#AttackWatch plagiarized #PeoplesCube

The Stalinistically satirical People's Cube website already has a mechanism to publicly denounce evil, bourgeoisie, counter revolutionary thought crimes. The Democrats are demonstrating, yet again, government redundancy & waste.

#Obama = #Madmen

It seems the frat boys in the Obama camp plagiarized Madmen 's fictional Nixon campaign in their latest campaign speech scheduled SNAFU:

Harry and Pete discuss the Secor Laxative account. Then they discuss college and their frat days; a frat prank gives Pete an idea: Buy up TV air time in undecided states for Secor so that Kennedy is blocked from buying that time.

More specifically, the adman weasel, Campbell, discussed how the nerds in his frat weren't invited to some other frat's party, so Campbell's geek brothers spitefully scheduled a competing event to distract, detract, & disrupt the other frat house. It seems rather sad, yet not surprising, that the Obamaites crib their notes from one of the most anti-social & off-putting fictional characters on television.

Why is PBS pro-Fascist, Part II

In the continuing saga of the seeming endless PBS Fascist lovefest, the History Detectives
lauded a WWII anti-US pro-Fascist of Japanese descent:

Tukufu: I explain how we may never know exactly why his grandfather refused to sign a loyalty oath. But it had been an act of conscience that had separated him from his family.

Scott: Makes me feel good. Gives me a lot of pride.

Why would it make a person feel proud that their ancestor supported the then Fascist Japanese government?

I was rhetorically wondering if PBS would be so effusive & ebullient if the WWII anti-US pro-Fascist had been of German descent, but remembered that they had run an episode apologizing for WWI anti-US pro-Kaiser spies of German descent & attacking the US government for countering said German spies & saboteurs:

his great-grandfather’s diary records the activities of a dedicated agent at the moment our intelligence service expanded dramatically – a time when the ideals of freedom often became casualties of our involvement in the First World War.

Gwen: John Brady was clearly a hard working and loyal American. He wanted to protect his country. But this notebook shows how he and many other people were out of their fear becoming convinced of dangers of subversives everywhere.

Admittedly, in the History Detectives defense, they did run a program that pointed out that US government investigations into German espionage & sabotage wasn't total delusional paranoia:

July 30, 1916 when a German spy ring carried out a well-planned set of synchronized explosions on Black Tom Island in New York's harbor, using the United States' own cache of munitions produced to aid Britain and France in World War I.

Two million pounds of exploding ammunition rocked the country as far away as Philadelphia, blew the windows out of nearly every high rise in lower Manhattan, injuring hundreds.

Why is PBS pro-Fascist?

Or if PBS isn't pro-Fascist, they seem consistently pro-anti-US.
In the PBS series, Nazi Hunters, it seems the only good anti-Nazis were the Soviet Communists. All others, from classically liberal Western Democracies to Jews, were all unmitigatingly evil:

These stories of pursuit reveal the secret plot involving a future president of Israel and a famous poet to poison six million Germans; how the most famous Nazi hunter of them all took the credit for a capture that he had nothing to do with; how the SAS took the law into their own hands.

It seems the only people who are allowed to advocate extra-legal retributive justice against their opponents are Marxists, Middle Eastern freedom fighting man made disasters, & NPR's Nina Totenberg.

"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"

PBS propounded its Orwellian Newspeak on a recent episode of History Detectives , where it described Soviet backed Marxists in the Spanish Civil War as "liberals" and German Nazi backed fascists as "conservatives". Why can't PBS be linguistically honest?

& why does it take an American (non-Communist) Republican to defend FDR? PBS criticized Roosevelt for remaining neutral in this totalitarian show-down and posed a logical fallacy false choice between Stalin and Hitler, the Mutt & Jeff of mustachioed mass murdering psycho dictators.

US Military Uniform Aesthetic Critiques

I appreciate that I'm being irrationally subjective, but I hate the US Navy's tan uniform with shoulder boards, as per Admiral Mullen:



It reminds me of the old Soviet Navy uniforms:



& for further subjective snarkiness, I'm glad that the US Army is finally ditching its experiment with berets, since, as Karen pointed out on Will & Grace:

Karen: Grace, we talked about the beret. Patty Hearst couldn’t even pull one off and she had money and a gun.

A Global Socialist is not a Realist

Fareed Zakaria again foot stomped on his CNN show his meme that Obama is a true Realist and Republicans aren't. A cursory reading of any introductory Poli Sci text book:



would lead people to conclude that Obama is primarily, if not exclusively, a Globalist, and not a Realist. Fareed seems to conflate the common definition of realist with its technical definition and hopes that no one will notice his sleight of hand. This would be equivalent to co opting genetic terminology & asserting that brunettes are superior to blondes because brown hair genes are dominant to blonde hair genes.

A Realist is a person who believes in the supremacy of nation states & pursues policies that are in his/her nation state's interests. A Globalist believes that international organizations are supreme & all power of individual nation states should be undermined and eliminated. The fact that Obama did not ask the US Congress for a declaration of war against Libya & instead curried favor with NATO and the Arab League is just one example that Obama is a Globalist and is not & never has been a Realist. Why doesn't Fareed, himself, get Real.

"The True Believer" of Hopium

Hoffer's book is next on my list of donated titles for my local public library's fund raiser book sale. I was never motivated to read said book, judging by the cover that it was anti-GOP. Surprisingly, quite a bit of Hoffer's own beliefs seem to parallel Ayn Rand's, as in advocating the rights of the individual over the collective:

[T]he less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause...The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft...There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.

Hoffer seems to presciently predict the appeal of hopium:

[E]xtravagent hope, even when not backed by actual power, is likely to generate a most reckless daring. For the hopeful can draw strength from the most ridiculous sources of power -- a slogan, a word, a button. No faith is potent unless it is also faith in the future; unless it has a millennial component...If the Communists win Europe and a large part of the world, it will not be because they know how to stir up discontent or how to infect people with hatred, but because they know how to preach hope.

Hoffer seems to make a rather extravagant extrapolation from the anecdotal evidence of Hitler's personal experience to contend that frustrated artists allegedly possess a tendency to become totalitarian dictators:

The most incurably frustrated -- and, therefore, the most vehement -- among the permanent misfits are those with an unfulfilled craving for creative work. Both those who try to write, paint, compose, etcetera, and fail decisively, and those who after tasting the elation of creativeness feel a drying up of the creative flow within...are alike in the grip of a desperate passion...Their unappeased hunger persists, and they are likely to become the most violent extremists in the service of their holy cause.

If the above theory is correct, this would seem to argue for defunding the NEA in order to prevent to creation of potential proto-Fascists. Hoffer includes some pithy epigrams:

If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.

Hoffer dislikes all organized religion, surprisingly (by today's standard), periodically pointing out the historical shortcomings of all, including Islam, but, unsurprisingly, focusing specifically on Catholicism as the baddest of the lot. Presumably, this is because the book was written before the 1960s, the decade when it was politically correct to be Catholic (unless one was also a Republican, in general, or William F. Buckley, in particular) since both a Democrat US president professed this religion & the pope promoted nuclear disarmament for everyone & never openly criticized Communism. Once a pope came along who openly dissed & fought against Communism, Catholicism returned to being the bad religion that is the source of everything wrong in the world. In a conclusion paragraph that would be PC even by today's standard, Hoffer contends:

[F]anaticism...was a Judaic-Christian invention.

Hoffer proffers that after propaganda comes compulsion:

[S]teel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill, the pious phrases of the fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.

Dovetailing into the previous post's theory of the confluence of Red & Green objectives, Hoffer hypothesizes that what is typically viewed as the "American Dream" of rising standard of living for successive generations keeps Americans motivated. Destroying this historic dream would, therefore, help to demotivate Americans in supporting current social structures:

The gross ideal of ever-rising standard of living has kept this nation [the USA] fairly virile. England's ideal of the country gentleman and France's ideal of the retired rentier are concrete and limited. This definiteness of their national ideal has perhaps something to do with the lessened drive of the two nations. In America, Russia, and Germany the ideal is indefinite and unlimited.

& conversely, motivate Americans into supporting proposed new social structures:

Not only does a mass movement depict the present as mean and miserable -- it deliberately makes it so. It fashions a pattern of individual existence that is dour, hard, repressive and dull. It decries pleasures and comforts and extols the rigorous life. It views ordinary enjoyment as trivial or even discreditable, and represents the pursuit of personal happiness as immoral.

I also donated a David Horowitz book written before he saw the light & stopped being a Communist (which seems to annoy the Amazon reviewer, whose gradient of goodness seems to operate in exactly the opposite direction): Empire and Revolution.

"The green tree has red roots"

Having come to the conclusion that I'm more of a pack rat than a bibliophile, I've made the resolution to donate books that I haven't read in a while to my local public library book sale. One of the books from my pile that's being sent to the donation rack is Clinton Rossiter's Conservatism in America which was viewed at the time as being pro-Conservative, presumably since the author only estimated that a third of so called Conservatives are proto-Fascists versus the Left's standard estimate of 100%. He also described Sen "KKK Kleagle" Byrd as a Conservative, but later on admitted that Byrd was, indeed, a Democrat versus a Republican. I was tempted to just use this book as kindling for a weekend steak barbecue, but I'm not a US Supreme Court nominee & thought that book burning would look rather Fascist.



The other book I'm donating is George "ABC's house RINO" Will's Suddenly. This post's title, "The green tree has red roots," came from a quote in one of the book's article: "They Are the Children". After skimming through his book again, I finally made the connection as to why Reds & Greens make a perfect alliance. Will wrote this book before the USSR finally disintegrated & he reminded people that the Communist revolution never delivered on their hundred year promise of bread & peace. Hence, the Greens, with their mission to denounce capitalist consumerism as evil, help to forward the relative success of the Reds, who continue to trumpet Marxist materialism. If the Greens had been successful in their mission in forcing the West to surrender unilaterally, they would have allowed the Reds to win the economic battle by default.

Will's book also seems to provide insight into the debate as to whether Al Gore went off the rails after the 2000 election, or was always a wee bit wacko. It appears that Gore, way back in 1987, used to be a Scoop Jackson Democrat & thus more conservative than today's typical RINO:

Al Gore (D-Tenn.) noted that most Democratic voters, unlike most of the party's activists, leaders and presidential candidates, approved of the use of force in Grenada and against Libya.

Finally, Will has this wonderful, seemingly rhetorical, question in his article: "Jess Jackson's Verbal Meringue":

How many candidates spout Third World rhetoric and fraternize with anti-American dictators and then do well in presidential politics?

David Letterman has a history of telling child rape jokes

A PUMA blog has reposted from a Team Sarah blog the history of child rape "jokes" Letterman has told over the years.

Reposting the background of the dispute from a Fire David Letterman Facebook group discussion (where you need to be registered in order to read):

Dave's "joke" was about a 14 year old

While Letterman CLAIMS he was talking about her Sarah Palin's OTHER daughter, the 18 year old and not the 14 year old, only an extremely naive person would take Dave at his word.

Dave's monologue is not ad libbed, it is scripted by a staff of paid, union writers. They had the time & ability to research & fact check their story before recording the show. All the stories that listed Palin's entourage included the name & age of the daughter accompanying her to New York

A story published 7 June:

"Accompanying Palin on the trip is her husband, Todd, and the couple's 14-year-old daughter, Willow"

A story published 6 June:

"She's traveling with her husband, Todd, and her 14-year old daughter, Willow"

Dave & his staff of writers knew that he was attacking Willow, the implication being that Palin is a bad mother & that all of her daughters are promiscuous. Dave somewhat miscalculated in thinking that no one would call him on it & that his leftists friends in the media would have his back. He certainly appears to have guessed correctly on the latter assumption.

Countering the defenders of Letterman

Letterman defenders seem to make two general points:

1) GOP talk show hosts, specifically Limbaugh, have said mean things about Democratic politicians' children, aka implying Chelsea Clinton is a dog. Ergo, complaining about Dave is hypocritical.

Counterpoints

Whilst being rude, Limbaugh never advocated raping Chelsea Clinton. Limbaugh clearly apologized in a timely manner, aka immediately afterwards versus waiting an entire week. Limbaugh clearly apologized on his accord versus waiting for sponsors & lawyers to compel him to pretend to be contrite. One can quibble over Limbaugh's & Letterman's level of sincerity but one can't refute the ultimate outcome: LIMBAUGH NO LONGER HAS A TV SHOW & ONLY WORKS ON AM RADIO. I wouldn't have a problem if the same fate befell Letterman.

2) Democratic talk show hosts have a history of telling child rape "jokes". Ergo, everybody does it, so it's OK.

Counterpoint

Has anyone tried using that rationalization to weasel out of a speeding ticket? "Golly, officer, everybody else is speeding, so you are forbidden from giving me a ticket." It's not an all or nothing proposition. The traffic cop isn't obligated to hand out tickets to everyone who is speeding. Similarly, critics are focusing on Letterman now. We reserve the right to go after other perverts who tell child rape "jokes" in the future. I thank the Letterman defenders for doing the grunt work & turning up ammunition to potentially use against O'Brien & Leno for any future boycott against them once we're done punishing Letterman. However, perhaps Letterman's treatment will serve as a cautionary tale to others & they'll eschew from ever telling child rape jokes again.

Hillbuzz has great advice for writing boycott letters, plus points of contact & address information for people who want to write hard copy letters. Hillbuzz is using the strategy of targeting Dave's biggest sponsors with a family friendly brand image. They are now focusing on Mars, Kelloggs, Johnson & Johnson.

& PUMA PAC have great boilerplate letters that you can tweak before sending.

A sample business letter to use as a format guide.

blogburst post: "False AP report: Obama did NOT say that Iran must respect voters' choice"

Obama's comments were mushy, yes, but at least he said the most important thing, according to AP:

He said it's up to Iran to determine its own leaders but that the country must respect voters' choice.

Why then have reputable people continued to pass harsh judgment? And why would AP paraphrase what would have been Obama’s key statement?

Turns out Obama said no such thing. What he actually said is that the VOICES of the Iranian people should be heard and respected, not their votes:

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

This is consistent with the rest of Obama's remarks. He never said a word about respecting votes. Obama did mention "the democratic process," but far from saying anything about this process having to meet any standards of integrity, he instead implied strongly that he will accept whatever result the "process" followed by the Mullahs produces:

I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football...

Democracy means that Iranian sovereignty lies with the Iranian people and that a regime that rigs an election is NOT sovereign. Yet Obama is explicit that he will continue to treat the mullahs as the Iranian sovereign no matter how they judge the election. He even goes so far as to suggest that the only reason he is bothering to comment on the competing claim to sovereignty at all is because it would be unseemly for him not to:

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days.

The only operative concerns that he mentions are for: "free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent." When he talks about the "democratic process" going forward, all he urges is that the process be peaceful and that dissent be allowed. He says nothing about the process being honest:

...there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

It is no accident that Obama ended with the statement that AP paraphrased so egregiously (equating his call for bloodless suppression with a demand for legitimate elections). This was his theme throughout. He views the honesty of Iran's democratic process as something to be judged by the mullahs, who he clearly accepts to be the sovereign power, regardless of the merits of competing claims.


AP's fraudulent report about Obama demanding respect for voters' choice was the primary print report on Obama's comments. Now that it has already misled millions of people, AP has covered its tracks by filing an update that overwrites the errant statement. This is what AP does when it gets caught putting out misinformation. To avoid issuing a correction, they flush the misleading story down the memory hole by using the same url for a completely different story. (Google only finds AP's original article still posted at Fox News.)

AP did the same thing last year after it was taken to task for failing to check the most basic facts in a story about the controversy over possible Islamic symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial. Ramesh Santanam reported a number of conflicting factual assertions, like the 44 blocks:

Opponents also claim there is a plan to have 44 glass blocks, for the 40 victims and four hijackers, in the design.

"That's an absolute, unequivocal fabrication that is being portrayed as fact," said Edward Felt's brother, Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight 93. "It's misleading and helps drive the conspiracy theory."

When it was pointed out that Santanam could have found the four extra blocks just by opening up the design drawings and counting, AP quickly filed a completely different story (about fundraising for the memorial), under the same url.

It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with AP using subject feeds that automatically update with their latest offering. It is that AP is systematically using this system to dodge corrections. This is actually their official policy:

For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.

Except AP virtually never issue corrective stories, for the simple reason that AP has no established correction procedure. They just do the overwrite thing and say "too bad."

Well this time the overwrite thing is not good enough.


Demand a corrective story about AP's false paraphrase of Obama's words

Associated Press obviously understands the importance of Obama saying that Iran must respect voters' choice or they wouldn't have bothered to pretend that he said it when he didn't. They don't just fail to mention Obama's glaring omission on this crucial point, but actually tell the public via false paraphrase that he did say what he glaringly omitted. This cannot stand. Faced with our new president's key statement on a historic crisis, AP reports a photo negative of what Obama actually said.

There may be no established procedure for AP corrections, but anyone can still send a pre-written email to AP CEO Tom Curley, Editor Kathleen Carroll, the reporters who worked on the story (the egregious Jennifer Loven, along with Anne Gearan and Robert Burns), plus a smattering of other AP editors and bureaucrats. Who knows. There may even be a limit to how disingenuous some of these people are willing to be.


To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

UPDATE

It's really a moot question to ask whose side either Obama or the AP is on.

Letterman is still a pervert who thinks that statutory rape is funny but just not economically profitable to talk about on television

I still find David Letterman to be an annoying pervert; however, his obot rapist apologists not only annoy me, they give me nightmares. A blog entitled Truth Conquers Nothing: Spin is Everything , but translated into carp Latin to make the schmo who writes it sound pseudo-intellectual, through the employment of sophistical logorrhea, attempts to justify the legitimacy of statutory rape. I, personally, disagree that statutory rape is totally cool & awesome & voiced my belief on their comment section. This resulted in the following well reasoned syllogism:

A) All left thinking progs think statutory rape is totally cool & awesome
B) Adagio does not think that statutory rape is totally cool & awesome
C) Ergo, Adagio must be a home schooled creationist who wants to ride around on a dinosaur all day long & must be liquidated like the uppity kulak she is.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I, like all right thinking people, do support the outfitting of dinosaurs with laser guns and jet packs as part of the US missile defense shield against NORK attacks. However, I don't want to ride around on carnivorous dinos, since they'd want to eat me, nor do I want to ride around on herbivorous dinos, since they'd want to squash me. As a compromise, I'd settle for riding around on a genetically engineered Woolly Mammoth in order to invade Canada & squash all evil prog rapist apologists.

If you don't want to just accept this trend of "defining deviancy down" and want to do something more productive than just fantasizing about crushing evil Canadian prog rapist apologists under the furry feet of G.E. Woolly Mammoths, a good place to start is to peruse the posts at Hillbuzz where there are numerous tutorials on the subject of boycotts and protests.

UPDATE

It was perceptively pointed out that my drawing style is an homage to the great Frank the Artist of IMAO. Frank's most pertinent creation that informs this post is his commentary on the Saul Alinksy Wing of the Democratic Party's response to rape victims being stoned to death:

5 Ways to Help the Iranian People

Since Dr. Utopia doesn't want to help foreign people ensure that their votes are counted properly (why would he? He doesn't care if the vote is counted properly domestically):



other organizations are trying to step in & give advice on how individuals can show their solidarity with & help Iranian protesters .

What would happen if Iran nuked Israel?

A commenter on Debbie Schlussel's post about the word count of Obama's Cairo speech suggested creating a wordle, so here is one of said speech, fwiw:
I didn't infer the same conclusion that George Stephanopoulos did with Hillary Clinton's interview:Iranian Attack on Israel is Attack on U.S. Hillary said that if Iran nuked Israel, that "there would be retaliation". George tried to nail this jello-ish statement to the wall by prompting, "by the United States," to which Hillary would not explicitly concur. Hence, I inferred that the Obama administration was neither committing to a US conventional, let alone nuclear, response to Iran in such a scenario. I inferred that, at most, Obama might send a strongly worded memo to the UN to tut-tut such an occurrence & then probably write another speech equating the historic suffering of the Jews to the displacement of the Palestinians.



All of the commenters on ABC's board seemed solely concerned about a potential Israeli attack on Iran versus vice versa. From Jeff Olsen:

so we can also say an attack on Iran by Israel is an attack of US on Iran!?

Goerge kept asking if Iran attacks Israel then what, but is seem no one is allowed to ask if Israel attacks Iran then what.

George, for tha last so many years that you remember when did Iran attack any neigboring country?

please be fair.

Golly, Jeff, if you completely ignore all the "freedom fighter" or "manmade disasters" deployed in proxy wars trained & funded by Iran, then I guess you are technically correct, but that seems rather disingenuous. The US is attacked for having the CIA cooperate with Britain's MI6's 1953 overthrow of Iran's Soviet backed government. If the US is held accountable for the CIA's doings, I don't see why Iran should receive a pass for the nefarious goings on of their Persian analog.

UPDATE

NRO's take on Obama's Cairo speech:

President Obama’s Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds[...]

Murtha (D, Valley of Humiliation) under the Obama bus

Playing the game that NewsBusters made famous of "Guess the Political Party" , notice how the Obamaganda media never actually mentions the fact that Murtha, the corrupt politician currently being investigated by the FBI for his extraordinary levels of corruptness, is a DEMOCRAT throughout the entire 2:31 video?



The NRO finds it amazing that CBS actually covered the fact that Murtha is a corrupt politician, linking to another video in which the journalists never actually SAY that Murtha is a DEMOCRAT, but prints the fact that Murtha is a DEMOCRAT on the screen @2:50 for a few seconds in a 3:15 video. If Murtha had been GOP, that would have been constantly reiterated throughout the story & his behavior would have been stereotyped to represent all GOP.

The DEMOCRAT Murtha's corruptness is nothing new & the exact same Dem media went to the mat to get Murtha, the DEMOCRAT, reelected in the 2008 general election. My hypothesis is that the same Dem media are willing to throw Murtha, the DEMOCRAT, under the bus in the hopes that a slightly less corrupt Dem will take his place & run in the next Dem primary,

This would be along the same lines as the Dem media willingly throwing Democratic former Ohio Attorney General Marc "pizza orgies" Dann & Democratic former NY Governor Eliot "hooker-gate" Spitzer quickly under the donkey bus, because they knew their replacements would be Democrats. If the GOP would have in any way directly benefited from either Spitzer or Dann stepping down, the organs of Democratic propaganda would have spun into overdrive to accuse the GOP of being puritanical, sex-o-phobic, & in the case of Dann, carb-o-phobic & anti-Italian.

If the Dems have enough time to recover before a general election, they want to throw their rotten cohorts under the bus, steam roll them flat, spread tar & asphalt over them till voters lose all recollection of their memory. If voters do vaguely remember the former disgraced pol, the Dems hope that they're falsely remembered as GOP versus the corrupt Dems that they truly are, such as Jay Leno falsely blaming the GOP for Democrat Spitzer.