October 31, 2007
*Hi morons, I've put the rest of the series below the jump!
From my cold, dead, greasy hands!
They say any smoked, cured or salted meat is likely to cause cancer and should be avoided at all costs, as it will increase the likelyhood of colon cancer. So keep that in mind all you Southerners, they're coming for your sweet, smoky BBQ. The Nannies are beginning to fire up the war machine. Get ready. This is why we have a Second Amendment.
Hands off our bacon, Nanny-Staters!
You know what would make me really happy, if they released some damn DVDs or posted web based MST3K channels of the originals, or something akin to this site for South Park, but official and better quality. That. Would. Fucking. Rock. MST3K has been gone for too damn long.
October 30, 2007
It starts off by talking about the palpable frustration that conservatives had during the Reagan years due to the fact that it was extraordinarily difficult to air conservative views and interpretation of events. She goes on to talk about Rush, and the rise of talk radio, and then the rise of Fox News.
These were positive developments because it finally gave conservatives an outlet where they weren't looked at by leftist media elite like a menagerie of bizarre, savage creatures on an episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
Great right? But here's where RWS' concern starts,
But what I see now is beginning to bother me. It bothers me that Fox News has become exclusively leaning to the right and CNN has become exclusively leaning to the left. I fear we will become completely divided in our news. With half the country hearing the left spin and half hearing the right spin.
We're heading in that direction, and its not about to stop. We've been long overdue for it to happen. Truth is, there has long been a partisan element to the media . Our nation's early newspapers were fiercely partisan, though that level of intensity had dropped over time as papers became more professional, however they largely maintained their partisan nature.
We had an arguably objective media in the middle of the twentieth century, largely because most people were on a similar note politically, as well as the unifying effect WWII had on the public, that's obviously changed, but its where a lot of people get this false notion of an objective media.
It seems to me that journalistic integrity is a thing of the past. Reporters are more interested in putting their own personal agendas forward than just reporting the story.
This isn't gonna change anytime soon either, any chance for that to change went out the window when Al Gore created the Intartubes. Now anyone can report the news anyway they wish, and read sites, news, opinion and information that will only reinforce their beliefs. The only thing we can do is to offer the truth, and I would say we do, much more than the left does in the MSM and the sinistrosphere.
The difference in Fox News is that with people like Hannity or O'Reilly, you know where they are coming from. They make it clear what their political leanings are. You can take their shows for what they are, their opinions from a more conservative view. Dan Rather is the poster boy for what drove us all crazy. Newsmen/women hiding who they are. He, like the other network anchors, pretended (and pretend) to be unbiased, when in reality they were/are putting their own leftwing spin on the news.
People were sick of it, which is why Fox News is so popular.
Its a charade, the left took over traditional media, and the right has had to play catch up in creating its own media. The left has the huge advantage of holding all the old apparatus. They have chosen not to declare their obvious bias because conventional wisdom still to a degree says traditional media is objective, they know that as soon as they admit bias, they lose an even bigger market share than they already have.
I can't say I blame them for continuing the charade, what else do they have? They are losing conservatives in huge numbers, their old viewers are dying, their potential future audience geets their news from DailyKos, HuffPo and DU, they have no future.
By denying their bias, they slow down the realignment process a little, traditional media still has sway over older people and those who aren't at all news savvy.
But we are divided enough as a nation. We don't need our news to be.
I disagree, we've never needed a partisan media more than we do now in this country, the sooner we finish the realignment, the better.
What can be done about it? You tell me.
Nothing. Resistance is Futile.
October 29, 2007
in order to learn some basics on surviving an undead uprising.
The number one most important thing to remember is,
That's right, Aim for the head!
October 28, 2007
What they do is freeze-dry your loved one with liquid nitrogen and shake them until they break up into powder, except for any dental fillings (they still do those?) or surgical implants, which are picked up by a magnet.
The first reason they want to do this is that Brits are running low on burial grounds for full burial. The second is because cremation lets off emissions, and can also let off mercury from fillings, and those emissions fall under UK environmental regulation, and the cost of the special filters required would be prohibitive for many places that cremate bodies.
For now, its being considered by British government officials as an alternative for burial and cremation, as those are the only two legal ways to put someone to rest.
Have we really come to the point in our global warming hysteria that we're actually considering turning our deceased into human Space Food Sticks? Give me strength.
October 26, 2007
I copied this from the HA link,
Providing Financial Assistance for Ayaan Hirsi Aliâ€™s Security Detail
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Dutch parliamentarian and an outspoken defender of womenâ€™s rights in Islamic societies, is at risk from a variety of extremist threats in both Europe and the United States. She has needed constant security protection since her life was originally threatened in 2002. Up until October 1, 2007, this protection was provided by the Dutch government.
Now a permanent resident of the United States and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Ms. Hirsi Ali must raise her own funds to finance her costlyâ€”but necessaryâ€”protection. In response to the numerous private citizens who have expressed interest in helping Ms. Hirsi Ali fund her security detail, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust has been established.
The preferred and most immediate way to assist Ms. Hirsi Ali in the financing of her private security protection is through the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust. This private trust fund can accept non-tax deductible donations from within the United States and internationally, and is entirely dedicated to financing Ms. Hirsi Aliâ€™s security.
Checks should be made payable to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust and sent to:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust
Bank of Georgetown
1054 31st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Trust Tax Identification Number: 75-6826872
Thank you for your interest in assisting Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
For more information please contact: John Matteo (email@example.com) or Mackenzie McNaughton (firstname.lastname@example.org), representatives for Ms. Hirsi Ali. Telephone: 202-457-1600
Wire Transfer information
Account Name: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust
Account Number: 1010054748
Bank of Georgetown
1054 31st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Bank Telephone: 202-355-1200
Bank Routing Number: 054001712
If you can help, that would kick ass.
She'll break her wrist, you say!
I say, a broken wrist beats getting Treadwell'd.
Brown Bear Says: Nom Nom Nom
That said, let's look at his apology, titled "The Blogoshpere reacts." Yes, I spelled that correctly, I copied it directly from his blog. He's a reporter after all, he knows these things.
The response to one of my earlier posts, headlined â€œSimply Simpatico,â€ caught me off guard â€” further evidence of my naivete when it comes to the blogging world. My modest blog about my experiences in Iraq â€” that I assumed would only garner interest among family and friends â€” caused quite a stir.
Dude, its the intarweb, people go to every corner of it looking for stupid crap. They hit a jackpot when someone found your site. Did it ever occur to you that maybe someone went to the Asian-American Journalist Association's Sacramento page and found a link to your site? This may sound shocking, but there probably are Asian journalists who have respect for the Armed Forces or for their own trade.
From AAJA's site(the link above),
BOBBY TO BAGHDADBobby Caina Calvan, a reporter for The Sacramento Bee, will be serving a tour of duty in the Baghdad bureau of McClatchy Newspapers, the Bee's parent company. He is expected to be in Iraq for six weeks. Calvan is a member of the AAJA Sacramento board. To catch up on his adventures in Iraq, visit his blog at http://blog.calvan.net/ . He bids everyone a fond ma'as-salaama.
I should note on the AAJA's blurb, "A tour of duty"? I don't think I've ever heard BillINDC, Yon, or any of the other guys who go over refer to their stints as "a tour of duty."
It was one of only a few pages that came up when I was looking for a cache of your pathetic screeds yesterday, so I consider that a possible source. Of course, someone could have just typed in your name from an article you wrote and found it too, probably.
By the way, this blog was never sanctioned by my employers, The Sacramento Bee and the McClatchy Co. It was meant to be a private blog that chronicled my experiences in Iraq and a way for me to express my personal thoughts. Again, it was meant for friends and family â€” to save me the trouble of responding to every e-mail I would get. I should have made this blog private â€” and judging from the response Iâ€™ve gotten, I should consider such a move.
You probably should put a big disclaimer across your banner saying that. Not that it matters, you pretty much follow the exact stereotype people on the right have towards journalists, and the fact that we know what we know alone hurts the Sacramento Bee.
As for going private...awww, that's no fun, we won't get to watch how your little mind processes the latest propaganda piece for the MSM.
Yes, Iâ€™m obviously new to blogging. Sometimes I share too much. The blogosphere has reacted and pointed out my folly. Yes, I can be pushy. Arrogant, too. I can also be wrong.
Consider this my apology.
Nah, I think you shared juuuust enough. I'd say you aren't pushy, you've got enough arrogance for a dozen. As for your apology, I'm guessing that's a "sorry I got caught," apology.
Overwhelmed by the e-mails, many of them vitriolic, I initially edited the post, then blocked further comments. Finally, I took down the site. Unfortunately, my actions were yet another faux pas, I was told; I should have left up the post and created a new one to share my reactions and issue an apology.
Thank you blogosphere for getting him to put the site back up so we could cache/screencap it. You almost got away with it, you bastard. Thank God you're such an ignorant rube. Though I will say, it generally is true, you should leave up what you wrote, or if you have to edit it, note that you're editing it, and apologize for what you effed up on or explain why.
Yes, I am getting well-deserved criticism. But surprisingly, not all of the subsequent e-mails I got were vitriolic. Some were thoughtful. A few gave good advice.
There are many fine men and women serving in Iraq. There is no doubt about that. Iâ€™ve spoken to quite a few of them in my brief time in Baghdad. They have done their best to help many of us do our jobs. It is an environment that is extremely stressful and challenging.
Yeah, you haven't been there long and you're already sneering at people, what happens after a few months when you aren't as fresh, you're tired and worn, homesick, are you gonna be able to remember that...I have my doubts, but we'll see.
The soldier at the checkpoint to whom I referred to in my earlier blog was doing his job. That much I do know. I was trying to do mine. In the end, he let me and my security guy in â€” after rightly taking the necessary steps to verify our identities.
And what is your job, Mr. Calvan? That's the real question here, can you be trusted to tell the truth in your reporting, or are you there with an agenda. Do you really respect the Armed Forces, or do you only respect them when you're in trouble?
My blog should not have upbraided the soldier. My personal reflections â€” ramblings, if you will â€” about the incident should have been kept private.
Your blog didn't "upbraid" the soldier, asshole, you did. As for your personal reflections, nah, I think they shouldn't have been private, I'm glad you put what you are out there. It looks to me you're more sorry you got caught than you are sorry for being an elitist dickhead.
Perhaps any future incarnation of this blog should be private, too.
October 25, 2007
I'm also wondering Keith, What's it like to have to rely on listening to Bill Hick's Arizona Bay on loop while quietly rocking under an office desk to achieve an erection?
After the jump.
*I will note, the Mary Katherine Gallagher sketch deserves the dishonorable mention it got, God I hated that effin' sketch! My point still stands though.
October 24, 2007
SHOCK DOCS: THE NEW REPUBLIC 'SHOCK TROOPS' STORY COLLAPSES
WED Oct 24 2007 12:29:44 ET
The DRUDGE REPORT has optained internal documents from the investigation of THE NEW REPUBLIC'S "Baghdad Diarist", Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private turned war correspondent who reported tales of military malfeasance from the Iraq War front.
The documents appear to expose that once the veracity of Beauchamp's diaries were called into question, and an Army investigation ensued, THE NEW REPUBLIC has failed to publicly account for publishing slanderous falsehoods about the U.S. military in a time of war.
Document 1: Beauchamp Refuses to Stand by Story (Beauchamp Transcript Part 1)
THE NEW REPUBLIC has been standing behind the stories from their Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, since questions were first raised about their accuracy over the summer. On August 10, the editors at TNR accused the Army of "stonewalling" their investigation into the stories by preventing them from speaking with Beauchamp. The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that "I just want it to end. I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything really." The editors respond that "we just can't, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece" without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he "doesn't care what the public thinks." The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.
Document 2: Beauchamp Admits to "Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations" (Beauchamp Transcript Part 2)
The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed "Memorandum for Record" in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army's investigation -- that his stories contained "gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct" by his fellow soldiers.
Document 3: Army Investigation: Tales "Completely Fabricated," Beauchamp Wanted to be Hemingway
The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army's official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had "completely fabricated" the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a "Saddam-era dumping ground" was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was "completely unfounded." Further the report stated "that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway."
The report concludes that "Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional accounts that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption."
Complete collapse, now we have confirmation of it.
Odd, its gone now. Did he get a cease and desist?
Yep, but only for straight people, Singapore is of course known for its strict codes of conduct, and this is apparently part of one of the biggest reforms of those laws in two decades.
Thanks to Malor at AoS.
October 22, 2007
Now, I'm fine with them testing this, if the person in the doctors office is told what the test is and gives full consent. This test, if given without clear consent and awareness of what the test is, is an invasion of privacy along the lines of this story, where Doctors are using children to spy on their parents to see if they own firearms or drink, some of them then chastising parents for their choices, and some even going as far as trying to send police to investigate parents who owned LEGAL firearms!
There needs to be serious change, doctors are becoming far too intrusive, and trying to take on advocacy beyond what they should. I realize that this test is going to lose much, maybe most of its effectiveness by making consent a requisite, but honestly, people don't know that regular smoking is seriously dangerous?
I don't buy it, and I don't buy that people don't know that smoking tobacco introduces carbon monoxide to their body...from the site cigarettewarninglabels.com, it says the following,
SURGEON GENERALâ€™S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.
I've seen this on packs of smokes, and other than the very occasional cigar, I don't smoke. So the idea that people don't know that carbon monoxide enters your body when you smoke is ludicrous. This is about outing a behavior that is unhealthy, and unaccepted in society. If a doctor was aggressively prying into someone's sex life when it was clear the patient didn't want to discuss it, we'd be rightly angered. This is no different.
Hotair has been covering this, Slublog has been writing about this too, most of this chastisement has been toward the religious right leadership for threatening to walk. While before I thought it was 50/50 it was theatrics to drive the GOP candidates right, I'm now guessing its 65% that they'll bail, at least the leadership, I'm not convinced that a huge number of popular religious right will follow suit...yet. I could be convinced of it, but I'm not sure yet.
That said, I firmly believe that the anger at the religious right is misdirected. While I think their tactic is a mistake, I understand it, and in some odd way, I respect it. That said, there is a fury amongst the non-social conservatives at the social cons over this threat to walk. Conventional wisdom among most says the religious right are being unreasonable, that they're acting like a bunch of spoiled children who are threatening to take their ball and go home.
There's a grain of truth to that, but there is something deeper, and nobody is asking this question, what prompted this sudden need for absolute loyalty?
The answer, I believe, is that this is a result of years of selling out of conservative principles that we've experienced from the GOP leadership. The GOP leadership has betrayed nearly every conservative principle in recent years, through its insane overspending, its squishiness in resisting the left, large growth of government, and in my mind, what really set this off, the attempted GOP betrayal during the Amnesty Debacle.
Lets focus on the first issues, spending and gov't growth, and go back to Amnesty later. These issues came up early in the Bush years, while the tax cuts were great, they only do so much when you're not reducing spending at all, and in the case of Bush and the Congress in the past few years, spending like drunken sailors and growing government.
But the combination of Bush's popularity boost as a result of 9/11, the distraction that 9/11 caused, and the newfound love affair with Values Voters, those conservatives either found themselves pushed to the back, or kept quiet while we focused on the response to the jihadis and let Bush and Congress slide. That anger has been festering, and may have contributed to losses in '06.
Now to Amnesty, which was the last straw. The regular people that make up the party are overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty, but the elite favor a wink/nudge "security" policy, amnesty and open borders, they will do whatever they can to make that the default position in the GOP platform, and will sell out as necessary to make it happen.
Placing Mel Martinez as the chair of the RNC was just one strong indication of this, and a big fuck you message to the popular conservative movement, beyond that, the vicious attacks on those who opposed this summers' Amnesty bill.
As a result, principled conservatives OF ALL STRIPES are at war with our own GOP leadership.
The social cons see this eager selling out by the GOP leadership on spending, on immigration(and all the other issues that follow), and many other issues, and they know they're the last group that hasn't been totally sold out, and they aren't gonna get screwed like everyone else.
Which is where this fixation on loyalty comes from, nobody trusts anyone anymore.
The other conservatives had to take a backseat while the social cons and the issues and political aftermath of 9/11 took priority, they had to sacrifice. From their perspective, they sacrificed, turned a blind eye to the selling out of their principles to keep the Dems out, now its the social cons turn.
Except that isn't what happened. Oh, the fiscal/libertarian cons sacrificed, but this wasn't about temporary sacrifice so that they could get what they wanted later(that's what they thought they were getting), this was about the corrupt GOP elite trying to fundamentally change conservatism.
So now we have a situation like the ending of Reservoir Dogs. The 2006 elections were botched, and now we're seeing the aftermath. Mr. Orange is the GOP elite, they got hit in the ensuing chaos of 2006, and laid out in the warehouse. We have a standoff between the different factions of the GOP coalition, pissed off, on edge, blaming each other for everything that went wrong, and their fingers are on the triggers, Hillary, playing Mr. Pink, is ready to run off with the diamonds. I think that's the situation we could be facing, and if you've heard about or seen the movie, you know where I'm going with this. Video of the ending below the jump...
* I should note, language and violence warning!
October 21, 2007
The line of tonight's debate was McCain's "I was tied up at the time" line, while talking about Woodstock. As much as he can grate on me in politics sometimes, the fact that he could suffer that way, and still have a sense of humor about it speaks to his character. He might not be the guy to be president, but he's a hero, and he, his selfless service and suffering in Hanoi Hilton stands in stark contrast to the epitome of self-serving indulgence of the hippies at Woodstock. So God bless McCain.
As for the analysis, Rudy is still on top, he did well, and he'll be tough to dislodge, not much to add to that, really.
Fred did well, he was the wild card, he knew it was make or break, and he made it, whether the haters can bring themselves to admit it or not, and he's gonna move up to a solid 2nd and will be nipping at Rudy's heels soon. He showed the energy he desperately needed to, and spoke well, which was critical.
Fred made a smart move(whether he meant to or not) by focusing on Rudy in the beginning, even after the moderators GAVE him a second chance to take a swipe at Mitt, Fred didn't do it and hit Rudy again, it squeezed Mitt out, and pushed Mitt into a second tier fight with McCain on war policy, and McCain has an Absolute Moral Authority Card(well earned one, of course). If Fred maintains a solid campaign at the level he performed tonight, he'll give Rudy a run for his money by Primary.
McCain started rough and weak in his opening statements, but quickly recovered, and did well and is rebuilding himself at least in conservative opinion. He's not gonna win because of his "maverick" positions on too many key issues and tendency to rebel against his own natural base of support and the old bad blood from it, but I would not be surprised to see Fred or Rudy start talking about offering him a cabinet position.
Romney: I can has Raygun Legusee?
Romney was the biggest loser tonight (other than RonPaul), I don't know if he hurt himself, but he didn't help himself, and he's about to get swallowed up by Rudy and Fred unless he fights for his seat at the table, that was obvious. He was just off today, he had good moments, spoke well, but there was just something that was off.
Huck was the second loser tonight, he was picking up momentum and had a chance to push into first tier, its gone, between Fred making a solid advance, and his poor tonight, I think he's locked into the strongest second tier till he's finished in primaries. He might be VP material, he's a decent speaker, if Romney wasn't in the game, he'd be first tier.
Tanc did okay, he did the smart thing and didn't try to pull everything back to immigration, which hurt him and the issue last time. He said some good things and made a decent contribution, its obvious he ain't presidential material, but he knows that, and we do too, he's trying to drag the debate right.
Hunter did about as well as Tanc, a good contributor, a little more likeable on a personal level. I still disagree with him on trade issues, but he's solid on immigration and the war, and he's okay in my book, not Presidential, but he'd be a decent cabinet guy.
RonPaul...crank, but he was a smidge less shrill and loud in his crazed rants, so that's a plus...I guess?
October 20, 2007
61 queries taking 0.1937 seconds, 181 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.