A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.
Generally, stories that begin this entertainingly tend to quickly diminish in subsequent paragraphs. Here, however, the fun unlike certain frozen explorers never quits:
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment
Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, [organiser Ann] Atwood said, than Bancroft and Arnesen had expected.
They went to the North Pole and they were surprised by the cold. Well, who can blame them, what with all this warming talk? Maybe theyll sue Al Gore.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold, Atwood said.
They. Were. In. The. Arctic.
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
You dont say. And now, a punchline of such sublime delusion its impossible to imagine it being said with a straight face:
"They were experiencing temperatures that werent expected with global warming, Atwood said. But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Posted by: DanNY ||
03/13/2007 05:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: ed ||
03/13/2007 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The ladies have decided to dedicate their time a tad further south and will be campaigning to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Sign the petition and support the ban. Les Ms heard about this horrid stuff (too much will kill you within 24 hours, so they say) and nuclear plants use it as well as so many other industries and it's in your home now. NUCLEAR PLANTS. When they got the e-mail about this dihydrogen monoxide, they just knew they'd found a new cause.
A press release will follow.
Posted by: Ann Atwood ||
03/13/2007 10:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Heck, in some circumstances, as little as a single gram of dihydrogen monoxide exposure can cause throat spasms and lead to unconsciousness within 30-60 seconds followed by asphyxiation and brain death within 5-6 minutes afterwards.
It's deadly stuff! As deadly as nerve gas under the right conditions.
At long last, President Robert Mugabe's stranglehold on Zimbabwe may be loosening.
Throughout his 27 years of dominance, the old dictator's opponents have always risked assault, torture or worse. The bludgeoning meted out to Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, and about 100 of his supporters after they tried to hold a prayer meeting on Sunday was entirely standard.
Violence of this kind has been enough to suppress Mr Mugabe's critics outside the ruling Zanu-PF party.
Meanwhile, his skilful manipulation of factions within the ruling party has always thwarted any internal challenge. But there are growing signs that Mr Mugabe is finally losing his grip.
Never in its 44 year history has Zanu-PF been as divided as it is today. Mr Mugabe appears to be in a state of open warfare with both his party's main factions. One is led by Solomon Mujuru, a retired general and former army commander who wants his wife, the vice-president Joyce Mujuru, to succeed Mr Mugabe. The other major faction is dominated by Emmerson Mnangagwa, who has served in the cabinet since 1980 and was once a favourite for the succession but had a spectacular falling out with the president.
In the past, Mr Mugabe would always have been clever enough to ally with one faction against the other. At the very least, he would have turned them against one another and kept each permanently off-balance. But today, both the Mujuru and Mnangagwa groups appear to have united against him. There is no other explanation for Mr Mugabe's apparent failure to extend his term of office.
Last year, he announced that he would not bother seeking re-election when his present term ends in 2008. Instead, he would simply amend the constitution and postpone the next election until 2010. But this proposal seems to have been dropped.
Both major factions have an interest in Mr Mugabe stepping down next year and opening the way for their champions to seize the presidency. They appear to have jointly thwarted the bid to rewrite the constitution. Having been defeated, Mr Mugabe is now talking about standing for re-election next year.
Two factors are eroding Mr Mugabe's position every day. First, he is 83 and his mental powers are visibly failing. While physically fit, the edge has come off Mr Mugabe's mind. Second, Zimbabwe's economy is in meltdown. At first, this national calamity did not threaten his grip on power. On the contrary, by driving the black middle class out of Zimbabwe and leaving the rest of the population destitute and with no thought except day-to-day survival, economic collapse probably reduced the chances of popular unrest and helped Mr Mugabe.
But the crisis is reaching such proportions that the Zimbabwean state itself is disintegrating. Mr Mugabe can no longer afford to pay his security forces. The police and the army rank-and-file are just as desperate as everyone else. This combination of discontent within and without Zanu-PF is unprecedented. Mr Mugabe's final days may be upon us. I'll believe it when I see it.
#2
wasnt cecil Rhodes' dream to incorporate Rhodesia into South Africa? Would this perhaps be a time to achieve that, though in a fashion Rhodes would never have envisioned?
#3
Coming on top of recent reports of soldiers shooting their horses at Nkomo Barracks, and taking their weapons off to RSA for security work, along with the soldier who ripped a mag at State House, Bob is lucky to be room temperature. All is not well.
If, as mooted, all the elections go ahead next year, 2008, foresee a free-for-all, as the latest crack-down on the MDC unite ZANU-PF/ANC rule, then they can fight amongst themselves.
Called electioneering, Zimbabwe-style.
Me, I just want that UN-Peace Franchise-Thing, ok?
Rhodesia was proposed as a Province for sports purposes, but never was part of South Africa, separate country, own ID, although SAP were in Rhodesia 1972.
Rhodes achieved a major part of his dream, which was Cape to Cairo, with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, given away.
#5
Rhodesia was a country that once had promise of a decent life for all its people. Zimbabwe's primary use these days is as an example to those people who think colonialism was a bad thing. Twenty-seven years after Lancaster House it looks like they've finally come to the end of the road with Bad Bob. It would have been much, much better for all concerned if one of the Selous Scouts could have gotten within sniping range of that bastard and taken him out.
I guess it doesn't matter now. They wanted Bob and they got him. They're not happy about it but that's too bad. You can choose your actions; you just can't choose the consequences.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/13/2007 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A see a jet, a GulfStream, landing, boarding 4 folks and a trunk.
You couldn't even ask for a better follow-up to Obey's hallway argument with the peace mom. Pelosi and Obey were so bad that even CNN was mocking them. Extra special was Lindsey Graham laughing and Biden left silent with a sour puss.
CNN played video of a presser where David 'Idiot liberal' Obey AND his 'idiot liberal' friend, Speaker Nancy Pelosi could not recall the actual date when they would began the 180 day countdown until defeat. In Rep. Obey's case he couldn't even remember the year
Transcript:
REP. DAVID R. OBEY, D-WIS.: Troops must be out of a combat role by October I mean, by August of 19 2007.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: 2008. If they meet (inaudible).
OBEY: I'm sorry, that's right.
PELOSI: OK. But if they haven't made any progress by July, we begin the 180 days. If they haven't made any. If they haven't made if the president cannot demonstrate progress by July, we begin the 180 days.
#3
I encourage everybody to get a copy of the Q & A portion from the news conference regarding the Democrat Supplemental Iraq/Afghanistan Bill and watch it with somebody that supports the Democrat uhem plan. Then ask them if they sincerely believe that the Democrats have a clue as to whats going on.
Very interesting interview with Gen. Tommy Franks. Highlights:
In a free-ranging exclusive interview, Franks set the record straight on the surge and a host of thorny subjects, and revealed the following about President Bush and his administration:
President Bush was never in a rush to invade Iraq.
Bush was always a good leader calm, studious and deliberative and was never steam-rolled by his top advisors, but was always his own man
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is getting a bum rap.
No administration would have allowed Iraq to continue with business-as-usual after 9/11.
There was plenty of planning and preparation for post-invasion operations in Iraq.
There is a definable limit to what the U.S. will tolerate as to Iran and Syria's interference in Iraq.
The Walter Reed hospital debacle resulted from "failed leadership."
#1
Thanks for posting. Every bit of it well-known to those with brains and who've paid any attention. Completely astounding, outrageous, and dubious to the masses who think the NYT and NPR constitute serious sources of information.
For several years I've told many people "we don't disagree - we'd have to spend several days or weeks on harmonizing our factual understanding (i.e., nearly completely overhauling THEIR database) before we'd even know whether YOU actually disagree."
#2
I would like to read Verlaine's laying out his factual understanding of Iraq & the jihad. I have no lack of brains and have been paying attention since 1979 (at least), but still have difficulty mastering the facts in the face of the tsunami of misinformation & BS from the media & the politicians.
#3
There was plenty of planning and preparation for post-invasion operations in Iraq
Hmm. This is going to be a tough one to prove. Or at least it will take quite a while and have to cover quite a few subjects to convince me. I believe they really thought they had planned things well, but even little ol' me saw it wasn't going to turn out. Must have been focused on the trees too much instead of the forest.
#4
I know some of the DOD planners involved. Franks is telling the truth - there was detailed planning and it did look at the forest as well as the trees.
What happened is (metaphorically speaking) that the State Dept. pushed through environmental regulations requiring a completely different forest to be planted. Powell and Armitage managed to veto or sabotage 3 out of 4 main initiatives drawn up by the Pentagon. And gave tacit support to Turkey's refusal to allow us to come in through the north, too.
The result is, well, what we see now. A longer, harder, messier slog.
#5
#3: There was plenty of planning and preparation for post-invasion operations in Iraq
Observer is spot on. Draft invasion OPLANS were on on the table and routinely staffed and exercised at least as early as 1999 and 2000. A standing Coalition Joint Task Force (CJTF) under LTG Frank's, Commander of US Army Central Command (ARCENT) Fort McPherson, GA. was stood up and exercised regularly at Camp Doha in Kuwait. Franks developed a scheme of rotating COL(P) and Brigadier Generals in and out of the TF in thirty day intervals as "Task Force Commanders." This enabled senior leaders to get a feel for the mission and gain valuable theater situational awareness. General Dave Petreus was one such rotating general officer. In fact, Petreaus as I recall, did not one but two tours as a 30 day CJTF commander. Franks also hosted senior officer tours/terrain rides of the CJTF that provided bus loads of 1-2 week "drive bys" the opportunity to see where they might someday be earning their pay. As an aside, retrieving US Army kit from "Coalition partner" senior officers got to be quite a chore. The Northern and Southern "No fly Zones" kept what was left of the Iraqi Air Force and army helos in their pen. Any time US State gets involved, expect the worst. The warfighting piece under General Franks was brilliantly planned and executed. General Franks was a visionary who studied his craft, history, the people, and the language. He had an appreciation for military intelligence and an abiding trust in his senior intelligence staff. My gut instinct was that as soon as Bahgdad fell and the peacekeeping, political and US State Department diplo-dink role began to surface, General Franks wisely dropped his paperwork, retired, and went home to his beloved Texas. No General worth his salt would dance with that crowd. If Tommy Franks said it or wrote, you can take it to the bank, end of story. Just my two cents worth.
#6
Anguper, I was making a pretty broad statement - the main point being that when I encounter what appear to be contrary opinions, often as not, if I probe a bit into factual premises, they're entirely wrong. Thus the quip about whether there is actually any real disagreement. The tsunami you talk about is even worse than that, I'd say - it's now a comprehensive environment of disinformation that supports an edifice of distortion. There are b.s. books to supplement the b.s. from NPR or AP to go along with the nonsense from certain political quarters and/or editorial boards - none of it, NONE of it, ever countered by the adults (the enduring mystery of the administration's silence).
Most here, of course, think for themselves and have figure things out. How? Dunno. More than once in the past few years like-minded younger folks have asked "where do we go for info?" as an alternative to the MSM. I've never been able to give a neat or simple answer. Whereas to sip at the firehose of MSM/Beltway/academic b.s., you can turn to any media outlet (including Fox most of the time). Scary.
#7
Verlaine, when they're ready for it, you should send 'em here. Explain the "Thugburg" search section (that alone probably "knows" more than any Civilian HUMINT we got on the ground over in theater) to 'em and let 'em rip! The 'burg is the undisputed source for info (links to the actual stories), as well as snark, comedy, and occassionally, insight from people who used to work in the Middle East.
Posted by: BA ||
03/13/2007 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'd go with more than occasionally, BA. Almost every day -- in the several years I've been hanging out here -- somebody has posted something that provided me with an unexpected insight into something. Verlaine, I second BA; if they're ready to face reality, send 'em here. Just warn them to mind their manners -- some of the guys play a little rough. ;-)
The chattering class nostrum that Free Iraq and its coalition allies have "lost the Iraq war" is so blatantly wrong it would be a source of laughter were human life and hope-inspiring liberty not at such terrible risk. In terms of fundamental historical changes favoring 21st century freedom and peace, what Free Iraq and its Coalition allies have accomplished in four short years is nothing short of astonishing.
Consider what Iraq was, not simply in A.D. March 2003, but in 2003 B.C. Both historical frames provide instructive lessons in the obvious.
Iraq, as ancient Mesopotamia (the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers), seeded Abraham's Ur and Hammurabi's Babylon. The region was the Eden of city-states, the consolidator and exporter of the Agricultural Revolution. It is also the center of a predominantly Muslim region where -- to paraphrase historian Bernard Lewis -- something "went wrong." Lewis was addressing the "fossilization" that began to afflict the Middle East at least six centuries ago, a cultural, intellectual and, yes, political ossification and decline.
The decline did two things that directly affect the War on Terror (which Rudy Giuliani more correctly calls The Terrorists' War Against Us). The decline undermined Islamist utopian notions of theological supremacy. That millennialist disappointment seeds the long list of "grievances" infesting al-Qaida's propaganda. The far greater consequence (and truly grievous wrong) was arresting Middle Eastern populations. Arrest is the right word. The Middle East was trapped in the terrible yin-yang of tyrant and terrorist, the choice of one or the other -- which is no choice, for both mean oppression and death.
In November 2001, I wrote that we -- the United States specifically, but the civilized world as a whole -- are in a "fight for the future" with terrorists and tyrants. Iraq (Mesopotamia) has been and continues to be an influential if not critical stretch of geography. In January 2003, I argued that toppling Saddam's tyranny in Iraq would do two things: begin the process of fostering political choice (democracy) in the Middle East and bring al-Qaida onto a battlefield not of its choosing. Moreover, that battlefield would be largely manned by Muslim allies, exposing the great fractures within Islam and the Middle East that al-Qaida's strategists tried to mask by portraying America as "the enemy."
Credit the Iraqi people with taking the opportunity by conducting three honest, open, democratic elections. In May 2006, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki formed a democratically elected, consensus-seeking government not simply in Mesopotamia but in the heart of the politically dysfunctional Middle East. That's an astonishing achievement.
Al-Qaida's now-deceased emir in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, understood the stakes. In a message to al-Qaida (intercepted by the Coalition in February 2004), Zarqawi wrote that after Iraqis run their own government, U.S. troops will remain, "but the sons of this land will be the authority. ... This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts." Iraq's new army and police will link with the people "by lineage, blood and appearance." The terrorists and tyrants understand. It's a shame America's chatterers don't.
Unable to defeat coalition soldiers or dim liberty's appeal, Zarqawi and his terror clique chose Iraqi civilians as their target. They concluded that an Islamic sectarian war between Shia and Sunni was the only way al-Qaida would avoid defeat. That might entail temporarily placing a secular Saddam-type tyrant in power -- hence the short-term cooperation with thugs from the former regime. Al-Qaida and the Saddamists bet their bombs would break the Iraqi people. That has not happened. They know their resiliency is a stinging rebuke of terror and tyranny.
Targeting the vulnerable is the same tactic the Ku Klux Klan used to enforce segregation in America's South. The Klan burned African-American churches instead of mosques, but the Klan, al-Qaida and Saddamist fascists target a population with similar technique and tyrannical viciousness. Most of us are glad the FBI didn't pull out of Mississippi and Alabama in 1963. The analogy isn't direct -- Baghdad isn't Birmingham. However, the goal of ending the oppressive destruction of lives is both comparable and noble.
The Iraqi people are earning their victory and their liberty. The price for both is inevitably paid in blood, sweat and toil. At this point in history, they need American patience.
#1
I like that analogy. Baghdad as Birmingham would really stick in the craw of some of the left. Comparing al-Qaeda to the KKK, also brings out the weird parallels with the old South and the "new democrats", along with the defenses used by the "Dixiecrats" of the segregationist status quo.
#2
Well said, and so long overdue. The moral component of this war - so huge, so dramatic, perhaps as stark as ANY conflict the US has ever touched - is, naturally, completely disregarded.
A few hours of high-jinks by idiots at Abu - end of the Planet Earth as we know it. Endless, endless barbaric slaughter of the most horrific sort by the enemy against kids and elders and everyone else - tumbleweeds blowing down the street, chirping crickets.
So many "educated" Americans have perfectly mastered the sort of ignorant, lazy, disengaged moral emptiness of most Europeans, probably for similar reasons (no involvement in the tougher tasks of protecting/promoting freedom and decency). My alienation from this group of my fellow Americans is near complete. When I returned from Baghdad I anticipated this, but the gulf is still a shocking and depressing thing that colors everything for me now.
The recent hydrocarbon law, approved after much wrangling by Iraq's council of ministers, deserves a great deal more praise than it has been receiving. For one thing, it abolishes the economic rationale for dictatorship in Iraq. For another, it was arrived at by a process of parley and bargain that, while still in its infancy, demonstrates the possibility of a cooperative future. For still another, it shames the oil policy of Iraq's neighbors and reinforces the idea that a democracy in Baghdad could still teach a few regional lessons.
To illustrate my point by contrast: Can you easily imagine the Saudi government allocating oil revenues so as to give a fair share to the ground-down and despised Shiite workers who toil, for the most part, in the oil fields of the western region of the country? Or picture the Shiite dictatorship in Iran giving a fair shake to the Arab-speaking area of Khuzestan, let alone to the 10 percent of Iranians who are both Sunni and Kurdish? To ask these questions is to answer them. Control over the production and distribution of oil is the decisive factor in defining who rules whom in the Middle East.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The most apt characterization of socialism ever.....Privatization to corrupt elite.
Think about Oil for Food scandal as the UN being an extension of the International...ie the communist party, where the bought and paid for political appointees take control of all resources, making every one associated with the administration of resources rich while everyone else is supposed to throw accolades to them for thier fairness.....what a sham;
all corruption all the time courtesy of those whose skills at the trough are what qualifies them as kings..
#2
The most apt characterization of socialism ever.....Privatization to corrupt elite.
Think about Oil for Food scandal as the UN being an extension of the International...ie the communist party, where the bought and paid for political appointees take control of all resources, making every one associated with the administration of resources rich while everyone else is supposed to throw accolades to them for thier fairness.....what a sham;
all corruption all the time courtesy of those whose skills at the trough are what qualifies them as kings..
#4
"The most apt characterization of socialism ever.....Privatization to corrupt elite."
thats why any meaningful socialism can only occur in a democracy, and "socialism" in a dictatorship is not really socialism, but just a form of feudalism.
A US military operation against Iran will play into the hands of Americas worst enemies according to Bruce Riedel of the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, a leading think tank.
He wrote on the interactive Washington Post site that Al Qaeda saw a war between America and Iran as its fondest dream come true. A war between the United States and Iran would be a tremendous strategic victory for Al Qaeda and anti-American forces because two of their most deadly enemies would stop each other. The Sunni Arab jihadi community would kill two birds with one stone, he added.
Riedel noted that last month the new head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar Al Baghdadi, issued a statement welcoming the surge of more American troops into Iraq. He said he looked forward to an American nuclear attack on Iran. For Al Qaeda, the American occupation of Iraq has been an opportunity to attack US forces in territory sympathetic to the terrorists. Osama welcomed the US invasion four years ago, and his lieutenants have openly called the occupation the best opportunity they have had since 9/11 to strike at Americans.
The Middle East commentator pointed out that, for Al Qaeda, the downside of the American occupation of Iraq has been the increase in Irans influence in the region. Last November, another Al Qaeda leader in Iraq complained that, The stupid Bush revived the glory of the old Persian Empire in a very short period of time. The Sunni terrorists have deliberately sought to provoke a civil war between Iraqi Sunni and Shiite Muslims to create the quandary they hope will bring America to defeat, he wrote. However, they have been alarmed at the consequent growth in Tehrans influence in the country.
According to Riedel, War between the Crusaders and the Safavids, as they call it, will only benefit the jihad against both. Al Qaeda would best be served by a full-scale invasion and occupation, similar to that in Iraq, which would expand the battlefield available to work against the US all the way from the Anbar province in the west to the Khyber Pass in the east. However, they seem to understand that the American military is already too over stretched to offer such an opening. Thus, they expect us to use nuclear weapons on Iran and have told Sunnis to evacuate towns close to N-installations.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No need for invasion. Like Derbyshire said "Rubble don't make trouble".
#2
"The stupid Bush revived the glory of the old Persian Empire in a very short period of time. I didn't know the Ayatollah Khoumeini was W's cousin. I learn something every day.
#3
A US invasion of Iran would be desired by AQ - they benefit three ways:
1) They don't like Shia and we'd kill off a bunch, and
2) They don't like Americans and the Shia'd kill off some.
3) It would divide our attention and spread our forces.
"expect us to use nuclear weapons "
No, expect us to use weapons on nuclear installations - but same effect: nuclear contamination.
I still don't fully buy the Radical Shia verse Radical Sunni stuff. Personally I believe that is something the Muslim Dictators are trying to use to replace the Western hatred becuase we are calling em out on that part since 9-11. I find it somewhat hard to believe when the radicals are calling for unity, working coordinating thier actions like 04' Iraq Sadr/Zarkawi, and the biggest part to me is "Why is it that Shia Radicals instead of bombing the Sunni Radicals and vice versa instead just go kill eachothers moderates who are not at war but just doing daily life". NO my friends the radicals are killing eachothers opponents off, forcing fence sitters to thier side, getting browny points with the US media "ohhh the carnage" crap. If they really hated eachother and was a primary goal Sadr's offices would be carbombed not the University, radical Preachers on both sides would be turning up everywere not Moderate pro governement, the bodies found daily would not be random john does but would be in our databases as suspected or AS Jihadi's.
And to no ones suprise the US media bites the enemy propoganda hook line and sinker.
#5
Kinda predictable when Sunni savages destroy several million tons of skyscrapers housing 50,000 Americans that Sunni power is threatened. That the historical enemy, a rising Persian and Shiite power is the principal threat is just the extra sweet icing on the cake. In this several way knife fight, there is no payoff for America to take on all comers. Better to set historical enemies upon each others throats and then take out the winners and plunder them. I predict Shiite dirt farmers will be enjoying the pleasures of Sunni and Saudi princess sex slaves long before America takes out Iran.
Posted by: ed ||
03/13/2007 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A US military operation against Iran will play into the hands of Americas worst enemies
"Cuius testicles habes, habet cardeum et cerebellum"
And the US is slowly twisting them, in the grand perspective we are watching the same diplomatic and economic poetry that brought down the USSR.
Beautifull.
Posted by: Harry Thinelet8011 ||
03/13/2007 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Wow, HT8011, I've never heard Latin "sound" so beautiful, and I only made out 3 or 4 of the words, lol!
Posted by: BA ||
03/13/2007 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"Cuius testicles habes, habet cardeum et cerebellum"
I'm just guessing -- will check with Latin student trailing daughter #1 when she gets home from school -- but that looks like, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." Am I close, Harry Thinelet8011?
#12
'Habes' and 'habet' should have the same ending, if they are, as I suspect, referring to the same person. Otherwise, it is directly translated as, "Whose testicles you have, (he/she/it/one) has the heart and brain."
#15
That's the old Patton Quote, "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/13/2007 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#16
RD, trailing daughter #1 was willing to be satisfied with either one, so long as both clauses were consistent. Me? I only learn languages I can talk to living people in. ;-)
Sooner or later it happens. You are talking with someone on a subject of mutual interest, a subject thought to have no controversial dimension whatever. The conversation follows its natural course through relevant points, then, suddenly, this person you are conversing with blurts out some insane liberal shibboleth and looks at you as if you must agree with his declaration, which follows from nothing.
You have two choices: a) advise him that he is a jackass, or b) spend the rest of your life knowing that you are a useless pussy.
But more often this does not happen in a personal conversation (although I have experienced it), rather it occurs on the Internet where people seem always to be microseconds away from losing their grip on their personal demons.
This is the great frustration with being conservative-minded. You would just as soon that politics not be brought into every single discussion, that it be possible to discuss literature, science, music, or rebate coupons without having to react to some tediously stupid received liberal wisdom. I realize this is a gross generalization, but it happens to be true: a liberal can never hold it until he gets home, he must at some point whiz all over his slacks the knowledge that he didn't vote for Bush, sees capitalist conspiracies everywhere, and believes he is living in a police state rivaling the Stasi. . . .
There seems a substantial portion of our population that is sliding into casual insanity. They are capable (barely) of navigating the confusing and frightening adult world as adults, but are subject to frequent attacks of dementia and panic regarding vast areas of mundane life. Credit card terms, laundry soap instructions, food additives they're all part of a scary, complicated world in which fat white businessmen conspire to murder them or read their junk mail. One wonders with some apprehension where this is all leading.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/13/2007 06:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The author asks, "Am I alone in noticing this phenomenon?"
Of course not.
"I realize this is a gross generalization, but it happens to be true: a liberal can never hold it until he gets home, he must at some point whiz all over his slacks the knowledge that he didn't vote for Bush, sees capitalist conspiracies everywhere, and believes he is living in a police state rivaling the Stasi...."
No, it isn't a gross generalization; that's actually the way it is. I've become damn weary of these tiresome liberal idiots who just can't hold their water and simply MUST blurt out their stupid opinions (as if it doesn't occur to them at all that others might find them offensive). So weary I don't even try to be civil to them, except at work.
I don't give a candy-coated crap if these morons fuck up their own grandchildrens' futures, but I'm damned if I'm going to sit idly by and let them fuck up **MY** grandchildrens' futures.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/13/2007 9:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You have two choices: a) advise him that he is a jackass, or b) spend the rest of your life knowing that you are a useless pussy.
I long ago learned to be comfortable with Option b).
The alternative is to get into constant battles with:
Old geezers who believe rock 'n roll is a Communist plot.
Young stoners who believe The X-Files is a documentary.
Religious nutters who can't brook disagreement.
Mac fanciers.
Etc.
In fact, reading the whole of the linked article, I see that the sort of stuff he's commenting on is not confined to liberals. Virtually every linked phrase (save for the Coulter one) is an obsession of right-wing loonies as well as left (I didn't actually follow the links, so I don't know which angle these come from). And you don't need to be a liberal to gas on about "consumerism"; I'll bet Pat Robertson does it too.
#3
I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the commentators choice of choices.
A sane, grown up, meaning someone who has come of legal drinking age and who has a modicum of education and tolerance quickly must learn a couple things in order to survive in this world,
1) You can't fight everybody, not even everybody who wants to fight you,
2) You must become confident enough in your own clothes that it simply does not matter when some moonbat disagrees with you or wants to start a fight about it,
3) You must be so self-confident that most other people regard you as a psychotic egomaniac wth delusions of grandeur simply because you don't feel the need to argue your positions and fight it out with them.
4) You must become so self-confident and sure of yourself and your opinions that you are able to shrug off moonbattery as if the person spouting it were speaking in tongues at a snake-handler's evangelical convention and simply ignore the fool or walk away shaking your head in disgust.
Option 3 is rarely seen and even more rarely worn on one's sleeve as a badge of honor or discerned by those we know (not even I, with an ego that can barely fit through the door most days, can say I am always displaying Option 3 though most people probably wouldn't know the difference since they think I'm an insufferable asshole anyway.
#6
I thought the article nailed it. I think the reason it occurs is that for many on the Left these views are somewhere between a fashion statement and support for their self worth, and that is why they have to advertise them.
It is nothing like as prevalent on the Right, where people are much more likely to hold their views for rational and cogent reasons (which of course doesn't mean they are right, but it does mean they are amenable to persuation). I'm not the first to notice that the Left is largely immune to rational argument and rarely deals in facts or even logical argument.
Im talking, of course, about 300, a gory retelling of the Spartans defense at Thermopylae, which has got the whole town buzzing, and not just about its first-weekend grosses. Is it an ode to Riefensthalian fascist militarism? A thinly veiled attack on the Bush administrations insane war-mongering? Or is it something else?
Help me out here, because Im having trouble wrapping my mind around a few things: When, early in the film, a sneering Persian emissary insults King Leonidass hot wife, threatens the kingdom, and rages about blasphemy, the king kicks him down a bottomless well. And yet nobody in Sparta asks, Why do they hate us? and seeks to find common ground with the Persians on their doorstep. Why not?
The Spartans mock the god-king Xerxes (whose traveling throne resembles a particularly louche Brazilian gay-pride carnival float), mow down his armored immortal holy warriors clad is nothing but red cloaks, loincloths, and sandals, and generally give their last full measure to defend Greek civilization against superstition and tyranny. Where are the liberal Spartan voices raised in protest against this blatant homophobia, xenophobia, and racism?
The only way this bunch of refugees from a Village People show can whup our heroes is by dangling some dubious hookers in front of a horny hunchback who makes Quasimodo look like Tom Cruise, and by bribing a corrupt legislator to tie up reinforcements with various legalistic maneuvers. When the queen finally kills the councilor, the others call him a traitor. Isnt that both blaming the victim and questioning his patriotism?
Youd think 300 was a metaphor for something
I heard the other day that one of the creators of this film is yes, a closet conservative. And now he, whoever he is, is a rich closet conservative.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
a thinly veiled attack on the Bush administrations insane war-mongering?
#2
300 was written almost a decade ago, and the movie is almost a scene for scene adaptation of the graphic novel. I think most people using it as a metaphor for current events are really stretching.
#4
OF course they are stretching it, but Movies can't just be a good time anymore. They always have to have an underlining political meaning, or demonize a party, or warn us about the coming Apocalypse. If it was just a well-made movie about a graphic novel made to entertain us, why, that wouldn't make sense! There HAS to be an underlining message or all those critics would be out of a job.
Face it, it's not the fact that this has anything to do with todays political situation. It's the fact that someone made an entertaining movie, that stayed true to the novel it was based on, with no "Big time" hollywood stars, and made a FORTUNE when the "peasents" responded. And the rest of this month it will probably be at the #1 spot I think.
Posted by: Charles ||
03/13/2007 3:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
VDH has already said this, but it bears repeating.
The Greeks saw Thermopylae as free men must alway be prepared to pay the ultimate price to defend their freedom. And they were right.
But superior Greek seamanship (training) and technology were what defeated the Persians at a naval battle a few days after Thermopylae and led to the Persians ultimate defeat.
#6
I don't know that I'd call Frank Miller a conservative, but he's one of the relative few in the entertainment industry who doesn't have his head up his ass in the WoT.
Posted by: Jeff C ||
03/13/2007 8:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Freedom isn't free."
For Hollyweird, that's heady stuff.
#8
Beginning to wonder if a movie that has no stars, the look and feel of a video game, and the moral code of the U.S.M.C. might have something to say, even to audiences in New York and L.A.
I certainly prefer the moral code of the USMC to the "moral" code of Hollywood bathing in drugs, cheating, divorces, sex in exchange of getting roles in movies and who gave an Oscar to a convicted raper of an underage girl (Polansky).
#9
I don't know if Frank Miller is a conservative, but his worldview as expressed through his work, at least until the various "Sin City" follow ups (which were the last ones I read, as I drifted away from comics circa early 2001) certainly ISN'T liberal or progressive; for example, he's been called homophobic (villains as homosexuals and/or child rapists is a recurring thematic), his ideal of the hero is the free man or (black) woman, for "Ronin" and "Liberty", who makes his own law and uphold his own values against a world marred in sin and madness. I don't know if he really is a conservative, though, Reagan has been depicted negatively directly or not both in "Dark knight" and "Liberty" (followed by an hapless and even more dangerous Carter-like figure)... Some kind of libertarian/rightwing anarchist?
Anyway, he's a very interesting drawer and writer (though his chaotic writing style has allowed a bunch of bad imitators to spawn :-) a rather hyped legacy), and he certainly an artist in the truest meaning of thre word, with a real vision, and a coherent universe.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
