It’s hard to know who to trust anymore when it comes to film criticism.
This weekend Dazed and Confused was being shown on the TV so after a quick Google of reviews (all very positive) I bothered to watch it.
It wasn’t so much “crap” as utterly pointless—which is ironically fitting I suppose but when it comes to wasting my own time watching film-makers and actors wasting their time along with mine, I prefer it to be a spontaneous act of lethargy on my part rather than being due to professional persuasion.
I’ve been burned too many times before; the Unbearable Lightness of Being was recommended by Siskel and Ebert basically because at a couple of points legitimate European actresses got naked and simulated horniness wearing floppy couture hats. X-Men II added a second dimension to its characters, Star Wars 27—Revenge of The Lack of Pith was “dark” and explained everything no-one cared about and pretty much already knew.
I realize that the province of critiquing movie dross really belongs to World O’ Crap (MST3K having been long gone) but Scott can’t be everywhere at once and he has a lot of catching up to do, so where might one turn for honest advice and informed opinion on upcoming soon-to-be-released gobs of digitally enhanced celluloid magic?
Why FOX of course!
It happens that Father Jonathan Morris (Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch’s roving religious reporter) is also a movie critic!.
You may have read his resounding and non-partisan approval of “The Passion of The Christ” and it’s uplifting message that the torture and death of a single cult figure that was the fault of a handful of Jews is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago when tens of thousands of Jesus’s devout believers, incapable of overpowering a couple of dozen roman soldiers to crowbar him off a cross simply wandered by and told him to “hang in there.”
T
he subject of Father Morris’s latest critique (he’s not a biological father—at least as far as he knows, being a Catholic priest and all) is Mel Gibson’s new film Apocalypto.
“Never before had I made an intercontinental flight to see a movie. But that's what I did this month when I accepted Mel Gibson's invitation to preview and critique his new film “Apocalypto,” (scheduled to appear in theaters on December 8th) says this pastor of pop-culture.
“I didn't make the trek across the ocean for entertainment value. My work as a consultant on and off the set of Gibson's “Passion of the Christ,” gave me a new appreciation of the power of well-made, serious, and widely-distributed movies. They influence culture. They affect the way we think about the story they tell. Sometimes they warp our view of history or of humanity. Other times they inform, inspire, and challenge. But they always leave a mark.”
Hey, if anyone knows anything about affecting the way people think, the warping of history and humanity and leaving some kind of mark—who better than a Catholic priest?
“That's why I cared to see Gibson's first post-“Passion” production” he goes on (presumably caring more about the product of genius than the all-expenses paid trip that would let him see it). “Yes, movies matter — some more than others. Viewers of the “Passion” know what I mean. Picture for just a second, if you would, Jesus Christ crucified. Remember his face, his bloody face. Look into his eyes, the forgiving and loving ones. What you see is a different image of Jesus. That there is the power of a well-made film! Because I know Mel, his noble intentions and his creative genius, I was eager, though somewhat unconvinced, to see how much his new film would matter.
Mel has done it again! His film matters. That's my critique of “Apocalypto.”
Well, there you go! No ifs, buts, metaphors or subtexts! There’s nothing more Christian than three hours of widescreen bloody sacrifice! But wait, could Apocalypto be more subtle than that?
“Don't get me wrong. This is no sequel to “The Passion of the Christ” writes the Catholic critic, apparently because “Mel just didn't have it in him.”
And I can quite understand that because first of all the sequel to the Passion Of Christ would involve about half an hour of Jesus being taken down from the cross some wailing and gnashing, cave closed, rock rolled away, ascending into heaven and then what? Two hours of clouds and angels and Morgan Freeman in a white suit washing the floors and pretending to be all wise and whatever? Nu-uhh! That would be blasphemous!
“Some of his fervent fans will be disappointed if they were hoping for another religious epic. He doesn't see himself as a prophet, a spiritual director, or a religious role model” opines our dog-collared dogmatist.
Not because most of Mel’s most fervent fans have his occasional buttock shots saved on a continuous loop for posterity (as it were), but because his most fervent fans admire almost everything in his filmography—as a self destructive vengeful psychotic with a death wish in the Mad Max series of films, or as a self destructive vengeful psychotic with a death wish in the Lethal Weapon movies, or as a vengeful psychotic in Hamlet and Braveheart and The Patriot; but not so much as the guilt ridden victim of science in Forever Young or the burn victim in The Man Without a Face, but still—good looking, great buns and mostly vengeful psychotic victim of something or other, so what’s not to love and forgive?
“But he knows how to make movies, and he has been making good and responsible ones for a very long time” continues Christ’s critic, coyly failing to highlight the family values and respect for authority so rvident in the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series—not to mention the success of the very entertaining but utterly pagan Braveheart that bankrolled the Passion of Christ. No indeed, no lucre is filthy once it is put to God’s work!
But enough of the past, what of the immediate future—namely the just in time for Christmas release of Apocalypto?
“Of all of his past films, this one most resembles Braveheart. The only difference is that it takes place in an ancient Mayan jungle, (instead of the Scottish jungle ?) is spoken in the ancient Mayan language (instead of a modern Scottish brogue), and is represented by a bunch of unknown actors who, for the most part, had never acted before” (so I guess it’s like Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, but with Scotsmen playing pre-Christian Middle-Americans).
“Oh yeah” adds our groovy faith-based film-ologist, ”and the story is not about Scotland's fight for independence from the Brits” (because that was called Braveheart and he died in the end and this is called Apocalypto), “but rather the fight for personal and spiritual independence of a hero who risks his life to free himself from an opulent, but now decaying pre-European Mayan culture.” (a hero who frees himself but no-one else?)
Despite his overall praise Father Morris does find some room for actual criticism:
“Warning: count on a few typical Gibsonian scenes that my sensitivities could have done without (one in particular was unnecessarily vulgar). I suggest you watch it alone before you take your kids.”
I can only assume he is referring to unnecessary buttock-action and whatnot of a heathen sexual implication instead of scenes of bloody torture.
So, though Father Jonathan Morris raves “Mel’s Done It Again!” I frankly still don’t know what the heaven this movie is about or why I should watch it—other than he says I should. As I said at the beginning of this piece I’ve been burned by film critics before so why should I listen to Father Morris? Because he speaks for God, and you know God is an infallible critic-- just read the Old Testament!
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Planet Bush
From CNBC
HOST: "I’m curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?"
BUSH: "Occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps. It’s very interesting to see — I’ve forgot the name of the program — but you get the satellite, and you can — like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes."
ITS CALLED EARTH YOU IDIOT! IT'S WHERE THE REST OF US LIVE!
HOST: "I’m curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?"
BUSH: "Occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps. It’s very interesting to see — I’ve forgot the name of the program — but you get the satellite, and you can — like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes."
ITS CALLED EARTH YOU IDIOT! IT'S WHERE THE REST OF US LIVE!
Friday, October 20, 2006
Nobody Expects ANOTHER Spanish Inquisition!
The State Department’s chief legal adviser, John Bellinger, (or Cardinal Biggles, as he’s known to his captives) is telling foreign governments that instead of them whining about how the Guantanamo Bay detention center should be closed down, they should all accept custody of the remaining 400-plus detainees so that ...umm…Gitmo can be closed down?
"No one's comfortable with the situation in Guantanamo," he said (presumably alluding to the lack of comfy chairs). "But if we really want to reduce the numbers to send people back, progress cannot be made by just simply saying Guantanamo should be closed. We have to have practical suggestions, practical ways to move forward."
Some suggestions have been put forward such as forcing the detainees to renounce terrorism and become a Viking choir with a limited Spam-based repertoire or turning Camp X-Ray into a cheese-shop, but a top British military officer has rejected them as being “very silly indeed.”
US officials insist there are still ten British residents held in Guantanamo whilst British officials insist there are only…five!…three sir!..three—no,…one! Only one bona-fide British citizen whilst the other nine are probably French kniggets.
However Cardinal Biggles remains adamant in his position that the suspicious goat-herders the US unilaterally invited to spend up-to five years “getting away from it all” (free of charge, by the way—either fiscal or criminal) in a custom built 50-million dollar tropical hideaway have outstayed their welcome and it’s high time the rest of the world come and pick them up because lately their continued freeloading in Cuba at US expense has become abit of a Hispanic Imposition.
And the rest of the world should also stop asking questions about how the detainees were treated too! After all, the US didn’t expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition!
Thursday, October 19, 2006
When Johnny Comes Marching Home –Part II
Whilst US politicians and the American public have been discussing the Iraq War, US soldiers have had to fight it. The only poll I know of that sampled the opinions of the troops was conducted by Zogby. An overall majority thought it was time to leave Iraq over the next 12 months and that was back in February 2006.
Beneath the broad sentiment amongst the troops that they should be brought home lay some interesting and disturbing issues. According to the now seven-month-old poll (taken after roughly three-years of occupation):
93% said that “removing” weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there.
90% thought the war was retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11
68% of the troops said that the real mission was to remove Saddam Hussein.
These figures are rather interesting: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell made it very clear that Saddam Hussein in their view had to be removed by force to prevent him transferring WMD to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Bush, Cheney, Rice and a horde of mouthpieces constantly implied a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda and thus 9-11 (and Cheney never hesitates to repeat this fallacy even today).
Well, Hussein was removed, there were no WMD and there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq (though now apparently, there is). Except for the absence of WMD and Al Qaeda it would appear then that the US forces accomplished their mission.
So why are they still there, three years later?
Because they were given a new mission; to establish a democratic government and provide security for private contractors to re-build the infrastructure and the economy.
And yet…only 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war—meaning that the vast majority thought establishing a democracy wasn’t their job—contrary to Bush’s post “mission accomplished” statements.
Small wonder then that after three years of occupation though 58% said the ‘mission’ was “clear”, 42% thought it was “hazy”. In politics that would be called a winning majority but for an army it’s a terrible statistic.
The purpose of a soldier is to be prepared to kill or be killed to accomplish some worthwhile mission. If you aren’t sure of the mission how do you justify killing someone else or getting killed in the process? Uncertainty is a rare privilege in the military and it’s not usually afforded to the ordinary soldier—certainly not when the bullets and bombs are flying.
Bush has said several times that leaving "before the job is done" would "dishonor the sacrifice" of those who have already died. It's an argument that tortures every soldier--and the cruelty of if it is breathaking.
There would have been no sacrifice if Bush and his cabal hadn't invented the reasons for war. Fewer would have been sacrificed if all the soldiers had been provided with body armor, if Rumsfeld hadn't treated the troops as guinea pigs to test his theories of warfare, if Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle hadn't treated it as a business venture, if Bremer hadn't acted like Nero, if Generals Myers and Pace hadn't ordered mass roundups of civilians and used collective punishment.
When these soldiers come home they will lie awake at night and wonder what it was all for. And the terrible is--nothing. Nothing that mattered to them anyway.
The noble quest to bring down a dictator did not make the US or the world safer. Instead of creating a democracy they created anarchy. Instead of establishing human rights they abused them. Instead of making firends they made more enemies. Instead of helping people they hurt them and killed them.
They were told they'd be fighting for a good and noble cause and that they would be bringing peace and prosperity to Iraq--and they were lied-to.
But all these facts won't rush into their conciousness once they come home--many already know it. The best way to honor the sacrifice of those who have died already is to stop any further dying for no good reason and bring the troops home.
And as they lie awake at night and wonder what their sacrifice was for, I hope they'll realize that though it might appear to have been all for nothing, they can still make their sacrifice for something--that they can use their bloody and tragic expereinces and speak with unimpeachable authority to the public and the politicians and reclaim their true mission and uphold their honor and fight for and defend America from the true enemies of freedom and democracy--the politicians and demagogues who have betrayed them and this nation.
Beneath the broad sentiment amongst the troops that they should be brought home lay some interesting and disturbing issues. According to the now seven-month-old poll (taken after roughly three-years of occupation):
93% said that “removing” weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there.
90% thought the war was retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11
68% of the troops said that the real mission was to remove Saddam Hussein.
These figures are rather interesting: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell made it very clear that Saddam Hussein in their view had to be removed by force to prevent him transferring WMD to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Bush, Cheney, Rice and a horde of mouthpieces constantly implied a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda and thus 9-11 (and Cheney never hesitates to repeat this fallacy even today).
Well, Hussein was removed, there were no WMD and there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq (though now apparently, there is). Except for the absence of WMD and Al Qaeda it would appear then that the US forces accomplished their mission.
So why are they still there, three years later?
Because they were given a new mission; to establish a democratic government and provide security for private contractors to re-build the infrastructure and the economy.
And yet…only 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war—meaning that the vast majority thought establishing a democracy wasn’t their job—contrary to Bush’s post “mission accomplished” statements.
Small wonder then that after three years of occupation though 58% said the ‘mission’ was “clear”, 42% thought it was “hazy”. In politics that would be called a winning majority but for an army it’s a terrible statistic.
The purpose of a soldier is to be prepared to kill or be killed to accomplish some worthwhile mission. If you aren’t sure of the mission how do you justify killing someone else or getting killed in the process? Uncertainty is a rare privilege in the military and it’s not usually afforded to the ordinary soldier—certainly not when the bullets and bombs are flying.
Bush has said several times that leaving "before the job is done" would "dishonor the sacrifice" of those who have already died. It's an argument that tortures every soldier--and the cruelty of if it is breathaking.
There would have been no sacrifice if Bush and his cabal hadn't invented the reasons for war. Fewer would have been sacrificed if all the soldiers had been provided with body armor, if Rumsfeld hadn't treated the troops as guinea pigs to test his theories of warfare, if Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle hadn't treated it as a business venture, if Bremer hadn't acted like Nero, if Generals Myers and Pace hadn't ordered mass roundups of civilians and used collective punishment.
When these soldiers come home they will lie awake at night and wonder what it was all for. And the terrible is--nothing. Nothing that mattered to them anyway.
The noble quest to bring down a dictator did not make the US or the world safer. Instead of creating a democracy they created anarchy. Instead of establishing human rights they abused them. Instead of making firends they made more enemies. Instead of helping people they hurt them and killed them.
They were told they'd be fighting for a good and noble cause and that they would be bringing peace and prosperity to Iraq--and they were lied-to.
But all these facts won't rush into their conciousness once they come home--many already know it. The best way to honor the sacrifice of those who have died already is to stop any further dying for no good reason and bring the troops home.
And as they lie awake at night and wonder what their sacrifice was for, I hope they'll realize that though it might appear to have been all for nothing, they can still make their sacrifice for something--that they can use their bloody and tragic expereinces and speak with unimpeachable authority to the public and the politicians and reclaim their true mission and uphold their honor and fight for and defend America from the true enemies of freedom and democracy--the politicians and demagogues who have betrayed them and this nation.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
When Johnny Comes Marching Home –Part 1
Time to Come Home?
In early 2003 Donald Rumsfeld—best known for knowing everything yet not knowing anything—confidently doubted that the war in Iraq would ever stretch to six months. He has since spent the last three-plus years insisting that every miserable fact of failure in Iraq is mere “defeatist” speculation, as have Bush, Cheney and Rice. But the truth, being stranger than fiction and a lot more useful, has slowly but surely seeped past the administration’s filter and into the cognitive area of the American public’s brains.
This year an August 9 CNN poll reported that 60% of their respondents wanted “some withdrawal” by the end of 2006.
An August 5 Opinion Dynamics/Fox News poll found 27% wanted all troops out by year’s end and 31% wanted all troops out over the next 12 months—for a total of 58% wanting the troops out. This month that figure has risen to an impressive 73%. The vast majority of Iraqis want the US to leave as well for many obvious reasons.
Don’t Let The Door Hit Your Ass On The Way Out
So what might happen if Bush & company chose to act on the overwhelming public sentiment in both the US and Iraq and actually began withdrawing troops (assuming no UN assistance)?
It took two weeks to reach Baghdad from Kuwait and that was with less personnel and equipment than the 140,000 or so now deployed. Withdrawal will take at least a couple of months. US forces have only three viable points of exit—the airport, the port of Basra and the Kuwait border.
As US forces fall back for departure the various militias will move in to abandoned areas to create and consolidate their presence and influence and to prevent their rivals from doing the same. The inevitability of a power struggle ought to keep a number of their fighters away from attacking the US forces as they depart. Pure pragmatism would suggest that the Iraqis just let the US forces leave without harassment so the various factions can escalate their civil war that much sooner and with greater strength.
However there will be a huge temptation for many to get in some “last-licks” as the US retreats. With US forces concentrated and on the move, out in the open and keen to be leaving at last, they will be vulnerable to harassment from relatively small opposition forces.
To counter this possibility the US will want to call on Navy/Marine air-power to keep the Iraqis at bay. I imagine that cluster and phosphorous bombs would be the preferred munitions as anti personnel and area-denial weapons and their use would be no more discerning than has been the case in any other support operations thus far—in other words they will blow the holy crap out of anything and everything to protect the departing forces.
Whether the US forces leave under fire or not the Iraqi militants will be able to claim victory—military, political and even moral. What will the US have to show for their efforts?
Never In The Field of Human Conflict Have So Few Done So Little For So Many
Bush still insists that the troops must stay “until the job is done” but what does he mean by that? There aren’t enough troops to provide the security needed to restore essential services, permit meaningful reconstruction and allow the government to establish authority—there never has been and apparently there never will be (at least not until after 2008)—so why keep them there?
The answer is; to satisfy the psychopathic egos of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld which sent the troops to Iraq in the first place. If they refuse to bring the troops home there will be no retreat and therefore no failure. Even if the GOP loses both houses in November and even if impeachment was begun immediately Bush can wield his “signing statements” and simply refuse to accede until his term is over—whereupon he (and Cheney and Rumsfeld) can literally (not just figuratively) walk away from responsibility.
And what about the troops?
A February 28, 2006 LeMoyne College/Zogby poll of the US troops indicated that 72% overall wanted to leave by the end of 2006 (89% of Reserves and 82% National Guard had that opinion, whilst for the Marines it was a significantly lower but still notable 58%).
Given the trend of public opinion and the increased violence in Iraq since February 2006 it would be safe to assume that the soldiers desire to get the hell out of Iraq has likewise increased.
Whether they get to leave sooner or later their departure (under fire or not), whatever relief the troops might feel will be severely tempered. Neither defeated nor victorious, whatever individual accomplishments and personal satisfactions they might derive from their service will be challenged by other inseparable experiences and realities. Though they will leave the battlefield, the battlefield will not leave them so easily. My thoughts on the soldier’s homecoming will follow in part II.
In early 2003 Donald Rumsfeld—best known for knowing everything yet not knowing anything—confidently doubted that the war in Iraq would ever stretch to six months. He has since spent the last three-plus years insisting that every miserable fact of failure in Iraq is mere “defeatist” speculation, as have Bush, Cheney and Rice. But the truth, being stranger than fiction and a lot more useful, has slowly but surely seeped past the administration’s filter and into the cognitive area of the American public’s brains.
This year an August 9 CNN poll reported that 60% of their respondents wanted “some withdrawal” by the end of 2006.
An August 5 Opinion Dynamics/Fox News poll found 27% wanted all troops out by year’s end and 31% wanted all troops out over the next 12 months—for a total of 58% wanting the troops out. This month that figure has risen to an impressive 73%. The vast majority of Iraqis want the US to leave as well for many obvious reasons.
Don’t Let The Door Hit Your Ass On The Way Out
So what might happen if Bush & company chose to act on the overwhelming public sentiment in both the US and Iraq and actually began withdrawing troops (assuming no UN assistance)?
It took two weeks to reach Baghdad from Kuwait and that was with less personnel and equipment than the 140,000 or so now deployed. Withdrawal will take at least a couple of months. US forces have only three viable points of exit—the airport, the port of Basra and the Kuwait border.
As US forces fall back for departure the various militias will move in to abandoned areas to create and consolidate their presence and influence and to prevent their rivals from doing the same. The inevitability of a power struggle ought to keep a number of their fighters away from attacking the US forces as they depart. Pure pragmatism would suggest that the Iraqis just let the US forces leave without harassment so the various factions can escalate their civil war that much sooner and with greater strength.
However there will be a huge temptation for many to get in some “last-licks” as the US retreats. With US forces concentrated and on the move, out in the open and keen to be leaving at last, they will be vulnerable to harassment from relatively small opposition forces.
To counter this possibility the US will want to call on Navy/Marine air-power to keep the Iraqis at bay. I imagine that cluster and phosphorous bombs would be the preferred munitions as anti personnel and area-denial weapons and their use would be no more discerning than has been the case in any other support operations thus far—in other words they will blow the holy crap out of anything and everything to protect the departing forces.
Whether the US forces leave under fire or not the Iraqi militants will be able to claim victory—military, political and even moral. What will the US have to show for their efforts?
Never In The Field of Human Conflict Have So Few Done So Little For So Many
Bush still insists that the troops must stay “until the job is done” but what does he mean by that? There aren’t enough troops to provide the security needed to restore essential services, permit meaningful reconstruction and allow the government to establish authority—there never has been and apparently there never will be (at least not until after 2008)—so why keep them there?
The answer is; to satisfy the psychopathic egos of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld which sent the troops to Iraq in the first place. If they refuse to bring the troops home there will be no retreat and therefore no failure. Even if the GOP loses both houses in November and even if impeachment was begun immediately Bush can wield his “signing statements” and simply refuse to accede until his term is over—whereupon he (and Cheney and Rumsfeld) can literally (not just figuratively) walk away from responsibility.
And what about the troops?
A February 28, 2006 LeMoyne College/Zogby poll of the US troops indicated that 72% overall wanted to leave by the end of 2006 (89% of Reserves and 82% National Guard had that opinion, whilst for the Marines it was a significantly lower but still notable 58%).
Given the trend of public opinion and the increased violence in Iraq since February 2006 it would be safe to assume that the soldiers desire to get the hell out of Iraq has likewise increased.
Whether they get to leave sooner or later their departure (under fire or not), whatever relief the troops might feel will be severely tempered. Neither defeated nor victorious, whatever individual accomplishments and personal satisfactions they might derive from their service will be challenged by other inseparable experiences and realities. Though they will leave the battlefield, the battlefield will not leave them so easily. My thoughts on the soldier’s homecoming will follow in part II.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
In Which I Agree With David Limbaugh That Conservatives Should Not Listen To Propaganda!
From David Limbaugh (the equally stupid but not so rich brother of Rush Rimjob) and his latest analysis on NewsMax of whatever it is that lives in his rectum.
I don't care how many times I hear it, I refuse to believe that significant numbers of conservatives will stay home in November and thereby assist the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress.
David Limbaugh refuses to believe anything Republicans and conservatives say (who aren’t in the administration or the media).
Democrats and the Old Media have been working hard to create this perception for several months, citing poll after poll to support their claims.
By having the audacity to publish what likely Republican voters are actually saying!
It reminds me of the exit poll manipulation orchestrated by the Old Media and Democrat operatives in 2004 to create the GOP-deflating perception that John Kerry was winning big.
By reporting how the public were actually voting, instead of how they were supposed to vote!
But with the unveiling of the Foley scandal, there is an even bigger spring to their step – kind of like their perverse, gleeful reaction to problems with the delayed federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
Remember Geraldo Rivera’s tears of joy? Remember Anderson Cooper’s satiric anger?
Before Foley I gave conservatives more credit than to believe they would sit this election out over their disillusionment with Republicans concerning immigration and domestic spending. My confidence remains after Foley as well, despite push polling and other techniques designed to discourage conservative turnout.
David can’t describe those “other techniques” so that conservative voters won’t be able to adapt to them.
Conservatives are generally rational creatures and sophisticated enough to understand that the national interest will not be served by turning national security over to a party wholly incapable of safeguarding it for the sake of punishing Republicans.
Yet strangely they aren’t are so rational and sophisticated as to understand that they shouldn’t be expressing their opinions to pollsters and the media—it’s the RNC’s job to express the opinions of likely voters.
To the argument of some conservatives that losing the election will result in the nation eventually returning to its conservative roots, I say "nonsense."
David is absolutely correct. No matter how many times I read it, what he just wrote makes no sense!
We can't afford the luxury, during time of war and incalculable threats to our national security, our culture, our freedom and our sovereignty, of taking our ball and going home for a few critical years.
David is right again; with real wages down, no job growth and a record national debt we can’t afford luxury. And with incalculable threats to our national security, now is not the time to stop dealing with something incalculable.
I do not believe conservatives will deliver control to the party of tax and spend because Republicans haven't done enough to curb domestic spending.
Right once more!. The Republicans still need to get rid of taxation altogether and impose a direct tithe to reduce the spending of domestics.
My assessment is reinforced by news that the Bush tax cuts have unleashed a robust economy and explosive federal revenues that have reduced the deficit to 2 percent of GDP, lower than the 2.7 percent average of the last 40 years.
Absolutely right, David! The fact that GDP growth under Bush is 2.5% compared to 3.6% under Clinton and 3.5% under Reagan and that averaging the deficit-reduction rate to GDP over 40 years is irrelevant and that the national debt (as opposed to the deficit) is back where it was in Reagan’s last year—at a record high--is just not worth thinking about.
I don't believe conservatives will conspire to assign control over immigration to the wide-open-border Democrats, notwithstanding the Republicans' tardy and so far inadequate response to the immigration problem. My assessment is reinforced by news that Congress passed a measure to erect a 700-mile border fence.
A 700 mile border fence will send a clear message to illegal immigrants and Al Qaeda-types which is: if you ignore the other 1251 miles of border that isn’t fenced, we will catch you!
Conservative angst forced recalcitrant politicians to act. This is how you get results – not by replacing a highly imperfect party with an incomparably egregious one.
That’s right David!. Conservatives are excellent at ignoring a problem for five years and then reacting instantly to get a result, or as we like to say in math; "x"
And I especially don't believe social conservatives, because of their disappointment with Republicans over Foley, will turn to a militantly secular Democratic leadership to protect Washington pages from sexual predators. My assessment is reinforced by the immediate resignation of Foley and the Republican leadership's initiation of comprehensive investigations into the matter, promising full accountability for culpable Republicans.
Again, the voting base is expressing opinions independent of the Republican Party so quite rightly David refuses to believe them.
My optimism that conservatives will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and stay home in November is further enhanced by Democrats recently overplaying their hand on the Foley scandal.
Right-on, David! The GOP are perfect, notwithstanding you just called them highly imperfect because compared to the incredibly low standards of secular Democrats the GOP is perfect!
Though they boasted for the longest time that they could trounce Republicans in November by a substantive debate on the issues, they've been studiously avoiding such a debate and resorting only to attacking Bush and scandalmongering.
The Democrats couldn’t even ban the debate on banning flag-burning!
But now that they think the Foley affair is tainting the entire Republican Party, Nancy Pelosi has gotten cocky enough to unveil her agenda for the first 100 hours of her speakership.
She'd better hope that she hasn't triggered a true national debate on the issues and unwittingly nationalized the congressional elections, something the Republicans hadn't managed to pull off.
Because... by making the control of the House of Representatives and thus national policies a referendum on the GOP majority instead of it simply being a series of un-related local elections that just coincidentally result in the formation of national policies, she'd be totally distorting the the meaning of the process--making it about the election of representatives who reflect a public consensus rather than maintenance of incumbents who ignore or disbelieve the opinions and wishes of their constituents and the electorate.
Can you imagine the Democrats winning a debate over national security when they've vigorously opposed almost every tool President Bush has tried to use to prosecute the war on terror? How would they gain from a true debate over Iraq when Democrats still don't have a plan and can't even decide whether they favor withdrawal, "timetables" or "benchmarks"?
Right again! I mean, really! George Bush has been very clear that he doesn’t believe in timetables or benchmarks. By refusing to leave Iraq and by keeping US successes a secret, Bush is keeping the terrorists guessing and on the defensive!
Can you imagine Democrats prevailing on a values debate where it would be emphasized that they actively promote the radical homosexual agenda and castigate one of the finest institutional exemplars of traditional values in our nation's history – the Boy Scouts – for their moral refusal to permit homosexuals to be scoutmasters?
Can you imagine the Republicans prevailing on a values debate where they actively promote a party political agenda over an individual’s homosexual agenda and then castigate one of the finest institutional exemplars of traditional values in our nation's history – the GOP – for their moral refusal to gay-bash a GOP member who had broken the law he himself wrote?
Does Nancy Pelosi truly support the National American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)
or just proudly march in parades with them and receive 90 percent approval from their ACLU enablers? Inquiring minds surely want to know.
Does Denny Hastert truly support NAMBLA and should he be praised for being sensitive to his subordinate colleagues NAMBLA-like leanings?
It is time for conservatives to ignore the Democrat and Old Media propaganda and vote in even greater numbers in November. If Democrats and the Old Media keep reporting that conservatives are going to stay home, they might be in store for the upset of their lives on Election Day – just maybe.
I agree with David! It is time indeed for conservatives to ignore the propaganda and vote!
I don't care how many times I hear it, I refuse to believe that significant numbers of conservatives will stay home in November and thereby assist the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress.
David Limbaugh refuses to believe anything Republicans and conservatives say (who aren’t in the administration or the media).
Democrats and the Old Media have been working hard to create this perception for several months, citing poll after poll to support their claims.
By having the audacity to publish what likely Republican voters are actually saying!
It reminds me of the exit poll manipulation orchestrated by the Old Media and Democrat operatives in 2004 to create the GOP-deflating perception that John Kerry was winning big.
By reporting how the public were actually voting, instead of how they were supposed to vote!
But with the unveiling of the Foley scandal, there is an even bigger spring to their step – kind of like their perverse, gleeful reaction to problems with the delayed federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
Remember Geraldo Rivera’s tears of joy? Remember Anderson Cooper’s satiric anger?
Before Foley I gave conservatives more credit than to believe they would sit this election out over their disillusionment with Republicans concerning immigration and domestic spending. My confidence remains after Foley as well, despite push polling and other techniques designed to discourage conservative turnout.
David can’t describe those “other techniques” so that conservative voters won’t be able to adapt to them.
Conservatives are generally rational creatures and sophisticated enough to understand that the national interest will not be served by turning national security over to a party wholly incapable of safeguarding it for the sake of punishing Republicans.
Yet strangely they aren’t are so rational and sophisticated as to understand that they shouldn’t be expressing their opinions to pollsters and the media—it’s the RNC’s job to express the opinions of likely voters.
To the argument of some conservatives that losing the election will result in the nation eventually returning to its conservative roots, I say "nonsense."
David is absolutely correct. No matter how many times I read it, what he just wrote makes no sense!
We can't afford the luxury, during time of war and incalculable threats to our national security, our culture, our freedom and our sovereignty, of taking our ball and going home for a few critical years.
David is right again; with real wages down, no job growth and a record national debt we can’t afford luxury. And with incalculable threats to our national security, now is not the time to stop dealing with something incalculable.
I do not believe conservatives will deliver control to the party of tax and spend because Republicans haven't done enough to curb domestic spending.
Right once more!. The Republicans still need to get rid of taxation altogether and impose a direct tithe to reduce the spending of domestics.
My assessment is reinforced by news that the Bush tax cuts have unleashed a robust economy and explosive federal revenues that have reduced the deficit to 2 percent of GDP, lower than the 2.7 percent average of the last 40 years.
Absolutely right, David! The fact that GDP growth under Bush is 2.5% compared to 3.6% under Clinton and 3.5% under Reagan and that averaging the deficit-reduction rate to GDP over 40 years is irrelevant and that the national debt (as opposed to the deficit) is back where it was in Reagan’s last year—at a record high--is just not worth thinking about.
I don't believe conservatives will conspire to assign control over immigration to the wide-open-border Democrats, notwithstanding the Republicans' tardy and so far inadequate response to the immigration problem. My assessment is reinforced by news that Congress passed a measure to erect a 700-mile border fence.
A 700 mile border fence will send a clear message to illegal immigrants and Al Qaeda-types which is: if you ignore the other 1251 miles of border that isn’t fenced, we will catch you!
Conservative angst forced recalcitrant politicians to act. This is how you get results – not by replacing a highly imperfect party with an incomparably egregious one.
That’s right David!. Conservatives are excellent at ignoring a problem for five years and then reacting instantly to get a result, or as we like to say in math; "x"
And I especially don't believe social conservatives, because of their disappointment with Republicans over Foley, will turn to a militantly secular Democratic leadership to protect Washington pages from sexual predators. My assessment is reinforced by the immediate resignation of Foley and the Republican leadership's initiation of comprehensive investigations into the matter, promising full accountability for culpable Republicans.
Again, the voting base is expressing opinions independent of the Republican Party so quite rightly David refuses to believe them.
My optimism that conservatives will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and stay home in November is further enhanced by Democrats recently overplaying their hand on the Foley scandal.
Right-on, David! The GOP are perfect, notwithstanding you just called them highly imperfect because compared to the incredibly low standards of secular Democrats the GOP is perfect!
Though they boasted for the longest time that they could trounce Republicans in November by a substantive debate on the issues, they've been studiously avoiding such a debate and resorting only to attacking Bush and scandalmongering.
The Democrats couldn’t even ban the debate on banning flag-burning!
But now that they think the Foley affair is tainting the entire Republican Party, Nancy Pelosi has gotten cocky enough to unveil her agenda for the first 100 hours of her speakership.
She'd better hope that she hasn't triggered a true national debate on the issues and unwittingly nationalized the congressional elections, something the Republicans hadn't managed to pull off.
Because... by making the control of the House of Representatives and thus national policies a referendum on the GOP majority instead of it simply being a series of un-related local elections that just coincidentally result in the formation of national policies, she'd be totally distorting the the meaning of the process--making it about the election of representatives who reflect a public consensus rather than maintenance of incumbents who ignore or disbelieve the opinions and wishes of their constituents and the electorate.
Can you imagine the Democrats winning a debate over national security when they've vigorously opposed almost every tool President Bush has tried to use to prosecute the war on terror? How would they gain from a true debate over Iraq when Democrats still don't have a plan and can't even decide whether they favor withdrawal, "timetables" or "benchmarks"?
Right again! I mean, really! George Bush has been very clear that he doesn’t believe in timetables or benchmarks. By refusing to leave Iraq and by keeping US successes a secret, Bush is keeping the terrorists guessing and on the defensive!
Can you imagine Democrats prevailing on a values debate where it would be emphasized that they actively promote the radical homosexual agenda and castigate one of the finest institutional exemplars of traditional values in our nation's history – the Boy Scouts – for their moral refusal to permit homosexuals to be scoutmasters?
Can you imagine the Republicans prevailing on a values debate where they actively promote a party political agenda over an individual’s homosexual agenda and then castigate one of the finest institutional exemplars of traditional values in our nation's history – the GOP – for their moral refusal to gay-bash a GOP member who had broken the law he himself wrote?
Does Nancy Pelosi truly support the National American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)
or just proudly march in parades with them and receive 90 percent approval from their ACLU enablers? Inquiring minds surely want to know.
Does Denny Hastert truly support NAMBLA and should he be praised for being sensitive to his subordinate colleagues NAMBLA-like leanings?
It is time for conservatives to ignore the Democrat and Old Media propaganda and vote in even greater numbers in November. If Democrats and the Old Media keep reporting that conservatives are going to stay home, they might be in store for the upset of their lives on Election Day – just maybe.
I agree with David! It is time indeed for conservatives to ignore the propaganda and vote!
Monday, October 09, 2006
Ride The Wind, Cut The Cheese
Before you read Sally Kestin’s excellent and scary South Florida-Sentinel article on the FEMA-funded Project HOPE you should put together a preparedness kit—no, not duct tape, flashlight and bottled water:
I recommend a box of tissues (to wipe away the tears of laughter), paper towels (to clean up the coffee-spit), something to bite on (Gumby?) for the teeth-gnashing, and a bottle of Bourbon. Here’s why:
$22.6 million is being spent on 450 “counselors” to help Wilma and Katrina hurricane victims cope with psychological trauma.
The trouble is that most of the “counselors” are utterly unqualified and with FEMA itself preventing them from actually finding those they are supposed to be helping, time and money is being spent on therapy for the “counselors” themselves!
It’s unclear whether the “stress management” efforts are the same for the hurricane victims as they are for the “counselors”, but here’s an example:
Hand out a diagram of a piece of Swiss cheese and have each person write three things in three of the holes that they can do right now and have control over. (i.e. read tonight to their kids, take a bubble bath tonight, get a massage tomorrow, etc.)."
Call me crazy but I think that kind of activity and advice would increase stress, not reduce it. In fact I’m getting totally stressed-out by this right now. Maybe I should get some counseling myself.
I recommend a box of tissues (to wipe away the tears of laughter), paper towels (to clean up the coffee-spit), something to bite on (Gumby?) for the teeth-gnashing, and a bottle of Bourbon. Here’s why:
$22.6 million is being spent on 450 “counselors” to help Wilma and Katrina hurricane victims cope with psychological trauma.
The trouble is that most of the “counselors” are utterly unqualified and with FEMA itself preventing them from actually finding those they are supposed to be helping, time and money is being spent on therapy for the “counselors” themselves!
It’s unclear whether the “stress management” efforts are the same for the hurricane victims as they are for the “counselors”, but here’s an example:
Hand out a diagram of a piece of Swiss cheese and have each person write three things in three of the holes that they can do right now and have control over. (i.e. read tonight to their kids, take a bubble bath tonight, get a massage tomorrow, etc.)."
Call me crazy but I think that kind of activity and advice would increase stress, not reduce it. In fact I’m getting totally stressed-out by this right now. Maybe I should get some counseling myself.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Best Blog Links
To anyone arriving here via the ever-excellent Crooks & Liars (or just by accident) my "American Inquistion" post is IMHO decent, but nothing to get too excited about. One post amongst millions, however adequate, doesn't amount to a bean, let alone a hill of them.
So in the hope of making your visit more worthwhile, here's a handy list of links to prevous posts that have been most popular--apparently becuase I'm better at satire than serious comment. So click on a couple and hopefully you'll be sufficiently amused that you might have reason to return every once in a while.
The Dukes of Hazzard County
America’s Giant Balls: A Larger View
The Iraqi Free Press-A $100 million Value!
Geeks Gone Wild
The Art of Writing: Who’s Your Dada?
Cheney: I Have al-Quailda In My Sights!
Best Presidential Library Ever!
Captain Future!
Cricket Explained
You Don’t Know Jack!
Robots Are People Too!
Plato’s All-American Mexican-Free Republic
DHS and the Three F’s
Condiplomacy
Bush’s Memoirs
So in the hope of making your visit more worthwhile, here's a handy list of links to prevous posts that have been most popular--apparently becuase I'm better at satire than serious comment. So click on a couple and hopefully you'll be sufficiently amused that you might have reason to return every once in a while.
The Dukes of Hazzard County
America’s Giant Balls: A Larger View
The Iraqi Free Press-A $100 million Value!
Geeks Gone Wild
The Art of Writing: Who’s Your Dada?
Cheney: I Have al-Quailda In My Sights!
Best Presidential Library Ever!
Captain Future!
Cricket Explained
You Don’t Know Jack!
Robots Are People Too!
Plato’s All-American Mexican-Free Republic
DHS and the Three F’s
Condiplomacy
Bush’s Memoirs
Dagnabbit!
Thanks to a combination of Blogger's ocassional quirks and rubbish QOs from Verizon DSL the post below is quite buggered. The list is a compilation of previous posts that any new visitors here from the C&L link might enjoy and thus persuade them to revisit once in a while.
The links aren't parsed at the moment thanks to tech issues in uploading. but you can click and get to a couple of the archived posts that will hopefully give you a life. Meanwhile I need to fix this. AARRGGH!
The links aren't parsed at the moment thanks to tech issues in uploading. but you can click and get to a couple of the archived posts that will hopefully give you a life. Meanwhile I need to fix this. AARRGGH!
Crooks & Liars
NOTE: Right now at 5.31 EST the links seemd to have been crosslinked somewhat. I'll have to edit and repost to parse them out properly, but it's not completely messed up so click away--you'll get something. Fix is on it's way.
The Dukes of Hazzard County
America’s Giant Balls: A Larger View
The Iraqi Free Press-A $100 million Value!
Geeks Gone Wild
The Art Of Writing: Who's YOur Dada?
Cheney: I Have al-Quailda In My Sights!
Best Presidential Library Ever!
Captain Future!
Cricket Explained
You Don’t Know Jack!
Robots Are People Too!
Plato’s All-American Mexican-Free Republic
DHS and the Three F’s
Condiplomacy
Bush’s Memoirs
The Dukes of Hazzard County
America’s Giant Balls: A Larger View
The Iraqi Free Press-A $100 million Value!
Geeks Gone Wild
The Art Of Writing: Who's YOur Dada?
Cheney: I Have al-Quailda In My Sights!
Best Presidential Library Ever!
Captain Future!
Cricket Explained
You Don’t Know Jack!
Robots Are People Too!
Plato’s All-American Mexican-Free Republic
DHS and the Three F’s
Condiplomacy
Bush’s Memoirs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
