaps provide them with Midnight Basketball, they won't turn into cold-blooded killers. It's like watching your middle-aged dad try to relate to your teenaged friends; he starts calling everyone "Dog", pretends an interest in rap music, tries to fit in and "be hip", high-fives everyone, and he doesn't realize how ridiculous he looks, or how embarrassing it is for you.
When that strategy fails, they always fall back on the police. Liberals, despite their protests to the contrary, actually love the power of the police...when it's used in ways they want it to be. The greatest danger to American Society in the last 20 years was not, as Libs would have you believe, John Ashcroft armed with the Patriot Act --it would have been Hillary Clinton similarly equipped.
So, when talk fails, law enforcement suddenly becomes the only answer. To everything; Can't control handguns because of the pesky Second Amendment? Law enforcement is the answer! Can't fix the social problems created by bastardy, drug abuse and rampant street crime that were a result of Liberal policies in the first place? Law enforcement is the answer! Even when law enforcement isn't the answer, it's the answer -- as when Obama went to Columbus (I think) to pose in front of 25 new police officers whose jobs were "saved" by the Stimulus Bill...But I digress.
Law Enforcement must now protect us after the magical powers of talk and symbolism have failed. However, law enforcement must do it's job handcuffed by conditions the Liberal insist upon; you can't profile (that's racist), you can't treat terrorists like terrorists and prosecute them as such (lawyers solve all problems), you can't make mention of a certain religion or ethnicity (because that might make them feel persecuted), you aren't allowed to kill the enemy on the battlefield until you can prove with (incontrovertible evidence) that he is about to kill you.
This is why Obama (and before him Clinton and Carter, to be fair) cannot come to grips with the problem of terrorism. It's why the Liberal Elite have railed against the War on Terror since it's inception (even while cynically voting for the money to prosecute the War, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, voting for the Patriot Act and all the rest -- they were all symbolic, and politically-necessary, votes). Libs would rather talk than fight, and then when talking fails, pass the buck. They ultimately end up punishing the innocent while putting up yet one obstacle to bringing the guilty to heel.
On the other side, Republicans are laboring under the mistaken impression that "everyone is basically the same, underneath it all" which is kinda strange, since it's Liberals who insist on the truthfulness of that statement -- while they accuse Republicans of being racists, elitists and exclusionary.
In this case, they don't actually believe everyone is "the same" in terms of people having equal talents, capacities, needs, etc. Instead, they believe that all people have a fundamental yearning that makes them "the same", and that yearning is for "Freedom"(always defined in strictly-American terms) and that all one must to do is to "give people Freedom" and there is some human instinct that automatically 'knows' what that means -- and then it automatically follows that people unversed in the 4,000 year-old philosophies of democracy, free-market economics and political/religious pluralism will quickly accept them, and adapt their culture to accommodate them.
That this "bringing Freedom to those who yearn for it" must be accomplished at gunpoint, under the conditions and mentality of War, doesn't seem to occur to those who believe that "Inside every Afghan/Iraqi/Iranian/Radical Muslim is an American just dying to get out..." is telling. It means that they don't fundamentally understand the historical, philosophical and social conditions and processes which have resulted in their own "Freedom", and almost reduces the whole concept to the process to that by which you install software on your PC -- you simply put the disk in and the host system (in this case, culture) simply "knows" what to do with it once it's introduced. It allows them to frame the whole War on Terror as some Noble Crusade that is, ultimately, for everyone's benefit. It makes them feel better about risking (other people's) lives and cash.
Both, in their own ways, see Man as some sort of reasonable creature who knows where his bread is buttered, and which actually believes in concepts such as equality and peace.
It's why one side will insist on open-ended commitments of American blood and treasure trying to redeem the seemingly irredeemable, and the other will seek to delay the inevitable bloodshed by the process of holistic politics. Because the alternatives, being wrong (for Conservatives) and all-out War (for Liberals) are unthinkable to either, and so are the consequences.
If anyone in power today actually knew anything about history (something which is hardly studied honestly anymore) they would recognize that the Radical Islamists are no better, and in some cases infinitely worse, than the Nazis, the Soviet Communists or the Japanese Militarists.
Defeating those enemies required realism, it required great violence, and the expenditure of much blood, iron and treasure with the goal of laying them utterly low. This Islamic Enemy will only be defeated by the same means. They cannot be "reformed" until they have been defeated in unmistakable terms, which means the destruction of their culture by overwhelming force and great suffering, wherein it will become apparent to The Enemy that whatever he hopes to achieve is impossible, and that whatever he believes is a false system that cannot achieve his goals.
Nazi Germany had to be bombed flat and defeated militarily on two continents before Germans finally lost faith in National Socialism and surrendered. Japan had to be starved, terrorized and threatened with nuclear holocaust before the Japanese began to see that they weren't a divine people imbued with a natural right to conquest and Empire. Soviet Communism had to be bankrupted before it was seen as being unable to provide the standard of living that it promised to it's people, and which Capitalism did. The same needs to be done to Islamonazis.
They need to be reduced to the level of drinking out of mud puddles and picking the undigested thistles from camel dung before they begin to realize that, perhaps, all this stuff they're busily committing suicide for is not exactly the best way of life. It is only through abject misery that people begin to question their fundamental beliefs. One side won't inflict that misery, and the other will only inflict it up to a certain point, beyond that, neither is willing to go.
And that's why any War on Terror, any regime of Airport Security, no number of Patriot Acts and Guantanamo Bays, no negotiations, bribes or concessions, will ever solve the problem of Islamic Terrorism. Doing so requires great violence of the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type that both find barbaric. In the meantime, one will fight a public-relations campaign with guns to no definite end, and the other will be talking it's ass off and offering your virgin daughters up to the barbarians in order to avoid violence, and achieving even less.
Discuss.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Pots? Meet Kettles...
More Healthcare nonsense, including the inevitable round of name-calling which starts with "Nazi", and then gets predictably worse.
JammieWearingFool posts this and this.
One is an example of the utter cluelessness of the modern Leftist; he criticizes his opponents on the Right as being Nazi sympathizers -- but fails to recognize that the Nazi Party was the ultimate expression of Leftist politics. Or maybe he just figures that you're dumb enough not to know that.
The second one is an example of the brazen stupidity of a man who simply has no brains, no class, and no sense of shame...only with more strident Nazi undertones. The democratic party could pass whatever healthcare monstrosity they desire right now, in a heartbeat, without breaking a sweat. They have the votes (in terms of numbers of democrats vs. republicans), but the margin is razor thin and many of their members won't make the Great Leap Forward because they are frightened of the inevitable result; they'll be politically dead. They'll be out of work. These people care more about their phony-baloney jobs -- and the ability to deal out political favors and federal cash that comes with it, and which is the real source of their power -- then they do about 'the uninsured'.
'The Uninsured' is merely a straw man, designed to hide the real purpose of 'Healthcare Reform', something to give it that certain Christian quality that's supposed to make it go down a bit easier; this is one step closer to American Communism.
The argument that Republicans are 'obstructing' anything is a smoke screen which is intended to obscure the truth; the democrats simply can't do that which their 'base' (i.e. the lazy, lame, halt and crippled) demand they do. Doing so means the taxpayers (the people who really count) send them packing, perhaps after a round of tar and feathers. So, they must construct a drama and create an enemy, to make the Great Lie more believable.
Anyone who opposes them, even opposition based on definite, reasonable, provable principles, therefore, must be a Nazi (the other force that nearly destroyed Communism, and therefore, the natural enemy of the Leftist), a term which evokes terror, fear and loathing on a visceral level. The Leftist elite does not demand reasoned response from it's minions, only that they react with the proper emotions when required.
These are the people that run your country, and this is what they are willing to do.
November 2010 can't come soon enough.
JammieWearingFool posts this and this.
One is an example of the utter cluelessness of the modern Leftist; he criticizes his opponents on the Right as being Nazi sympathizers -- but fails to recognize that the Nazi Party was the ultimate expression of Leftist politics. Or maybe he just figures that you're dumb enough not to know that.
The second one is an example of the brazen stupidity of a man who simply has no brains, no class, and no sense of shame...only with more strident Nazi undertones. The democratic party could pass whatever healthcare monstrosity they desire right now, in a heartbeat, without breaking a sweat. They have the votes (in terms of numbers of democrats vs. republicans), but the margin is razor thin and many of their members won't make the Great Leap Forward because they are frightened of the inevitable result; they'll be politically dead. They'll be out of work. These people care more about their phony-baloney jobs -- and the ability to deal out political favors and federal cash that comes with it, and which is the real source of their power -- then they do about 'the uninsured'.
'The Uninsured' is merely a straw man, designed to hide the real purpose of 'Healthcare Reform', something to give it that certain Christian quality that's supposed to make it go down a bit easier; this is one step closer to American Communism.
The argument that Republicans are 'obstructing' anything is a smoke screen which is intended to obscure the truth; the democrats simply can't do that which their 'base' (i.e. the lazy, lame, halt and crippled) demand they do. Doing so means the taxpayers (the people who really count) send them packing, perhaps after a round of tar and feathers. So, they must construct a drama and create an enemy, to make the Great Lie more believable.
Anyone who opposes them, even opposition based on definite, reasonable, provable principles, therefore, must be a Nazi (the other force that nearly destroyed Communism, and therefore, the natural enemy of the Leftist), a term which evokes terror, fear and loathing on a visceral level. The Leftist elite does not demand reasoned response from it's minions, only that they react with the proper emotions when required.
These are the people that run your country, and this is what they are willing to do.
November 2010 can't come soon enough.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Big Brother is Watching You...
One more for the "What the fuck is happening in the UK?" File.
This, from the Daily Express.
Appropriately, the man who advocates this policy is named Ed Balls. He is also the Minster for Children (why do children need a Government Ministry? Since when did they start paying taxes?). Tell me he doesn't have some deep-seated issues to work out from his childhood. Perhaps it's what's led to this.
Some highlights and commentary:
"Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction. Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far..."
How about taking this approach with 2,000 convicted felons, drug-addicts or pedophiles? By the way, how many of those families have at least one 'honor killing" in their background int he last six months, or are only white, native-born Britons going to be watched?
"Ministers hope the move will reduce the number of youngsters who get drawn into crime because of their chaotic family lives, as portrayed in Channel 4 comedy drama Shameless. "
By this logic, George Bush wouldn't have gotten the Patriot Act if Jack Bauer hadn't had it first. Sure, all the really first-class countries dictate public policy based upon what they see on television...
"But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "This is all much too little, much too late."
I'll assume that "Shadow Minister" means "Conservative", and that somehow this poor person believes that putting people under active surveillance and sending goons 'round to check on them is "too little"? I think he/she has missed the point entirely. No wonder the Tories can't win elections.
"This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse."
And we're too stupid to notice the obvious correlation, being politicians, and all. That is the best advertisement for a Conservative government I've ever heard right there. Delivered from a Labourite's mouth, no less. If this does not become a standard article of Conservative party propaganda until the next election, someone should be fired...and then executed. I'll even help you: it's called YouTube.
"Mr Balls also said responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons."
Excuse me while I pick my jaw up from the desk. Apparently, you haven't got the right to complain in England, especially on principle, when it concerns your children? But you may earn the right if you do what the government tells you to do? Is this guy for fuckin' real?
Don't be surprised if one of the nitwits on this side of the Atlantic recommends something similar, soon.
This, from the Daily Express.
Appropriately, the man who advocates this policy is named Ed Balls. He is also the Minster for Children (why do children need a Government Ministry? Since when did they start paying taxes?). Tell me he doesn't have some deep-seated issues to work out from his childhood. Perhaps it's what's led to this.
Some highlights and commentary:
"Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction. Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far..."
How about taking this approach with 2,000 convicted felons, drug-addicts or pedophiles? By the way, how many of those families have at least one 'honor killing" in their background int he last six months, or are only white, native-born Britons going to be watched?
"Ministers hope the move will reduce the number of youngsters who get drawn into crime because of their chaotic family lives, as portrayed in Channel 4 comedy drama Shameless. "
By this logic, George Bush wouldn't have gotten the Patriot Act if Jack Bauer hadn't had it first. Sure, all the really first-class countries dictate public policy based upon what they see on television...
"But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "This is all much too little, much too late."
I'll assume that "Shadow Minister" means "Conservative", and that somehow this poor person believes that putting people under active surveillance and sending goons 'round to check on them is "too little"? I think he/she has missed the point entirely. No wonder the Tories can't win elections.
"This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse."
And we're too stupid to notice the obvious correlation, being politicians, and all. That is the best advertisement for a Conservative government I've ever heard right there. Delivered from a Labourite's mouth, no less. If this does not become a standard article of Conservative party propaganda until the next election, someone should be fired...and then executed. I'll even help you: it's called YouTube.
"Mr Balls also said responsible parents who make sure their children behave in school will get new rights to complain about those who allow their children to disrupt lessons."
Excuse me while I pick my jaw up from the desk. Apparently, you haven't got the right to complain in England, especially on principle, when it concerns your children? But you may earn the right if you do what the government tells you to do? Is this guy for fuckin' real?
Don't be surprised if one of the nitwits on this side of the Atlantic recommends something similar, soon.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
People We Don't Want Too Many Of...
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was recently interviewed by one of those thoroughly professional journalism people in regards to the circus that is Sotomayor, when she let slip a very disturbing little gem which will probably be remembered forever. In fact, it might be the only thing ever uttered by Justice Ginsburg which will be remembered at all.
Speaking on Roe v. Wade, Madam Justice told the so-called reporter who asked her about the landmark usurpation of State and Congressional authority by a renegade Court that she was under the impression that the real purpose of Roe was (paraphrasing here) "to control certain populations which we don't want too many of..."
The reporter, probably too shocked by what she'd just heard, failed to ask the logical follow-up question; "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?", oh sorry, I mean "Did you have a particular population in mind, Madam Justice"?
I'm only assuming that she (the reporter) was shocked. What's more likely is that her finely-honed journalistic skill set (ripping things off the Internet without confirmation or attribution, making shit up to fit your argument, making false attacks against conservatives, learning where the free coffee and donuts are) was insufficient to cope with such an earth-shattering revelation of what one of America's most powerful judges thinks about the value of human life....especially if it belongs to a person we "don't want too many of."
Since the Justice didn't elaborate, and the reporter was somehow prevented (probably by a brain tumor) from asking for clarification, let me take a stab at filling in the list of people we supposedly don't want, and which Roe was probably intended to "control" according to Madam Justice;
Blacks.
Hispanics.
The Handicapped.
The Mentally Ill.
Criminals.
Christians.
Republicans.
Rich White Heterosexual Patrician Males (specifically).
Men (in general)
For those of you who are not familiar with the Eugenics Movement which was a hallmark of Progressive thinking in this country during the early part of the last century, this is the point.
The Eugenicists held that people, like dogs, cows or racehorses, could be bred to produce superior specimens (what the Nazis would call Ubermenchen, or Supermen) who exhibit what the Eugenicists considered the finest traits of the human race. Things like intelligence, strength, athleticism, artistic sense, according to this theory, could be bred into successive generations of human beings until we were all 'perfect'.
Traits that were undesirable: propensity to disease, deformities, anti-social behavior, ignorance would be 'bred out' of the human race, by the process of sterilizing those who possessed those traits, or in the extreme, killing them. This is Darwinism taken to it's extreme. It resulted in the Lynchburg and Tuskeegee experiments in this country -- where people were forcibly sterilized, given forced abortions, and then 'hospitalized' for many years (some for the remainder of their lives) to keep them from 'polluting' the gene pool -- that's when they weren't actually experimented on by so-called scientists. In Nazi Germany, it led to the creation of special 'baby farms' where children created by the union of the men of the SS and German women willing to breed in service to the state, were raised in government-run orphanages to create the next generation of Aryan Supersoldiers for the Third Reich.
They were programs intended to perfect mankind by either removing the worst genetic material by isolation from the 'breeding stock', or surgical prevention of conception, and by only allowing those deemed best equipped to reproduce. Many of them actually handed out breeding licenses, and in some cases, arrest for a particular crime might entail an automatic sentence of sterilization, or remand to specifically be studied (read; experimented upon) by scientists.
The counterpart (and logical conclusion) to those programs was, unfortunately, the horror of the Nazi concentration and death camps, which aimed to not just annihilate the Jews as the object of Nazi obsession and hatred, but the Jews as a source of DNA which the Nazis believed 'polluted' the superior races of Europe.
Good to know that Justice Ginsburg (who I have to believe probably knows at least one Holocaust survivor) believes that American law is intended to produce genocide; under the guise of 'reproductive rights', according to her, the actual purpose of Roe was deny those same rights to those deemed unworthy by the State, or at least by a future State being run by 'Progressives'.
Nice.
Jonah Goldberg of National Review has a thing or two to say on the subject.
Update: Apparently YesWeCan's new "Science Czar" wrote a book advocating this very shit 40 years ago! Here's the dirt on the despicable John Holder, courtesy of the National Examiner.
Speaking on Roe v. Wade, Madam Justice told the so-called reporter who asked her about the landmark usurpation of State and Congressional authority by a renegade Court that she was under the impression that the real purpose of Roe was (paraphrasing here) "to control certain populations which we don't want too many of..."
The reporter, probably too shocked by what she'd just heard, failed to ask the logical follow-up question; "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?", oh sorry, I mean "Did you have a particular population in mind, Madam Justice"?
I'm only assuming that she (the reporter) was shocked. What's more likely is that her finely-honed journalistic skill set (ripping things off the Internet without confirmation or attribution, making shit up to fit your argument, making false attacks against conservatives, learning where the free coffee and donuts are) was insufficient to cope with such an earth-shattering revelation of what one of America's most powerful judges thinks about the value of human life....especially if it belongs to a person we "don't want too many of."
Since the Justice didn't elaborate, and the reporter was somehow prevented (probably by a brain tumor) from asking for clarification, let me take a stab at filling in the list of people we supposedly don't want, and which Roe was probably intended to "control" according to Madam Justice;
Blacks.
Hispanics.
The Handicapped.
The Mentally Ill.
Criminals.
Christians.
Republicans.
Rich White Heterosexual Patrician Males (specifically).
Men (in general)
For those of you who are not familiar with the Eugenics Movement which was a hallmark of Progressive thinking in this country during the early part of the last century, this is the point.
The Eugenicists held that people, like dogs, cows or racehorses, could be bred to produce superior specimens (what the Nazis would call Ubermenchen, or Supermen) who exhibit what the Eugenicists considered the finest traits of the human race. Things like intelligence, strength, athleticism, artistic sense, according to this theory, could be bred into successive generations of human beings until we were all 'perfect'.
Traits that were undesirable: propensity to disease, deformities, anti-social behavior, ignorance would be 'bred out' of the human race, by the process of sterilizing those who possessed those traits, or in the extreme, killing them. This is Darwinism taken to it's extreme. It resulted in the Lynchburg and Tuskeegee experiments in this country -- where people were forcibly sterilized, given forced abortions, and then 'hospitalized' for many years (some for the remainder of their lives) to keep them from 'polluting' the gene pool -- that's when they weren't actually experimented on by so-called scientists. In Nazi Germany, it led to the creation of special 'baby farms' where children created by the union of the men of the SS and German women willing to breed in service to the state, were raised in government-run orphanages to create the next generation of Aryan Supersoldiers for the Third Reich.
They were programs intended to perfect mankind by either removing the worst genetic material by isolation from the 'breeding stock', or surgical prevention of conception, and by only allowing those deemed best equipped to reproduce. Many of them actually handed out breeding licenses, and in some cases, arrest for a particular crime might entail an automatic sentence of sterilization, or remand to specifically be studied (read; experimented upon) by scientists.
The counterpart (and logical conclusion) to those programs was, unfortunately, the horror of the Nazi concentration and death camps, which aimed to not just annihilate the Jews as the object of Nazi obsession and hatred, but the Jews as a source of DNA which the Nazis believed 'polluted' the superior races of Europe.
Good to know that Justice Ginsburg (who I have to believe probably knows at least one Holocaust survivor) believes that American law is intended to produce genocide; under the guise of 'reproductive rights', according to her, the actual purpose of Roe was deny those same rights to those deemed unworthy by the State, or at least by a future State being run by 'Progressives'.
Nice.
Jonah Goldberg of National Review has a thing or two to say on the subject.
Update: Apparently YesWeCan's new "Science Czar" wrote a book advocating this very shit 40 years ago! Here's the dirt on the despicable John Holder, courtesy of the National Examiner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)