Awful. They're agitating for this. Guilty of precisely the crime they charge their political enemies with -- and they're proud of it.

See, this proves they're "tough." more...

Posted by: SPADES-OF: ACE at 07:53 AM | Comments (152)
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.

First Halperin said the GOP should stop fighting the Ground Zero Mosque because it was hurting Democrats. Then he said Obama was going to need some "luck" like a terrorist attack (score!) to get his popularity back.

Now this idiot says conservatives defending themselves only makes our political climate worse.

“I just want to single out one thing. I think the media and the politicians have behaved pretty well so far. I’m worried about the anger of the right-wing commentariat,” Halperin said. “Fox and George Will and other conservatives are in some cases justifiably upset at liberals, but they’re turning this back into the standard operating procedure of ‘all this is war and fodder for content’ rather than trying to bring the country together.”

“Wait a second,” Scarborough responded. “I think they would say that you have that backwards, that a shooting was turned into fodder to attack conservatives.”

Halperin: “And, I already made that criticism, as well. they’re right, but rather than seizing on it and turning the other cheek, they’re back at their war stations. that’s not going to help us.”

Look, I can't prove this but someone who writes for a rival of Time magazine, where Halperin works, says there's a chance Halperin might have killed even more dogs than Michael Vick and more people than Ted Bundy. Now should these blatant falsehoods start to spread, I'd really hate it if Halperin defended himself against these baseless charges. If he did, it might turn people against Vick as he enters contract negotiations and it might bring up some bad memories for the families of Bundy's victims. So I'm sure Mark will just sit back while his good name is besmirched by liars trying to sell more copies of his competitor's product. He's just that kind of guy.

Can you imagine for a moment anyone in the press saying, "Hey Dems, sure the conservatives are lying about you and trying to paint you as monsters but take one for the team...lie back and think of England!"?*

Just when you think liberals can not get any more shameless with this story a new one comes along. Of course, we won't have full stupidity closure until we hear from hysterical Frank Rich.

*Thanks to DaveInTexas for that. He's our go to guy for old references.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:27 AM | Comments (82)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

But only a meager plurality of Democrats say that political rhetoric is unrelated, which explains why Democratic leaders and the media continue to push it.

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.

So a plurality of Democrats can see through the disgusting political point scoring. That's more than I expected and, honestly, I think that will change if President Obama decides to go with the idea that the "larger context" of this atrocity is about learning tolerance. He can't mean we should be learning to tolerate murderous schizophrenics, so I figure he will be setting his imprimatur on the claim that "for the good of the nation" the political rhetoric will have to be toned down.

Unlike Allah, I'm sure that will please Obama sycophants because they won't understand him to be saying that everyone should tone it down. In the first place, many on the left are still insisting that the left doesn't use "extremist" rhetoric in politics; so, obviously, Obama can't be talking about them. They'll listen to his vague, passive-voiced pronouncements and hear: "they, the racist, out-of-control Tea Party should tone it down."

Exit question: With days to figure out which way the wind is blowing, is Obama stupid enough to turn this into another Wellstone funeral, anyway? Exit answer: With advice like this, it's inevitable.

Later: Just how stupid are Democrats? The DCCC is defending its use of red bullseyes on a political target map by suggesting that that the Democratic map is "not threatening since it used an image that is also associated with Target, the national retail chain."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:57 AM | Comments (107)
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

First, check out the cartoon here.

Here's what cartoonist Jeff Danziger said when challenged on the accuracy and fairness of the image.

In a larger sense there is a link between anti-government rhetoric and the actions of this obviously deranged man. He is not “troubled”, he is crazed. But he knows that the larger enemy is the “government”, even though I suspect he has no idea, other than the police, what the government is.

Danziger professes the he is, "not a Democrat nor a Republican, neither left nor right' yet he's pretty sure that "anti-government rhetoric" only comes from the tea party.

Oh really?

Try Googling "Andrew Sullivan George Bush War Criminal" and see how many hits you get (like this one)

Or how about a group like The War Resisters League who advocated for "taking back our schools from the military"?

The National Lawyers Guild says the government has "targeted" (we now know that's a dangerous code word) animal rights activists as terrorists and that Lynn Stewart and Mumia Abu-Jamal have had their rights violated by the government.

The US Human Rights Network is full of all sorts of charges of government abuse of people at the hands of the government. A taste.

The U.S. Human Rights Network Political Prisoners and State Repression Working Group condemns this attack on anti-war, social justice, and human rights activists in the United States and the growing suppression of dissent and repression of dissidents. We stand in support of these and other activists fighting for peace, justice, and an end to unjust U.S. policies and practices at home and abroad. See U.S. Human Rights Network Reports to the UPR Working Group of the UN Human Rights Council

Charges that there was an "American Gulag" were pretty common (one example) during the Bush years.

The ACLU was pretty excited that the UN was finally examining America's protect "human rights".

"The UPR process provides an opportunity for the United States to identify human rights violations, develop real solutions and bring our policies in line with international human rights standards," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "There is no better time to reflect honestly and exhaustively on our country's human rights record and to find a path forward toward correcting our faults. The administration should continue to work with all relevant federal agencies and Congress until we can safely say the U.S. is beyond reproach when it comes to human rights."

"This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up," Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. "Now they're coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?"

And plenty of Democratic politicians have gotten in on the act.

That represents about a half an hour worth of work last night and I've only scratched the surface of the left's "anti-government rhetoric".

I'd like to say there's some bigger point here beyond Jeff Danziger's dishonesty and ideological blinkers but there's probably not. Still I think there's some use in reminding people that the movement that produced Bill "The Bomber" Ayers was anti-government not only in rhetoric but action long before anyone ever dreamed up the tea party.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:33 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 585 words, total size 5 kb.

Winning isn't enough for some people.

A gay rights group is asking a federal appeals court in California to keep considering if a trial judge properly struck down the U.S. military’s ban on gays serving openly in the military, even though Congress has agreed to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Lawyers for Log Cabin Republicans filed legal papers on Monday arguing that because the ban has not yet been lifted and may not be for some time, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals needs to maintain the schedule it set in the governmentÂ’s challenge to the lower courtÂ’s ruling.

One of the main arguments Secretary of Defense Gates made in promoting legislative repeal of DADT was that a judicial ruling forcing it would be dangerous for the military.

Gates and other officials say they don't want the eventual repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be forced by an outside entity like the courts, or imposed immediately. Change this significant must be phased in, explained Gates. "[An abrupt implementation] would be hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance. It is important this change come via legislative means."

You mean some of the lead proponents of repealing DADT only care about their political agenda and not military readiness? I'm shocked! Wait, no I'm not. Me on the day DADT was repealed in the Senate.

Oh one bit of BS that will soon be shown to be just that...supporters of repealing DADT, include SecDef Gates, said it won't happen until the military says they are ready and this will ensure it's done in an orderly fashion and not in an ad hoc way if the courts ordered it.

Does anyone really think the court challenges will be withdrawn? I don't. And if a federal judge finds that there's a right for gays to serve in the military, then what's the rationale for delaying that? Rights don't get put off because it's inconvenient for the government to recognize them, one of the benefits of many rights is that they do precisely that...inconvenience the government.

I bet we see the worst case scenario that Gates and the Joint Chiefs warned of because this whole push has always been about personal edification for a few individuals and the political left, not military necessity.

What do I win?

Posted by: DrewM at 05:26 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Let's see, 5 ones, 2 zeros, and a two.

I hate this day already.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:38 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Journalistic Hackery 101

Instructor: Prof. Katie Couric

Class meets M-F 6:00 pm to 6:30 pm (Time may vary depending on locality)

Course Syllabus: This course will explore the various ways in which a large media organization can and will shamelessly distort a news event using facts which may or may not be actual facts. By the end of the course the student will be expected to have mastered the art of and demonstrate complete proficiency in being completely full of shit.

Course excerpt:

During her January 10th, 2011 lecture, Prof. Couric discusses the recent massacre in Tucson and informs the class that the alleged shooter has been provided with a court-appointed public defender, Judy Clarke:

Ah, Timothy McVeigh. In this way the not-so-subtle connection is made. But has Ms. Clarke been part of the defense team for any other high-profile cases? Where the defendant perhaps may be of a different political stripe? Or none at all? LetÂ’s seeÂ…

According to CNN:

"A federal public defender known for handling high-profile cases, Judy Clarke, has been appointed to represent Loughner, a federal judicial source told CNN. Clarke previously defended the "Unabomber," Ted Kaczynski, and assisted in the case of confessed al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui."

Nope. No McVeigh there.

And the NY Times:

"Ms. Clarke has helped a number of infamous defendants avoid death sentences, including Theodore J. Kaczynski, the Unabomber; Eric Robert Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympics bomber; and Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who drowned her toddlers."

Still no McVeigh.

Did Ms. Clarke actually work on the McVeigh defense team? It's possible she did in some respect though the primary defense attorney was Steven Jones. Neither the CNN nor NY Times articles mention that trial. Nor is there any reference to it on Ms. ClarkeÂ’s Wikipedia page.

Irrelevant, because Prof. Couric has skillfully made a connection where there doesn’t appear to be one yet has planted the seed in the fertile minds of her students: McVeigh = Clarke = Loughner. A simple equation known as the ‘Bullshit Constant”. One that all students are expected to master before advancing to the next course in the curriculum, Journalistic Hackery 201

End of course excerpt.

Prof. CouricÂ’s office hours vary but sheÂ’s always happy to meet with enthusiastic students, time permitting.

All rights reserved by Complete Bull Shit University. Proudly serving it up the community for quite some time now,

Chancellor Dan Rather

Posted by: Genghis at 01:20 AM | Comments (119)
Post contains 418 words, total size 4 kb.

Two weeks ago I witnessed a crime in progress. That crime was plagiarism, and the culprits were Natalie Portman and David Aronofsky. I was aghast as I witnessed a nearly shot-for-shot swipe of another, better movie, and one beloved by me.

Here's the plot of Black Swan: A performer/athlete is technically gifted, beautiful in movement, and virtuous -- and virginal -- in personal character. This Black Swan must compete for top honors with a "Black Swan," who represents the dark side of humanity, the id, the demiurge, the primal and the sexual, and whose style of performance is more free-flowing, unrestrained, and, ultimately, better appreciated.

The "White Swan" ultimately finds that triumph cannot come by beating the "Black Swan," but only by fusing with the "Black Swan," synthesizing control and abandon, caution and recklessness, order and chaos, and sexual restraint and a hungry, all-devouring sexual urge. The climax comes in the film's final moments, which featrures, in rapid succession, a shocking crime, a tour de force maneuver involving tight spinning, representing the ultimate fusion of super-ego and id , and, after this moment of triumph, the true triumph-- that of escape.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? Of course it does.

Blades of Glory (2007), the mind-bending psycho-sexual thriller by Josh Gordon and Bill Speck, explored the duality and dilemma of human nature, the dark and the light, in the context of the high-stress world of competitive figure skating. The auteurs Gordon/Speck explored the ice-cold, ice-hard world of figure skating, going beyond the pretty image presented to the public, to reveal the dark heart of the sport and the hidden turmoils within those who practice it.

Chazz Michael-Michaels, the first and only "Black Swan."

The Black Swan script does not even attempt to hide the cinematic crime it's committing. Compare the following text from Black Swan, in which the cruel director Tomas inquires about Nina/the White Swan's sexual inexperience...

Thomas Leroy: So, you got a boyfriend?

Nina: No.

Thomas Leroy: And you've had many in the past?

Nina: A few but no one serious.

Thomas Leroy: You're not a virgin are you?

Nina: [nervously] No.

Thomas Leroy: So there is nothing to be embarrassed about.

...with this virtually beat-for-beat identical passage from Blades of Glory, in which Chazz, the Black Swan, mocks Jimmy for not understanding the sexual nature of his (Chazz's) technique:

Jimmy: That was disgusting.

Chazz: THAT, young man, is how babies are made.

Both Blades of Glory and its imitator Black Swan flirt with the idea of homosexual attraction between competitors. Compare:

Lily: Wait, did you have some sort of lezzy wet dream about me?

Nina: [whispers] Stop it.

Lily: Oh my God? Oh my God! You did! You fantasized about me!

Nina: Shut up!

Lily: [gasps] Was I good?

with:

Coach: What do you two have that other skaters don't?

Chazz (raising hand, confidently): Twin dongs.

Coach: Exactly.

Both films underline the physical hardship of top-level competition, and feature the presence of a domineering, driven parent -- in Black Swan, Nina's mother pushes her into isolation, and there is a nasty, and somewhat gory, shot of Nina's foot breaking under the strain of placing her full weight upon a single toe. Whereas Blades of Glory features this stronger, more compelling revelation about the perils of having a stage-parent:

Jimmy: When I was eight, my dad had me get a circumcision to minimalize air resistance.

The triumphant fusion of Bacchanalian revel
with Apollonian discipline -- done right the first time.

Both films are about the duality of the human nature, and the need to balance the super-ego with the vital id. Compare Black Swan:

Coach: The truth is when I look at you all I see is the white swan. Yes you're beautiful, fearful, and fragile. Ideal casting. But the black swan? It's a hard fucking job to dance both.

Nina: I can dance the black swan, too.

Coach: Really? In 4 years every time you dance I see you obsessed getting each and every move perfectly right but I never see you lose yourself. Ever! All that discipline for what?

With the superior treatment in Blades of Glory...

Coach: Chazz, you can't go it alone! No lone wolf out there! And Jimmy, don't be afraid to improvise!

In far fewer words but infinitely more dramatic depth, Blades of Glory summarizes the key thematic opposition of Black Swan.

But the similarities are not constrained to mere plot and dialogue -- no, the key visuals of Blades of Glory are shamelessly appropriated for the thief-film Black Swan. Both films play with the idea of apotheosis into a great bird pregnant with symbolic heft. Black Swan of course fixates on the image of the swan, whereas Jimmy McElroy begins the film as a peacock:

The Black Swan can only build to the
mindblowing imagery Blades of Glory assumes from the outset.

While some praise Aronofsky for his "inventiveness" in the swan motif, few seem to remember the unbridled joy they first felt upon seeing Jimmy McElroy's "galloping peacock."

Having watched both films recently, virtually identical in all respects, I confess that at this point have trouble distinguishing between them. I cannot remember from which movie comes the line "You all have had the chance and the privilege to be enchanted, transported, and even sometimes devastated by the performances of this true artist of our company," and from which comes "Great! That'll give me time to wax my jugs!"

Or which film featured an Ecstacy-fueled debauch, and which featured a man vomiting inside a wizard costume, or which an ice princess, and which an "ice-devouring sex-tornado."

Or which film contained the bloodcurling cry, upon seeing a beloved sports mascot wounded by a crossbow bolt: "Snowflake!!!"

It is shocking in this day and age that such shameless stealing can pass not only unremarked by the critical audience, but in fact be rewarded. Or that the true innovator should be shunned as inferior while its imitator receives the accolades.

While some ineffectual, arch dialogue about sexuality is cause for critical celebration in Black Swan, true insights about the Demiurge of sexuality are entirely ignored from Blades of Glory. Savage, sudden bursts of true insight like this:

Chazz: I was just trying to find some peace. A haven, a place where I could feel safe... she was my yoga instructor. So I know she was limber. [H]er friend, a massage therapist walked in the door naked... With a big bottle of canola oil and a monkey who was trained to work on a video camera.

And she rocked my world.

Black Swan may rack up the awards, but Blades of Glory will always have something its pale imitation does not: A monkey trained to work on a video camera.

Funny: "Boner-killing!," rave the reviewers.

more...

Posted by: SPADES-OF: ACE at 06:32 PM | Comments (141)
Post contains 1137 words, total size 8 kb.

Elvis: That's the Way It Is

In honor of Elvis's birthday on Saturday (he would have been 76) which we totally forgot to observe I present you the trailer for the movie, "Elvis: That's The Way It Is", a 1970 documentary showing Elvis preparing for his return to live concerts for his Las Vegas Summer Festival.

If you've never seen this movie before, I heartily recommend watching it. In the decades since he died Elvis has become just a caricature to most people. But here you see the Vegas Elvis in his prime - with all his charisma and flair - and realize that Elvis impersonators are just that - pale imitations of the real thing. And 40 years later performers are still copying his moves - often unaware of even where they originally came from. You can watch more starting here.

Over Christmas I finally got a chance to visit Graceland in Memphis which is definitely worth doing at least once in your life. The main thing I noticed is how modest it is - it's a relatively small house by today's standards and lacks most of the de rigueur rock star amenities. Of course Elvis was still rich and decked it out in top of the line 1970's luxury decor and appliances i.e. flagrantly ugly and clunky. It's a shame he died in 1977 and the house was forever locked into a hideous 70's time warp.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:47 PM | Comments (427)
Post contains 576 words, total size 7 kb.

Also "well-liked in conservative circles."

Earlier I gave credence to the unproven speculation that Jared Lee Loughner got his obsession over grammar and mind control from David Wynn Miller. I said "maybe, maybe not."

Well, I'll keep an open mind, but it should be noted that if Loughner was a disciple of Miller's he had a funny way of showing it: Loughner's writing is nothing at all like Miller's. Nothing at all. Loughler writes in childish syllogisms, the wisdom of the town idiot (with normal capitalization). Miller writes in something that looks like moron machine code (and all caps).

Further, their reasons for obsessing over grammar are entirely different. Loughler thought that grammar could be used by the state for mind control, and he believed that by hijacking and changing grammar, he could control his own mind, and enter, literally, into a heaven-like dreamworld.

Miller seems to write in Dalek-speak not to change the world but to change his legal category -- he thinks this is the way states write (I am guessing he's getting this from captions in legal opinions or legislative code) and ergo, absurdly, if he writes the way states do in lawsuit captions or legislation he will gain the attributes of statehood. Kind of a Cargo Cult, backwards-logic dementia.

Point is, they don't write the same and they don't write oddly for the same purpose. They have nothing at all in common, not even the word "grammar" -- Loughner speaks of "grammar" whereas Miller speaks of "syntax."

I don't mind the writer of that article I cited doing some Internet Detective-work but at the end of the day this is a swing and a miss, unless there's more coming -- they have nothing at all in common except both are stupid, near illiterate, crazy, and assign a lunaticly-high-value to the power of grammar and/or syntax.

Loughner easily could have signaled his interest in the "ideas" of DAVID-WYNN: MILLER -- by simply writing his name the same way. He didn't. And that's the easiest thing in the world to do. (See the author line of each of the last four posts. Pretty simple!)

And yet, despite these two having nothing in common, no evidence that Loughner ever even heard of David Wynn: Miller, we are assured that Loughner followed in the thoughts of David-Wynn: Miller, and of course that David-Wynn: Miller is "well-liked in conservative circles."

Fuck them, fuck them all. I am sick of the unending blood libel. Calling someone a "murderer" or inciter of murder isn't very civil now is it?

Picture thanks to Uncle Jefe.

I Forgot My Point: This Internet Detective piece -- which is almost certainly in the category of "nice try, but wrong" -- is the only evidence they have that he has anything to do with the right at all, so of course it is the big idea of the day.

It shows how desperate they are.

Posted by: SPADES-OF: ACE at 05:19 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.