Friday, July 27, 2007

What's Wrong With Yins Guys?

Why hasn't anyone voted in my new importnat poll? Cheese whiz!

Also... what do yins all think of the picture of me as a Simpson?

(See, yins guys have me so flustered that my Pittsburgh is all coming out, although I might add that there's an ongoing argument about whether it's spelled "yins" or "yuns".)

Michael on Michael

Here's Michael Medved's commentary on Michael Moore's new film. From a email. It's entitled "Someone Always Pays".

After the record-breaking box-office returns of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the limited commercial success of Michael Moore's new film, "Sicko," counts as a major disappointment.

The movie's generated little enthusiasm because it offers movie-goers very little fun: it's a dreary cinematic pamphlet on the miserable state of health care in the U.S., and the supposed glories of socialized systems in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba. Unlike "Fahrenheit," or "Bowling for Columbine," Moore makes not the slightest attempt to talk with people with opposing viewpoints, so there's no confrontational adventure; just a tedious illustrated lecture in the style of "An Inconvenient Truth."

Moreover, Moore endlessly repeats the phrase "free medical care," without acknowledging that someone always pays. He never mentions the cost to taxpayers of the "free care" he admires. Maybe some Americans would willingly accept sharply increased taxes to get government-run health services, and Moore's film would prove more watchable if he offered an honest view of that choice.

Yeah, that's why I go to movies: to be lectured on how we'd be better off in "Cuber", to use the Kennedy pronunciation of Castro's little dictatorship.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

The Situation?

Since Rod is repeating his point

I will repeat my obsessopoint.

But this was even funnier... to me, that is.

Oh, yeah... call me a geek, but I googled the word "obsessostalker", just to see if Ronco had trademarked it yet.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

"Black helicopters in whisper mode"

This post rambles a little bit, but it's definitely worth reading from Torquemada05.

I think it is perhaps worth remembering that one of William F. Buckley's best achievements in the history of modern conservatism was the expulsion of the John Birch Society from the ranks of acceptable conservatism. I'm not surprised at Ron Paul's embrace of it given that he exists in the political fringe, but I also find it nothing short of amazing that Mark [Shea], who repeatedly bemoans the current GOP's abandonment of traditional conservatism, is willing to throw away more than 50+ years of work in a warped effort to reintegrate the fringe into the mainstream. This is one of the things that happened to the Democrats in 1972 and they've been paying for it ever since.

I should note that the John Birch Society is not to be confused with being related in any way to Pennsylvania Dutch Birch Beer, which totally kicks butt regardless of your politics.

UPDATE: Speaking of Buckley and the Birchers, I just found this little gem on the Birch site.

Way back in 1952, when the now-wizened William F. Buckley was a winsome and witty wunderkind -- not to mention a CIA asset employed to misdirect the conservative movement -- he published an essay entitled "A Young Republican View" in the pages of The Commonweal. Disdaining those on the right who believed in the Constitution and its limitations on central government power, Buckley redefined conservatism as the unbuttoned embrace of the total state.

You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

Are Unicorns Racists?

I love reading Ann Coulter columns. They're humorous, clever and just like a junkie's used syringe, they get under the skin of all the idiots out there. Like this one on the latest so-called "debate". Excerpt:

Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday's Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign. For now, the Democratic candidates need to appeal only to their nut-base. So on Monday night, the candidates casually spouted liberal conspiracy theories that would frighten normal Americans, but are guaranteed to warm the hearts of losers blogging from their mother's basements.

B. Hussein Obama got the party started by claiming he couldn't get a cab in New York because he's black. This line was a big hit with white liberals in the audience who have never been to New York.

Even writers for The New York Times don't drag this canard out anymore. Last year, a black writer in the Times pointed out how things had changed in New York in the 10 years since he had been out of the country. Not only did he have no trouble getting a cab, but he cited statistics from taxi sting operations that showed a 96 percent compliance rate among cabbies in picking up blacks. (Remarkable, considering that New York cabbies' compliance rate on daily bathing is less than half that.)

In a sense, these "debates" showcase how easy it is to get approval from a foaming liberal audience. Just throw out some truism like "the man is keeping you down" or "we need to take America back from the rich and powerful Republicans" and you might as well be John, Paul, George or Ringo on their first American tour. Especially to the aforesaid angry cross-eyed basement blogging set.

To a rational person, these forums are simply insulting to the intelligence. The absence of real follow-up questions should make even a thinking liberal embarassed. For example, the first rhetorical follow-up question I asked in my mind was "Are you saying that taxi-drivers are racists?" But a question that innocent completely misses the point that the purpose of the statement is merely to evoke an impression that Obama has street cred, that he gets "dissed" all the time due to his blackness. The whole thing is so goofy it begs to be made fun of, and Ann Coulter bats clean-up in the mockery All-Star game.

And by the way, what's with Edwards remarking on Hillary's wardrobe? Maybe Coulter was right about Edwards' orientation after all. Uh, ever hear of stones and glass houses, mister former senator? Her immediate laughter at the comment can be best explained by noting that he had just probably flushed himself down the toilet like a dead fish for good.