I didn't watch President Bush's speech last night, but I did read a transcript, and after seeing a few positive reviews, I decided to watch a video.
Dude...who was that guy behind the microphone? He looked like Dubya...but he was actually speaking well! I'm impressed. Aside from the usual "nucular" issue, this was one of his best speeches. The message and the delivery were both very effective.
Unfortunately, our friends at the New York Times have decided that he didn't really say anything important, and that Iraq is still a QUAAAAAAAAGMIIIIIIIIRE!!!! Check out this asshatted editorial:
President Bush's Speech About IraqPresident Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true.
Of course, if your view of the world is clouded by irrational Bush hatred.
Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials...
I can almost taste the immaturity that inspired that statement.
...the military situation is at best unimproved.
Seriously, how can they get away with this level of asininity? Are they incapable of seeing any positive effects of the war? What is it going to take to please you people? I want answers!!!
The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come.
At the current level of training, that may be true. But as more of the country is secured and more time can be devoted to preparing them to defend themselves, the situation should improve. But in order to admit this, you'd have to accept the fact that the military is actually accomplishing something.
There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do...
Let's see here...who should I believe? An anonymous newspaper editor, or the military commanders who are actually in Iraq? It's such a tough decision.
...yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.
Such as...? It's not like every single U.S. troop in the world is occupied right now.
We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war...
Since he wasn't responsible for that misinformation, I don't know why he should have to.
...or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation.
Once again, notice the complete lack of examples. They do this so people who already agree with them can insert some event that fits their perception of a "catastrophe," and people who disagree won't have any factual information to work with. It's brilliant in an illogical kind of way.
But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.
Unbelievable. You idiots still don't get it. The War on Terror is not about revenge. It's about preventing another 9/11 from happening. If war was just about retaliation, we wouldn't have fought Germany in WWII. If you had actually listened to Bush's speech, maybe you would understand how replacing totalitarian dictators with democratically elected leaders helps stop terrorism. But that would require you to think, and if you could do that, you wouldn't be liberal.
We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.
Let's go to the transcript and illustrate your mind-boggling ignorance:
A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goal in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend, a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government; we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005; we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy; we would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition; and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.
And a bit later:
The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
Is that enough for you, you pretentious pricks?
Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking.
A "fact" that I just disproved, incidentally.
He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.
They're doing a pretty good job so far. Unless you people actually take my "the war won't be a success until Iraq has a space program" joke seriously.
Given the way this war was planned and executed, the president does not have any good options available...
Mmmmm...non-sequiturs...
...and if American forces were withdrawn, Iraq would probably sink into a civil war that would create large stretches of no man's land where private militias and stateless terrorists could operate with impunity.
Which is why Bush specifically said that American forces won't be pulled out until they're no longer needed. What were you saying earlier about answering questions nobody asked?
But if Mr. Bush is intent on staying the course, it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own.
Oh, is that the problem? Well, then let's just tell Dubya to push the magical "make Iraq a successful democracy in an instant" button! All those mean insurgents will just disappear, and Iraq will be a land of fairies and butterflies and enchanted pink unicorns that crap out pieces of delicious candy.
...Do I really need to add the sarcasm tags?
Most important of all - despite his lofty assurance last night that in the end the insurgents "cannot stop the advance of freedom" - all those years of effort and suffering could still end with the Iraqis turning on each other, or deciding that the American troops were the ultimate enemy after all.
Yes, and it could also end with everyone suddenly bursting into song and dance, but that probably won't happen. Aren't hypothetical scenarios fun?
The critical challenge is to gauge, with a clear head, exactly when and if the tipping point arrives and the American presence is only making a terrible situation worse.
At this point, I'm almost convinced that the writer didn't even read a summary of Bush's speech, because I'm pretty sure he covered this.
Mr. Bush has been under pressure, even from some Republicans, to come up with a timeline for an exit.
And he explained why that would be a terrible idea.
It makes no sense to encourage the insurrectionists...
What happened? Is "insurgents" no longer P.C.?
...by telling them that if their suicide bombers continue to blow themselves up at the current rate, the Americans will be leaving in six months or a year. It is Iraq's elected officials, who desperately need an American presence, who have to be told that Washington's support isn't open-ended.
And this differs from current policy...how, exactly?
The elected government is the only hope, but its current performance is far from promising. While the support of the Shiite's powerful Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for the democratic elections was heartening, the Shiite majority in Parliament is mainly composed of religious parties competing to demonstrate that they have the ayatollah's ear. The Kurds continue to put broader national interests behind their own goal of an autonomous ministate that would include the oil fields of Kirkuk. The Sunnis, who boycotted the election, are only now being brought into the constitution-writing effort and so far have made no real effort to mobilize against the terrorists in their midst.
Once again, we see the writer taking the position that just because something hasn't happened yet, it never will. I think the whole "Sunnis participating in the constitutional process" thing indicates that progress is being made. Once again, there is no magical button that will make this stuff happen instantly. Considering the fact that Iraq was a dictatorship for decades, it's amazing that they're moving forward this fast. But of course, if the eeeeeeevil Republicans are responsible for it, it can't be good.
Pressure from the Bush administration for the government to do better has increased since the State Department took control of Iraq policy from the Pentagon. But there is much more to do, and the president needed to show the American people that he is not giving the Iraqi politicians a blank check to fritter away their opportunities.
Once they have a working constitution, I'm sure they'll have a better idea of what they're supposed to do.
Listening to Mr. Bush offer the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom and the sacrifice of American soldiers, our thoughts went back to some of the letters we received in anticipation of the speech. One was from the brother of a fallen Marine, who said he did not want Mr. Bush to say the war should continue in order to keep faith with the men and women who have died fighting it. "We do not need more justifications for the war. We need an effective strategy to win it," he wrote.
Well, mission accomplished.
Another letter came from an opponent of the invasion who urged the American left to "get over its anger over President Bush's catastrophic blunder" and start trying to figure out how to win the conflict that exists.
What is this mysterious "catastrophe" they keep referring to? Man, I'm glad I don't live in that liberal fantasy world. It seems like a dark and scary place.
No one wants a disaster in Iraq...
*cough*Ward Churchill*cough*
...and Mr. Bush's critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris...
I believe that in less touchy-feely circles, it's known as "confidence."
...its terrible planning...
"The troops actually had to fight! We're doooooooomed!!!"
...and its inept conduct of the war...
Yet another accusation that's only valid if you already agree with the person making it. Brilliant.
...in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here.
But unfortunately, they're too busy holding mock impeachment hearings and calling the troops Nazis.
The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years...
Bwahaha.
...cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11.
Why should he, when he could just pretend 9/11 never happened like you morons?
The nation does not want it and cannot afford it.
If by "the nation," you mean "the editorial staff of a liberal paper," then you may be right. Otherwise, you need to stop acting like you speak for anyone but yourselves.
I believe we have a winner in the "broadest search ever" contest. Either that, or they were looking for songs that aren't about people or places.
You know how some days there's so much to blog about that you can't make up your mind, and you just end up reading other blogs all day without writing anything?
Yeah, today is one of those days.
I know I could probably just look this up on Google, but in case anyone here knows...
We're planning on doing a cover of Neil Young's "Rockin' In the Free World" for the SA CD. Would it be legal to post it on the blog, or would that be copyright infringement? Just askin'.
All right, it's time for a preview of what to expect from my band later this summer. We did a couple recordings tonight, and I thought I'd share 'em. However, before you listen, keep a few things in mind:
1. This was recorded in my basement with a camcorder mic and not post-produced in any way, so don't expect it to sound very professional.
2. This was only the third time we practiced, so we're still working some stuff out.
3. It's just guitar and drums. No bass, no singing.
4. The songs will probably sound different by the time we're finished.
5. Drums = CD, guitar = Ryan
6. Did I mention that we recorded this with a camcorder in my basement?
All right, that's enough. Here are the songs. I recommend downloading them and playing them in iTunes or some other program with an equalizer:
Feedback is welcome (but please critique the music and not the horrible, horrible recording technique).
You may have seen this news already:
House Approves Move to Outlaw Flag BurningA constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning cleared the House Wednesday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate. An informal survey by The Associated Press suggested the measure doesn't have enough Senate votes to pass.
As ridiculous and pointless as flag burning is, there should not be a Constitutional amendment against it. The irony is too thick, first of all. But in addition, keeping flag burning legal makes it easier to identify idiots. There should be no law against flag burning for the same reason that there should be no "hate speech" laws.
Think about it. If you see a guy out in the middle of the street yelling "I hate niggers" at the top of his lungs, you know that you should avoid that guy like the plague. Same deal with flag burning. If you see some asshole burning a flag, you probably don't want to associate with said asshole. Laws restricting freedom of expression just make it harder for stupid people to be identified and properly ridiculed.
Flag burning is idiotic, but it should be legal anyway. Stupidity should be exposed and eliminated, not hidden by legislative action.
Banner ads with sound effects should be illegal. I don't enjoy going to a website and being assaulted by the "shoot the paparazzi" camera flash noises. The people who make these things need to be flogged in the face with red-hot barbed wire.
So...
Is anything happening? I can't seem to find blogworthy material today.
Via LGF, I found this article about Howard Dean's effect on political discourse. Let's check it out:
Republicans showered scorn upon Howard Dean when he said in recent weeks that the GOP is "pretty much a white Christian party," that many of its leaders "never made an honest living," and that a key Republican "is corrupt" and should "start serving his jail sentence."
Dean: The gift that keeps on giving.
Some Democrats publicly disavowed the remarks by Dean, their own party chairman.But Dean did not back down.
Of course not. After all, cornered animals tend to fight back for the sake of survival.
"We need to be blunt and clear about the things that we're going to fight for," he told Iowa Democratic leaders Saturday, according to the Des Moines Register. "People have criticized me for being blunt. I do that on purpose. I am tired of lying down."
Keep it up, man! Every time you spew irrational bullshit in front of the press, more people leave the Democratic party!
So is it a strategy?
I guess it could be...in the same way that intentionally walking a batter with the bases loaded is a baseball strategy...
If so, it's misguided, said analysts contacted by ABCNEWS.com -- unless it's part of a Republican strategy.
Aha! KKKarl Rove is to blame for the idiocy of Mad How! He must be a cyborg built by the VRWC to trick the Sheeple into thinking that the Democrats hate them!
"The Republicans are attacking Howard Dean more than Howard Dean is attacking Republicans...
I believe it's called "retaliation."
...but the way the stories are being handled in the news media, everybody is assuming the opposite," said Anthony Pratkanis, co-author of "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion," and a psychology professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz.
Wait a minute...let me see if I understand what you're saying...Republicans are attacking Dean more aggressively, but the media just happens to be there when he delivers such delightful nuggets of wisdom as "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," so everyone thinks he's the bad guy? Wow. That's amazing...I mean, who knew that proclaiming your hatred of half the country could get people's attention?!
'Republican Message Machine'Experts on propaganda and political branding declared Republicans the winners of the dust-up over Dean's comments, calling Dean's attacks imprecise, poorly targeted and open to mischaracterization (Dean was forced to clarify several remarks once they were reported).
Let me translate that from Moonbat to English: Dean said a bunch of mind-numbingly idiotic things, and when he realized that most people didn't agree with them, he had to pretend that he meant something else. As a result, other liberals must find a way to blame Republicans.
There. That's more like it.
The result is little surprise to George Lakoff, a linguistics and cognitive science professor at the University of California-Berkeley...
Yeah, there's a bastion of unbiased wisdom.
...who said "the Republican message machine" has been far more effective than Democrats in recent years at framing the opposing party through disciplined message management, repetition of phrases and other techniques. Democrats, he said, can't currently match the GOP's level of organization.
It's a new meme! First, there was the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Then, there was the Digital Brown-Shirts. Now, we have...the Republican Message Machine. The most devastating collection of right-wing propaganda in the history of the world.
Here, we once again see the main problem with modern liberalism. They cannot...CANNOT accept the fact that people don't agree with them, so they have to rely on these cute little conspiracy theories to explain why their batshit insane messages can't get out.
"The reason for this [Dean flap] is that you have Republican media people putting this stuff out -- combing through the speeches, taking out a quote and taking them out of context..."
Excuse me a moment while I enjoy a hearty laugh at George Lakoff's expense.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
All right, where were we? Ah, yes. The "Republican media people." Notice the complete lack of context or examples? I love how these morons think they can conjure up imaginary demons without having to explain what the fuck they're talking about. If he's trying to suggest that the media is dominated by conservatives...no, I don't have time to laugh that long. Let's just move on.
...said Lakoff, a self-styled "progressive" Democrat who was in the audience for Dean's "honest living" remark and feels it got mischaracterized in the media.
I'm sure he didn't feel that way when he heard it, but now that he's seen its less than stellar reception, he has to pretend that everyone made a mistake. Hindsight's a bitch, ain't it?
Whether the Dean controversy was fueled by Republicans framing Dean's comments or by the comments themselves...
Is it even necessary to consider the first explanation?
...the attention paid to it may have revived a media portrayal of Howard Dean as a loose cannon, at a time of falling poll numbers for President Bush and the Republican agenda.
It just so happens that the "media portrayal" of Dean seems to be one of the few things the media has gotten right lately. I'm sure he's a wonderful human being, though...when he's not busy calling all Republicans dishonest criminals.
In other words, Pratkanis said, just as they stumbled, Republicans may have pitched a psychological message to future voters that, "We're all that keeps you from Howard Dean."
Or Dean may have pitched a psychological message to future voters that "the Democrats are the party of hatred, and if you don't agree with us, you deserve to be in prison." You know, something like that.
'I Hate Republicans'Dean's recent remarks seemingly elaborated on his quip earlier this year that, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."
In late May, Dean said embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, "ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence." DeLay has faced questions and investigations over campaign finance matters, but has not been accused of a crime.
Just think about how many Nazi comparisons would be flying around if a Republican had made that statement.
Then, in a June 2 speech to a Washington conference sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future, Dean suggested Republican leaders could not identify with the common working-class voter."You have to wait on line for eight hours to cast your ballot in Florida," he said. "There's something the matter with that. And Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."
Only Howard Dean could find a way to insult Republicans based on the incompetence of polling place workers.
'Ranting and Raving'That week, a storm erupted around the man already derided -- some have said unjustly -- for his campaign trail "scream" after the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucuses.
YEEEEEEEAAAAAAGH!!!!
"He's ranting and raving about Republicans not having held real jobs," Tony Fabrizio, a Republican strategist, told USA Today. "It's hatred, hatred and more hatred."
And I encourage him to keep it up as much as possible. For example, he could paraphrase many racists and claim that all Republicans look the same to him...oh, wait, he already did that.
"Watching a Howard Dean speech is a little like people who go to a NASCAR race to see a crash," Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman, told the same reporter.
Insert Howard Dean here: "Only a stupid redneck Republican would think about NASCAR at a time like this!"
Tracey Schmidt, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said the comment, "makes it clear that Dean's priority is to generate mudslinging headlines rather than engage in substantive debate."
If he was capable of engaging in substantive debate, he wouldn't be a Democrat, after all.
Even fellow Democrats lashed out."He doesn't speak for me, with that kind of rhetoric," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said June 5 on ABC News' "This Week." "And I don't think he speaks for a majority of Democrats. I wish that rhetoric would change."
When Joe friggin' Biden isn't on your side, you should probably tone it down a bit.
However, a new Dean lightning bolt came the very next day."The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," he told a political forum. "They're a pretty monolithic party. They pretty much, they all behave the same and they all look the same. And they all, you know, it's pretty much a white Christian party."
Guess what, idiot? The United States is "pretty much a white Christian country" based on your standards, so you probably insulted a lot more people than you realized. But again, don't stop now. Why don't you just go all out and say that Republicans are evil?
...Oh, wait, you also did that already.
'Talking Crazy'Republicans seemed to crow openly as the controversy crested.
"I think he's probably helped us more than he has them," Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview on the Fox News Channel show "Hannity & Colmes" taped June 10, in which he also called Dean "over the top."
Dang it, man, don't give away our secrets! Are you trying to shut him up?
...Oh, wait, he wouldn't watch "Hannity & Colmes," so we shouldn't have a problem. Listening to other opinions means instant death to the liberal.
On the other hand, New York Post columnist John Podhoretz wrote June 14 that "it's not quite clear Republicans should be gleeful." The volatile Dean, he speculated, might be just the person to keep the most partisan, angry Democrats fired up for coming election cycles. Plus, he could prove valuable to moderate Democrats who scold him, "by defining the outer limit of his party."
The problem is that their party is now defined by people like him, so "moderates" really don't have much of a place anymore. As loud and obnoxious as they are, Deanocrats are still the minority in this country, and as long as they pretend to be mainstream, they'll keep losing elections. Therefore, I encourage them to keep making crazy speeches and playing dress-up games in basements. Let the adults handle things from now on.
"By talking crazy, he makes everybody else seem sane," Podhoretz wrote.
But that's exactly what we want. If he can convince voters that people like him represent mainstream Democrats, Republicans will control the government for the next few elections.
But such a strategy might target too few voters, said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and author of "The Art of Political Warfare.""You could argue that he's trying to … keep the Democratic base energized," Pitney said. "That's strategy, but not necessarily a winning one. In 2004, the Democratic Party got about as energized as they could and they lost. If they want to win, they've got to pick up some Republican votes, and Howard Dean's comments are not a good way to do that."
But don't you see? The Republican Message Machine just tricked people into voting for Bushchimpler! Americans really do want to vote for Democrats, and if Dean screams loudly enough, it'll eventually be impossible for "Republican media people" to distort the truth of the liberal message! It's brilliant, I tell you!!!
For one thing, Dean seemed to target Republicans generally with some of his comments, rather than focusing his fire on specific issues or individuals -- as Republicans did to the Democrats by attacking Dean."He says, I hate the Republicans, without making a distinction," Pitney said. To ordinary Republicans, "the obvious conclusion is, Howard Dean hates me. That's not a good way to build support."
Of course, we stupid Republicans aren't nuanced enough to understand what he really meant, right? When he says "I hate the Republicans," what he's really saying is "I love the Republicans, but it's tough love. You know, the same kind of love Michael Moore has for America."
Bad WordingSome said Dean may have goofed further by, as Pitney said, "choosing his words carelessly" -- leaving them too open to misinterpretation.
See my earlier comments about hindsight.
"Here's a man who said, A: he hates Republicans and everything they stand for, [and B:], Republicans are white Christians," ABC News political analyst George Will said on "This Week" June 12. "It's almost a syllogism that Dean, therefore, hates white Christians. Now, he doesn't, but that's just the nature of the man. … He's impatient, and he's angry, and he's carrying on."
Of course he doesn't hate Christians! He's already told everyone that he reads the Bible. His favorite book of the New Testament is Job! And he couldn't hate white people either, since he is white! Remember when he said that "We're going to tell all those white boys who run the Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms?"
Hmmm...
In fact, Democrats have sought to target the white Christian demographic for political conversion, perhaps by reframing "moral values" against care for the poor and issues where Democrats are strong.
"All we have to do is fool them into thinking we don't hate them! It's simple!"
In an interview with National Public Radio broadcast June 3, Dean himself said, "We'd like to get some evangelical Christians and we'd like a big chunk of the Catholic vote back. … Our values, I think, are more in sync with most evangelicals than the president's values."
Right. Because "most evangelicals" believe that it's okay to hate people who don't agree with you. Good luck on that one.
Still, though Dean may have misstepped in the message war this time, it might not matter in the long run."The key time period is the mid-term in 2006," Pitney said. "If Dean is still talking like this a year from now, then the Democrats are going to have some real problems. … If he minds his tongue starting today, then the whole issue recedes."
Based on the last two years, that isn't going to happen. And frankly, I'm glad that someone is finally standing up and making people realize why Bush is president.
Remember, kids: Republicans distance themselves from crazy people. Democrats give them positions of authority.
Sorry about the sudden lack of blogging, but my Internet connection was down for THE LAST 26 HOURS.
Someone at Adelphia had better get fired for this.
This may be the most disturbing search EVER:
Jennifer's husband Jim gets her Drunk Clark male striper 10 inch cock he fucks her
We're very specific in our requests, aren't we?
Crap, I feel dirty for having posted this...
You know, the left is really making me angry lately. All this talk about "torture" and how we're as bad as Saddam...it's fucking ridiculous. Prepare for some serious, serious ranting if it continues. I've had enough of these morally bankrupt fucktards and their historical blindness.
I mentioned in my brilliant Grand Theory of Leftism that mental immaturity is one of the key characteristics of the modern liberal. Today, there's more proof than ever that I was right. Let's find out why.
You see, a few Washington lefties decided to hold a mock impeachment trial of President Bush yesterday:
They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the behavior of mature adults. This is the behavior of people who should be under constant supervision. The usual delusions of grandeur were there as well:
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered."
Seriously, someone needs to give them some shiny objects to play with so they'll calm down. Unfortunately, nobody thought to do that, and the fun continued:
The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Aha! I knew it! Just like all other bad things, the war happened because of the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!! But guess what? That's still not the end of the hilarity! Check out what else happened:
Conyers's firm hand on the gavel could not prevent something of a free-for-all; at one point, a former State Department worker rose from the audience to propose criminal charges against Bush officials. Early in the hearing, somebody accidentally turned off the lights; later, a witness knocked down a flag. Matters were even worse at Democratic headquarters, where the C-SPAN feed ended after just an hour, causing the activists to groan and one to shout "Conspiracy!
Awwwww. The poow widdle wibewals. They're just so damn cute when they're angry.
<sarcasm>
Incidentally, that comment about someone accidentally turning off the lights reminds me of elementary school. Remember when the teacher would turn off the lights to show a movie? The usual response was for everyone in the room to go "OOOOOOOOOOOO!" I can just see the Democrats reacting that way...and it's a hilarious mental image. Come on, try and picture it without laughing.
Naturally, other bloggers are talking about this as well. For example, John Hawkins of Right Wing News:
The Democrats haven't just gone "round the bend," they've gone round the bend, down the street, and off to fairy land, where the moonbats dance and play in the dappled moonlight while everyone dances around in their pretty tinfoil hats.It starts with the Democratic equivalent of a little girl's tea party with her imaginary friends, a mock impeachment hearing for Bush. Now, you'd think that no one but the "Michael Moore crowd" would attend something that ridiculous and you'd be right. But unfortunately, the "Michael Moore crowd" now includes plemty of Democratic Congressmen and Senators.
Exactly. This is why Democrats aren't getting votes. Every time they lose, they manage to convince themselves that it was because they "couldn't get their message out." It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're fucking insane. No, it was only because the mean Republicans wouldn't allow them to explain their nuanced plans to the Sheeple. So what do they do? They act even crazier. After all, they're liberals, so they must be right, and as soon as they manage to break through Karl Rove's smoke screen, they'll have the support of everyone in the country.
Jeff Larkin of Football Fans For Truth reminds us that the party leadership is also to blame:
The Democrats are so frustrated their venom is ooozing from their eyeballs. Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean has excoriated Republicans as a monolithic, white Christian party whose members don't perform honest jobs. To Dean, the GOP is a party that looks and talks the same (unsaid is that presumably, it burns crosses and hundred dollar bills the same as well). Republicans, Dean admits, are the the sort of people he hates.
Later, he notes that this has been going on for quite a while:
This ain't new. In 2004, Al Gore went mental in a barely coherent speech before Moveon.org wherein he alleged that "Brown Shirts" were aiding the administration, that Bush was incompetent and that everybody from Rumsfeld to Cheney was to be placed in stocks immediately.
Once again, this is why Democrats are the minority party. They can't possibly accept the fact that people don't agree with them, so they resort to the only other explanation they can think of: Republicans are evil and have tricked people into voting against their own best interests. The anger is spewing left and right (but mostly left), and the liberals continue to believe that Republicans are the party of hatred and intolerance. They project so much that they could be working at a fucking movie theater (think about it for a second...).
In a way, you have to feel kinda sorry for them. Their worldview has been crushed over and over again in the last five years (and long before that), and the only way they can deal with it is by convincing themselves that they're right, and the eeeeeeeevil VRWC is preventing The Truth from coming out. And it follows that if the right is evil, there's nothing wrong with comparing them to Nazis and dictators, accusing them of war crimes, and calling for their impeachment based on one paragraph of a memo that only makes sense if you already believe that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war.
But at the same time...someone really needs to offer the Dems a warm glass of shut the hell up. For all their blathering about how Bush has ruined our image in the eyes of the rest of the world, they can't be helping much by making it look like half the country is composed of children trapped in adult bodies.
Something occurred to me last night. Gandalf (the wizard from Lord of the Rings, for those of you who have been living under a rock) would make a great college professor. His office hours would be the best:
STUDENT: How am I doing this semester, Professor Gandalf?
GANDALF (stands up on a chair): YOU...SHALL...NOT...PASS!!!
Ah, yes. I have a strange mind indeed.
(Has this been done before? I can't possibly be the first person who came up with this)
For those who are wondering, we are making progress. We're working on a list of songs, and I'm going to try and make a rough recording next time we practice just so you have some idea of how the final product is going to sound. There's also a chance that we'll be able to record and produce this thing in a semi-professional studio. My dad (a music teacher) has serious connections...
Also, I've taken the liberty of putting some info on a few websites. Check 'em out here, here, and here if you're interested.
Later, minions.
If you need even more proof that the left is collectively hyperventilating about nothing over this Gitmo BS, check out one of the chillingly gulag-like tortures inflicted on a poor prisoner:
...not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before...
Hey, that reminds me of dorm life! I'm going to demand that Syracuse University be shut down for human rights violations!
Idiots.
(Hat tip: LGF)
My friggin' Internet connection went down AGAIN!!! This is getting ridiculous now.
Well, my Internet connection just recovered from another 12 hour failure. Let's review recent events. In the past five days:
- My Internet connection went down twice
- My blog was inaccessible for an entire day
- The power at my house went out
Yep. The universe is plotting against me again...
...Was anybody else completely unable to get to SIT or any other MuNu blog yesterday?
Just for the heck of it, here's some quick commentary on a few of the issues I should have been blogging about lately, but haven't mentioned because I've been taking a political semi-hiatus. I know that your lives aren't complete until you know exactly what I think about things, after all.
- The "nuclear option" and resulting compromise: Just more proof that there is no Republican party in this country, only Democrats and Socialists. But the media sure loves those "maverick" Republicans, doesn't it? They're so much better than all the "extremist" judges who dare to take a position that Howard Dean wouldn't support. Speaking of which...
- Howard Dean's recent comments: I love this guy. He's the gift that keeps on giving. They might as well make Michael Moore the DNC chairman, and he'll have just as much credibility as Mad How. However, I kind of feel bad about it. If Democrats keep retreating from the mainstream like this, it'll give Republicans an excuse to move even further to the left than they already have. As much as I enjoy schadenfreude, I think that someone is going to have to step in and bring both parties back down to earth sooner or later. But until then...keep up the lunacy, Howie. Now, on to a more serious note...
- Amnesty International's "gulag" comments: You've gotta be fucking kidding me. On one hand, you have the imprisonment of millions of innocent people who were subsequently used as slave labor and often starved to death in the middle of Siberia. On the other hand, you have a few hundred suspected terrorists who are treated better in Gitmo than they would be in their own country, and who may or may not have witnessed the "mishandling" of a book that they wouldn't have had if their captors hadn't given them out for free. If you can even begin to see more than the most basic similarities between the two, especially considering what those prisoners in Gitmo would do to even the useful idiots in AI if they had the chance, then you have no moral compass, and you are a disgusting excuse for a human being. And considering how I feel about human beings, that's saying a lot. Oh, by the way...ILLEGAL COMBATANTS AREN'T PROTECTED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!!!
- John Kerry's grades: Bwahaha! All this time, Senator Fuckup was portrayed as the brilliant foil to the smirking chimp in the White House, and now we find out that he actually did worse in college than Dubya. Bwahahahaha!!! In any case, looking at the grades of both these guys and knowing that they still made it so far makes me feel a lot better about my 3.5 GPA.
- "Deep Throat" revealed: Who fuckin' cares?! If I gave secret information to journalists, and they ended up naming me after a porn movie, I'd want to remain anonymous too. There's something about using that phrase to describe a 91 year-old guy that makes me feel just a little ill.
And in non-political news...
- Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton should fight to the death, and the winner should be rewarded with a one-way rocket ride to the center of the Sun.
Thank you.
Remember all that stuff I said I was working on? It's going to take a little longer. Some idiot contractor cut a cable line somewhere, and everyone in my general area who uses Adelphia for Internet access was disconnected until about 5 minutes ago.
Just in case you were wondering where the crap I was today.
I'm doing some serious blog renovations. I just added a bunch of new quotes to the random quote generator, I've changed the extended entry code so it expands instead of sending you to the individual entry, and I'm working on adding categories that will apply to almost every post I've written since 2003.
In addition, I feel inclined to write about politics this week. I'm not sure why, but expect some commentary in the next few days.
is it okay to have anal sex if you use a douche christian
...
...
...WOW.
As promised, I'm posting my new script, "Bob and Joe vs. the Afterlife," the sequel to the critically acclaimed Bob and Joe: Back to Nature. As usual, however, I have to go through the introductions. You know the drill.
Anyway, this script is a bit different. Whereas Back to Nature was kind of silly, contrived, and spontaneous, the new one is much more plot-centered. I planned the entire thing from start to finish before I even wrote one page, and as a result, it's a lot more complex. I have my own opinions about which script is better overall, but I won't say which it is. You can decide that for yourselves.
Also...and I can't stress this enough...if you haven't read Back to Nature, you must read that before you can fully appreciate the sequel. Heck, it's been three months, so you might want to read it again even if you did see it before. If you're not familiar with the characters, you won't understand a lot of the jokes. For example, you won't get what's so funny about Jukebox, because I don't mention it anywhere in the sequel. Also, you won't know what a spone is. That's kind of important.
In addition, the same warnings apply to this as to the last one: It's rated R, and it's a lot more obscene than what I post on the blog. I tried to cut down a little on the naughty language this time, but as you'll find out, the profanity actually adds a lot to a certain new character's personality.
Another random note...if you don't understand what's funny about the call on Jukebox's phone (page 80 in the PDF version), let me know, and I'll give you a hint. It's a literary allusion...
Finally, a note on the writing aspects of this thing. Like I said, I tried to focus more on the plot since the characters had already been fleshed out a bit in the last script, so I think it's a much more interesting and engrossing experience overall. It's essentially a haunted house story, so I even tried to make it mildly scary in a few places. And yes, I did research actual ghost hunting techniques before writing the middle section.
It also gave me some practice writing from different perspectives, which is always good for character development. As I've mentioned before, I actually don't believe in ghosts, but I had to write from both a skeptical perspective and a "true believer" perspective to get this thing to work, and it was fun getting inside my characters' heads. I love this.
Anyway, without further pretentious rambling, I present: Bob and Joe vs. The Afterlife. The PDF is identical to the original, but is large and slow, and the RTF is smaller, but has no page numbers and a slightly different font. Choose either one...or both...or...neither...yeah:
PS: Feel free to write a review if you read it. I'm taking a screenwriting class in the fall, so feedback is always welcome.
(PPS: There is yet another sequel on the way, but it's going to be a few weeks.)
The endless source of hilarity known as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has provided another great letter to the editor today. I can't believe they actually published this. Check it out:
Move to AlabamaSo, letter writer Bob Stamer of Baldwin Borough believes that calling our city a "welcome and diverse place for people with alternative lifestyles" is a disgrace? ("Not Welcome," June 2 letters). I do agree with him that our city has enough problems, starting with the close-mindedness that Mr. Stamer so proudly displays.
The "disgusting and abnormal behavior" that my children should not see is the blind hatred shown by this man.
As opposed to "keeping it in California," as Mr. Stamer so wittily suggests, how about him moving to Alabama? His brand of bigotry would fit in quite nicely in the Deep South!
As you can probably guess, this person was responding to a letter criticizing the gay population of Pittsburgh. That letter was actually pretty over the top, but this response is...baffling. The dude condemns bigotry by making a bigoted suggestion.
I guess that's okay, though, because everyone knows that Southerners are all racist rednecks, right?
<sarcasm>
Army NCO Guy, you might want to comment on this one...
I'm now on page 84 of the new Bob and Joe script. It should be done by Saturday or Sunday.
Just in case you were wondering.
UPDATE
Yep, it's done. 96 pages long. Expect it to be posted sometime on Saturday.
I finally got together with Ryan the guitarist tonight, and we started planning how we're going to record the Suspended Agitation songs. This stuff is going to sound friggin' awesome. His amp is loud.
Again, for anyone who's thinking of checking out the recordings when we make 'em, we're trying to go for a distinct sound. Ideally, it'll be like Sevendust and Nirvana had a baby, then Metallica adopted and raised it, and a bunch of right-wing bloggers taught it how to talk. Along with a few other elements, of course.
This is going to be fun.
In the spirit of the memetastic Post-Gazette letter I pointed out a few days ago, I'm going to fisk another one dealing with the same issue. Here we go:
For troops, not warI was surprised to learn from his letter to the editor ("Liberal Scare Tactics" May 18) that Richard Guardiani thinks that "liberal Democrats" are against the war in Iraq -- surprised as much by his apparently sudden realization as by the idea that he thinks only "liberal Democrats" are opposed to this war.
First of all, it is mainly "liberal Democrats" speaking out against the war, and the person in question, Rob Rogers, is clearly a lefty. In addition, the letter you're referring to did not say that "only" liberal Democrats are opposed to the war. Step away from the straw man.
He asserts that "liberal Democrats" want us to fail in Iraq. Funny, I consider myself and many of my friends to be liberal Democrats, and at no time has any of us expressed a desire for failure in Iraq.
Have you heard the term "useful idiot?" Just because you don't know you're doing something doesn't mean you can't be doing it. And even if you don't want the U.S. to fail, a few of your fellow "liberal Democrats" have all but admitted that they'd rather see Bush humiliated than see our military win.
Our desire is to get out of a country we should have never invaded in the first place. Under false pretenses, no less.
Meme Numero Uno! "False pretenses!" Crap, these things are predictable. At least get a new slogan or something.
Mr. Guardiani questions the support liberal Democrats have for our troops and our country. I can say without hesitation that we support our troops and love America.
Meme Numero Dos! "We support our troops and love America!" Did you ever stop and think that it wouldn't be necessary to constantly point out this "fact" if you actually did something to prove it?
What we don't support is the war. There is a difference. If we were really in Iraq or Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive," as Mr. Bush claimed, there would probably be much greater support for the war.
Can you say "short-sighted," boys and girls? It's been over 3 years since 9/11, and these idiots still think that OBL is our only concern. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The human race is doomed.
I'd like to know how Mr. Guardiani knows that most potential recruits are "mainly conservative." Did I miss some national survey that was taken or is that an assumption on his part?
Well...actually...
"The 2003 Military Times Poll reveals a military more conservative, more Republican, and one that considers itself to be morally superior to the nation its serves."
(Source)
Does that answer your question?
If military recruitment is down, it could be because potential recruits, like many "liberal Democrats," see no end to this war.
Or it could be a combination of factors that includes the two already mentioned. I thought only conservatives saw issues in black and white.
Mr. Guardiani should be reminded that many "Liberal Democrats" and others opposed to the war are veterans who proudly served this country.
Congratufuckinglations. Have a cookie.
He should also remember that some of the greatest patriots in our history opposed government policies. Perhaps he never heard of the Revolutionary War.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that this person is citing a war as a reason to oppose a war? It just strikes me as ironic.
Feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments. Because...that's what they're for.
I've been tagged by Army NCO Guy, so I've gotta answer a bunch of questions. I'm warning you, though: for a guy who wants to be a screenwriter, I keep surprisingly bad track of things like this. Anyway, let's get started:
1) Total number of films I own on DVD/video: I personally own about 25 or 30, but that's mainly because I still live with my parents for a few months a year, and they have a lot more.
2) The last film I bought: No friggin' idea.
3) The last film I watched: I was bored about a week ago, so I watched The Fellowship of the Ring and Star Wars Episode IV back-to-back. Might as well include 'em both.
4) Five films that I watch a lot or that mean a lot to me: I'm going to assume that trilogies/series count as one film here...
1. Gettysburg
2. Jurassic Park 1 and 2 (I didn't like 3)
3. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
4. Both Wayne's World movies
5. Any Austin Powers movie
5) Tag 5 people and have them put this in their journal/blog: This is going to be hard. My readership has kind of declined in the last few months, and two of them have done this already, but I think I can pick out five people who at least stop by occasionally...
1. Tuning Spork
2. Crispy23
3. Jim
4. Tommy
5. MeeCiteeWurkor
All right, we'll see how this goes. I'm not even sure all these people still read SIT. I've been in a frickin' rut.
