Friday, January 01, 2010

On Feast of the Circumcision day... 

... Florida QB Tim Tebow's hand was steady.

(Thx to Grandmère Mimi for the reminder)

Labels: ,

3 comments DiggIt!

Smell the turdblossom 

Michael reminded me about this juxtaposition:

Karl Rove, 2005:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers...

No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

In November 2007, the U.S. government sent two terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia to participate in an "art therapy rehabilitation program." This Christmas, those two terrorists sent would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb strapped to his nether-regions.


4 comments DiggIt!

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Yeah, pretty much 

Certainly the worst political decade in years

Of course, since we still have a year to go before the aughts, naughts, draughts end on Dec 31, 2010, I guess there's still a chance that things could worsen, or improve. *Holding breath*


4 comments DiggIt!

Dont disrespekt Pea Tardy movement... 

... because they're very serious. And although not one of their members has ever referred to the DemocratIC party by its correct name-- please don't sneer or make fun of the Pea Tardiers, because they are very serious. Long after the government bailouts began, but only weeks after Obama was inaugurated, the Pea Tardiers assembled and decided they were OUTRAGED over spending, or taxes, or stimulus, or deficits, or the impending threat of white slavery (thx to Jesse Russell, Madison WI for the photo)

or Obama's plans for a taxpayer holocaust (thx to Tony Romao, Chicago for photo),

always keeping in mind that when Bush expanded medicare it's "compassion", but Obama's attempt to expand healthcare is "socialism"

Since we must take the Pea Tardists seriously, what with their ultra-selective outrage and sophisticated sense of historical comparison, wouldn't it behoove us to see what some of them have planned for 2010?

Holy Dog Shit! One of the arms of the Pea Tardy Movement plans to "STRIKE" on January 20th, 2010!!! That sounds like an awesome way to mobilize this crack outfit of grassroot revolutionaries. What are the details of this "NATIONAL DAY OF STRIKE", I wonder?

My Fellow Patriots,

The National Day of Strike has received tremendous response in the first four days of our existence thanks to the hard work of all of you helping to spread the word. We already have nearly 3,000 people signed up on the facebook page and this website with 2,000 more on twitter. We have received commitments of support from the national movement as well. January 20, 2010 will be the day the TEA Party movement moves into the next phase, TEA 2.0, of taking our country back and you are a vital part of that.

TEA 2.0!! Think of the possibilities. I just peed my pants I'm so excited.

Webster's Dictionary defines a strike as a: to aim and usually deliver a blow, stroke, or thrust (as with the hand, a weapon, or a tool) b : to arrive with detrimental effect c : to attempt to undermine or harm something as if by a blow:It is this definition that we are using not that of the labor unions where workers with no vested interest in the wellbeing of the company seek to harm someone else in order to get their demands met.

OK! I got it. Let's "blow, stroke, or thrust" our opponents into submission. Who are our opponents, anyway?

We The People should do nothing to harm or try to over throw the very government we established. We must however stop those who would seek to "fundamentally transform this nation" as some on the lunatic left have boasted and are now delivering. So how do you stop someone who has large donors, labor union thugs, Hollywood elites and major media propagating our destruction?

I don't know how you stop them. It seems hopeless. What do you propose?

You take their advantages away from them.

F-cking A! Why didn't I think of that? Take their advantages away. But how? Do you hook em up to an "advantage removal machine"*, or what?

On January 20, 2010 we will demonstrate our power and reach to those companies who employ individuals backing the leftist agenda in every major city, every congressional district and every small rural town in America to spread one unified message. That message is simple: Stop funding socialism. When they refuse to stop backing the major opponents of Liberty, liberal media outlets and socialist leaning elected officials, then we proceed to financially cripple them.

Financially cripple the companies who employ individuals who donate to Democrats-- effing brilliant!

This strategy is about sending a clear message to the people that fund our opposition. We will identify those who operate with blatant disregard for the Constitution and attack your personal liberties, challenge them and give them a warning, to either renounce this behavior or we will be back on February 27, 2009 and we will march again against you. The February march will come with a national boycott of all of the companies that do not stop donating to people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd et al. Politicians, especially democrats, are scurrying around trying to find money for the election next year, if we are shaming their donors out of backing their measures they can't win reelection.

Will we win? Yes – only with the support of every one of you as ambassadors to the greatest confrontation in the modern history of America.
There you have it. The Pea Tardiers are going to put the companies that employ unpatriotic, advantaged, leftist Democrat-donors on notice. And if they don't renounce their support to Democrats, the Tardiers will return in February of 2009 (presumably in a convoy of suped up DeLoreans) and boycott them all into submission.

I can't wait to see the list of targeted companies the Pea Tardiers put together, and am eager to see which liberty-seizing Democrats make the cut and which don't. Will a Republican be thrown into the mix for "balance"? If I were Rep. Anh Cao, I'd be getting pretty nervous.

The "greatest confrontation in the modern history of America" is less than a month away. Civil Rights marches were just a prelude to the National Day of Strike. Are you ready?

Already, 2010 feels like it will be a memorable year.

* "advantage removal machine" is also a decent song by The Cult


16 comments DiggIt!

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Weekly Filtration 




Tuesday, December 29, 2009

"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here." 

Early reports indicate that Google's new phone will be named Nexus One. Because I'm a geek, I searched to see how that name was being received by enthusiasts of Blade Runner and sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick. This search led me to a picture of some fans of Blade Runner dressed in costume. Very disappointing. I didn't think they did that for Blade Runner. I don't want to think that they do that for Blade Runner. Anyway:

For those who don’t know, Philip K. Dick’s famous novel ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ (which later become Ridley Scott’s iconic film Blade Runner) is centred on a group of rogue replicant androids that are identified through the model designation Nexus-6.

So Google markets a phone named "Nexus One" after Dick wrote a story about "Nexus Six" replicants-- is this a big deal? Not really, but it allows me to segue to a piece of relevant trivia. A couple years ago I mentioned that White Zombie's "More Human than Human" metal classic refers to Blade Runner. Beyond the title and chorus (which is the motto of the Tyrell Corporation) here's the applicable lyric:

I am the nexus one
I want more life f-cker
I ain't done

Perhaps to make an easier rhyme, Rob Zombie uses "nexus one" instead of "nexus six". It's sort of interesting in light of the Google phone name. The "I want more life" line is from a scene in the movie where super-android Roy Batty confronts his maker, Dr. Eldon Tyrell-- the "god of bio-mechanics". When Tyrell explains to Batty why he can't have more life, Batty kisses his maker on the lips and kills him. He isn't "done", though. There's time for a few rounds of lethal play with a detective who isn't up to the challenge. Before he "dies", Batty saves Deckard from falling off the roof of a building, composes a short poem, and releases a dove.

The last time I saw "Blade Runner" was about a year ago, and I remember how un-spectacular the dystopian city-scapes looked in HD TV. The flying cars and the shots of future Los Angeles looked more obviously fake with the enhanced clarity and detail. But the interior shots still held up, as did the street scenes to a lesser extent.

Another thing that struck me was how overmatched Rick Deckard was as a hunter-killer of renegade androids.

To review: Deckard gets sucker punched by a half naked Replicant in a dressing room. She kicks his butt and is about to fatally strangle him with his tie, but he's saved by a timely interruption-- showgirls entering the dressing room. (Later he's able to shoot the replicant in the back.)

Then Deckard is grabbed by a larger stronger male Replicant on the street. The android slaps Deckard's gun away, busts him up, and is about to fatally poke his eyes in when Tyrell's personal assistant happens to pass by, pick up Deckard's gun and shoot the Replicant in the head.

Later Deckard is able to overcome an unarmed Replicant pleasure model who tries to strangle him with her thighs. But when he has to battle her boyfriend, super-android Roy Batty, Deckard is once again beaten senseless. Batty toys with him, and even has to encourage Deckard to get in the spirit of the game. Then, right before he expires, Batty decides to magnanimously save Deckard from falling off the edge of a building.

Again and again, despite his fine detective skills, Deckard owes his survival against the replicants to... dumb luck.



8 comments DiggIt!

“Aaron Broussard’s Christmas Generosity is ‘touching!’” 

Dear Blogger:

Re: “Aaron Broussard, Tim Whitmer get thousands in Christmas gifts from administrative employees,” By Richard Rainey, New Orleans Times-Picayune, December 27, 2009.

What an insult to the intelligence of the citizens of Jefferson Parish that Aaron Broussard would stoop to such a level by defending the practice of being showered with thousands and thousands of dollars in Christmas presents by his appointed subordinates.

President Aaron Broussard’s convenient omission that his Christmas “generosity,” to those who serve at the pleasure of the Tim Whitmer “protector-in chief,” is funded with his own campaign money, the same funds, no doubt, in part contributed by the recipients of Broussard’s largesse, elevates arrogance to the level of Bush saying, “bring ‘em on.”

Broussard’s quasi extortion flim-flam is most pathetic when so many in Jefferson Parish are having their homes foreclosed, being pink-slipped, losing health care, and children not having a memorable Christmas when so much could have been donated to a deserving charity so the people Broussard was elected to serve could have just a bit more in a difficult economic environment.

And Broussard’s Christmas pay-backs-– excuse me–- “gifts” could have been used to help those who suffered from Broussard’s Katrina incompetence.

But that would have put Broussard’s three card Monte scheme between parish appointees, the “same serfs” who pad his Czarist Presidency, before Broussard’s greed and those in real need. And would have required decency and leadership.

Moreover, too bad that Broussard did not return from his pilgrimage to Yugoslavia, when he was accompanied by his sidekick, and now thirteen count confessed federal felon, Nick Baroni, to pray to the Blessed Mother with a better appreciation for Christian charity.

And now one must wonder who Broussard and Baroni -- former president of the Kenner council when Broussard was mayor of Kenner-- may have muscled to pay for their publicity-grabbing stint to pray to the Blessed Mother!

And perhaps Broussard’s next pilgrimage should be to the alter of “Our Lady of Perpetual Graft and Corruption!”

Furthermore, Broussard’s knowledge of the Internal Revenue code is as sad as his ability to govern.

From the above referenced article, “He (Broussard) said he didn't claim the gifts on his tax return because it didn't meet the $12,000 threshold to qualify as more than a gift in the eyes of the IRS.”

Gifts are “not” taxable to the receiver, regardless of the amount!

Aaron Broussard’s knowledge of the Internal Revenue code is as embarrassing as Broussard’s administration is void of ethics and transparency.

Should Broussard spend less time “shaking-down,” -– excuse me -– digging up referrals from parish businesses for his number 1 appointee Tim Whitmer’s insurance agency and rendering legal services to Whitmer for a fat fee, and less time on a Boston vacation and on ski slopes -– thanks to the “generosity” of his appointed parish employees, at a time of austere budget cuts, perhaps the citizens would be better served. And suggest you go elsewhere other than Broussard for 1040 preparation advice.

David C. Bellinger

(404) 762-8779
Atlanta, GA
E-mail Address:

Additional source used in letter: "Broussard sent referrals to Whitmer-owned firm He also did legal work for company", by Richard Rainey and Paul Rioux, Times-Picayune, December 12, 2009


3 comments DiggIt!

"Asps... very dangerous. You go first." 

The Zombie has more you should see.


0 comments DiggIt!

I don't think so 

T-P Sports columnist Peter Finney:

No one knows better than New Orleans Saints Coach Sean Payton how it feels to lose a game with a missed field-goal attempt.

I'm thinking that Bobby Bowden knows better. Fans had to number all the "missed field goal" losses by FSU, in order to keep track. And that's just against one rival opponent-- the Miami Hurricanes.

Labels: ,

0 comments DiggIt!

Monday, December 28, 2009

sasq plus commentary 

At the Hayride, Ryan Booth asks:

"Are Sen. Vitter and Rep. Alexander hypocrites for opposing Obamacare?"

Yes, they continue to be hypocrites for that reason among many others. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Let's take this opportunity to explain Booth's query. Booth, a conservative, regards Medicare along these lines:

Medicare is, by itself, a truly repulsive program. The federal government taxes me and other young people and gives the money to the elderly. Institutionalized age discrimination by robbing the young to give to the old is terrible policy, but the prescription drug bill made it much worse by effectively taxing my grandchildren.

Since Senator David Vitter and Representative Rodney Alexander both voted FOR Bush's 2003 Medicare Modernization Act (Medicare Part D), and they currently are AGAINST so-called "Obamacare" (which is less costly), they are hypocrites. This is nothing extraordinary. Nowadays the right is filled with fake conservatives with their selective outrage and (willful?) historical ignorance. In his post, Booth links to a piece by Bruce Bartlett detailing the hypocrisy of such conservatives on Obamacare. He pillories Representative Trent Franks (AZ-Rep) specifically, but these criticisms can apply to Vitty-cent and Alexander as well:

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction-- the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Maybe [Trent] Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured-- which is deficit-neutral-- somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations.

Vitter apparently agrees with Franks' hypocrisy, because he recently blogged:

I’m doing everything I can to curb Washington’s outrageous tax and spend agenda, to protect our individual rights from unprecedented government control and to keep Obama’s health care bill and the federal government out of our everyday lives.

Folks in Washington today have taken too many liberties with your hard earned money and personal freedoms, and I’m fighting to stop them.
With a vote on a trillion dollar government-run health care bill just around the corner, the choice we face is crystal clear.

No Vitty, you little skeeze. The "trillion dollar vote" was in 2003, and you were one of the "folks in Washington" who voted FOR it. Medicare Part D (aka Big Pharma's House) puts us $15 trillion further into the red, but SocialistHitlerJokerObamacare will cost only a fraction of that hideous sum because it's not deficit-financed.

If Vitty-cent were a real warrior against government spending, as he claims, he'd make a belated apology for his transgressions (it wouldn't be the first time) and announce that he will not run for re-election. Instead, Vitty should announce his endorsement of a TEA party candidate who thinks like Booth does (that Medicare is a "repulsive" program), and who promises to first repeal the ultra-costly Medicare Part D entitlement that Vitter voted to enact.

Can I get a "hellz yeah" from my fellow tea partiers?

Labels: , ,

20 comments DiggIt!

“First get your facts. Then you can distort them at your leisure.” 

In a recent post about health care, I sort of joked that "If we were playing by Bush-league rules, perhaps we could say that the first nine months of one's presidency hardly counts".

Then I saw this Think Progress post about Mary Matalin's professional dissembling

I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history.

Who are we to question? "She was there", you see. 9/11 was an inheritance.

Surely the right will similarly treat the recent attempted terrorist attack during Obama's first year in office as an "inheritance" he received from Bush.

Eh, not so much.

Matalin's professional dissembling should be treated as a laughable gaffe were it not for the coordinated effort by the right to disappear the plain fact that 9/11 occurred during Bush's first term. Since then, we're constantly reminded, no successful terrorist attacks occurred on our precious "soil"-- I guess the "worst biological attacks in U.S. history" which were waged after 9/11 didn't count because the perpetrator wasn't an Islamic Muslim named Abdul. If, say, Saddam Hussein had been behind the anthrax attacks that killed and injured Americans, wouldn't they be waved as a bloody shirt, a supreme casus belli-- another hideous "inheritance" from the Clinton years, no doubt. But since these particular killings of innocent Americans don't fit the right's fable about the 9/11 aftermath-- they are conveniently disappeared in coordinated fashion.

The Think Progress post provides a number of helpful links. Concentrate on the ones involving the omission of Iraq in Bush's library bio and Rove's lies about Afghanistan. That's where the historical rubber really hits the road, especially when the all-too partial list of the Bush administration's emails are eventually released in a few years. (And when current investigations into timely deaths conclude.) Skip the recession links. Bush really did inherit a mild recession from Clinton, though he's responsible for the lackluster recovery that followed it.

Inspired, I thought I should list some other links and quotes addressing a particular question that might be more interesting. Given that more U.S. troops are being sent to Afghanistan, and that soon they will be there for over a decade, and given that Osama bin Laden has yet to be brought to justice for the 9/11 attacks, Why did President Barack Obama inherit the morass in Afghanistan?

December 19, 2000: Clinton Tells Bush His Top Priority Should Be Bin Laden; Bush Says It’s Saddam Hussein Instead

President Clinton and President-Elect Bush meet for their "exit interview," in a two-hour meeting. [CNN, 12/19/2000] Clinton gives Bush his list of his top five priorities. At the top of the list is dealing with Osama bin Laden. Clinton also discusses the tensions between Pakistan and India, who are threatening each other with nuclear strikes; the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine; he discusses North Korea; and he discusses Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush shakes Clinton’s hand after Clinton wraps up his presentation, and says, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you’ve got your priorities wrong. I’m putting Saddam at the top of the list."


A White House that seems to pick an outcome it wants and then marshal the facts to meet it seems very much like one that might decide to remove Saddam Hussein and then tickle the facts to meet its objective. That's the inescapable conclusion one draws from [Former Treasury Secretary Paul] O'Neill's description of how Saddam was viewed from Day One... "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country... And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"


In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

A week before Katrina, I pulled some quotes and links (including the one directly above), and wrote some crap:

Exhortations to "Remember 9/11" are stupid. No one will forget 9/11. More useful would be to remember how Bushco falsely claimed that the "lessons of 9/11" applied directly and immediately to Iraq. Perhaps the best thing to say would be "Remember Afghanistan". Often overlooked, it's amazing how rarely war-supporters mention this ongoing front in the "War on Terror"....

Making the best of the current situation in Iraq is important. But preventing the strategic folly which led to "Iraq" (at the expense of Afghanistan) is even more so.

* Mark Twain

Labels: , , ,

8 comments DiggIt!