Confederate Yankee
October 09, 2009
Who Nominated Obama For a Nobel Just Nine Days In?
Only the shadow knows...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:57 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If I were to do absolutely nothing with my life, do you think I could get a Nobel prize?
Posted by: David at October 09, 2009 10:02 PM (Lh/sO)
2
im going to be producing a great new nobel winning presidential action figure
http://rumcrook.wordpress.com/
Posted by: rumcrook® at October 12, 2009 11:22 AM (60WiD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sure Sounds Familiar
Lots of acclaim, and undeserved kudos that became an embarrassment.
I was just ahead of my time...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:30 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Ig-Nobel
In a travesty out of Oslo, hope defeated change as Presidential candidate Barack Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize today for precisely no accomplishments. Obama took office less than two weeks before the February 1 nomination deadline.
Noel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland was pressed by the media to explain why Obama deserved the award, and could only offer
this defense.
As to whether the prize was given too early in Mr. Obama’s presidency, he said: "We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do."
The prize committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama's diplomatic efforts so far rather than anticipate events in the future.
Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for
campaigning for President.
Good. Grief.
Update: With their typical dissembling, Media Matters links to this post and claims it represents "
open disdain for American achievement under Obama. "
I, along with the rest of the world, can only ask,
what achievement under Obama?
If the President had actual accomplished something of note in the twelve days of his Presidency before the Nobel nominating deadline passed, he would have at least some argument in favor of his award. As it presently stands, he was given the award for rhetoric. This awarding of the Peace Prize to Obama dishonors those who have done far more in the cause of peace than running a self-serving political campaign full of empty promises.
Even Obama—ever the narcissist—admits he is
unworthy of the award:
I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.
Being a liberal, however, he gladly took what he admittedly didn't deserve.
It would have been a mark of class if the President agreed with the
rest of the world and declined an honor he admittedly didn't earn as an acknowledgment to those who risked so much more in the name of peace.
But that is asking too much of a man who has delivered so little.
Update: Verum Serum brings the Media Matters lapdog
to heel, while the DNC
wets themselves.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:24 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He mostly seems to have won it for not being Bush.
I also wonder if it's just the consolation prize for not getting the Olympics.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 09, 2009 08:05 AM (QbT7Z)
2
A worthless prez won a worthless award.
Posted by: Stephana at October 09, 2009 08:37 AM (olUEe)
3
Well, credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize is now gone. Too bad as they've been steadily losing credibility for years. There is absolutely no way the present winner can truly stand beside other winners such as Elie Wiesel, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Norman Bourlag . . . . and NO I don't count Carter, Al Gore, Arafat, as winners.
Posted by: Nina at October 09, 2009 08:42 AM (+dRBA)
4
Actually there is an IgNobel Award sponsored by the Annals of Improbable Research. (http://improbable.com/)
When I first read your article, I concluded our president was eminently qualified for an Iggie.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at October 09, 2009 09:30 AM (ddkdK)
5
Notably, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a bunch of people who don't live in the US.
Posted by: Penfold at October 09, 2009 10:06 AM (lF2Kk)
6
Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland is a socialist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorbjoern_Jagland
"Since 1999, Jagland is also one of several vice presidents of the Socialist International.[53]" (He is no longer listed on the linked page.)
The "Workers' Youth League" where he got his start sounds strangely like ACORN.
Seems like this prize is less a prize for Obama's promise or accomplishments as it is a cover for him to continue his disastrous policies.
Posted by: JAFAC at October 09, 2009 10:28 AM (5edyX)
7
I underestimated how much the Swedes hate the Danes. That'll show 'em for denying Zero The Games! Either that, or ACORN's new identity, COI, is more international than we knew. Truly, laughed till I cried when I read it. This is as rich as Yassar Arafat being crowned Prince of Peace. Albert Nobel is thinking his committee needs a nitroglycerine enema. Europe's rot smells all the way across the Atlantic.
Posted by: twolaneflash at October 09, 2009 10:29 AM (svkhS)
8
The administration had to know this was coming and SHOULD have refused before it was made public. But the ego of this president of course would not allow as he must know the only chance to win such an award is BEFORE he's had a chance to really fail.
Posted by: DavidB at October 09, 2009 10:40 AM (deX+q)
9
Pathetic. There is no meaning to this once prestigious award. It seems that anything the Leftist touch turns to feces.
Posted by: Scott at October 09, 2009 11:17 AM (mqy6N)
10
When I saw this headline today my first reaction was to send it to a friend like this:
"You have GOT to be kidding me!?!?"
His response was 'this will cheapen the award'.
My follow up was, "Cheapen the award?!?!?! After they've already given it to Jimmah, Yasser, and Algore?!?!. It is now a complete JOKE. Period. What's next? Vlad? Michael Moore? Dr. Evil? Emperor Ming? Darth Vader? Emperor Palpatine? Satan? Osama bin Laden? Who, could possibly cheapen this award more than what they’ve already done?"
As Nina said above...their credibility is gone.
Posted by: PhyCon at October 09, 2009 11:20 AM (4od5C)
11
Birds of similar feathers fly together in Norwegian rookeries.
Arafat,Carter,and now Obama who hasn't even yet taken wings.
Posted by: RiverRat at October 09, 2009 11:45 AM (RpON0)
12
That's just a cover story. He actually won it for his decisive victory over the Lunar Menace.
Posted by: Tully at October 09, 2009 12:02 PM (tUyDE)
13
The Nobel prize is now completely worthless. It was already worthless now even more so. These people are crazy.
Posted by: vrwcshirts at October 09, 2009 12:23 PM (8uAOW)
14
1. Well now, the Three Stooges have won their Nobel prizes: Jimmie Carter, Al Gore, and now Obama - isn't that special!
2. Interesting - Ronald Reagan freed 1/2 of a continent from the Evil Empire; George Bush freed 50+ million people in the Middle East and rid the world of one of it's worst dictators and mass murderers' - and not even an "honorable mention" or a thank you hand shakefrom the Nobel committee.
GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: slimedog at October 09, 2009 12:38 PM (r1nhE)
15
Now if he could only bring peace to Chicago.
Posted by: TWoPolitics at October 09, 2009 01:13 PM (+QfDC)
16
Obama is becoming more like Carter every day, only without the backbone.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 09, 2009 01:16 PM (2Iq5c)
17
I am resigning from my job today to begin my round-the-world tour in which I will personally apologize to anyone who has ever been offended, hurt, or oppressed by an American. I figure I'm a shoe in for the NPP next year. All in the name of promoting peace of course.
Did the morons on the award committe actually consider the long term ramification of awarding the prize to a bozo like Obama? Namely, the prize just lost any cachet that was left and in the minds of most people it will now be a well known booby prize.
Posted by: Penny at October 09, 2009 01:27 PM (5sGLG)
18
Stockholm, not Oslo. Brush up on your geography guys.
Posted by: Pennypacker at October 09, 2009 03:03 PM (toe+h)
19
Pennypacker, it's Oslo. Unless the Swedes are now giving out the prize...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 09, 2009 03:25 PM (gAi9Z)
20
Look at the ultimate results of the presidents that won the award:
Roosevelt (Teddy)--nothing really unless you could link his bluster to WWI
Wilson-- now here you have a link, his actions and those of the French led to WWII, with the ultimate loss of millions
Carter-- his weakness is endured to this day, we can lay much of the continued strife and war in the Arab world to his lack of backbone. Certainly he influenced our economy for many decades.
So if The Great One follows the previous presidents, we are in a bunch of trouble.
Posted by: David at October 09, 2009 05:57 PM (H56tc)
21
Obama does not believe he deserves the prize? Sure. He's merely politically savvy enough to give the appearance of humility. Real humility would mandate refusal of the "honor." Narcissism? Just the opposite.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at October 09, 2009 06:00 PM (DJR56)
22
The big question now is "who nominated Obama" back in January or February? I don't know about you folks, but I smell a large furry rodent!
Posted by: Mescalero at October 09, 2009 06:53 PM (e7NAO)
23
Well, he can keep the metal, but as far as the money goes, I'm afraid the Consitution says he can't accept it.
So which favorite charity will he give it to?
I know!!
Acorn.........!
Posted by: Papa Ray at October 09, 2009 10:48 PM (JpVJn)
24
Think he nominated himself?
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at October 10, 2009 12:56 AM (eXdIs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 08, 2009
Fake Mais Précis
Apparently, the Obama's questionable taste in art includes a penchant for frauds.
Alma Thomas' 1963 "Watusi (Hard Edge)" is unmistakably a knock-off of Henrí Matisse's 1953 "L'Escargot." No, I'm not an art buff, the symmetry is uncanny, and forms a
near-perfect overlay.
In other news, Michelle Malkin is
plagiarizing my
original.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:12 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
well it takes a good froud to apreciate a good froud...
Posted by: rumcrook® at October 09, 2009 11:25 AM (60WiD)
Posted by: rumcrook® at October 09, 2009 11:26 AM (60WiD)
3
There's no fraud here whatsoever.
She traveled to France, fell in love with the Matisse piece, announced that she was going to do her own "study" of it and did so - publicly and openly.
This happens all of the time in the art world. Don't forget that we're seeing these two images in 2 inch squares on flat computer monitors. The two pieces are of different sizes using different techniques and materials creating different textures.
If she HADN'T written extensively about the fact that this was a "study" of Matisse, then we could easily accuse her of fraud.
Posted by: Able Stanton at October 09, 2009 01:36 PM (O64c3)
4
It shows Obama's bad taste in art? In fact, it shows just the opposite. Obama was able to recognize the artistic merit of a work by one of the world's greatest artists, even though he had no idea who painted it.
Posted by: Green Eagle at October 10, 2009 02:54 PM (iuhJB)
5
" Obama was able to recognize the artistic merit of a work by one of the world's greatest artists, even though he had no idea who painted it."
Not only did he not have any idea, he has no clue.
Posted by: Cowboy Logic at October 12, 2009 12:17 PM (vog1p)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Internet Can Now End
There is simply no way to top this Bulwer-Lytton-quality line from Mark Steyn:
The State Department really ought to issue travel advisories warning visitors to the United Kingdom about cage-fighting transvestites and poisoned curries from gay tripedal-catnappers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:40 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
WONDERFUL: Obama Administration Too Stupid/Lazy to Understand COIN; Now Waffles
It seems that the most brilliant President evah and the rest of his Administration are now claiming that they bought into counter-insurgency (COIN) doctrine for Afghanistan without, uh, bothering to understand what it meant:
To some civilians who participated in the strategic review, that conclusion was much less clear. Some took it as inevitable that more troops would be needed, but others thought the thrust of the new approach was to send over scores more diplomats and reconstruction experts. They figured a counterinsurgency mission could be accomplished with the forces already in the country, plus the 17,000 new troops Obama had authorized in February.
"It was easy to say, 'Hey, I support COIN,' because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes," said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.
The failure to reach a shared understanding of the resources required to execute the strategy has complicated the White House's response to the grim assessment of the war by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, forcing the president to decide, in effect, what his administration really meant when it endorsed a counterinsurgency plan. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's follow-up request for more forces, which presents a range of options but makes clear that the best chance of achieving the administration's goals requires an additional 40,000 U.S. troops on top of the 68,000 who are already there, has given senior members of Obama's national security team "a case of sticker shock," the administration official said.
Government officials could be forgiven for not understanding what COIN entails... in 2003. But a model of COIN doctrine similar that proposed for Afghanistan has been tested and proven in Iraq over the past several years. There will be some specific tweaks to the doctrine proposed for Afghanistan based upon differing human factors and tactical and strategic goals, but the basic components, theories, manpower levels and logistics are not dissimilar.
Now claiming that they didn't understand the cost of COIN reveals that the Obama Administration simply failed to do their
due diligence:
This is a damning indictment of the President and his lack of preparation for the job, but it goes farther than that. Obama has essentially been "on the job" since the transition, which started eleven months ago. Considering the priority of any policy that puts American men and women in battle, Obama should have worked to understand the implications of his COIN solution from Day 1 in the transition, if not Day 1 of his term in office. He appointed McChrystal for this specific purpose in the spring without bothering to understand the concepts and the resources required for COIN.
In other words, Obama has half-assed it, and has gotten caught.
Laziness and a "can do... nothing" attitude is steadily becoming the hallmark of an Administration that seems far more interested in appearing on talk shows or making
campaign speeches that exerting actual leadership decisions.
The Peter Principle Presidency continues to underperform.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:27 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
When did Obama worry about the cost of anything? He can either print even more money or use the accounting that they did on socialized medicine in which they said we would save money!!
Posted by: David at October 08, 2009 02:51 PM (sApjw)
2
Can we even wait another year to get more Republicans in office? That is assuming they would vote against Obama related issues.
Posted by: David at October 08, 2009 02:52 PM (sApjw)
3
Sorry this is the "Dilbert Principle" squared.
Posted by: Picric at October 08, 2009 06:21 PM (oKOn9)
4
The hallmark of a good manager is recognizing you can't know it all and surrounding yourself with proven experts who can carry out the mission. Ignoring those experts is a recipe for failure.
Mr. Obama suffers from a lack of experience -- as pointed out (and ignored) during the campaign -- so why should anyone be surprised that he is unable to arrive at a decision on war strategy? This is the Big Leagues; to say "we didn't know what we were getting into" is unacceptable. It is the administration's job to get up to speed on each issue. It took Bush long enough to change direction in Iraq, and he was rightly criticized for the delay. The clock is running, and Obama must decide what is to be done. There is no longer an option to vote "present".
Posted by: Just Sayin' at October 08, 2009 08:30 PM (1VSNW)
5
Obama has doubled the size of our troops, something that BUSH refused to do. In May the old commander in A-stan was replaced. Things not going fast enough for you ? well why don't YOU head on over there and show our military how you think it should be done.
Posted by: John ryan at October 09, 2009 01:53 PM (gj3cv)
6
the Qall Street Journal says 60000 are being asked for.
Posted by: John ryan at October 09, 2009 01:59 PM (gj3cv)
7
if Barry could spend as much time on Afghanistan as on the fricken Olympics then maybe he and his collection of kooks, communists, pedophiles and crooks would be able to respond in a timely manner to the requests of Obama's own general.
those trying to defend this narcissistic cowards temporizing deserve to speak through broken teeth for the rest of their short and miserable life.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 11, 2009 06:59 AM (2Iq5c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
RDU Acclaimed as #1 in Daily Beast America's Smartest Cities Ranking
Obviously, they chose to forget the IQ displayed by Duke University's Gang of 88, but overall, I agree with their assessment.
I've been working in the Research Triangle Park most of my adult life and have worked with and for some brilliant companies (including my current employer), and advanced degrees are commonplace. Combine that with the overall culture and climate, and it's a tough place to bet against.
That said, their
methodology is questionable, even as it is flattering.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:53 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'd think the presence of all those NC state politicians (or Bev Perdue alone) would be enough to knock Raleigh waaaay down the list.
Posted by: jdb at October 08, 2009 06:22 PM (Dj4BX)
2
"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."
William F. Buckley
Posted by: Actual at October 09, 2009 12:22 PM (j5fpu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Infamous Pistol-Toting Soccer Mom Victim of Murder-Suicide
Meleanie Hain, who made the news last year after open-carrying to a youth soccer game and having her permit revoked and later reinstated, was shot and killed last night in an apparent murder-suicide:
A Lebanon woman who gained national notoriety last year as a champion of Second Amendment rights after she brought her loaded handgun to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game was shot and killed Wednesday night in an apparent murder-suicide.
Meleanie Hain, 31, and her husband, Scott Hain, 33, were pronounced dead by Lebanon County coroner Dr. Jeffrey Yocum shortly after 8:30 p.m. after a two-hour standoff with police outside their home at Second Avenue and East Grant Street. The episode ended quietly when police entered the house after trying to make contact with anyone inside.
No cause of death was announced, and autopsies were scheduled for today, said Yocum.
Lebanon police Chief Daniel Wright was guarded with information as detectives began the preliminary stages of the investigation late Wednesday night. He acknowledged that the Hains were both found dead and had suffered gunshot wounds inside their 1 ½-story brick home in a quiet neighborhood in Lebanon's southside. He would not provide any additional details, other than to say that police do not feel any other people were involved.
District Attorney David Arnold, who was at the scene, refused to comment.
Several neighbors said they heard or saw the couple's children run from the house screaming, "Daddy shot Mommy!" shortly before the 911 Center was called at 6:20 p.m.
Murder-suicides are among the most selfish of crimes, often depriving children of both parents and destroying their childhoods and their ability to trust and relate to others during their formative years.
Like the
murder-attempted suicide that took place in my town yesterday morning, my thoughts and prayers go out to the traumatized children first and foremost as I wonder what can turn "love" into such selfish, family-destroying hate.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:07 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'll bet the anti's will be all over this like white on rice.
Everyone loses on this evil except the brady bunch.
Posted by: toaster802 at October 08, 2009 10:36 AM (zQ9Oe)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 08, 2009 08:35 PM (OX5qU)
3
Who are we to criticise how someone chooses to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
Posted by: William Butler at October 08, 2009 09:56 PM (znAs1)
4
of course guns are always good to bring to soccer games. They should be mandatory for all sporting events with discounted tickets available
Posted by: John ryan at October 09, 2009 01:55 PM (gj3cv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 07, 2009
The CBO Non-Estimate of the Baucus Non-Bill
Democrats in the Senate and the media keep talking about the so-called "Baucus Bill," Sen. Max Baucus' attempt at something vaguely like a Senate health care bill. But is isn't a health care bill; it's merely an outline.
There is no substance to it, no legislation to vote on, a fact made abundantly clear in the first paragraph of the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of this
pipe-dream:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of the
Chairman’s mark for the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009,
incorporating the amendments that have been adopted to date by the
Committee on Finance. That analysis reflects the specifications posted on
the committee's Web site on October 2, 2009, corrections posted on
October 5, and additional clarifications provided by the staff of the
committee through October 6. CBO and JCT's analysis is preliminary in
large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been
embodied in legislative language.
In plain English, the CBO released a fantasy estimate based upon non-existent legislation. With no actual language in place, the CBO estimate is worthless as budget document, even if it has proven a very useful diversion for those trying to force socialized health care upon a nation that clearly doesn't want it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:59 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
medicare is socialism and it must end Why should my money go to pay for some old geezers pills when they had a chance to save for their old age ?
Posted by: John ryan at October 09, 2009 02:07 PM (gj3cv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
In Chicago, Blameshifting on Youth Violence Continues
Loyal Bloomberg employee John McCormick certainly knows who signs his paycheck. McCormick's article Chicago Violence Haunts Obama as Gun-Control Backers Left Cold laments the fact that when U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder meet with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley today, they won't be able to blame Chicago's most recent and high profile youth death on firearms.
Honor student Derrion Albert was beaten to death with splinted railroad ties on September 24 by other youths in a crime that was captured on cell phone video and broadcast around the world.
Gun control vultures are predictably dismayed that they cannot use Albert's young corpse as a prop:
Some gun-control advocates question the administration's timing as Duncan and Holder arrive after a highly publicized beating that didn't involve a gun.
Missed Opportunities
"Where there have been opportunities for the president to speak out about the issue of firearm violence, he has missed any number of opportunities," said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
Doing so in the Albert case "provides the cover" to address youth violence without confronting the gun lobby, said Mannard, whose group's board of directors included Duncan until he left for his current post.
Groups like the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign have a structural flaw in their basic underlying philosophy. They have deluded themselves into thinking that a banning a device (a firearm) will somehow mitigate the cultural problem of violence in certain groups. It doesn't work that way, as Derrion Albert's death at the hands of an angry mob of his peers so readily proved.
A subculture that accepts, embraces, and glorifies violence in their entertainment (music, video games, television shows, movies, etc) unsurprisingly develops and nurtures individuals and groups that accept, embrace, and glorifies violence in the real world. Individuals so desensitized to violence find it socially acceptable—in many instances expected—to affect violence upon others with found objects, homemade weaponry, or their fists and feet.
Put bluntly, most pay lip service to the idea of quelling violence, but none are willing to face the fierce opposition that will arise when the offending subcultures are named, nor are they willing to face the economic backlash of taking on industries that make billions profiteering off the glorification of this lifestyle.
Such reflection is necessary for change, but interests that thrive of the status quo—Hollywood, record companies, clothing manufacturers, professional victims advocates, politicians, lobbyists, etc.—have no motivation to cut their own profits merely because urban youth are killing themselves in neighborhoods they will never visit.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:14 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Arrest, try, and emprison, Mayor Daley, the city council and Daley's backers. They are the only persons legally allowed to have handguns in the Peoples' Republic of Chicago. As we know gun control absolutely workd and criminals never get guns, it must the legal gun owners, Daley and his cronies doing all the shooting. Stands to reason.
Posted by: DavidL at October 07, 2009 03:13 PM (AK8DM)
2
The underlying problem is multigeneration fatherlessness. Neither Chicago's or the nation's wealthy Progressive elites want to go anyway near belling the illegitimacy cat because to do so is to undermine the sexual revolution; and to correct this problem will require a sea change that reestablishes Christian marriage as the universal norm in America. Both prospects are unacceptable to America's wealthy Progressive elite. Chicago will have more fatherlessness, more crime, more dead kids, more Black males in prison, and more taxpayer funded helping professionals. And the Kabuki theater about gun control will continue.
Posted by: Mike O'Malley at October 07, 2009 04:04 PM (5CVyu)
3
>>"Groups like the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign have a structural flaw in their basic underlying philosophy. They have deluded themselves into thinking that a banning a device (a firearm) will somehow mitigate the cultural problem of violence in certain groups."
You give them way too much credit. They are indifferent to violence. They oppose private citizens owning firearms, full stop. If you could prove to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that private ciizens bearing arms led to a reduction in violence, their position would not change, because their position is not contingent on the amount of violence in the world.
Posted by: Steve at October 07, 2009 04:37 PM (9HZWQ)
4
"A subculture that accepts, embraces, and glorifies violence in their entertainment (music, video games, television shows, movies, etc) unsurprisingly develops and nurtures individuals and groups that accept, embrace, and glorifies violence in the real world."
Bob I gotta call you on this one.
Humans are inherently violent and our entertainment is merely a reflection of that. In fact I'd go so far as to postulate that movies and video games provide an outlet for humanities' violent nature.
There are fewer wars, armies, and general bloodshed in one's everyday life than there were even 100 years ago. Violent individuals found their outlets in crime (or law enforcement) as they still do. They also has the "frontier wars" in America and the various conflicts that raged across Europe that culminated in WWI and II. We are creatures of violent habit in a world where real violence is less and less acceptable (unless your Muslim) and virtual violence becomes the outlet.
Posted by: Scott at October 07, 2009 06:02 PM (sQmd1)
5
There is violence and there is violence. Portrayals of righteous violence - St. George slaying the dragon - onscreen probably do provide a catharstic of some kind while reinforcing the idea of right and wrong - violence as a final resort to preserve the moral and social order. Grand Theft Auto, on the other hand, may provide a cathartic experience, but does not encourage a moral sense at all, to put it mildly (I have seen it played, and it is just as bad as folks say). Augustine of Hippo argued that all violence is caused by the presence of evil, but not all violence is evil in and of itself, I believe. It is a useful distinction, think.
Another issue is that violence, as well as any other strong emotion, can be titullating as well as cathartic, and thus encourage violence instead of merely providing an outlet for something already there. It is a hard line to draw, unfortunately, but I think Bob is right that at least some of the blame can be laid upon the entertainment industry, which seems to lean heavily towards titullation. What we see and listen to does have an effect on the character, I would imagine.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that while our ancestors may have been more violent, we are more removed from the real effects. We see it portrayed all around us onscreen, but few of us have any real experience with violent death, even animal death, first hand. Most of our ancestors had to kill their own chickens for Sunday dinner, or saw them killed at any rate, and natural death of humans was more immediate and common for them. We may be as much or more likely to treat violence casually than they (or maybe not, depending on place and time), but much more squeamish about it in the real world. Interesting to reflect on, though what significance it may have I am not sure.
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 08, 2009 10:40 AM (d1ae8)
6
Are you kidding? Gang members VOTE!
Posted by: bobdog at October 09, 2009 01:47 PM (SKEgy)
7
all 18 year olds who are legally entitled to carry rifles should be give/loaned weapons by the NRA many of them are unable to afford to purchase them on their own.
Posted by: John ryan at October 09, 2009 01:57 PM (gj3cv)
8
all 18 year olds who are legally entitled to carry rifles should be give/loaned weapons by the NRA many of them are unable to afford to purchase them on their own.
Silly liberal. The CMP should be doing that, not the NRA.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 09, 2009 03:19 PM (gAi9Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 06, 2009
Blogger: Ayers Admitted Authoring Obama's Dreams from my Father
The meeting seems semi-verified by the existence of the photo.
Ayers blurting out that he wrote
Dreams to the first conservative blogger he ran across seems much more suspect, but still plausible if Ayers merely wanted to jerk Anne Leary around.
Actually, seriously claiming authorship?
I doubt it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:21 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Shovel-Ready
Writing in Tina Brown's Daily Beast, Conor Friedersdorf takes issue with the success of Andrew Breitbart's media outlets, claiming that Breitbart should try to meet the standards of the... New York Times?
Andrew Breitbart is the man in the middle of the current madness. Credit him for sponsoring Big Government, the site that broke the ACORN story and prompted the Times to begin monitoring breaking news on partisan sites. These are substantial accomplishments that improve the state of journalism.
But Mr. Breitbart's role hardly ends there.
As a proprietor of Big Government and Big Hollywood, part of the team that runs The Drudge Report, and a regular guest on Fox News, especially Sean Hannity's show, he is a leader among folks who complain that the Times is a pernicious force in American life—that it ignores stories that cut against its ideological bent, too often makes mistakes in its reporting, and gives insufficient consideration to ideological insights other than those held by its staff. This is somewhat odd given that Mr. Breitbart's media empire, and the outlets with which he most closely associates himself, are thoroughly ideological enterprises, publish few if any ideologically heterodox pieces, seldom if ever correct factual mistakes, and ignore liberal insights entirely.
Friedersdorf's screed is daft, to put it mildly.
The idea of an unbiased, objective media is a late 20th century invention proffered primarily by those within the media establishment that wanted to continue to push their ideas and ideals without being challenged by upstarts.
Sadly for Mr. Friedersdorf, that illusion was dashed long ago, mostly due to the heavy liberal bias that manifested itself time and again not just in how a story was covered, but which stories were covered to the exclusion of others.
What Breitbart's various sites provide are platforms for a center-right view of the world, with insights every bit as valid as those that the left-leaning media tries to sell. Apparently, the idea of a free marketplace of ideas isn't one critics admire once put into actual practice.
Are
Big Government and
Big Hollywood ideologically-driven? Unreservedly. But more importantly, Breitbart's sites all wear their viewpoint unabashedly on their proverbial sleeves... if only the
Times and other news outlets weakly feigning objectivity would display such intellectual honesty!
But honesty is not part of their business model, nor is objectivity, nor is competence, or accuracy. If he thinks otherwise, Mr. Friedersdorf may need to check the prescription on his rose-colored glasses.
That said, Friedersdorf's hissy fit at the building of a conservative media empire that provides an alternative to the worldview he would like to protect is hardly surprising.
His specific criticisms, however, are amusing, especially coming from someone who writes at the
Atlantic, home to infamous Trig Truther, hypocrite and ideologue Andrew Sullivan.
The temerity to criticize conservative media for inaccuracies and bias is laughable considering the dismal track record of the left-leaning legacy media, but the fact that Friedersdorf published his thoughts in Tina Brown's
Daily Beast—the left-leaning, status quo-defending, botoxed and digitized old media-with-a-new-face—is even more ripe, considering that Brown's own husband abused the
Beast in an article full of
half-truths and outright lies that Brown refused to retract or correct.
Both old and new media have significant room for improvement, but demanding that a successful and growing enterprise follow the example of a legacy media
spiraling into the ground is, quite frankly, absurd.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:57 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Should Breitbart also aspire to have the values of his offices exceed the value of his company?
Friedersdorf is a moron.
Posted by: Pablo at October 06, 2009 12:02 PM (yTndK)
2
Conor Friedersdorf's got nothing. He is bereft of new ideas and is reduced to sniping at those whose success he envies. He is a pathetic nobody that somehow has come to believe that the world owes him fame and that the "conservative movement"(whatever that is) should pay attention to him.
And that's his good points...
Posted by: diogenes online at October 06, 2009 12:13 PM (2MrBP)
3
This just further cements Conor's status as a hack.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 06, 2009 12:14 PM (3O5/e)
4
I'm not sure why anyone would object to setting some standards for journalism. Whether you like it or not some things just "are" or "are not" and won't fit nicely into a narrow, predetermined ideological storyline. It's simplistic and myopic. The right needs to stop being so touchy. It only makes them look small and frankly immature. The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts. Clean up your act, follow some basic rules of journalism and you'll be taken seriously. Shepard Smith on Fox has begun to do that. And don't fall back on the excuse that the media is biased. You have to be better than them. Not the same or worse.
Posted by: gus burlimah at October 06, 2009 12:56 PM (faIKL)
5
I've seen people call Friedersdorf a conservative, presumably because David Brooks needs company.
Posted by: Steve at October 06, 2009 01:35 PM (5//5D)
6
Gus,
The NYT pounded the Abu Graib story for 3 months for the purpose of using it as a lightning rod to get servicemen killed. They were successfull too.
It was their front page story, every single day, for over a month. Calling that bias and pro-terrorist is an understatement. It's a shame that you rushed to defend it. The NYT owes our entire armed forces a huge, heartfelt apology.
"And don't fall back on the excuse that the media is biased."
Um. Wow. You deny it? Yeah, that's an 'excuse'?
The right needs to stop being so touchy.
...about the murder of servicemen? Are you serious? Reread your comment again, and if you think about it, you'll see that you're wrong and rude. Remember that the NYT routinely just makes stuff up, expecially if it can be used to slander the US Military. Heck, they even say that Sarin is a conventional weapon, and that WP is a WMD. Straight up lies. That's not even counting that Steven Glass stuff.
And when you stand back and look at the NYT's lies, your level-headed conclusion is that CY is nuts and must clean up his act?
It makes you look small and frankly immature. (these are your words)
Is there any chance that you'll come around?
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2009 02:22 PM (IPGju)
7
>>"The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts."
Center leaning folks like Gus Burlimah, David Axelrod, and Barack Obama.
Posted by: Steve at October 06, 2009 02:48 PM (5//5D)
8
...and ignore liberal insights entirely.
Liberals have insights? Who knew?
Posted by: iconoclast at October 07, 2009 01:22 AM (O8ebz)
9
The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts.
They can't do journalism because people are calling each other names? The stories can't be told because partisan people are also telling them?
That's hogwash, gus.
Posted by: Pablo at October 08, 2009 10:03 AM (yTndK)
10
Conor has proven himself to be nothing more than a little bitch looking for a handout. He is no conservative, albeit he has shopped around using that label, advertising himself as a spokesman for conservatism who is willing to trash it for a few bucks. He is a media whore. And a cheap one at that.
Posted by: templar knight at October 08, 2009 02:39 PM (968gv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 05, 2009
Forget the Baby Steps Towards Fascism: Obama Administration Attacks Free Speech at United Nations
The old belief was that totalitarianism was effected in small bites, cutting off the fringes until only a tiny center remained, which was quickly overwhelmed. Such a thought was behind the famous construct of "First they came for..."
Our present Administration is foregoing that approach to totalitarianism. Instead, they've gone full-bore against our most cherished right, joining with an oppressive Egyptian regime to craft a resolution
limits freedom of speech.
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."
The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.
What a disgrace.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:43 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The 2nd Amendment becomes more and more important.
Scary stuff...
Posted by: diogenes online at October 05, 2009 08:28 PM (Uapqz)
2
He is everything you say he isn't and more. I really believe though, that we are better off with him than with John McLame. My reasoning is that he seems to be solidifing the conservatives(at least I hope so) and McLame would probably already have been able to do far worse than Obammy will ever be capable of doing as he would have had all the left and most of the right, read rinos, helping him out. Palin in 2012!!!
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at October 05, 2009 10:31 PM (8kQ8M)
3
Tj,
McCain would have been much better than obama, the things he wanted done were the right things to do, he's fairly conservative but the left listens to him and respects him because he doesnt always toe the party line
And Palin sealed the deal for Obama, the only VP pick that could possibly be worse than Joe Biden, and McCain nailed it
Posted by: MAModerate at October 06, 2009 06:49 PM (Rn8uU)
4
People told me I'd get an ineffectual moron for a president if I voted for Palin and they were right!
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 06, 2009 07:04 PM (3O5/e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Obama Residency
In well-written post on Saturday, Donald Sensing (via Instapundit) refers to our current disaster at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the "Maye West presidency."
He explores other opinions about Barack Obama, and builds a compelling argument that we are presently saddled with a POTUS that is a narcissist that has risen well beyond his level of competency.
We have a President that loves campaigning and making speeches, but who is in far over his head, and who does not have the leadership skills or experience to do the job. Barack Obama has had only one previous executive role in his life. He was the titular figurehead of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which failed in its mission and was shut down.
So far as President, he has no notable successes, and in matters of real importance, he has either stood on the sidelines as a junior varsity punter (health care, the failed "stimulus," cap-and-tax), or has refused to suit up at all (war in Afghanistan, Iranian nuclear program).
Notes Sensing:
As others have exhaustively pointed out, there is nothing at all in Obama's resume that shows he ever made highly difficult decisions that depended, at the end, on his own personal reservoir of wisdom and experience. So he does not tackle the inbox because its contents are above his competence. (One is reminded of Obama telling Rick Warren that when an unborn child gets human rights is "above my pay grade."
He tends instead to lesser matters that match his lower level of competence and gratifyingly feed the ego. And so he flies to Copenhagen to deliver a speech of no significance on a matter of no consequence. Why? Because he can do that - simply standing in front of a crowd reading eloquently from a teleprompter he can handle quite well.
We have a President who cannot do his job, and what's worse, a Vice President that has to be reminded not to eat paint chips giving his boss advice.
As his action—and inactions—slowly but surely separate the hype from the substance of the man, it becomes ever more apparent that the ever-present stylized "O" logo and the on-going campaign slogan of "Hope and Change" are being replaced in the minds of those who soberly assess the compounding failures of this President, and find an old image and slogan far more accurate, and ominous.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:08 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Actually, Donald Sensing spelled it correctly: Mae West.
Posted by: Pat at October 05, 2009 07:31 PM (GhD9A)
2
Good post BUT this is not news to anyone, is it? These same analyses have been running around since he announced his candidacy and nothing has changed in the intervening three years except that more people are now aware of it than ever.
Posted by: ECM at October 05, 2009 07:36 PM (q3V+C)
3
what is now becoming apparent is what a beta male he is.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/did_we_elect_a_beta_male_as_pr_1.html
latest example today of madam president being a beta male roll over and show he's no threat kinda dog.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_china_dalai_lama
Posted by: rumcrook® at October 06, 2009 01:31 PM (60WiD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
UnManned Handgun Attacks, Wounds Three
Tales of the gun weird:
Michael Thourot had just pulled his hand away from the warm metal when it started spewing bullets.
Moments before, Sherri Thourot had watched her husband fire and reload the Jennings 9mm. Then he set it down for her to shoot next at the range.
That's when the handgun started firing on its own, she said, spinning around in circles, landing the Thourots and an Irish tourist in the hospital.
"Nothing like that has ever happened," said Sherri Thourot on Sunday evening from her room at Lakeland Regional Medical Center.
Bryco/Jennings/Jimenez Arms designs have been a pawn shop favorite for years, filling out the market for inexpensive and basic pistols. Their reputation for durability and quality are about what you would expect in a sub-$200 handgun, and they have been on the losing end of lawsuits in the past. That said, it is exceeding rare for a stationary, unmanned handgun to spontaneously start firing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:54 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
THIS must be the handgun the Anti's are so afraid of!
Posted by: toater802 at October 05, 2009 09:20 AM (zQ9Oe)
2
I'd like to know how many rounds he had put through it before this happened and what type of rounds (besides the obvious aforementioned 9mm). (I'd want to know brand ectect.)
Sounds like 'cook off' to me, but I can NEVER imagine a sidearm getting THAT hot. Only time I ever experienced 'cook off' (definition of 'cook off' for non-gn folks: it's when the Barrel and Chamber of a weapon becomes so hot that the bullet spontaneously fires or ‘cooks off’ as soon as chamber lock is achieved) Like I was saying, the ONLY time(s) I’ve ever experienced ‘cook off’ was on an M-60A1 firing sustained full auto for over 20 minutes (yeah I was doing bursts but when you have 1000 round belts to burn and your 1SG tells you “don’t come back with any unspent ammo!!!”… well HELL full auto ROOLZ!!!!) The barrel ended up glowing red-to-white hot. My AG (asst. gunner) had to break the belt b/c it went runaway and I was hosing the entire range LOL!!!
There’s something more to this… as you stated the Jennings is a cheap gangbanger special… total POS and if I found one on the battelfield and had a choice between it or a club, I’d stick with the club as it’s safer and I’m sure I could get something better using the club.
Posted by: Big Country at October 05, 2009 11:14 AM (H/RUP)
3
Only thing I can think of is that he racked the slide and left it back, then placed the gun down on the table, at which point the slide shot forward. Then the gun fired on its own plus it fired full auto.
In other words, careless handling plus multiple mechanical failures.
Posted by: Steve at October 05, 2009 11:28 AM (ym03G)
4
Serial cook offs in an unsupported handgun. Most handguns would jam without strong support in the recoil process. More to this story. Maybe a sear failure, but still for a semi-automatic to function properly it needs to be supported. Most jams in a semi are caused by limp wristing or lack of support in the recoil process.
Posted by: Federale at October 05, 2009 11:32 AM (UQeEa)
5
Why would you load it and then set it down?
Why wouldn't you just let your wife load the mag into the pistol? That way at least someone can control it if something does go wrong...
sounds kinda fishy to me, though!
Posted by: John at October 05, 2009 12:32 PM (iaV9O)
6
I agree that something sounds fishy here.
My hypothesis is that someone has made illegal modifications to this gun in an attempt to convert it from a semi-automatic to an automatic.
Posted by: George at October 05, 2009 01:57 PM (WA19M)
7
That is a level of automatic I find hard to support.
I'm not sure I think full automatic is a good idea in most applications, but this is way too far.
I've heard of Naval riles cooking off, but in a handgun?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 05, 2009 03:05 PM (OmeRL)
8
The barrel ended up glowing red-to-white hot. My AG (asst. gunner) had to break the belt b/c it went runaway and I was hosing the entire range LOL!!!
Did you have him change the barrel too? Oy.
Posted by: Pablo at October 05, 2009 09:52 PM (yTndK)
9
Concur there is something fishy here. The probability of cascading mechanical failures required to cause this to happen as described to an unmodified weapon are astronomical.
Posted by: DavidB at October 07, 2009 01:20 AM (h8pRl)
10
Pablo: OF course he changed the barrel... I was the CPL and he was the PV2... gotta have them kids earn their keep!! Besides... my hands are too big to fit in the aspestos (sp?) glove.
Posted by: Big Country at October 07, 2009 12:44 PM (H/RUP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
She's the One
Ann Althouse saw Michael Moore's new movie.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:36 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Carpe Diem has got a thing about the results of limoliberals like Althouse supporting anticapitalist endeavors. (3000% ROI for F9/11!)
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at October 05, 2009 03:09 PM (OmeRL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 02, 2009
Alert Janet Napolitano: Right Wing Terrorist Arrested in Texas
Did I say right wing? I meant incompetent radical left-wing eco-terrorist:
Former California resident Stephen James Murphy was taken into custody at his home in Arlington, Texas, Wednesday, said FBI Los Angeles director Keith Bolcar in a release about the arrest.
Murphy was named in a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Los Angeles charging him with the 2006 attempted arson of unfinished townhouses in Pasadena, Calif., according to Bolcar.
On Sept. 19, 2006, the Pasadena Fire Department was called to the townhouse construction site after a "crude incendiary device" made out of cigarettes was discovered there, according to the complaint. The device failed to go off.
Construction workers couldn't start one of the tractors and noticed a message written in marker on the side that read, "ANOTHER TRACTOR DECOMMISSIONED BY THE E.L.F." — a reference to the Earth Liberation Front, an environmental extremist group.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:11 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's only a matter of time until those loons kill someone.
(Not counting the Unabomber, though he's unquestionably a loon.)
Posted by: Russ at October 02, 2009 04:53 PM (YyAwk)
2
ELF in Washington a month ago.
ELF Claims Responsibility For Radio Tower Sabotage
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 02, 2009 08:31 PM (FJRFk)
3
I can breath a sigh of relief that in the first nine months of the Obama Administration, we've had at least 5 attempted terrorist attacks thwarted and arrests made. In the first nine months of the Bush Administration, they couldn't even prevent 1.
MMM MMM MMM BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!! lol
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 09:48 PM (OX5qU)
4
in the first nine months of the Obama Administration, we've had at least 5 attempted terrorist attacks thwarted and arrests made. In the first nine months of the Bush Administration, they couldn't even prevent 1.
You're right. Under the security provisions as practiced by the Clinton Administration and inherited by Bush, we couldn't stop one. Under the Bush Administration security measures Obama inherited, he was able to thwart five.
That says volumes for the differences in the national security philosophies of the two parties.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 02, 2009 11:26 PM (FJRFk)
5
I don't knooooowwwww....9 months is an awful lot of time to correct these "Clinton" security measures if they were so bad. Hey, look on the bright side...for the first nine months at least Crawford Texas was safe and secure right? Safest vacation spot in the World.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 03, 2009 12:00 AM (bhNGz)
6
Given how many basic security things were illegal or against SOP for the start of Bush's first term-- and how there was no way he'd get support for changing them, if he'd tried-- it's purely idiotic to try to compare Obama's first 9 vs Bush's.
Insert obvious observation here.
Posted by: Foxfier at October 03, 2009 01:27 PM (OtIqW)
7
Did ELF take credit for the tower in PA that went down 3 hours before the towers in WA ?
Posted by: Neo at October 04, 2009 04:47 PM (tE8FB)
8
Neo
Yes they did. I don't have the link to ELF's press office (??!!), but the ADL had a report on this incident.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 04, 2009 07:08 PM (O8ebz)
9
iconoclast, I know ELF laid claim to the Washington towers, but I haven't found a report of them claiming the PA tower.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 04, 2009 11:54 PM (FJRFk)
10
SouthernRoots
You are right. I mistook the Whitehall towers for the Everett towers.
ELF does not seem to be taking credit for those towers, though there are a number of other successful vandalisms bragged about on their website.
It is odd that this website is allowed to exist.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 05, 2009 03:12 AM (O8ebz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Everything's a Nail: Lefty Blogger Blames Bush For Failure of Chicago Olympic Bid
It would be comedic if it wasn't so dead serious:
No doubt the President was sincere, but it's been quite a while since America has been "at its best," thanks to the Bush Administration. Why would anyone believe that the United States will indeed "make sure that all visitors would feel welcome," given our track record over the past eight years with regard to burdens placed on anyone who seeks a visa, the possibility of inquisitions (and being turned back) even upon arrival, vulnerability to "terrorist lists" that have a proven degree of unreliability, etc.? This is really a stunning rebuke of the United States, given the willingness of both Obamas to put themselves on the line. He's going to have to generate far more "change everyone can believe in" before the US will be chosen as a venue for an event like the Olympics (and properly so). And how confident can we be that he will be willing to take on the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and other Republican demagogues (many of them in the House and the Senate) to reduce the burdens placed on foreign visitors?
Bush, Limbaugh and Beck... it's like they have a deflection template stored on their desktops that they can bring ready to blame their favorite bogeymen for any and all failures of the Administration, with fill-in-the-blank issues.
That much of the world considered Chicago a serious contender for the final two slots and only failed
after the Obamas interjected themselves is a matter that the President's sycophants simply are not equipped to handle.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:34 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And after that video of that teenager getting beaten to death went viral, did anyone really believe that there was even a remote chance that Chicago would get the nod? Obama should not have put his own prestige on the line here, but I guess the campaign mode button is still stuck in the 'on' position...
Posted by: Jim at October 02, 2009 02:02 PM (YTe8V)
2
We fully expect that anything and everything negative will be blamed on Bush. We further fully expect that everything positive will be credited to Dear Leader. It's how they play the game and comes as no great surprise.
The great surprise will come when the votes are cast and they discover the entire rest of the country isn't buying anything they're selling.
Meanwhile, a half-million tax payer dollars worth of jet fuel has been p...ed away and the "O" couple-in-defeat return to the Windy City with their tails between their legs.
"Chicago Is NOT My Kind Of Town" - The IOC.
Posted by: Dell at October 02, 2009 02:09 PM (OY1uL)
3
to my mind, it was worth every cent of tax money they wasted on this trip, just for Ear Leader to have such an "Epic Fail" live on international news coverage.....
besides, the IOC, being a bunch of crooked, self-aggrandizing, low rent thugs themselves, obviously recognized one of there own when the First Failure was trying to blow smoke up their fourth points of contact.
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 02, 2009 02:47 PM (d1FhN)
4
And then there's Tukky's Corollary to Kaplan's Law of the Instrument...
Posted by: Tully at October 02, 2009 03:02 PM (tUyDE)
5
Cursed laptop keyboard....
Posted by: Tully at October 02, 2009 03:03 PM (tUyDE)
6
Look Chicago made their pitch and lost. Deal with it...it happens. Let's face it...this was one thing that the Chicago Machine couldn't fix. Too bad...now get over it.
Posted by: Larry T at October 02, 2009 03:39 PM (ksPfd)
7
Maybe the IOC committee just decided it was time for Brazil to have the Olympics since that continent has never had them before? Gee, nothing like sore losers... or the fact they didn't have ACORN to stuff the ballot box... whiners. And next year, are they still going to be blaming Bush? Two years, three years? If that is the case, I could always go back to the Clinton presidency and blame that for a lot of our problems. Turn about is fair play.
Posted by: YankeeGal at October 02, 2009 04:04 PM (BQApT)
8
Think of the favor the IOC did for the US. This Olympics would have put Chicago in the hole for about one billion. You know good and well that they would not pay the bill so it would be left for the rest of the US. Of course the money would have gone to The Great Ones political machine.
Has anyone on the left complained about the carbon foot print left with the number of jets that went to the meeting?
Posted by: David at October 02, 2009 05:55 PM (sApjw)
9
Epic Fail is right...
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2009/10/stratcom-epic-fail.html
Posted by: DavidB at October 02, 2009 06:46 PM (nX0Qk)
10
What a kook. But, what do you expect from the left? They play the game because the press allows them to get away with it. Obama has spent the last ten months on a World Tour badmouthing America. Then he expects to go over to Europe and tell everyone all that has changed? Well, he can't have it both ways.
How much of a carbon foot print did he leave? I guess he feels he and his wife are the only Americans that should not have to change their lifestyle.
Posted by: citizenofmanassas at October 02, 2009 06:48 PM (3oza6)
11
Blame Bush:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/oh-brother-chicago-snubbed-by-ioc-libs.html
Posted by: The memo went out at October 02, 2009 07:26 PM (VdzOM)
12
Drudge headline - The Ego Has Landed!
Sweet.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 02, 2009 07:53 PM (3O5/e)
13
I actually saw some of these postings on the Left blaming this on Bush and...well...that's just freakin' stupid! It really is stupid! China has by far more strict passport restrictions than we do and they made billions of dollars on the Olympics and Bush didn't waste only 18 hours on his Olympics trip. He attended the whole freakin' thing! Those on the Left are really stretching on this one.
Still...I couldn't help but notice that the other countries who also lost their bid for the Olympics didn't have a bunch of childish a$$holes cheering about it. Hmmmmm....patriotism, ain't it grand!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 03, 2009 12:24 AM (bhNGz)
14
I’m not surprised… Chicago is a toilet, LOL
What a shame the racketeering scum of the Chicago Machine won’t have this windfall to skim-off of, LOLOL
And aren't things going great since Valerie Jarret has been running the country?
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
Posted by: Reaganite Republican at October 03, 2009 07:51 AM (vdbJV)
15
So how the hell did we end up with the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City? Oh, yeah. I guess the IOC was willing to overlook the fact that Bush was president and the US had a bad reputation in the face of all the bribes they got. Give me a break!
How many excuses are Lefties willing to come up with for the fact that the Obamas tanked?
Posted by: PRM at October 05, 2009 12:49 PM (5sGLG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NOBAMA! Chicago Ousted in First Round of Olympic Voting
Via the Beeb:
1625: Well, isn't that a turn up for the books? Chicago are eliminated in the first round - cue audible gasps around the auditorium - and a second round of voting opens immediately.
CHICAGO DROPS OUT OF THE 2016 HOST CITY VOTING PROCESS
1623: The vote closes and the scrutineers are now checking the results. If there is no majority for one city, remember, the city with the least votes will drop out and another vote will take place.
1622: The first round of voting for the 2016 Olympic Games host city is declared open.
Incoming Media Reactions:"...a stunning defeat for the city that was expected to be one of the two finalists...""...
the "biggest shock in IOC history." "...a surprisingly early exit...""...stunned silence..."
CNN, for their part, quickly buried their gushing (and now obviously inaccurate)
Michelle Obama steals the show in Copenhagen
Update: Comment of the day (so far).
I hear when the IOC announced the first city out was Chicago, you can hear somebody in the room yelling, "YOU LIE!"
And finally, via
Cuffy Meigs:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:31 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What happened? We were told that the world would love us if we elected Obama and rid ourselves of the evil Republican neocons. And I thought that the sacrifice by Michelle of flying to Copenhagen in her own 747 and staying at a 5 star hotel (not to mention her toned arms) would impress the world as much as it impresses thought-leaders like Olbie. How could I be wrong about this?
Maybe Obama took the time on the flight over to skim McChrystal's report? Nahhh......not as important as delivering pork to Chicago.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 02, 2009 11:35 AM (O8ebz)
2
We were promised that he was the President of the World. No Unicorns for us this time? We were promised.
The whole world.
The Olympics must be racist.
Posted by: brando at October 02, 2009 11:52 AM (IPGju)
3
Whooohooooo! Now can we get our money back from the wasted trip?
Posted by: Federale at October 02, 2009 11:53 AM (Tg86i)
4
"Obama Goes to the IOC: A Special Olympics Moment"
Posted by: M at October 02, 2009 04:18 PM (Uog1u)
5
Obama truly is an egomaniac unlike any to ever inhabit the office of POTUS. To set himself up for a fail like this when he didn't know going in that Chicago was chosen is just unbelievable--he truly had to believe that a. his magical rhetorical prowess would win the IOC over or b. that the IOC wouldn't dare not grant Chicago the Olympics simply due to his presence.
Posted by: ECM at October 02, 2009 05:24 PM (q3V+C)
6
Why do you hate America so much?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 02, 2009 09:50 PM (OX5qU)
7
Obama and Michelle are America?? Who knew?
Should we start singing "Obama's gonna save us.." now to make the kooks feel better???
Posted by: iconoclast at October 03, 2009 12:56 AM (vc6Cc)
8
Yay!!! America lost! We're not #1! We're not #1!! We're not #1!
Posted by: scalefree at October 03, 2009 02:20 AM (IbRA6)
9
Yeah iconoclast...they are! They were elected by a majority of Americans in our Constitutionally established and protected democratic process by the people, for the people! Do you hate us for our freedom? Do you hate us for our liberty? Do you hate us for our way of life? Leave! Despite what you may think, this isn't a socialist fascist nation...you can leave. You know where the door is. Feel free to kiss Lady Liberty's ass on the way out!
I think it's a disgusting pathetic display of parasites that would sacrifice our nation's pride and solidarity for a chance to obsess over a President's failure. Now you'll predictably run and get your "lefties did this to Bush" whining points but fail to include a major perspective, Bush was a failure! The talking points of one or two lefties and whine and throw a thumb-sucking tantrum over how ALL THE LEFT MUST BELIEVE THIS because this ONE said it. It's justification. Lefties didn't hope for Bush to fail, we spent years trying to tell you he already did and left office proving our point but you know what, we still supported him because he was our president. After 9/11, the man had a 96% approval rating and the entire World in the palm of his hand. Can't get much more support than that. The entire World.
I can understand you don't like our President's policies or political views. You don't like Liberals, ACORN, NY Times or David Letterman. We get it! But would you really choose your obsessive disdain and blind hatred over the solidarity of your own nation's pride?
Think about it...would you? Here's a song for you to sing iconoclast...our National Anthem.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 03, 2009 02:25 AM (bhNGz)
10
Get off your holier-than-thou throne, Lipiwitz. The latest leftist fad, aside from screaming "racism" when those of us with perception object to Marxist/Socialist crap being shoved down our throats, is apparently screaming that we somehow hate America. WE hate America? Your apologist president has managed to make very clear HIS hatred of America. When his wife patted herself on the back for her "sacrifice" to fly to Copenhagen, did anyone stop to realize the REAL sacrifice 43 Americans made when they died in Afghanistan as Obama drags his heels responding to McChrystal's plea for more troops? I seem to recall the FLOTUS's statement re: her lack of pride in being an American until her husband ran for office, which was in itself a racist statement...
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Tell me again just who it is who hates America.
Posted by: Nancy at October 03, 2009 02:41 AM (1uCmq)
11
Lip's got it right. Cats like Nancy have their knickers all twisted over a traitorious fantasy Obama who doesn't really exist.
Posted by: beetroot at October 03, 2009 11:56 AM (vzU4z)
12
Well, lipi, you have us mixed up with a monarchy.
Barak Hussein Obama only represents us. He is not America. Nor was Bush America. Michelle doesn't even do that any more than any other private citizen represents us--which is a blessing, given her voiced disdain for America despite the twofer advantages conferred undeservedly upon her by an innocent nation).
Dissent over Bush's policies was American as apple pie just a few short months ago. Now somehow it is unAmerican to point out that Barry just screwed the pooch again.
So, you hypocritical troll, stuff your nonsense where the sun doesn't shine. You fools, with the willing help of a supine press, elected this incompetent, corrupt, and pompous nitwit as POTUS. So far he has been an epic failure. 2012 cannot arrive soon enough to throw his sorry rear out of office so he can join Peanut kneeling to every nutbag tyrant who hates America.
Finally, you don't like what I write? Then don't read it.
btw, Bush was a pretty good success. Barry should only wish for the level of economic and defense successes of Bush. Bush wasn't able to prevent a corrupt Congress (with Barry helping out) to pour the critical fuel (CRA & Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/Subprime loans) on the economic cancer, but they certainly tried.
In the end, anyone with a brain would take Bush over this stuttering affirmative action fool of a POTUS any day of the week. Of course, the "with a brain" criteria leaves out the kook anti-American left. But we have always had haters in this country--it is just a first that one has been elected POTUS.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 03, 2009 12:16 PM (vc6Cc)
13
Remember when the LibiLibs called Central Americans "Wetbacks"? Libiwitz, are South Americans included in your Racism too?
C'mon, be better. Deliver as promised.
Posted by: brando at October 04, 2009 08:50 PM (LjEkE)
14
i love this Youtube link...hillarious!
Posted by: john david bryan at October 05, 2009 10:47 PM (qBbXv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Women Had Sex with Letterman?
I think the extortionist picked the wrong target.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:48 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't watch Letterman, or any of the other late night hosts. I used to watch the Tonight show when Johnny Carson was on but lost interest after he left. Even if I did watch one of the shows it wouldn't be Letterman's, I just don't find him funny. Having said that, I think he did the right thing.
Of course it would have been better if he had quoted the Duke of Wellington: "Publish and be damned."
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at October 02, 2009 09:11 AM (+xi30)
2
Didn't you know that the cure for ugly is money?
Posted by: ThomasD at October 02, 2009 11:22 AM (21H5U)
3
This CBS producer must be Dan Rather/Mary Mapes stupid. Everybody already knew Dave Letterman was an immoral, woman-using prick, so there's nothing to reveal in an extortion scheme. He amused his audience at his mother's expense for years, using her in skits as the joke. He married his baby's momma long after he had made the boy a bastard and the momma a slut. His treatment of Sarah Palin and her family is beyond shameful, and is worthy of a good ass-beating by Todd Palin. Tip, meet iceberg. Letterman is a pathetic excuse for anything admirable or honorable.
Posted by: twolaneflash at October 02, 2009 01:20 PM (svkhS)
4
NevadaDailySteve .. From what I can see, Letterman doesn't read actual long books, like biographies, especially if they contain the wisdom of actual military heroes. It might contaminate his world vision.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at October 02, 2009 01:41 PM (VbbNx)
5
Who knew Letterman was such a player. Good for him.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 03, 2009 12:02 AM (bhNGz)
6
It hurts me to say this, but...
...good for Letterman. Not the boinking the staff thing -- that's just stupid -- but the refusal to be blackmailed.
Of course, now that he's come clean any fired female (we assume) staffer with a shred of evidence can nail him back for some sexual harrasment lottery winnings.
Posted by: Tully at October 03, 2009 10:09 PM (tUyDE)
7
Good news from above, Lippy happy that Dave's a player and would bend over for him! Go Team Obama!
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 06, 2009 12:19 PM (3O5/e)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 81 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.2899 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2787 seconds, 153 records returned.
Page size 108 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.