11
Sep
Kathy Griffin won an Emmy for making people laugh. Well some people anyway, I don’t have a clue who she is. However, she felt compelled to undo that laughter with her acceptance speech:
Yet another shooting star who feels compelled to use the limelight of their industry’s honoring them to push their own personal political rhetoric. My guess is she’s going to get a lot of flack over this. And she should. This was no place for politics, period. We reward these people for entertaining us. If we wanted their politics, they should be running for office. But they don’t, and they won’t, they don’t have the guts to put their butts on the line where it only really matters. And, they know that unlike the media driven industry they dwell in, the average person doesn’t have to accept their BS and they would never get elected with opinions like that. She may get a seat on The View, but she’ll never be in a position to push the rhetoric in any realistic way. Stupid move, Kathy. Very, very stupid.
Fred Thompson was speaking in Sioux City, Iowa. When asked about progress in Iraq, he gave an answer that sort of baffled not only some people in the audience, but apparently a good part of main stream media. To wit:
Warner Todd Huston takes the New York Times to task for putting their ignorance in print, I just fully expect it. However, something very odd occurred when I read Fred’s comments. I got it. I got what he was saying immediately. It didn’t sound like poli-speak. It didn’t sound like Hillary, Rudy, Edwards, or any of the rest. The reason it didnt’ sound like any of the rest is because they have been doing what candidates usually do. Look at any of their positions, it can be summed up with “it’s failing”, “it was a lie”, “it will never work”, “it’s succeding”, etc.. Not one has really made any very specific INFORMED references to “progress in Iraq”. You know what they are going to say before they say it. The only question is how much they are going to dumb it down with rhetoric. Fred simply cited a very specific incident that illustrates why it MIGHT be working. He didn’t dumb anything down, he didn’t pour rhetoric all over it, he didn’t drag outside political philosophies into it. He just simply cited an example of what he saw happening. I like that. That is refreshing to me. And moreover, I got it. When we invaded Iraq, we were liberators. We had the majority of Iraqis hearts and minds on our side. However, realizing the vacuum was a dangerous thing, we were forced to stay and fill that vacuum. In doing that, I think we temporarily lost the hearts and minds of some Iraqis and that allowed the insurgents to get a foothold in some parts of Iraq. When we have the hearts and minds of all Iraqis on our side, there will be no safe havens for the terrorists. The insurgency will go where they think they can succede. Winning the hearts and minds of those Iraqis is a lot simpler than it sounds. If they want to smoke, give them a cigarette. Let them know what freedom truly is.
I’ll be keeping a lot closer eye on Fred now that I am exposed to some of his philosophy.
No thanks to any main stream media for getting it right tho.
Whoopi Goldberg replaced Rosie Odonnell on The View. Rosie being gone is a good thing because Rosie seemed to rely on rhetoric, stupidity, and generalizations as a basis for most of “the views”. However, Whoopi’s been known to drop some stupid bombs of her own in the past. Apparently not much has changed by replacing Rosie with Whoopi as Whoopi dropped this stupid bomb yesterday:
“from where he comes from” in the South, dogfighting isn’t that unusual.
OK, for starters, dogfighting is NOT that common here. I’ve never been to one, I’ve never even heard of one. There was some cockfighting going on when I was younger, but that sort of lost it’s glamour about twenty years ago around here. Now, it probably still happens, but it’s rogue idiots doing it, not anything organized or anything. And, if caught, they will go to prison and that’s the end of it. In simple terms, it’s as condoned here as whereever Whoopi lives now. Dogfighting’s the same. It may happen here, but it’s probably more likely to happen in Los Angeles than here. Simple math makes it so, there’s more people in Los Angeles than a lot of the South combined.
Some simple facts here for Rosie Whoopi:
-
Some states have various aspects of dogfighting that are not prosecuted as felonies. Those are:
-
Sponsoring a dogfight: Idaho and Wyoming
-
Possessing fighting dogs: Georgia, Idaho, Nevada, New York, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming
-
Being a spectator: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
-
OK, the facts.
-
As far as sponsoring a fight, 100% of the non-felony states are NOT “where he comes from”.
-
As far as possessing fighting dogs, 71% of the non-felony states are NOT “where he comes from”.
-
As far as being a spectator, 80% of the non-felony states are NOT “where he came from”.
So, her generalization that it’s not that unusual “where he came from” is not in the least bit by existing laws. Now, laws might not reflect prevelance, but it does reflect public sentiment most usually. Especially in regards to social norms.
If Whoopi needs more evidence it’s not a “where he’s from” exclusive activity, here’s a headline from a couple of weeks ago with some pretty impressive numbers:
78, read seventy-eight, people busted in one sting. That wasn’t Georgia, that was San Francisco, California. That’s not where Vick’s from, that’s a lot closer to where Whoopi’s from.
She’s relying on stereotypes and rhetoric. That’s the same crap Rosie did. Try researching an issue before spewing it on public television. This garbage is what has kept the United States divided, not the political candidates. And, by pointing the finger in one direction only, it allows the places that still do condone this activity to some degree to continue doing so since there’s no public heat to do anything about it. Apparently one of those places is Whoopi’s back yard.
Barbara, you could have done so much better than this. Whoopi is apparently very stupid too. It’s gotten so consistent of late it’s starting to make me think this is the company Barbara chooses to associate with. One thing that is common down here is the phrase “birds of a feather”. Know-what-mean, Barbara?
I pretty much figured this would happen a lot sooner than I did find it. Jeff Fecke at Shakesville ponders:
That was the setup, a writer responds with:
…I can understand a certain amount of glee that yet another Republican has been caught out on his hypocrisy. But I think the incident, as described in MB’s post, is entrapment and pretty ridiculous, considering that nothing sexual happened. And yes, it’s blatantly homophobic.
I don’t really consider this a homophobic issue in the least. If he had been busted soliciting a female prostitute for public sex I’d have the same opinion. US Senators and Cognressman merit a different level of legal scrutiny in my opinion because these are the people that make the laws we all have to live by. If they have no respect for those laws, why should anyone else? And, I see the inverse happening as well, if people have no respect for those laws, why should a Senator? My guess is Craig is waiting this out right now to see if it just blows over as so many other indescretions have. If the media fight turns into a homophobe issue as opposed to a Craig-breaking-the-law issue, he will have won and proven my point. A lot of people are also curious as to why there was even a cop in the bathroom in the first place. According to another answer there, and the one I expected, was apparently this was a problem in that particular bathroom. Now, I’m all for individual rights and stuff, but I have a four year old boy. Do I need to say more? All I ask, whether straight or gay, or even if you’ve got a thing doing it yourself, is keep it where it’s appropriate. That’s all. Public restrooms mean all kinds of people will be there. That includes kids.
Bottom line, this ain’t a homophobe issue. It’s an issue of stupidity and disrespect for anyone else who might have wondered in there. That’s the very last qualities I think Idaho expects from their Senator.
NOTES:
- Shakesville seems to be a good read. I like Fecke’s style. He seems to do as I do and look at things from more than one angle at the same time. My article here implies Fecke might be making the case for the homophobe card, he’s not. Not at all. But, he acknowledges those issues could be raised. And, that is a very valid point. )
- H/T James Joyner again. I’m sure that makes his day.
I’m not going to try to interpret James’s post, just read it.
82 minutes.
Lindsay Lohan copped a plea for seven misdemeanor charges and got ten days. She was busted stoned out of her gourd and carrying drugs while harassing another driver. She gets ten days.
Paris Hilton got busted for wrecking a car and got forty-five days. She only had to serve 23 of course. However, that is more than double the time Nicole AND Lindsay have to serve COMBINED.
Where was Rocky Delgadillo this time?
Where are all the media saying these two need to taught a lesson?
Something ain’t right in California.
12
Aug
Seems the federal budget deficit dropped. Again. Seems all of a sudden hardly anyone really seems to care. Wasn’t that an issue last fall? Didn’t people totally ignore the numbers of a shrinking deficit and decide to buy the rhetoric that the budget was out of control? Why did they do that? Now, what’s getting ready to happen is this same speaker who ignored the shrinking deficit and sold a lot of people on the fact that it was not doing what it actually was doing is wanting to repeal most of the things that seemed to kick-start this process. She’s wanting to repeal tax incentives and increase taxes, along with spending for specific social programs. Will this undo the progress on the single issue that has dominated economic debate for the last decade? I dunno, I’m not an economist. What I do know is what is being done now seems to have diverted an economic melt-down started in 1999 and gotten things going in the direction these economists were saying we needed to be going in. What I don’t see is these same economists shouting with the same venom that messing with what’s working is a bad thing. What I also don’t see is this mentioned hardly anywhere in the media.
Wonder why that is?
Don Henley summed up the media industry perfectly a long time ago with Dirty Laundry
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry
Case in point, Friday the Dow lost 281 points. It was all over the media. No one was exempt. Even Fox did several articles on why, blaming everything from the secondary loan market to the housing slump to politics. Today something happened I didn’t know about until I saw it mentioned on Newsbusters. The Dow was UP 287 points today. No one was commenting on why. Sure, it was mentioned by several people, but that’s basically it. There were no in-depth stories of WHY the market was rocketing on Monday. As Brent Baker points out, media was almost reluctant to mention it. I think it’s a Don Henley effect. People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry. No one really cares when you win. Those people, in my opinion, are ONLY media though. I’d like to see one try the opposite of what all the rest are doing and stress the positives and see how that translates in the ratings. My guess is it would do a lot better than anyone thinks.
There has been a lot of finger pointing and flat out lies already flying off tv and the blog world regarding the collapse of the I35 bridge. I have read several articles that blamed everyone from Bush for having troops in Iraq to Republicans not funding infrastructure properly since 1990. ( Best I recall, the Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress during a huge chunk of the 90′s. )
I find all this kind of bizarro rhetoric because of one simple issue that is being completely 0mitted from these discussions.
Wasn’t one of the bridges closed for repairs?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it was.
So, it it was closed for repairs, doesn’t that sort of make the finger pointing mute at THIS point in time? Since it was first identified as at risk, in 1990, it seems just about everyone from the governors of Minnesota to the Congressmen and Senators representing Minnesota can carry some of the blame. But to say we didn’t have the resources to repair it, when it was being repaired, just sounds kind of shallow to me. Someone needs to inform Katie Couric, among other obvious ones, that she’s sounding kind of stupid right now.
Nancy Pelosi had this to say about the $22 billion difference between Congress and the White House budgets:
I’m still waiting for CBS and the rest to lambast her for her obvious fiscal irresponsibility. I guess they’ll just disagree with me and insist she’s right. What’s a few billion dollars anyway? Bottom line, it’s the Republicans that have been trying to reign in spending over the last few years, certainly not the Democrats. The whole time all we’ve heard is how fiscally irresponsible they were for trying. Now that the very traditional Democrat modus operendi of tax and spend with impunity is already out of the bag, not one MSNBC, CBS, or CNN reporter is saying one word about it. Where’s Rosie? Where’s Charlie Sheen? The Democrats are calling the shots now, they’re spending more, spending more on pork, trying to hide it from the public, we’re still in Iraq with absolutely no change at all, loosenign ethics regulations, and now consider $22 billion “very little”. For all those people that condemned Republicans just for the sake of change, what have you gotten? Until people start truly looking at what is going on and not just buying unsubstantiated rhetoric, nothing is going to change. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have sold out to the exact same culture of corruption that they conned a lot of people into believing was exclusively one party only. They did it a long, long, time ago. Rather than fact checking their claims over the last couple of years, a lot of people jsut jumped on the bandwagon and blindly bought their rhetoric. This is what they bought. And you know what, it’s gonna get a lot worse real fast until those media outlets that have chosen to give Nancy and Harry a pass on anything they do start calling them on it. When the economy starts going downhill and it affects the average person, that’s when they start thinking about who they’re voting for. When their taxes go up and they lose their jobs, that’s when they really get mad. It never dawns on most of the voting public that they can keep that from happening in the first place by simply staying informed on issues very passively by simply reading the source of issues instead of MSNC or Rosie O’Donnell. If they had, the thought of having Nancy Pelosi in charge would have scared them into voting for anything that would have kept that from happening. Instead, they listened to the Rosies and this is what we have. Think I’m over-stating things? Try this:
…….A key gauge measuring home builders’ confidence fell to a 16-year low in July, and building permits for single-family homes fell further in June.
On Tuesday, Countrywide Financial Corp., the nation’s largest mortgage lender, reported a 33% drop in quarterly profits, as delinquencies rose and mortgage originations fell. The company’s chief executive said he didn’t see the likelihood of a turnaround in the housing market until 2009.
That folks, is a major leading economic indicator. Things are getting ready to get nasty, again. So, what else is in the news?
Flat growth, rising unemployment, declining housing market, and a whole host of other economic warning signals are being sent all over the place. Now, I think there’s a reason for all this. Nancy and Harry are hell-bent on killing Bush’s “welfare for the rich” tax incentives that were sooooo incredibly fiscally irresponsible. The corporate effect I’ve seen is rather than risking windfall profit taxes, a lot of people are simply choosing to let their investments ride. When someone chooses to put money in an IRA instead of speculating on a house, no one is employed to build that house. It’s a very simple concept. Financial reward comes from risk. If there’s no reward, why risk it? If Nancy and Harry remove the reward by raising taxes specifically on those who can take the risk, then no one else is going to be able to take that risk. So, cause and effect, capital investments go down, housing sales go down, employment goes down, unemployment goes up. That is the logic you get with someone who considers $20 billion “very little”. It’s just obvious she doesn’t have a clue. You may have not liked Bush’s pretzel fiscal logic sometimes, but he had the basic clue. Put money in the market and the market responds. It’s a very simple concept. However, it’s one that Nancy and Harry can’t seem to grasp apparently. Since they can’t, I’ll clue them in. The more they talk about taxing the rich and dragging their feet on the tax incentives due to expire, the worse the economy is going to get. It’s that simple. I doubt you read that here first. But, I bet you had to look real hard to read it.
Mark Levin over at The Corner on NRO had this comment:
Now, being as this is the first time I’ve ever seen a need to actually quote National Review here, I thought it must be pretty clever. Biased, sure, but clever. However, Dr. Steven Taylor over at Poliblog apparently differs in his opinion, labeling it:
By Dr. Steven Taylor
One of his readers backs him up by pointing out they HAVE raised minimum wage. I just gotta wonder WHY Dr. Taylor considers this the dumbest quote of the day? All he does is give a lead to The Daily Dish, which labels it:
Malkin Award Nominee
One post makes an observation. The combined text between the two posts responding to it is a total of zero words. You know how dumb a post with zero words sounds to me?
OK, so to tackle the question pondered, which seems to draw scorn but no ability to reciprocate, the Democrat Congress HAS raised minimum wage, and HAVE decided to allow the tax incentives to expire, and HAS funded the Iraqi war they say they oppose. So, the net effect is they have raised your taxes, given you nothing since most states had higher minimum wages anyway, and sent billions more dollars to Iraq.
There ya go Mark, Steven, and Andrew Sullivan. I really haven’t kept up with the Iraqi governmen, but I know OUR Democrat Congress has done all kinds of stuff. And if they keep at it, every Iraqi citizen will have free health care and higher standard of living than the US.
