September 30, 2009
RAPE-RAPE
Whoopi Goldberg is facing a fierce backlash after saying that film
director Roman Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape" when he had unlawful
sex with a 13-year-old girl. Goldberg, star of The Color Purple and Sister Act, said: "I know it
wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was
rape-rape."
Really. What else does
the article go on to say?
His victim, Samantha Gailey, told a grand jury that the director had plied her
with champagne and drugs and taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub during
a fashion shoot. Polanski then had sexual intercourse with her despite her
resistance and requests to be taken home, she said.
Whew. I'm glad I now understand the difference between rape and rape-rape.
So which one did Cameron Diaz mean that Bush would legalize? Real rape or the "I'm famous so I can do whatever I want" rape?
Hollywood is completely nuts.
Awesome quote by
John Nolte:
If his unspeakable deed doesn’t meet the standard, what exactly would
Roman Polanski have to do in order to become a pariah in this town … I
mean, besides vote for Sarah Palin?
Posted by: Sarah at
02:49 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Hollywood's attitude on this just floors me. A 13-year-old CANNOT legally consent to sexual relations, regardless of being pumped full of drugs and alcohol. The list of Hollywood characters saying we should just forget about it, "it was 30 years ago", disgusts me. It's no real wonder why I haven't been to a movie since
Marley & Me last holiday season (though I wanted to see
Harry Potter, but with baseball season and not having anyone to go with, I missed it). I don't want to give these people my hard-earned money.
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 30, 2009 09:52 PM (paOhf)
2
The expressions I get when these people talk probably make me look like Jim Carrey on crack (which is probably normal Jim Carrey, really).
Anyway, I get you. I don't care HOW long ago it was, or how many "good" movies the guy made since then. Your culpability for a crime does not suddenly disappear just because it "happened a long time ago."
Honestly - I think that makes it worse. He's had 30 years to go sow more wild oats. He's had time he should not have had. He's not only NOT learned a lesson in appropriate behavior, but he's had the idea that he's above the law ingrained in him.
He's a pervert, a disgusting pedophile, and a RAPIST and he should be treated as such. I also agree with one of my peeps on Facebook who said that anyone who thinks he should be forgiven should ask themselves if they'd send their daughter or granddaughter over to Uncle Roman's house for a weekend of babysitting.
Right. That's what I thought.
Posted by: airforcewife at October 01, 2009 12:59 AM (9sMSe)
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 01, 2009 06:16 AM (AxelT)
4
Rape is Rape is Rape..
The girl was underage. She could NOT give consent.
The charge is RAPE.
In my humble opinion, the perpertraor should be hung, drawn and quartered.
Posted by: bx19 at October 01, 2009 05:14 PM (bWGnc)
5
Un. freaking. beleivable. Steam is coming out my ears.
Posted by: Lucy at October 01, 2009 05:38 PM (YNvUz)
6
Also, I wonder how Whoopi would take it if I said that Dog the Bounty Hunter's N word tirade wasn't "racism-racism".
Not that I WOULD say that, because let's face it - it was racism. Seriously.
Just like what Polanski did was rape.
Posted by: airforcewife at October 01, 2009 08:36 PM (9sMSe)
7
It totally disgusted me when I read about that. It's amazing how hurt and unfair Hollywood thinks this "situation" is to them. They need to get over it. Jackazzes. I'm for the drawing and quartering.
Posted by: Susan at October 01, 2009 09:13 PM (EU2Wl)
8
Would it have been "rape-rape" had it happened to Whoopi's daughter or one of her two granddaughters? You bet your butt it would. In an instant.
Better yet, would Whoopi or any other of those that are so quick to rush to Mr. Polanski's defense allow him to EVER babysit their 13 year odl daughter? I doubt it seriously.
Posted by: HomefrontSix at October 05, 2009 07:31 PM (/CWwF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 29, 2009
NO BANG FOR THE BUCK
I reiterate that I think Bjorn Lomborg's argument that
crises need to be prioritized is one of the best arguments against stopping global warming. You can grant the premise just for argument's sake but still insist that we shouldn't spend a dollar to get a nickel's worth of
good.
Imagine for a moment that the fantasists win the day and that at the
climate conference in Copenhagen in December every nation commits to
reductions even larger than Japan's, designed to keep temperature
increases under 2 degrees Celsius. The result will be a global price
tag of $40 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing
just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a
contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose cost
findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are
to be published by Cambridge University Press next year.
Unfortunately, no government program has ever been held to the bang-for-your-buck test.
But surely this has to be persuasive, right? How could it not be? I find it persuasive in every instance. Take health care: I don't care if they can promise that everyone will have total coverage and no one will ever be sick again. Our nation simply doesn't have the money now to cover 30 million new people. Even if it were a government program I could get behind like...um...hmm...giving every law-abiding household a handgun and lessons on how to use it, we just are too far in debt to be adding new programs to the list, no matter what they are.
And certainly we have too much debt to spend $40 to get a dollar of benefit.
Posted by: Sarah at
07:28 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But surely this has to be persuasive, right? How could it not be?
You are not an adherent to the new religion, that is why you are not persuaded.
Posted by: John at September 30, 2009 12:33 AM (crTpS)
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 30, 2009 10:15 PM (paOhf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 19, 2009
CONSTITUTION DAY FAIL
My government class in high school was a joke. We just memorized and regurgitated how many representatives there are and how old they have to be to run, and then we watched
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and hoped that somehow we would all learn how this marvelous American experiment works. FAIL. Completely.
I was just reading an
article about how a Muslim girl is suing Abercrombie and Fitch because they discriminated against her for wearing a headscarf. In the
comments section, a different Muslim girl is arguing that everyone has the Constitutional right to work wherever they want. She said a size 20 woman has the right to be a runway model. Quote: "That's the right of an American citizen per our grand Constitution."
Does anyone even read the Constitution anymore? Apparently everyone's high school government class was as bad as mine.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:59 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, I think everyone should have the right to be an airline pilot, especially those who are too dumb to pass either the practical or written test. And I think those who share the attitudes in the thread you mention should be restricted to flying with such pilots.
Posted by: david foster at September 19, 2009 08:17 AM (uWlpq)
2
Same for brain surgeons. One for those of us who require education and certification, another for those who think everyone has a right to be whatever they want to be.
Posted by: chuck at September 19, 2009 01:49 PM (bMH2g)
3
I do believe that I would be an astronaut. No,I have no background or training,thanks. Don't need it apparently.
My Civics class was taught by a Mr McKinney. Who was the varsity boys basketball coach. In Indiana,it is a big deal.
Mr McKinney would give us a worksheet on Monday and that same worksheet was the test on Friday. We had the class time to find the information to answer the quiz cum test questions.
It was a joke. I was angry that McKinney spent the whole time diagramming plays on the blackboard.
Some of us did our own version of the class in the back of the room because (IMAGINE!) we were interested.
We formed our own kitchen cabinet and studied the depts in it. Got into some interesting debates as well.
We were told to pipe down. Ruining his concentration,don't you know.
McKinney did go on to another school after aa few years and won the state championship. So glad that he reached his goals in life. Snort.
Posted by: MaryIndiana at September 20, 2009 01:47 AM (09ovY)
4
Heck, I'd be happy if our elected representatives had the barest inkling of what is in the Constitution and what this country was founded on.
Sigh.
Posted by: MargeinMI at September 20, 2009 08:02 AM (gXnOq)
5
"I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results"
One of Glenn Beck's 9 principles of his 9/12 project.
Posted by: tim at September 21, 2009 11:22 AM (nno0f)
6
You got to watch "Mr. Smith goes to Washington?" I didn't get to watch that...in fact, I don't remember who my Gov teacher was...who was yours? Everything I ever needed to know about Gov I learned from Mr. DeFabbio via history classes...but hey, you got to watch a movie ;-)
Posted by: Matt at September 21, 2009 08:29 PM (wNBv7)
7
Matt -- We also got to watch 12 Angry Men to learn about the judicial system. Sigh. I had Mr. Moore, who was a new teacher, straight out of college. He was kind of a douchebag.
Posted by: Sarah at September 22, 2009 07:17 AM (2Hw+P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 18, 2009
EFFECTIVE OUTCOMES
I am feeling less unsettled lately...
After the huge march on Washington last weekend, and the defunding of ACORN this week, I am feeling more like We the People can pressure the government to represent us.
Here are a few things that regular old Americans have achieved since I wrote that I was
unsettled:
For an explanation of the list, in case you're not familiar with all of them, listen
here.
I am feeling more optimistic.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.
September 15, 2009
HELP, HELP, I'M BEING OPPRESSED!
I was racially discriminated against today.
I got in a black cashier's line at Walmart. She took the lady in front of me and then switched off her light, saying that I'd have to change lines because she needed to close down for a few minutes. So I hopped over to the line next to hers, behind three other people. The black cashier finished up with the lady she was helping, puttered around for about 30 seconds, found out that she was no longer needed to help clean up another register, and then turned her light back on and motioned for a black lady who was just walking up to the checkout area to get in her line.
Raaaaacist! She helped a black customer instead of telling me to go ahead and get back in her line! She took a black lady who'd just arrived to checkout instead of white me, who'd been waiting for several minutes! I need a Beer Summit!
94 percent of African-American eighth graders reported to Harris-Britt
that they'd felt discriminated against in the prior three months.
Now, I don't really think it was racial discrimination at Walmart. I think the cashier was kinda boorish and lazy, and that she didn't care who she helped next as long as she was doing her job. When I called her on it, she apologized as if the thought had never crossed her mind to ask me to return to her line. She didn't do it because I was white; she did it because she was unobservant and clueless.
But it got me thinking and I remembered the above statistic from a
recent Newsweek article about children's racial attitudes. If
almost every single black pre-teen says they're constantly being discriminated against, then it seems to me that, if the tables were turned and a white cashier helped a white customer over a black one, some people out there are interpreting that as racism.
I don't think it's racism. I think it's laziness, or bad manners, or tunnel vision you get from doing the same mundane task all day long. But I don't for one second think she pushed me out of her line because I was white. But do black people think that? It seems some of these pre-teens probably do. How else could they all say they've been discriminated against recently? A few may have truly met with bigotry, but a good number of them must just be interpreting the slightest offenses as racism.
It just got me thinking that, if you try to find slights based on skin color, you will see them. But I'd bet that much of the "discrimination" people feel they're encountering is just a misunderstanding or a breakdown in acceptable social behavior, not racism.
Posted by: Sarah at
12:43 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hanlon's Razor says:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
You can pretty easily substitute laziness for stupidity, I'd say.
Another favorite saying of mine is that when you're holding a hammer all of your problems look like nails. So, if you've been told all of your life that you're a victim, you start looking for proof.
Posted by: Christa at September 15, 2009 01:06 PM (2qSbp)
2
That's a great tool, Christa!
Reading this post embodied your last point. I wanted to look for a nail after the first sentence. Then I got to the incident, initially thought that it was a nail - that it was racist - and then instantly realized, hey, wait, this could have happened for nonracial reasons.
Most of the cashiers at stores near me are black. I'm not black, and I probably had the same thing happen to me, but I never thought anything of it. I didn't take out my Victimâ„¢ hammer because I wasn't thinking of nails. I'm not white either. But when my interactions with whites go wrong, I almost never see any nails. I can only think of two or three incidents in my entire life that might have been racist.
Might.Those kids need desensitivity training. They need to be told that not everything is a nail. Don't take out that hammer unless you're certain you need it. Otherwise you look paranoid and no one but your fellow 'victims' will take you seriously anymore.
Posted by: Amritas at September 15, 2009 02:17 PM (+nV09)
3
As a half black woman speaking, I have experienced this crap from more and more people on a general basis. People are lazy and stupid. Growing up I was not taught that is was alright to cry wolf every time I did not win, get my way, or just wanted something. I had to earn certain things on merit and forgive others because people may just not know, or see. Is that an excuse? No it is not but it is life all around us everyday. If someone goes looking for a frog in the desert then they will find one.
Posted by: Reasa at September 15, 2009 02:47 PM (uKniq)
4
Sarah, you can't be discriminated against. You are white.
Racism is a black thing, you can't possibly understand.
Kill Whitey!
Posted by: chuck at September 16, 2009 12:05 AM (bMH2g)
5
I work as a trainer at Petsmart. Sometimes when we are really busy they make me cashier because I'm not 18 and have a brain. When we open up a new register we take the next person in line. It does not matter what color they are.
I will however cop to the fact that if a customer comes into my store and they are wearing an abaya and I cannot see their face. I will not wait on them unless I am cashiering and then I have to. 99.9% of the women who comes in wearing them, I'd say there are about a half dozen maybe more per day where I work, are black. It has nothing to do with them being another color. It has everything to do with the fact that I find it absolutely offensive that after all the work that has been done by women's rights activitists that an American woman would chose to subjugate herself in this way.
Plus I just find it straight up offensive that American's choose to dress this way while we are war. I guess I'm a bigot. But I don't really care. My favorite was the 16 year old who came in wearing a hajib scarf, the TIGHTEST pair of jean's I have ever seen, and a half shirt with most of her cleavage hanging out.
Time for me to break out my Infidel t-shirt and my Dad's old hat from when he was stationed at Guantanamo Naval Air Station. I'll let you know if I get fired.
Posted by: Mare at September 16, 2009 08:51 AM (HUa8I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 11, 2009
ANGER SPREAD THIN
I am reminded of Nelson Ascher's post again today.
The problem is that I do not want to waste a milligram of my
anger on all the idiots who have been getting ready to show us how
idiotic they are. We're at a point where to be too angry at, say,
Chomsky and the BBC, Old Europe and ANSWER, second and third rate
entertainers and academics is to give them a kind of victory. They
deserve disdain. Anger needs to remain concentrated like light in a
laser beam, we must direct it toward its rightful target: Islamofascism
first and foremost. If we spend too much time getting mad at those who
are but idiots we run the risk of forgetting, even if only for a
second, that it is the Muslim/Arab religious fanatics who are the
ENEMY. In a way, that's the idiots' main weapon: to attract a wrath
that could be more usefully directed to the really dangerous enemies.
Whenever we're not thinking about the Jihadists we are losing some very
precious time. And anger."
My anger has been spread thin lately.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:27 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I don't think this is a time for you to be angry. Your focus is in the right place: your pregnancy. And you have not forgotten 9/11. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this.
Your focus will be on your daughter for many years to come. This doesn't necessarily mean you've shut off Nelson's laser beam. On the contrary, you're training a member of the next generation of laser riflemen. Even if your daughter never becomes a gun enthusiast, she must be armed with the greatest weapons of the West: its ideas.
She must be loyal to the ideas that our government has betrayed (emphasis mine):
The State Department’s new “democratic†constitutions
for Afghanistan and Iraq are a disgrace: establishing Islam as the
state religion and elevating sharia as fundamental law. That is not
exporting our values; it is appeasing Islamism. It is putting on
display our lack of will to fight for our principles, which only
emboldens our enemies.Can you imagine if the Axis got new constitutions like the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions after World War II? What happened to the America that won that war?
Recall, for example, the spectacle of the
Christian prosecuted for apostasy a couple of years back by the
post-Taliban, U.S.-backed Afghan government. He had to be whisked out
of the country because it’s not safe for an ex-Muslim religious convert
in the new Afghanistan. It’s not safe for non-Muslims, period.It's not even safe for
ex-Muslims in this country:
Several years ago, she converted from Islam to Christianity ... After her father threatened to kill her for apostasy, a
crime under Islamic Sharia law, Rifqa hitchhiked to the bus station and
fled to Florida [from Ohio].
This is the America your daughter will be born into.
A country where 9/11 was planned (emphasis mine):
The 9/11 attacks were extensively planned, over long
periods of time, in, among other places, Berlin, Madrid, San Diego,
Florida, Oklahoma, and Connecticut. Clearly, thriving democracy in
those places provided no security.A country that sacrifices for its enemies (emphasis mine):
And what we had our hands full with in Iraq and Afghanistan was
nation-building. Quite apart from the inherent futility of trying to
democratize fundamentalist Muslim countries, our efforts in those two
places were doomed if we failed to address Iran’s promotion of
terrorism and its intolerable nuclear threat. What has happened to Iraq
has happened because we lacked the will to deal with Iran. We left
unaccomplished the mission that was vital to our national interests
while laboring exhaustively to create Islamic democracies that are
either hostile or useless to us.A country that imports sharia, the antithesis of your ideas, into places like Ohio.
Ohio!So, yes, you have good reasons
to be unsettled.
None of that is primarily the fault of - as Nelson put it -
"Chomsky and the BBC, Old Europe and ANSWER, second and third rate
entertainers and academics". I'm not mad at them. I laugh at them. I even laugh at the
first-rate entertainers and academics who venture out of their fields to support the latest Leftist fashion. They're just a sideshow, a distraction. Let's focus on our real external and internal enemies.
I agree with
Andrew McCarthy's approach toward the former:
We can’t stop Muslim countries from being Islamist. That
is their choice. It should be no concern of ours who rules them as long
as they do not threaten American interests. When they inevitably do
threaten us, or allow their territories to be launch pads for
terrorists, we should smash them. But the price of defending our nation
cannot be spending years — at a cost of precious lives and hundreds of
billions of dollars — in a vain attempt to give people who despise us a
way of life they don’t want.
The question for me is, what do we do about the latter, about our enemies within? Can we simply keep voting them out of office? Instead of worrying about freedom for Islamists abroad, we should worry about the future of freedom here. As McCarthy suggested,
The surge we need is at home: to roll back Islamism’s
infiltration of our schools, our financial system, our law, and our
government. In addition to not being universal, the “values of the
human spirit†are not immortal. If we don’t defend them in the West,
they will die.But there are more threats than terrorism. Recently we have seen a homegrown surge against socialism in the form of tea parties - of Rightist protests against Dr. gOvernment. Our citizen-troops may win this battle. But can they keep winning? Or will they - we - eventually be outnumbered by those who vote for 'free' handouts? Will we have to retreat to
our gulch?
PS: Nelson, wherever you are, I miss you.
Posted by: Amritas at September 11, 2009 10:20 AM (+nV09)
2
I think my anger is spread thin because I'm just so tired. TIRED. Tired of the constant deployments and TDYS, tired of fighting at home and keeping up the face for those deployed to keep their morale up, tired of the constant attacks and name-calling, tired of seeming to take two steps back for every step forward, and tired because it seems like we're still on the brink in so many places.
I'm not ready to give up, I'm just tired. I need a rest, and there doesn't seem to be one in sight. I'm still angry, and I think that's why I refuse to give up, but it's hard to focus that anger when you're overwhelmed.
On the other hand, I've also ever been one to to smack myself about whining when seeing someone else's situation. How can I complain about being tired when I think about what Britain went through in WWII? My children and I don't have to retreat into the metro stations to avoid bombing raids every night. We can eat whatever we want - my grandmother had shortages.
How can I complain about being tired when there were members of my husband's family who went through Stalingrad? My fatigue is NOTHING compared to that.
I'm lucky, and I have no right to slow down. But sometimes I do. And that's why my anger is spread thin. But days like today are what cause me to regroup and regather and remember what we're fighting for.
I'm tired, but I have not forgotten.
Posted by: airforcewife at September 11, 2009 11:37 AM (CDkfD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 07, 2009
HE MAY BE GONE, BUT HE WAS THERE FOR A REASON
Count me in as relieved and thrilled that Van Jones was forced into resignation. He was a big part of the reason I wrote that I was unsettled. The fact that a man like that was anywhere near the White House is chilling.
Stanley Kurtz:
In light of all we now know, this gauzy January 12 profile of Jones in The New Yorker is well worth a read. What do you see? I see the too-rapid rise of an inexperienced and poorly vetted man (poorly vetted by the entire liberal establishment, not just the White House) adept at getting and wasting vast sums of money for virtually non-existent plans, all based on seductive political rhetoric rather than substance.
Jonah Goldberg:
I just watched David Axelrod, the top ranking political advisor in the White House, and Robert Gibbs, the President's spokesman on "Meet the Press" and "This Week" respectively. Neither of them was willing, even after repeated questioning, to offer a single negative word about Van Jones. Not one word. A 9/11 Truther and defender of Mumia-Abu Jamal is not radical enough for this White House to distance itself from the man in any way. Again and again, this White House has been offered chances to condemn the man's views and they have willfully and quite deliberately refused.
Andy McCarthy:
The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn't one of those things that just happen. This is Barack "Transparency" Obama gaming the system.
And similarly, from VDH:
When Van Jones talks of the aims of the civil rights movement and its initial minimalist agenda, he references the ultimate desire of 'redistributing all wealth.' When one collates that revelation with Obama's own off-handed "spread the wealth" comment, his 'fair share' sermons, and his 2001 public radio interview thoughts on “the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society,†we begin to see a pattern in which one’s income and wealth do not properly belong to the earner, but are seen as illegitimate and thus legitimately can be redistributed to others.
I am glad that man is gone. But the fact he was ever there in the first place still alarms me.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:32 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I agree - it's great that one radical Communist revolutionary is gone, but at the same time, I don't believe FOR A MINUTE that he *wasn't* "vetted" (such as the process is... ethics waivers and all...). I mean, seriously, that'd be a rather incompetent bunch of security around POTUS.
What I'm afraid of is that POTUS is now trying to cover his tracks by dropping ballast. I hope he doesn't manage to do that.
Posted by: Krista at September 07, 2009 09:30 AM (sUTgZ)
2
What is extremely disturbing is the failure of many if not most news organizations to report *anything* about the Van Jones controversy *until he resigned*. Which makes it clear that they are putting their obligations to their viewers/readers...and also (in the case of public corporations and subsidiaries thereof) to their shareholders BEHIND the promotion of the personal political opinions of their employees/executives.
Posted by: david foster at September 07, 2009 05:01 PM (uWlpq)
3
What should also be troubling is that this is only one of many. You can bet there are more people in this administration with exactly the same views, just not ones that are as easily demonstrably radical.
Posted by: John at September 07, 2009 10:16 PM (crTpS)
4
I don't trust this administration one iota. I don't think there is ANYTHING they can do to change that position...
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 07, 2009 10:40 PM (paOhf)
5
they are putting their obligations to their viewers/readers...and also
(in the case of public corporations and subsidiaries thereof) to their
shareholders BEHIND the promotion of the personal political opinions of
their employees/executives.david, you assume that "obligations" and "personal political opinions" are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is in the public's best interest to shield them from the truth about herOes like Van Jones (Barack bless him) until they are ready. It is still too early to expect the victims of the Bush regime to accept someone who knows the truth about 9/11.
Andy McCarthy (ugh, that name - 50s flashbacks!) and Krista are right. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo. Only Europpressors are blind. Great Leaders can recognize herOism when they see it. Van Jones was vetted. He passed with flying red colors.
John is also right. The forces of eeeevil may have struck down one herO of the peOple, but other nObles are still on their thrones to serve the greater gOOd.
We Great Leaders must be careful. You guys are starting to look under the red curtain. Why can't you close your eyes and dream of unicOrns?
Posted by: kevin at September 08, 2009 12:31 AM (h9KHg)
6
Kevin, that last paragraph is just... PRICELESS. ;-)
Posted by: Krista at September 08, 2009 10:23 AM (sUTgZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 03, 2009
POMPOUS IS TOO NICE OF A WORD
As Jonah Goldberg said, this video clip will hurt your brain.
This is why people are fed up these days. Our politicians are dimwits who cuss at and belittle their constituents when asked simple questions of fact.
People are straight-up tired of pompous politicians, jerks who think they're better than us because they appropriate our money to fly around on fancy jets.
I'm with Glenn Beck: if Congress can't agree to this simple 5 point pledge, then they're worthless.
The more we borrow, the richer we are...seriously? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:58 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This video was infuriating. I didn't find the interviewer's questions offensive in any way. They were the same type of questions I would have asked. The arrogance Stark displayed was hard to fathom. I hope this goes viral and costs him his seat. He deserves it.
Posted by: Amy at September 03, 2009 11:09 AM (9fDOS)
2
Oh for the love of all that is holy... INFURIATING.
What a pompous douche. And he's ALWAYS been a pompous douche, too (I lived in his district at one time).
Oh, and his degree isn't in economics, either. So perhaps instead of attacking someone else's ability to question, he should find someone who fits his apparent definition of who is allowed to explain.
And finally - Stark actually called a military member who had written him a letter critical of his vote on Iraq and left this message for him:
Dan, this is Congressman Pete Stark, and I just got your fax. And you
don't know what you're talking about. So if you care about enlisted
people, you wouldn't have voted for that thing either. But probably
somebody put you up to this, and I'm not sure who it was, but I doubt
if you could spell half the words in the letter, and somebody wrote it
for you. So I don't pay much attention to it. But I'll call you back
later and let you tell me more about why you think you're such a great
goddamn hero and why you think that this generals [sic] and the Defense
Department, who forced these poor enlisted guys to do what they did,
shouldn't be held to account. That's the issue. So if you want to stick
it to a bunch of enlisted guys, have your way. But if you want to get
to the bottom of people who forced this awful program in Iraq, then you
should understand more about it than you obviously do. ThanksAnd yet he continually gets re-elected. By enormous margins.
Posted by: airforcewife at September 03, 2009 11:37 AM (CDkfD)
3
Holy moly, I can not believe that message he left...wowzers...
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at September 03, 2009 12:51 PM (irIko)
4
People are straight-up tired of pompous politicians"People"? You mean the millions who elected Obama and who will vote for us socialists forever? The masses who will never regret keeping St. Ted (Barack bless him) in office for decades?
jerks who think they're better than usWe
are better. We have
power. We love it, and aren't afraid to (ab)use it. Might makes right! (With a small r, of course.)
People love the powerful. They want dynasties - Kennedys and Obamas.
"5 point pledge"? How about a five-year plan?
The more we borrow, the richer we are...seriously?Seriously. The richer he is. The richer we the elites are! We cannot create, only legislate ... confiscate. Take. "Borrow" is just a prettier way of putting it.
We can do anything and you cannot stop us. When Omerica collapses, we will just flee to some Eurabian resort.
And yet he continually gets re-elected. By enormous margins.Just like other Great Leaders. If it weren't for Republican wreckers, results would look more like
these from the DPRK:
The election committee also stated that 99.98% of all registered voters took part in voting, with 100% voting for their candidate in each district. All seats were won by the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, under the control of the Worker's Party.Soon you will all vOte the prOper way.
Posted by: kevin at September 03, 2009 01:02 PM (+nV09)
5
It makes my eyes bleed to hear that jerk.
Posted by: Pamela at September 03, 2009 01:26 PM (H2JBc)
6
This totally reminded me of the commercial where the guy brags about all the stuff he's got, all the spending he's doing and how wealthy a life he is living. Then he asks, "How do I do it? Oh, I'm in debt up to my eyeballs" Classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn5EP9StlVA
Posted by: bdol78 at September 03, 2009 01:32 PM (W3XUk)
7
There aren't really words to express my opinion of this man's arrogance...
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 03, 2009 09:42 PM (paOhf)
8
I don't need a degree in proctology to determine that Pete Stark is an A-hole.
Posted by: Susan at September 03, 2009 11:38 PM (Y8ZGj)
9
J@ck. @$$. >
He must by why California is
collapsing under the weight of its debt so very very prosperous and wealthy!
Posted by: Deltasierra at September 04, 2009 04:48 PM (ccqq6)
10
Not just California, Deltasierra, but
all of Omerica (emphasis ours)!
America's public debt is already 55% of GDP, twice
its share in the '80s, and the US budget deficit is expected to hit
$1.6 trillion this year and a further $9 trillion by 2019. If what we
are witnessing is not somehow reversed, the dollar will collapse
exactly the way of the Russian ruble, the Thai baht and the Malaysian
ringgit did last decade, in response to their governments' fiscal
derelictions. The only difference will be that a traumatized dollar
will take with it America's geopolitical sway.
Who needs that? We'll be rich!
Posted by: kevin at September 08, 2009 12:36 AM (h9KHg)
11
So rich that we won't have to worry about
rising unemployment. Enjoy your coming
funemployment! Sure, Pete Stark isn't too smOOth, but trust him. He graduated from MIT (Chomsky Central!) and Berkeley. He is smart. He is a Great Leader. Follow him to utOpia! If you were him and saw guys like Jan whathisname being skeptical about the prOgram for prOsperity, you'd get angry too.
Posted by: kevin at September 08, 2009 12:27 PM (+nV09)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 02, 2009
I AM UNSETTLED
I envision an ugly future. Despite the fact that I have joked with my mother that I was born during the Carter administration and everything turned out OK, I worry. I see my child being born into an America I can't even recognize.
I find myself channeling my inner Sarah Connor lately.
I used to think that we were living Atlas Shrugged. But lately, I think we're seeing a different ending. I don't see the politicians kidnapping Galt and asking him to fix it fix it fix it; I think they want the broken system.
I don't know how to live in a broken system. I feel like I need to spend some time learning how.
And even the plains aren't enough to calm my soul.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:32 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think your answer lies in key words in your post: "my child"(grand words to see you write by the way). When we can afford people to have great intentions while not being held accountable for results, freedoms erode. When we can't afford it, our country's citizens don't roll over. They wake up and fight, through educating themselves and others, and ultimately through the ballot box. I have optimism because people, like you, are willing to fight hard for what is fundamentally important to them.
Posted by: HChambers at September 02, 2009 11:17 AM (v5r7Y)
2
I share your worries. I try to comfort myself by remembering some history...in the dark days of the Depression, many believed the only question was whether America would go Fascist or it would go Communist. In the Cold War era, global thermonuclear war seemed like a real possibility. Yet we came through these things okay.
I'm not sure I believe myself, though. I'm concerned that something very bad may have happened to the American spirit.
Posted by: david foster at September 02, 2009 05:09 PM (uWlpq)
3
"channeling my inner Sarah Connor" -- heehee
There's a reason why our son's middle name is "Connor." Oh, yes, that is his namesake...
I agree, it's wonderful to see those words, "my child."
Posted by: Lee Anne Mitchell at September 02, 2009 07:29 PM (N5ZmR)
4
the DH and I (who are much older than you and your DH) were just saying the other day that for the first time in our adult lives we are not only afraid
FOR our country, but
we are afraid OF our government. we worry more than we ever have not only for our children, but so much more for our grandchild (who is your child's contemporary)... and those are the scariest thoughts for us outside our own mortality. I used to think the survivalists were "fringe"... now? sarah connor indeed.
Posted by: Some Soldier's Mom at September 02, 2009 10:19 PM (DBUVT)
5
There seems to be a lot of this going around. I have a great sense of unease about the future. If the sh*t does hit the fan, I am not prepared to deal with it, nor is my immediate family. Can we get The Gulch up and running somewhere, soon?
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 02, 2009 11:37 PM (paOhf)
6
Of course the politicians
want a broken system. It creates crises that can only be 'solved' by more government - meaning more reelections. Disasters keep them in power. It's the broken window fallacy on a national level. Leaders break windows and the masses applaud regardless of not-so-hidden costs.
Posted by: Amritas at September 03, 2009 01:41 AM (h9KHg)
7
This is why I would have named a blog surrealities if I had started one several years ago. Now it is scary and surreal and I didn't name my blog that because it is too close now.
I knew he was going to be bad, I just didn't know how quickly he could act and get so much done to ruin the country.
Posted by: Ruth H at September 03, 2009 12:53 PM (KLwh4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
98kb generated in CPU 0.0221, elapsed 0.1066 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.0916 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.