Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Bin Ladin To Gyllenhaal: Thanks, Slut!

New York Daily News -

Bin Ladin: Actress Gyllenhaal is Right, and a Dirty Whore
By Scoop Johnson
Sunday, April 25th, 2005

Osama Bin Ladin, terrorist leader of Al Queda and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, broke a months long silence yesterday, thanking an American actress for supporting his cause by saying America deserved it.

Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, star of a new flick about the aftermath of 9/11, told NY1 yesterday she thought "America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way and so I think the delicacy with which it's dealt allows that to sort of creep in."

"By the Prophet, this foul temptress of unholy flesh shall burn in the fires of damnation, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, even a whorish clock," declared Bin Ladin on a newly released video statement sent via the web.

Among the sins of America for which it deserved the 9/11 attacks, Bin Ladin cited the United States' Constitution, democracy, and open society. Also denounced were America's lack of stoning laws, its intolerance of man-sheep love, and its love of dancing, music, and movies. Ironically, one of Gyllanhaal's earlier films came in for specific denunication.

"What was with Donnie Darko?" asked Bin Ladin, "What the hell was the point of that movie? A giant, evil rabbit orders him to commit acts of violence? Is he supposed to be crazy or what? Everyone knows the only legitimate orders to kill come from sexually repressed theocratic fascists hiding in caves while others blow themselves up. I gave that movie two thumbs way down."

"Still", concluded Bin Ladin, "It is truly a revelation of the All-Powerful that such a person so deserving of having her head cut off should also so bravely denounce the sins of her own nation. I would bless her if she was not such a disgusting infidel deserving of eternal torment."

The segment released on the web was reportedly only a portion of the Bin Ladin speech. The entire speech will be included on a special edition DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11 entitled, F911: The Jihadist Cut.

I Got A Place...

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst, on American Morning, commenting on laws attempting to prohibit sex offenders from living within certain jurisdictions:

"These people have to live somewhere..."

How about jail? Jail sounds like a good place for them to live. Or perhaps the bottom of an active volcano...

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Me Stealum Good Quote

Karl Kraus pointed out (which quote I've shamelessly cribbed from The Weekly Standard), "'the secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience, so they believe they are as clever as he."

Ahah, Pirateballerina, I have cribbed YOU!

Anyway, its a damn good quote. I think that sums up Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Churchill (about whom Pirate's post is about) and various white power/klan idiots.

God, a really witty phrase is almost as good as sex...

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Paying the Effin' Piper

Student gets 8 years for SUV vandalism

An aspiring physicist was sentenced Monday to more than eight years in prison and ordered to pay $3.5 million for his role in a spree of arson and vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility vehicles.

I was not aware that they had actually caught any of the little eco-anarchist terrorists responsible for this felonious temper tantrum. Well, let me just say...


More when I stop laughing.

Hat Tip Tim Blair

UPDATE: Whatever this guy's issue is, really, I am glad his ass is going to the slammer. What do I mean "what is his issue"? Its environmentalism, right?

No. Its not. This idiot has other issues and he decided to "work it out" by acting out. I don't know whether its anger over a bad prom date 6 years ago, or that as a promising*(See Update2) physicist he's ultimately mediocre, or what. What I do know is he is using an "issue" to justify his crime. The whole environmental angle is just an excuse, certainly political but also psychological.

Merely torching a building or cars in a parking lot is a random crime, an act of senseless vandalism. But, do it for the ENVIRONMENT, and you are a hero; a green warrior, bravely lashing out at the corporate evil doers destroying the planet.

Problem is, this promising physicist can't even keep his message consistent. One of the things he wrote on the vehicles was "Fat Lazy Americans". What does this mean? How are Fat and Lazy related specifically to SUV's? I mean, ANY car would convey Americans around who are too fat and lazy to walk. Hell, even hybrids and electric cars would keep lazy, fat Americans from walking. So why just torch SUV's? What about compacts, and sports cars and mini-coopers and even the two car dealerships still selling electic cars? Why not lash out at all forms of mechanical conveyance eliminating the need for exertion? Wouldn't that make more sense?

It does, at least for someone who claims to be an environmentalist. But Cottrell's message and his target only makes sense for someone who is anti-American, not anti-internal combustion engine. It makes perfect sense for someone who will use any old stereotype to vent his rage and frustration and own-self loathing, just like any other bigot.

By the way, I would love to know if William Cottrell and his two co-conspirators walked to the lot for their Hummer roast. I certainly hope they were not fat and lazy and drove there.

What annoys me so much about the radical left (okay, there are many things that annoy me about them) is how much of their activism seems more like publicly interactive therapy. Remember that form of therapy, primal I think, where you were supposed go into your basement and scream at the top of your lungs? Many leftists are engaging in this, but its now out of the basement and onto the streets. This way, everyone can share in their little drama. When they get together for a event, I guess it would be considered group therapy.

Look at this. Its meant to be a nudie site, but it serves the purpose. Look at these people. Protesting all this and that and that other thing, and they all decide the best way to make their alleged point is to get naked. The issue is not really the motivation here, is it? Its the exhibitionism. Its a desperate cry of "look at me, I need attention" rather than "save the planet/seals/whales/etc.". Why the hell else would you strip down, paint yourself and bang a freakin' drum, while shouting?

Of course, nudity is one thing. Its silly, it can be disgusting (not enough hot people take the nude protest route) and its ultimately pointless, but its relatively harmless. Arson is another matter.

These little terrorists, and yes, they are terrorists, feel justified in engaging in mass destruction, and as we have recently scene, have graduated to murder.

Andrew Hampton Mickel (rot in hell) used the "evil corporations are destroying the environment" justification when he ambushed a police officer in Red Bluff, California, and shot him dead. Here again, we have a psychopath who is using the justification of fighting for a cause to commit acts of violence and satisfy his rage.

His act is the logical conclusion to the Cottrell's and the ELF's and the little anarchistic ninjas you see show up at WTO protests. They justified any manner of anti-social behavior and criminal acts in the name of the environment and anti-corporate resistance, and Mickel just took it the next step. First the Hummers and coffee shops and Gap stores deserved destruction, and then Officer David Bilio. It all makes perfect sense, you see, if your understand the real motivations...

Update2 Rereading the story, I realize I did not read it correctly. The first idiot is not even a "promising" physicist, he's "aspiring". Sort of like, I guess, the thousands of "aspiring" actors in LA and New York. This makes it even more pathetic. I'm sure his aspirations were thwarted by the fact that he is not really that bright, and now he has a prison term to prove it. Nice work, genius!

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Things On My Reading List

Just making some notes as to books I need to read, or re-read.

The Art of War (new version)
Clausewitz: On War
Strategy Hart
Athenian writer Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War

Know Thy Enemies

From a New York Times Article "U.S. Commanders See Possible Cut in Troops in Iraq":

"Senior American officers are wary of declaring success too soon against an insurgency they say still has perhaps 12,000 to 20,000 hard-core fighters, plentiful financing and the ability to change tactics quickly to carry out deadly attacks."

...As well as against a hostile press corp eager to find cowboy-esque hubris in any such declaration, and then refute it after even the smallest of setbacks or adversity. Ditto for way too many Democrats, also known as the "loyal" opposition.

-Hat tip to Grim's Hall

Friday, April 08, 2005

Michael's Newest Single

"Boy In The Mirror"

I'm Wanna Make A Change,
Before I'm doing Life,
But then it Feels Real Good,
So I'll Make A Payment
Gotta Make It Right . . .

As I, Turn Up The Collar On My
Favourite Black Trench Coat
This schoolyard's Blowin' My Mind
I See The Kids In The Street,
Who I Want to Eat
Who Am I, To Be Blind?
Pretending Not To See
Their Needs
A Little Merlot or Port,
In a can of Soda Pop
And a bit of internet porn
They Follow Each Other
In the bed ya know,
'Cause They Got Nowhere
To Go
That's Why I Want You To

I'm Looking at the Boy Through
I'm Asking Him To Change
His Pose
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The Boy Sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy Sit on Your Face)
Take A Look At Yourself, and make sure its in Place
(Take A Look At Yourself, And
make sure its in place)
(Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na,
Na Nah)

I've Been A Victim Of A Selfish
Kind Of Love
It's Time That I Realize
That There Are Some With No Home,
Whom I'm eager to bone,
Could It Be Really Be,
That We're Finally Alone?

My Willy's Deeply Scarred,
From all the bleaching Ops,
And there's my Washed-Out Face
(Washed-Out Face)
It Causes Most of them to Freak, Ya' See
But They Got No Place
To Flee
That's Why They're sleeping With
(Sleeping With Me!)

I'm Starting With The Boy In
The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change
His Pose
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face)
Take A Look At Yourself And
Make Sure its in Place
(Take A Look At Yourself And
Make Sure its in Place)

Now I'm Talking to the Boy through a
I'm Asking Him To Change His
(Change His Claim-Ooh!)
And No Message Could've
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face)
If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face)
Then Pay!

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Just Seen on The Volokh Conspiracy

New Euphemism: Heard on local NPR station WAMU: "Most murders in DC are caused by 'loosely-knit neighborhood groups.'"

You mean, ummh, gangs?

Jesus, how far down does the left's depravity go? This is not exactly the same of the "War is Peace" mindset, but it is pretty Orwellian, is it not? We cannot call terrorists "terrorists", and now street gangs need non-judgemental euphemisms.

Terrorism does not frighten me. The mind that can engage in this level of denial and delusion is what keeps me up nights. Radical hatred from brainwashed ignorants born into a closed society is one thing. The mind bending contortions of supposedly educated people in a open society is something else entirely. It is a willful distortion of reality in order to maintain an ideological paradigm. Religious people are derided for their rigid and simplistic faith by the likes of these true believers?

Part of what so crazes me about Michael Moore or Jon Stewart is not them, but the people who so willingly swallow their swill as truth, and do so even in the face of their lies and distortions because it adheres to their mindset. Truth, as far as objective truth, does not matter. What matters are the "ideological truths" which are really nothing more than articles of faith in a religion unburdened by God or a sense of ethics.

People capable of engaging in this sustained and intense level of distortion are capable of what else? That question is what both infuriates and frightens me.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Jon Stewart Annoys Me

I thought about writing about this awhile ago, but then dropped it several times. I kept going back and forth over it, trying to make sure that it was just not a matter of being irked over Stewart's general politics. I am striving to avoid being annoyed just because someone takes a disparaging view of things I respect. I also did not want to be accused by my liberal friends of lacking a sense of humor. I see how a lack of humor on the left affects them, and I did not want to fall into that trap.

However, I finally figured that my desire to be fair was actually stifling my judgement in this case, and as untimely as it is, I need to vent.

Jon Stewart is an ass. A true, bona fide ass.

Not because he makes fun of the President, disparages this country or mocks our war effort unfairly, although that does not endear him to me.

What annoys me is the self-righteous smugness that has become part and parcel of his persona. Stewart is a hypocrite, and a snide jerk masquerading as a comedian. In that sense he reminds me of Michael Moore, which goes a long way to explain my growing visceral dislike of the guy.

My issue with Stewart is this two-faced attitude he maintains regarding his role. On one hand, Stewart balks at any claim that he bears some responsibilty to his viewers because so many of them watch him for news coverage.

"Hey, no, no, no," Stewart says. "I am a comedian, doing a comedy show. That's for you news guys to handle."

He told Ted Koppel as much when questioned about his responsibility to his viewers to present news fairly.

I get this point. If The Daily Show is a comedy show, then expecting balance and fairness is a case of misplaced expectations. It is supposed to be comedy. Comedy relies on highlighting the absurd, or heightening things to the absurd for comedic effect. Fair enough. Koppel should do the news (and he should have been concentrating on that fairly, rather than critiquing Stewart), and comedians should handle the comedy. Okay, Jon, with you so far.

But then, Stewart turns around and pulls stunts like lecturing reporters and commentators on their behaviour. Remember this from Crossfire?

STEWART: .... And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad... And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. But I wanted to come here today and say...
Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.
No, no, no, you're not too rough on them [politicians, corporation]. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

Now, I can certainly understand the tendency to call reporters and commentators partisan hacks. I find myself doing it all the time. Many times it is accurate, as we have all seen, although Stewart and I would no doubt disagree on who the hacks are. That's not what bugs me. What bugs me is the hypocrisy here.

Stewart is railing against Begala and Carlson (even calling Carlson a "dick") at one point, calling them hacks, calling them names, and telling them they are ruining the nation with their partisanship.

What happened to the comedy, Jon? Did we put away the jokester hat, and put on the serious political/sociological professor cap? I thought you did not want anyone trying to hold you to standards of real journalism?

And what exactly is it Jon Stewart thinks his own goddamn show is about? If you've seen it, you have to know what I am talking about. The Daily Show can be amusing, funny and even witty, but if you can come away thinking it is not a bunch of partisan hackery wrapped in a comedy show, you are delusional. Stewart makes no bones about his personal politics, and the others on the show do not either. If there is a shot to be taken, 9 times out of 10 is at the conservative/republican/Bush side of the political spectrum.

If it were really all about comedy with him, the jokes would be even sided. I think my side of the aisle certainly has aspects suitable for (and even demanding) satire, but you are telling me the left is mostly devoid of it? The sloshy rantings of Ted Kennedy alone would fill a third of each shows airtime without even trying.

This is not to say I think Stewart's show should be regulated, banned, censored or even protested. What I am saying is Stewart is engaged in the same kind of vitriol and partisanship he complains about to Begala, Carlson, and to others. Oh, but because it is dressed up as "comedy" or "satire", it apparently does not count as such. This is the Michael Moore modus operandi.

"Inaccurate? How can comedy be inaccurate?"

See, Stewart does not want the responsbility of being a pontificater, of a pundit, but he wants to be one all the same by chastising others on how to "behave". He hates how others are supposedly bitterly partisan, yet he heads a popular show which is exactly that, laughs or not.

Bottom line: Stewart is a hypocrite, who engages in the same behavior he criticizes in others but expects a pass because he is a “funnyman”. The irony is that to me, this makes him a lot less humorous.

Blog Burnout

No, not burning out blogging because, heh, obviously I do not do enough of that to merit burnout (unless I was REALLY lazy).

I am getting a little burned out on reading blogs. I still check in everyday, but there is this tension between wanting to read more and keep informed, and skipping over things so as to not get too deep. I am not sure if it is true burnout, or if an element of urgency to do so has lessened now that the election is over and events are proceeding more positively in Iraq and elsewhere.

As I wrote before, the Schiavo mess just was too much for me to follow. Maybe it was that I could not really come down completely on either side, or that deep down I found it annoying that this one case was taking up so much energy. With everything else going on in the world, it seemed self-obsessive on America's part.

I think part of it also is that I feel restless. Restless and dissatisfied with myself. I have made it a point of keeping informed, which I think is vital nowadayas, but I lack action. I wanted to blog before because I thought it would accomplish something, and of course I did not keep up with that. I have noticed that the best blogs seem to be by people who are actively engaged in other professions, vocations of consequence. My work in television news, particularly WHO I work for, leaves me feeling more and more that what I do is worthless; sometimes worse. Sometimes I feel what I do is contribute to is damaging to any number of things I care about; truth, this country, fairness.

I don't respect what I do, so I guess I question my ability or worth to comment in length on things. Even as I just wrote that, I do not agree with it, because I don't believe one needs to have a "job of consequence" to have an informed opinion. Still, I don't feel at ease with it.

Of course, much of this smacks of the same masturbatory introspection I will fall into rather than do something more difficult. Instead of writing why I can't seem to write, perhaps I should just write? Duh, ya think?

Anyway, getting back to the rather ethereal point I was trying to make, I find myself unable to follow the blogs as closely as I did, even though I am still drawn to it. It is kinda like exercise. I don't particularly like doing it, but its good for you and thus you need to stay in a routine.

Huh, that's it. My blogreading has become part of routine, rather than a sheer joy. What I need now is for another MSM creep to get caught with his pants down, or for Bin Ladin to be caught and the moonbats to come out and start ranting about violating his civil rights.


BTW, if anyone were to actually to read this and think I am whining or kvetching, you are right. But Eff' you anyway.