Friday, 31 December 2010

AN ANNOYING QUIZ

Ken Berwitz

Quizzes can be annoying -- especially when they're given in a way that you know the obvious answer is going to be wrong.

However, our pal, Toyman Bob, has provided a short quiz that - while every bit as annoying as I've just described - is also a lot of fun.  So, this being New Year's Eve and all, here it is:

ANNOYING QUIZ

 

(FIRST THE QUESTIONS, THEN THE ANSWERS BELOW!!  AND NO PEEKING!!!)


 

QUESTION 1:   YOU ARE A PARTICIPANT IN A RACE. YOU OVERTAKE THE SECOND PERSON. WHAT POSITION ARE YOU IN?


QUESTION 2:  I F YOU OVERTAKE THE LAST PERSON, THEN YOU ARE....?


QUESTION 3:  TAKE 1000 AND ADD 40 TO IT. NOW ADD ANOTHER 1000 NOW ADD 30.
ADD ANOTHER 1000. NOW ADD 20. NOW ADD ANOTHER 1000.  NOW ADD 10. WHAT IS THE TOTAL?


VERY TRICKY ARITHMETIC! NOTE: THIS MUST BE DONE IN YOUR HEAD ONLY.  DO NOT USE PAPER AND PENCIL OR A CALCULATOR!!

QUESTION 4:  MARY'S FATHER HAS FIVE DAUGHTERS: NANA, 2. NENE, 3. NINI, 4. NONO, AND ???   WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FIFTH DAUGHTER?

 

==================================================================
==================================================================

==================================================================

 

 

ANSWERS


ANSWER 1:  IF YOU ANSWERED THAT YOU ARE FIRST, THEN YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! IF YOU OVERTAKE THE SECOND PERSON AND YOU TAKE HIS PLACE, YOU ARE IN SECOND PLACE!

ANSWER 2:  IF YOU ANSWERED THAT YOU ARE SECOND TO LAST, THEN YOU ARE....WRONG AGAIN.  TELL ME SUNSHINE, HOW CAN YOU OVERTAKE THE LAST PERSON??  YOU'RE NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS, ARE YOU?

ANSWER 3:  DID YOU GET 5000 ?  THE CORRECT ANSWER IS ACTUALLY 4100 ...
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, CHECK IT WITH A CALCULATOR!  tODAY IS DEFINITELY NOT YOUR DAY, IS IT?  

ANSWER 4
:  DID YOU ANSWER NUNU? NO! OF COURSE IT ISN'T.  HER NAME IS MARY.  READ THE QUESTION AGAIN!

=======================================================

 

 

BONUS ROUND:  (A FINAL CHANCE TO REDEEM YOURSELF!!)



A MUTE PERSON GOES INTO A SHOP AND WANTS TO BUY A TOOTHBRUSH.  BY IMITATING THE ACTION OF BRUSHING HIS TEETH HE SUCCESSFULLY EXPRESSES HIMSELF TO THE SHOPKEEPER AND THE  PURCHASE IS DONE.  NEXT, A BLIND MAN COMES INTO THE SHOP WHO WANTS TO BUY A PAIR OF SUNGLASSES; HOW DOES  HE INDICATE WHAT HE WANTS?


BONUS ANSWER:  IT'S REALLY VERY SIMPLE.  HE OPENS HIS MOUTH AND ASKS FOR IT...


OK, NOW THAT YOUVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS, PASS THIS ON TO FRUSTRATE THE SMART PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE!  HAVE A NICE DAY, ONE AND ALL!!!

free` Darn it I missed number 4 - nunu. ----------- On Q2 I answered "the leader" as in you have lapped the last person. I am counting it as correct. (12/31/10)

free` Oh, and a Happy New Year Eve and Day to you and yours. :) (12/31/10)

Zeke .... .... As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives. Every wife had seven sacks. Every sack had seven cats. Every cat had seven kits (kittens). ..... ...... Kits, cats, sacks, wives ---- how many were going to St. Ives ? ...... ...... ..... Ans: One ----- As ** I ** was going to St. Ives ...... ..... (12/31/10)

free` Ken, my first thought was that you can't, but then I thought about the leader lapping the last person. No one said it was a straight race. So I am appealing to the other readers to comment on my answer. ;) (12/31/10)

Ken Berwitz free - Nope, wrong!! It is impossible to overtake the last person because, being that he is the last person, you can't possibly be behind him. No one said the race was in a circle - it could be a straightaway. I told you this was an annoying quiz!! (12/31/10)


THE OBAMA APPROACH TO TERRORISM

Ken Berwitz

This is why it is so hard to take President Obama seriously when he claims to fight terrorism.

Excerpted from an article at Fox News:

GOP Fuming Over Recess Appointment of Lawyer Who Compared 9/11 to Drug Trade

Published December 30, 2010

| FoxNews.com

President Obama has outraged Republicans by directly appointing six officials this week without the consent of Congress, including his pick for deputy attorney general, who once compared the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to the drug trade. 

The president announced the so-called recess appointments Wednesday, using his power to install sidelined nominees while Congress is on break. They will still need to be confirmed by the Senate before the end of the next session, but the recess appointments allow Obama to break a series of logjams and fill positions that have been vacant for months. 

Obama appointed four new U.S. ambassadors, along with the U.S. public printer and the deputy attorney general. 

The latter, James Cole, had been in limbo since he was nominated in May, though his name did clear the Senate Judiciary Committee over the summer. Republicans had questioned his past consulting work with bailed-out insurance giant AIG but had been particularly critical of his stance on prosecuting terror suspects. 

That concern flared up again after Obama installed Cole on Wednesday. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, accused Cole of wanting to pursue terror suspects as a criminal matter in civilian courts. He cited a 2002 Legal Times column in which Cole called the Sept. 11 attacks "criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population" -- like the Oklahoma City bombing. States has faced "many forms of devastating crime," from the drug trade to organized crime to rape and child abuse. "The acts of Sept. 11 were horrible, but so are these other things," he wrote. 

King said Cole's appointment indicates the administration wants to continue to implement "dangerous policies" of treating terrorism as a criminal issue. Attorney General Eric Holder, Cole's new boss, has pushed for criminal trials but has struggled to bring mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stateside for prosecution. 

"I find it absolutely shocking that President Obama would appoint someone who has diminished the 9/11 terrorist attacks by comparing them to the drug trade and who believes that a civilian courtroom is the appropriate venue for 9/11 trials," King said in a written statement. "I strongly oppose the recess appointment of James Cole to lead the national security team at the Department of Justice." 

 Do you think this is the kind of appointment someone who is serious about fighting terrorism would make?  I know I don't.

But it's right in keeping with eric holder, Janet Napolitano and others, isn't it? 

And what will Mr. Obama say if we are hit again?  That he's going to have a criminal investigation?  Will that make you feel better?  Will it bring the victims back?

The time to address terrorism is before it happens, not afterwards.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.


THE JON STEWART 9/11 HOAX

Ken Berwitz

Did Jon Stewart, from his ivory tower on The Daily Show, shame Republicans into agreeing to a 9/11 first responders bill?

The answer is absolutely, unequivocally no.  But the New York Times - along with selected leftists and some of the more gullible among us - think it is true.

That being the case, I thank Andrew Cline, writing for American Spectator (spectator.org)., for doing his excellent job of blowing this myth to kingdom come.

Here are the key excerpts:

Comedian Jon Stewart is the new Edward R. Murrow. Why? He shamed Republicans into supporting a bill to pay the health care bills of 9/11 first responders. It is written in the New York Times, therefore it must be so. The cognoscenti nod their heads in agreement, and another page in the history of the Obama administration is inked.

Of course, it is all nonsense.

The folklore goes like this: Senate Republicans didn't want to pay for health care for 9/11 responders. They used the excuse of wanting to extend the Bush tax rates first to prevent the bill from passing. Then Jon Stewart ranted about their obstructionism on his show, urging them to "just @#%&ing pass it!" Shamed, they caved and passed the bill.

In fact, the bill was flawed and Republicans had serious objections to it from the start. It did more than simply pay for 9/11-related health expenses for New York City first responders who were on the scene that horrible day. According to the Los Angeles Times, only half of the people covered by the original bill were first responders. The other half were civilians -- city residents, school children, and volunteers who came to help clean up in the aftermath of the attacks. But there is no telling who those people actually are. It is believed that about 10,000 people came to the city to help. They were from all over the country. Republicans were rightly concerned that the bill could become a blank check to virtually anyone, anywhere who claimed to have gotten sick as a result of 9/11.

Senate Republicans who opposed swift passage of the bill in the final days of the lame duck Congress were not opposed to the concept. They were opposed to the size and scope of the bill and to the process that would've fast-tracked the bill without allowing amendments.

"I'm not trying to fight it; I'm trying to get it right," Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., told Politico.com.

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said, "It's one thing to make an emotional appeal to say we need to take care of people, but it's another to do it in a sensible way."

But an emotional appeal was all Jon Stewart had. "It's a win, win, win, win, just f*&@ing do it!" he screamed. Never mind the facts, such as: it was a $7.4 billion bill, not $7 million, as Stewart said. Also, Democrats had plenty of time to pass it, as it was introduced in February of 2009. But they didn't schedule it for a House vote until this past July. It didn't come up in the Senate until after the November, 2010 elections. And then Democrats tried to ram it through with little debate and no amendments.

Fortunately for the taxpayers, Senate Republicans stood their ground in the face of emotional, uninformed appeals by the likes of Stewart. The popular narrative is that they caved after Stewart's rant. In fact, they held out for major concessions that wound up cutting the cost from $7.4 billion to $4.3 billion.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wound up praising Republicans after the compromise was reached.

"Over the last 24 hours, our Republican colleagues have negotiated in good faith to forge a workable final package that will protect the health of the men and women who selflessly answered our nation's call in her hour of greatest need," he said.

In other words, the amended bill does what we claimed the original would do, but for $3.1 billion less.

As you can see, Mr. Cline blows away this pathetic, fraudulent little fairy tale.

Now we'll wait for Mr. Stewart and those nice folks at the Times to issue retractions.

I figure that should happen the same week that neil abercrombie gets his hands on the original Obama birth certificate and issues a statement saying "Gee, y'know what, he isn't legal to be President after all....."


ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND CREDIBILITY

Ken Berwitz

The following blog, which reams some of the so-called "environmentalists" and their doomsday predictions of years past, was not written by me (though I wish it were). It comes to us from Rick Moran at www.americanthinker.com, and with apologies to Rick (who should take this as a compliment), I'm not leaving out one word:

December 31, 2010

8 botched environmental forecasts

Rick Moran

 

Fox News has an all-star grouping of environmental forecasts that turned out to be so off base that the only question remains is why are the people who made them are still taken seriously?

A couple of examples:

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Um...no. Kids in England today know very well what snow is. They've had to shovel so much of it off the walk this winter they probably want to find Dr. Viner and throttle him.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots...[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.


Read what this mealy mouthed little snit has to say to defend himself:

Oppenheimer told FoxNews.com that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S.


Um, no again. Where are the food riots? The "black blizzards?" that will shut down computers? Or strip paint from houses? Or stop traffic on highways?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

Here's one from our old friend Paul Ehrlich, who famously predicted in the 1970's that both China and India would suffer famines by 1985 where hundreds of millions of people would die. Both China and India are now self sufficient in food production.

Here, Ehrlich points his mini-brain in the direction of England:

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

How about that one, Paul?

"When you predict the future, you get things wrong," Ehrlich admitted, but "how wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else."

Incredible. How wrong are you? Fantastically, stupendously,egregiously, idiotically wrong, that's how much. "All kinds of problems" is light years distant from "England will not exist in the year 2000." It's not close, even by cosmic standards. You can look as closely as you'd like at England and glean absolutely nothing that would make your prediction anything more than the drooling ranting of a clown.

Check out the piece for more jaw droppers.

Why does anyone take these people seriously?  Give me a hint.

free` Ken wrote: Why does anyone take these people seriously? Give me a hint. -------------- If that is a serious question, the answer is the enviro movement has the MSM on their side. Only maybe 3 million people watch Fox News. (12/31/10)


THE OBAMA COMEBACK: A PLAIN-TALK ANALYSIS

Ken Berwitz

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based  foreign affairs correspondent for London's Daily Telegraph.  Like me (and you, I'm sure) he has seen  the suddenly resurgent fawning over President Obama by our wonderful "neutral" media.  And like me (maybe you too), he isn't buying it. 

Here are excerpts from Mr. Gardiner's latest column.  See if they agree with your assessment:

Nile Gardiner

 

Forget the liberal hype about a comeback: 2010 was a stunningly bad year for Barack Obama, and 2011 could be even worse

 

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: December 31st, 2010

 

Ignore the revisionist hype in sections of the liberal media about President Obama staging a (mythical) political comeback this is a presidency with an approval rating of 45 percent (according to the RealClear Politics poll of polls), that presides over a nation where just 27 percent of voters think the country is moving in the right direction, and which just 29 percent of Americans think will be returned to power in 2012. The White House may be claiming a couple of political wins in the dying embers of the lame duck Congress after expending a great deal of political capital in the Senate over the reckless ratification of the Moscow-friendly START Treaty and the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, but these are issues barely on the radar screens of most American voters in the lead-up to 2012, an election which will be dominated by the economy and health care reform.

 

The political landscape still looks strikingly bleak for the transformational president as he goes into 2011. 2010 was a stunningly bad year for Barack Obama, no matter how much the likes of The New York Times or The Washington Post might try to sugar coat it. Here are four key reasons why it was a year Obama will want to forget:

 

1. The midterm elections were a defeat of epic proportions for the Obama Presidency

 

When Barack Obama spoke of a shellacking at the midterms, it was a huge understatement. The Republicans scored a significantly bigger win than they did in 1994, with their biggest gain in the House of Representatives in 62 years since 1948. Fortunately for the Democrats, just 37 Senate seats were up for election, preventing what would have been an almost certain handover of power in the upper house too.

 

2. Conservatism grew increasingly dominant in America

 

The midterms were certainly no flash in the pan, but part of a broader conservative revolution that swept America in 2010. As a recent Gallup survey showed, 48 percent of Americans now describe themselves as conservative, compared to 32 percent who call themselves moderate, and just 20 percent who call themselves liberal.

 Conservatives now outnumber liberals by nearly 2.5 to 1, a ratio that is likely to increase in 2011.

 

3. The Left lost ground and engaged in a brutal civil war

 

 Conservative media, from Fox News to The Wall Street Journal, have had a tremendous year, increasing market share while establishment giants from CNN to network news outlets continue to decline. The White House unwisely took on Fox in a major offensive, and spectacularly lost. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and a constellation of conservative talk show hosts have had a bumper 2010. In the meantime, Americas disillusioned liberal elites are increasingly aiming their fire at each other, in scenes reminiscent of the bloodthirsty finale of Reservoir Dogs. .

 

4. The Tea Party became more powerful than the president at the ballot box

 

The Tea Party was the big victor of 2010, and spectacularly humiliated the White House by running rings around it. A small grassroots movement with barely any resources evolved into the most successful US political movement of this generation, sparking a national protest against the Big Government policies of the Obama administration, and a powerful call for a return to Americas founding principles.  As I noted in September, a CNN poll showed that while just 37 percent of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate if backed by Barack Obama, a far larger 50 percent will vote for a Tea-Party endorsed candidate.

Now that's pretty plain talk. 

 

There are two years left in President Obama's first term of office.  That time element certainly can work in his favor since, in politics, two years is like two hundred eternities.  No one - not Nile Gardiner, or me, or you, or anyone else - knows what is going to happen between now and the next election.

 

But Mr. Gardiner has laid out a very accurate analysis of where things now stand.  And they stand very poorly for Mr. Obama.....no matter how lovingly his media tinglers try to spin it.

 

Will there be a second term?  See me the November after next and we'll talk.

free` As long as the msm continues to scream from the rooftops that obama is the comeback kid and continue to hide any embarrassing stuff most voters will have no choice but to believe it. After all most voters don't have a lot of time to gather information, most get there 40 minutes [max] from the msm. Also those voters that watch no news but have hollywood to "guide" them [thank you jon stewart]. (12/31/10)

free` An addition to the post above. I made a comment here some months back about a TV show I quit watching because of the leftard digs it made throughout the show. That is just one more way that hollywood taints the voters opinions. (12/31/10)


LEFT WING AGENDA MOVIES: A BOX OFFICE UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

The two most significant (more or less) left wing "agenda movies" I am aware of - Fair Game (starring Sean Penn, about joe wilson and valerie plame) and Casino Jack (starring Kevin Spacey, about jack abramoff) are out there for the folks to see.

Too bad so few people seem interested:

-Fair Game was released two months ago.  It was first in limited release, then in about 400 theaters.  According to www.boxofficemojo.com, its domestic gross so far is a gaudy (yes, I am being sarcastic) total of about $9 million -- and total foreign gross of an additional $9.7 million puts the international total just under $19 million.  Given that a) its production budget alone was $22 million b) the studio gets only about 55% of receipt money and c) there are tons of other costs, like for advertising the movie for example, this makes Fair Game a fairly large flopperoo.

-Then we have Casino Jack.  It is out for 10 days in very limited run (just 15 theaters).  Its gross for that week and a half is minuscule - but, in fairness, as I have already pointed out, you can't expect much with such little exposure.  So let's look at the per-theater gross and see how those few theaters are making out.  Er.....whoops:  It's just $4,700 per screen - 15th place.  Another box office stinker.

Add that to the money-loser "W.", Oliver Stone's hit job on President Bush ($29 million gross on $25 million production costs -- keep in mind that 45% of the gross goes right off the top), and I just can't help thinking that agenda movies - left wing agenda movies that is - may not be a great way to go anymore.

I wonder if Hollywood will ever (gasp!) think about putting out a few movies that don't crap on everyone to the right of, say, Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, or Oliver Stone.  Movies with a positive message about (arrgghhhh!!) The USA and  even (eeeeeek!!) a conservative or two. 

Y'know, one or two of them might even turn a profit.

Omigod, what a concept!!!!


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: 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!!