The Onion: Time
Publishes Definitive Obama Puff Piece.
photo also courtesy of The Onion.
TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS. There can't really be any doubt about
how thoroughly the mainstream media are in the tank for Obama. It's a
phenomenon of three parts. First, they're drawn like moths to bask in
the glow of his charisma; that's why we get such silliness as all three
network anchors trailing along on his World
Tour. Second, they can't bring themselves to ask him any hard
questions or even follow-up on the softball setups he muffs. Here's a
sample of that from the icily superior PBS news organization (h/t Rush
GWEN IFILL: People look at your shifts
on issues from warrantless surveillance to gun control, and they say,
'Who is this guy? What does he believe?' How do you begin
to, in this stage in your campaign, tell people who you are and have it
OBAMA: First of all, I -- I do think that this notion that
somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply
inaccurate. You mentioned the gun position. I've been
talking about the Second Amendment being an individual right for the
last year and a half. So there wasn't a shift there.
IFILL: Campaign finance?
OBAMA: Well, campaign finance, there's no doubt that that was a
shift. The broader point was if you compare sort of -- my shift in
emphasis -- on issues that I've been proposing for years -- like
faith-based initiatives -- which, uh, have raised, uh, questions, uh,
uh, in the press -- you compare that to John McCain...
IFILL: And raised hackles among some of your reporters.
OBAMA: Well, raised hackles, uh, among some, uh, uh, in the
Never mind that Obama's feeble defenses are mostly lies. He's being
given an open invitation to spin his way out of charges that are
verifiably true, and he stumbles around like a kid who didn't read the
assignment and still doesn't get his bluff called by the teacher. It
would be possible to cite many other such instances, but in this case
it's more efficient to point to the derision the MSM has earned on this
score from humorists who unquestionably share most of their political
For example, CNN is still so stung by the SNL
sketch ridiculing their Obama worship that it became a point of
contention at a CNN
press tour in Beverly Hills earlier this week: The CNN reporters
called the skit "a wake up call," but then proceeded to deny that they
had ever been soft on Obama. Gloria Borger embarked on a lame
"I think the skit on 'Saturday Night
Live' made us look at ourselves.
"I would argue, however, that Barack Obama didn't get as soft coverage
as everybody thought and that he did get some tough coverage. However,
you took a look at the skit and you started asking some questions about
being fair to both candidates.
"If you ask Barack Obama whether he was treated with kid gloves, he
would probably tell you no, and if you asked Hillary Clinton she would
probably tell you, 'Yes, he was.' So, like anything, [the skit] gets in
the zeitgeist and you kind of take a look at it and you look at
yourself and you say, 'Gee, maybe there is a little truth to that,
maybe we can improve.'
"However, I don't think there was a radical turn or radical shift after
While critics recovered from that mental whiplash, Suzanne Malveaux
began to argue that what was actually going on was that, in the natural
evolution of the campaign, people -- meaning TV news journalists, we
think -- started to "see Obama as more of a viable candidate" and "that
naturally the scrutiny got a lot tougher and that you kind of saw that
I don't think there was a radical shift after that, either, and I'm pretty sure
I haven't "kind of" seen "that progression." Neither, apparently, has The Onion (which is consistently
scathing about McCain, btw). Take the link for the whole hilarious
send-up of MSM Obama coverage, but here is a representative snippet:
"The sheer breadth of fluff in this
story is something to be marveled at," New York Times Washington bureau
chief Dean Baquet said. "It's all here. Favorite books, movies, meals,
and seasons of the year ranked one through four. Sure, we asked Obama
what his favorite ice cream was, but Time did us one better and asked,
'What's your favorite ice cream, really?'"
Time managing editor Rich Stengel said he was proud of the Obama puff
piece, and that he hoped it would help to redefine the boundaries of
It will indeed be interesting to see whether the Onion's "definitive" claim holds up
after Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, and Katie Couric start filing
their stories from Europe.
The third part of the MSM liedown for Obama is the one that's dominated
the news for the past couple of days -- the dawning realization that
the Obama campaign has set the latches so tightly on coverage of their
candidate that criticism, satire, and even humor are becoming
synonymous with hate crimes against the Obamas. Most visibly, there's
been the whole New Yorker cover flap, but we'll get back to that in a
moment. It's only the latest in a series of incidents that caused even Maureen
Dowd to notice there might be a problem with the Obamas:
It would seem a positive for Barack
Obama that he is hard to mock. But is it another sign that he’s trying
so hard to be perfect that it’s stultifying?
Another wag published a list of "approved
jokes" the Obama campaign had given permission for late night
comedians to repeat. Among them:
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender
says, "Why the long face?" Barack Obama replies, "His jockey just lost
his health insurance, which should be the right of all Americans."
Q: What's black and white and red all over?
Barack Obama: The New Yorker magazine, which should be embarrassed
after publishing such a tasteless and offensive cover, which I reject
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough (former House member, former Republican, former conservative) suddenly
overcame years of lefty MSM programming to launch a tirade
at the Comedy Channel's Jon Stewart et al:
Discussing a July 15 New York Times
piece that described how TV comics and talk show hosts are hesitant to
make fun of Barack Obama, Scarborough mocked, "I never want to hear
anybody from 'The Daily Show' or any of these other shows ever saying
again, 'We speak truth to power.' 'Cause you know what they do? They
speak truth to Republicans."
After admitting that Republicans have made many mistakes over the last
seven years, the MSNBC host continued to eviscerate the crew at the
"The Daily Show" and others: " But, please, don't be subversive,
because you're not. Because you're a hack. You're a hack for the
Democratic Party and you only tell jokes about one side."
New York Times journalist John Harwood, appearing on the program as a
guest, attempted to stick up for the comics by justifying, "I don't
think they are hacks for the Democratic Party. People write about
what's funny to them. And the stuff that's funny to them is, is the
stuff that comes out of what they see that they want to make fun of
So it's hard to make fun of a man as remarkably humorless as Barack
Obama, and they don't want to do it anyway. That's not really news.
What should be news to the big MSM organizations is the terrible trap
they are building for themselves down the road. This is where The New Yorker cover flap should be
setting off alarms at all the print and television news, commentary, and humor outlets.
The New Yorker, lest we
forget, was trying to make erudite fun of supposed conservative
the Obamas. In doing so, they were obliged to use symbolically
meaningful images of the
Obamas and rely on the audience to see that those images were the
vehicle not the target. This represents a step beyond what SNL did, or
even The Onion, who you'll
notice conveyed no real information about Obama whatever because their
target was the media. That's the rub with what The New Yorker did; there were some
quite real touchstones for the imagery they employed because satire
must contain a kernel of truth or it cannot do its job of highlighting
absurdities. It's that kernel of truth that's not allowed. There are some muslim threads in the
fabric of Obama's life. His wife has
made nice with radical militants like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.
And there is at least a
superficial resemblance between her handsome face with its seemingly
permanent scowl and that of Angela Davis, an avowed revolutionary whose
Marxism can't help but remind us that Karl's fingerprints are all over
Obama's early years as well. Does it mean that's who they are? No. But
in the eyes of the Obama campaign, none
of us can be trusted to view
such imagery and decide for ourselves whether it's a cartoon or an
ominous clue to something sinister under the surface.
is clueless, New Yorkers are humorless, and the Piper will be paid.
Probably by all of us. Harold Ross has to
be spinning in his grave. His little
old lady from Dubuque is now an arid, politically correct crone,
infesting the streets of Manhattan like some fatal ideological disease.
That's why Obama has been so consistently aggressive about condemning
any criticisms of his wife. He may object to what he regards as unfair
characterizations of "loops" and "soundbites," but she did actually say
the things she's being criticized for. His attempt to put her
completely off limits is ludicrous on its face, because her
controversial remarks were all delivered in a campaign setting; she was
soliciting votes for him when she said those things. That makes them
fair game. Yet not even a left-leaning (I'm being charitable here)
publication like The New Yorker
is permitted to make the tiniest allusion to the topics that have been
decreed off-limits. (And there are a lot
of them.) All such infractions will be immediately denounced
as disgraceful, personal, mean-spirited, disgusting, and, uh, racist.
That's the giant-sized stick the meticulously mild-mannered Obama
carries with him wherever he goes. Venture past persiflage into
substantive criticism or mockery and the stick will be applied to your
noggin in a jiffy. That's the lesson no one seems to have learned from
the primaries. The two most ultimately invincible figures in recent
American history -- Hillary and Bill Clinton -- have both felt that
stick and been knocked repeatedly to the canvas as suspected racists.
Just this week, an eerily similar fate befell Jesse Jackson. He dared
to criticize the perfect Obama in colorful vernacular and now he has
been forced to apologize so many times that he will utter no criticism
of the anointed one again.
All of which makes me wonder big-time if the MSM understands how huge a
catastrophe for themselves all the salaaming before the Obamessiah is
bringing down on their own thoughtless heads.
The New Yorker has already
suffered negative financial consequences for its poor judgment. What
awaits the rest of their elite brethren? If the
man is elected, it's clear you can't criticize him with impunity, even
with the best intentions. Start nitpicking his cabinet appointments,
legislative agenda or policy decisions, and you will perish in a
wave of hurt euphemisms which will make it clear to the most extreme
sycophants and true believers that you are, ahem, probably a resentful
racist. Watch as, one by one, the most illustrious and invulnerable of
your number are disgraced into retirement for having dared to use their
verbal talents against the new pharaoh. If it can happen to Geraldine Ferraro, it can happen to you, too.
Continue being the same adoring cheerleaders you've been so far --
through the inevitable crises and missteps and blunders and failures --
and the already tottering structure of the MSM will collapse in
cataclysmic ruin. You will bore your dwindling audience absolutely to
death, and they will begin seeking honest news reporting elsewhere. (As they have been, btw, for some time now; how's NYT stock doing these days, kemo sabe?)
The nature of your bet thus far is idiotic -- that Obama really is the
absolute answer to everyone's prayers you so want him to be. He isn't.
He's a flesh-and-blood man who will stumble and err and make some truly
awful decisions. When that happens, your extravagantly uncritical
support for his rise to power will make you accountable to many
Americans before you cover the first act of his administration. And
when he does take office, the fact that you have let him rewrite all
the rules of what is and is not fair coverage in political reporting
will do you in no matter what course you choose. Criticize him and be
branded with some of the worst labels available in these United States.
(The New Yorker is anti-muslim?
Anyone? Please.) Suck up to him and go rapidly out of business -- not
to mention lose all the power
you have so jealously acquired and used so self-righteously in the last
Take your pick.
Honestly, it's beyond me why you're not backing McCain, or at least giving him equal time. If he's elected, you get to do your usual four-year torture, burn, mutilate, pulverize him and everyone he knows or speaks to act. Isn't that just plain more fun for you than cowering in the weeds hoping God Almighty doesn't notice you from His throne?
Well. Suit yourself. You always do.
What Mrs. CP
She knows he's hot...
WHAT IS LOVE?.
Well, have you seen the movie? It's so easy to be dismissive
until the big scene when you realize you sat through all the crap for
one really good punchline, which is honest-to-God-there...
We hate Will Ferrell. Mostly. There was a scene or two in Talledega Nights when we may have
sniggered. And the same for Ron
Burgundy . But then we saw A
Night at the Roxbury. And contrary to the whole female thing, we
thought it was actually funny. Chris Kattan rules.
To begin with, there isn't a woman on earth who doesn't respond to the
Haddaway song. Can we admit that, at least? And then there's the
sublime stupidity of the movie itself. I'm sorry. I apologize. It's
just funny. And Chris Kattan is CUTE! Here are the highlights. Watch
the first minute, and then skip to 5 minutes in and watch to the end.
We all do just want to dance.
Take that however you want, you murderous 21st century version of
Voltaire. I don't care how viciously witty you are; I want to sloop the
Except that now I'm hearing Haddaway again. Let's do the head-bop...
Bop bop bop bop bop bop....Bop bop bop bop bop bop.... Bop bop bop bop
It's called Paradise.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Why Bloggers Aren't
about being too spontaneous and truthful.
PLAZA HOTEL. IN TEXAS. All right. It's not stalking. It's
been at least a month or so since we last slobbered about Rachel Lucas.
The last time we did, it was only to use
her as an object lesson. And
the same is true of today's unctuous entry.
In just two posts, the honorable Rachel gave away two potentially
lucrative book contracts. That's the very definition of amateur in the
writing world. Professional writers hoard
their ideas. Even if they're presently in the business of tossing off
trifles for quick cash, they can recognize the Grand Slam Idea when it
emerges in the second paragraph of an otherwise rote essay. They delete
that paragraph before it ever sees the light of day and get cracking on
sample chapters for a book proposal. They also get on the phone with
well connected agents and start turning phrases about five- and
But not our Rachel. Tuesday, she wrote a post that began this
don’t let your sons watch HGTV. They’ll never get married.
It takes a special kind of person to get pissed off watching the Home
and Garden channel, and I am just that special person. I love “House
Hunters” the most because it’s fun watching people in other parts of
the country try to find a 3-bedroom 2-bathroom 1200-square foot house
for under $250,000 (in the DFW area, that kind of money buys you a
McMansion), but mostly what I love is hating the women I see on these
shows. And hate them I do.
In the last 2 weeks, I’ve watched maybe a dozen episodes of “House
Hunters”, and in at least 10 of those episodes, the following occurred
almost verbatim every single time:
Wife: Oh! This is a nice big closet.
Husband: Yeah, I guess it’s big enough for all your stuff.
Wife: HA HA! I get all the closet space! It’s mine! You get one drawer!
HA HA HA HA!
This makes me want to kill some bitches.
They are so proud of the fact that they own 50 pairs of shoes and two
metric tons of cocktail dresses, and that they’ve shown their husband
who’s boss by hogging all the closet space. You can see it in their
eyes, every time, how cutely sassy they think they’re being. It is
Which was just a preface for a delightful bashing of a certain kind of
female personality that everyone knows about and rarely speaks of out
loud. Then, today, she followed up with this opening
there, gentlemen. You’re not perfect either.
My blog got over 25,000 unique visits yesterday thanks to two
Instalanches, one of which was for my last post about de-testicled men
and the women who own them. And when Reynolds links, a bunch of other
blogs will link, and you’ll get a ton of comments and emails. I have
some stuff to say about some of this feedback.
First of all. It isn’t “misogynistic” to point out that some women are
selfish morons. People need to get dictionaries, seriously. That’s like
saying it’s racist to point out that some Mexicans are criminals. Facts
are facts. Some whiteys are criminals, too, and newsflash: plenty of
men are selfish morons as well.
Which brings me to my second issue, which is that it’s more than a
little annoying to see half the male reactions to a post like this
sounding exactly like what these very men hate so much about women. The
sweeping generalizations, for one thing. The “I put her in her place”
statements, for another.
Don’t get me wrong. Even though I myself am a woman, I truly believe
that women are more difficult to get along with, harder to like and to
love, less trustworthy, and generally a much bigger pain in the ass
than men, in the balance of things.
BUT. It’s all on a scale. Just because women have more or less of any
given quality than men do, it’s foolish and shortsighted to extrapolate
that into some sort of claim that women have a monopoly on shitty
qualities or that men have a monopoly on good qualities.
Although it’s not as much fun, I could write full-bodied rants about
the stupid shit men do, too....
Which, of course, she proceeds to do, in hilariously encyclopedic
detail. The larger point here is that all you consumers out there
should be more appreciative of bloggers as an honest, generous resource,
uncontaminated by the mercenary aspects of a profession that... EXCUSE
ME. Something I have to do
before I proceed further...
[Rachel. RACHEL! Are you fucking nuts?! Deep-six both these posts
before anyone else sees them, spend the necessary time (admittedly a
bore) to sketch out sample chapters for two -- count'em, two --
bestselling books about (1) women and (2) men. Get on the phone with a
high-priced, nasal prick of an agent, and GET YOURSELF A BOOK
DEAL. You and Rupert will never have to work again. You can quit
all the dreary, depressing transcribing of fatal case histories. You
can buy liposuction treatments for your weight-challenged ridgeback.
You can move to the place where you really belong, a penthouse suite at
the Plaza Hotel in gorgeous midtown Manhattan... JESUS, GIRL.]
Uh, where was I? Oh. Yes. The blogosphere. Mostly, when internet
bloggers write books, they write about blogging
on the internet, which
convinces them that the best way to make money from being a blog star
is to sell advertising on their blogs. There is a certain logic to this
inference, which has principally to do with not having any more actual
writing talent than, say, Glenn Reynolds, who's a hell of a
yarn-spinner for a nerdy techno-geek law professor. Except that not all
bloggers are nerdy techno-geek law professors. Some of them are blonde
pseudo-artiste photographer law professors. Where was I going with all
of this? I honestly don't remember anymore.
So I guess I should stop before I fade completely into an entropic
Pynchon-style non-ending. Although I do have one concluding thought:
RACHEL! SERIOUSLY! STOP WASTING YOUR BEST MATERIAL ON NON-PAYING
CUSTOMERS! I mean, not to be sexist or anything, but why pay for
the cow if you can get the milk for free? (I'd do a 'bull' version of
that aphorism, though it would probably be even more misunderstood than
what I already wrote. So sue me. But wait for Rachel to do it first. I
think she called shotgun on suing InstaPunk before anyone else did.
That's what I'll swear in court anyway.)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
A Bi-Coastal Punk Checks in:
The "Before Obama" Bucket List
INSPIRATION. Does it take a "mad
Russian" to remind us what
A LONG LONG TIME(2).
Contemplating the utopia our betters have in mind for us, I fell into
the kind of trance that produces automatic writing. Forgive any
incoherence in what follows. Read it as a long interior wail:
Poison your garden slugs with polysyllabic man-made chemicals, kill
all the evening mosquitoes with DDT, burn the South Jersey marsh
grasses in the
fall! Fill in the swamp in your back yard, wetlands be damned! Take the
long way home in your gas guzzler, and leave your car idling while you
watch the sunrise over the Delaware River.
Eat a giant steak, spray air freshener in the bathroom after you
poop out the evil red meat, and flush the toilet - twice, no, three
times -- just to watch the water swirl wastefully away.
the yard light on all night -- you know, the extravagant incandescent kind -- and
the bathroom fan on long after you've left the shower - it KILLS the
for mold to grow.
Smoke'em if you've got em; hell, even
if you don't smoke, have a butt once in a while as you drink that one
extra beer before you drive home way too fast.
And you know
those bars in South Philly where you can smoke DESPITE the ban, or the
illegal after hours club in Center City, or the smoky, dingy watering
holes in West Philly? Breathe in the deep draughts of freedom as you
walk in, and stay awhile so you can chastise the state tobacco control
agents when they arrive to bully the proprietor and the patrons: "Leave
our Nicotine Speakeasies alone!"
Don't forget to bring your dog with you...
Oh, and if you're in
Seattle, make sure to talk politics and religion and race -- at work!
(They hate that.) Afterward,
go to one of those hip underground dining events where all
city codes are flouted and food is served just dripping with trans
fats. After that, on your way home, talk to someone on the street or
bus - anyone!
They'll be terrified; there are more serial killers than conversations
between strangers in Seattle. Before the
night is done, get really
daring... walk across the street NOT at the
crosswalk WHILE the little admonishing hand is red. Jaywalking is the
new heroin. (Isn't everything the new
something else? Ask a stranger that question while you're breaking the
pedestrian laws. You'll feel like a one-person crime wave. In Seattle.)
Take on a part-time job - working under the table! Tell everybody
the dog ate your green card, even the people who notice you don't look
drive too fast with the windows down or creep along in the slow lane
A/C cranked. Most importantly, fill your turbo-diesel "dually" with
blow up dolls and drive down I-5 in the carpool lane - alone! On Route
167, make a deliberate point of crossing the double yellow line, and
then do it again just to make sure everyone saw. When you get
to your house, where you left all the lights on for your dog, crank up
the A/C there, too. Full blast. All the way to eleven. (Shouldn't
air-conditioners be fitted with air-horns? On the west coast at least?
Then everyone would know the ear-splitting extremity of your sin.)
Throw your food waste in the recycling bin, dump the plastic in with
the glass, and top off the garbage bags with free-floating aerosol
cans. Do it with a rebel yell.
Buy only those mail-order items that arrive in oversized boxes
bulging with bubble-wrap, guaranteeing that however short-lived the
inside are, their packaging will survive through the next millennium.
Drink only from styrofoam cups. Put a
Burger King billboard on your front lawn. Buy a bunch of cars from the
junkyard and keep them as yard ornaments. Never drive them, but do not
register or insure them. Sue the city of Tacoma after they arrive to
lecture you about what you can and cannot own, start a class action
suit when they fine you. When it comes time to get your attorney,
import one from Philadelphia -- a loud chain-smoking ambulance chaser
who will stop at nothing to
win. Show him where all the TV news offices are. Enjoy.
Screw'em all - install a goddam oil derrick IN THE BACK YARD!
In fact, file one lawsuit against the government - any government --
once a week. Put your Philly mouthpiece on permanent commission. Put
the word "commie" in all your court filings AND on all your picket
Meanwhile, make all the home improvements you can think of without
ever seeking a permit from the city. It's your home, right? [extended
pause for various kinds of laughter -- defiant, ironic, bitter,
hysterical, moronic, and wry]
-- from your contraband third story balcony -- the sun set over the
all the lights burning bright, just killing the poor f___ing planet.
in the moment created for you by the genius and toil of all mankind,
their determination that you might have the leisure to enjoy a random
thought or a passionate moment long after the daylight hours have
ended. Thanks to them, Man has
conquered nature, at least for
now. Freedom to live as we choose for our own purposes.
the earth can rumble and shake, spit fire, topple towers, flood cities,
burn crops, blow down infrastructure and erode and rot away all of
structural achievements. Our ability to hold back the dark and the cold
and the ruthless natural forces of earth is transitory enough as it is
without a whole generation of malcontents crossing over to the
destructive side just because they're clueless and bored.
Enjoy the luxury of freedom while you can, and crush those
who would take it from you. Because they're coming. And that's not a
friendly glint in their eye.
were going to wait, but the presidential campaign is hotting up with so
much damn dumbery on both sides (see
that we elected to give you a preview of what the fall campaign
commercials are going to look like.The good news is, they're going to
be fun. The bad news is, they're going to be dumb. As rocks.
Which reminds us of the first Republican ad that will run after Labor
huh? [Use your full screen function.]
And, of course, Obama has three times as much money. So here are his
first three ads: One,
The XOFF News Team
Monday, July 14, 2008
What's Really Wrong
with the Left.
on all fours is the new superiority. And the snippet of Mozart's Requiem, btw, is not for Mr. Snow. It's for you who cheered his death.
. It's tiresome and I don't want to write about it at all,
but it still has to be said. The lefthand 30 percent of the political
spectrum in this country is emotionally and spiritually retarded.
They're the ones who celebrated
the death of Tony Snow in the Los
Angeles Times blog, they're the decision makers at the L.A.
Times who approved such barbaric comments for publication on that blog,
and they're the highly educated, meticulously responsible and objective
journalists who will ignore the implications of this kind of
disgraceful behavior by those who take loud credit for being the most
tolerant, civilized, progressive, humanitarian, and intelligent among
us. That adds up to a pretty sizeable percentage of the Obama idolaters
in our nation.
This isn't about presenting a brief for Tony Snow. I knew the man only
from his media appearances. That those who knew him personally regarded
him as a kind, decent, and generous man is all the evidence I need for
what I have to say, which has to do with the great liberal obsession
about the separation of church and state. When your politics becomes your religion, your only
definition of what is good and bad in the world, the separation you
prize so ostentatiously is rendered meaningless. Unless you are
prepared -- as all who encounter this philosophical cul de sac should,
if they were honest -- to separate your own politics from all decisions of
government. You are required to recuse yourself from participating in
political policy decisions because of
your political (i.e., religious) beliefs. You can't be trusted to participate in a
rational process because your whole relation to that process is as
irrational as the declarations of the most rabid cult member you've
ever disdained in the sphere of religion.
That's why you so thoroughly misunderstand the Constitution and regard
it as obsolete. The founders saw a necessary tension between the ideal
of divine law and the inevitably imperfect adminstration of a human
legal system. They counted on the former to discipline, chastise
and reform the latter when it it inevitably went astray. A good example
of such a divergence would be the conflation of rationally discrepant
policy positions with a justification for wishing death and extreme
physical suffering on mere political opponents. The founders relied on
religion as a leavening influence, a transcendent mitigator of
political fanaticism. The absence of this mitigating influence in
sadistic lefties is proof that you are dangerous incompetents on all
constitutional questions. You are American citizens by birth, but you
are unworthy of the privileges carved out for you by wiser men.
There's another larger point to be made here. One that explains what
many have regarded as an insoluble mystery. Why you are so quick to
side against your own nation
and with the funadmentalistic
fanatics of Islam who are quite open about their desire to enslave your
womenfolk, castrate and behead your gay mascots, and exterminate your
right to disbelieve in
anything divine forever. It's no mystery at all. You are two peas in a
pod. For you, politics is
religion. For muslims, religion is politics.
The concept of any separation between church and state is as much an
oxymoron for you as it is for them. That's the savage incomprehension
you share which overwhelms what should be a world-splitting schism
You are the same. Which is to say you've arrived at the same
annihilating perspective by entirely different means. The muslims of
Jew-hating jihad are historical prisoners of undeveloped consciousness.
You are history's greatest historical cowards of consciousness, the
ones who fearfully fled the responsibilities of individual conscience
for an easy -- and false -- collective rationality that defies the
logic of human nature and experience. You have chosen an anti-human
evil and draped it in the hypocritical lies of rhetorical altruism.
Well, here is your prize. The reductio ad absurdem of your
hateful humanism. Enjoy yourselves. It really is the truest incarnation
of your philosophies.
But don't be surprised if the most of us fail to accompany you on your
glorious new mission.
. Even Mrs. CP was taken in by this one, which is damn hard
to do. Mr. CP is too damn dumb to believe what he hears, which is the
only reason he didn't fall for it: But here's the gist:
Obama based his editorial
Iraq in large part on the assertion by Nouri al-Maliki [that he] wants
for American withdrawal. Unfortunately, as the BBC notes,
didn’t actually say that — although the fault really does not lie with
Obama. In fact, the Maliki government doesn’t want date-certain
withdrawal dates, and may not want a withdrawal at all [emphasis added.]
My my my. Could there ever be anything more awful than accepting an
American victory in Iraq? Hard to imagine, isn't it? Including the fact
that the real proof of victory is political game-playing by a
democratic politician who is willing to be (almost) as ruthlessly
dishonest as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid , and Chuck Schumer just to get
re-elected? Sickening. Those middle-eastern scumbags. Unless it's the
proof that western democracy has taken firm root in the world's most
virulent political cesspool.
I don't know about you, but I tend to view slyly dishonest Iraqi
politicians somewhat less pejoratively than Americans like Reid and
Pelosi. And I feel sorry for Obama. Since his learning curve about
foreign affairs is still obviously incredibly steep.
Of course, now I'm going to hear about it from Mrs. CP. The good news
is that she -- unlike Reid and Pelosi -- is actually smart..
. I didn't vote for George W. Bush when he ran the first time.
I didn't buy the whole "compassionate conservative" thing. He was about
"drugs for seniors," something about public education reform I still
don't get, immigration awfulness, no nation-building, nonpartisanship,
and not much else. He was never
a conservative. In the early days of his administration, he even
delivered the Saturday radio address in Spanish. (Yeah. I've deleted a
picture of me sticking a finger down my throat and yakking at the
thought of a U.S. president addressing us in Spanish.) For the record,
I thought Al Gore was even worse, and nothing that's happened since
convinces me that Gore is anything but a gay narcissist with too much
money and time on his hands. Like you, I thought that sleeping with
Laura Bush would be more tiresome than erotic (I've changed my mind about that, too), but at least George
wasn't a closeted, lisping phony. It's just that I thought GWB was our
second post-Cold War doofus president, part of our collective
dog-shaking-after-a-bath routine of obliviously spraying the world
with our un-concern after 50 years of protecting their ass from a
fate worse than death. I just didn't care to participate.
I wasn't any smarter about the threat of al qaeda than Bill Clinton.
Neither were you. Of course I
wanted us to smack bin Laden's ass after each and every terrorist act.
Especially after the attack on the U.S.S.
Cole. But no more than you or anyone else did I suspect that
ignoring bin Laden would lead to 9/11. I'm being honest here. Can you
But 9/11 happened. And our doofus president stepped up. He wasn't
Lincoln or Truman, meaning that he didn't take office knowing he
was looking down the barrel of a huge gun aimed at his forehead. He was
a nice guy who thought he'd be fine putting in his time as another
do-nothing placeholder president, which is actually the best we can
ever hope for. He drew on his Texas simple-mindedness, which was an
amazing attainment of character given his
Andover-Yale-Harvard education, and spent the next six years kicking
ass all over the world. Go figure.
Intellectuals suffer from a syndrome called "paralysis through
analysis." Not GWB. He understood the schoolyard rules. Hurt one of
mine and I'll go anywhere and do anything to bring the fight to you.
That's what he did. He was the perfect president to deal with a
lamebrain enemy who thought we weren't tough enough to stand up against
a fanatical foe. That's why we went to Iraq. You struck at our heart
and now we'll take out your biggest bully. See if you can stop us. Try to stop us, mother f____er.
WMDs? Irrelevant. Even if they really were there.
It was actually kind of a miracle. That at the precise moment we needed
a schoolyard mentality, we had one. What the liberals and progressives
can never forgive Bush, or history itself, is that despite all the U.N.
backing and filling and diplomacy-as-usual, Bush went into Iraq and al
qaeda responded to the challenge. They sent everything they had at our
cowboy president. AND WE KICKED THEIR ASS.
Into the middle of the next century.
Here's the plain truth for the downtrodden Republican Party. The much
bally-hooed "War on Terror," which was supposed to last for a
generation, has been won in
less than seven years. There remains a much greater threat -- western
surrender to muslim fanaticism in cultural affairs -- but even there GWB
has set a precedent that Americans will be yearning for less than a
year after he leaves office. The nation that deep-down knows its
citizens have the right to bear arms is not going to accept for long the
idea that people who want to kill us get to hire a dream team of
attorneys and vogue on bail all over Beverly Hills during their
consequence-free trial. They can shut down Guantanamo, but they can't
erase it from people's memories. When the shit hits the fan again, as
it probably will when every terrorist can be an O.J. Simpson, people
will know that there is an alternative.
All the current "legacy"
talk on the cable news channels is a joke. It's a Clinton leftover. The
MSM spent a year pondering Bill's legacy because he was the late
twentieth century version of Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, and
Millard Fillmore. They were trying, unsuccessfully, to answer the
question, "Why have we spent so much time lionizing and defending a man
who did almost nothing during his eight years in office?"
of George W. Bush is already secure. It doesn't need a tidal wave of PR
spin. Sometime after he goes home -- whether Obama or McCain is elected
-- the American people will begin to miss him. Like Lincoln, he has
his "one thing" that will endear him to the ages. He did not go gentle
into that good night. He roared back at a world that thought the U.S.
was like France in 1940, a lamb ripe for the slaughter. And while his
enemies at home mocked and
derided him, even the Old World remade itself in his image. France,
Germany, Italy, and Canada all rejected anti-American governments in
"reactionaries" who remember how much the western "free" world owes to
the United States.
Al qaeda in Iraq is a dead
man. Bin Laden, dead
or alive, is an
irrelevancy on the world stage, reviled by even his closest allies.
Iran is so nervous about American "cowboy" foreign policy that it's
trying to conduct international negotiations via Photoshop.
But the Republican Party is embarrassed and ashamed of the president
who made all this happen:
Convention Planners Want Bush Out of the Picture
Give the president a first-night speech, and then get him out of town
before McCain arrives
Sen. John McCain's plans are gradually unfolding for the Republican
National Convention in September as he tries to walk a tightrope
between conflicting demands.
First is the question of how to give President Bush a forum as the
party's two-time nominee but at the same time keep McCain at a distance
from the unpopular incumbent. The answer, according to McCain aides,
will be to have Bush give a speech on the first night of the
convention—a Monday—and let him have the moment to himself. McCain
isn't scheduled to arrive in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the convention site,
until Tuesday at the earliest, after Bush leaves, which means that, at
this point, the two men won't be seen with each other that week.
Other tentative plans call for allowing McCain's major rivals for the
GOP nomination this year—Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and
Fred Thompson—to speak at the convention. All have now endorsed McCain.
This would allow each to have a bit of the limelight and at the same
time show that the party is unified.
Who are these guys? No wonder the party faithful are pissed off. Our
dunderhead president turned out to be a great president. And even I, who
didn't like the platform he was elected on in 2000, have to admit that
he did exactly what he said he would do. I didn't vote for him then. So
why all the buyer's remorse from those who did?
McCain can be as scornful of GWB as he likes. Obama can be as hateful
as he likes. But George W. Bush was more of a man than either of them has yet
he can be. And don't ever ever
tell me he hasn't paid the highest possible price for the FDNY badge he
still carries in his pocket. Here's what we do to our wartime
presidents. In just four
years. In case you haven't figuured it out yet, the Republicans are a
shameful, disgusting disgrace.
No caption needed. 1860 to 1865.
Take a look up top. Now tell me that all the Bush haters know what he's
been through. When they do, I have a message for them. It begins with
'F' and ends with 'U.'
Happy Birthday, Mr. President. I really really hope the whole country isn't
demanding your return in another 365 days. But I fear they might.
Oh. And McCain? Grow the hell up. Display your sense of "honor" by
acknowledging your debt to a president you'd be incredibly lucky to
equal in terms of courage and tenacity.
. Living in New Jersey isn't bad enough. On top of that you get
your TV news from Philadelphia. Most of you outlanders probably don't
know what a sordid
sleazy soap opera that's become. Here's what we're getting
these days in the City of Brotherly Love:
DeMentri in hot seat over
By Michael Klein Inquirer Staff Writer
In another apparent feud between Philadelphia news anchors, NBC10 is
investigating Vince DeMentri in an incident involving Lori Delgado...
NBC questioned DeMentri, 44 and a five-year NBC10 employee, on July 3
about the removal of property from the newsroom and vandalism of a car
in the station's parking lot in Bala Cynwyd, Leshinski said.
A station source who spoke on the condition of anonymity identified
Delgado as the owner of the car, which was scratched by a key. The
property, believed to be a handbag and blow dryer, was found elsewhere
in the station. Delgado declined to comment yesterday in a phone call...
The NBC10 incident came to light almost six weeks after the FBI raided
the home of then-CBS3 anchor Larry Mendte and seized his computer to
investigate whether he read the e-mails of onetime colleague Alycia
Lane and fed gossip to reporters. The investigation continues, and
Mendte's lawyer this week reiterated that Mendte was cooperating.
DeMentri, known as an aggressive reporter, was suspended in 2006 after
a newsroom confrontation with colleague Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz, who
had chided DeMentri on the air for wading into floodwaters during a
While at WCBS in New York in the days after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, DeMentri was detained and given a misdemeanor summons for wearing
a hat issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which
gained him access to an area off-limits to reporters. He apologized.
I once lived in Dayton, Ohio, where the weatherman was always right
and the Big Story of the day was yet another one-car accident on Route
70. The next story was usually about a sale on snowblowers. Ah, Dayton.
It rings a deep Philadelphia bell. But you'll have to do some work to
make it ring for you...
What's really disturbing is that most people in Philadelphia aren't
what you'd call good looking. In fact, being beautiful in Philadelphia
can get you into a whole heap of trouble. Sad but true. This whole
NBC10 grungefest got started with an anchor named Alycia Lane whose
appearance pinned the needle on the looks meter of local Philly news
She never did seem at home in the city of cheese steaks and the Wing
Bowl. And apparently she wasn't. Pathetically, Alycia's become a
kickball for the disgusting creeps at TMZ.com. Yeah,
we know she probably deserved to lose her job for her freakout in NYC.
But the comet tail of follow-on garbage seems excessive. Who wants to
hear about Larry
Mendte digging through her emails or the ancillary crimes uncovered
by FBI clerks sniffing in her wake? But that's how things things go in
a city where absolutely everybody
hates everybody else for every reason under the sun.
No wonder the only person worth admiring in Philadelphia history since
Benjamin Franklin is Mike Schmidt
Don't know who he is? Well, then, shame on you, too. The greatest third
baseman in the history of baseball. Alycia would probably have gone
after him, maybe even stalked him, but he's as upright as Aeneas. He still doesn't know what a
superstar he was. (Dayton.) Maybe she'll find someone worth hooking up
with at Channel in Butte, Montana. Can't say the
same for Larry Mendte or Vince Dementri. Wherever they go, they'll
never find redemption unless they take Howard
Eskin with them.