About Me

Name: Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Obama's stripes are showing...

Dictatorships, theocratic oligarchies, and despotic regimes are to be embraced, negotiated with and invited to 4th of July celebrations.

Let's recap, shall we?

President Obama has embraced and indeed encouraged Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.  Remember that book Chavez gave to Obama at the Summit of the Americas?  I have yet to see that book in a trashcan anywhere.  Nor have we heard that the president otherwise disposed of it.  Of course why would Obama throw the book away?  It's content probably reminded him of his college textbooks.

How about Obama's stance on the Iranian uprisings?  The president was sure to tell the word he was "deeply concerned" about what was going on, though apparently not so vexed that he would miss out on a round of golf.  Obama was so "concerned" it took him ten days to express in more direct verbiage how he finally "comdemned" what the Iranian mullahs (through the Iranian military and plain old street thugs) were doing to it's citizenry.  Protesters advocating free and fair elections getting shot through the heart seems to have a way of focusing even Barack Obama's laser-like political acumen to a fine point.

Obama was sure to speak out forcefully about the supposed "coup" which took place in Honduras this past weekend.  He joined other strong advocates for individual freedom and political liberty like Castro and Hugo Chavez.  As I understand it, the Honduran President attempted to circumvent his countries consitution to try to get himself elected to another term.  He attempted to hold a "public referendum" to get the Honduran consitution amended.  Chavez true to form, gave his support by sending thousands of ballots to his Honduran buddy to help out with the effort.  Of course all of this was outside the law in Honduras (again, as I understand it) so the Honduran Supreme Court issued an order to the Honduran military to prevent the Honduran tin pot, er, president from doing this.   President Obama says this is illegal and has taken the side of the dictators.  Incidentally, this is pretty much the same way 'ol Chavez got his start as a tyranical despot.

North Korea has ramped up it's efforts to create nuclear weapons, tested a nuclear device some weeks ago, and is "testing" a missile and is tentatively scheduled a new missile "test" for the 4th of July by launching a missile towards Hawaii.  The Norks has also said they are no longer abiding by the 1953 cease-fire which ended the Korean war and have effectively re-declared war on the US.  President Obama has said nothing outside of additional harsh verbiage and has actually done even less.  Obama barely gets credit for sending untested missile defense assets to Hawaii in anticipation of Nork "test".  If Hawaii wasn't his birth-state, you can bet he wouldn't have done even that.

Anyone else see a trend here?  I've seen pre-school macaroni art more coherent that Obama's supposed "foreign policy".

Obama shows the world yet again where his true passions lie.  If there is a tin-pot dictatorship, oppressive Communist society/government, or theocratic oppressive oligarchy murdering it's own citizens, Obama has their back  Why?  Because at his heart, he believes the same stuff they do - the State is paramount.  Individual liberty is not conducive to the needs of the State nor to the expansion of the State.  "Government", not private companies or individuals should be the arbiters of an economy.  The State should control (nationalize) industry.  Class warfare is used as a tool of the State to foment envy and distrust amongst the citizenry.  Any of this sound familiar?

With every protest for liberty Obama fails to support or recognize, with every lawful enforcement of constitutional government Obama condemns, with every handshake he gives to ruthless dictators and with every nod of in-action he gives to rogue states, he shows all of us who he truly is.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Goal is Control

It isn't about climate.
 
It isn't about science.
 
It isn't about taxes.
 
It is about government control over everything you do.
 
Period.
 
Trying to argue Cap and Trade on its merits (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.  Congress and this administration could care less whether the science is settled, if there is any science at all really.  Science has nothing to do with this issue from the perspective of the pols pushing it.  If you are pulling your hair out wondering "What are they thinking!", save yourself the trouble. 
 
All the pols are interested in is control.  If you won't "conserve" resources on your own?  C&T will force you.  Don't want to cut back on your driving?  C&T will force you to.  Don't want to buy a hybrid?  C&T will push you to it.  The government can't get people to buy off on windmills and solar cells?  C&T will mandate it.
 
Everything the American citizen does requires energy.  Every product the American citizen buys requires energy to produce and utilize.  Every food the American citizen eats requires energy to grow and transport.  Cap and Trade will regulate and mandate everything you use, buy and eat.  Cap and trade will have the additional benefit of making all of the "stuff" we eat, use, drive, etc. cost more - further modifying your behavior.
 
Reasonableness, common sense, pshaw!  Don't get you mind twisted around logic, trying to make the pols pushing C&T see reason.  They don't care.  All they are interested in is control - of your life.
 
Once you grasp and accept this, then the truly insidious nature of what's happening will sink in.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Jackson dead. Meh.

I never and will never understand the attention given, nor the overbearance of supposed "news" coverage when a celebrity, espcially a big star like Michael Jackson, dies.
 
Let me say up front I have sympathy for his family as I would when anyone's loved one passes away, particularly when it is unexpected as it was in this case.  But this incident is illustrative of many things, some of which I found particularly appalling when I watched some of the "news" coverage last evening.
 
The one thing which I saw which literally disgusted me was the showing of the moving of Michael Jackson's body from the helicopter to the coroners van.  How insensitive, how uncouth, how intrusive was this?  Don't give me that whole "it's news" or "he's a celebrity" spiel either.  The man died and deserves a certain amount of respect, especially when it comes to "seeing" the body.  Have we become so vacuous as a culture that we can't even defer some human dignity to the deceased?  Did anyone really need to see the "sheet draped" body of Michael Jackson being taken from a helicopter and put into a van?  If you did, then it speaks volume to your lack of character and lack of respect you have for others.
 
Was the incessant coverage neccessary?  Really?  Fox News ran the "story" non-stop late into the night from what I can gather.  I'm not sure of the other cable outlets, I didn't watch them.  But in this instance, Fox News really disappointed me.  They trotted out Geraldo Rivera who did not shut up for hours.  I saw clips of some interview he did with Michael back in 2005, over and over.  I heard Geraldo pontificate about how he was sure Michael Jackson was innocent of the child molestation charges and was told over and over about what a good father he was.  Pardon me, but any parent who names on of their children "Blanket" has something wrong with them upstairs.  Yes, yes, Gwyneth Paltrow named on of her children "Apple".  She's nuts as well. 
 
Side note:  A word on Michael Jackson's acquittal in his child molestation case.  Color me unimpressed that a huge celebrity like Michael Jackson was found innocent.  OJ Simpson was found innocent too as we all remember.  Of course I'm not intimating Michael Jackson was guilty.  But it's almost a forgone conclusion that celebrities in Hollywood are given huge passes for behaviors and actions any one of us would be keel-hauled for.
 
There is a striking dicohotmy in the coverage.  Farrah Fawcett also passed away yesterday after a very long and very public fight with cancer.  The media coverage of her death, by contrast to the death of Michael Jackson, was respectful and dignified.  It also did not take control of the airwaves for hours on end.  Culturally, Farrah Fawcett was an icon, just as was Michael Jackson.  From their respective eras, they were the epitomy of celebrity and stardom.  Michael Jackson was arguably a bigger star, but both of them had major impacts on the culture of their time.  Yet one was treated with a fair amount of dignity and respect by the media, the other was treated as if his death were a circus.  
 
Ultimately, what's the fascination with a celebrity dying?  I talked with my wife about another instance where the media went batcrap crazy for a celebrity, yet a person truly deserving of remembrance was almost an afterthought.
 
Remember Princess Diana and Mother Teresa?  They both died within a week or so of one another in 1997.  Princess Diana was given non-stop press coverage, people all over the world lost their frickin minds with the wailing and "tributes", etc.  When Mother Teresa died, her passing was given the same kind of treatment as Farrah Fawcett, dignified and mostly respectful, yet not able to compete with the covereage of Diana.  What did Diana ever do to deserve such attention?  She married into the British Royal Family.  Whoa!  Oh, and she did some crap against landmines.  Whoa again!  Mother Teresa devoted her entire life to God and the people of the world.  Mother Teresa had nothing, asked for nothing in return for what she did and died doing what she had done her entire life.  Princess Di was a celebrity for the sake of celebrity itself.  Though she did do charitable work, it wasn't even on the same plane of existance as was Mother Teresa.  Yet who garnered all the attention, press, and coverage?  Who still garners attention on the anniverssary of her death - Diana or Mother Teresa?
 
I thought to myself last night, "How would I feel if an icon I enjoyed passed away?"  I thought of John Wayne, but I wasn't into him so much when he died in 1979.  Then I thought of Charleton Heston.  I grew up watching his movies, from his iconic portrayal of Moses, to the sci-fi classic The Omega Man.  When he later became the president of the NRA and I found out about his past political (Right) activism, I grew to respect the man more and more.  When he died, I felt some sorrow but I didn't feel the need to wear black, light candles or leave flowers at a fence somewhere.  Incidentally, when he died he didn't receive near the attention either Princess Di or Michael Jackson has, irregardless of his decades of public and political avtivism, or his numerous decades as a movie star.
 
I suppose ultimately my point is, I don't see the big deal (the attention) in Michael Jackson dying.  He put his pants on the same way as anyone else.  He was an entertainer.  He did some good charity work, but he was also a flake in a lot of areas.  Personally, I do not think his passing is deserving of the attention and press it is receiving.  All of this attention ultimately cheapens death in my opinion.  I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to death.  But all of the celebrity attached to this and the way the populace absorbs it is a negative critique on the culture itself.
 
So, Michael Jackson passed away. 
 
Meh.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Iranian Waffle

How is it that Obama was a genius yesterday for not condemning Iranian brutality and tomorrow he’ll be heralded as a genius for condemning it today?
 
More at Jim Treacher
 
Posted from Hot Air
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama created or saved the Iranian uprising

Is there nothing the Lightworker can't do?  From WaPo:
 
Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
 
So this administrations stance on not saying anything, so the US isn't perceived as meddling, had the apparently intended effect of the US meddling?  Obama is also responsible for the high turn out in the elections a few weeks ago in Tehran as well as the results of the election in Lebanon:
 
Obama's advisers say the outreach may have contributed to the defeat in Lebanese elections a few days later of a coalition led by Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed party, that had been predicted to win. In recent days, administration officials have pointed to the Iranian demonstrations as further evidence of Obama's possible influence in the region.
 
Jim Geraghty says this:
 
So, remember, it's very important that we not react to this uprising in an antagonistic way, and all of out efforts at reengagement with Iran have to continue, even inviting their diplomats to July 4 parties at our embassies abroad. But when we do see popular uprisings against the regime, remember that the credit really goes to President Obama.
 
More here from Hot Air.
 
There is no word to describe the amount of hubris and narcissism of this new spin.  Obama is caught on the wrong side of history, through his own inaction and skewed vision of the world, and this is the attempt to recover from it.  I guess if you're going to lie, you might as well lie big!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran diplomats still invited to July 4th celebrations

A gesture of solidarity per our two nations’ shared interest in life, liberty, and shooting women in the heart on the street, I guess.  Via Weasel Zippers:

Not even a disinvitation to the barbecue on America’s birthday as punishment for killing protesters, huh, Barry? Absolutely the lowest moment of his presidency thus far.

President Barack Obama’s administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

“There’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

“We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran,” Kelly said. “We tried many years of isolation, and we’re pursuing a different path now.”

Yep.  Nothing quite says freedom like a theocratic military crackdown and murder of protesters railing against a rigged "election".  Way to go Obama administration!
 
Posted from Hot Air.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Zombies and the Left

First some clairifications need to be made.
 
1.  28 Days/Weeks Later is NOT a zombie movie.  The "monsters" in those movies are not dead, they are simply humans infected with a "rage" virus.  Over time the infected in these movies will die, since their only drive is to kill, not do what needs to be done to live.
 
2.  Zombie movies by and large aren't about the zombies eating brains.  There are only a few zombie movies, principally the Return of the Living Dead franchise where the zombies go specifically for brains.  Zombies typically will conusme ANY human flesh, brains and all.
 
3.  Zombies cannot run!  A zombie is a dead body, it must be remembered.  The older the corpse, the slower it is necessarily.  Some liberties can be made with this as have happened recently, the remake of Dawn of the Dead particularly.  But one of the things which makes zombies frightening is the relentless nature of the creature.  It doesn't need to move fast, it only needs to move.  Sooner or later it will catch up to you.  If there is some "mutation" which allows zombies to run or somehow develop other supernatural powers (as in the laughable remake of Day of the Dead) then they aren't truly zombies at all, but just a plain old flesh eating monsters - still scary, but NOT a zombie.
 
Whew, I feel better.
 
I'm just about finished reading a book, The Living Dead.  A zombie story anthology.  It is the worst book I have ever read.  Why?
 
I enjoy zombie stories and most zombie movies.  The nature of the monster itself, its relentlessness, single minded purpose and "drive", ultimately the numbers which are seemingly insurmountable, scare the crap out of me.  Zombie movies particularly the ROTLD are the only movies to give me nightmares.  The movies themselves are cheesy for the most part, but there is an underlying fear which I have every time I see them which just gives me the creeps.  But I digress.
 
The book mentioned above, I almost didn't buy.  I shy away from antholgy novels simply because you never know what you are going to get.  There are good anthologies out there, don't get me wrong but short stories generally don't appeal to me.  The short story though is ideally suited for horror stories.  I just like a little more in the books I read.  I decided to take a chance on this book though and took the plunge - right off the proverbial cliff.
 
The book is almost 500 pages in length.  There are some good stories, but only about a handful.  Surprisingly, a lot of the stories aren't really zombie stories at all.  Everyone has a classic idea of a zombie when they hear the term and this is what I was hoping for when I purchased the book.  The book does include some of these types of stories, but not enough.  What has really got my goat is the politically correct, or liberally slanted nature of some of the stories.  Not even in a covert way, but being unabashedly leftist.
 
How about a zombie story where the dead return to vote in a presidential election?  Why did they return to vote?  The dead rise, triggered by the accidental shooting of a little girl.  Anti-gun message throughout the story.  
 
Or a "green" zombie story.  The gist of this story is that if you don't live your life right, meaning if you don't support and live using alternative energy, forgoing fossil fuels, wearing hemp clothing, donating to the right political causes and advocay organizations guess what happens?  You get a corpse.  A undead shows up and simply shadows you forever.  The protagonist in this story spends the entire story wondering what he did or didn't do to receive his corpse.  He even thinks of attempting to "bribe" the corpse away by making a rather hefty donation to a "green" group.  Also, the president is portrayed as having tens of thousands of corpses around her, ostensibly since she makes the case that wind farms won't supply all the energy needs of the country.
 
Can there possibly be a pro-abortion zombie story?  You bet.  The character in this story who gets pregnant and is forced to get an abortion makes the statement, "A fetus isn't human enough to return from the dead.  Good.  Abortion isn't murder."  The antagonist zombies in this story are resurrected abortion protesters whom the woman takes great glee in blasting with a rifle after the abortion is over.  I was struck by two things in this story: 1.)  The unambiguous destruction of the abortion protesters.  In this day and age the murder or assassination of an abortionist makes great print for the left and the point is constantly made about how "violent" abortion protesters are, portraying all of them as on the brink of murder.  Yet the "heroine" has no compunction dispatching the protesters in the same way, revelling in the act in fact.  They're just zombies after all, right?  2.)  How the "heroine" makes a point of saying a fetus isn't human enough to return from the dead, yet her and her party make a point of taking a small box (coffin) to return the fetus to their compound for burial.  If the fetus is indeed not human enough to return from the dead, then why is it apparently human enough to receive burial consideration? 
 
A take on the 9/11 attacks.  This story is only marginally less offenseive as the attacks themselves.  The victims of a massive terror attack (9/11 is not specifically mentioned, but the intenet to parallel is there) are brought back by a politician brings to boost his ratings.  The group of zombies parallel the victims of the crash in Shanksville on Flight 93.  One of the zombies is compelled to stray from the script he was given by the politician and tells the assembled audience that they (the deceased) are indeed, NOT "heroes" and are simply being exploited by the pols.  A terrorist zombie is instructed by the "leader" zombie to be sure to tell the assembled audience he is "sorry".
 
I was so disgusted with the leftist bent of these stories, I threw one of my own together.  Read it here
 
What about zombie movies?  Hollywood loves politicizing its movies, including zombie flicks.
 
George Romero is hailed as a horror master and trailblazer of the zombie movie, rightfully so.  Night of the Living Dead and the original Dawn of the Dead were chock full of subtle and sometimes not so subtle social commentary from subjects ranging from racism to capitalism.  There is a leftist thread though that runs through his other movies.  Starting with the movie Day of the Dead, the military are portrayed as brutal, insane thugs bent on wanton destructuion and in some cases rape.  This thread runs through all his later movies, Land of the Dead and Diary of the Dead.
 
Beginning in Day of the Dead, the zombies (particularly the zombie, Bob) are portrayed as sympathetic, even as they feast on the flesh of the living.  In Land of the Dead, the attempt is to actually get you to root for the zombies as they attack and destroy a high-rise full of selfish, self-centered "rich" folks.  There is a thread of class warfare rampant through the film.  The "poor" live on the street while the "rich" live high on the hog at the expense of the poor, and the dead.  At the climax of the movie, the dead feast upon a mostly well-to-do group of people while the "poor" show up to mop up in the aftermath of the attack.  The zombies are even spared after chomping on untold numbers of survivors, by the idealist who says something to the affect of "they're just looking for a place too."  Yep, the zombies just finished muching on untold numbers of survivors, but they are spared.  The meaning being they were just responding to the injustices inflicted upon them by those they consumed.  The consumers become the consumed as it were.
 
28 Days Later, though not a true zombie movie, offers at least some interesting parrallels.  The virus which starts the plague is released by animal rights activists who become victims of the virus themselves.  Actions have consequneces, even for the altruist.  The military though in this movie are portrayed as murdering rapists.  Which brings up another interesting point about most zombie movies:  a squad of well armed, well trainined, disciplined soldiers has no chance aganst the zombies, but two or three dope smoking, anarchist teenagers seems to be able to survive. 
 
When you can't read a horror story or watch a horror movie without being bombarded by leftist propaganda, it is proof positive which backs up the assertion that leftism permeates almost every aspect of popular culture.  For more on this subject read the following posts here and here.
 
I say bring back Zombie Reagan. 
 
Just keep him well fed.  We do have plenty of leftists afterall...     
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thank a liberal for all the zombies

Things didn't have to end up this way.

We could have stopped the plague before it got a foothold.

We didn't.  Why?

When the first cases popped up in China, what did that one liberal, you know, the one from San Francisco say?  At first, she tried to deny what was happening.  After a short time however the old playbook of "deny, deny, deny" just wasn't working anymore.  I mean, seriously.  When the dead are rising from the grave and chowing down on your best friends face, even the easily distracted masses won't stand for such nonsense for too long.  So in true liberal fashion what did she do?  She blamed the CIA.  When the hordes of corpses shambled through Tiananmen Square; when a grainy video popped up on You Tube showing the Chinese Premier end up the main course at a zombie feast, the tanned leather hided Speaker of the House of Representatives actually had the stones to blame the CIA.  When  the barricades at her San Francisco area bunker fell, I wonder if the deadheads had a hard time chomping through her botox enhanced skin?

The first cities in the east and northeast to fall were, you guessed it, the big cities.  New York.  Philadelphia.  Pittsburgh.  Boston.  A veritable smorgasbord for the undead.  Yeah, you can thank the senior Senator from New York for that one.  Of course now we know it's easier to fight them hand to hand.  You know - a good machete.  Hell, even a crowbar or baseball bat will do in a pinch.  But in those early days, guns were what people needed to stop the overwhelming numbers.  In the big cities they didn't have them.  Of course the ceremony of the signing of the legislation was cool and all, but looking back it was like nailing in the last nail of our coffin.  I read a report that after the senior Senator from New York's security detail was taken out, he was dragged away by several zedheads kicking and screaming, crying like a baby, trying to break in the windows of a boarded up gun shop.  Irony sure is ironic.

Even that global warming lib, the one who was the vice-President?  Yeah, the one who whined like a little weenie when he lost the election years ago?  When the first calls for action began trickling in from the country, he actually tried to say there was no controlling legal authority for us to send aid.  The guy who had received so much under the table money from Asia was now turning his back on them.  Of course he would, he's a liberal after all.  He seemed like he would be able to hold out for awhile, what with the huge Tennessee mansion he lived in.  But when the grid power failed, the solar cells attached too his house couldn't generate enough juice to keep his huge fence electrified.  Chomp.

In an amazing show of liberal vapidity, one of the Senators from California actually demanded her military bodyguard refer to her as Senator.  She demanded this right up the the point when the deadheads wrenched her from the arms of an army general who was doing his damndest to protect her.  There are reports she was even screaming at the zombies to respect her position and how hard she had worked to attain her position, etc.  They say she was screaming this inane stuff right up until the time her head was taken from her shoulders and the corpses began to drink (well, lap) up her blood.

The only bright spot in those early days was at the southern boarder.  Had it not been for the newly constructed fencing and the actions of some measly armed, but dedicated folks, the Z hordes from Mexico and Central America would have been more of a trouble than they are now.  Remember all that liberal cauterwauling about building the wall?  If not for that wall, there would have been no where to put our backs and begin pushing the dead back

Worst of all though was from the president himself.  I spent a good many years in the military before the dead took over the earth and one of my first supervisors told me, "Never become paralyzed with indecision."  Simple, yet powerful advice.  When the outbreak first began, he was sure to be seen telling the people not to panic; that this was a crises, sure, but to trust the government to deal with it.  When the masses of undead shambled into Seoul, he did nothing.  When the Iranians, the frickin Iranians, tried to fight back, he did nothing.  When CNN showed a deadhead munching on a lobbyist for some community activist organization, the president decided it was time to leave Washington, flew to his secret bunker and hasn't been heard from since.  Typical.

Around the world, the dead stand atop the food chain.  I suppose they do here as well, even in the good old US of A.  But we are fighting back.  The last deadhead I bagged was wearing a t-shirt with the word "Hope" on it.

I wonder if zombies have any concept of karma?  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Diversity is the number one priority."

So says Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughhead.  Diversity, NOT educating and grooming this nations future Naval leadership (who amongst their classes in diversity and multi-culturalism might have some extra time to learn about naval warfare and defending the United States) is the goal.
 
The Naval Academy superintendent, Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler, echoed him. Everyone understands that "diversity" here means nonwhite skins.
 
Fowler insisted recently that we needed to have Annapolis graduates who "looked like" the Fleet, where enlisted people are about 42 percent nonwhite, largely African American and Hispanic.
 
Following is the process to ensure "diversity".  Once you've read it, you tell me how this is Consitutional, let alone moral:
 
Midshipmen are admitted by two tracks. White applicants out of high school who are not also athletic recruits typically need grades of A and B and minimum SAT scores of 600 on each part for the Board to vote them "qualified." Athletics and leadership also count.
 
A vote of "qualified" for a white applicant doesn't mean s/he's coming, only that he or she can compete to win the "slate" of up to 10 nominations that (most typically) a Congress(wo)man draws up. That means that nine "qualified" white applicants are rejected. SAT scores below 600 or C grades almost always produce a vote of "not qualified" for white applicants.
 
Not so for an applicant who self-identifies as one of the minorities who are our "number one priority." For them, another set of rules apply. Their cases are briefed separately to the board, and SAT scores to the mid-500s with quite a few Cs in classes (and no visible athletics or leadership) typically produce a vote of "qualified" for them, with direct admission to Annapolis. They're in, and are given a pro forma nomination to make it legit.]
 
Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s with Cs and Ds (and no particular leadership or athletics) also come, though after a remedial year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School.
 
By using NAPS as a feeder, we've virtually eliminated all competition for "diverse" candidates: in theory they have to get a C average at NAPS to come to USNA, but this is regularly re-negotiated.
 
All this is probably unconstitutional. That's what the Supreme Court said about the University of Michigan's two-track admissions in 2003.
 
Once at Annapolis, "diverse" midshipmen are over-represented in our pre-college classes, in lower-track courses, in mandatory tutoring programs and less challenging majors. Many struggle to master basic concepts. (I teach some of these courses.)
 
Of course, some minority students are stellar, but they're the exception. Despite being dragged toward the finish line, minorities graduate at about a 10 percent lower rate than the whole class, which of course includes them (so the real split is greater).
 
That last paragraph may seem a bit "racist" without any analysis, but it makes perfect sense.  Minority studetsn have such problems in the class because they shouldn't have been admitted to the school anyway.  Since they are admitted (given a different set of criteria) they struggle in the normal classes.  Instead of earning (thought qualification) their position, it is given them by default.  If only qualified minorities were allowed to enter, their graduation stats would be higher since they can handle the course.  This sytem perpetuates itself:  minorites graduate at a lesser pecentage of the normal class, the perception is something must be done to get more minorities in the class, not realizing the reason fewer minorities graduate is because they shouldn't be there in the first place!  Simply put, unqualified monirities should not be allowed to enter the school, just as unqualified non-minorites.  The standards should be the same. 
 
Multi-culti attitudes are destroying the martial atmosphere and traditions of the military.  The military is not a playground for social experimentation.  What is alarming is this is being done to future military officers.  Inculcating the officer corps with this type of crap is going to cost us down the road.  These officers will enter the military and will carry this PC garbage with them.  It will infect all facets of military life like a plague.
 
Even more distressing is the attitude is not to have the best and brightest allowed to enter the school.  For the sake of "diversity" this process is purposefully admitting underqualified students.  Simply put, if a person is underqualified to get into a school, how does this make them qualified, let alone fit, to lead men into combat
 
Political correctness will be the death of us all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Newspeak for Obama from NYT/WSJ

First, the definition of Newspeak:

Newspeak
is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it is described as being "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year". Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak — impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

More succinctly:  Generically, Newspeak has come to mean any attempt to restrict disapproved language by a government or other powerful entity.

Now for the meat and potatoes (posted from AoS):

Now, the WSJ poll I linked last night. The NYT poll I hadn't heard of, so I clicked on it. The headline...

Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care

...instantly said "snoozer" to me and I navigated away. I didn't bother to read it. The headline successfully dissuaded me from reading or linking the poll.

But the article originally ran with a more interesting headline, as the Rhetorican notes.

In Poll, Obama Is Seen as Ineffective on the Economy

Now that is a headline that demands you read the article.

Similarly, the WSJ article on their own poll went from...

Rising Doubts Threaten to Overshadow Obama’s Agenda

to...

Public Wary of Deficit, Economic Intervention

Two newspapers published a poll finding growing doubts about Obama. Both started the day with strong, punchy, grabby headlines that suggested strongly that Obama was approaching serious trouble. And both, within a night, changed their headlines to be bland and protective of Obama.

Add this to how Obama is getting all three broadcast networks to air some version of his Obamacare stuff this weekend and you'll obviously come to the conclusion that there is indeed no media bias, whatsoever.

(Note:  For some reason my browser isn't letting me change the font style and color to highlight the attributable material.  For the sake of this post, that material in italics is attributable to the blogs/sites linked to.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and the fly

The analogy between Mr. Miyagi and Obama and their respective run ins with flies is flawed.
 
Here's why:
 
Mr. Miyagi caught the fly in the chopsticks, then let it go.  Obama put a rude smackdown on his fly, killing it.
 
Had the fly been a islamic terrorist at GITMO, then the analogy would work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What "light touch"?

 
The automotive industry (GM and Chrysler in particular)
The insurance industry (AIG and others)
The housing industry (Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac in particular)
The banking industry (through new "oversight" rules being proposed today)
 
Attempting to control the health care industry.
 
Attempting to control the energy industry (through "cap & trade")
 
"I think the irony … is that I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government," he said Tuesday in a White House interview.
 
I think the irony is that this guy actually gets away with saying this when the facts are the exact opposite of his words.  That he says this stuff and doesn't bust out laughing is scary as well.  Obama is a straight up idealogue.  I think he actually believes what he is saying.  Obama doesn't see what his administration has done as cotrolling.  He actually believes what is being done is "for the greater good".
 
That is what is most frightening to me.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wait and see

"Let's wait and see what happens in Iran" seems to be the prevailing "wisdom" from many on the Left.
 
Almost eleven years ago, my mom was in the hospital having suffered a heart attack.  I was sitting in the ICU waiting room with my brothers, their spouses and my wife.  I scratched at an itch on my left leg, just behind the knee on the inside of my thigh.  Didn't think anything of it, just an itch.  It bothered me for a while, then I took a look at the itchy spot.  I looked like and felt like a mosquito bite.  Again, I didn't think anything of it but then my wife took a look.  There was a bump on my leg where I had been scratching, the same you would get from a mosquito bite.  However, something did catch her eye.  The itchy spot was centered on a small mole on my leg.  It was also "oozing" a bit.  I thought it was just raw from my scratching.  My wife said I needed to get it looked at.
 
After my mom had improved and was moved from the ICU, I went home and did make a call to get an appointment to see the doctor.  The appointment I got was three weeks later (thank you government health care!)  By the time the appointment came around, the itching had disappeared, the spot had healed and wasn't bothering me anymore.  I almost cancelled the upcoming appointment but figured I'd waited three weeks to get it, what the hell, might as well go ahead and go. 
 
I went to the doctor.  The doctor took a look at the spot (now looking like a regular mole) and at first said we'll just wait and see what happens.  If it bothered me again, I could come back and they would do a biopsy and check things out.  He then left the examination room for a few minutes.  When he returned, he had changed his mind.  He said something about the spot just bothered him and he was going to go ahead and do a punch biopsy now and get it over with.  The doc did his thing, I got a few stiches and the tissue sample was sent off to Wilford Hall Medical Center for testing.
 
A month later I was at work.  I had just went on shift as the Desk Sergeant at Goodfellow AFB.  The phone rang and the guy I was relieving picked up.  He handed the phone to me, telling me it was a doctor from the clinic.  I took the phone and asked what was up.  The doctor told me to sit down.  If anyone has ever had a doctor tell you to sit down, you know bad news is coming.  Up to that point I had forgot all about the biopsy - it had been a month since I'd seen the doc with no word from him in the interim.  Now the doc was calling me at work, late in the afternoon, and had told me to sit down. 
 
He told me the biopsy results had come back - Stage II Melanoma.  Cancer.  At the time, I didn't know anything about melanoma.  Stage II is relatively easily treatable.  At the time however I did not know this.  I was scheduled for surgery to remove the tumor, a "wide surgical excision" as it's called.  I had to travel to Wilford Hall for the procedure which took another month to get the slot for.  The tumor had not spread to any of the surrounding lymph nodes.  Though there had been some initial surface ulceration (why my skin had started itching) said ulceration had healed and didn't appear to have penetrated too deeply into the dermis.  They were going to cut it all out anyway, which they did.  Subsequent tests and yearly followups have shown no recurrence, though I will have to have annual follow ups for the rest of my life to to be safe.
 
Why the long story?  This was an instance where I almost cancelled my appointment and took a "wait and see" attitude.  Melanoma (heck any cancer) doesn't take a wait and see attitude.  Had I cancelled my appoitnment and done nothing, it is a certainty the cancer tumor would have grown, would have penetrated the layers of my skin, would probably have metastisized (as melanoma is famous for) and I would either be dead, dying or suffering greatly to hold on to what life I would have.
 
There were numreous other things going on in my life - my mom was recovering from her heart attack and subsequent open heart surgery.  My dad who is aged himself needed more attention since my mom was recovering.  I'm in the military after all and there are many demands daily there.  Plus my own family to look after?  It would have been easy to cancel the appointment and take care of other stuff, hoping things would "work out".
 
Taking a "wait and see" position on things is hardly ever wise, and has the potential to lead to catastrophe.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cyberwar Guide to assisting Iranian protesters

The purpose of this guide is to help you participate constructively in the Iranian election protests through Twitter.

1. Do NOT publicise proxy IP's over twitter, and especially not using the #iranelection hashtag. Security forces are monitoring this hashtag, and the moment they identify a proxy IP they will block it in Iran. If you are creating new proxies for the Iranian bloggers, DM them to @stopAhmadi or @iran09 and they will distributed them discretely to bloggers in Iran.

2. Hashtags, the only two legitimate hashtags being used by bloggers in Iran are #iranelection and #gr88, other hashtag ideas run the risk of diluting the conversation.

3. Keep you bull$hit filter up! Security forces are now setting up twitter accounts to spread disinformation by posing as Iranian protesters. Please don't retweet impetuosly, try to confirm information with reliable sources before retweeting. The legitimate sources are not hard to find and follow.

4. Help cover the bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become 'Iranians' it becomes much harder to find them.

5. Don't blow their cover! If you discover a genuine source, please don't publicise their name or location on a website. These bloggers are in REAL danger. Spread the word discretely through your own networks but don't signpost them to the security forces. People are dying there, for real, please keep that in mind...

Spread it all around like butter.
I don't "twitter" but for those who do or may be interested in taking a more active role in helping Iranian bloggers, the above information is useful.  More from Mere Rhetoric.
 
(H/T: Jawa)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama escalates stance on Iran situation

 
Doubling down on the rhetoric from "troubled" to "deep concern".  Oooohhhhhh.....
 
As a commenter over at Hot Air mentioned, be sure to let us all know when you reach the "miffed" stage Mr. President.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »