Why the Insults? Now Playing: Phil Hartman doing Frank Sinatra
What's the deal with all of these chickenshit remarks about Camilla Parker Bowles, the longtime lover and, now, fiancee to the Prince of Wales? Making fun of her looks? She's an attractive woman for her age and strikes me as being genuinely in love with Charles Windsor. Which means that she is particularly beautiful to him. What, are people still mad at him for loving one woman before being forced to marry another one whom he didn't? How reasonable.
Best wishes to the royal couple. Maybe a few of their detractors will grow up between now and the wedding and be happy for the man after all these years.
Terry McAuliffe, Loser
Be sure to read Byron York's review of the DNC's farewell party for outgoing chairman Terry McAuliffe. It sounds pathetic.
But what's even more pathetic is the Democratic Party's belief that McAuliffe (and Bill Clinton, for that matter) is a great success because of his fundraising abilities. In my mind, that's like a pimp convention naming someone Employee of the Year: Was business good? Then keep it to yourselves.
I've developed a major league dislike of Terry McAuliffe over the past four years or so, I don't mind saying. He's a shifty, lying sack of Ted Kennedy and one of the most unjustified braggarts I've ever observed in politics. Thankfully, none of his predictions ever came true.
But at least he's left the DNC in sound fiscal shape. Yee-hah!
"Jesus Christ Can Help You with That" Now Playing: "Angel Mine" by the Cowboy Junkies
I've been sick this weekend, so it was especially annoying earlier this afternoon when a bunch of college-aged kids came pounding on my door to sell me on Jesus Christ.
"No thanks. No thanks. I'm sick..."
"Well, Jesus Christ can help you with that."
"Yeah, I understand..."
"There's no way to heaven except through Jesus Christ."
"I know, I know..."
I simply don't get what motivates these people. They're working on commission, you may be sure, but I don't care about that. My home is my sanctuary. Got that? This is my sacred temenos ---and I don't want to be disturbed by others who believe that they're earning their way into God's good graces by spreading the gospel at the expense of my time and tranquility.
Just imagine the cruelty of an attractive 20 year-old girl telling an involuntarily and terminally celibate man that the only way to heaven is through a dead Jewish prophet. Outrageous! Heaven is your body, madam. You are a flesh cathedral ---the sacred precinct of Eros himself. The High Chemist of all Creation. The Cause of Life in every sense.
Well, maybe not you, in particular...
I hope for your sake that you get another man into your life besides the one you've got now. If you don't understand that today, you will tomorrow.
A General Observation on Public Education Mood:
I recently had a business lunch with a representative from a major textbook publisher during which I explained to her my view of "bright kids" versus "slower kids" and the problems inherent in trying to teach classes with such wide differences in ability. I basically said that, when I was a schoolteacher, I decided at last that the best thing I could do was to train my focus on the brightest kids.
I don't know whether she agreed with that, but she said, in light of my own professional interests, that such a view might not be helpful to me. Good advice, of course, but it must be said that tracking (grouping kids by ability) is a good thing. I can't apologize for that.
It's a huge disservice to bright students with high potential to force them to endure the emotional and disciplinary disturbances of slower and less cooperative classmates. If our society could bring itself to accept the intellectual and behavioral differences among our youth ---and accept that all kids would be better served by more specialized attention at every level--- our education system could truly flower.
This isn't a call for the ethnic, gender, or cultural segregation of American schoolchildren. I don't believe in that shit and I say it's wrong. But I am all for honoring and serving the abilities of our brightest minds in one kind of class ---and recognizing what education theorists call "multiple intelligences" in other classes.
We don't have this sort of system instituted in enough places because this society does not do nearly enough to make the investment in education that it should. And I believe there's something fundamentally wrong with our political culture when we are afraid to provide our best students with honors and advanced classes. It's also unacceptable that we do not find more ways to engage those kids with different interests and abilities in ways that will make the most of their talents. The latter point is every bit as true as the former.
Shooting for the mean is a false kind of egalitarianism that disserves everyone.
The Power Line is relaying an Associated Press report of the resignation of Eason Jordan. It reads, in part:
Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.
"I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise," Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.
This isn't true, of course, but let it pass for now.
Power Line notes that "The AP can't resist getting this part of the story wrong":
But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up.
Absolute nonsense. Power Line continues:
Actually, of course, the videotape "turned up," but the Davos folks decided to keep it under wraps, apparently in an effort to help Jordan. Jordan's problem wasn't confusion about what he said; his problem was CNN's inability to create confusion about what he said.
There are multiple witnesses to Jordan's slanders, including Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. These slanders were recorded in an open venue. Why won't the anti-American assholes who run the World Economic Forum stand up like men and admit it?
Just Sign It
Via the Power Line, here's a little something from Thomas Lipscomb, who did such excellent work on John Kerry's horseshit and lies during the campaign. And regarding Kerry's recent post mortem appearance on Meet the Press:
Asked about his Christmas Eve in Cambodia "seared, seared" in Kerry's memory, according to one of his Senate speech transcripts, Kerry tried a half-baked variation on the theme: "Was it on that night? No, it was not on that night. But we were right on the Cambodian border that night. We were ambushed there, as a matter of fact. And that is a matter of record, and we went into the rec-- you know, it's part of the Navy records."
You have to wonder how Kerry ever managed to get through earlier encounters in other election seasons with those who suggested that his war record was full of embellishments. It did happen, but he always came through. This time, though? As John O'Neill knew, this time was for all the marbles.
It's obvious to me that John Kerry could not have afforded to see his full military service record released during the campaign. Not when he had balanced so much of his credibility on the rope of his experience in Viet Nam. And why? Because he lied about that experience. And he didn't want the world to know the circumstances of his discharge.
If Kerry does, as he's promised everyone and his dog, sign the Form 180, I'll be surprised. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn what's in his record.
Power Line: "Eason Jordan Is Finished" Power Line is reporting that Michelle Malkin has been in touch with Barney Frank, a participant at the Davos meetings, and confirms that Eason Jordan did, in fact, make the claim that our troops are deliberately "targeting journalists" for death in Iraq. Malkin writes:
I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.
After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.
Rep. Frank has not yet heard back yet from Jordan.
Don't think that this is some minor issue, folks. The guy who runs CNN is making an outrageous accusation about the integrity of our armed forces. Is there any way that this attitude doesn't influence CNN's coverage of the war for Iraq?
Austin Bay on Eason Jordan
You'll need to go see this post by Austin Bay for more information on what worms CNN and Eason Jordan are. Regarding the "arrangement" CNN came to with the Saddamites, here's Bay:
The network's deal with the devil lasted a dozen years. The deal brought the network a commercial advantage over more tough-minded competitors. Moreover, CNN's depiction of Saddam's regime often differed, oh, a hundred degrees from the critical reporting of the NY Times' John Burns. (Saddam jailed Burns at least twice--underlining my point about the risk correspondents face.) Sure, CNN portrayed Saddam as a strong man - but by the way, Iraqi children were dying. Though Saddam had invaded Kuwait and had a meanish streak, in CNN's Iraq children died because of UN sanctions enforced by the US military. CNN played a "he's bad, but--" game. I'll wager the journalistic excuse was "balance"--a balance Saddam and Baghdad Bob certainly appreciated. CNN's "balance" was of course anything but balance -over the long haul I believe the network put a finger on the scale that gave Saddam undeserved moral and political weight. We now know the reason Iraqi children were dying: Saddam had corrupted the UN's Oil For Food program and was skimming money that was supposed to buy medicine and food.
The biggest laugh is that the anti-American Left honestly believes that the Big Media apparati are tilted against them. They sneeringly call Big Media the SCLM (the "So-Called Liberal Media"), but with obvious propagandists like Jordan, Rather, Arnett, and Couric out there? I'd say they were kidding, but today's anti-war Left has no sense of humor ---or humility or patriotism or of how tiresome their cynicism is.
I have a funny feeling that this story about CNN executive Eason Jordan is going to become a very big thing. You've heard about this wretched turd, right? He's accused the US military of "targeting" journalists for death in Iraq ---and without any evidence of it.
Lots of the best bloggers out there are on this dope, but here's something from Captain Ed that you should read:
Why, one might ask, would the executive of an American news organization do this? Mainly because CNN does not compete well within the US any longer, and for good reason, as we now know. They are, however, tremendously influential internationally; they are America's BBC, in more ways than market share. In order to maintain that position, Jordan has to cultivate an image of CNN as a hypercritical gadfly to American policies, especially those of American conservatives.
I think this sums up the motivation for such slanders pretty well, but Jordan must have begun with that attitude. Remember, this is the same prick who said that CNN had sat on stories of atrocities coming out of pre-war Iraq to maintain his access to the Saddamites.
Wow. What a principled guy.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 3:48 PM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 3 February 2005 3:51 PM CST
I thought the President did a great job with his State of the Union address last night. The presentation of the honored guests, of course, was extraordinarily moving. Even my Momma got verklempt. That is to say, of course she got verklempt ---despite her dislike of this President.
I wish there had been more purple-tipped fingers in the audience, but I was glad to see those that were. Some had said that such a display would be somehow inappropriate or shallow or whatever ---but I strongly disagree. If there is anything I can say I know about the Arab mind, it is their appreciation for the symbolic gesture. They are far more attuned to that sort of thing than most of us unsentimental, asymbological Occidentals. They are surely in favor of what they saw last night.
As for the domestic side of the address, Bush has not only touched the third rail of American politics, but he is actively shorting out the whole grid. And still standing. I do not pretend to understand the numbers on Social Security, but Bush seems to be wide open on a lot of reform options ---options that he very shrewdly noted to the country last night have been proposed by many leading Democrats. Reading the Leftist blogs will acquaint you with the utter desperation of the Dems' opposition to meaningful SS reform ---and I am unsure of why. Is it really just a partisan thing? They need to come to the table with some real willingness to make the system work well into the future. As it is, I suspect they simply don't want to have to anger the baby boomers.
Anyway, George W. Bush held the floor last night to great effect. He owned the hour and I am pleased with his resolve.
K.J. Lopez over at The Cornernotes a piece of a conversation Don Imus had with Chris Matthews this morning about how similar is the timbre of Harry Reid's voice to that of his predecessor, Tom Daschle. It's a curious thing to notice, but listen to Loudmouth:
But these guys are not Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, or Tip O'Neill. Tip O'Neill hated whispers, couldn't stand them. I worked with him for six years, he couldn't stand people that came around with their soft little precious voices. He wanted you to thunder out what you believed and what you cared about, and that kind of democrat whether it's Hubert Humphrey, or it's Jack Kennedy or Johnson or Tip, where are they? I mean you knew where they stood because they told you.
Right. Who would've guessed that Chris Matthews would come out in favor of roaring and spluttering one's opinions?
Let Your Freak Flag Fly
It's looking more and more likely that Howard Dean will become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
As I've been telling the moonbats I visit from time to time, this is certainly the way to go. Have some principles, I say. Even if you wind up putting an insane clown's face on the head of your party, at least the kids will respect you for it. You know, these youngsters got kicked in the stomach when the power brokers in the party decided to go with Lurch ---and they've been aching ever since.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 10:07 AM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Wednesday, 2 February 2005 10:11 AM CST
Trouble at Black Rock Now Playing: "We're Gonna Groove" by Led Zeppelin
Here's an interesting story at NewsMax.com about what's going on behind the scenes at CBS News. I especially like this bit:
Resentment at CBS was also running high over the conduct of Rather himself. Insiders knew that "he'd read multiple drafts of the script for the story [written by producer Mapes], done most of the interviews, and had a thorough knowledge of the story's content and point of view," notes Blum, contradicting network spin that the notorious anchorman was out of the loop.
That's exactly how it's been going down, too: this stupid idea that Dan Rather isn't responsible for that hit piece because he had just been covering a hurricane or a convention or whatever other nonsense they're using to excuse him.
Here's to hoping it gets good and ugly with these terminations. Lots of recriminations and juicy, gossipy goodness for the other networks to spread around.
Hmm. Maybe a network like FOX! You know, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
Kerry's Admission to Treason
I guess I didn't hear all of John Kerry's conversation with Tim Russert this past Sunday, but Tom Maguire did. Did you happen to catch this (boldface added)?
MR. RUSSERT: And you have a hat that the CIA agent gave you?
SEN. KERRY: I still have the hat that he gave me, and I hope the guy would come out of the woodwork and say, "I'm the guy who went up with John Kerry. We delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge on the coastline of Cambodia." We went out of Ha Tien, which is right in Vietnam. We went north up into the border. And I have some photographs of that, and that's what we did. So, you know, the two were jumbled together, but we were on the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, absolutely.
What the hell is he talking about? As Maguire notes:
Running guns to the Khmer Rouge? Uhh, Tall Dour One, they were on the other side.
Heh, heh. "Now they tell me!"
Moreover, you can tell Kerry's lying his ass off because of his ridiculous use of prepositions. "Into" the border between Cambodia and Viet Nam? There's no such thing. You're either over the border or not.
On the Spiritual Significance of Groundhog Day (1993)
Courtesy of Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner at NRO, here's an essay by Michael P. Foley on the signficance of the 1993 romantic comedy Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray and the delicious Andie MacDowell. I like how I was actually ahead of the curve on appreciating the genius of this movie because a lot of people are only now starting to get it, too.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 1:04 PM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 3 February 2005 9:15 AM CST
Sunday, 30 January 2005
Why Are Cox & Forkum Not In My Local Rag?
These guys are really gifted editorial cartoonists and bloggers ---and terribly underappreciated. Be sure to visit their site through my blogroll.
Just Keep Going Mood:
When you get to the bottom of this page, be sure to click on the "Older" link there to take you back to yesterday's entries. I've been writing a lot here lately ---and I wouldn't want you to miss any of my brilliant analyses or potty mouth.
Unlike the Viet Cong
I just heard Pat Buchanan make a great point to Loudmouth Matthews that a lot of people need to understand:
"The insurgents don't have a program, unlike the Viet Cong."
That's right. That's another major reason why this War for Iraq isn't the Viet Nam War.
What program do these subhuman sacks of shit have? Murdering schoolchildren and jobseekers and housewives? Yeah. That's not a political cause: that's psychopathy. Or is there some major groundswell of support for this Islamofascist horseshit in Iraq I haven't heard of? These "insurgents" ---or "Minutemen," as the treasonous wad of dog shit Michael Moore calls them--- aren't summarily executing election workers in the middle of busy streets because they're upset over tarriff policy; they're doing so because they are MURDERERS.
Fuck the Saddamites. Fuck the al-Qaedists. Fuck the Iranian and Syrian interlopers. And fuck a Democrat who won't say today ---of all days--- that the exercise of one's right to vote is a good thing.