Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 April
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Right Here, Buddy! |
| 07.26.04 (5:03 pm) [edit] |
|
FUTURE FIRST LADY CALLS FOR MORE CIVIL TONE IN POLITICS, THEN TELLS REPORTER TO SHOVE IT... At a Massachusetts statehouse reception, Teresa Heinz Kerry was telling those in attendance that "We need need to do well in Pennsylvania. We need to turn back some of the creeping un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that have come into our politics." After Ms. Heinz-Kerry's address, a reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Colin McNickle asked Ms. Heinz-Kerry to clarify what she meant by "un-American." Ms. Heinz-Kerry repeatedly stated "I didn't say that." A few minutes later Ms. Heinz-Kerry confronted McNickle and told him "You said something that I didn't say, now SHOVE IT!" you can watch the video here http://www.thepittsburghchann... Now, folks, I'm not going to get all puritan on you, if she had told an obnoxious reporter to kiss her hind-quarters, I'd be backing her up. The fact is, she DID make a statement referring to "un-American traits that have come into our politics. The fact is, Mr. McNickle simply asked her to clarify what she meant by "un-American," and she refused to explain what she said, almost denying making the statement. The fact is, she confronted the reporter later on and told him to "shove it, again saying she didn't make the comment. Today, everyone from her husband right on down the Hildabeast is defending Ms. Heinz-Kerry, saying "Who HASN'T felt like telling a reporter to 'SHOVE IT?.'" That isn't the issue here. The issue is that she made a statement, then refused to clarify her statement, and almost denied making the statement at all. This, my friends, is a classic example of the 'ol bait and switch. Dodge the issue, redirect the public's attention to something else. "Mr. Kerry, what are your feelings on gay marriage?" "Well, you know, I served in Vietnam...." "Mr. Kerry, how do you feel about one of your campaign workers removing documents from the National Archives?" "Wow, the timing of this leak is really interesting, isn't it?" Hate to sound like a broken record, but what if Laura Bush had said that liberals are all bed-wetters, denied saying it, then told a reporter to get bent? No more blogs until next week, going on vacation. Until then..... |
| S.O.S.-D.D. |
| 07.22.04 (4:32 pm) [edit] |
|
So the highly anticipated 9/11 Commission Report came out today. The Commission's finding, "We need more government." Surprise, surprise. More government fixes everything. Except that it usually doesn't. You want to stop the terrorist problem? Here's the answer, racial profiling. Every one of the hi-jackers on 9/11 was of Arab origin. Since 1976, EVERY terrorist attack against the US except one has been perpetrated by people of Arab origin. The lone exception was the OKC bombing. Instead of spending our time frisking 90 year old granny in a wheel chair and taking the gun from some kids GI Joe action figure, lets spend our time investigating those who look like they're Arab. If you're innocent, fine. Hop on board. Will that offend some people? Probably. Do I care? As I said before, EVERY TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST THE US.... One line I loved from the 9/11 Commision's press conference was the statement that these Islamists have perverted "one of the world's great religions..." HAH! With all due respect to the Almighty Allah, you know what else all those terrorists had in common? You guessed it, they did it in the name of Allah. Those people cutting the heads off hostages? They ain't Baptists. Those guys that burned and desecrated the bodies of four Americans in Fallujah, and danced and celebrated around their corpses, not Jewish. The followers of "one of the world's great religions" are almost single-handedly responsible for the phenomenon of terriorism today. I don't hear about Christian terrorist suicide bombers, or Jewish terrorists taking hostages and threatening to cut their heads off. Nor do I hear about Buddhist terrorists crashing airplanes into buildings, or see Hindu terrorists waving AK-47s triumphantly over their heads while standing over dead American bodies. All of that has been done in the name of Islam. Sandy Berger is a bigger deal that the media has let on. National Archive employees noticed some papers were missing from his first visits and to mark the pages he was interested in viewing. At the end of the day, the employees saw that the document they had marked were missing. Berger has also admitted that he "inadvertenly took" 40-50 documents. Berger also he was in, saying he had to make personal phone calls. The same monitors also reportedly witnessed Berger stuffing papers into his socks. Now, I'm not going to say that I believe he was stuffing paper in his socks, but inadvertenly removing "40-50" pages? Please. Of course, his willing compadres in the media are more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Can you imagine? "Mr. Bush, Mr. Bush, can you explain the sudden disappearance of information related to your DUI 30 years ago?" "Hmmm...I'd chalk it up to sloppiness." Yeah, that'd fly. |
| Time Out |
| 07.21.04 (4:55 pm) [edit] |
|
Well, I don't really feel like pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal media (like why a former Clinton cabinet member and ex-Kerry campaign staffer is given a free pass by them, and the "timing of the leak" instead is focused on), or lobbying for Michael Moore to be cast as a Hutt in the upcoming Star Wars Episode III (do we have a name for that one yet? I need an abbreviation like ANH, ESB, RotJ, AotC, SPC, etc.) Sorry kids, you'll have to get your political fix tomorrow. Today, we're going to talk about driving, specifically etiquette and courtesy to your fellow drivers. 1) The Passing Lane. For those of you who are not aware, the left lane is for passing. If you are not passing a slower car, you should NOT be in the left lane. It doesn't matter if you're on a four lane highway or eight lane freeway. If you are driving in the left lane and cars are passing you on the right, you are creating an unsafe condition. A faster car, in order to get around you, has to move over to the right, cutting in front of other cars to avoid your slow ass, backing up traffic. Or they simply have to slow down and wait for you to catch the hint that you need to get out of the way. You are not the police, it is not your job to enforce the speed limit. If you want to drive 70 mph, fine. I usually only do about 75 or so on the interstate. But if some guy is flying down the interstate doing 90, it isn't your job to slow him down, you're just creating a hazard for the thousands of other drivers out there. Move over and let the guy go. Let the cops catch him, that's what we pay them for. If you aren't aware that the left lane is for passing, then you shouldn't be driving at all. 2) Turn signals. Use them. I don't know why your dumb ass is slamming on your brakes. For all I know, you just ran over a cat and will soon resume safe driving speeds. A turn signal says "please be aware that I will be slowing." Turn signals aren't just for turning, they also come in handy for changing lanes on the interstate. Addendum: for those who turn on their signals IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN. If you've already hit your brakes and are at a 45 degree angle to traffic, I can tell you're turning already. There's no sense in turning it on now. If you just realized you're going to miss your turn, don't try to make it. Just continue on and find a place to turn around. Old people, once you've turned or switched lanes or pulled out of the Shoney's parking lot, you can go ahead and turn OFF your signal. 3) Smokers. Keep your butt in the car. I don't mean that thing you use to cushion your brain, I mean that filthy thing you stick in your mouth. You don't drive down the road and chuck Coke cans out the window when you're finished with it, do you? Why do it with a cigarette butt. Your car already stinks, what's a little butt going to do? 4)Headlights. When dark, turn them on. Not the little orange ones, the big round white ones. The little orange ones are PARKING LIGHTS, they are not "it-isn't-quite-dark-enou gh-for-headlights lights." If its raining, turn them on. If its raining really hard, I can't see your ass, unless you're in a Day-Glo orange car. The rain and cloudy skies tend to wash out the outline of your car and your tail/head lights are the only way other drivers can tell there's something solid in front of them. If its raining so hard that you can't see, don't keep driving. Get off the road. Driving 25 mph on the interstate with your headlights off tends to make me a little cranky, because I can't see you until your rear bumper has been fused with my front one. You don't have to turn on your hazard lights while driving in the rain, that's just stupid. If, for some reason, you just HAVE to stay on the interstate at a (greatly) reduced speed, see rule #1. 5) When parking, don't wait for that guy five spaces up to load his trunk with groceries, buckle his kid in the car seat, adjust his mirrors, check his fluids, buckle his seatbelt, call his wife on the cell, then back out. In the time you waited for that guy to back out, you could have already parked and walked in. Just bite the bullet, park a little further away, and walk. You need the exercise anyway, fatass. 6) Firearms are usually involved in about 2% of all accidental deaths. Automobiles are involved in about 47%. We require people to go through a background check and waiting period to buy a handgun. We require them to undergo training to get a permit to carry said firearm, and can only carry them in certain states. We give 16 and 17 year olds a 20 question exam and a driving test (the practical applications of which will be forgotten, oh, by the time the kid gets out of the DMV parking lot), and if they pass, give 'em a license to drive a Chevy Suburban or Ford Expedition...FOREVER. No retraining, no driver education, nothing. 16 year olds should be limited to 2,000 lbs or 4 cylinders. That's it folks. I'm just tired of griping about John Kerry. Don't worry, my fervor shall be renewed on the morrow! |
| The Bad, The Good |
| 07.20.04 (9:11 am) [edit] |
|
[b]The Bad[/b] Well, a high ranking government official (HRGO) is under investigation for removing highly classified documents pertaining to the President's handling of certain terrorist activities. The official has admitted that he knowingly removed hand-written notes by placing them in his pockets, and also "inadvertently" removed classified documents in a leather portfolio, despite rules prohibiting their removal from the National Archives. The problem is, the "high ranking government official" is actually an ex-HRGO. He's former Clinton (the afore-mentioned "President) national security advisor Sandy Berger. Berger, coincidentally, is also serving as an advisor to John Kerry's campaign. So not only do we have a DEMOCRAT removing classified TERRORISM documents, but he is also currently campaigning against George Bush. Strangely, there has been no national outrage, no calls for an immediate investigation of John Kerry's involvement in all this, etc. Maybe we're still too upset over "Girlie Men-gate." Wonder what would have happened if the HGRO was Condi Rice... [b]The Good[/b] From one Hutt to another... Linda Ronstadt, who apparently has been living on a diet of chocloate ice cream and small children, decided to dedicate the song Desperado to The Hutt. She praised Moore as "a great American patriot" who "spreads the 'truth'(you have to put quotes around 'truth' any time you are using that word and Michael Moore's name in the same sentence). As it turns out, some people in the audience didn't appreciate her views and decided to ask for their money back in a not-so-very subtle way. Ronstadt was escorted from the property by hotel management and was told she'd never play that venue again. She wasn't even allowed to return to her suite, hotel security packed up her stuff and brought it down to her. Now this is a free society! You can say what you want, but you better be prepared to deal with the consequences. And for you bed-wetters out there, this is not "censorship." THIS was censorship. |
| Bits N' Peices |
| 07.19.04 (1:01 pm) [edit] |
|
A few things from over the weekend: 1) [i]"So here's what we're going to fight for, and we're going to fight for it every single day, not just through this election, but from the day we win until the day we raise our hands and every day thereafter. You're not going to have to [b]look for us on vacation[/b]. You're going to find us working for America."[/i] --- Kerry Delivers Remarks At Campaign Event, Cleveland, OH, 7/7/04 Here's John Kerry not on vacation. John Kerry has missed more than 80% of the Senate votes this year. Think a Republican would have gotten away with it? 2) Only in America can calling someone a Girlie Man be more offensive than calling someone a Nazi. The Governator called a bunch of California Democrats Girlie Men. Well, that's not correct. The Governator said that if California Congressmen were going to represent Special Interests instead of the people, THEN they were Girlie Men. Funny, though, that the objections weren't "We're not Girlie Men, we DO represent the people," the objections were to being called "Girlie Men." That's sort of like me telling somebody "If you like playing soccer, drinking imported beer, eating tofu and wearing Birkenstocks, you're a fruity-pants Communist" and the person replying "Hey, I'm not a Communist." |
| NAACP - equality for all, as long as they agree with us. |
| 07.17.04 (9:30 am) [edit] |
|
When last we spoke (or you read) we discussed the NAACP's non-partisanship, and how George Bush is a racist because he would only speak with the Urban League, but not the NAACP. Here's part 2, snippets from Chariman Julian Bond's address. [i]“Those were the days when the President picked the Supreme Court and not the other way around.”[/i] That old argument again? The Supreme Court no more selected Bush to be President than Florida voted in favor of Al Gore. That is to say, they didn’t. The US Supreme Court simply ruled that the state of Florida could not recount 4 counties in Florida using a certain set of guidelines to count votes, after using a different set of guidelines to recount all other counties. “[i]So today we have a Chief Justice (Rhenquist) who has consistently opposed school desegregation and an Attorney General who built his political career on lambasting the efforts of the federal courts to desegregate St. Louis and Kansas City schools. As Missouri’s Attorney General and then Governor, John Ashcroft continually attacked the federal courts managing school integration in his state and, when the courts found the state to be ‘the primary constitutional violator,’ he fought to limit the state’s contribution to the remedy the court imposed.”[/i]Chief Justice Rhenquist has NEVER opposed desegregation, but he has opposed force busing (busing black or white children to a school they are not zoned for simply to “promote racial diversity”) I’m not a big fan of this, either, mainly because I had to ride a school bus for 2 hours as a kid (that’s one way, folks) because of forced busing. Bond’s claim against Ashcroft is also false. Ashcroft only opposed Federally mandated forced integration. In my opinion, its one thing to allow white kids and black kids to go to school together (which I whole-heartedly support), its quite another to try and promote diversity, busing kids 10 or 20 miles out of the way to achieve some sort of microcosm of American racial diversity. Again, we seem to worry that every school has black and white kids, but what about Asian, or Hispanic, or Native American kids. I didn’t go to school with many of those, has my education suffered because of it? [i]“The NAACP has always been non-partisan, but that doesn’t mean we’re non-critical. For as long as we’ve existed, whether Democrats or Republicans have occupied the White House, we’ve spoken truth to power.”[/i] Mr. Bond is about to illustrate how “non-partisan” he is. [i]“But the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked the beginning of the dependence of the Republican Party on the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power. By playing the race card in election after election, they’ve appealed to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality. They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division. Apparently they really do think we all look alike – to hear them, Martin Luther King and Clarence Thomas are the same man.”[/i] Let’s recap, shall we? The US Senate voted 73-27 in favor of the Civil Rights Act. SIX Republicans voted against the act. TWENTY ONE Democrats voted against the act, including Albert Gore, Sr. and the Honorable Robert Byrd (whom the Democrats recently referred to as “the conscience of the Senate”) who filibustered for 14 straight hours against the Act. The US House voted 289-126 in favor, with 79 percent of the Republicans in favor, and 63 percent of the Democrats in favor. Where the Civil Rights Act met with resistance, unfortunately, was in my beloved south, which was under control of…Democrats. It was a Republican Federal Judge who desegregated facilities in the South. Boy, those damn Republicans sure do depend on racial division, don’t they? Notice, he didn’t forget to mention Dr. King. [i]“They say giving health care to all Iraqis is sound policy; they say giving health care to all Americans is socialism. If a president lies about having an affair, they say “Impeach him!” If a president lies about going to war, they say “Re-elect him!” If you’re a drug addict on the street, they say it’s a crime, but you’re a right wing radio talk show host, they say it’s an illness. They use our troops for photo ops while cutting veterans’ benefits and combat pay. They operate a perpetual motion attack machine and squeal like stuck pigs if you answer back. Overdosed on testosterone, they’ve descended into the very vulgarity they say they want to keep off the airwaves.”[/i] “They” are Republicans. I don’t remember hearing Republicans calling for health care being given to Iraqis, just an improvement of their existing health care system. It is socialism to take my money to pay for YOUR health care, Mr. Bond. The rest of this is just typical, left-wing spin. Non-partisan left-wing spin, but spin nonetheless. [i]“President Bush chose Martin Luther King’s birthday last year to announce that, even though he admitted society continues to do something special against racial minorities, his administration would not do anything special for them; he opposed the University of Michigan’s efforts to promote diversity among its student body. Bush chose Martin Luther King’s birthday this year to unilaterally elevate Charles Pickering to the federal bench – in the face of Pickering’s hostility to civil rights and leniency to cross burners.”[/i] First of all, the University of Michigan was “promoting diversity” by taking away spots from students who were qualified for admittance and giving it to others who hadn’t simply because of the color of their skin. I’m pretty sure that’s unconstitutional. Charles Pickering has been branded a racist because he opposed voter re-districting to create black-majority districts, which is a form of gerrymandering. He has also been accused of being soft on a cross burner, saying Pickering gave him too lenient a sentence. What really happened, three guys go and burn a cross across the road from a black person’s house. The ringleader, who made a deal with prosecutors, got a light sentence with no jail time. Prosecutors wanted a seven year sentence for one of the other men. Pickering thought it was strange that the instigator got no jail time, and the other guy, who was basically the getaway driver, got such a draconian sentence. Pickering asked the prosecutors to justify the two sentencing statutes they were using and, after failing to answer, dropped 5 years from the sentence they were asking. Pickering then sentenced the man to 27 months in prison, and berated him for his “despicable act” that “cannot and will not be tolerated.” Sheesh, what a racist. [i]“I was afraid to listen to Bush’s speech at the Brown commemoration in Topeka two months ago – afraid he’d announce he was going to repeal the 14 Amendment.”[/i]Nope, no partisanship there. How can ANYONE take this man seriously? [i]“John Kerry accepted our invitation to speak at this convention; President Bush did not. Two days ago, President Bush made his 30th visit to Pennsylvania, his most visited state outside his home territory of Texas, Virginia, and Maryland. Yet he couldn’t come to Pennsylvania to speak to us. No doubt he thinks he’ll take care of colored people by speaking only to our sister organization, the National Urban League.”[/i] So let me get this straight. President Bush refuses to speak at an organization that, as we have illustrated earlier, is openly hostile towards him, instead speaking to your SISTER ORGANIZATION…Ahhh, I give up. [i]“Of course, Vice President Cheney is having trouble speaking at all – they’re still washing his mouth out with soap. He is now known as ‘the Veep of bleep!’”[/i] I liked that one. It was pretty funny. [i]“African-Americans are our nation’s largest racial minority, and will remain so for years to come. Their centrality to victory in 2004 cannot be overlooked or left to last-minute afterthoughts or early November drive-by politics.”[/i] Actually, Hispanics surpassed blacks as the largest ethnic minority in America quite a few years ago. Not that I’m nit-picking. [i] “There’s a poignant scene in Michael Moore’s extraordinary movie, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11.’ It takes place on the January day in 2001 when the combined House and Senate have met to certify the winner of the Electoral College vote. Vice President Al Gore is presiding. One by one, members of the Congressional Black Caucus come to the well of the House to ask for an investigation of the stolen and suppressed votes in Florida, and to each, Vice President Gore asks a question, ‘Has a member of the Senate signed?’ And one by one the Black Caucus members say, ‘No.’ No member of the United States Senate would sign a petition to investigate the larceny that took place in Florida.”[/i] BECAUSE IT DIDN’T HAPPEN! Not one single person has stepped forward in the FOUR YEARS since the 2000 election to claim that their votes were stolen. NOT ONE PERSON! The NAACP wants you to think that they are this fantastic civil rights organization that are trying to promote “racial diversity” when in reality, they merely want to promote their leftist, liberal agenda. To the NAACP, if you are not a liberal or impoverished black person, you got that way because the Republicans are using you as a weapon against black people. Its almost like the X-Files. But let’s look at how diverse the NAACP is. The NAACP’s mission statement says, “The NAACP insures the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority groups and citizens…” Notice, it says “minority” and not “black.” In fact, if you read their entire mission statement, it never specifically refers to “black” “African-American” at all. Now, lets take a look at the NAACP’s national leadership. They have a President and five Executive Officers. All of them are black. Now let’s have a look at our Grand Wizard-in-Chief George W. Bush’s cabinet. There are 21 members in his cabinet. There are 3 blacks; Rod Paige, Secretary of Education; Colin Powell, Secretary of State; and Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. That’s 14% of his cabinet. Coincidentally, about the same percentage of the American population is black. And don’t forget Condoleeza Rice, not technically a member of the cabinet, but still a black person in Bush’s administration. But wait, Bush’s cabinet is even more diverse, he even includes Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor, and Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation. So which is more “diverse.” The NAACP, an organization that purports to “ensure equality for all minorities,” or George W. Bush’s cabinet, which is supposedly full of a bunch of people “dependent on the politics of racial division?” |
| NAACP? NOWAY! |
| 07.16.04 (3:12 pm) [edit] |
|
So the president told the NAACP no. GREAT! What would have been the point in him going? To appeal to black voters? Of all the voter groups, Democrats have the biggest support from the black vote. In 2000, over 90% of the black vote went to Gore. John Kerry currently enjoys a similar advantage, if you believe polls. The reason for this, for me, is a little vexing. After all, back during the civil right movement of the 1950's and 60's, it was Southern DEMOCRATS who did the most to obstruct "equality" for blacks. Ask a kid in history class what Abraham Lincoln, a REPUBLICAN did, and you'll hear he "freed the slaves." (He didn't free all of the slaves, just the ones in territory controlled by the Confederate States of America.) Also, it is commonly thought that blacks are more socially conservative than mainstream Democrats, and certainly more than John Kerry. Regardless of what Bush did, he couldn't [i]realistically[/i] expect to garner more than 10% of the black vote. Is Bush snubbing blacks as a whole by not addressing the NAACP? If you listened to the NAACP (or even the national media) you would think so. But why would he wish to address a group who won't even give him credit for Colin Powell and Condi Rice, the first blacks to ever occupy their respective office? Or for that matter, won't give conservatives credit for ANY prominent black leaders, like former OK congressman J.C. Watts? Just listen to some of the comments from THIS YEAR'S NAACP convention (be aware, there are numerous spelling errors, cut and pasted from NAACP.org: [i]"...And yet when we speak out forcefully against these and other realities, we are told that we are whinning, that we are too liberal, that we are using the scapgoat of victumization, and that we are even upatriotic. Then, when the ultra conservative right wing attacker has run out of attack startegy, HE GOES AND GETS SOMEONE THAT LOOKS LIKE YOU AND ME TO CONTINUE THE ATTACK."[/i] - Kweise Mfume, President Mfume doesn't believe that prominent black conservatives are there of their own volition, he believes that they are PLACED. In his mind, blacks are either free liberals, or captive conservatives. Mfume continues:[i] "They've had a collection of black hustlers and yes men on their payrolls for more than twenty years, promoting them as the new generation of black leaders. They can't deal with the leaders we choose for ourselves - so they manufacture, promote, and hire new ones. Like the ventriloquist's dummies, they speak in their puppet master's voice, but we can see his lipsmove and we can hear his money talk. They've financed a conservative constellation of make believe black organizations, all of them hollow shells with more more names on the letterhead then there are people in their membership."[/i] (of course, he provides no evidence for this) Once again, LIBERAL black leaders are chosen, conservative blacks are APPOINTED. He then continues to level baseless accusations: [i]"The tragic irony is that while the president proclaims the goal of building a democracy in Iraq - Democratically eligible voters in America are being purged from and striped of their constitutional rights."[/i] Sort of like all those "disenfranchised" black voters in Florida, of which exactly ZERO have stepped forward to tell their story. The funniest statement of his speech: [i]"36 years after the assisnation of Dr. Martin Luther King, we still have a society where some in the Democratic party take our votes for granted...and many in the Republican party still refuse to capaign for them." [/i]Again, what's the point when over 90% of those you claim to represent vote for Democrats, when DEMS have to do NOTHING to EARN that type of support? OF COURSE they're going to take your vote for granted. But Mfume doesn't really care, because the guy HE wants to win is the guy getting their support. [i]"Making a 15 minute appearance at the NAACP WHILE RUNNING FOR OFFICE IN THE YEAR 2000; or doing a 30 minute drive by at the Urban League after (Bush) has gotten in office will not substitute for real dialogue." [/i]So First it was he hasn't done ANYTHING to gain our support, now its "he's done a 15 minute drive by at our convention." Can't win for losing. [i]"Maybe the President didn't ever want to meet because he didn't want to be reminded of young Matthew Sheppard killed in Laramie, WY, or the Philipino postman sensslessly murdered in California, or the children in a Jewish day care center shot at in Los Angeles..." [/i] Did he forget to mention James Byrd? It was Bush, afterall, that the NAACP almost blames for the death of James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death in Texas. Typical NAACP campaigning; Republicans are the party of white people, the blacks in the party are sell-outs, Republicans are racist, Republicans don't cater to the black vote, when they do they don't don ENOUGH, Republicans killed gays/blacks/non-whites, mention Dr. King (who would not support the NAACP, I believe), mention slavery, peace out. No, I can't imagine why George Bush declined to address the NAACP. If it where me, I'd just tell them to f*ck off. This weekend, we'll analyze Chairman Julian Bond's address to the convention. |
| Ozzy! No Mas! |
| 07.15.04 (4:01 pm) [edit] |
|
Okay, ordinarily I wouldn't be making two posts a day, but this has me really upset. Let me start off by first saying, what is the deal with all these rock stars coming out and making comments against the President, or the war against terrorism? I've already been disappointed by the likes of Bono, Tom Petty, the Beastie Boys, John Fogerty, John Cougar Mellencamp Cougar, Willie Nelson, Maynard James Keenan of Tool; people who I either really like, or at least find listenable. And that's to say nothing of Bruce Springsteen, Moby, the guys in Pearl Jam; people who's music may not necessarily be my bag, but I at least respect their talent (or ability to sell their music to others.) But now my heart is broken. Ozzy Osbourne, the guy who I have listened to for my whole life. Lead singer of one of the first band's I really LIKED when I discovered music. The guy who's cassette tapes I swiped from my dad's stash of music when I was in jr. high and took with me to college. Ozzy FREAKING Osbourne apparently opened his set last night at OzzFest with the classic Sabbath tune War Pigs, and showed on a video screen behind him a collage of images comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler. This is known as "Playing the Hitler Card." It's what a liberal does when he has no other argument, and is so blinded by irrational hatred that the clockwork gears in his/her head stop working and all they can do is play the trump card of comparing that person to one of the most evil people ever to exist. (Hmm, wasn't another another evil, mass-murdering dictator recently deposed by President Bush.) I can only hope that the old guy is just so out of it that the video was something he didn't know about (I heard the audio, and he did skip a few lines from War Pigs.) I swear, if James Hetfield ever does an interview and says "No More Blood for Oil," I'll just curl up in a fetal position and sob uncontrollably. Oh well, at least I still have this madman! |
| Mikhail Moore is (surprise, surprise) a Big Fat Liar! |
| 07.15.04 (1:12 pm) [edit] |
|
[b]No I didn't[/b] mis-spell his first name. Once again, Michael Moore was caught in a lie. In this peice from Film Comment, Fatty says: "At the end of the film Bush says 'Fool me once, shame on… me. I won't get fooled again.' Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger Daltrey scream, 'Won't get fooled again!' That's how I had it cut. Pete Townsend blocked it, would not allow the song to be used. Word came to us that he is not a fan of Michael Moore's and in fact supports the war and supports Tony Blair and doesn't want the song used in any way that would make Blair look bad. Harvey personally made an appeal to him to reconsider. And he wouldn't." Well, you should check out Pete Townshend's diary. As it turns out, that ain't the way it happened: "Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911." "My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no." "Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed." "At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them." Mr. Townshend goes on to explain that the MEANING of his song doesn't really fit with Moore's film, he doesn't personally object to Moore's film itself. Townshend feels that "Won't Get Fooled Again" isn't an anti-war song, that the song is sung from the point of view of a character who is frightened at how "truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike." (hmmm, paying attention, Fat-Boy?) Mr. Townshend is even so kind as to suggest that Fats turn to Neil Young, who has "several songs of a more precise political nature." Michael the Hutt does eventually use Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" at the close of his movie, and subsequently takes credit for the idea in the previously cited Film Comment article. [b]In other news[/b], American cyclist Greg LeMond (Remember him? He won the Tour de France a couple time way back when) has accused Lance Armstrong (Remember him? He won the Tour de France, oh, five years in a row) of using drugs. LeMond was quoted in the French newpaper Le Monde (seeing double?) "I was a big supporter of Lance the first year that he won the Tour, but with all these stories it's difficult to stay a supporter." "All these stories" are coming from the French newspaper Le Monde, which has accused Armstrong of doping in the past. There's also a new french-language book that was released prior to this year's Tour "L.A. Confidential, The Secrets of Lance Armstrong" written by Pierre Ballester and David Walsh. If only the froggies wanted to protect the world from terrorists (or their country from invading Nazis) as much as they want to protect their little bicycle ride. Good luck Lance! Hopefully, when some Frog makes fun of me for eating ketchup on everythig, I'll be able to retort "Yeah, but we won your stupid bike race SIX YEARS STRAIGHT!" |
| Media Bias |
| 07.14.04 (11:15 am) [edit] |
|
Here's a quote from an article in the New York Times from columnist Athony Lewis: "Try to imagine (this VP candidate) as President of the United States. No one seriously argues that he is especially qualified by experience or character or talent to take over the presidency. (This VP candidate) is-to put it more politely than many have-without weight. He has done virtually nothing in the Senate of an original or substantive kind." Here's another one from Time's Margaret Carlson: "There are signs that (this VP candidate) has been growing in his job, that he is no longer (if he ever was) the dumb blond his detractors claim. But he is still a long way from having the temperament and experience needed in the person a heartbeat and a brain wave away from the presidency." Are these columnists referring to John Edwards, John Kerry's running mate? Nope. These articles were written about 16 years ago, and were referring to Dan Quayle. Today, here's what they're saying about Edwards: "Mr. Edwards, the son of a millworker and a postal worker, appears down-to-earth and trustworthy, a fellow who strikes a chord on values as well as issues." The only potential downside? "Sure, Mr. Kerry might drop dead. Then we'd have a very inexperienced president-again!" -Nicholas Kristof, New York Times "A mere five years after Edwards entered politics, this man in a hurry has arrived. He's talented, and fortune favors the brash." -Newsweek's Howard Fineman Dan Quayle was young and inexperienced, you say? Well, let's take a look at the two candidate's political experience. Dan Quayle, at the age of 41, had already served two terms in the House, 1 and a half terms (eight years) in the Senate. That's 12 years experience, and 4 sucessful campaigns. Quayle also set records for margin of victory in both his re-election bids to the House and Senate, so apparently he was doing something right, at least his voters thought so. John Edwards, at the age of 51, is just finishing up his FIRST and ONLY elected position held. EVER. On any level. So why is Edwards touted as a great selection, while Quayle was downplayed as "inexperienced?" The only other difference between the two I can see is 1) Quayle was a Republican and 2) Edwards is a Democrat. A recent Pew Research Center found that of those in national media (print, TV, radio) 34% identified themselves as liberal, while only 7% thought themselves to be conservative. I'm not sure about the other 59%, but I'm sure they identified themselves as "moderate." A "moderate" as most of you know, is just a wishy-washy liberal. Don't believe me? Head on down to Moderate Independent (or just google the word "moderate"), where you can find articles that, among other things; blame President Reagan for "single-handedly creating the homeless problem that exists to this very day" and for putting "good, white Christians above others," refer to Dick Cheney as the Humanoind without a Heart and GW as the Humanoid without a Conscience, play the Bush = Nazi card, and extol readers to "please vote and campaign for Kerry, the only candidate who can make it to the White House except Bush in this election in our limited "democratic" system. Once we get Bush out, we can push harder for issues like universal health insurance." (Funny, I thought taking my money to pay for someone else's health care was a liberal idea.) Strange that someone of "moderate" ilk would want you to vote for the most liberal man in the US Senate over George Bush, who is much closer to the center than I am. |
| Party of the Working Man? |
| 07.13.04 (4:01 pm) [edit] |
|
This irritates me. I'm talking about the belief that the Democratic Party is the party of the working man, and the Republican Party is the party of the evil nasty rich, or corporations. Lots of people believe this. Hell, my grandaddy, who hates all things liberal, such as welfare, gun control, high taxes, etc, believes there are only two evil things in this world, the Devil and Republicans. I don't know why. I thought some people might find this interesting: 1) Of the four men that are REALLY involved in the Presidential race (with respect to the Nader/Carmejo ticket) George W Bush is worth the least. BOP2004 George W. Bush's income is valuated at between $347,852 and $1,076,000, and his net worth is estimated at between 9.6 and 26.6 million. (The annual salary for the President of the United States of American is about $400,000.) Dick Cheney's income is valuated at $836,820 - 5.7 million. (The Vice President's annual salary is about $190,00) Most of Cheney's income comes from investments. John Edward's income is between $1,400,000 and $1,700,000. His net worth is between 8.7 and 36.5 million. Now for John Kerry. His income is estimated betwen $15,500,000 and $77,500,000. SEVENTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS. President Bush's NET WORTH isn't even estimated as high as Kerry's possible ANNUAL INCOME. Kerry's net worth is estimated betwen $198,000,000 and $839,000,000 (almost a BILLION dollars. A BILLION! With a "B"!) Now, it is true that Kerry's net worth and annual income include his ties to the Heinz Ketchup fortune, but hey, its his money and he uses it to pay the bills. He also uses that money to pay the house notes on his FIVE homes. There's the little house in Fox Chapel, PA worth $3.7 million. Don't forget his Ski Lodge/Home in Ketchum, ID worth $4.9 million. His current home in D.C., worth $4.7 million. His waterfront retreat in Nantucket, worth $9.2 million. And finally, his home in Boston, worth $6.9 million. Almost makes Geroge Bush's ONLY home in Crawford, TX ($988,000) seem small. Washington Times So, the Democrats may be the party of the working man, but the two guys they got running for the White House aren't very representative of Blue Collars. |
| Bienvenue! |
| 07.09.04 (4:47 pm) [edit] |
|
Bienvenue! Welcome to my very first blog. In fact, you’re reading the very first posting to my very first blog. Well, come to think of it, you don't know who the hell I am, so there probably aren't too many folks reading it in the first place. My brother and sister, maybe. Shout out to Jabber and boyyoubettermmm. And hey mom, promise I won't swear too much. I created this blog as an outlet really. A way to vent my frustrations at all things political. My frustrations with other things, too. Like people who drive in the passing lane (that's the left-most lane) of the interstate without actually being in the act of passing another vehicle. I'm conservative, but I don't really consider my self to be a Republican. Liberals out there, feel free to write me if you disagree with me. You won't change my mind, but you may get a response if what you say is really well thought out. And spelled correctly. I hate poor spelling. So go buy a dictionary. Let's get started! These three things jumped out at me today, and these sort of things drive me crazy: 1) During an interview with CNN's Larry King Thursday night, Mr.’s King and Kerry were discussing an announcement by Tom Ridge of al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the US. King asked Kerry What his reaction was to the announcement. Kerry replied, "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time." The announcement was made by Ridge on July 8, 2004. Hmmm, too busy to hear the words “Mr. Kerry, Tom Ridge has just announced that al Qaeda may be planning large-scale attacks on the US in the next few months”? 2) Yesterday, it turns out, Mr. Kerry WAS pretty busy. He was attending a fund-raiser with such “celebrities” as Whoopi Goldberg, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, John Lequizamo, Chevy Chase, John Mellencamp Cougar Mellencamp, John Bon Jovi and John Fogerty. I was going to comment that its funny that the “party of the Working Man’s” presumptive presidential nominee was hob-nobbing with these big wigs, but after reviewing the list of names, its pretty safe to say that these “celebrities” probably ARE pretty close to the working man's class, at least as far as their bank accounts go. (get it? They are has-beens who haven’t worked in a long while…ahhhhh, nevermind.) Anyway, apparently Whoopi spent her whole time in front of the fundraisers making double-entendre X-rated jokes such as “keeping Bush where it belongs (in the pants) and not in the White House. John Kerry, of course, wasted no time in informing the crowd that these “celebrities” were a reflection of the Democratic party. Indeed, they are a bunch of foul-mouthed, ill-tempered, washed-up has-beens. (FOUR, count ‘em, FOUR hyphenated adjectives…BAM!) 3) On a lighter note, California’s Education Secretary Richard Riordan informed a girl that her name meant “stupid, dirty girl.” Last week while promoting a library reading program in a Santa Barbara elementary school, a 6 year old little girl named Isis asked Sec. Riordan if he knew that her name means an Egyptian goddess? (The Egyption goddess of fertility, in case you were wondering.) Sec. Riordan thought for a minute, then replied “It means stupid, dirty girl,” apparently misunderstanding what Isis said her name was. Little Isis corrected Mr. Riordan (good for her!) However, Mr. Riordan apologized and that isn’t the thing that aggravates me. What amazes me is that California Assemblyman Marvin Dymally (D-Compton) organized a press conference to demand that Sec. Riordan to step down because of this. The NAACP, California Coalition for Racial Equality, and the League of United Latin American Citizens all made plans to attend. Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News, “He needs to do more than just apologize. And I have to inject: This was a little African-American girl. Would he have done that to a white girl?” The problem is, Isis isn’t a cute little 6-year old black girl. She’s a cute little 6-year old blond-haired blue-eyed WHITE girl. Dymally, upon finding out the truth, suddenly changed his tone (GASP!) and rescinded his demand that Riordan step down, saying “It should be noted that race is not a factor in this issue, It is time for us to move on.'' Isis’ mom, Trinity summed it up perfectly ``Does it matter that she's white? `If he feels that the man should step down, does it matter that she's white?'' Isis’ mom, by the way, isn’t sure that Riordan should step down since he has apologized. Isis reads at a fifth grade level, and was so unfazed by the incident that she coolly reaffirmed her name’s meaning and didn’t even mention it to her mom until the school librarian brought it up. Trinity, it appears, has done something right in raising her daughter. |
WARNING!!
May contain prejudiced, offensive, right-wing, sexist, homophobic, redneck, or other generally offensive language. Not suitable for children under the age of 3. If you are easily offended, like to point out grammatical or spelling errors, or are just generally disagreeable, go away.
LINKS
Addicted to Plastic - my toy collecting blog, also useless
Well, That's Just Prime! My weekly web comic, updated promptly on Friday-ish
Nealz Nuze
The MullBlog
Radio Gawds
Chuck Norris CAN divide by zero