From actor Jake Gyllenhaal:
Movie star JAKE GYLLENHAAL has shocked American Gulf War veterans by joking they did nothing but “masturbate” during their time in the desert in 1991. The cheeky 25-year-old stars in JARHEAD, a movie exposing the US soldiers’ lack of combat in the Middle Eastern conflict. He said, “The US soldiers were sent to the desert for 122 days and they sat in the same tent and did nothing, except a little too much masturbating.”
It’s difficult to pass up a reference to his Village People-like portrayal in Brokeback Mountain (or Humpback or Bareback or Brokedick or Backdoor or whatever the hell it was) and his mentioning self-gratification…but I’ll try!
“Dammit, Sarge, I wish I could quit you!” Sorry…guess the temptation was too much!
He’s an avowed liberal…but hey, they support the troops, right?
From Al Gore, via the “fake Koran-flushing network” Newsweak:
“At Some Point, Reality Has Its Day.”
This, from the man who thinks he invented the Internet and really won the 2000 election?
My apologies if it seems like I’m dwelling on the gas prices issue too much, but I needed to put this up after having read the story. From NPR:
What factors are causing gas prices to rise so quickly?
The biggest factor in rising costs is the price of crude oil, followed by the cost of refining.
Then who sets the prices?
Oil companies don’t set crude-oil prices; the global market does.
Is there any evidence that people are starting to change their habits in response to higher prices?
When you ask drivers at the gas station, “Are you trying to conserve?,” they invariably say they are. But weekly data from the Energy Department show that we’re still using more gasoline than we were a year ago.
Are there any short-term fixes?
The market solutions are: a) increase supply; and b) decrease demand.
What about long-term fixes?
They’re the same: increase supply and decrease demand.
There’s much more. Please read the whole thing. It’s short, easy to follow, and does a fantastic job outlining why gas costs what it does and how the oil companies are making beaucoup bucks these days.
Hat tip to Kanaka Girl for this. You thought NBC’s David Gregory was a tittybaby? He’s not alone. From CNN:
It wasn’t the price of gasoline, Darfur or the rebuilding effort in New Orleans that preoccupied the White House press corps Thursday aboard a flight on Air Force One.
It was what channel they could watch on the White House televisions, Fox or CNN.
During a briefing led by White House spokesman Scott McClellan as President Bush was traveling to New Orleans, Louisiana, the Washington Post’s Jim VandeHei asked why the White House televisions always seemed to be tuned to Fox News and if it was possible to have them tuned instead to CNN.
“It’s come to my attention that there’s been requests — this is a serious question — to turn these TVs onto a station other than Fox, and that those have been denied,” VandeHei told McClellan, who is soon to be replaced by former Fox anchor and self-described conservative Tony Snow.
“My question would be, is there a White House policy that all government TVs have to be tuned to Fox?” VandeHei asked.
“Never heard of any such thing,” McClellan responded. “My TVs are on four different channels at all times.”
VandeHei noted that McClellan has four televisions in his office, and clarified that he was referring to the ones that reporters can see.
“They’re always turned to Fox, which a lot of people consider a Republican-leaning network.“
He’s right. A lot of people on the left do indeed consider FNC to be “Republican-leaning.” Interestingly, the bitching comPost reporter asked to watch a news channel that “many people” consider a “Democrat-leaning network.” The derisive nickname “Clinton News Network” wasn’t coined for no reason. Then again, this typifies liberal “thought” (for lack of a better word): Fox News is biased, CNN is objective. Got it?
(Sidebar: a common journalistic technique, similar to “sources” or “experts”, is the “some say” or “many believe” or “a lot of people think” technique. Anytime you hear that, brace yourself for the reporter’s (or network’s or editor’s) opinion or theory. “A lot of people consider FNC a right-leaning network” means “the guys in the newsroom who meet together for decaf lattés at Starbucks before attending the DNC fundraisers…ALL consider FNC to be right-leaning!” Glad I could clear that up for you guys.)
VandeHei noted that the televisions are paid for with taxpayer dollars. (So is the White House presidential bedroom, but you can’t just walk in whenever you want and say “I can be here, because this is paid for with my tax dollars!” – Ed.)
“And my understanding is that you guys have to watch Fox on Air Force One. Is that true?”
McClellan said it was the first he had heard such a claim, and that it was not true.
“In fact, I’ve watched other channels on here,” he said.
“I’ve never known anyone that’s raised a complaint about a request from back here to watch a different channel,” McClellan added.
VandeHei replied, “I’m officially raising it, and officially complaining about it.”
Fox News is popular with at least one highly placed person in the White House. According to the Web site “The Smoking Gun,” whenever Vice President Dick Cheney stays in a hotel room, he requests extra lights, copies of five newspapers and the television tuned to Fox.
Based on ratings, Fox News is popular with a WHOLE LOT of people other than “highly placed persons” in the White House. They tend to kick the everloving crap out of their competitors in several categories, which I imagine spawns some professional (and partisan) envy.
As for poor widdle VandenHei, someone call “9-WAAAAH-WAAAAH” for his “WAAAAH-mergency”, and we can get a “WAAAAH-mbulance” dispatched ASAP!
Talk about gonads the size of grapefruits (easy, Congressman Frank…calm down)! The same network that hired Clintonista mouthpiece George Snuffalupugus…er, Stephanopoulos…thinks it’s improper that Bush chose Tony Snow to be his spokesman. From ABC News:
There’s just something about Fox News.
Not only does the cable giant have more than twice as many primetime viewers as the closest competition, but it’s often the network of choice for the White House administration in terms of big-name interviews.
Certainly, the White House offers exclusives to all the networks, including ABC. Media expert Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post says the Fox-White House relationship isn’t the problem here.
“The problem is that there is a perception that they’ve treated all the press corps with disdain,” Kurtz said. “That is more of an issue than what their favorite news channel happens to be.”
With all of the love that the MSM has showered on Bush since his 2001 inauguration, I can’t imagine why the man would hate them! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Kurtz is being disingenuous when he says that he doesn’t care about the “Fox-White House relationship.” After all, the non-FNC networks were graced with Bubba’s love for eight years, and they reciprocated. Then again, with the exception of Hillary, who wasn’t graced with Bubba’s love? But I digress.
I’ve heard many a talking heads say “A-ha! Proof that Fox News has a GOP and Bush White House bias!” in the Snow hiring. Oddly enough, I’ve heard very few acknowledgements of leftist bias from these same people when you mention that NBC’s Tim Russert worked for Mario Cuomo (Democrat), or little-watched MSNBC’s Chris Mattews worked for Tip O’Neill (Democrat). Nosiree, Russert and Matthews and Snuffy can work for Dems and no one will question their network employers’ impartiality!
The hypocrisy is thick but not surprising. It’s more palpable on the Democrats’ side, since they’re the ones squealing the loudest about conservation and their mythical “empathy” with the American consumer. However, Republicans aren’t much better in their “do as I say and not as I do” behavior. From the Washington comPost:
“Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!” charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. “They are too cozy with the oil industry.”
She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) — even though her Senate office was only a block away.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. “Get tough on big oil!” he demanded of the Bush administration.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made a plea for conservation. “We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency,” she urged.
But not too quickly. After lunchtime votes, senators emerged from the Capitol for the drive across the street to their offices.
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18). (In light of this, and yesterday’s post about how Kennedrunk is opposing the windfarms off the coast of his Cape Cod mansion, does any leftist want to try and defend Chappy’s “green” record now? – Ed.)
Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush “remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards.”
If the politics of gasoline favor Democrats at the moment, the insincerity is universal. A surreptitious look at the cars in the senators-only spots inside and outside the Senate office buildings found an Escort and a Sentra (super-rich Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl’s spot had a Chevy Lumina), but far more Jaguars, Cadillacs and Lexuses and a fleet of SUVs made by Ford, Honda, BMW and Lexus.
At least one Senator got it right:
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) responded with an economics lesson. “Oil is worth what people pay for it,” he argued.
If a gallon of milk doubled in price, would the Senate be holding hearings on whether or not dairy farmers are “gouging” us? Somehow I doubt it.
That’s what the headline reads, but my interpretation (which may differ from yours) is slightly different. From my local paper:
The state House on Wednesday passed a bill requiring Florida school districts to write policies prohibiting bullying in public schools, although time is running out for the Senate to join the effort.
It seems to me that the House isn’t banning bullying per se, but telling schools to come up with their own plans to do so. Maybe I’m nitpicking semantics here, but there is a difference. If the House bans it, it’s kind of a “one size fits all” approach, but if they direct the schools to do it, then…what? Do the schools get to define bullying, or lay out punishment guidelines, or what?
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, bullying is horrible: it scares weaker kids, it empowers stronger and more aggressive kids, and it disrupts the educational process. No one believes bullying is acceptable. On the other hand, is this really a matter for Tallahassee to be taking up? It seems that school districts should already have procedures in place to deal with bullies. Alas…:
…only about half of Florida districts have anti-bullying policies or programs.
Maybe the school districts feared invoking the wrath of the ACLU if they implemented such measures. I can see it now:
“Your honor, the school district violated Spike’s First Amendment right to free speech. Also, by prohibiting Spike from ‘requesting’ lunch money from his classmates, the only alternative for Spike to get lunch money is to either work (which is just WRONG) or to get it from his parents (which is equally WRONG)! Actually, lunch should be free for ALL students, but we’re working on that in another case. Anyway, does the school district expect Spike to starve?”
The American dream…a myth? This will no doubt come as a shock to the thousands of people whose success stories are featured in many places: on TV, on the Internet, in magazines, etc. I guess the guy who founded my employer’s company just benefited from a rich family…despite the fact that they were POOR! Chances are, most of us know someone who was either poor or lower-middle class and wound up with some fortunes.
Oh, yeah…the “study“:
America may still think of itself as the land of opportunity, but the chances of living a rags-to-riches life are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world, according to a new study published on Wednesday.
The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent, according to “Understanding Mobility in America,” a study by economist Tom Hertz from American University.
By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said. (Could this be because the rich parents pass on their wisdom and their EARNED wealth to their kids? Hell, 22% seems awful low, if you ask me! – Ed.)
“In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family,” he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work.
“Consider a rich and poor family in the United States and a similar pair of families in Denmark, and ask how much of the difference in the parents’ incomes would be transmitted, on average, to their grandchildren,” Hertz said.
“In the United States this would be 22 percent; in Denmark it would be two percent,” he said. (This is a GOOD thing? Denmark confiscates the EARNED wealth of its citizens, and that should be a model for US? Like hell! – Ed.)
University professor indoctrinated at UMass…liberal think-tank sponsoring said prof’s study…the left’s obsession with killing capitalism. Feel free to dismiss the study like I just did.
That’s the beauty of being a liberal academic enshrined in the campus cocoon: reality just isn’t relevant. Perhaps the good professor can go to Cuba or some other socialist
hellhole “utopia” and live the rags-to-rags life.
How dare Weldon tell us about Able Danger! From Newsmax:
High-ranking members of Bill Clinton’s national security team have joined together to defeat Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon’s House re-election bid this November – in what looks like retaliation for Weldon’s efforts in exposing the Clinton administration’s Able Danger scandal.
In June 2005, Weldon went public with news that Clinton administration lawyers prevented the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Able Danger group from blowing the whistle on two al-Qaida terrorists who would later pilot the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center.
Though the media downplayed Weldon’s bombshell, a number of high ranking Clinton officials apparently haven’t forgotten – and they’re pouring money into the campaign of Weldon’s opponent, Joe Sestak.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has given $500 to Sestak. Disgraced former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has given Weldon’s opponent $1,000. Disgraced ex-Clinton CIA director John Deutch gave $500. Former Clinton Navy secretary John Dalton ponied up $500 to defeat Weldon. Former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta – $300. Berger’s predecessor as national security adviser, Anthony Lake – $500. Even Hillary Clinton has gotten into the act, contributing $2,500 to defeat Curt Weldon.
Fortunately for Weldon’s opponent, Berger did manage to make the donation without “sloppily” leaving the money in his pants!
As usual, the left has one set of rules for us and another for themselves. Observe:
The infamous environmental group Greenpeace is targeting Sen. Ted Kennedy for opposing a wind farm in the Nantucket Sound because it would interfere with the view from his Hyannis Port mansion.
Greenpeace is launching a nationwide TV ad campaign against Kennedy, with spots that portray the Massachusetts Democrat as Godzilla.
The Cape Cod Times reports:
“In the 30-second spot, a cartoon Kennedy looms over the water like a Japanese movie monster, pounding wind turbines as they sprout from the water, and barks, ‘I might see them from my mansion on the Cape.’“
Kennedy’s nephew, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a leading environmentalist who urges Americans to cut back on energy consumption and who blamed Bush environmental policies for Hurricane Katrina.
But he, too, opposes the wind farm in Nantucket Sound – going so far as to argue that it would cause pollution.
While America’s most pampered blue-bloodline (memo to moonbats: that would be the Kennedys and not the Bushes) preaches to us about the need for clean alternative energy sources, they are personally fighting such efforts because their pristine view from their Cape mansion might be blighted at the sight of enviro-friendly energy sources.
Then again, considering the gas-guzzling limos, planes, and yachts that the “pro-environment” Kennedys own, one should not be surprised by their two-faced position here.
The regular visitors here are well aware of the fact that I don’t play this P.C. bullsh#t. I call things like I see them, and if that makes me politically incorrect, then I’ll wear my P.I. badge with honor.
Today’s excursion into the sick world of political correctness comes from a Latino ambulance chaser who thinks using the term “illegal alien” to describe foreigners (hence the “alien” part) who have broken the law (hence the “illegal” part) is racist. Observe:
Appearing on KLIF Radio’s Gregg Knapp show, attorney Domingo Garcia said that using the terms illegal alien or illegal immigrant is a “racial slur”. Garcia said that those who use it, in reference to Hispanics, are racist.
Knapp advised Garcia that using the term “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” is an accurate term applied to [their] legal vs. illegal status in the country and a true depiction of the fact that they are illegal. Garcia said: “Using words like illegal alien is like calling people derogatory names…like calling people ni&&er!”
I took the liberty in removing the double-g from the last word.
Garcia is using two leftist tactics here. One is to remove the meaning of words that accurately (though unflatteringly) describe or define something that normal people find objectionable. The other is to lazily and deviously avoid any kind of intellectual honesty by tossing out unfounded charges of racism in the hopes that the person holding the correct point of view will begin focusing on disproving the allegation of racism instead of focusing on the original topic or point. Sadly, the latter technique is still frequently effective…though not here!
So, with all due respect to amigo Garcia, they are “illegal aliens” regardless of whatever country from whence they came. Period. Habla inglés, hombre?
Tom Daschle was once a darling in South Dakota. However, after his rise to the top of his party’s leadership (a party that was hostile to the ways of South Dakotans), the folks back home seemed to think that Dasshole was more of a DC kind of guy and less of a South Dakota fellow. As such, Dasshole was given the George McGovern treatment and given the heave-ho out of South Dakota…and the United States Senate.
Perhaps Harry Reid has caught Dasshole’s disease? From the Las Vegas Sun:
Home not so sweet
As Reid’s power grows in D.C., his support slides in NV
Sen. Harry Reid, once a fairly obscure conservative Democrat from the small state of Nevada, is all the buzz inside the Beltway lately – unfortunately for him, it’s the Washington and not the Las Vegas Beltway.
Reid is praised by his party’s national grass-roots activists for his forceful opposition to the Republican agenda and ability to keep Senate Democrats unified. His opponents concede – occasionally with close-fisted frustration – that he consistently bests his counterpart, Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
But Reid’s national stature among activist Democrats, concentrated on the blue-state coasts, carries risks for him at home, analysts say. His consistent opposition to President Bush and his need to mollify the liberals in his party is costing him in Nevada, where polls show he has lost support since becoming minority leader.
The respect of MoveOn.org’s Matzzie, one of the more influential voices in liberal Washington, may be the ultimate gauge of Reid’s standing among activist Democratic circles these days.
But it is the adulation of people like Matzzie that also endangers Reid at home. “Absolutely it hurts him at home,” said Eric Herzik, a UNR political scientist. “He has to take up the cause of the most liberal wing of the party.”
Reid is a liberal in a red state, a state that Bush won twice. Some say that Reid won’t run for re-election in 2010, so he can afford to be as liberal as he wants to be. Dasshole didn’t have that luxury.
Mary McCarthy, special assistant to President Clinton and senior director of intelligence in his White House, has been fired by the CIA.
McCarthy allegedly told The Washington Post our NATO allies were secretly letting the CIA operate bases on their soil for the interrogation of terror suspects. Apparently, McCarthy failed several polygraph tests, after which she confessed.
If true, she was faithless to her oath, betrayed the trust of her country, damaged America’s ties to foreign intelligence agencies and governments, and broke the law. The Justice Department is investigating whether McCarthy violated the Espionage Act.
Yet, while she may be headed for criminal prosecution and prison, the Post reporter to whom she leaked intelligence on the secret sites, Dana Priest, just won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing the existence of these sites.
Actually, the EU’s investigation disputes the existence of these sites. Believe what you wish.
(Sidebar about McCarthy: she was appointed by another compromiser of national security…Sandy Burglar, er, Berger! Does this story get better or what?)
Many avenues of the MSM refer to Ms. McCarthy (a DNC- and Kerry-donor) as a “whistleblower”, in order to give her treason a positive connotation. This whole McCarthy affair shows the left’s hypocrisy:
Revealing the name of a well-known non-covert CIA desk jockey who recommended her hubby for a public jaunt to Niger (and then lied about it) is a violation of the law and an unconscienable act of malevolence; but…
Sharing classified national intelligence with an MSM outlet, in direct violation of the law and her oath of office and compromising our war on terror, is an act of heroism and courage and should be applauded?
Thanks for telling us which side you’re on, liberals…and as usual, it’s not America’s!
From the online fishwrap in Detroit (aka New Fallujah):
The daughter of the founder of Earth Day says she doesn’t think gasoline prices are too high.
Tia Nelson, the daughter of former U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, said “we pay less for a gallon of gas than anywhere else in the world. And if we paid what the Europeans paid we’d wouldn’t be driving vehicles that got 12 miles a gallon.”
She said that if there’s a silver lining in the higher gas prices, it’s that people are driving less and companies are being forced to think about being more efficient.
Wrong, earthmuffin…people are not driving less. Therein lies the rub with you greenie weenies:
We’ve been told for a couple of decades now (especially in Gore’s eco-nut manifesto Earth in the Balance) that if gas prices went up, people would use less gas…which would be a good thing. Therefore, rising gas prices would be good.
Interesting, then, that liberals are among those who are complaining about high oil prices! I mean, the libs tell us how the prices are due to Bush, evil oil execs, etc. Now that the left has the panacea that they have wanted (i.e. high gas prices), they’re complaining? Why? They wanted high prices, and now that they have them, they’re bitching about it? I guess this whole “pay through the nose for gas and watch people use less” idea, like all other leftist ideas, just didn’t quite work out the way they envisioned, did it?
At least not all libs are bellyaching. Daddy’s little treehugger above has at least been honest about her happiness in the high prices. Those leftists who are calling for a “windfall profits” tax, such as Durbin the Turban and Helmethead Dorgan, aren’t being quite so genuine.
From ABC News:
In one of those odd political moments that combine a poignant message with somewhat opportunistic maneuvering, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean took part in a cleanup effort in flood-ravaged New Orleans and used the moment to take a shot at the Republicans.
In his first post-Katrina visit to the Crescent City, Dean helped Acorn, a nonprofit community group that works with low-income families, to clean out Vincent Cooper’s flood-damaged home on Derbigny Street in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans.
“I don’t want to be partisan at a time like this, but this is why the Republicans are going to be out of business,” Dean said, pointing to the destruction around him. “Nine months after the hurricane, to have this? This is ridiculous. This is not the America we grew up in.”
1. “I don’t want to be partisan at a time like this”? Are you freakin’ serious? Who in the hell do you think you’re kidding? Statements like this are further evidence that liberals see themselves as smart and everyone else as stupid.
2. “Nine months after the hurricane”? Howie, I understand that not many hurricanes make it up there to your home state of Vermontistan, so I’ll forgive you for being thoroughly unfamiliar with the carnage that hurricanes cause. Hurricane Andrew devastated south Florida in August 1992, and I drove through the wreckage in Homestead, FL, in 1994 on my way down to the Keys. As much as I hated Clinton, I didn’t blame him for the smashed houses and business that remained…TWO YEARS after Andrew!
3. “This is not the America we grew up in”? Howie, you grew up in the whitest of all states, in a state that isn’t struck with a considerable amount of poverty, and you proceed to insult those of faith or of Southern/rural heritage…and you want to tell us about the America that “we” grew up in?
Deaniacs are still blaming the feds for their failure, and are still ignoring the failures of the Democrat Louisiana governor and Democrat New Orleans mayor. But don’t worry…they don’t “want to be partisan at a time like this”!
From ZD Net:
A California court in San Jose on Thursday is scheduled to hear a case brought by Apple Computer that eventually could answer an unsettled legal question: Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters?
Apple claims they should not. Its lawyers say in court documents that Web scribes are not “legitimate members of the press” when they reveal details about forthcoming products that the company would prefer to keep confidential.
Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes are but a few examples of so-called “legitimate members of the press”, and they all
were fired “resigned” in disgrace. By comparison, the blogosphere shed the light on the Texas Air National Guard forged documents story, which helped bury Rather’s and Mapes’ careers and Monsieur Jean-Francois Kerry’s campaign.
I realize that Apple has to make the argument that bloggers don’t count as “real press” folks for the purposes of First Amendment freedom of the press protection, since they’re suing someone for leaking information on their products. However, every day, the alternative media is doing the job that the MSM ought to be doing.
(Sidebar: it’s funny that the MSM can leak classified documents that compromise our national security, in violation of federal law, and claim “freedom of the press” in their defense…yet the MSM and their allies don’t want to extend that same kind of “freedom” to the alternative media!)
We here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS) have uncovered, through
unauthorized wiretapping “investigative journalism”, the transcripts detailing the conversation where White House spokesman Scott McClellan offers his resignation:
SCOTTY: Mr. President, you’re meeting today with Chinese President Hu.
BUSH: Scott, I need to know his name.
BUSH: That Chinese president guy.
SCOTTY: No, “Hu.”
BUSH: I just told you who…or is it “whom”?
SCOTTY: No, sir, it’s “Hu.”
BUSH: Dammit, Scotty, don’t be gettin’ all English 101 on me! I just need to know the man’s name.
SCOTTY: (** Sighing, growing impatient **) Your guest’s name, right?
BUSH: My guest! The Chinese dude! I don’t have time for this sh#t, Scotty!
SCOTTY: That’s it! I’m outta here! I quit!
BUSH: But who’s gonna be my new spokesman?
SCOTTY: Good! Maybe he can handle this a helluva lot better!
SCOTTY: Goodbye, sir! (** slams door upon leaving **)
You won’t get this kind of reporting from anywhere but CLOWNS!
It must be proof of global “warming”, and it must be George Bush’s fault! From the AP:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Officials worked to restore electricity and clear highways after a powerful spring snowstorm swept through the northwestern Plains, leaving four people dead.
More than 4,000 customers remained without power Wednesday night in South Dakota’s Black Hills after the storm dumped more than 2 feet of snow, officials said. Some customers in North Dakota could be without electricity until Friday, according to the Mountrail-Williams County Electric Cooperative.
The heaviest snow was reported in the Black Hills, with 24 inches at Lead and Rochford, according to the National Weather Service.
Maybe those polar bears in the Arctic Circle can flee from the oppressive heat of the North Pole and emigrate to the friendlier climes of North Dakota!
Nina Burleigh has a column at Slate.com whereby she laments — nay, she “cringes” — as her “young son recited the Pledge of Allegiance. But who was I to question his innocent trust in a nation I long ago lost faith in?”
You’re his mother, Nina. If this country sucks so badly, go ahead and tell him that. I’m sure he’d be happy to share this newly found insight with his classmates…who would likely subsequently kick his ass and steal his lunch money. Said assbeating would further reinforce his new views that Mums passed on to him: “America sucks, son, but it pays the bills. So it’ll have to do!”
By the way, ol’ Nina was once a White House correspondent with Time magazine and had boldly stated that she would “be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.” She elaborated that while Der Schlickmeister played footsies with her on Air Force One, “If he had asked me to continue the game of Hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened.”
Brent Bozell accurately observed the following: “In graphic terms Nina Burleigh has exposed the media’s love affair with Clinton’s liberal policies. This is why so much of the establishment press gives Bill Clinton such a pass on scandals that would have brought down any other president.”
Aw, come on, Brent! Just because a Time reporter wants to polish Clinton’s putter doesn’t mean that this infatuation extended to the rest of the MSM! It’s not like the MSM ignored Bubba turning down Osama on a silver platter, or the selling of nuclear technology to the ChiComs for campaign cash, or the shredding of Rose Law Firm billing records, or…oh, wait. They did ignore all that stuff, didn’t they? I guess their mouths were full!
Like every one of you, I hate paying through the nose for gas right now. I hate seeing that gas prices aren’t coming down any time soon, either. However, something I hate even more is the pandering that politicians engage in, for the purposes of scoring some points with the electorate. Senator Byron “Helmet-head” Dorgan of North Dakota is next to shamefully exploit the nation’s frustration. From the AP:
Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil’s $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a “shameful display of greed” that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan said on Tuesday.
Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation “justifies” giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.
Let’s get something straight here, Dorgan: it is not the role of the Imperial Federal Government to ask a private (i.e. not state-owned) business to “justify” any of its compensation, profits, etc. Where in the hell do you get off trying to browbeat a business into “justifying” its business model for your curiosity?
As if that degree of arrogance weren’t enough:
Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.
“Windfall” profits tax? Who gets to decide what “windfall” profits are? The market? Nope…the Imperial Federal Government! Holy Shizit, is this still America? The government gets to decide how much profit is “too much” for its liking?
You do realize that such a tax would result in even higher gas prices, since corporations don’t pay taxes…shareholders, customers, employees, etc., would bear the burden of such a tax. Gas supplies would drop considerably, which would cause pump prices to skyrocket. You do realize that, right?
Also, what is this nonsense about making gas companies “invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies”? You’ve got some damned nerve, Dorky…er, Dorgan! I mean, you and your party thwart every single effort to do that very thing: be it drilling in ANWR (a desolate area which was set aside for the express purpose of oil exploration), the Gulf of Mexico, etc. “Go get more oil and gas! Just don’t get it from here, or here, or here, or…”
Senator Dorky…er, Dorgan…understands basic supply and demand just fine. However, his insatiable thirst for political gain will trump his common sense in economics any day of the week. The quickest way to drop gas prices is to simply buy less gas…period. Oil companies would be derelict in their fiduciary responsibilities if they didn’t charge as much for gas as the market would bear. When demand subsides (and at some point, it will), gas prices will level off again. Last year, we got up to about $3.09 per gallon here…only to see it drop to around $2.19 by Christmas.
I despise the high gas prices, too, but I’m not about to advocate heavy-handed anti-capitalistic leftist tactics to bring down prices (which would do no such thing, anyway). You wanna punish the gas companies AND bring down prices? Don’t buy as much gas.
Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who now complains that President Bush cherry-picked pre-war Iraq weapons intelligence and misled the country into going to war, warned six years ago that Saddam Hussein’s WMD program was the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
“Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,” Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000.
“Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased,” the general-turned-war critic said, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads,” Zinni said, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog.
Gen. Zinni is currently leading to charge to get Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign – a campaign he began two weeks ago on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Now Zinni wants Bush to apologize and Rumsfeld to resign for taking his advice in the first place.
In light of Zinni’s Kerry-esque flip-flop, maybe he has a point about Bush and Rummy being stupid enough to listen to his advice.
Thanks to Kanaka Girl for sending this to me. She wondered just who in the hell Time polled for this:
The Best Senators
The Worst Senators
To answer her question “Who did they poll for this?”, perhaps it’s easier to determine who they didn’t poll.
In the case of Ted Kennedrunk, they probably didn’t poll Mary Jo Kopechne. In the case of Durbin the Turban, they likely didn’t poll (or, in Durbin’s case, maybe the correct word is Pol, as in Pot) any of the soldiers he compared to Nazis or Stalin. In the case of John McCain or Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter, it is doubtful that they interviewed any actual Republicans.
By the way, the link that Time has to Kennedrunk will treat you to a story that lionizes the distilled murderer. You’ll forgive me for not sharing in the sentiments. I mean, what’s next for Time…a public rehab of OJ’s image?
Christopher Hitchens asks in his most recent column “Clueless Joe Wilson”: “How did the CIA’s special envoy miss Zahawie’s trip to Niger?” I dunno…maybe he was too busy drinking sweet mint tea to be bothered by such trivialities such as why he was in freakin’ Niger to begin with! From Hitchens:
Nobody appears to dispute what I wrote in last week’s Slate to the effect that in February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate to non-proliferation conferences at the United Nations, to Niger. Wissam al-Zahawie was, at the time of his visit, the accredited ambassador of Iraq to the Vatican: a more senior post than it may sound, given that the Vatican was almost the only full European embassy that Iraq then possessed. And nobody has proposed an answer to my question: Given the fact that Niger is synonymous with uranium (and was Iraq’s source of “yellowcake” in 1981), and given that Zahawie had been Iraq’s main man in nuclear diplomacy, what innocent explanation can be found for his trip?
I’m sure it was one great big coincidink! Continuing:
Once again, the details and implications of Zahawie’s own IAEA background are ignored (as they were in the IAEA’s own report to the United Nations about the forged Italian documents that were later circulated about Zahawie’s visit). In the same press interviews to which Wilson alludes (and which I cited last week), Zahawie went a bit further than saying that uranium was “not on his agenda.” He claimed not to know that Niger produced uranium at all! You may if you wish choose to take that at face value—along with his story that all he was trying to do was violate sanctions on flights to Iraq. Joseph Wilson appears to be, as they say, “comfortable” with that explanation.
And it’s true that the two men knew each other during the Gulf crisis of 1990-1991. Indeed, in his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson records Zahawie as having been in the room, as under-secretary for foreign affairs, during his last meeting with Saddam Hussein. (Quite a senior guy for a humble mission like violating flight-bans from distant Niger and Burkina Faso.) I cite this because it is the only mention of Zahawie that Wilson makes in his entire narrative.
In other words (I am prepared to keep on repeating this until at least one cow comes home), Joseph Wilson went to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether or not the country had renewed its uranium-based relationship with Iraq, spent a few days (by his own account) sipping mint tea with officials of that country who were (by his wife’s account) already friendly to him, and came back with the news that all was above-board. Again to repeat myself, this must mean either that A) he did not know that Zahawie had come calling or B) that he did know but didn’t think it worth mentioning that one of Saddam’s point men on nukes had been in town. In neither case, it seems to me, should he be trusted with another mission that requires any sort of curiosity.
Bush lied, eh? Nah…Wilson did:
Wilson has had to alter his story so many times—he first denied that the CIA had anything to do with selecting him for the Niger mission and later claimed that he had exposed a forgery that wasn’t disclosed until after he returned—that the mind reels at having to reread his conceited book.
As Hitchens notes about Wilson, “It seems that your contacts in the Niger Ministry of Mines—the ones that your wife told the CIA made you such a good choice for the trip—didn’t rate you highly enough to tell you about the Zahawie visit. It would, interestingly, have been a name you already knew. But you didn’t even get as far as having to explain it away—or not until last week—because you were that far in the dark.” True, Hitch, he was indeed…but why let a little thing like that get in the way of being an MSM darling?
Those of you who were optimistic about Hamas being elected recently: Do you still feel that way? From the AP:
A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant in a bustling area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing nine other people and wounding dozens in the deadliest Palestinian attack in more than a year.
The new Palestinian government, led by Hamas, called the attack a legitimate response to Israeli “aggression.” Israel said it held Hamas ultimately responsible — even though a different militant group, Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility — and would respond “as necessary.”
It wasn’t at a military recruitment center or police station or anywhere else where they could try to point to Israeli soldiers or cops as their targets. No, this time they just decided to abandon false pretenses and blow up a restaurant and such vile patrons as this:
Witness Israel Yaakov said the blast killed a woman standing near her husband and children.
“The father was traumatized. He went into shock. He ran to the children to gather them up and the children were screaming, ‘Mom! Mom!’ and she wasn’t answering. She was dead already … It’s a shocking scene,” Yaakov said.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad are one and the same, and both must be dealt with in the same way….and it ain’t with a group hug and free falafel!
In case I don’t post anything between now and Easter (a distinct possibility), may you all have a wonderful Easter weekend. With thanks to Lady Heather of Suburbia for this hilarious Easter graphic:
Neolibertarianism is a political philosophy combining elements of libertarian and conservative thought that embraces incrementalism and pragmatism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest, national defense and the expansion of freedom.
Neolibertarianism holds that the best form of national government is one that promotes liberty (free markets and civil liberties) and strong national defense policies, including the use of pre-emptive military engagements only if it is a threat to freedoms and a danger to the nation. It also holds that the federal government should concern itself with these issues above all others, while leaving nearly every other issue to more local political entities: state/provincial and municipal governments, communities, and individuals.
Neolibertarians are sometimes described as “pro-capitalist conservatives” or “libertarians who support the War on Terror.” Some libertarian celebrities that fit into this neolibertarian category include talk radio personality Larry Elder and comedian Dennis Miller.
You should read the whole page, since it’s not very long. It is, however, highly descriptive.
I didn’t really see anything there with which I disagreed. Perhaps now, those folks who think that I am not a “true” libertarian might see that they are possibly correct: I may just be a neo-libertarian.
Either way, liberalism still sucks harder than Barney Frank (or recent visitor Buster) on a Key West cruise line!
Let’s say you’re at work and your neighbor calls you, telling you that your house is on fire. You hang up immediately and call the fire department, telling them that your neighbor informed you that your house is burning down. The fire department races over there, only to find that it’s not on fire. Were you lying?
Of course not! You were going on someone else’s information, and you made a decision to address the crisis. According to the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy), though, you actually DID lie! From Powerline:
As Paul noted earlier today, the Washington Post’s story this morning on the mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq was highly misleading. (The Post reported, as if it were an expose, that one team that was sent to examine the purported mobile labs reported that they were not intended to produce biological weapons. But buried deep in the Post’s story is the fact that three teams examined the trailers, and two of the three thought that they were indeed intended for bioweapon production.) But ABC, on today’s Good Morning America, went the Post one better, twisting the Post’s already-deceptive story into a “Bush lied” claim:
They’d found a couple trailers that he said actually were the mobile biological laboratories that he said showed that they were indeed developing WMD, and The Washington Post has a story today that says the President knew at the time that was not true.
Actually, the Post story doesn’t say anything of the sort. What it says is, “even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.” This is based on the fact that on May 27, 2003, the field team that examined the trailers transmitted to Washington its preliminary field report expressing the minority view (at the time) that the trailers were innocuous. Only later did the group submit its official report to the same effect.
The very next day, May 28, 2003, the CIA and DIA publicly issued a ten-page report titled “Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants.” You can download the report here. The joint CIA/DIA report unequivocally and enthusiastically proclaimed the mobile trailers that had been discovered in Iraq to be mobile bioweapon facilities. It included photographs of the trailers, descriptions of various components, comparisons of the trailers to descriptions given by Iraqi informants. The report said:
Coalition forces have uncovered the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program. … US forces in late April also discovered a mobile laboratory truck in Baghdad. The truck is a toxicology laboratory from the 1980s that could be used to support BW or legitimate research. The design, equipment, and layout of the trailer found in late April is strikingly similar to descriptions provided by a source who was a chemical engineer that managed one of the mobile plants.
[W]e nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant because of the source’s description, equipment, and design.
The next day, May 29, 2003, President Bush gave an interview to a Polish television station in which he said:
We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.
It is obvious that when President Bush said on May 29 that two mobile bioweapon facilities had been found, he was accurately repeating what the CIA and DIA had not only told him privately, but had publicly reported to the American people, just the day before. There is no reason to assume that President Bush had any knowledge of a preliminary field report, representing a then-minority view, that had been shipped back to Washington only 48 hours before; nor would such a preliminary report of a minority view have justified ABC’s claim–even had Bush become aware of it–that “the President knew at the time that was not true.”
We are living through an extraordinary era, in which our principal news media have little regard for truth, and have dedicated themselves monomaniacally to destroying the President of the United States and his administration.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Sometimes I like Rummy. Sometimes I do not. This is one of those occasions where I do like him. Dialogue with a Beltway press corpse (yes, I spelled it “corpse” on purpose, since they’re a dying irrelevant breed):
REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, November of ’01, the president, according to several books that you haven’t disputed, said start planning…
RUMSFELD: You think I’m going to stand around reading your books and disputing things in them or validating or not validating? I’ve got a real daytime job. (Ouch! – Ed.) I mean, you’d do nothing else but that if you did that. The fact that I haven’t disputed something, I mean, if I disputed all the mythology that comes out of this group and the books of the world, I wouldn’t have any time to do anything else.
Translation: “I have no interest in either validating or disputing you morons’ tabloidal leftist bullsh#t, so you’ll have to forgive me for not taking you seriously. Some of us actually work for a living, and in a respectable profession, too! You should give it a whirl someday!”
I hear Aloe works well on a freshly tanned backside, Mr. Reporter…but I wouldn’t know.
More jobs have been created in the last 3 years than in quite some time. However, New York state (represented by two Democrat U.S. Senators in DC) has actually lost jobs. Her Highness ran in 2000 promising 200,000 new jobs. Instead, NY has lost about 112,000 jobs.
The reason? Yep, you guessed it: it’s George Bush’s fault. Well, Republicans in general. From Newsmax:
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is telling upstate New Yorkers that the reason she hasn’t delivered on her 2000 campaign promise to create 200,000 new jobs for the region is because Republicans control the federal government.
Asked about her jobs failure, Mrs. Clinton told the Syracuse Post-Standard: “I didn’t have the benefit of a Democratic Congress. But I think given the fact that that wasn’t the environment that I’d hoped for, we’ve seen some progress.”
In fact, New York State has actually lost 112,000 jobs since sending Mrs. Clinton to Washington, according to the Public Policy Institute in Albany.
In an interview with the Utica Observer Dispatch, the former first lady also sought to deflect blame away from her upstate jobs performance, saying: “The fiscal and economic policies that are now pursued are not good for the whole country, but are particularly hard on upstate.”
What a Catch-22 for Her Highness, huh? She can’t give Bush any credit for all of the new jobs added in the humming economy, but she can blame him for the jobs LOST in said humming economy? Nice try, Shrillary. You can’t have it both ways…who do you think you are, John F’ing Kerry?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett