I cant stand to lose
Im not going to quit
I am going to bribe
The superdelegates
Im more than Barack, Im the real change
More than some pretty face and funny name
Im only a gal in a crusty pants suit
Looking for Democrats wholl vote for me Vote for Hillary ee Vote for Hillary
Posted by: Mike ||
02/15/2008 13:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Breaking news from Orbusmax.com, with link to one of several videos at different rallies, pulling the same stunt over and over again, to the applause of the crowd.
CLIPS FROM BARACK OBAMA RALLIES... EACH IS A WOMAN... EACH WOMAN STANDS DEAD CENTER, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE STAGE WHERE OBAMA IS STANDING AND SPEAKING... OBAMA SAYS "GIVE HER SPACE", REFERENCES EMT, AND HANDS THE WATER BOTTLE EACH TIME!...
#1
There is no honesty in the Democratic party. Everything is staged. A hoax.
Texas Democrats are hot and bothered because the Obama - Clinton debate is only open to those who are invited, not the public. That is so it can be staged, controlled and correographed as well.
#2
One local man here at a Guam McDonald's argued that, besdies personal charisma + youth, OBAMA may be prevailing over Hillary becuz (1) Amers, despite ME-WOT victories, want ANY KIND OF CHANGE thats different than the present; and (2) despite the former, Amers realize that despite its victories or successes, AMERICA = AMER INTERESTS IS STILL IN MILITARY DANGER FROM RADICAL ISLAM HENCE WANT A MAN TO BE POTUS, NOT A WOMAN. IOW, HILLARY as a POTUS Candidate may be a victim of 9-11, + the Islamist counter-surge in Iraq-Afghanistan includ BBhuto's death, AND MOST ESPEC BECUZ OF HER GENDER IN A TIME OF WAR???
OTOH, another McD's patron believes that OBAMA will still LOSE come November 2008 becuz OBAMA IS A BLACK MAN IN MOSTLY WHITE AMERICA???
TOPIX > FBI, DHS WARN OF REVENGE ATTACKS [inside the US?]BY HEZBOLLAH, vv Mugniyeh death; + HEZBOLLAH THREAT ECHOES IN ARGENTINA.
#3
I've heard pretty much the same comments around here as Joe ahs in Guam. But considering the kind of people I hang around with, it is not surprising, and I am not sure it is statistically significant.
Can't believe I'm linking HuffPo, but it's very, very funny. And prolly not that far off the mark.
-- Hello?
-- Doug, my man, is that you? Glad I caught you, buddy! You've had your voicemail on the past few days. Hillary and I have been worried sick.
-- I told you to stop calling me.
-- What? That's a fairy tale.
-- The last time we talked, right before I hung up on you, I said, "Stop calling me here."
-- Doug, when you said that, you were in your bedroom, weren't you?
-- Yes, I was in my bedroom. You called me at two A.M. But I don't --
-- and you're not in your bedroom now, are you? I hear a coffee maker. You're in your kitchen now, aren't you, Doug? So when you said, "Stop calling me here," I naturally assumed you meant, "Don't call me in my bedroom, but the other rooms in my house are fine." It depends on the meaning of "here" I hear.
-- I'm changing my phone number.
-- Hillary can do that for you.
-- What?
-- Hillary can change your number. She's been making change for thirty-five years. Now, when it comes to calling Verizon customer service and getting your number changed, who do you trust, someone who's been a change agent for thirty-five years or someone who's been making viral videos with the Black Eyed Peas?
-- I don't --
-- Now, I've got nothing against the Black Eyed Peas. I like the girl, what do they call her, Fergie? She's hot. I like that song that she does about her humps, and what she's gonna do with that junk, all that junk inside her trunk. Her humps, her humps, her humps, her lovely lady bumps. But she's not even in the video Barack made, and when you make a video with the Black Eyed Peas I think you owe it to the American people to let them know right up front that the hot girl with the lovely lady bumps isn't going to be in it, so that people won't waste their time freeze-framing it.
-- I...
-- Let's say you, Hillary, and Barack are on a life raft in the middle of shark-infested waters. And Hillary offers you a life preserver and Barack offers you a line of blow. Who would you vote for?
-- I have to take my kids to school.
-- Hillary will take them.
-- What?
-- She'll be over there in ten minutes.
-- She doesn't know where I live.
-- Sure, she does. We drove by your house last night.
-- You drove by my house?
-- We were hoping to chat with you. By the way, the drainpipe in the back needs fixing. It kind of separates from the house when you try to shimmy up it.
-- I'm getting a restraining order.
-- No, you're not, Doug. Hillary's going to drive your kids to school, and then you and I are going to sit down and have ourselves a nice little talk. Let's say you were stranded on a desert island. Who would you choose to help you survive: someone who had thirty-five years of experience making real change on Day One, or someone who spent his high school years surfing and sucking on a giant bong?
-- [click].
What in the world are advisers to both Senators Obama and Clinton doing in Syria in the middle of a presidential campaign and why are the two campaigns so unforthcoming about the details of the visits? The same week that a terrorist mastermind harbored by the Baathist regime in Damascus was assassinated by a car bomb, both one of Mr. Obama's foreign policy counselors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a long-time critic of Israel, and one of Mrs. Clinton's national finance chairs, Hassan Nemazee, were meeting with President Assad. . . .
Where is the sense of reality about who President Assad is and what his regime is all about? To suggest, as the Syrians report Mr. Brzezinski said, that they share some kind of common interest in respect of "stability" is disingenuous. Mugniyah, whom the Syrians had been harboring, has been among the FBI's most-wanted terrorists since 1983, when he authorized the attack on the American Marine barracks in Beirut. Mr. Assad runs a police state. Dictatorships can only thrive if the population is in constant terror and convinced the state itself is all knowing.
This has lead some to speculate that the Syrian regime itself might have been complicit in the killing of Mugniyah. We wouldn't gainsay the possibility entirely. Terrorists like drug dealers and mafiosos fight over turf all the time. What we would gainsay is that a benign construction could be put onto the role of the Assad family's Baathist regime in Syria. If the assassination of Mugniyah is a sign of anything, it is most likely that the Baathist regime is itself losing its grip on power. After all Mugniyah was a valuable asset for Mr. Assad, who relied on his capabilities to continue to threaten the prospect of a stable Lebanon.
* * *
So where's the "realism" on the part of Mr. Brzezinski and other so-called foreign policy "realists," who have accused President Bush of foreign policy malpractice for downgrading relations with Syria after the Syrians threw in with the Iranians to sabotage Iraq? Why are advisers to Senators Clinton and Obama in the Syrian capital at a time like this? Are they pressing for a separate peace with the regime? It is something on which Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be challenged in the coming campaign, we have little doubt. Where do they stand in respect of Syria and why can't they bring themselves to explain what their advisers are doing in the capital of one of the countries most hostile to America and Israel?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/15/2008 14:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
In which the mighty Aussie wordsmith analyzes the firing of CNN producer Chez Pazienza.
Step One: Does your employer have a policy that might prohibit blogging? Check to make sure! For example, this could indicate trouble ahead for the would-be online commentator:
"CNN has a policy that says employees must first get permission to write for a non-CNN outlet."
If your employer's policy is unclear to you, it's best to ask a superior or someone fluent in English for further explanation rather than waiting until you're unemployed then claiming you were fired "because of your views".
Step two: Let's say you're a wild, reckless, egomaniacal type who doesn't care for rules and runs a 167-word biography about yourself on the front page of your site announcing, among other things, that you're a "nuisance to authority figures". No way are you going to ask permission to write for non-CNN sources! To hell with you, corporate media! But be careful; those big CNN dollars might stop rolling in if you fail to post anonymously. Otherwise, CNN is likely to be troubled by a senior producer at a vanilla deal like American Morning writing the following:
We've come to understand that Bush has the IQ of a lemon and accept that he'll never be able to approach any situation, no matter how significant, with anything but the most rudimentary of motor skills. He's a dumb, lumbering jackass, and we know it.
And this:
I was never one of those people who believed that Condi Rice was a genius to begin with, despite a doctorate and her admittedly masterful skill at concealing her secret life as a hardcore lesbian ...
Lines like these might lead to workplace tension.
Step Three: Don't post pictures of yourself looking like you've just eaten the planet's entire supply of smug. This won't necessarily stop you getting fired, but it might stop a few people being happy about it.
Some additional information, courtesy of NewsBusters: Pazienza not only blogged on his own site in defiance of his terms of employment with CNN, he also became a regular contributor (presumably, a paid one) at the Huffasuffaluffagus Post.
Given CNN's ideological leanings, he probably fit right in. There's no reasonable doubt he got canned for breach of contract, not for his views.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/15/2008 14:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr. Pazienza said he started his blog in May 2006 as a way to keep his mind occupied while he was on a medical leave of several months after an operation to remove a brain tumor.
Might explain the wild, reckless, egomaniacal behavior.
It is the measure of the medias obsession with its pedophiles run amok! story line that so many of us are on a first-name basis with the victims: Polly, Amber, JonBenet, Danielle, Elizabeth, Samantha. And now there is Madeleine. Clearly these crimes were and are horrific, and nothing here is intended to diminish the parents loss. But something else has been lost in the bargain as journalists tirelessly stoke fear of strangers, segueing from nightly-news segments about cyber-stalkers and the rapist in your neighborhood to prime-time reality series like Datelines To Catch a Predator. That something else is reality.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in a given year there are about 88,000 documented cases of sexual abuse among juveniles. In the roughly 17,500 cases involving children between ages 6 and 11, strangers are the perpetrators just 5 percent of the time and just 3 percentof the time when the victim is under age 6. (Further, more than a third of such molesters are themselves juveniles, who may not be true predators so much as confused or unruly teens.) Overall, the odds that one of Americas 48 million children under age 12 will encounter an adult pedophile at the local park are startlingly remote. The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute puts it like so: Right now, 90 percent of our efforts go toward protecting our children from strangers, when what we need to do is to focus 90 percent of our efforts toward protecting children from the abusers who are not strangers. Thats a diplomatic way of phrasing the uncomfortable but factually supported truth: that if your child is not molested in your own home by you, your significant other, or someone else you invited in chances are your child will never be molested anywhere. Media coverage has precisely inverted both the reality and the risk of child sexual assault. Along the way, it has also inverted the gender of the most tragic victims: Despite the unending parade of young female faces on TV, boys are more likely than girls to be killed in the course of such abuse.
We think we know Big Journalisms faults by its much ballyhooed lapses its scandals, gaffes, and breakdowns as well as by a recent spate of insider tell-alls. When Dan Rather goes public with a sensational expose based on bogus documents; when the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrongly labels Richard Jewell the Olympic Park bomber; when Dateline resorts to rigging explosive charges to the gas tanks of unsafe trucks that, in Datelines prior tests, stubbornly refused to explode on their own; when the New York Times Jayson Blair scoops other reporters working the same story by quoting sources who dont exist We see these incidents as atypical, the exceptions that prove the rule.
Sadly, were mistaken. To argue that a decided sloppiness has crept into journalism or that the media have been hijacked by [insert least favorite political agenda] badly misses the real point; it suggests that all we need to do to fix things is filter out the gratuitous political spin or rig the ship to run a bit tighter. In truth, todays system of news delivery is an enterprise whose procedures, protocols, and underlying assumptions all but guarantee that it cannot succeed at its self described mission. Broadcast journalism in particular is flawed in such a fundamental way that its utility as a tool for illuminating life, let alone interpreting it, is almost nil. This is long but well worth reading. The last line of the excerpt summarizes the article's case: Broadcast journalism is inherently flawed and a menace to rational discourse and the democratic process.
#2
The first problem is that journalists no longer (in case they ever did) as the instruments for bringing the facts allowing others to form their own an opinion ("we report, you decide). Instead they consider themselves so superior to us mere mortals that they are allowed to decide what we must think so they distort, hide or invent facts in order to lead us to think what thay have decided we should think. The best example is the string of lies and coverups (eg the Hue massacres by the communists) during and after the Tet who led ameriacn people to lose hope on Vietnam. They have also become fond of their power on politicians: they can make or destroy carreers and that is why too many politicians cave in to the politically corrrect way on crime or immigration even when public opinion favours a tougher line: editorializing, silencing deeds who are popular, endlessly reminding politician's goofups are just a few of the weapons journalist have to ensure the politician steps the party line. And that ven without going to downright falsifications a la Dan Rather or a la Lebanon war.
Third: In the fourties the communists tried to take control of Holllywood in order to influence american public opinion. If they wenet for that relatively unimportant target wouldn't it be logical that they targeted that much more important one? That they assigned smarter people for the operation? That after seeing the failure of the Hollywood operation for direct communist propaganda, they went for a longer term method of controlling journalist schools (thus ensuring future generations of journalist would be left wing) and instead of blatant communist reporting (immediately detected and rejected) merely liberal, pacifist, "look at the straw in America's eye instead of the beam in her opponents" in order to sap America's will of resistance?
#3
It's never been about 'facts'. MSM et journalist are part of a business. If the business doesn't make money, it ceases to exist [though not before the usual evolutionary last desperate acts of consolidation and conglomerating]. They sale print columns and broadcast minutes by pushing fear, loathing, doom and gloom. Facts get in the way of getting attention. P.T. Barnum should be the patron saint of the Columbia School of Hucksterism Journalism.
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.
by Steve Salerno 
