False predictions - $10 bil
Erasing evidence (badly) - $50 bil
Spreading New False Predictions - $150 bil
Handing the UN their asses on a plate - priceless.
Fools! Seriously, read the whole thing; it keeps getting better!
While you're at it, here's a great song parody - The "Squanderer", set to "The Wanderer." If you play the music while reading the lyrics, you'll realize she's really good! Here
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,
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
That one ought to show fully. It's small. This HR3 question is bugging me and I don't like to be bugged. First of all the hysterics and freaking feminists are losing their minds - Marcotte goes so far as to claim that the point of this bill is to punish (by denying healthcare to) young women who dare to have sex. But she's an idiot. So first I have a problem because no matter where I turn I'm seeing feminists bitching and that's never a good thing. Plus, they get it wrong; I'm gonna quote one at a bit of length in a minute. It bothers me secondly because is THIS what we sent these fuckers to congress for? Is this why I spent my own money to drive our car down to Washington, DC, lay out for a hotel and food, and attend a rally that had no bathrooms or food vendors nearby for? So these people could go to congress and start up this piddling bullshit? This is exactly what we told them NOT to do - to start in on the social shit. We have an economy to fix - a budget to get settled and very hard funding choices to make, not to mention the debt ceiling, and two years of Obama legislation to undo, and instead we get THIS? I think I hear the sound of one-termers already. Boehner you might as well hand Nancy her gavel back if this is your priority.
I'm not going to take a position on abortion here - there are likely cases where someone is in serious danger and doesn't have money or insurance and needs help; OK but overall I don't see why government should be paying willy-nilly for abortions. As to insurance companies...well let's quote the feminist and then get to that.
1. This bill narrows the “rape” exception to include only “forcible rape.” As Sady explains: Under this new bill, the only rape survivors who would be able to receive funding would be those who were able to prove that their rapes involved “force.” If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don’t get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don’t get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape — that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family — you don’t get coverage. If you’re an incest survivor over the age of eighteen — if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday — you just don’t get coverage.Ok,so they've removed the "forcible" language and now it includes cases where someone was coerced, drugged, etc. Having been slipped a mickey a time or two myself I can attest that you can be completely unaware of your actions after that, and I'd certainly file that under rape. I'm still unclear as to why this language was in there in the first place. We paid for 191 abortions due to rape last year...is adding the word "forcible" one of those "deep and meaningful cuts" in spending that the freshmen were sent there to make? Because I'm not seeing it.
2. This bill narrows the “life of the mother” exceptions to include only physical threats to the life of the mother. If carrying to term a pregnancy that you do not want might make you suicidal, or if giving up a baby for adoption might be more than you can emotionally bear, too damn bad. No abortion coverage unless the pregnancy causes a risk to your physical health.You know...too fucking bad. The life of the mother means just that; it means a real threat, not that you just "can't bear" it. If you can't bear it, use a rubber. Go on the pill. Do something to prevent it from happening, fool. There are 8 bazillion ways NOT to get pregnant; pick one.
3. This bill empowers rapists. This bill makes it pretty damn clear, by only offering the rape exception to pregnant survivors of “forcible rape,” that any form of sexual violation that doesn’t involve force isn’t really rape. And since about 70% of rapists don’t use force when they rape, that lets about 70% of rapists off the hook.Considering the feminist definitions of "rape" that is probably fine. You guys are insane. Don't believe me? Check out the "Biting Beaver" Rapist Checklist. I'll wait. Yeah. No. If that's what we're paying for, something's wrong.
4. This bill goes even further than the Hyde Amendment, which already prevents federal funds from being used for abortion. By amending the tax code to make it incredibly unappealing for private health insurance companies to cover abortion, this bill makes abortion less affordable than ever. As the New York Times reports: The tax credits that are encouraging small businesses to provide insurance for their workers could not be used to buy policies that cover abortions. People with their own policies who have enough expenses to claim an income tax deduction could not deduct either the premiums for policies that cover abortion or the cost of an abortion. People who use tax-preferred savings accounts to pay medical costs could not use the money to pay for an abortion without paying taxes on it.Yeah, they lose me here. What? Now you can't claim your insurance costs on your taxes? Bullshit. Don't get me wrong; when I was growing up and abortion became like the most common surgery in the country, you weren't getting your insurance to pay for it. You scraped up $200 or you were out of luck. I won't claim your insurance is "denying you reproductive medical care" if they won't pay for an elective abortion - most will likely pay if there are extenuating circumstances anyway, so quitcherbitchin' and be glad any of them pay at all. At the same time for the government to start sticking its nose in there? BULL. Absolute, unadulterated BULL. You want to talk about abortions we pay for out of government coffers directly (LATER WHEN WE'RE ALL WORKING AGAIN PERHAPS?) fine, but this is just nonsense. How much money is this actually supposed to save? This passes for "deep spending cuts"? No. Screw you.
5. This bill completely contradicts what the GOP’s professed priorities. Speaker Boehner and the rest of the GOP claim that their top priority is creating jobs for Americans. But this bill, their third piece of legislation in the new session, has nothing to do with creating jobs and everything to do with sexism and culture war politics.I agree...except you, being an economic fool, think the government literally "creates" jobs. It doesn't work that way, honey. What the government does is cut spending and taxes, and relieving overly burdensome regulation and red tape, and the job market begins to grow. Now by focusing on this nonsense clearly they aren't doing that - but you aren't going to like it when they DO start doing that anyway and you're going to wonder why they aren't "creating jobs" for you. Trust me; that isn't how it works, ok?
So...if Obama's a one-termer and THIS is what congress is going to spend its time on, there are going to be an awful lot of one-termers out there. I'd as soon turn it back over to the Dhimmis and let them burn it all down if this congress doesn't get its head on straight, FAST, and start focusing on this economic mess we're in. Let them break the bone all the way through so it can be properly set and heal if that's what it takes; no need to watch as alleged "Tea Party-friendly" GOPers just slowly twist the damned thing for years until it can NEVER be fixed.
If it's cut off, view it HERE
I wish I could give it away to entice you to watch, but if I do, most of the buildup is lost. I was literally cheering as it went on, and if you have watched SNL or politics for the past 36 years as I have, you will be too.) It just keeps getting better and better and better. HOW did they get this CAST???? Holy shit! Let's just say you're about to see the most amazing sketch that SNL would never have the balls to do anymore. Oh, I don't care about the message (or the fact that SirObin bravely ran away from his own press conference rather than actually, you know, get to WORK or anything, highlighting the most shameful moment in presidential history in my lifetime. And I watched Nixon resign and the Clinton impeachment, so what does that tell you?) but trust me - watch and be taken back...back...back...and laugh your ass off!
If you read the update on Teabagging yesterday, then you'll be interested in this. Following the uber-moron's links on how the Tea Party Protests are in fact a Fox News Channel creation led me to a humongous post about it on a site called "Firedoglake", a cesspool of leftism that I wouldn't want to return to. Naturally DailyKos has made the accusations as well. And then I came across this, which, it turns out, is likely the impetus behind the accusation about the Tea Parties. It is just like I said - **they think we are like them**. They attribute such ill motives to us because **they** are in fact involved in such incestuous activity themselves, and since their motives and methods are ill, like the thief who guards his wallet so closely, they assume that our motives and methods are equally ill. So in the interest of backing up my mention of incestuous activity and attribution of motives, I present you this:
Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.It’s a development that’s creating tensions on the left and raises questions about the future role of the blogosphere at a time when a Dem is in the White House and liberalism could be headed for a period of sustained ascendancy.
A number of these top bloggers agreed to come on record with me after privately arguing to these groups that they deserved a share in the ad wealth and couldn’t be taken for granted any longer.
“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”
Hamsher singled out Americans United for Change, which raises and spends big money on TV ad campaigns driving Obama’s agenda, as well as the constellation of groups associated with it, and the American Association of Retired Persons, also a big TV advertiser.
“Most want the easy way — having a big blogger promote their agenda,” adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. “Then they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.” Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sites’s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them.
Huh. I told you so.
Moment of Zen - piracy is hilarious! If you thought Obama cackling over the economy was funny, here's another one for you:
Yes, Ms. McEwan, it sure is NICE to have "grown-ups" in charge again, isn't it?
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
Only 9% of non-union workers want to join a union.
Union members tend to believe that most workers want to join a labor union. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 47% of union members hold that view while only 18% disagree.But those who don’t belong to a union hold a different perspective. By a 56% to 14% margin, they believe that most workers do not want to belong to a union.
As for personal preference, only nine percent (9%) of non-union workers would like to join a union. Eighty-one percent (81%) would not.
Huh. Hat tip to FulloseousFlap.
And your moment of Zen:
Ok, no fertilized embryos. Check. Check, please! At the same time, even when he screws up that royally, you have to hand it to Billy-boy; he makes some effort, however dumb, to connect to the regular people. He had little to no choice but to at least *sound* like less of a leftist extremist while in office if he wanted a chance to pass anything at all, so...I guess that makes sense. He makes a token effort to sound somewhat moderate. Obama hasn't got that particular cluebat yet, and chances are he won't unless there's a similar upset in '10 like there was in '94.
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.
How is it that this petty dictator, this tyrant, is RAMMING this shit through WITHOUT any procedure, WITHOUT any debate, WITHOUT meaningful opposition...yet the left is stomping and screaming about the mean tone of conservative talk show hosts (while using and employing more hate-filled words and rhetoric than any talk show host ever could) and stomping and screaming about "obstructionists" who can't possibly mount a meaningful opposition even if they wanted to? What kind of la-la land are those people living in? Look, I remember Reagan being accused of bankrupting future generations as well (by people who conveniently ignored the fact that he had a completely democrat congress and senate who demanded shit spending) and of course Bush was accused of the same thing (while Clinton was lauded for a false snapshot "surplus" that was never used to pay down any actual debt) so I'm not necessarily going to complain that we can't pay for it. Which we can't. Of course calling tax cuts an "expense" is a false complaint in the first place, and measures that ACTUALLY stimulate and grow the economy (unlike runaway spending on make-work projects and earmarks and caps collapses the economy) are at least helpful in many ways. But try explaining economics to a leftist. Heh. This runaway spending is a sure recipe for quick disaster - Obama actually knows this, it seems, which is why he keeps warning us that it's going to get a lot worse. This is nothing but a reformatting of our entire personal liberties and system of self-governance and it's just being railroaded through before anyone can blink. It's tyranny, it's despotism, it's riddled with outright lies, and there is no comparison here between anything a conservative president or legislature has done in the last 30 years or even 50. Bankrupt the people, break their backs quickly and surely, like a cat with a tasty mouse, destroy property rights and personal liberties, and you're left with nothing but a petty tyrant and dictator. I don't know which of his cronies are going to be thrown to the wolves - Pelosi? Reid? But Obi-wan is angling for absolute rule here, and it's coming. Quickly. Actually it's here; we just haven't felt the pain yet. I see the curtains being drawn very quickly on this experiment that has held up pretty well for 200 years, this experiment in self-governance and curbing voracious government. It's a dark and bloody vision, but if you can't see it, I have to think you're blind. We didn't know for sure he would do all this, but we know now. And some of you have the gall, the balls, to complain that we wanted it to fail. If you didn't, you're a fool.
Do not forget to go to Copious Dissent so that our friend in the video gets credit for his courage.
Hey, it's better than a tent city. A car city! A STINGER car city. With flashlight.
Palestinians celebrating Obama's victory - oops, I mean celebrating 9/11. Did you know that Obama's sending Gaza 900 million dollars to reward their lobbing rockets into Israel for years and countless suicide bombings and doing nothing with the land except build a terrorist base? Why doesn't Israel tell us to go to hell already?
And, come to find out Henrietta Hughes, whom Womanist Musings calls "courageous" and "the foundation of the US", and claims that questioning her only proves the GOP has no heart at all, actually is a lying cheat. She signed a quit-claim deed on the home she owned jointly (actually she owned THREE lots) with her son so that her free gub'mint money wouldn't get messed up. Foundation of the US huh? Well, I guess that's true in a way. A horrible way. Sweetness and Light has all the poop; with a big Hat Tip to Moonbattery. Now I'm left to wonder, where DID that 124 grand come from, and was she hand-picked by the Obi-wan Barrel o'M**k*ys to put on that show, or did she think it up on her own? I recall reading a little something about how one gets into one of those things, and it's mighty suspicious, but then she's a phony, too, so who knows? We'll likely find out at some point, though the very act of finding out is called cruel, heartless mockery.
Hey, at least no heavy campaign contributors are illegally using government databases to search out her fraud like they did with Joe the Plumber - no one's gonna be indicted for proving what a phony this "courageous" "foundation of the US" is.
A school bus driver with two kids who was so dumb she thought she could walk into an 800 THOUSAND dollar house? Who would think that? What made her think she could ever afford such a thing? We bought our house (in great need of repair I might add) for under a hundred grand, under 1000 square feet, one ancient bathroom and one gutted addition - and when we had to take out some equity to get essential repairs, it became necessary for me to take on full time work in order that we would have enough to pay for this MODEST house. If I'd been so stupid as to try for an 800 thousand dollar house, I'd be blaming no one but myself for a foreclosure. Instead she tells "Obama! Stop the foreclosures!" Are you KIDDING me?
And another subset of the people suffering under this heinous depression we're supposed to be in - the upper-middle-class, unemployed and loving it! Excuse me while I break out the world's tiniest violin for these people. Now which is it, because I could have sworn we were supposed to be talking about people who are forced to live in roach-infested hellholes in overcrowded cities, breathing smog and getting sick while all the doctors refuse to treat them, and instead I'm treated to morons in McMansions they (and I) could never afford, and rich people who have it a hell of a lot better than I ever have living it up on unemployment (they USED to make you look for a job while you collected; but I guess not anymore!)
The one story is supposed to, I suppose, garner sympathy but engenders more of a feeling of "You IDIOT" while the second could never have taken place under George Bush, because anything "bad" that happened under him, like someone losing their jobs, could never be reported as a positive. I also take it that the mom in that relationship, who *willingly* gave up her job, isn't going to go back to work and let dad stay home, eh? I mean, considering she's a lawyer and could probably go back to work anytime, but he keeps saying how he's going to have to, going to have to go back! Nice.
Or maybe we're supposed to be thinking of these folks, an entire family where all the siblings, spouses, parents, - every adult there is - just doesn't work, and are having a hard time making the car payments on welfare. Without that car, how is one of them (the only one even looking for work among those who never have) supposed to "keep" a job. She had "several" last year - which is always a good sign of someone who shows up on time and works hard at their job. Apparently they can't even buy as many groceries anymore on the stingy payments they get from Uncle Sam, courtesy of assholes like me who keep killing myself to work and pay my goddamn taxes so I can maintain a standard of living below what these people have. (Car payments? I've never been able to buy a car that was new enough to have payments - how did she get a loan anyway? I always had to save up a grand or so and buy a junker, then hope to hell it could be made to pass inspection. And with only liability insurance - apparently when you have car payments you have to buy full insurance. Cry me a RIVER. Maybe it's time for me to give this "system-sucking" thing a try - everyone I know who's ever done it lives better than I do, and they don't have to kill themselves.) By the way, in reference to groceries and the fact that they're fat, I don't want to hear it. Fat is not the issue here; lazy and an insistence on being worthless probably is.
So my daughter took a brief hike over to the Quick Chek on the corner last weekend, and it were COLD. So she wore her warm, cozy, luscious cloak. (Now this is her story and I'm going to let her add to it; but since she's going too slow for my tastes I'm starting it. Neiner neiner.) It was about 2:30 AM on a Saturday night.
Suddenly a squad car pulls up and accosts her. A SQUAD CAR? Ok...there IS a curfew in this town; if you're under 18 you're not allowed out after 11PM. Never mind whether that's right or not. She does have a baby face, and looks about 12, depending. So they sometimes stop and check her ID to be sure she's not a kid, then apologize and leave. Not so this time.
THIS time they took her ID and started running her name, asking if she had any outstanding warrants. She said, "Uh, no, I DON'T have any warrants, what's the trouble?" Meantime, police car after police car began pulling up - they do that in these podunk fucking NJ towns - one guy gets a live call and suddenly they ALL show up to see the fun - and she stood there having a cigarette and laughing. Because it was already really dumb.
They told her - and I'm serious - that they received a call in to the station that someone was outside dressed as a SUPERHERO.. A what? Not a Druid? And, pardon me, but when you get insane calls like that, shouldn't it go more like,
"There's a person outside dressed as a WHAT?"
"A...(whispering) superhero."
"And?"
"Well he's OUT THERE. Dressed as a...(whispering) superhero."
"What's he doing, ma'am?"
"He's...(whispering) WALKING."
"Walking? Is he doing anything else?"
Pause.
"(low voice) No."
"Yeah, ok, we'll be sure to check THAT out." Click.
Or perhaps, "Ma'am, put down the vodka bottle and go to bed now."
Instead they send the entire fucking police force to check it out? Are you kidding me?
So while they're RUNNING HER NAME, she asks, "Um, so is there something illegal about wearing a CLOAK?"
Actual answer, "Well, well, no...but we just want to know why you're wearing it." WHAT?
Possible answers:
It is the will of Landrew.You speak in strange whispers my friend...but you better hurry, it is the red hour.
No more blah blah blah!
Actual answer: "Because it's COLD out here!"
As the other police cars showed up, the accosting officer yelled over to each one in turn, "It's ok! She was just wearing it because she was cold!" and they went off on their merry way.
What in FUCK can be going on here? How in the HELL do police answer such a ridiculous call, and harass an innocent citizen who's walking down the fucking street? She asked them what IF she had been wearing a superhero costume, or a fucking TUTU for that matter...no answer. When they determined she had no warrants, they left her alone. Jesus. She wasn't even carrying a sword. She should try that next time.
Trivia - lolcats and the rickroll were started at 4-chan. Michele Malkin didn't quite know what 4-chan was, or what /b/ was, or who Anonymous was, so she blamed Gawker, who were only posting the stuff. (Not to say that no one at Gawker is also anonymous - lots of people are.) Someone very kind has taken the time to explain it all, straight from the horse's mouth, and now he's going to have to kill all of you.
"I missed the original incident, but monitored the discussion and repostings afterward to see what I could learn about what had happened and who was responsible.
There are several misconceptions and errors in most accounts of this story, including your post. Most significantly, the perpetrator(s) were not members of an infamous group of hackers. I don’t blame you for misunderstanding this, because in all the media coverage regarding the war with Scientology the media has completely failed to explain what Anonymous is.
Anonymous is not exactly a group. It is people using the umbrella of a web discussion board for cover to be as offensive, funny, strange, or whatever as they want.
Here’s the short version: there is a site called 4chan.org. It is an image posting site based on a popular Japanese site. The site contains multiple boards, each of which is dedicated to a particular subject. The most notorious of these boards is called /b/. /b/ is the board dedicated to random images. /b/tards, as its denizens are called, are interested only in their own amusement. Their sense of humor runs the gamut from sick to cruel to merely strange. Lolcats, as made famous by http://www.icanhascheezburger.com, originated on /b/. A lot of memes start there. There is a lot of racist humor — pictures of excited and happy black people in proximity to fried chicken abound. There is a lot of pornography. Sometimes it’s child pornography, although posting that is moderator grounds for banning — no, it’s not a pedophile ring; /b/tards post it because they think doing so is funny.
4chan does not log participants. Most people don’t use or have usernames, and post instead as “Anonymous.” And every so often, a number of /b/’s anonymous denizens decide to make somebody’s life hell. Sometimes it’s a random person who offends /b/’s sense of propriety. Sometimes it’s a forum dedicated to a serious topic. Sometimes it’s Scientology. And Tuesday, it was Sarah Palin. Or it would have been.
Sarah Palin’s email account was hacked by one person. Not a group.
This person read her emails, then posted the username and password on /b/. This happened at about 4 in the morning on Tuesday. The idea was that the sea of Anonymous /b/tards would download the emails, upload porn, and cause all manner of mischief. Anonymous is not a group of hackers. Anonymous is more like gremlins. They are hyperactive adolescents in search of amusement and joy, which they often get by upsetting people and making messes. That’s what was happening here. Anonymous did not hack the account. A hacker tried to throw Sarah Palin to Anonymous. Not all of Anonymous was having it. One person threw a crowbar in the works. Other /b/tards were displeased to miss a chance at the lulz. The moderators stepped in. The thread was deleted.
Later, other individuals created threads reposting screencaps of emails and the inbox, and put together a collection of these files. All mentions of these were purged by the moderators. So then some bright /b/tards decided to email what little stuff they had to the media.
That’s pretty much it.
This afternoon, in a thread that was later deleted, an individual claiming to be the original poster gave his account of what happened. I’ve attached screencaps. Here’s the text. The original poster used the name “rubico.” The linked email address for the poster was rubico10@yahoo.com.
This is what rubico said:
rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:57:22 No.85782652
Hello, /b/ as many of you might already know, last night sarah palin’s yahoo was “hacked” and caps were posted on /b/, i am the lurker who did it, and i would like to tell the story.
In the past couple days news had come to light about palin using a yahoo mail account, it was in news stories and such, a thread was started full of newfags trying to do something that would not get this off the ground, for the next 2 hours the acct was locked from password recovery presumably from all this bullshit spamming.
after the password recovery was reenabled, it took seriously 45 mins on wikipedia and google to find the info, Birthday? 15 seconds on wikipedia, zip code? well she had always been from wasilla, and it only has 2 zip codes (thanks online postal service!)
the second was somewhat harder, the question was “where did you meet your spouse?” did some research, and apparently she had eloped with mister palin after college, if youll look on some of the screenshits that I took and other fellow anon have so graciously put on photobucket you will see the google search for “palin eloped” or some such in one of the tabs.
I found out later though more research that they met at high school, so I did variations of that, high, high school, eventually hit on “Wasilla high” I promptly changed the password to popcorn and took a cold shower…
>> rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:58:04 No.85782727
this is all verifiable if some anal /b/tard wants to think Im a troll, and there isn’t any hard proof to the contrary, but anyone who had followed the thread from the beginning to the 404 will know I probably am not, the picture I posted this topic with is the same one as the original thread.
I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family
I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big
Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this shit ever got to the FBI I was fucked, I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to rapidshit all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state
Then the white knight fucker came along, and did it in for everyone, I trusted /b/ with that email password, I had gotten done what I could do well, then passed the torch , all to be let down by the douchebaggery, good job /b/, this is why we cant have nice things
________________________________________
The “white knight fucker” was the /b/tard who thought that going through Sarah Palin’s email wasn’t cool. He logged in, changed the password, and sent an email to a friend of Palin’s warning her and letting her know the new password. Unfortunately, he then posted a screenshot of this email to let the other /b/tards know their fun was over. He failed to blank the password, and they all tried to log in and change the password — which tripped the automated Yahoo! freeze. Since then, the account has been deleted. “Rapidshit” refers to rapidshare.com — i.e., rubico wanted to download the emails, put them into one file, and put that file up on rapidshare for /b/tards and the world at large to download. But he panicked, or didn’t know how to download the emails, and so pawned that task off on Anonymous, which he didn’t realize wasn’t monolithic and in his favor.
As Paul Harvey would say, “And now you know…. the rest of the story.”"
So. There it is. And now you must die.
Either that or /b/'s going to order you a buttload of pizza and then laugh at you at Encyclopaedia Dramatica. One or the other.
Scuttlebutt is that Rubico was a Democrat Congressman's son. I don't know yet.
