Month: January 2005

Sure, we’re foxes, but we’re objective foxes…

One (of many) problems with the “Whitewash Report” about Rathergate is its reluctance to note the effect of political motivations on CBS “News” reporting of the events surrounding Rathergate. John Hinderaker takes note of that here. And excerpt:

For some years now, the party line of the mainstream media has been: of course we’re pretty much all Democrats, but that doesn’t influence our news coverage. If nothing else, Rathergate should put that defense to rest once and for all.

“…should put that defense to rest,” sure. But denial ain’t just a river in Egypt…

Democratic Voter, Washinton State. ‘Nuff said. 

Blatherized… again

Posting is going to be light. I’m in low-grade mourning… for our society. The CBS report on Rathergate’s been issued, and Dan Blather’s not yet been tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered, the pieces “processed” (and the “processed Dan” cleaned up by the EPA) through the intestines of swine (Les Moonves and News Director Andrew Heywood spring to mind for this role), the pigs slaughtered and their now-contaminated parts incinerated…

There is no justice.

Oh. Well. At least he’s “…read the report…” and “…take[s] it seriously…”

Sure he has. And sure he does.

And his pants are still on fire from his lies.

Give ’em Choice II

Let’s see if advocates of so-called “choice” (referring to a woman’s so-called right to choose to kill her baby or not) are serious about a person being free to choose. Offer this alternative: have every woman who wants to kill her unborn child sign a statement to that effect, and then give the child a choice, say eighteen or nineteen years later, whether he wants to “abort” mom.

Fair enough?

Of course, that would mean letting the child survive the “mother’s” plot to murder it…

Yeh, this idea has a few kinks, but just let it be your lil thought experiment for a day…

Choice? Yeh, give ’em “choice”

Moxie reveals her “1 in 10” and “10 i n 10” outcomes of “Libzilla Parenting.” (N.B. “Libzilla”=monstrous liberal. Obviously.) She ends with this point to ponder:

“Maybe I really am pro-choice. Isn’t it better these kids be aborted than subjected to the lifestyle of the Libzilla parent?”

My only quibble with her observations is that she adopts the corruption of “choice” fostered by baby-murderers who deny the unborn child any choice.

“Will no-one rid me of th[ese] troublesome [High Priest Vulture Elite] priest[s]?*

An American diplomat, posting anonymously as “Diplomad” from the part of the world most affected by the recent tsunami, rants about the UNhelpful, UNtruthful, UNethical, UNscrupulous UN “presence”. WARNING: he speaks his mind clearly, forthrightly and with considerable venom. (And for this reason, he posts anonymously, for did he not, he’d be out on his ear before his post hit the fan, as it were… )

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/01/turd-world-and-high-priest-vulture.html

About time the UN was served an eviction notice and told to leave our shores, cos we need the space (and our tax dollars) for better things.

*a deliberate corruption of Henry II’s outburst that led to four knights interpreting the king’s will as “Kill Becket.” Hmmm… seems like we not only need a Henry II but a few doughty knights, as well if we are to deal with the High Priest Vulture Elite of the UN.

Waiting on Godot? “Godot ain’t here, man.”

M. Night Shyamalan’s movies… what can I say? Here are the movies I’ve seen by M. Night Shyamalan:

Signs (2002) Read much sci-fi? If you’ve read as much sci-fi/speculative fiction as I have, then this was likely as boring and predictable for you as it was for me. Not to mention the fact that it was full of really lame schticks, a severely flawed premise, etc. One of the absolutely dumbest movies I have ever seen. It even failed to be a camp “B” movie, because of its technical production values and attempt to be “serious”. Just a plain, flat stupid movie. Completely wasted $$ seeing it in a theater. But I should have known better, because…

Unbreakable (2000) was almost as bad. [sigh]. Fortunately, I saw (a blessedly short part of) this on TV and was able to simply CLICK to something less mind-numbingly dumb. Heck, Chris Matthews would have qualified on that score!

Stuart Little (1999) OK, what can you do with a children’s book based on a wildly stupid premise? This was cute [“cute”—shudder!]. OK, I’m cheating to include this one, too. I just couldn’t stand to watch the whole thing, no matter what the rest of the family wanted to do. Bo-ring.

The Sixth Sense (1999) Was anyone shocked to discover that the Bruce Willis character was one of the “dead people” the kid saw? You were?!?!? Rode the short bus to school, eh?

I think there were a couple more I “missed” (but only because I couldn’t hit them).

Now, can anyone give me one reason why I should spend $3.21 (counting taxes) at the local video store to rent The Village? Or even watch it on TV? It’ll have another totally lame “surprise” that fits the M. Night Shyamalan movie formula. A cretin will be able to figure the premise and the surprise out before the first 10 minutes of the film have passed, and any person of average inteligence will be bored to tears within 30 minutes. The characters will be caricatures of stick-figure cartoons drawn by mentally-deficient troglodytes. The film itself will have the typical M. Night Shyamalan bleakness and be devoid of anything enlightening or uplifting.

If I want to experience something comparable, I guess I could stick my head in a dirty truckstop toilet for about 90 minutes.

Or watch Chris Matthews for 15 minutes (or Dan Blather for 5).

Thanks, but I’ll pass.

I had to steal someone else’s resolution this year, cos I’m already perfect, ya know. Well, apart from that “theft” thing… [heh]

Someone came up with a New Year’s resolution I think I can keep.
Can’t credit it, cos I recieved it in email from someone who
doesn’t know where it came from…

================================================================

The Doctor told me I should start an exercise program.

Not wanting to harm this old body, I’ve “resolved” to do the following:

Monday
Beat around the bush
Jump to conclusions
Climb the walls
Wade through the morning mail

Tuesday
Drag my heels
Push my luck
Make mountains out of mole hills
Hit the nail on the head

Wednesday
Bend over backwards
Jump on the Band Wagon
Run around in circles

Thursday
Advise the President on how to run the country
Toot my own horn
Pull out all the stops
Add fuel to the fire

Friday
Open a can of worms
Put my foot in my mouth
Start the ball rolling
Go over the edge

Saturday
Pick up the pieces!!

Sunday
Kneel in prayer
Bow my head in thanksgiving
Uplift my hands in praise
Hug someone and encourage them.

(Stupid reporter skipped school)

This is one of those good news-bad news kinds of things. Wonderful news: 10-year-old Tilly Smith was paying attention in class when a teacher who apparently knew his subject matter was going over a geography lesson.

PHUKET, Thailand – Quick-thinking 10-year-old Tilly Smith is being hailed as a hero after saving her parents and dozens of fellow vacationers from the deadly tsunami – thanks to a school geography lesson.

Tilly warned the doubting adults at a resort that a massive tidal wave was about to strike – just minutes before the deadly tide rushed in and turned the resort into rubble. Tilly’s family, from Surrey, England, was enjoying a day at Maikhao Beach last Sunday when the sea rushed out and began to bubble.

The adults were curious, but Tilly froze in horror.

“Mummy, we must get off the beach now!” she told her mother. “I think there’s going to be a tsunami.”

The adults didn’t understand until Tilly added the magic words: “A tidal wave.”

Saved the lives of dozens of people. Good on you, Tilly.

Now, two strikes against modern education.

1.) The adults had no idea what she was talking about until she told them in simpler terms. Dummies.

2.) Later in the story, the sub-literate reporter (Duncan Larcombe) slipped this past a sub-literate editor at the New York Post:

“Her warning spread like wildfire. Within seconds, the beach was deserted — and it turned out to be one of the only places along the shores of Phuket where no one was killed or seriously injured.”

“…one of the only…”???? [emphasis added] The cretins at the New York Post apparently don’t know the meaning of the word “only”: without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively. If this place were (notice the subjunctive mood) exclusively the place “along the shores of Phuket where no one was killed or seriously injured” it could not have been “one of the… places.” Only means the single one. No other.

So, a little child who pays attention in class and learns a life-saving lesson—one that saves the lives of many who apprently were too stupid to learn the same lesson when they were snozzing through geography lessons.

Maybe they’ll pay attention in the future. Nah. They’ll rely on having Tilly (and the few like her) to do their thinking for them.

Sad, though, that a reporter (and his editors), whose business is wordsmithing, are too stupid or lazy to learn their craft.

(Oh, ht to On the Third Hand)

Missed again!

My fav from this post at Caption This! is the one that reads:

“Leo would later regret teaching his dog the deadly art of Precision Dive-Crapping.”

The picture says it all…