Saturday, 11 April 2009
ANOTHER "CELEBRITY" POLITICAL ANALYST
I wonder what media would have said about a web site which featured a
Republican/conservative saying something like this about the Democratic
Tim Graham of www.newsbusters.org
provides the details:
Huff-Post: GOP Is a Dying
Stalinist Tyrant, Mad With Syphilis?
The easiest stereotype of a Huffington
Post article is a raging screed against conservatives written by a gasbag
celebrity. Take Steven Weber, the
former star of the sitcom Wings. His funeral for the Republican Party is
promoted on the Huff-Po homepage with these words:
The Republican Party is like a dying tyrant, mad
with syphilis, ironically like that very Stalin they would accuse their
enemies of associating with.
That's how they scream "read more." It's so
stereotypical it makes you think that Arianna's hired some 20-year-old intern in
the basement to write a sort of Mad Libs parody of....mad liberals. But Weber
was only getting started. From Stalin, it continued:
How else to account for their desperation to
resurrect the wraith of Joseph McCarthy; the hammy and baffling utterances
from high level party officials like Boehner and McConnell; the blatant desire
on their part to let the country fail out of sheer resentment; the wanton
sedition of Conservative shit-stirrers ranging from the quasi Madame Defarge
Michele Bachmann to the porcine, pill-popping porcine propagandist Rush
It is an all out assault on reason, on progress,
on truth. What is the difference between the Republican Party and, say, the
Taliban? A rogue by any other name would smell as rank. Their frantic
accusations all churned out in a futile effort to explain their current pariah
status is as pathetic and draconian as stoning a woman in the
The hateful free association just flows. But is an
apology coming? Was Weber too hot-headed? Right after the stoning-the-woman
passage, he wrote: "I feel I must apologize for my own particularly febrile
anger. It's unseemly and ugly."
I'll second that motion, but Weber isn't really
apologizing. The vision is ugly, but true:
But finally, the enemy is clearly outlined. We
can see it for what it is and what it always has been. It exists not in myth
but in a reality which has plagued humanity for millennia: utter, hateful
ignorance born from a fear of truth, indeed a fear of life itself; a mad and
impotent pursuit of some long-forgotten ecstasy having spawned generations of
paranoid power addicts who chase the past at the expense of the future,
cloaking their real intentions in perfumed patriotism and the seductive swoon
If Weber keeps at it, he might be professional
enough for a college newspaper. He began with a "dead genitals"
So there it stands: a naked, pigeon-chested old
man, random strands of white hair on its boney shoulders; its swollen-knuckled
hands clasped over its dead genitals, looking at once forlorn and menacing,
shivering with self-loathing and xenophobia, raging pathetically at its timely
and appropriate defeat at the hands of Reason.
Ladies and gentlemen: The Republican
Weber's last stab at TV stardom was the failed NBC
drama Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip.
Would they be calling it a hate site? D'ya think
Oh well, another "celebrity" (not a very successful one, which is why I keep
putting the word in quotation marks) making sick, hate-filled attacks on an
entire political party - i.e. tens of millions of people he has never met.
What else is new?
I wonder what Mr. weber thinks about Black people, Jews and gays. Hey,
if he's this agreeable to stereotyping Republicans, why not them as well.
What's that you say? weber would never do such a thing? It would
be hateful and ignorant and intolerant?
Sorry, but it seems to me that he has pretty clearly demonstrated his
acceptance of all three
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?
Why are people so afraid of same-sex marriages being legal?
From the Iowa Independent:
State Reps. Dolores Mertz (D-Ottosen) and Geri
Huser (D-Altoona) broke from the rest of their party on an important procedural
vote to block a same-sex marriage ban from being debated on the floor of the
Iowa House Thursday afternoon.
The motion to suspend the rules, which was proposed by State Rep. Christopher Rants
(R-Sioux City), failed when the rest of the Democratic caucus in the House voted
Stay tuned, because word has it that this will not
be the last time a same-sex marriage ban is offered as an amendment to a House
bill this session, as lawmakers try to pass a slew of complicated budgets.
A similar procedural vote will likely be required for any of those
Let's suppose (gasp!) that same-sex marriages remain legal in Iowa (and
become legal everywhere else). Would that make heterosexual marriages
any less legal? Would it confer fewer rights on heterosexual married
Nope and Nope.
What it would do is provide the same rights to homosexual couples, so that
two people in love who are of the same sex can legally commit to each
I am 63 years old right now, and I joke about the fact that it will be the
only time I will ever be divisible by 9 and 7.
But in the unlikely event that I'm wrong about this and live to be 126, I
guarantee that I still will not understand why someone else's sexual orientation
is my or anyone else's business. And I will still not understand
why the equality of marriage rights for homosexuals in any way
diminishes anyone else's rights.
P.S.: In answer to the two questions that I am most asked when I state
my views on same-sex marriage:
1) no I am not homosexual (this year my wife and I celebrate our 40th
wedding anniversary) and
2) yes I have both relatives and friends who are homosexual -- as I suspect
you do. So what?
OBAMA'S BOW: FIRST THE LIE, NOW THE RATIONALE
This is for anyone who still doesn't understand the degree of media
bias in favor of Barack Obama.
President Obama bowed to Saudi Arabia's king abdullah at the G20
summit. There is absolutely no doubt that he did. Anyone can see it
with his/her own eyes. I blogged about it just two days ago (see the video
Ok. Assuming you just checked my link and watched the video, that issue
is settled. Obama bowed.
For a day or two it didn't matter, however, because most of our wonderful
"neutral" media simply buried the footage. It was everywhere on the
internet, but nowhere in mainstream news venues.
But then there were cracks in the media suppression. Cable news showed
the bow and made print look ridiculous for ignoring it. So, albeit
belatedly, a few newspapers joined in, including Obama's hometown Chicago
Sun-Times. Now the Obama people had to address it in some
Telling the truth, apparently was out of the question. So the Obama
people claimed that he did not bow at all; that he is taller than king
abdullah (which he is by a few inches) and just leaned down to greet him.
Look at the video again and see what an absolute lie that is. In all
the video footage you have seen of Barack Obama meeting people, have you
ever seen him bend over like that to greet anyone? Even people shorter
than king abdullah? The lie was so obvious they had to come up
with something else.
No problem. Time Magazine to the rescue.
Time, (where Vice President Biden's media guy Jay Carney previously
worked as the Washington Bureau Chief), has come up with this:
Friday, April 10, 2009 at 3:15
In the videotape zapping around the
Internet, Obama looks slightly awkward, as if he wasn't quite sure whether to
bow, shake hands or do both. It turned out to be a deep bow- cum-handshake, it
was certainly more than the nod-handshake he gave Queen Elizabeth II, but it was
not quite a formal diplomatic bow from the waist. Maybe that's why the White
House is, unofficially, denying the Obama bow.
A simple handshake would have sufficed.
Obama certainly did not need to bow at all, as far as Saudi royal protocol is
concerned. I have attended Abdullah's majlis in Riyadh a few times and witnessed
his own personal distaste for obsequious shows of respect. In the context of a
tribal society, Abdullah is a sheikh, indeed the sheikh of sheikhs, and as such
his subjects would typically greet him at his Saudi-style town meetings with a
kiss on the shoulder and a kiss on the hand.
On those occasions, however, I watched as Abdullah
repeatedly whipped back his hand as some tried to kiss it, a custom that other
monarchs in the Arab world have encouraged. I wasn't surprised when two months
after ascending the throne in 2005, Abdullah decreed an official end to the
kissing of shoulders and hands. The protocol henceforth, according to the Saudi
royal court, would be a handshake. That goes for foreigners, including heads of
state like Obama.
Yet, any American president should display a form
of respect to any other head of state that he (or in the future, perhaps she)
agrees to meet. Rather than kowtowing to Saudi custom, or showing fealty to a
Muslim king, Obama's gesture in London seemed to be simply his gracious,
spontaneous way of greeting Abdullah. That's fitting for a variety of reasons,
beyond any rules of diplomatic protocol.
The Saudi leads a society that is steeped in
custom, even if he himself is trying to loosen tradition a bit. As a much
younger man, even if he is president of the world's most powerful country, Obama
is entirely proper in showing pointed respect for an elder counterpart.
Moreover, Abdullah holds a variety of positions that deserve and require
recognition-king; custodian of the holy mosques of Mecca and Medina; elder
statesman of the Arab world; son of the founder of his country.
Then there's the context of Obama's gesture, too,
namely the long--and mutually beneficial-- Saudi-American alliance. The London
encounter is the latest in an unbroken string of meetings between U.S. and Saudi
heads of state dating back to the meeting between President Roosevelt and Ibn
Saud, Abdullah's father, aboard the USS Quincy.
In 1945, FDR gave his Saudi counterpart more than
a handshake. He presented Ibn Saud with a C-47 Dakota airplane--and one of his
wheelchairs. The two aging leaders had gotten into a friendly discussion about
their respective infirmities. Later, Ibn Saud would say, This chair is my most
precious possession. It is the gift of my great and good friend, President
Roosevelt, on whom Allah has had mercy."
It's not really the bow that upsets many of
Obama's critics. It's the US-Saudi political and economic partnership that
reaches back decades. Some think the Saudis should be more subservient
to the U.S., ought to make peace with Israel, have abetted Islamic extremism,
are responsible for high oil prices, or all of the above. They didn't like
it when even a president they supported, George Bush, held hands, Saudi-style,
with Abdullah during a greeting in Crawford, Texas. But if U.S. presidents of
both parties have deemed it to be in American interests to have friendly
relations with Saudi Arabia, it's common sense to accord the Kingdom's elderly
monarch a simple gesture of respect. For Obama, who unapologetically seeks to
build bridges between Islam and the West, perhaps it's second nature,
There you have it, folks. Time Magazine says that, yes, he bowed.
But it was ok to do so, he didn't really kowtow at all - not like that
awful President Bush (how could Time resist attacking Bush in this
All better. Nothing to see here, sheeple. Consider yourself free
to continue being mesmerized by Barack Obama and our coverage of him.
Can anyone be naive and idiotic enough to accept Time's rationale for Obama bowing to
Let me put it bluntly. People who buy into this BS have their heads so
far up their rectums that they'd be able to read their hatsizes through their
WHAT IS BARACK OBAMA DOING ABOUT SOMALIA?
The answer to that question is: I don't know. But here is a very
well thought out piece by Paul Mirengoff of www.powerlineblog.com on the
At one level, this front-page headline from today's Washingon
Post inadvertently makes
President Obama sound a bit ridiculous. The group in question, al-Shabab, is a
terrorist outfit that, according to the Post, has ties with al-Qaeda and is
training new terrorists including some Americans. What's to mull?
As a general matter, however, there's nothing
inherently wrong with an adminstration carefully thinking things through before
resorting to force. Unfortunately, the Post's account of the deliberations,
provided by "several senior security officials," offers little confidence that
the Obama administration is thinking things through rigorously or even
As the Post's headline implies, much effort
apparently is being devoted to attempting to determine al-Shabab's "aims," that
is whether it wants to attack the U.S. and Europe or merely confine its efforts
to Somalia and Ethiopia. But there is little reason to believe that the
administration can read the minds of these terrorists, or that al-Shabab's
present intentions will be their future intentions. "Mulling" the precise scope
of the terrorism this outfit might engage in seems like a fool's
According to the Post, those inside the
administration who oppose attacking the terrorist camps say that doing so "would
have negative diplomatic and political consequences far beyond the Horn of
Africa. The Post doesn't elaborate, but it sounds like the concern consists of
fear that U.S. will appear to the world at-large as "arrogant" and
insufficiently reformed from the Bush era. The Post reinforces this impression
when it notes that the Bush administration attacked Somalia at least five times
and suggests that for Obama to order such an attack would undermine his efforts
to distance himself from Bush.
If the Obama team is actually delaying an attack
on terrorists based on this kind of thinking, then it is being criminally
The Post says that the main alternative to
attacking the terrorists is "increased financial pressure and diplomatic
activity, including stepped-up efforts to resolve the larger political turmoil
in Somalia." If the Obama team is delaying an attack on terrorists because it
thinks it can resolve the larger political turmoil in Somalia, it is being
criminally stupid. .
Somalia is more than just pirates preying on the ships of other
countries. It has turned into a major training ground for terrorism.
Unfortunately, Somalia has also become the latest proof that most countries do
not learn from history.
No matter how many times it happens, they seem impervious to the reality that
there are situations in which appeasement only makes things worse. Like
I'm waiting, more than a little anxiously, to see whether the USA under Barack Obama has become one
FIGHTING THE PIRATES: FRANCE LEADS THE WAY!!
You know things have changed when France takes decisive military action ahead
of the USA.
Here are the details via an excerpt from the Associated
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -
U.S. warships are trying to stop Somali pirates from sending reinforcements to
a lifeboat where an American captain is being held hostage as the high-seas
standoff off Africa's eastern coast entered a fourth day Saturday.
Underscoring the high stakes involved, France's
navy on Friday freed a sailboat seized off Somalia last week by other pirates,
but one of the hostages was killed.
A Nairobi-based diplomat, who spoke on condition
on anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to reporters, said the
pirates have summoned assistance but at least two American ships and U.S. Navy
surveillance aircraft are deterring pirate ships and skiffs from contact with
The pirates have threatened to kill their
American hostage, Capt. Richard Phillips, if the U.S. attacks them, according
to a Somali who has been in contact with the
Am I thrilled that all but one of the hostages were saved? You bet I
Do I regret the fact that one hostage lost his life? Of
course I do. But I regret even more that it happened due to the
absence of countries acting decisively all this time. The pirates have
only become more brazen because it keeps paying off.
This must end now. Period.
Congratulations to the French navy for standing up to this scum. And I
eagerly await the moment we follow suit.
We can only hope President Obama realizes that being second is better
than doing nothing at all.
Does he? We'll soon find out.
PENN STATE'S VIEW OF VETERANS
The following blog is from John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com with further commentary by
James Taranto. It shows
us a video that Penn State University used to counsel its instructors
regarding "worrisome student behavior" -- and then tried to bury for reasons I
hope you'll find self-evident.
Simply stated, it characterizes a military veteran as a poor student, angry,
unreasonable, not in control of his emotions and threatening.
The academic staff, of course, is reasonable and oh so superior.
Read/watch for yourself.
If you haven't already seen it, this is worth a
laugh: how academics look--down--at those weird people who have
volunteered to serve their country. Is that scary, or what?
This video was prepared by Penn State's Counseling
and Psychological Services office, as a training device. It is one of a series
that depict "worrisome student behavior." The "worrisome student" is a
When veterans objected, the university quickly
took down the video, but college Republicans preserved it on YouTube. I don't
have much to add to James Taranto's comments:
The video about The Veteran is similar to the
others, in that all depict abnormal behavior by young people who probably are
normal, but are immature or temporarily impaired. But the characters in the
other videos are all completely generic, with no distinguishing
characteristics other than their sex. Only The Veteran is fleshed out enough
even to be a stereotype.
The obvious objection to the depiction of The
Veteran is that there is no reason to think that veterans are more prone than
anyone else to lash out angrily, blaming others for their own failings. If
anything, one would think that the rigors of military training and deployment
would leave them more mature, at least in this regard.
But The Veteran's status as a veteran is
relevant to the video's story, inasmuch as he believes the instructor is
treating him unfairly because he is a veteran. This lends another
dimension to Maggie Kwok's speculation about the reaction if the character
were depicted as a member of an ethnic or sexual minority.
What if the student in the video were black and
accused the instructor of racial discrimination? Would this be depicted, as it
is in this video, as if the charge was absurd on its face? Would the student's
threat to have the (presumably untenured) instructor "fired" come across as an
empty one, the way it does in the actual video? And if the department chairman
in the opening exchange identified the student by asking, "Oh, the black
guy?," would that not be seen--with some justification--as bolstering the
charge of discrimination?
In the video, The Veteran behaves
inappropriately--but he also accuses the instructor of inappropriately
bringing her politics into the classroom at his expense. We are meant to think
the accusation is preposterous. But at a university that produces such a
video, is it hard to believe that such things actually go
No, sadly, it isn't. Every now and then we get a
glimpse into how liberals--to be fair, not all liberals, but most of
them--actually think. It isn't pretty.
PAUL adds: Penn State features prominently in
David Horowitz's new book, One Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's
Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our
Personally, I'm not on board with that last part about "not all liberals but
most of them". With all due respect to John I think that, albeit to a far
lesser degree, he is indulging in the same kind of stereotyping we see in
But in terms of Penn State's overtly insulting, demeaning characterization of
veterans, John is 100% correct.
As suggested in James Taranto's commentary, suppose the video had featured a
Black student from an inner city ghetto who accused the instructor of racial
discrimination. Do you think Penn State would have used it? What
about a Latino student from Mexico or the Dominican Republic? How about
a......well, you get the idea.
Frankly, this is not a training video. It is an indoctrination
Can you believe it? An anti-military bias in academia, complete
with an obvious air of superiority from the faculty.
How novel. When have you ever seen that before?
ANOTHER PIRATE HIJACKING. WHEN DO WE ACT?
While President Obama "is keeping a close eye on developments" regarding the
Maersk Alabama's captain, who is being held hostage by four guys in a lifeboat
surrounded by US forces, we have this from Reuters:
Pirates seize U.S.-owned,
April 11 (Reuters) - Pirates seized a U.S.-owned and Italian-flagged tugboat
with 16 crew on Saturday in the latest hijacking in the busy Gulf of Aden
waterway, a regional maritime group said.
Andrew Mwangura, of the Mombasa-based East
African Seafarers' Assistance Programme, said the crew were believed to be
unharmed on the tugboat, which he added was operated from the United Arab
Since the other countries shose ships are being hijacked have established
themselves as helpless to do anything about it, and the UN is useless for this
or just about anything else, it is up to us.
Are we or are we not going to act?
How many more hijackings and how many more hostages are we going to
How many more tens of millions are going to be handed to these "people" (you
need a lot of latitude to use that word here)?
How much longer will the victimized countries deal with the "intermediaries"
that are literally in place to collect the money?
How much longer are we going to allow the ports these ships emanate from to
Is there a President in the house?
Buy Our Book Here!
We're Hopelessly Partisan
hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.
In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small.
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!