Thursday, 31 January 2013

THE BEST SUPER BOWL DELI TRAY EVER

Ken Berwitz

This comes to us from my pal Toyman Buddy.  If you've ever come across a more clever, tastier-looking super bowl deli tray in your life, send the me the picture, because I've got to see it.

Super Bowl

How terrific is that?


THE DECONSTRUCTION OF CHUCK HAGEL

Ken Berwitz

First Senator John McCain, and now Senator Ted Cruz, are making mincemeat of President Obama's nominee for Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel.  He has been reduced to stammering nonsense about needing to find out about the context of his own direct, specific statements, which he made in answer to direct, specific questions, in which he attacked both the United States for its policies and Israel basically for having the effrontery to want to continue existing.

The context is not an issue.  The statements, however, are a huge one.

Despite this, it is very likely (though not a complete lock) that Hagel is going to be confirmed by our Democrat-heavy Senate.  But his testimony leaves no doubt, in my mind anyway, about what a lousy nominee he is.

free` Ken, Here are some excellent video clips from the hearing. Hagel’s 7 Worst Moments in Round One freebeacon.com/hagels-7-worst-moments-in-round-one/ (01/31/13)


A QUICK QUESTION OF LOGISTICS

Ken Berwitz

About an hour ago, I was driving on Rte. 537 near CentraState Medical Center, and the car in front of me had the license U95-CUP.

I guess it's just my dirty mind, but all I could think of was, assuming the license is correct, how does the driver fit in the driver's seat?  Or for that matter anywhere in the car?


THE NEW YORK TIMES AND ISRAEL: A HATE STORY

Ken Berwitz

Today's New York Times has an editorial titled "Israel Ducks On Human Rights". 

Most often, when the Times editorializes about Israel its hatred of the Jewish state comes through loud and clear. 

Well, this one is no exception.

Here is the editorial, paragraph by paragraph, in rust....with my comments in blue.  Please read it and decide for yourself who is making more sense:

Israel has increasingly isolated itself from the world with its hard-line policies on West Bank settlements, the Gaza embargo and other issues. This week, it unwisely set itself further apart with a decision to withhold cooperation from a United Nations Human Rights Council review of its human rights practices.

Israel's "hard-line policies" are that until Palestinian Arabs renounce their stated goal, written as a Muslim religious commitment, to obliterate the entire state of Israel and kill every Jew there, and until they stop actively trying to do both, they have to be treated as an enemy.  What would the editorial board of the Times call them?  Peace partners? (scarily enough, the answer to that question might be "yes".)

When the first reviews began in 2008, every country in the world, including the United States and Israel, participated in the process, which is supposed to examine each country's human rights record every four years. But when the council met on Tuesday in Geneva for its second review cycle, Israel was a no-show.

Maybe this would be a good time to list off some of the members of this so-called "Human Rights Council":  The list includes such paradigms of human rights as Libya, Mauritania (a central point for today's slavery market, which neither the UN nor the New York Times likes to talk about), China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba, among others.  This is a "Human Rights Council"???? Only in the minds of the Useless Neutered United Nations...and the New York Times.

In May, Israel said it planned to stop participating because the council was a "political tool" for those who wanted to "bash and demonize" Israel. The council, whose 47 members are elected by the United Nations General Assembly, is clearly not without faults. More than half of the resolutions passed by the council since it started work in 2006 have focused on Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and Israel is the only country that is a standing item on the agenda for the council's biannual meetings.  

This is the point where any serious editorial would be defending Israel for its refusal to be a part of such a complete farce.  There are 193 members of the United Nations, a majority of which have human rights records which range from awful, to depraved, to worse.  And, unlike Israel, none of them are surrounded on all sides by enemies who want them vaporized.  But Israel is cited more times than all of the other 192 countries combined.

Now add in the fact that Israel's Arab population - which approaches 20% of the entire country - has more rights and privileges than there are in any Arab country on the face of the earth, and how does Israel come out?  But, to the self-hating Jews at the New York Times, none of these facts matter.

The council hasn't always been an effective human rights champion. But its record, including naming human rights rapporteurs for Iran and Sudan and supporting gay and lesbian rights, has improved since President Obama, reversing policy of the George W. Bush administration, had the United States join the council in 2009.  

Aaaahhh, there we go.  The Human Rights Council is now a champion of freedom and equality...all because Barack Obama replaced George Bush as President.  Tell me, guys, how many of the council's African and Asian members still have laws against homosexuality?  How many of them still penalize homosexuals with varying numbers of years in jail - and, in three of the "human rights" countries (Mauritania, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria), possible death sentences, for being gay.  Yep, what a great showing. 

Oh, by the way, a total of 12 countries or commonwealths legalized homosexuality while President Bush was in office (including the USA, which, with Puerto Rico, signed the UN declaration in 2003).  By contrast, a total of 2 have done so since President Obama has been in office - and one of them, India, based its decision on a court ruling within the country, rather than anything related to the UN or Barack Obama.  So tell us again, New York Times, which President oversaw more improvement for gay rights.

Human rights reviews are an important tool for judging all countries by universal standards and nudging them to make positive changes. By opting out, Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same scrutiny as all other countries, but it deprives itself of an opportunity to defend against abuse charges. The decision could also undermine the entire review process by providing an excuse for states with terrible human rights records - like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe - to withdraw as well. It certainly will make it harder for Washington to argue for reviews when an ally rejects the process.

This is beyond imbecilic.  As noted earlier, Israel is cited by the "Human Rights Council" more than the other 192 countries combined, including North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe.  Therefore, Israel very obviously is not receving "the same scrutiny as all other countries."  But, as I have already pointed out, easily understood facts such as this one are lost on the Israel-despising New York Times.

If the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hoped to avoid criticism by this move, it failed. Fortunately, there is still a chance to make the right decision. In an extraordinary move, the council agreed to give Israel until November to reverse course. Any new governing coalition that emerges from Israel's recent elections should realize that there's a cost to standing apart.  

Wow, what magnanimity!!! Israel now has 10 more months to decide if it wants to be the whipping boy for a phony "human rights council". 

And if Israel declines?  What a huge price it will pay!!!  Why, the UN might...treat Israel less favorably than other countries!!! 

What a terrible risk.  I mean, who ever heard of that happening?


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from CNBC's Rick Santelli, speaking about what the Obama administration's economic policies have done to this country. 

His exact words:

"When you act like Europe, you get growth rates like Europe, and our discussions with economists sounds like we're in Europe. They have the same discussions constantly.  "They're always doing the right thing.  They're always thinking they know better. And this is the kind of growth. We have become Europe. We are now Europe."

Exactly right.  As bad as our situation was four years ago, we are now in even worse shape now.

Consider the facts:

-$6 trillion more in debt, with trillion dollar deficits as far into the future as the eye can see;

-The most anemic recovery from a recession of our lifetimes - and now back to negative territority, which may well mean we are going into another one;

-Unemployment which jumped over 10% and has only now trickled down to about 8% - just where it was when Obama took office, and just where it was when he told us his so-called "stimulus package", with its trillion-plus debts,  were going to stop unemployment right there and reduce it to the mid-5's by the end of his first term; 

-A 30 year low in the number of people actually in the job market - which is the only reason our lousy employment numbers look as good as they do:  add back the people who dropped out, and unemployment is over 10%;

-15 million more people on food stamps than there were when Mr. Obama took office;

-The dollar at a 14 month low versus the Euro;

-Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

And the worst part?  Mr. Santelli may be right about things now, but not for the future.  If things keep going the way they're headed, at some point we may be praying to achieve the condition Europe is in right now.

My congratulations to the folks who, in many cases unwittingly (some would say witlessly) lived through the past four years and re-elected Barack Obama anyway.

You got who you voted for.  And stuck me with him in the bargain.

Thanks a lump.


THE FUNNIEST UNINTENTIONAL(?) MEDIA BIAS OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

You really have to laugh.....

The following paragraph comes to us from Paul Bond's article at hollywoodreporter.com.  It refers to MSNBC's editing of testimony about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre which made it appear that one of the grieving parents, Neal Heslin, was set upon by hecklers - which the unedited tape proves to be 100% untrue.

Here is what Mr. Bond had to say:

The incident has been the subject of talk radio and other conservative media, which has used it to boost assertions that NBC, MSNBC and much of the mainstream media is biased in favor of liberalism. Indeed, several journalists took MSNBC's reporting at face value and echoed it, including reporters at The Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Slate, Media Matters for America and many others collected at the right-wing site, Twitchy.

Notice anything interesting about that paragraph?

Let's see:  the incident has been the subject of talk radio and other conservative media.  The "journalists" (no reference to political leaning) who took it at face value were collected at the right-wing site, Twitchy.

Wow, conservatives and right wingers everywhere.  But who were the "journalists" - the ones without any political leaning readers should know about?  The Huffington Post (left wing), the Daily Beast (left wing), Slate (left wing) and Media Matters for America (left wing).

Got it?  Conservatives are conservatives.  Right wingers are right wingers.  And left wingers are.....uh.....well..... journalists.

I wonder if Paul Bond even realized he was doing it.  Or is his bias so deeply ingrained that it isn't on the radar anymore?

How I wish he were the only one.........


THE FUNNIEST UNINTENTIONAL(?) MEDIA BIAS OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

You really have to laugh.....

The following paragraph comes to us from Paul Bond's article at hollywoodreporter.com.  It refers to MSNBC's editing of testimony about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre which made it appear that one of the grieving parents, Neal Heslin, was set upon by hecklers - which the unedited tape proves to be 100% untrue.

Here is what Mr. Bond had to say:

The incident has been the subject of talk radio and other conservative media, which has used it to boost assertions that NBC, MSNBC and much of the mainstream media is biased in favor of liberalism. Indeed, several journalists took MSNBC's reporting at face value and echoed it, including reporters at The Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Slate, Media Matters for America and many others collected at the right-wing site, Twitchy.

Notice anything interesting about that paragraph?

Let's see:  the incident has been the subject of talk radio and other conservative media.  The "journalists" (no reference to political leaning) who took it at face value were collected at the right-wing site, Twitchy.

Wow, conservatives and right wingers everywhere.  But who were the "journalists" - the ones without any political leaning readers should know about?  The Huffington Post (left wing), the Daily Beast (left wing), Slate (left wing) and Media Matters for America (left wing).

Got it?  Conservatives are conservatives.  Right wingers are right wingers.  And left wingers are.....uh.....well..... journalists.

I wonder if Paul Bond even realized he was doing it.  Or is his bias so deeply ingrained that it isn't on the radar anymore?

How I wish he were the only one.........


REAL RACISM (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest installment of my all-too-frequent series, Real Racism.

The following excerpts, from Charles Thomas' article at WLS-Chicago, describe the ruckus caused by a White candidate possibly winning the February 26th Democrat congressional primary to replace Jesse Jackson Jr, who resigned either for health reasons, because he was corrupt, or some combination thereof::

"I don't have enough words to say thank you. All I can say is I'll give you my whole heart and soul," State Sen. Toi Hutchison said Wednesday as a group of African-American ministers prayed that the other black candidates- Robin Kelly, Alderman Anthony Beale and State Senator Napoleon Harris would remove themselves from the ballot. They believe by having one black candidate, it would be easier for an African-American to win on February 26.

"We need to make sure that everybody understands a house divided against itself cannot stand," Rev. Walter Turner, Hutchison supporter, said.

"There are certain people who are running who I don't think even they think they can win," Apostle Carl White, Hutchison supporter, said.

Political science professor Robert Starks fears African Americans might lose the second district seat.

"I think it would be years and years and years before you could get that seat back for an African-American," Starks said.

Frontrunner Debbie Halvorson, the only white democratic primary candidate who might benefit from a divided black vote, said she was disappointed that racial politics were part of the campaign.

"I'm very frustrated by that. It just bothers me more and more every day," Halvorson said.

How delightrful.  Black ministers praying for enough  Black candidates to leave the race to insure that they can avoid having a White congressperson.

Look, I don't know a thing about any of these candidates.  But I do know raw, unadulterated racism when I see it.  And am I ever seeing it here.

As a point of reference,:  last month, after Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)  resigned, Governor Nikki Haley appointed Rep. Tim Scott to replace him.  Tim Scott is Black - and will be the first Black Senator from South Carolina since the Reconstruction era. 

South Carolina, according to the latest data, is 68% White and just 28% Black.  But did you hear any outcry from the majority-White population about a Black man becoming their Senator?  And, if you had, is there any doubt at all that the people making that outcry would immediately - and 100% justifiably -  be called racists?

Well, what do you call the goings-on in Illinois' 2nd district....which, by the way, is less Black (62%) than South Carolina is White? 

These people are real racists, in the truest sense. 

Shame on them.  Shame on them all. 


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!!