Homocon

Wolf Blitzer ambushes Lynn Cheney today during an interview on CNN which was supposed to be about her just-released children's book, Our 50 States.

During the 15 minute interview, Wolf barely spends three minutes talking about Cheney's book, but rather questions Mrs. Cheney about waterboarding, her husband's health and the Jim Webb controversy, at one point stopping to read directly from a statement issued by the DNC that compares Lynn Cheney's fiction to the sexually charged fiction of Jim Webb.

Cheney refuses to just roll-over. Instead, she lays into him in return, chastising CNN for airing terrorist propaganda video, spouting election year nonsense about "Broken Government" and distorting the Bush Administration's entire record ("Sex, lies and distortion," she says). Blitzer is reeling on the ropes by the time she's finished.

Choice excerpt:
Cheney: Right. But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?

Cheney: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

Hugh Hewitt has the entire transcript. Read it if you want to see, in glaring detail, how some of our mainstream news outlets are blatantly shilling for the DNC (if not Al Queda) in this election.

Here's a video clip.

Posted by at 6:22 PM | Permalink

Well, what else am I supposed to title the post when confronted with a headline like this: Vampires a Mathematical Impossibility, Scientist Says

But the scariest thing about the whole article is this: "University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou's work debunks pseudoscientific ideas, such as vampires and zombies, in an attempt to enhance public literacy. Not only does the public believe in such topics, but the percentages are at dangerously high levels, Efthimiou told LiveScience."

Wait -- people actually believe in vampires? AND zombies?

*blink*

I guess this is where I do my best South Park impersonation by cocking my head to the left and saying, "Rrrreaaaallyyyy?"

ADDENDUM:
Now we know who the audience is for this kind of bullsh*t . . .

Posted by at 4:07 PM | Permalink

I realize that most people have a visceral reaction anymore to the word Enron, but 24 years in prison? For a financial crime?

Rapists, pedophiles and murderers get sentenced more lightly than this -- hell, even Lynn Stewart, who was convicted of aiding an imprisoned terrorist (Omar Abdul Rahman, who was the spiritual leader of a cell that carried out the first World Trade Center bombing and was planning to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels) and lying to federal investigators, only got 24 MONTHS!

What kind of message is this supposed to send? Rape someone, kill someone or assist terrorists and you'll maybe get a couple of years, but if we find out you're a shady CEO -- watch out!

Ridiculous.

Posted by at 2:26 PM | Permalink

I found this news item both heart-warming and disturbing at the same time: Alaska villages reject Venezuela oil.

"As a citizen of this country, you can have your own opinion of our president and our country. But I don't want a foreigner coming in here and bashing us," said Justine Gunderson, administrator for the tribal council in the Aleut village of Nelson Lagoon. "Even though we're in economically dire straits, it was the right choice to make."

The article is heart-warming, because it's always good to hear people stand up for their own country and repudiate a braying socialist ass when they hear one. Disturbing, however, because the plight of Alaskan citizens in far-flung reaches of the state are outlined in stark relief.

"For years, Alaska natives have accused the state and federal governments of sending too little money to their tiny, far-flung communities, where fuel and grocery prices are bloated by the high costs of delivery by plane and barge . . . "It seems like a very strange irony that we produce the oil and yet every year there seems to be a chronic problem in getting the fuel to people that need it," said John Manly (a spokesman for Gov. Frank Murkowski)."

Granted, no one is forcing people to live where barges and transports can't get through, but isn't Alaska the intended home of the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, the pork-barrel project alleged to cost over $200 million, the likes of which galvanized bloggers into action to support the passage of a spending transparency act?

In 2005 alone, Representative Don Young finagled over $900 million in Federal Funds for Alaska's coffers, yet his state's citizens still can't even heat their own homes. Does absolutely no one in Congress understand that conservatives get pissed about $200 million spent on a stunningly unnecessary bridge, but wouldn't raise nearly such a fuss about $200 million spent on making sure Alaska's citizens have affordable and reliable access to heating oil for their homes? Is the situation so dire for Alaska's small villages because the people who live in these remote areas are too few to require pandering come election time?

I swear, with the way our Congress mismanages and misappropriates its taxpayers' money, there are times when the House and the Senate remind me of the PLO.

But talk is cheap. If you'd like to contact the Aleut Village of Nelson Lagoon and ask how you can help the these steadfast American citizens prepare for the upcoming Alaskan winter, the contact information is listed below. While they won't accept financial help from Hugo Jackass, they will accept help from you. Justine Gunderson is the administrator for the tribal council, and the one quoted in the article I linked above:

Village Corporation - Nelson Lagoon Corporation
PO Box 13
Nelson Lagoon, AK 99571
Phone 907-989-2204
Fax 907-989-2233

Village Council - Native Village of Nelson Lagoon
P.O. Box 13-N.L.G.
Nelson Lagoon, AK 99571
Phone 907-989-2204
Fax 907-989-2233

Posted by at 4:09 PM | Permalink

As a piece of Social Satire, I find this highly disturbing.

I suddenly crave a hamburger . . . with cheese.

ADDENDUM:
Uh . . . on second thought, maybe not.

Posted by at 1:38 AM | Permalink

Why I still love Ann Coulter:

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
Boy Scouts -- As gay as you want to be.
Priests -- No gays!
Democrat politicians -Proud gay Americans.
Republican politicians - Presumed guilty.
White House Press Corps - No gays, unless they hate Bush.
Active Duty U.S. Military - As gay as possible.
Men Who Date Liza Minelli - Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

Primly conservative bloggers can hold their noses in the air and sniff about her more outlandish comments, but she calls it like she sees it. Whenever you read the context around any quote of hers that's cherry-picked for the latest round of attack, you'll often find a substance to what she's saying that her detractors don't want you read -- heaven forbid you should actually consider a point she's trying to make just because her word choice offends . . .

But everybody's so damn offended anymore.

UPDATE:
I find this kind of thing way more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said.

ADDENDUM:
Oh perfect, Jon Stewart has bravely jumped on the tired, creaky Bash Ann Coulter Bandwagon: "I actually feel sorry for her. Once your career is based on denigrating 9/11 widows, what's your second act? Unless you dig up Mother Teresa and stick a dildo in her eye, nothing could be more offensive."

But Jon Stewart's statement is a spot-on example of the problem which Coulter is attempting to address. The glaring and obvious fact is that the 9/11 widows to which Coulter refers (because she's not talking about all of them) are Democratic Party activists and not saints -- they were on the campaign trail in 2004 stumping for John Kerry, not tending to the needs of the poor in Calcutta.

By tying these women into the same sentence as Mother Theresa, Stewart deliberately presents the women as saints by association, a move meant solely to shield their political statements and activities from criticism -- "there's nothing more offensive." Stewart, with his self-righteous sarcasm playing directly to the choir, makes himself a part of the problem.

I think Harry Stein summed up Jon Stewart nicely in his May, 2005 column, Laugh-Winger: "Mr. Stewart's elevation to near-iconic status says more about those doing the elevating than about the comedian himself. His "bravery" and much-vaunted grasp of political nuance consists mostly of his embrace of every reflexive assumption shared by every litmus-tested liberal holding forth at every chic Manhattan dinner party . . . It speaks volumes about contemporary liberalism that in "progressive" circles, such stuff passes for brilliant satire."

"I think he's funny," said James Carville, after Stewart made a surly appearance on Crossfire. "I just think he's a pompous ass."

I mean, I feel kind of sorry for Jon Stewart. What do you do for an encore after you've invited guests on your show to call American voters retarded, smeared Justice Clarence Thomas as a sock puppet for the white man, sucked up to an Islamic dictator, feigned outrage on a fake political scandal and ended yet another mean-spirited rant about a sitting President, to the wild cheers from a sycophantic audience: "I give up -- you're fucking insane"?

Unless you want to dig up the corpse of Jonathan Swift and try stapling it to your dick for credibility, well really, there's nothing more offensive . . .

Posted by at 10:53 AM | Permalink

Apparently, there's now a "list" of prominent Gay Conservative staffers circulating on Capitol Hill -- a list which David Corn threatens (no joke) may become public soon on a website near you.

Ace of Spades responds to the news with a hilarious parody of the Left's anger toward, and hatred of, Gay Conservatives (or, Those Who Have Strayed From The Path). A choice excerpt below:

"Conservative Christians threaten gays to convert with dire promises of Hell in the next life. We, on the other hand, threaten gay Republicans with Hell in this life, by outing them and smearing them and making them the subject of public ridicule and stripping them of their sexual privacy."

You must read the whole thing. It's a classic, in that "funny because it's oh-so-sadly true" way.

Posted by at 2:06 PM | Permalink

Not that there needs to be yet another voice raised about Republican Representative Mark Foley and his squalid emails and Instant Messaging with teenage boys who work on Capitol Hill, but I've been reading some very odd posts from Conservatives who ought to know better.

Sure, Democratic House Representatives Barney Frank and Gerry Studds behaved reprehensibly, with Frank using his congressional influence to expunge 33 parking tickets from his ex-convict/prostitute boyfriend's record and allowing him to use Frank's townhouse to run a prostitution ring, while Gerry Studds admitted to a sexual relationship with an underage (17 year old) Congressional Page, and no, the Democrats didn't turn them out of the House at the time for their wrong-doings -- but this isn't about Frank or Studds, this is about Mark Foley, and Foley's recent behavior exhibits a lack of good judgement, questionable intelligence and zero self-control.

Who wants that in a leader? I sure don't.

Defending Mark Foley is an exercise in futility, because there's nothing to defend. I'm sure he has a lot of people in his life who think he's a good man, but that doesn't make him a good leader, or a fit candidate to chair a commission on missing and exploited children. His emails and IM's to underage Congressional Pages are creepy to read, and even creepier when you consider that this is a fifty-something year old man entrusted with the grave duties of a national leadership.

"Keep on top of War on Terror -- check. Push for funding for border fence -- check. Ask young page for cock measurement -- check."

And it's abjectly humiliating to hear him described time and time again as an openly gay man -- because now, when people hear the term "openly gay man" they're going to think "Mark Foley" and "pedophile" . . . and that's nothing but a terrible disservice to all the openly gay men living their normal, well-adjusted lives the nation over.

Throw the bum out.

But note to Dems: if you really give a shit about gays, you'll stop flogging the Mark Foley Is Gay angle, because his being gay isn't the problem -- it's his creepy stalking of minors that's the problem.

UPDATE:
Oh, look -- tit for tat . . . you take down one of ours (no matter how justified) and we'll take out one of yours (justified, as well).

Perhaps this is the way we clean the slate on Capitol Hill -- get both parties to start releasing all the crap they have on each other in one great big orgasmic flurry. Then all the incumbents will have to resign in disgrace and we can vote in a whole new bunch of inept crooks esteemed representatives.

I can see this is going to be a very long election cycle.

UPDATE 2:
Victor Davis Hanson has some very pertinent thoughts (scroll down the page to Congressional Pederasty), of which I'll excerpt only one short paragraph: "Still Republicans need to wise up: this is a losing issue since the public doesn’t really care whether the Democrats are hypocritical, using scandal for partisan advantage, or hysterical in seeking headlines: the facts determine the case: a US Congressman wrote sexually suggestive messages designed to entice an underage subordinate employee. End of story. All that is left to doubt now, is how much the Republicans will hurt themselves if they persist in whining about partianship rather than condemning pederastic flirting."

ADDENDUM:
Favorite blog comment so far (from Ace of Spades HQ): "Too bad Foley wasn't a Boy Scout troop leader. That would have made him untouchable in Democrat eyes."

Posted by at 6:12 PM | Permalink