Ding! Ding! Ding! Roger Eggbert Goes OFF!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/REVIEWS/110419990

Poor Roger Eggbert. Forced to sit through such tedium when all he really wants is his leftism spoon-fed to him in some pablum. I'm not sure when he turned into such an asshole, but he really is.

I feel like my arm is all warmed up and I don’t have a game to pitch. I was primed to review "Atlas Shrugged." I figured it might provide a parable of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that I could discuss. For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what it sounds like to you. Oddly enough, you share that view entirely - remember when you, Mister Rich Man, wrote that piece about how you didn't want to be kept alive artificially and then you almost died but your wife said not to pull the plug? And after much expensive intervention (which I'm sure didn't cost you a dime in premiums or expenses; thus we could ALL afford it) you lived after all and you were glad? And this is why you want all of us to be forced into Obamacare and lose our good insurance plans? Yeah, pot? Meet kettle. Ebert's on board, pull up the lifeline. Hypocrite.

There are however people who take Ayn Rand even more seriously than comic-book fans take "Watchmen." I expect to receive learned and sarcastic lectures on the pathetic failings of my review.

No sirrah, I shall merely point and laugh. And express my contempt.

And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault.

Yeah I remember that. Millions of people watched it. And his career is still cooking along last I checked. Even if he is a bit of a dingbat.

I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all

Ok, so first off, you didn't understand it. I wouldn't brag about that, but OK - we shall keep in mind that you do not understand what you are reviewing. As a matter of fact, you should have stopped right there.

and I doubt they will be happy with it.

So OK. Let’s say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

Well, to be entertained it is likely one would need to actually understand the film in the first place, no? Normally if I don't understand something I don't feel justified in mocking it. I would normally at least bother clicking a few links to understand the subject matter at least a tad first; maybe even ask a few questions. As to people who understand it not liking it?

Well, sorry Dilbert but that's a HUGE fail. See, http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/2011/02/earlybird-reviews-of-the-full-atlas-shrugged-movie-spectacular-solid-faithful/ we've got glowing reviews from David Kelley, Hans Schantz, Big Hollywood, REASON.com, Hustle Bear http://hustlebear.com/2011/02/28/im-so-relieved-the-atlas-shrugged-movie-was-fantastic/, and oddly enough the MOST glowing review comes from an Ayn Rand biographer, Barbara Branden. See what a difference understanding the subject matter makes? Except I think you're playing dumb just a little in order to have more negative things to say. You pretty quickly pulled the words "objectivist" and "libertarian" out of your muddled little brain, didn't you? Wonder how that happened.

Based on the one leaked scene I've already seen, I'm aching for more - see, movies are so endlessly, tediously left-oriented, you BET we're waiting for this.

For the rest of us,

Us? You're rich; you're not one of us. Nyah!

it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.

So there goes the pretense that you didn't understand it. You know exactly what you're doing. You just don't LIKE it.

During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs. There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, "What did they just say?" The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily. Much of the excitement centers on the tensile strength of steel.

The story involves Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling), a young woman who controls a railroad company named Taggart Transcontinental (its motto: "Ocean to Ocean"). She is a fearless and visionary entrepreneur, who is determined to use a revolutionary new steel to repair her train tracks. Vast forces seem to conspire against her.

It’s a few years in the future. America has become a state in which mediocrity is the goal, and high-achieving individuals the enemy.

I'm sorry, how is that the future again? Oh, yeah, it isn't. It's NOW. And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about as you rail against greedy evil corporations and greedy evil rich people and how much more they should be forced to hand over and how much they should be shackled and regulated. Because that isn't going to work. We're onto that shit.

Laws have been passed prohibiting companies from owning other companies

Sounds like you understand it. Remember that next time you scream for "regulation! Stop the deregulation of business! More regulation!"

Dagny’s new steel, which is produced by her sometime lover, Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler), has been legislated against because it’s better than other steels.

Ah, the Handicapper General in Harrison Bergeron. Who wrote that, Vonnegut? Yes indeed How futuristic is THAT? I mean, nothing like that goes on in the real world today, right? (I could start with "progressive" taxation but that's a tad obvious...we'll look into this "futuristic" reality more later. I'm interested now.)

The Union of Railroad Engineers has decided it will not operate Dagny’s trains.

I could have sworn there were a few unions right NOW that were refusing to do their jobs unless their pay was raised and their power extended...now where did I read about that? Hmmm...

Just to show you how bad things have become, a government minister announces "a tax will be applied to the state of Colorado, in order to equalize our national economy." So you see how governments and unions are the enemy of visionary entrepreneurs.

Hmm, yes, I can see how unrealistic...oh, wait. Spread that wealth around, Ebert! I accept Mastercard and Visa.

But you’re thinking, railroads? Yes, although airplanes exist in this future, trains are where it’s at.

Um...well I guess I missed the part where freight is hauled now largely by airplane and not by trucks and trains and boats. I'll remember next time I have to sit for ten minutes and wait for the freight train to finally get past. Oddly, I just got done spending two years in shipping/receiving for a large warehouse - we didn't have many pilots coming in to get their paperwork signed; it was all truck drivers. Stupid regressive company. And what president and vice president have recently been going on and on and on about how the key to the future is high-speed trains? Hmm...I can't quite remember who said it...

When I was 6, my Aunt Martha brought me to Chicago to attend the great Railroad Fair of 1948, at which the nation’s rail companies celebrated the wonders that were on the way. They didn’t quite foresee mass air transportation. "Atlas Shrugged" seems to buy into the fair’s glowing vision of the future of trains.

So do a certain president and vice president. Their names still escape me.

Rarely, perhaps never, has television news covered the laying of new railroad track with the breathless urgency of the news channels shown in this movie.

Now here's where I stop and let you in on something; there's a reason for that. See, a thousand page book that is not just a story, not just an economics lesson but also a philosophy involves a lot of EXPOSITION. And it's very difficult to translate that exposition into another media, another format, like film. I think it's quite a clever idea to do it using the news. Especially after the collective four year orgasm we've had to watch in the media concerning a certain president whose name still escapes me.

It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado. There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

See, I happen to know something concerning Ayn Rand and city skylines; that just tells me the people behind this film really GOT it. Ayn Rand did not believe in building memorials. She believed that the NY Skyline WAS our memorial. So, win.

Oh, and there is Wisconsin. Dagny and Hank ride blissfully in Taggart’s new high-speed train, and then Hank suggests they take a trip to Wisconsin, where the state’s policies caused the suppression of an engine that runs on the ozone in the air, or something (the film’s detailed explanation won’t clear this up). They decide to drive there. That’s when you’ll enjoy the beautiful landscape photography of the deserts of Wisconsin. My advice to the filmmakers: If you want to use a desert, why not just refer to Wisconsin as "New Mexico"?

Um...yeah I could see where that would really annoy...what? See, you're failing in even the rudimentary aspects of your profession here. This film has been optioned for a long long time. Many years. The last time they tried to make it their female lead (Angelina Jolie) had to drop out; there have been millions spent in other attempts. The option was going to run out in TWO MONTHS, so the filmmaker had two MONTHS in which to get the screenplay written, gather the money, select a cast and start production or he would have lost it altogether and the tens of millions he has spent. So, like the good little sheeple you are, instead of rewarding the fact that these people have pulled off a spectacular feat - an Herculean feat, one which all the other reviewers are lauding as something that was impossible, but pulled off spectacularly, you choose to...gee, you choose to punish achievement don't you? Good boy! Now roll over play dead. No, I won't scratch your tummy.

"Atlas Shrugged" closes with a title card saying, "End of Part 1." Frequently throughout the film, characters repeat the phrase, "Who is John Galt?" Well they might ask. A man in black, always shot in shadow, is apparently John Galt. If you want to get a good look at him and find out why everybody is asking, I hope you can find out in Part 2. I don’t think you can hold out for Part 3.

Well most of us already know - this story has been around for 50+ years and "going Galt" is part of a pretty familiar lexicon even to people who haven't read it. And honestly he wasn't supposed to make an appearance until part 3, but they have to give us a LITTLE something, don't they? Call it an Easter Egg. And I'll call your review a big fat juicy turd. No, I don't have to see the movie first; see, we've already established one can pronounce judgment without understanding, so there it is.

Irresponsible: if you can't see it, watch it at Moonbattery

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I'm shamelessly stealing this and expanding on it. It's from "Crooks and Liars", a hard left site, concerning Michele Bachmann.

Fire it up and watch her go! We'll sound the bell every time she floats a discredited idea. Ready?

Raising taxes for the wealthy shouldn't be "on the table," says Bachmann, because "tax rates are high enough (ding!), and history shows (ding!) that when we raise taxes, particularly on job creators (ding!) we actually bring in less revenue (ding! ding! ding!) rather than more."

Hmm; let's reverse that. Change the word "discredited" to "completely true and proven". Ding! We win!

And the history of the Great Depression shows that it took government investment to get people working and the economy growing. FDR listened to the Bachmannites of his time in the late 1930's, and everything started falling apart again. That's what history shows.

DING! DING! DING! Loser gets passes to Atlas Shrugged.

"You could actually confiscate (ding!) all the wealth that people make at $200,000 or more," says Bachmann, "and that would only yield about six or seven months of revenue to run the government." Hey, that's half the whole cost of government! She's selling the idea pretty well!

Yes, I can see why you'd like that. Um. What?

They love that word "confiscate."

Yes; you have a more accurate one? Try: steal.

"And I love the way these conservatives say they'd lay down their lives for their country, but if you ask them to pay four pennies on the dollar on six-figure income,that's dictatorship! Think of it: The highest tax bracket under Dwight D. Eisenhower was 91% percent. He must be the greatest dictator of all time!"

Sounds like it. Define "greatest". Oh, you LIKE dictatorships. Got it.

I wish it were 4 pennies on the dollar. At a low 5-figure income we get about 20% (that's 20 cents on the dollar for those of you in lala land) confiscated. That's just income tax; not the other 20% or so that goes to property taxes. No wonder I'm in the Tea Party. This has GOT to stop.

"And yet they'll give away (DING) hundreds of billions in tax revenue (ding ding ding!) like it was peanut butter in a roomful of stoned billionaires."

They love the idea that not stealing something is akin to "giving it away". You can't give what isn't yours. Next time I go into the 7/11 for a dollar-fifty burrito, I'm going to remind the proprietor that because I didn't take all the burritoes on the shelf without paying, I'm "giving" them to him. They'll like that. And when I go to the grocery store I'm gonna walk out with a loaded cart and when they stop me I'll say "Hey, I'm not giving this stuff away, pal! You want it, you pay for it!" Think they'll go for it?

"Already again," she says later, "the top 1% of income earners pay about 40% of all taxes." (That's not the right number, but whatever.) But why do the top 1% pay a large share of taxes? Because the top 400 families in America are richer than the bottom fifty percent of the entire country! So of course they pay a big chunk of income tax, even after they're coddled with tax breaks galore.

Of course.

This makes sense to them.

Nuts or not, her ideas are definitely radical.

Definitely. Define radical. Oh, it means "to the roots"? Yes, ok. Color me radical.

Go BACK To Indonesia, Fuckhead

"In Indonesia, our stilted professor was replaced with a man at ease who charmed his audience by speaking the local language. Tunku Varadarajan only wishes this could have been Obama’s first major speech to the Muslim world—and that his visit weren’t so short.

It’s a colossal shame that presidential life has no magic rewind button, for if it did—and we could whirr ourselves back to June 2009—we’d have had Barack Hussein Obama skip Pharaonic old Cairo, city of the ghastly Hosni Mubarak and a tightly coiled hatred of the West, and deliver his first major speech to a Muslim nation in Indonesia.."

Oh, if only he could find a FRIENDLY audience, he would SO RULE.

"Why, oh why, did he not come here in June ’09, forgoing the sterility of the Arab world for the tolerant, syncretic Islam of Indonesia? Whoever advised him then should be shot, or fed to crocodiles"

Tolerance.

"for it is in places like Indonesia, where Islam is worn lightly, where Islam is not a bludgeon deployed against the rest of the world, that Obama’s repeated references to Islam as a “great world religion” seem plausible."

So we're admitting it ISN'T plausible other places then?

"Indonesia, as the president also recognized, is a democracy—a democracy of Muslims, as opposed to an Islamic democracy. As such, it is not a place where he will have felt at all awkward extolling the virtues of “open markets, a free press, a justice system, an open society, and active citizens,” as he did Tuesday night. Can you imagine him calling out such things so freely in Egypt, or in any other Muslim country bar Turkey, where it is still possible—just—to identify these features?"

Would be nice if he could identify them HERE, would't it? And are we acknowledging that these thing are NOT identifiable in other Arab-Muslim countries?

"sweetly personal (Obama lived in Jakarta when he was a boy)"

But he wasn't born there!!! He's Hawaiian!

"Why oh why was his visit so short, but his visit there appears to have been as heartwarming to the locals as it was maddeningly fleeting. Judging by the gusher of words in the local Bahasa language at the end of his speech, Obama has deep personal rapport—still—with Indonesia. One wishes that he had stayed longer, and showcased Indonesia to greater effect, introducing the country and its tolerant Muslim ways to America at greater length. Islam is not of the Arab world alone. In truth, our best Muslim allies in the long run will come from places like Indonesia. Which is why Obama’s salutations to Islam—which had grated so harshly in suffocating, Sunni Cairo— sounded so congenial in Indonesia, a country whose president, Sushilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is a Muslim who doesn’t even have a Muslim name."

So I guess we'll call him Bambang from now on. Bambang...that's a cooler name than Obama, isn't it? You can almost hear the Pshew, Pshew! sounds.

"Go back to Indonesia soon, President Obama. The people there get you, and like you. What’s more, they get us, and like us. (What’s “win-win” in Bahasa?)"

Yes, and STAY there. After all, us bitter clingers don't "get" you - we just didn't GET your awesomeness, which is why the GOP swept the house, the governorships, and the state legislatures - we just didn't GET your awesomeness; we're too stupid. Go rule where you're wanted!

Well, that piece was nauseating.

Weird Article About Obama - Deconstruction in F Minor

This article is called "Notes Toward a Theory of Obama. What we've learned so far about the president." Because they're just NOW trying to actually learn something about him or even formulate a theory about the guy. They didn't give a shit about that when the election was on the line.

Barack Obama began his presidency with an unusual attribute: that the country already understood him, or thought it did, from his books.

Yeah, right. The only people who read those things were the conservatives, and they didn't find much to be happy about inside them.

The story he told in Dreams From My Father and reinforced in The Audacity of Hope was about a man of multiple worlds who struggles to come to terms with his father's abandonment and a confounding racial identity. Obama resolves his rootlessness and anger by committing himself socially, religiously, and, eventually, politically. He depicts his mature self as unusually grounded, able to see other points of view and to bridge chasms.

Uh-huh. Yeah, see 'cause I sort of had the picture of a Marxist Alinsky-ite supporter of Ayers' Prairie Fire who was a third-generation communist red diaper baby radical deconstructionist along the lines of Hillary only worse. One who was raised solely by the white side of his family, learning communism at his grandmother's dear white knee, then throwing her under the bus. Of course, you could have learned all this if you'd bothered reading them or engaging in any research BEFORE it was too late, but that would have been too hard. Then Palin might have been VP and blown up the world with her stupidity! Also, I'm pretty sure Obama was also pretty committed to the pipe for a while there. You forgot to mention that. I'm sure he could bridge a chasm from the alley to the nearest crack den. If they made it into a Wii game.

The protagonist of these books is a persuasive and appealing character—so much so that he left little demand for alternative explanations.

Don't blame him, MSM. You did that all by yourselves. You put your hands on your ears and screamed "LALALALA PALIN IS STUPID HILLBILLY! BURN WITCHES!" instead of your JOB investigating this guy and his associations and what he might actually DO if he were elected. After all, he hadn't done anything in any office yet except leapfrog up to the next office...what to do when one has reached the top with no record to speak of?

As time goes by, though, Obama's Obama feels less and less satisfying.

Bwahaha! Wiping eyes. Oh. You were serious. How bizarre.

It's not that the author's projection of himself is distorted in any obvious way

Well if it isn't, then you people have a HELL of a lot of explaining to do. Why on EARTH didn't you warn the people what he is? Oh, you're Marxist? You WANT a fascist totalitarian state and liberty means nothing to you? Social justice trumps liberty? Yeah I guess so.

but rather that it leaves too much unexplained—his ambition, his aloofness, his fundamental beliefs, if any.

Oof. IF ANY, huh? Yeah, except you're full of shit. Obama put plenty in there about his beliefs, if any - how about the bit about in order not to be seen as a sellout he chose his friends very carefully, like the Marxist professors? That raised a few alarm bells to those who actually, you know, READ it. Parse that claim, by the way - is he a sellout; was it only about image or was it about belief? He chose to cultivate a reputation as a Marxist, but is he? No, I think it's worse than that. He's a megalomaniac. But I get ahead of myself.

It's too soon to offer an interpretation of our president. But after four months in office, we can see some emerging themes.

It's not too soon. The day after the inauguration was not too soon. Until Jan 21st he kept stringing us along, REFUSING to say anything concrete about what he intended to do, just sort of going along with the reassuring theme, but peppering it and souring it with more pessimism so we wouldn't be too shocked. But we had NO idea what he would do because he wouldn't say. Within days it became clear that this was full-out Alinsky Rules for Radicals Cloward-Piven Strategy and we had lived to see it. A new foreign relations nightmare, attacks on the CIA and prior administrations (something you seldom see outside those 3rd World Countries - and don't give me that "developing nation" bullshit because we're well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country ourselves with these economic plans and the squatters movement and Acorn and politicizing the census and everything else - so you'll learn the difference SOON ENOUGH.) No, it's not too soon to judge Obama by a longshot - he has committed the most HISTORIC level of spending madness and the most enormous power grab - in fact, more than any of the 40+ presidents before him COMBINED. For 200 years none of them have managed this and all within the first 3 months. Oh yeah, we can judge. Maybe you can't, but you're an MSM drone.

But no, seriously, I can't WAIT to see what you THINK are emerging themes from the Obama administration. What do you want a bet that you are NOT coming to the same conclusions I could have told you 8 months ago, 4 months ago, 3 months ago? What do you want a bet that you still don't see what's right in front of your fucking face and will continue with your inverse relationship* with the truth that the left always has?

*I have been developing a simple theory about the inverse relationship the left has with the truth and reality. I'll give you the mathematical formula soon, though I may simplify it.

He sees the middle ground as high ground. Candidates who talk about bringing people together, being uniters not dividers, or changing the tone in Washington are usually blowing happy smoke. At this point, however, Obama's focus on reconciliation is clearly more than shtick. We saw this impulse at work when he made pre-emptive concessions on his stimulus package in an unsuccessful effort to win Republican support.

Theorem proven and I haven't even postulated it yet in print! Holy hell. THAT is the middle ground?? This guy? The most radical president we've EVER had in our entire history, is the middle grounder? So Bush was blowing smoke when he talked about being a uniter, and that was a bad thing, but Obama really IS a uniter, and that's a bad thing. (You'd have to invert everything IN that sentence to make it true at all.) Um...are you people mental? So...he made some concessions in the stimulus bill and got it from a trillion down to slightly less than a trillion. You realize that's like giving me a penny out of $100,000 and telling me I should be grateful right? And I'm sorry, not a single fucking legislator got to READ the thing before they signed it - the concessions were obviously the original plan - ask for a hugely scary amount so that you can get a slightly smaller hugely scary amount because then it doesn't sound as scary - it's a tactic children know how to use, you idiot. Most of the things that were debated and taken out were put back in, you know. Like the contraception shit and what the fuck else ever. I can tell you for sure there's no help for you if you're losing your home unless you have a loan through Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, and even then there's nothing. The whole stimulus was a huge scam and not one of us is to be helped by it, including people who needed help. Not that spending a trillion to stimulate the economy was sane to begin with. Then the guy pushes for and gets a multi-trillion dollar budget - and you call that MIDDLE GROUND? You're truly fucked in the head.

Every few days, it seems, Obama, tries for a "new beginning"—with Iran, Cuba, the Muslim world, even Paul Krugman. Engaging with opponents animates him more than hanging with friends.

First of all, we get it already. Obama wants to curry favor with and kowtow to our enemies while alienating our friends. This is nothing to be pleased about, but you don't seem to "get" why. And get serious - Paul Krugman is NOT Obama's opponent - Paul is just pissed that Obama isn't quite socialist ENOUGH for his liking and Paul is nothing but a leftard political shit-stirrer to begin with. He's no economist.

This is a wonderful instinct that is bettering America's image and making domestic politics more civil.

Uh...what? Yeah, not from this side of the aisle. I don't see anything "civil" about selling out the CIA and our national security, vilifying anyone who happens to actually be conservative, ordering fatwas against private CITIZENS who happen to be conservative (Rush Limbaugh, for example) or the way conservatives are portrayed in the media, by the left and the alleged "moderate" RINOs. I'm sure it all feels very cozy and civil to the left, but not from where I'm standing, with you all destroying national security AND trying to ban our guns and destroy the economy.

But listening is not a moral stance, and elevating it to one only highlights the question of what Obama really stands for.

You thought it was a moral stance when you CLAIMED that Bush wasn't listening to you. (Which is such nonsense - one of the first things he did was YOUR abominable education bill with Ted the Swimmer Kennedy - and then you've spent the last 6 years excoriating BUSH for what a horrible bill it was.) I know what you really mean, assmunch - you're mad that you think Obama's listening to the conservatives. Stfu and stop wringing your hands - he's NOT.

The consensus-seeker repudiates torture but doesn't want to investigate it; he endorses gay equality but not in marriage or the military; he thinks government's role is to do whatever works. I continue to suspect him of harboring deeper convictions.

Huh?

He's the decider for real. Accounts of Obama's decision-making depict him driving process as well as result. Faced with a tough call about whether to declassify additional Bush administration torture memos, Obama called a debate, listened intently, and finished by dictating the next day's press release announcing the release of the documents.

So he called a debate with 5 CIA directors including Leon Panetta all dead set against this attack on our Intelligence, and with his own people, then did exactly what his people thought he should, immediately upon this intent "listening." So your complaint that listening is not a moral stance is moot, because it doesn't matter how much he pretends he listens; he does exactly what he wants, what he intended to do from the beginning, and generally exactly the wrong thing. I'd say he has his stance pretty well fixed. Oh, except for the fact that he backed off on releasing the pictures because if he did that, Pelosi was going to go down in flames. (Contrary to popular belief, she will not melt when doused with water, but she will multiply. And who fed her after midnight anyway?)

Another insider ticktock has him personally directing the futures of GM and Chrysler.

You say that like it's a good thing.

The president's knack for deep dives into policy questions is undeniably impressive. But as quick a study as he is, his supreme self-confidence may shade into overconfidence. He shows signs of suffering from the arrogance that often accompanies brilliance. It's unlikely, for instance, that Obama can function as his own grand strategy guru on foreign policy. But he doesn't seem inclined to give that job to anyone else.

You just realized NOW he's arrogant? See, the rest of us have gotten past that a long time ago. We're just realizing it's way beyond arrogance - there's actual megalomania here. I wish you people would keep up once in a while. WE told you he was arrogant a year ago.

He was quickly bored in the Senate, where it took too long to get things done. When he was thinking about running for president, his question was whether the moment would be ripe for a great leader.

He didn't DO anything in the senate - it was a stepping stone, and in his infamous interview on Chicago radio from 2001 shows, that was the plan all along. Duh. Each step was just a rung on a ladder to get executive power with huge ground support - my God, don't you people even read what the man has SAID before you report on him? He used to be really pretty open and aboveboard about his plans, you know. It just takes a little bit of research. And the bit about the great leader made me throw up in my mouth a little. Thanks a lot. The idiot young masses were ripe for a change of any sort - every 4 - 8 years it happens; the word "change" becomes THE word, the only word, that is needed to bring all the dipshits into action. I've seen it many times and expect to see it many more.**

One day last month, he faced decisions about the fate of the auto industry, a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, a North Korean missile threat, and a flood in Fargo, N.D.

Maybe the president shouldn't decide the fate of the auto industry - was that the day he fired the CEO or whatever? Yeah, real powermonger we got. There is nothing worth fighting for in Afghanistan; redoubling our efforts there is stupid and a smokescreen. And Pelousy already blew the help we had from Pakistan in dealing with terrorist cells still coming out of Afghanistan, you fools. The North Korean missile threat? He didn't give a damn. They asked if he wanted them to shoot it down and he said "Oh hell no. Kim Jong Il, Don't MAKE me have to issue a statement!" Considering his lack of response to the people who were freezing to death in Kansas I don't want to know what he didn't do about the flood. The press is never going to eat him alive like they did Bush on Katrina - blaming HIM for the weather and the city's lack of planning and competency for emergencies despite being below sea level in a hurricane zone - puhlease. Obama could preside over thousands of deaths and destruction like that, do nothing, and still won't get the same shit Bush has.

The question here is capacity, not capability. Can any one person simultaneously manage so many issues in the hands-on way Obama insists on managing them?

Two words again - Cloward-Piven Strategy. He doesn't want them taken care of; that isn't the purpose of this administration. The purpose right now is to break it all to pieces so that it can be remade in his image. The time of occupying from the inside, a la Alinsky, is complete. Now it's smashing time.

He's ruthless.

No argument there.

He's ruthless. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama described his economic policy as "ruthless pragmatism."

Bwahahah! I never knew reckless abandon towards the goal of utter dismantlement was pragmatic - only he could have said such a thing with a STRAIGHT FACE. Though he has been known to cackle inappropriately about the economy, I can see him in utter seriousness calling this rampant mad lunacy of a spending spree "ruthlessly pragmatic" without cracking a smile. Though he might scratch his face with his middle finger while he said it.

Interesting choice of modifiers. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you're useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers' woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama's jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is.

Hmm, you didn't get the hint when he threw his grandmother and Rev. Wright under the bus? As well as Ayers? Morons. And that last sentence, I've read a column about that somewhere...where did I read that? Oh, yeah, Ann Coulter wrote it a while ago. Thanks for noticing. Starting to realize we were right, juuuuust a little bit, aren't you? Except no, you can never ever allow yourself to think that, so you come up with this stupid shit. Enjoy the mess you've caused - you'll get no pity from me. Ever.

**I told my son sometime in January 2008 that I was dreading this election, because at some point the left was just going to stop talking and start screaming the word "CHANGE!" and that was all it was really going to take. I was right to dread this election, and for many moons refused to even hear a word about it from anyone, until Sarah Palin was announced. But I called it. These people are predictable as balls rolling down slopes - and there's nothing "new" or "changey" about it. It's just another word they use for leverage.

Yay, A New Post!

It's possible Cheney remains a stalwart defender of conservative principle to cover for his activities leading the Dick Cheney Executive Assassination Squad. Shhhh, it's a secret.

My friends, I am just as dismayed as you at the utter GLUT of news that has continued to pile up day by day by day since November 4th, and am as overwhelmed as you are. I don't intend to stop blogging, but I surely can't cover it all - please refer to Moonbattery, Newsbusters, The Rottweiler, and various other blogs on my roll to keep up with all the happenings, all right? I am only one person, I'm busy, and I am looking to become even busier. But here's one that interested me.

Why IS Dick Cheney so chatty all of a sudden?

Off the top of my head I can think of many reasons. For one, he's finally free of the constraints of actually having to make decisions regarding national security without being a camera whore, he is finally free of the constraints of having wackos trying to handcuff him on stage (ok, so that was Rove) and screaming "BuCheneyHitler!" at him (well, ok, maybe not) every time he shows his face, and last but not least, our new administration has decided to release sensitive and important national security documents and lessen our national security - security which Cheney has worked really fucking hard to build up for the last 8 years or so. I might "chat" a little myself. I might start to defend myself for once as well, waking up and realizing "Wow, it's not all up to me anymore...but the new guy sure is fucking it up - I better speak up now."

One of the main differences between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, was that right away you knew you weren't going to be seeing these guys on television all. the. fucking. time. They weren't big camera whores, they weren't going on Leno, they weren't doing endless photo ops, holding hands and shaking babies world without end. After 8 years of IN-YOUR-FACE, we had some peace and quiet, and we could, within limits, ignore Washington. Contrary to leftist opinion, this is a positive thing. As far as national security, I had some confidence that these people actually did have the best interests of the country at heart, DID intend to keep the US safe and free, and I felt that on that particular score at least, I had reason for confidence - reason to say, "SOME things just have to be secret. It's the nature of the beast." You don't, for example, go blabbing the location of secret Pakistani ally bases helping combat terrorism to the world at large (cough-Pelosi-cough).

With the advent of the new-style hopey changey chop suey, all that changed. This was not just going to be a transparent administration (well...transparent about certain things and not others - certainly transparent about the prior administration!) it became clear that we were once again under the leadership of megalomaniac narcissists who intended each and every day in each and every way to be IN OUR FACES. It was not going to be possible to ignore them to any degree because they are camera whores the likes of which we haven't seen since Billy-boy and his associates. These people mean to be stars, and stars they are! And in order to detract from their utter incompetence and asininity, one of their tactics has been to expose the secret intelligence of the past administration. It had the opposite of the effect they'd intended, so they're gonna try to make it into a...hehe, well, into a federal case. Tried, of course, in the popular newsmedia. Coolness counts! SWAGGA matters! (I'd like to turn a duck gun on that reporter who compared Obi-wan to Billy Dee Williams and Shaft - this guy is so whitebred, so Don No-Soul-Simmons that the very idea of him having the same kind of "cool" as Billy Dee or Shaft or Dolemite is asinine. He possesses the elite urbanite coolness that is popular with white latte-sipping leftists; not SWAGGA FFS.)

On to their speculation as to why he's talking now. First they describe with breathless pearl-clutching how busy Dick and Liz Cheney's schedules have been. Dickses and Lizzes and schedules, oh my! Those tricksy Cheneys!

Parsing Cheney — code-named Angler by the Secret Service — is a lot like fishing in dark water; there's a lot going on underneath, but you'd never know it from staring at the surface. So let's take Cheney's own stated explanation first. The former Veep says he's worried that by dismantling a controversial Bush-era terrorist surveillance program and stepping back from harsh interrogation policies, the Obama Administration is putting the nation at risk. "I think it's fair to argue," said Cheney, "that we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."

Man, if I have a secret code name with the Secret Service, I hope it's something awesome like "Angler." Um, I guess it doesn't matter anymore that people know this secret code name? I hope not, since they just reported it. However, that explanation makes perfect sense and I'd say he's understating the case. Emphasis mine to show the editorialization of this article. See, it's not labeled Op/Ed, but it am anyway!

Cheney is clearly troubled both by Obama's rollback of the policies he championed and the buzz on the left that a sitting President might prosecute a predecessor who took those policies too far. Cheney has repeatedly charged the White House with proceeding with prosecutions against the Justice Department lawyers who found the legal basis for the policies and the CIA officers who executed them. But Cheney is reaching: Obama has stopped short of calling for anything more than a probe into the genesis of the Bush-era tactics. True, a probe might well lead to more questions about Cheney's conduct, but Obama has specifically ruled out legal action against the CIA officers.

No, they were satisfied with naming, publishing photos, and telling us where those officers now work. Why prosecute when you can paint a target on their heads instead? Also, who cares where Obama has stopped short? The guy's an incompetent boob so far as the nitty gritty and an evil supergenius insofar as the big picture - he also lies through his teeth. His stopping short now will mean nothing a month from now. Cheney is right to be worried.

Now here's the part that killed me - no need to emphasize anything because it's pure spin and it's...insane.

A more likely explanation is that Cheney, who championed the idea of preemptive-attack doctrine as Vice President, knows that in politics as well the best defense is often a good offense. With the White House decision to release various Bush-era memos on interrogation, and the coming disclosure of thousands more photographs from Abu Ghraib later this month, Cheney is "trying to rewrite history," says a Republican consultant who has experience in intelligence matters. "He knows that as time goes by, he will look worse. And so he's trying to put his stroke on it." (See pictures of the aftershocks of Abu Ghraib.)

Cheney obliquely conceded as much on Sunday, when he told CBS's Bob Scheiffer, "I think it's very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done." That sounds like: O.K., we got a little out of hand. But we meant well. So how 'bout we just let it go?

He's trying to rewrite history by getting ALL the information OUT? Even the bit that HAS gotten out has done nothing but vindicate him, as well as to demonstrate that he was NOT in fact the prime mover to begin with (Liz Cheney's interview with Norah Dumbass a few posts ago deals with that well). Providing full documentation is REWRITING history? And by what stretch of the imagination is what he said there possibly interpretable as anything remotely like "Let it go, we fucked up"? In fact it says precisely the opposite, just as the documentation so far proves precisely the opposite. How does this idiot read that stuff and say the opposite of what it means - isn't reading comprehension a bare minimum for journalism??? How did this guy make it through school? Also, when did we switch from legal and sanctioned interrogations approved by all the legal committees and the president's men in Guantanamo - where, you know, the waterboarding took place - to Abu Ghraib? Little bait-and-switch? Do they teach that in Journalism 101? Cheney didn't approve or endorse the abuses of Abu Ghraib and you're comparing apples and garden hoses here - liar.

What's quite clear about Cheney's sudden chatty spree is that he wants to refocus the question about waterboarding and other interrogation techniques from whether they were legal to whether they worked. After eight years on the front lines of the war on terrorism, perhaps that is all a man can see. It certainly might explain why Cheney is making such a fuss about asking Obama to release a pair of after-action memos — which he says offer proof that the controversial methods produced evidence that, as Cheney claimed on Sunday, "saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives."

Which is clearly irrelevant. If it saved 6 million lives it would be irrelevant, right? And we already know it was legal, which is why we can move on to the question of what it accomplished. The un-uniformed, un-countried enemy combatants could have been killed where they stood and instead got a resort-like captivity - and if they didn't spill the goods we knew they had, they got a caterpillar or a walling. 2 of them got legally waterboarded and hundreds of thousands of Americans were saved. Cry me a fucking river.

A far darker explanation for the spring offensive isn't about the past but the future. Obama officials have spied something like a set-up in Cheney's latest gambit. One of the Bush team's biggest talking points in its final days in office was an insistence that its greatest accomplishment was preventing a second attack in the years after Sept. 11. By laying down the charge now that Obama has made the country less safe, the Bush team may be able to point fingers of blame if a second attack ever comes.

Irrelevant. For the next 30 years the left will blame Bush (unless someone else comes along they hate more) and the rest of us already know who is deliberately weakening us and setting us up for another attack. The message of the Bush years was that you may build democracies in the ME (wow...that's really amazing actually) but until you've built *only* democracies in the ME you can't let your guard down for a second. Our guard is being not just let down, but THROWN down with reckless abandon. Cheney's got no reason to go on a tour to set up the possible future repercussions here - he's not that vapid nor that stupid. He knows we aren't either. Hell, Biden himself told us right out that this man was going to be tested within 6 months and that it was going to look like they did exactly the wrong thing, right? Blame Biden, then.

Then they say something about maybe salvaging his reputation - I mean, yeah, I would want to as well if I were this guy. He got one fuck of a bad rap.

Cheney briefly ran for President in 1996, and though he is unlikely to make that mistake again, he may see a chance to boost his dismal approval ratings at least within the battered ranks of the GOP.

Yeah, he already has. Not sure why you care, but when your buddy released those memos Cheney's approvability shot up like a rocket. And the speaking he has been engaging in has had the same effect as well. It might have been nice if he'd done it during his tenure, but he had a damn country to run, and what good would it have done anyway?

In any case, Cheney's reappearance has delighted Democrats — "Bring it on!" quipped a White House official on Tuesday afternoon, when asked about Cheney's re-emergence

God, they're stupid.

— and dismayed Republicans. Said one: "We're trying to turn the page, and he's climbing out of the grave to haunt us."

Holy mixed metaphors, Batman! Must have been Meghan McCain. Some RINO; who cares?

The Myth of Media "Objectivity" Exposed

In other news, a graphic representation of the 100 million dollar "cut" Obama has promised to take out of his monstrous, 3.6 trillion dollar, double-your-debt-with-the-flourish-of-a-pen "budget." This is what's known as "perspective."

Remember when he said he was gonna go over the budget line by line with a scalpel? I think the scalpel is just to make sure that he can make the tiniest possible cuts out of this outlandish spending. The former yowling Obamaniacs at work have sure been quiet lately. I can't imagine why they might be embarassed, can you? He didn't tell us he was going to do this crazy spending. Not until after the inauguration. He kept it all under wraps, opposing bailouts and saying not to worry, he was gonna fix it. He's fixing us, all right.

And if I hear him say one more time that "WE" are all just gonna have to tighten our belts, I'll blow a gasket. Washington isn't tightening its belts - it's unleashing an F6 tornado of wasteful spending, taken from people like you and me. HE isn't tightening his belt (well, he did leave a shitty tip at the burger joint, maybe that's what he meant.) No, his belt is nice and loose - crank that heat up, crackers - I want it hot enough in here to grow orchids (while us peons are expected to keep the heat down to 68.) He's having pizza flown in and eating Wagyu beef and Michelle's prancing around (or lumbering) in $550 sneakers while turning over a token spadeful of ground for the garden. Their belts are doing just fine. The only people who have to tighten their belts are those who have to pay for all this - you, and me. So no more of this "we" shit, Obama - it doesn't wash. I have to say, the look on Biden's face when Obi asked for the poupon for his cheeseburger (the regular cheeseburger, medium well with cheddar, and no ketchup, just spicy dijon) was really funny. Old Plugs is the funniest thing in this administration. Even he was looking between Obi and the cashier, like "What the hell am I listening to? This guy for real or what? Are you hearing this shit?" So that was good. I mean I don't give a shit what the guy eats, but it could only have been better if he asked for arugula instead of lettuce on his "regular" cheeseburger.

For humor's sake I'll post the video - never mind Obi, watch Plugs LOL

Cloudy With a Chance of Swine

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Relevant section begins 2:18. Hear Biden's answer to the personal, non-gotcha question? Good, because I get what he's saying. Not so easy for some of us who have no choice but to go to work or people who can't just yank their children out of school until all the danger has passed, but fair enough. Now see Gibbsy try to spin the answer - and watch the press howl in laughter.

Haha! What he MEANT to say was... Sir, that's not remotely what he said. This stuff is gold. Anytime Biden's in the picture it gets funny again - they should put HIM on everyday instead of the Teleprompter Jesus; at least it would all be fun to watch! h/t to Allahpundit and Ace

Now I also have this fabulous interview between Liz Cheney and that asshole "reporter" Norah Dumbass and Liz just shreds her. It's in three parts and they are all worth watching, but #1 contains the money shot - where Norah actually makes the argument that the reason we abide by the Geneva Convention (not relevant here since we didn't employ torture and these were non-uniformed enemy combatants whom it would have been perfectly legal to simply shoot in the field - except we benefited from the information) IS SO THAT WHEN OUR SOLDIERS ARE CAPTURED THEY WILL BE TREATED WELL. No, seriously, she said that. She even, I think, BELIEVES it. Apparently no one forced her to watch the beheading videos. And actually you're lucky if a beheading is all you get. Whatever, here's the embed; the other two parts follow - trust me it's worth it. Can we please get Liz on a ticket? I'll vote for her. Also, Norah Dumbass LIES through her teeth.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Finally, a funny take on "torture" since we're on the subject - gotta love Steven Crowder! Norah should see this one (it came out before the memos confirmed it all, too). Featuring Steven's Beheading - I wonder if that's anything like Stevie's Spanking.

Shark-Jumping

On the same day I find out that the aftermath of that unprofessional bitch reporter's actions were FALSELY removed due to a NON-copyright violation (how the hell did they convince anyone it was their footage when it was a third party? Who paid who off to get it taken down? The purge, it begins...) I come across this piece, which frankly makes me feel filthy. I mean Happy Days, OK...why not? It's from Happy Days that the term "Jump the Shark" even originates so it's OK to use it to any ill ends. Oh, hell, whatever, I don't have so many fond memories of Andy Griffith either. I always thought he was an asshole for not carrying a gun, and the one guy who DID was a complete buffoon who always shot himself in the foot. I still feel dirty, but not for the reasons I originally thought. Opey - you just go on back to Mayberry, why don't you - or your imagined Mayberry of Europe. After all, they can only live in Mayberry because we defend the whole fucking lot of them.

In a brief note on this nonsense in which the so-called "torture memos" were released without the accompanying memos on the invaluable information that was gathered as a result of enhanced interrogations (not torture, sorry) - including the PREVENTION of Wave 2, planned and operational to attack the left coast - I heard someone make a really excellent point. Two (possibly 3) of the prisoners were waterboarded; problem with the "War Crimes" kooks is that waterboarding is not even legally torture. If they were so gung-ho on prosecuting Cheney et. al. for torture and war crimes for putting a caterpillar in with a detainee - an ENEMY COMBATANT - then why don't they go ahead and MAKE waterboarding illegal and make it torture legally? They could do it in a heartbeat. So why aren't they doing it?

Because that would prove what we've known all along, that it WASN'T illegal and it wasn't TORTURE to begin with. To make it illegal/torture now would put the nail in that coffin, wouldn't it now? Not that the memos shouldn't have DONE that already. Non-issue, move on. Next person to say war crimes gets dismissed as a mere, worthless nutjob, a hysteric with nothing real to say.

Unprofessional Reporter Gets Schooled - Hard. Etc.

Well. You could almost feel sorry for her if you didn't remember that she's not doing her job, is a moonbat, a bitch, and a completely unprofessional asshole.

I'm not going into Garofalo's lunatic rant because we've already established that she is a racist, misogynist, bigoted self-loathing narcissist (the last three are her self-description) who hates all black people who don't want her leftist largesse and calls them mentally ill. Any and all accusations she hurls at others regarding racism are null, void, and not worthy of listening to, much less responding to. SHE doesn't get to lecture ANYONE on racism.

In other not-worthwhile but fun news, Marcotte's teeth are gnashing slightly more than usual at the "wingnuts" who protested last Wednesday, and she's come up with a fairly funny post venting her spleen.

It turns out that the wingnuts were utterly clueless about the slang term “teabag”... Somehow, the group of people who never clued into this term---despite the fact that it’s a widely photographed activity, and joked about by everyone from the characters on “Always Sunny In Philadelphia” to “Sex and the City” to John Waters---is the same group of people who think it’s meaningful to protest the existence of taxes as a cover story for throwing a tantrum about having a black President.

She squoze in every moonbat meme (i.e. lie) except how it was all funded by Fox News - nice going, bitch.

So much becomes clear. Of course you’d become a bitter, nasty wingnut who hates everyone and fears the outside world if you can’t even understand the simple pleasures of a dick joke.

Ohh, this was all just a dick joke! Well THOSE are funny! Though if you try to tell a pussy joke to a feminist, they aren't going to find the humor in it, now, are they? (She gives an "example" of just that except her example only proves what I just said, not the converse. Nothing will arouse a feminist's ire quicker than a vagina joke. That's Not Funny!

Childish? I prefer the term “childlike” as in “childlike joy and wonder"

Ah yes, those childlike joys and wonders - blowing soap bubbles, watching an inchworm make his way across a leaf, splashing in rainpuddles, blowing the fluff off of a dandelion, and watching John Waters hang his testicles over Divine's mouth. I can see it like it was yesterday!

"at a world that could produce people who insist that there’s nothing funny about teabagging”

There is, but not when you do it 51 times in 13 minutes. See, when you BEAT THE JOKE INTO THE GROUND and then keep beating it and beating it like it was Kunta Kinte, it's not funny anymore. When you do it only to mock people who you don't think have gotten or will get it, it's not only not funny, it's not a "dick joke" anymore anyway; it's "CONSERVATIVES R DUMMIES! HAHA!" I smiled (at the teabagging part of it) the first 2 or 3 times Maddow said it...and then she kept on, and on, and on, and on...51 times. Yeah, it wasn't funny anymore, even if teabagging were the joke instead of "RIGHTWING NUTBAGS R TEH STUPID! HAHA!"

You shall not make fun of the penis! ...What is wingnuttery if not a cult of phallic worship, and every time you make a dick joke, you are blaspheming their god.

Well. I can't think of anything crazier to use to mock on THAT one, so why don't we just leave it as it is, huh? Blaspheming their god...nope. I'm crazy but not THAT crazy. Moonbats? They are 18 shades of crazy in a single sentence, and ol' Annie here just can't top that.

Not Even Pretending

Journalism? What color? Yellow. They aren't even pretending anymore. Now having documented that fact before, I'm not surprised by that. But if that shit doesn't infuriate you, you're blind or stupid or a leftist (which = blind and stupid anyway, so redundancy fail.) Also, I guess this "reporter"s assessment on Cavuto was flat-out wrong, wannit? Video below. After that, the cutest mini horsie I've ever seen in order to lower your blood pressure. Now tell me, what in HELL does he have on his little feet??? That's TOO CUTE.

TeaBaggin' It - UPDATE

On the positive side, the leftist MSM is FINALLY reporting on the Tea Parties. On the funny side, it's because they're so fucking stupid that they finally caught on to it. You see, they think that we are cretinous morons who never have sex, don't have any sense of humor or irony, aren't "hip" like they are, and so the deliberate choice of slogans like "Tea-Bag Obama before He TeaBags You" or "TeaBag Your Congressman" have completely baffled them. They ACTUALLY believe we have no idea what in the hell the double-entendre means, and that they are making fun of us stupid, frigid, unhip, unironic, humorless TeaBaggers. I mean, seriously, when will they stop showing us how damned STUPID they are? Rachel Maddow, you are really an asshole.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Teabagging update - the newest move to discredit the Tea Party Protests is that they are in fact a Fox News Channel-sponsored effort instead of a movement that has sprung up from the grassroots and that Fox News Channel has since jumped onto the bandwagon of. Because the media has not bothered to COVER the past protests, the ones that have **been going on all along** which are now culminating in the big April 15 protest, they think they can get away with pretending they never happened, that this didn't come from the grassroots, and that in fact, this is some big orchestrated move by the Fox News Channel. Jesse Taylor, uber-moron, is just where I first saw it, but it's spread throughout the leftist internets like wildfire. First, Fox is an asshole for trying to claim any credit for what we, the people have wrought. Second, you leftards are idiots who don't bother to think beyond the most vapid and shallow levels, just spewing lies and the same tired crap without any merit or warrant. No, dipshits, the Tea Parties were NOT spawned out of Fox Media or ANY media at all. They have BEEN going on during this entire abortion you call an administration and it's just that the biggest one is now coming up.

Let me explain something, leftards - WE ARE NOT LIKE YOU. Pause a moment and let that sink in good. WE ARE NOT LIKE YOU. We have not built an entire industry with incestuous bankrolling upon making idiots of ourselves in protests - when you see a gathering of conservatives or other non-leftards protesting something or wanting to otherwise be heard, you are seeing a gathering of INDIVIDUALS who actually, most of them HAVE LIVES OUTSIDE OF PROTESTING AND BEING OUTRAGED ALL THE TIME, who are finally angered to the point of taking time out of their real lives into making themselves heard. We are not bussed in by idiot incestuous heavily bankrolled hate groups like Acorn or any race-baiting groups or eco-terrorists in order to get a photo op, cause violence, and go back to our dorms. In fact, we aren't as heavily schooled in the mechanics of protest as you people are - we tend to live our lives assuming that we have the right to peaceably assemble when we want to, so sometimes we get surprised that there are a whole host of laws that you professional protestors have gotten into place in order to stop honest people from doing so. That there are in fact many hoops now to jump through, that you are used to having your sponsors jump through for you - that, in fact, we don't necessarily just have the right to assemble if we want to. But we're learning, and we're organizing too. Get. used. to. it.

Bill Maher Should Die a Horrible Death

Painfully and slowly.

In case this makes absolutely no sense to you at all, a little explanation: According to leftists who choose to let Hollywood and MSNBC shape their worldview, our troops aren't out there to defend their freedom or keep terrorists at bay, but to rape women and children. Why anyone would want to believe this is a question for a psychiatrist to answer — or better still, a priest

Yes, a priest indeed. Ummm...for these MORONS and LIARS and TRAITORS, apparently war means, as Obama said just recently, carptebombing villages and murdering civilians. This INFANTILE view of what war IS says that war is going into a foreign country and just throwing bombs at the people we find there, dropping warheads into their villages, setting them on fire (after raping them), and generally RIOTING in their streets. I am deeply ashamed to say that THAT is also what **I** thought war was - just go and kill people at random. Yeah, no, that isn't what war is. That isn't what "undeclared" wars are. That isn't what happens even in the war on terror, which involved a very non-descript enemy. IT. JUST. ISN'T. And if you are so stupid in this time of information to THINK that it is, you are a fucking idiot. And you can die like all other traitors die. Except with more pain.

Don't worry, the Palestinians will go mad cheering your death in the streets because they're fucking animals. H/T to Moonbattery

V

I'm going to start with this, but I don't want to waste the above picture on just this topic, so I'm going to continue after getting this one out. The AP just reported that Rush Limbaugh said the health care bill would end up being named after Ted Kennedy (I don't even think he said "The Swimmer") and the leader of the DCCC proclaimed the remark outrageous and reprehensible. Why? What in the hell is outrageous or reprehensible about that? And what would they say if they saw my "Ted Kennedy's Car Has Killed More People Than My Handgun" bumper sticker? What if it were called the "Drunken Asstard Who Let Kopechne Die in Chappaquiddick Memorial Health Care Bill"? I mean, if it were me making a slam, I'd make one. What Rush allegedly said isn't even a slam AT ALL.

But it was a lie; he wasn't the one who said it. He was quoting these people who are actually working on the bill, and say that it WILL be named as such...and nothing about it was considered outrageous or reprehensible. These people are genuinely sick. And liars.

On to other things, brought up by the V mask. I had been leery to see that movie - there was an assumption there that it would likely be similar to the Handmaid's Tale - those dystopian future visions of what happens if the conservatives are in charge. Which is kind of odd because we already know what happens if the totalitarian conservatives are in charge - we saw it with Hitler. The difference between that and the leftist totalitarianism is who gets labeled dangerous and who gets favored as good. Other than that, totalitarian is totalitarian, and it doesn't matter fuck-all which brand you get - it destroys individual liberty, it destroys the economy which is so necessary to individual liberty, it causes anguish, starvation, death, camps and gulags wherever it goes.

So I was rather pleasantly surprised that in large part the movie avoided committing to one or the other brand of totalitarian fascism - left or right. They gave a nod to it being rightist of course (the story of Valerie) but overall, it could have been either or, and that was...honest. Now how is it that the swaying throngs of big government sycophants, most of whom love that movie, still don't GET it? That it. doesn't. matter. who's the petty tyrant or the dictator - the results for US are the same!? Why are they so eager to fellate their new dictator overlords instead of moving as far away as possible from these absolutely unprecedented power grabs? The cognitive dissonance - my God how it burns.

Rachel Maddow - Sooper Genius

It's a real FATWA out there, with Rush in the dock. So far as I can tell, Obi-wan refrained from bringing up the big guy prior to the inauguration, but days later told a bunch of senators they couldn't just "listen to Rush and get things done." He waffled later, saying he didn't know if that was the exact quote. Up until that day he'd stuck with attacking Sean Hannity - guess he was waiting to bring up the big guns. What's up with a president addressing legislature and bringing up a *civilian* who isn't in any elected position and has never even sought same, in order to score political points internally in the White House? That's just...weird.

That didn't stop the mainstream media from echoing Rahmbo's complaint that Limbaugh was the de facto head of the Republican party. Odd, since they never do anything he suggests. But I have heard that fact trumpeted in the leftist media ever since, every day, in one form or another, declaring Rush the "Leader of the Republican Party." Odd. It almost became a, oh, what do you call those things that mean nothing but are shouted from the rooftops incessantly? - a, uh, oh yeah, TALKING POINT. A FOCAL point in fact. There are petitions, there are pushes for a new Fairness Doctrine (renamed of course) and there is a lot of posturing.

Rush, true to form, did not respond in a way that could have been expected - last time he was served with a Senatorial petition, signed by Hillary, Byrd, Kennedy, and all the rest, sold the thing on ebay to a philanthropist for millions and matched the funds to serve the children of soldiers killed in action. This time, he's decided to make his hay by challenging the president to a debate. He will fly Obi-wan out, put him up in a resort, feed him top notch food (all at his own expense) and debate him over the golden microphone. As he points out, since they claim he's the leader of the party, might as well have the president debate him, right? Makes perfect sense.

No way chicken-shitters are going to do THAT, but it sure would be good. I'd pay to hear that one.

Also, the fat jokes are making the rounds again now - Limbaugh has been described as portly, SWOLLEN and other euphemisms for lolfat in a wide variety of mainstream outlets.

Maddow prefers to just keep lying:

Leno: I mean, it is America, and do you have the right to say, "I don't like his policies, I want them to fail."

MADDOW: He has said that he wants the president to fail. That's the way he put it.

Guess she doesn't do much fact-checking. Because 5 minutes of listening would tell you that indeed EXACTLY what was said was that Limbaugh does not want the man to fail personally (as in, say, do a poor job raising his children, or divorce his wife, be a sexual predator like Clinton was, etc.) but that because his policies are inherently socialist and disastrous, he WOULD like to see him fail at implementing them. Any sane person would.

But once they become the policies of the country, and they are designed to save us from this economic collapse --

LENO: Right.

MADDOW: You ought to hope they succeed, unless you are hoping for your country to suffer worse in an economic collapse. I mean, actually rooting for the failure of your own federal government is pretty creepy.

So I guess once the invasion of Poland succeeded and people were being rounded up into camps, and the purpose was to rebuild Germany's economy, they should have just rooted for them to succeed. I mean, maybe they would have, you know? That makes sense. In lefty-world.

Problem is, Rach, we already KNOW these policies don't work. We have the testimony of SO much history at our backs by now; we know that Clower-Piven strategies only WORK to destroy an economy, not to fix it. But I guess you don't know these things. I guess the lessons of the Great Depression and the near-depression/horrific recession we went through in the late '70s don't scan on your radar. We already know what causes depressions and what ends them. We already know what effect socialist policies have on economies in industrial societies - and what effect slashing taxes and instituting a FREE market have. You are advocating necessitating a great relearning after bashing our heads into the wall repeatedly to see what happens. They DON'T work, Maddow, and we're trying to AVERT their disastrous outcomes. And to preserve our constitutional liberties in the process, which are under grave threat. Duh. Plus, uh, you didn't talk this way when you rooted for the failure of the US in the Iraq conflict, did you? You'd think you would have supported it all once it became the law. I guess you're a hypocrite too.

LENO: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Especially wearing the black shirt and the whole deal. It looks a little creepy. Have you ever met him?

MADDOW: No, no. I don't think he'd want to meet me. I don't know

Nah, he's not picky. He'd love to meet even a fucktard like you, really. While I wouldn't cross the street to meet you, he'd do it and he'd do it with class. That's just how he rolls.

On a happier note, Ari Fleischer STYMIED the Morning Joe people by asking the pertinent question: FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann? They really had NO IDEA what to do with that one; one host actually started drinking a coffee and tried to pass the question off LOL.

Condi freaking Rice. A woman of TRUE class and eternal good taste. She never had to raise her voice (as Coulter does) but Joy Behar sat there like a stunned mule on tranqs, her jaw unhinged, unable to say a WORD. I like that. "You don't CALL him George." Classic!!!

One of those times when the collective IQ on the stage rocketed into the triple digits.

By Any Means Necessary

This is unbelievable. No comment required here.

Of Cabbages and Chimps

So there's a story that's apparently been big news (see, I told you I don't watch/read that shit; which is why I don't know this stupid story - and I'll tell you why it's stupid in a minute) about a pet chimp who went bad (possibly rabid?) and attacked its owner's friend. Eventually the animal had to be shot by policemen because it was violent. Now the reason it's stupid is because chimps are NOT gentle creatures nor suitable pets for human beings. More on this later. So I guess a cartoonist from the same newspaper that's been making a big deal out of the monkey story starts thinking about how the "stimulus" is so stupid, it could have been written by an infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters, because frankly, no matter how long that goes on, they're NOT going to turn out a copy of Hamlet. Just...no. It's gibberish, and it's BAD, and a monkey may as well have banged it out randomly on a typewriter.

He puts these two things together and makes a not-very-funny but not entirely unfunny cartoon; because the image of chimps sitting at typewriters has always been funny, and really, them turning out this massive turd of a bill is appropriate.

Raaaaaaaaaaaacist! Because everyone knows that monkey = black people. And because Obama WROTE the bill...except he didn't. Daschle, Pelosi, and for all we fucking know, a roomfull of actual chimps wrote the damn thing. Had the cartoonist said they'd need someone else to SIGN the next bill, then it would have been about Obama. He didn't; he said WRITE the next bill. Jugears is no author - he didn't sit there writing this thing LOL. Jeesh. Now Al Sharpton, he does strike me as something like a gibbon, the way he jumps around and screams and acts the fool. Oh yeah, he's doing it now. You paid any of that settlement to Pagones yet, you filthy life-ruining LYING turd, Sharpton? No? Then STFU you filthy disgrace of a "man".

While I'm at it, apparently this was ok because I didn't hear anyone screaming about it.

And dozens of collages. Actually, just google Bush Chimp, hit images and see what you get.

Last time - The cartoon refers to the **author**, not the signer, of the bill, and Obama ain't it. And after 8 years of the self-same people who are bitching now making the pictures I just posted above? You can all go to hell with that complaint; even if it WERE accurate, which it isn't. I intend to call him any number of things and liken him to many animals - some of which may be monkeys, depending on his behavior, and I really don't give a damn what anyone thinks of that.

To tell you the truth, my grandfather looked EXACTLY like a chimp, and 90 times out of a hundred when I see any kind of ape I am immediately nostalgic for him. Even his hands were like theirs. Well, his fingers and nails. His expressions. George Burns did too, when he got older. Some people do look like monkeys - Obama doesn't really (except the cartoon Curious George). Maybe when he gets older he'll get that monkey look too. Meh, whatever.

I'll be interested to see the shitstorm that develops around this. The bullshitstorm, that is.

Wait, What? Chimps AREN'T good pets? Hell no.

Read the article (hilarious!) but in the meantime here's a sample:

It's sort of like a fraternity initiation, only they don't give a shit if you survive. For instance, look how the adorable monkey treats his "friend" the zoologist, who's been coming to his island and feeding him bananas for years.

If that clip reminds you less of Ross's adorable pet monkey on Friends and more of Stephen Seagal "taking out the trash," that's because you watched it. Now imagine what that monkey would do to your goofy, non-banana bringing ass if you tried to make him wear a funny hat and a necktie.

Oh, here's something to make that mental image even worse: On four recorded occasions in the last 50 years, chimpanzees have abducted, killed and eaten human babies. That's human with an H, as in Homo Sapiens, as in a human baby getting wrenched out of its mother's arms, dragged off into the forest and devoured by a chimp. We are not making this up.

Oh, Ezra - Echoing New Talking Points/Memes

From Ezra Klein, The Columbia Dispatch, and most leftist blogs who just parrot their talking points: "U.S. Rep. Steve Austria said he supports a scaled-down federal economic-stimulus proposal, but the Beavercreek Republican told The Dispatch editorial board that the huge influx of money into the economy could have a negative effect.

"When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression," Austria said. "He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history."

Most historians date the beginning of the Great Depression at or shortly after the stock-market crash of 1929; Roosevelt took office in 1933.

Followed by whatever snark or silliness the blogger in question wants to add. First of all, Steve Austria doesn't know what he's talking about. This is not a huge influx of money INTO the economy - this is taking money out of your purse and putting it into your pocket. Or more accurately, a behemoth taking money out of everyone's pockets at the point of a sword and putting it willy-nilly wherever they see fit according to Porkulus. This is not an "influx" of money, this hasn't been created or produced - it's stolen, it's fiat money.

In the American context of the Great Depression, one book captures the whole onset and response. It is Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression. He shows that it wasn't the 1929 crash that was the problem; it was the response to the crash that created the Depression. Bailouts. Price controls. Wage controls. Government programs. Trade restrictions. Crackdowns on the capital markets. And who did all this? It originated not with FDR but with Herbert Hoover — clear echoes of today. There is no understanding the present crisis without this book.

There was a massive crash (equal to or greater than 1929) that occurred during the massive Reagan boom. The response? Nothing. The press squawked for a day or two that we were going to sink into a massive depression, but there was nary a blip. Bad companies folded and new ones sprang up immediately; bad debt disappeared and good investors filled the gaps. No one got bailed out, and the market adjusted pretty much overnight. Had they been distorting the market consistently as in recent years with interventions by government, trying to stave off possible recession (which is just the name of the period when the market adjusts from distortions, on its own), there might have been some temporary ill effects, as postponing the inevitable makes the eventual reality worse each time. But society was quite upwardly mobile at the time, and no such thing happened.

This time, we are going the Hoover/Roosevelt route. First bailouts, then caps, controls, and finally, the monster with a trillion heads - Porkulus Maximus. The same Keynesian route Roosevelt took that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression into permanent proper noun status. We can eventually recover, but only with an eventual return to a free market, a period of adjustment (which will NOW, due to massive intervention and distortion, be longer and more painful than it need have been) and a reversal of these absolutely destructive and unconstitutional plans. I'll include a layman's explanation below, but buy the book so you can get a handle on the reality here and not just buy into these ludicrous talking points that really, make no economic sense.

Me and Julio Down By The Schoolyard UPDATE

Raaaaaaaaaacist! (Figured I'd beat 'em to it.)

Obama Claus has come to town! Free houses and broadcasting jobs for McDonald's workers and all comers! Just don't call yourself a plumber. Some people think the Hughes story is a bit fishy, kind of like the timing of the sudden crash, when 500 billion dollars was yanked in a period of a few hours.

It couldn't be that some things are...orchestrated? Like those fortuitous rocks Billy-boy found on the beach at Normandy so that he could arrange them tearfully into the shape of a cross for the cameras? Or that laughter at his friend's funeral that turned to sudden tears? Nah; things like that don't happen in the second, Most Ethical Administration EVAH! Poor Henrietta, though - wait 'til she gets sick and the new health Czar tells her it's not cost-effective to prolong her life - now give back that house, eh? The Messiah has need of it.

Oh and get this: Republican senators have vowed to filibuster the Fairness Doctrine, which is enjoying a lot of renewed support (and demand) by Dim congressleeches. So let me get this straight, you assholes have just passed a bill that brings the federal government down to rule over EVERY ASPECT Of our personal lives - down to the MOST personal decisions and events - and have instituted an entirely totalitarian society that we are now going to have to pay for out of OUR pockets for countless generations...and we're supposed to be glad that at least we get to listen to the apocalypse on the fucking radio? Are you SERIOUS?

Where were you when we needed you, asstards? Where were you to stop the rape and abortion of our civil rights, privacy, autonomy and Constitution? Screw the fairness doctrine - frankly if I'm going to starve to death under a communist dictatorship, I'd rather NOT hear about it every day. Just give me some bread and a fucking circus to watch while my children go out and dig my grave for me, eh? This senate needs to be executed.

UPDATE on the Henrietta and Julio stories - looks like a lot was fishy about these stories, just like all the money being pulled out precipitating the crash. And that woman didn't really swim the Atlantic either. Harumph. Seems like the wool's being pulled over the sheeple's eyes a LOT lately.