TIME Longs for the Dark Ages.

December 2, 2009

I was browsing this article Time.com (which I was directed to via Ace of Spades HQ) and I was so surprised by what I had read that I had to go back and read it 2 or 3 times before I was certain the article said what I thought it did.


Creating a Story to Fit the Narrative.

November 9, 2009

Hey! Did you know that Republicans hate Women, Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, (insert group of non-old white men here) ?!? What? You didn’t?! Just look at all the evidence!

For those of you who read conservative blogs, you know that accusations of bigotry of all forms is not uncommon for the Repulican party, or conservatives in general.  However, I found this article uniquely offensive and angering and for someone who’s a conservative in a heavily liberal area, that’s hard to do.

But the growing schism between the Republican Party’s ascendant right wing and its shrinking moderate core has clear gender undertones — and Scozzafava’s departure raises fresh questions about the GOP’s ability to recruit, elect and even tolerate the sort of moderate women who used to be part of its ruling mainstream.

Ah yes, gotta love those “undertones” and “raises questions” lines.  Democrats and liberals use these lines when they want to make accusations but don’t have the balls to actually stand behind what they are accusing people of (usually because they know it’s untrue).  Sounds a lot like those racist undertones conservatives had during Obama’s campaign, and throughout the ongoing fight against universal healthcare.  Why, we (conservatives) are only opposing the President because (gasp) he’s black!  Now, we’re only voting against candidates like Scozzafava because (gasp) she’s a woman!  It takes almost the entire first page before we find out that there’s even any possibility of another reason conservatives would oppose her nomination.

Scozzafava’s conservative critics — including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh — chalked up their opposition to her liberal positions on abortion and gay rights.

It’s not so much that they invoked Palin and Limbaugh as critics (who by far weren’t the only ones) of Scozzafava, but the authors of this pile of crap article only chose to mentin two specific issues; abortion, and gay rights. 

Did you also know that Scozzafava was pro-card-check?  She also supported the porkulus bill that every single GOP House Representative voted against.  She also voted for tax hikes and a $180 million dollar state bank bailout.  However, those couldn’t possibly be reasons for conservative opposition, it MUST be because we’re all RAAAC- er…I mean…SEEEEEEEXXXXIST!!!!

But it doesn’t stop there.  In the very next paragraph, the authors of this crapfest double-down on stupid.

Read the rest of this entry »


Maybe This Is Hypocritical But…

April 1, 2009

I consider myself technologically up-to-date, but this is further than I want to go with my “techno-hipness”.  I’m talking about Twitter.

Now, I’m not going to bother explaining this here, as I feel this video expresses my feelings completely.

Now, I’m only saying this is possibly hypocrtical because as I see it, isn’t blogging similar?  I’m here, typing out my thoughts and feelings on various topics to those of you who read.  Some of you might add this site to your favorites and are therefore “following”  me like you would with Twitter.

I guess really the difference is that I can make much longer posts on a blog, whereas Twitter is limited to 140 characters (I believe).  Furthermore, like the video says, Twitter is mainly used for updating people on your current activities/thoughts, not for writing lengthy political analysis or long angry rants.

Perhaps if I started posting my current thoughts/activities, this site would see a lot more updates.  Then again, I’m trying to reach a larger audience here, and is anyone really that interested in what I’m eating for lunch, or happen to be thinking at any moment in time?  Trust me, you don’t want to get into my head, it’s painfully boring in there.


Andrew Breitbart on How to Combat Pop Culture Liberalism

March 16, 2009

This past Friday, Andrew Breitbart, a leader in online conservative media, appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher”.  As anyone who has watched 5 minutes of the show knows, it’s not exactly a welcome place for conservatives.  I watched the first 3 or 4 minutes on YouTube and had to turn it off in disgust from how Maher and his liberal guest were treating Mr. Breitbart (not that I was shocked or suprised by that).

Many people questioned Mr. Breitbart on why he would willingly appear on a show that has a unblemished track record of being hostile to conservatives and advised him to decline the invitation.  Today in the Washington Times, Mr. Breitbart explains why he didn’t heed the advice he recieved. 

Since the salad days of ABC’s “Politically Incorrect,” which minted countless right-wing pundits and best-selling authors, conservatives have rightly assessed the HBO version of the Maher show as R-rated and shockingly hostile to their worldview. So most opt out.

I totally see why. But I think that’s exactly the wrong strategy.

The problem with the withdrawal approach is that it cedes the popular culture debate to the other side. We figure talk radio, a certain cable news network and some independent Internet venues will allow for us to get our ideas out to the masses. Well, those few outlets are greatly outnumbered. They are also isolated and targeted for destruction by the activist left. The sitting president (using taxpayer money) is now leading the charge.

In my neighborhood at least, this strategy of avoiding engagement with the other side isn’t working out so well.

I happen to agree 100% with Mr. Breitbart’s analysis here.  Currently in this country, the default political worldview is that of liberals.  Conservatives and conservative-leaning media sources (FoxNews, talk radio, etc.) are labeled as racist, bigoted, homophobic, facist, and so on and so forth.  If you’ve ever talked to someone about Rush Limbaugh who’s never tuned in to his show, you know what I’m talking about.

My fiance was one of these people.  Not that she was a big left-wing liberal (she wasn’t very politically aware, period), but she had always had this image of Rush of being angry, racist, and hostile to any callers who disagreed with his opinions.  Don’t ask me how I did it, because I don’t remember, but I was able to get her to start listening to some of Rush’s show, and she was literally shocked.  She said to me “he is not at all what I thought”.  She now enjoys Rush’s show, his humor, and his overall personality and demeanor.  She says “he’s got this really pleasant tone and voice, and once you understand his sense of humor, his show is really entertaining”.

I think a lot of people who go out and vote are “default Democrats”.  They are the people who will always claim “I don’t really like politics”, yet are compelled to vote (and rightfully so) out of a sense of duty…and because Matt Damon, MTV, E!, P. Diddy, or whoever is telling them they should.  They don’t follow the issues, heck, as John Ziegler and countless polls have pointed out, most people don’t even know something as simple as which party is in the majority in the House or Senate.  The pop culture in this country is decidedly liberal, and if conservativism is to make a comeback in government, part of the resurgance is going to have to start by combatting this.  But how to go about it?

Read the rest of this entry »


New York Times publishes forged document, but is anyone really suprised?

December 22, 2008

The error in itself isn’t really that suprising, however, how this forged document even got published in the New York Times is fascinating.

This letter, like most Letters to the Editor these days, arrived by email. It is Times procedure to verify the authenticity of every letter. In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the email and did not hear back. At that point, we should have contacted Mr. Delanoë’s office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us.

We did not do that. Without that verification, the letter should never have been printed.

So let me get this straight. The NYT recieves an email containing a letter supposedly written by the mayor of Paris.  The current practice to verify the authenticity of this document is to email back the source of the letter?  Then, if they don’t respond, to go ahead and publish the letter anyway.

Did it not occur to anyone at the Times to contact, you know, the supposed original author of the document directy?  It’s not like the Mayor of Paris is a reclusive citizen tucked away in some remote corner of Manhattan. Furthermore, let’s say they did recieve an email back from the original sender of the letter.  If that response had simply said “Yes, this document is authentic”, would that have been enough for the NYT to go ahead and run with it?  Obviously it would have been seeing that  no response at all apparently serves as authetication.

The more I think about how I would deal with the situation is just making me more and more angry.  This is like asking a guy selling stereos out of his trunk if they are stolen, and taking his reply of “no man, I work for Best Buy” as a satisfactory response.

I’d like to know what the email address of the original sender was as well.  I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the NYT thought Big BeretDaddy@frenchymail.com sounded like a reliable source.

(h/t HotAir)


BREAKING: Iraqi Journalist throws shoes at President Bush

December 14, 2008

Who throws a shoe? Honestly?

Apparently Iraqi journalists. MSNBC has the video for this, and you can see the President did a nice job of dodging the projectiles. Afterwards, when asked for a comment, Bush just said, “All I know is that they were a size 10”.

Looks like America is having a bigger affect on Iraq than we realized.  Now even their mainstream media is taking after our own.  Although, I would hope our American journalists would be able to hit an unsuspecting target from 12 feet away.


It finally happens: Democrat vs. Republican violence (but not what you think)

October 17, 2008

Well, it looks like they were right.  McCain and Palin’s campaign speeches and political rhetoric have caused their supporters to cross the line and physically attack Obama supporters.  Except…it’s actually the complete opposite case.

Via PajamasMedia

While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

Don’t worry, the good news is that they chased the him down and police arrested the guy.  I wonder if he’ll be investigated vetted with the same fervor as Joe the Plumber?  I’ll expect to see his personal information and voting record up on the web within a couple days. 

It’s an interesting story, but not for the reasons you think.  I’m sure most conservatives who read this blog, aren’t exactly suprised that the first actual proven incident of violence (not the unsubstanciated kind you’ve been hearing about).  Just take a gander at DemocraticUnderground and DailyKos to find out where the real rage is coming from.

Read the rest of this entry »