Sunday, November 03, 2002
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
The National Organization for
Man-Hating Marxist Lesbians Women are in a snit because there are too many good looking women on TV. No, I'm not making that up. Some other bits of unintentional hilarity in their report:
- The Jennifer Aniston Rule. The majority of women in the U.S. are young, thin, white and fall within a narrow standard of "beauty." FALSE. Really? Wow, am I glad NOW clued me in on that. I went to the senior center to cruise for chicks, and they all looked like Bea Arthur. I thought God was playing a cruel joke on me.
- Opposites attract. Attractive women often couple with less attractive "average Joe" men and older men, placing value on personality over appearance. MOSTLY FALSE. Gee, and I thought my bald spot would attract all those Jennifer Anniston lookalikes too. Someone should clue NOW in--we overweight balding guys already know this, and we know that the only way we'll date supermodels is if we earn the equivalent of the GDP of Ecuador.
- The WWE Smackdown! (UPN) web page lists 35 male "superstars" and only 6 females. That's only because they haven't signed up Janet Reno yet.
- FOX's America's Most Wanted: "Clips before[the] show and in between cases focus onthe victims who are young and attractive and frightened. Emphasis on their beautyand fear seems geared toward attracting male viewers . . . Excuse for program is to identify most wanted criminals--but selection of content is questionable." Imagine that--crime victims being frightened. The next thing you know, they'll talk about how apprehending crooks is too violent.
- FOX's Cops features violent arrests, often involving men and women of color and lower-income people. Oops, never mind.
- Field analysts commented on the low level of maturity in primetime TV and its overall lack of interest in social issues. I think this became commonly accepted wisdom by the second episode of My Mother the Car. Nonetheless, let's applaud NOW for getting to the bottom of this deep conspiracy that the networks have engaged in for the past 45 years or so.
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Bjorn Staerk has a good post about anti-Americanism in Scandinavia. The part that most intrigued me was this part:
The best way for a foreign artist to get good press in Norway is still the magic word Norgesvenn, "friend of Norway". (Anything is forgiven of a Norgesvenn, even failing careers, and becoming one can actually be a good retirement plan.)Which explains what happened to all the guest stars on The Love Boat.
Last weekend my sister came up to visit with some friends of hers from college, then she came over to the house to visit. Over dinner, she mentioned that all her friends from college are idiotarians. She didn't use that exact word(she doesn't read any blogs but this one), but from what she related of the conversation, it was pretty obvious. They mentioned Kyoto to her, about how Bush is "stupid", etc. Pick a style of tinfoil hat, and they're probably wearing it. Anyway, because she doesn't read blogs outside of this one, doesn't surf the net much, and gets her news primarily from the Howell Raines Gazette,the Scare Quotes Sentinel, the Clinton News Network, PMSNBC and other
birdcage liners mainstream news sources. As soon as I get an e-mail from her with the questions, I am going to do a multi-part series, answering one or two questions a day. Anyway, it should make good reading, and I welcome any and all participation in it.
From Cato Mark Steyn hits another one out of the ballpark:
You get the picture: Sure, Muslim fundamentalists can be pretty extreme, but what about all our Christian fundamentalists? Unfortunately, for the old moral equivalence to hold up, the Christians really need to get off their fundamentalist butts and start killing more people. At the moment, the brilliantly versatile Muslim fundamentalists are gunning down Maryland schoolkids and bus drivers, hijacking Moscow musicals, self-detonating in Israeli pizza parlours, blowing up French oil tankers in Yemen, and slaughtering nightclubbers in Bali, while Christian fundamentalists are, er, sounding extremely strident in their calls for the return of prayer in school.
Monday, October 28, 2002
Watching Donahue, So You Don't Have To I'm doing this on a full stomach, so I'm taking a chance here. This is going to be a stream-of-consciousness thing, so if the post appears disjointed, that's why. Michael Moore is now comparing the executives of K-Mart with Nazis. He's also drawn a connection between Lockheed and Columbine. Michael Moore just claimed that all the countries with less murders than the US is because they don't have the death penalty. Of course, the fact that Japan has a death penalty he completely forgot, and the fact that Britain had far less crime when they had the death penalty, and the crime rates of all the countries(with the possible exception of Japan) is increasing. Now Donahue has put up this lovely clip of Moore drawing a connection between Kosovo and Columbine. Of course, it is obvious that stopping a tyrant in the Balkans would cause two crackpots to shoot up a high school. Mikey is saying that increasing the minimum wage will reduce the murder rate. That makes perfect sense, if you are tripping on bad acid. Now Michael is going to miracle himself full employment with a $10.00 an hour minimum wage. Of course, that also makes perfect sense, if the only economics course you've taken is home economics. OK, my stomachs rumbling a bit, and I'm feeling woozy. I can make the last 15 minutes, I can make the last 15 minutes. It's nice how Donahue has stacked the audience with a whole gang who all think Michael Moore is such a great guy. I'd like to see Donahue pack the audience with folks like Misha, Rachel, Cato, Glenn, and myself. Maybe have someone bring up the fact that he makes up such gems as the NRA/KKK link. Now Mikey is saying that Bush is declaring war on Iraq to distract from the economy. Mike's saying that Canada is the paragon of virtue. We should sign kyoto, the land mine treaty, etc, etc. OK, this mikey more love fest is making me ill, and I just can't watch any more.
Sunday, October 27, 2002
A side note to the previous post: If you have learned about poker from watching the movies, don't send me any comments about Royal Flushes and beating four of a kind with a straight flush or a royal. The only movie I have ever seen which accurately portrays the game is the movie Rounders. Every other movie about poker sucks in portraying the actual game. You learn as much about poker watching your generic poker movie as you would learn about auto mechanics by watching an episode of Speed Racer. Yes, they are all that bad. Update: Everything they say is good, except for the casino that the Matt Damon character says everyone plays at. You want to play poker at Atlantic City, play at the Tropicana or the Trump Taj Mahal. If you live in New York or Boston, play at Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun instead. It's closer, and they both spread more games.
We've got the nuts at the UN I haven't mentioned it here before, but I am an avid poker player(I'm not a great player, but I love the game). Usually I will play either 7 card stud(2 down then 5 up then 1 down at the end) or I will play a game called Texas Hold 'em, where each player is dealt two cards individually, and then five community cards are dealt(two individual cards, then 3 community cards(the flop), then one more community card(the turn) and finally the last card(the river). You make the best hand using the cards you hold plus the cards on the board. There are other games, Hi-Low games and such, but they are beyond the scope of this post. In Texas Hold'em there is a term known as having the nuts, or having the nut straight, or nut flush(Ace high), etc. In the parlance of the game, that is the absolute strongest hand that can be made using the five cards on the table. Having the nuts is a very good thing. It means you can afford to slowplay a hand(pretend you have a much weaker hand than you do) and it means that you can be 100% confident that you will scoop the pot at the end of the hand. Also, in poker, there are a number of strategems you can use to get the pot. First there is the obvious way, having the strongest hand at the table. The second way is to bluff. You bet and raise, with the idea towards making other players think you have a stronger hand than you actually do. One thing about bluffs, is often the player engaging in the bluff projects a rather aggressive stance. He'll stare you down, act intimidating, and generally try to make himself look strong. Bluffing is rarely done in a casual manner. There is also a form of reverse bluff. Instead of bluffing to project strength, you bluff to project weakness. For example, I was playing in a 7 card stud game, and with the fifth card, I made a full house, queens full of deuces(3 queens, 2 deuces). This is a very strong hand, and I didn't want anyone to drop by my betting. So, instead of jumping out with a bet/raise right a way, I let out a loud moan when the deuce paired. The other players happily bet and raised, because they believed that I had crap, but I took the pot(and a big pot it was). There are different kinds of poker players. Rocks, very tight, passive players, never play anything unless it is the absolute best hand, and will throw away just about everything else. Maniacs bet and raise with any two cards. Calling Stations do just that. Every hand, they call. They rarely raise, and they rarely fold. They basically just tag along for the ride. Sometimes you lose to a calling station, but mainly they just donate money to the pot. One thing I've noticed is how much diplomacy is like poker, and the goings on in regard to Iraq can be put into poker terms pretty well. Iraq is the prototypical inebriated maniac player. Saddam is holding a lousy hand(a ten and a deuce before the flop), but he is betting and raising like mad. He thinks that by raising any bet, acting bellicose, and staring real hard at the other players, they'll fold. Its worked for him pretty well in the past ten years, so he thinks it will work again now. Of course he is bluffing, but he thinks his bluffing will work forever. However, all he is doing is digging himself a deeper hole. France and Russia are each holding a pair of Kings(the UN Veto). Both have a big stake in the pot from previous rounds of betting, and now are engaging in one last raise on the hope that the US and Iraq will drop their hands, and and France and Russia can share the pot. The problem is that Saddam has had his fifth shot of Jack Daniels in the last hour, and really thinks he can win with his pair of deuces, so he will raise until he is out of money. China held a pair of nines at the initial deal, and Jiang Zemin decided that he didn't want to waste money on such an obvious loser, and threw away his hand, instead waiting for the pair of pocket Aces which he will get--someday. The rest of the UNSC got their two cards, and called, like they do just about every time they get dealt a hand(or asked to vote on a resolution) Finally, there is the US, with his friend Britain watching from the rail. The US holds the nut flush(a congressional resolution), and has held it right from the flop. Bush isn't going to project too much strength. In fact, it is to his advantage to project weakness. Witness all the talk about how Iraq might be able to avoid being invaded if they comply, etc. Bush wants Saddam to raise the bet again(deny his WMD program exists). He wants Saddam to raise, and raise, and raise. Bush wants this, because no matter what, Bush is holding the nut flush and cannot lose. Saddam's bluff is DOA, but Saddam is convinced somehow that it will work. France and Russia are hoping against hope that Bush will drop his hand, but even they realize that is a losing proposition, so their attempt will ultimately fail, and if they don't drop their hand soon, they could lose a lot more than what they have already bet(Lukoil and ELF Fina). But they are trying to do something to stop him, but eventually they'll drop, because while losing the oil concessions is bad, losing their Security Council vote is worse. Saddam, however, because he is drunk(Jack Daniels, dictatorial power, same thing), is going to raise. Bush is going to raise him back, and Saddam will raise again, and eventually, all of Saddam's money(power) is going to wind up in Bush's hands, and Saddam will lose his entire bankroll(or get hung from the nearest lamppost). So when you hear about the gnashing of teeth about how the UN is dragging their feet, remember something. Bush could end this charade any time he wants by launching military action. The reason he's not isn't because he can't, but because it is in our best interests for him not to. He is playing Saddam, and the Russians, and the French, and at the end, the result is going to be the same it would have been before. There are only two possible outcomes: The UNSC approves our action, and we invade Iraq(and win the pot) or the UNSC vetoes our resolution, and we invade Iraq(and the UNSC becomes irrelevant in the process). Either way, Saddam falls, and the FrancoRussian oil concessions are dead. Update: In response to Cato's post, I think I need to clarify/change the situation France and Russia are in. France and Russia are now engaging in what is known in the poker world as a crying call. The crying call is a bet that is called when you have every expectation of losing. You are calling the bet not to win, but on the notion that you probably won't win, but you need to see the cards anyway. The problem, in France and Russia's case, is that they are between Iraq and the US. So the more they try to defend the oil interests, the more likely it is that the United States will consider the UN irrelevant, and that cost is more than I think either country is willing to bear.
Friday, October 25, 2002
Bellesilles in his inordinately long attempt at rescuing his obliterated reputation is saying he will explain all the descrepancies in the second edition of his book. Don't be surprised if instead of guns, he proves via probate records(miraculously recovered from the Chicago fire) that instead of guns, all Americans were armed with ray guns, and did not venture out at night, because vampires roamed the streets.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
I am way behind on everything this morning. The power went out at about 8:00, and I've just gotten online about 1/2 hour ago. I just saw them push the Caprice into a garage. They caught the pair sometime last night. The plates for the Caprice were registered in Camden, NJ. I don't know how big an Arab community there is in Camden. I know there is a big one in Jersey City, and I think there is one in Patterson as well. I just saw a picture of agents carrying a box into a building which I think may be the rifle. The box doesn't look like it could fit an AR-15, but it could fit a regular bolt action long gun. That is rank speculation on my part, so I could be very wrong here. Update: I was wrong, Indepundit is saying it is an AR15 Bushmaster.
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
Here is a picture of John Allen Mohammed:
I know, it's on fox, etc. I'll change it with a pic from the ATF site when it isn't as overloaded as it is now.
Welcome Freepers. More info from Fox. They are looking for a White Chevy Celebrity, Maryland plate ZWE 510. There is also a Ford Crown Vic, no other info.
While the sniper thing was going on, I initially thought it was a terrorist attack, then I thought it was a lone nut. I take that all back. I just heard saw on fox news that they are searching a property in Tacoma, and they are looking for suspects in Washington State and Alabama. I am now convinced that it is definitely, and I mean definitely al Qaeda. Here is why. Some of this you have heard before, and some you haven't.
- The victims share nothing in common, except for being American.
- The attacks were concentrated in Washington, which has a very high concentration of national media, political figures, and the like, guaranteeing national media coverage.
- All the attacks have occurred from locations of good cover, indicating some reconnoitering has taken place, and the attackers have been able to escape quickly, indicating more than a bit of planning.
- The demand for money--not the act of the average lone nut.
- The area where the FBI is now searching with metal detectors in Tacoma, Washington. Earnest James Ujaama, a protege of Al Qaeda recruiter Abu Hamza Al-Masri, tried to set up a ranch as a training camp in Tacoma.
- The FBI has also obtained a search warrant for some location in Alabama. In Marion, Alabama, a camp known as Ground Zero, USA was used for weapons training. On the grounds were shot up police vehicles and school buses.
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Winona on Trial Winona Ryder is set to go on trial this week. If she gets off, don't say it was because she was a Hollywood actress and used her money to get acquitted. There is a lot of evidence that this is a politically motivated prosecution. First of all, she was arrested on drug charges. These charges stemmed from the fact that she was prescribed a name brand medication, and the pharmacist substitutded a generic, of which she had two pills on her person. The charges were dropped in pre-trial hearings. Secondly, they state that they have her on video stealing merchandise, except the video shows no merchandise was stolen. Third, she was indicted on felony theft charges. In no situation has someone accused of shoplifting what Ryder was alleged to have stolen ever been charged with a felony in California. (Needless to say, this was a first offense, which would argue against launching felony charges). Fourth she paid for merchandise and left the store, and again, has no history of shoplifting, or even being detained for shoplifting by store security, yet she is being prosecuted on a felony charges that can carry a three year jail term. This is not OJ part II here. They are going hammer and tongs to give jail time to go after someone is a first offender, and at worst, should pay a nominal fine and get a short probation. Lizzie Grubman got forty days for nearly killing a dozen people. Wynona Ryder should not be forced to deal with jail time for doing what is functionally the same thing as taking candy from the corner store. If she even intended to shoplift at all, from which I can definitely see reasonable doubt in that regard.
Monday, October 21, 2002
If you haven't felt the urge to vomit today You will after reading this sob story about poor Lizzie Grubman. Poor Girl. She accidentally on purpose runs over 15 people, and she is all weepy that they are putting her in jail for 40 days. She should consider herself lucky. If I was the judge, she would have gotten 3 to 5 years. Update: I had to fix this one too. Damn, my typing skill are just plain embarassing!
Weblog Central, meet Brendon O'Neill Remember when I mentioned about getting hits by making a phony shitstorm? Well that's what MSNBC did when it accused Little Green Footballs of being racist They knew that LGF was a wildly popular destination, linked to from many pages. It is fair to assume that the editor for MSNBC's site knew the strong anti-Islamofascist content of LGF. It is also fair to assume that the editor put up the site last week anyway, obviously believing that there was nothing wrong with that content. Now fast forward to yesterday. The editor gets some hate mail about LGF, from the usual suspects. Now, instead of saying that LGF is a racist site, and removing it because he put up that blog in error, he simply relates the accusations put forth by the usual suspects, using the sort of "some say" editorializing that one finds on the front page of the Howell Raines Gazette. However, and this is most important, he does not remove the site. If he really thought it was racist, he would have removed the site, with a note of apology. He didn't do that. What he did was toss out the accusation, leaving the link in place. When Charles saw the link, understandably, he got angry and asked people to email the editor and disabuse him of the whole "racist" claim. Then the Great Glenn linked. And Meryl Yourish. And Misha. And Bill Herbert. And Tony Pierce. And a whole bunch of others as well. I won't begrudge any of these bloggers for mentioning the abysmal treatment Charles has gotten at the hands of MSNBC. He was slandered, the accusations are baseless, and someone's good name was trashed. However, if one looks at it as a means to generate hits and emails, well, it appears that MSNBC has succeeded, using Charles' reputation as the fuel. I sent an email long before I wrote this post. Looking back on it, I wish I hadn't. All I did was fuel the appetite for MSNBC to create another phony shitstorm later, using some other poor blogger as the means to do so. Pretty slimy on their part. Update: First paragraph was a bit awkward. I edited it for clarity.
Sunday, October 20, 2002
Andrea Harris came across this entry in a home furnishings catalog:
Porcelain fragments from 14th- to 19th-century Ming and Qing Dynasty vases destroyed during China?s Cultural Revolution form the decorative inlaid tops of these silver-plated metal boxes. One-of-a-kind; please allow us to select for you. Imported.This is a textbook example of the evils of communism. These were vases that were hundreds of years old, and were probably Chinese cultural treasures. Yet the ChiComs in their Maoist inspired frenzy destroyed these priceless objects of beauty because they were artifacts of a "bourgeois society". Any of the Castro butt-kissing idiotarians who fawn over the likes of Castro should look at these things and think about the sort of evil that would destroy such beauty. For those of you who think that such anger is best reserved for the human victims of Communism, you are right, but also wrong. These pieces of pottery were of great historical and cultural import, but because they did not advance the cause of Communism, they were destroyed and thrown away. It was an attempt at murder of a culture, as brutal and destructive of the human spirit as the physical acts of murder and torture were.
Friday, October 18, 2002
Thursday, October 17, 2002
¡Que Bueno, David Gregory! NBC's favorite intercontinental reporter, David Gregory, on this evening's NBC news, engaged in a bit of "journalism" which appears to have been taken right out of the playbook of the Howell Raines Gazette. Anyway, it's been awhile, and I'm a bit out of practice, however, I spent most of the evening cleaning and reloading the fiskomatic, so let's do some full metal jacketed fisking:
TO PRESIDENT BUSH, there are many faces, but one fight: Iraq. Yet, it?s al-Qaida, not Saddam, doing more damage, like last weekend?s deadly bombing in Bali, a French oil tanker bombed off Yemen, and the Marines attacked in Kuwait. All are thought to be al-Qaida?s work.And isn't it awful curious that all this started happening once Congress had voted to commit troops? Nah. It's just a big coincidence, right Davey ol' boy?
Confronting Saddam now, some argue, would ignore the unfinished business with Osama bin Laden.Ah, the "some argue" form of editorializing as "serious journalism". Some would argue that David Gregory is editorializing in a news story, Some would also argue that there isn't a single fact in this entire "news" story. Some would argue that David Gregory has his head up his ass. I wouldn't argue that, of course, since I'm being completely unbiased. But some would argue that, mark my words!
"We certainly did bomb a lot of caves and did disrupt a lot of things, but it's kind of like a hydra-headed monster, and it pops up in different places," says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. "And I think they need to stay focused on that." Despite President Bush?s pledge to get bin Laden, dead or alive, al-Qaida's leader remains elusive, as do his top lieutenants Ayman Zawahiri and alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Mohammed. "I don't think there has to be such a rush," says Albright. "I think the American people and the rest of the world is really owed a better explanation as to why this has to happen this minute."Some say soliciting foreign policy wisdom from a woman who was responsible for letting Osama go, helping to strengthen the IRA, giving nukes to the North Koreans, and generally fucking up every bit of American foreign policy is the sign of a brain dead blinkered ideologue masquerading as a reporter. I wouldn't say that(gee golly no, I'm completely objective). But some say it.
Others worry that war with Saddam will push him to use the very weapons the U.S. most fears, raising the frightening possibility that the next terror attack against America could be deadlier than Sept. 11.First some, then others. Others might say that David Gregory researched this story with all sorts of preconceived notions before interviewing one person. Some might say that he didn't do any research at all, but others might say that all the research he needed to do he did by examining his toejam.
"The greater risk is that in that greater point of extremis, [Saddam] will hand them over to these international terrorist groups who have many agents in the United States for their use against our people," says Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.Some might say that Bob Graham is a member of the addled asses of appeasement. Others might say that all these Al Qaeda attacks on western interests just weeks before an invasion prove him wrong. Some others might say that Bob Graham is an idiot.
It?s not just Sen. Graham. The CIA has also warned that Saddam would only use his deadliest weapons, or put them in the hands of terrorists, if cornered by the U.S.And the CIA has also said that Iraq has harbored al Qaeda, and given them aid and comfort. Some would say that David Gregory is ignoring that rather salient point. Others would argue that David Gregory would rather not mention anything that fails to back up his preconceived notions. Some others say that David Gregory is proving that whole "biased leftwing media" idea correct. Some might even argue that David Gregory is not going to let facts get in the way of a good story, and others might argue that neither David Gregory nor Bob Graham seem to understand that their course of action is the textbook definition of appeasement. Of course, I'm not arguing these things. Some argue that, but I'm not. See? I'm still being completely objective. Then David takes the big plunge into the world of middle east "experts"(some would say scare quotes are warranted):
To experts there?s also the dangerous issue of growing Muslim hatred toward the U.S., the very hatred that makes bin Laden so popular. That anger, they say, has been fueled by the emerging plan to attack Iraq, a country that is viewed differently by Arabs than Americans. "It's not the aggressor, it's the weak state," says Middle East expert Shibley Telhami. "And they see America as going after Iraq despite the opposition in the region."Some might say that David Gregory deliberately picked yet another apologist for an Arab dictator. Others might say that David Gregory was too lazy to look up the numbers of Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, or Fouad Ajami, all of whom aren't complete fucking crackpots. Still others could argue that David Gregory didn't want to mention anyone that might bring his entire ideological house of cards crumbling to the ground.
Advocates of taking on Saddam argue that the use of force will not compromise the war on terror, quite the opposite. Force, they say, is the one thing this region respects. "The replacement of Saddam Hussein would do more to convince the Arab world that America was truly serious about terrorism than any other single act we could undertake," says former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.Some might argue that David Gregory brought ol' Newt on board so that he couldn't be accused of bias. Others say that David Gregory's attempt to act impartial was about as transparent as the clothes in the Britney Spears formalwear collection, and as believable as Bill Clinton heading a forum on the evils of adultery.
But for President Bush, it remains a difficult question. Will war in Iraq make America more or less vulnerable to terror?Some argue that David Gregory has already made up his mind. Others say that David Gregory thinks the president should consult him before any attack on Iraq. Some even say that David Gregory should find a job more in tune with his talents, such as being copy boy at the Howell Raines Gazette.
Middle East experts who aren't complete fucking loons:
- Fouad Ajami
- Daniel Pipes
- Michael Ledeen
Every other Edward Saidesque crackpot on the planet.
Paging James T Kirk A bunch of republican hopefuls are looking to unseat Mary Landrieu from the Senate. I think they are going about it all wrong. All you need to do is put up James T. Kirk on the podium, he'll debate Landrieu, then she'll explode in a shower of sparks and cheesy 60's era special effects.
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
One more victory for the Clinton foreign policy team The IRA was supplying bomb-making expertise to FARC of Columbia, and those bastions of ethics in the Clinton white house decided to hide that inconvenient fact.
Eric Raymond has written an Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto. Count me in as a signer, with a couple of minor amendments.