I blame, er, the Jews?

A senior Egyptian general admits that "virginity checks" were performed on women arrested at a demonstration this spring, the first such admission after previous denials by military authorities.

...

"The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine," the general said. "These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs)."

The general said the virginity checks were done so that the women wouldn't later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities.

"We didn't want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren't virgins in the first place," the general said. "None of them were (virgins)."

Apparently the General is unaware women can be sexually assaulted with out vaginal penetration. He should call Dominique Strauss-Kahn for the details. Oh and Lara Logan could tell you it's not just virgins who can be sexually assaulted but hey she's a filthy infidel whore or something.

A lot of Arabists or Muslim apologists bemoan America's support for Israel. Hey guys, here the reason and it has nothing to do with crafty and far reaching Jewish conspiracies...it's because of stories like this that point up how little we have in common with their culture. You want true US support and not just some bribe money? Join the 20th Century (yeah, I know but I'd settle for that at this point).

Posted by: DrewM at 09:57 AM | Comments (132)
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

She's going to spare us all the self-embarrassment of a court challenge.

Posted by: Ace at 09:13 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

First I thought maybe it was just over-eager security programs; but I am getting a lot of complaints about this.

I am looking into several issues. Could it be comment-spam? Could there be links in there known to lead to security threats and so Norton and the like are warning off?

(By the way, my security software never tells me the site is a problem.)

One thing we might have to do -- unless we can get comment registration -- is simply disable all HTML in the comments.

Can anyone think of any possibilities? YouTube vids? What?

Answer: This is the information I have, from our very nice ad server representative, who keeps me from eating dog food.

This is driven by the user's and their browser history. The intent is for the user to visit a familiar web page and react poorly because they see a "trusted" website. :-/ -sc



This only happens for Safari users. Apple is about to release an OS patch to help clear this up.



Also, below please find steps to take if anyone gets infected by this virus. Hope this helps..thanks!



Steps to remove Mac Defender –


Move or close the Scan Window


Go to the Utilities folder in the Applications folder and launch Activity Monitor


Choose All Processes from the pop up menu in the upper right corner of the window


Under the Process Name column, look for the name of the app and click to select it; common app names include: MacDefender, MacSecurity or MacProtector


Click the Quit Process button in the upper left corner of the window and select

Quit


Quit Activity Monitor application


Open the Applications folder


Locate the app ex. MacDefender, MacSecurity, MacProtector or other name


Drag to Trash, and empty Trash


Malware also installs a login item in your account in System Preferences.

Removal of the login item is not necessary, but you can remove it by following the steps below.


Open System Preferences, select Accounts, then Login Items


Select the name of the app you removed in the steps above ex. MacDefender, MacSecurity, MacProtector


Click the minus button

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (191)
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

A horrible, vile woman.

Oddly the media doesn't challenge her on her transparent question-dodging and topic-changing.

As I've been saying for years: It's not that the media won't ask the Democrats tough questions.

They will. They will ask the Democrats tough questions in order to allow the Democrats a three minute sound-bite dump to help the Democratic cause.

What the media will not do is ask the Democrats tough follow-up questions.

They let them have their sound-bite, and then move on.

Posted by: Ace at 08:23 AM | Comments (135)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Starting in about 2008, the global warming hoax slowly started to come apart. Scientists started to recant as none of their models accurately predicted current temperatures or sea levels. Then came ClimateGate. Just a few months ago polls showed that just 35% of Americans -- a new low -- believe in anthropogenic global warming. Just last week the G8 nations finished abandoning the Kyoto Protocol.

Faced with the widespread decline in their pet theory, what are global warming believers to do? Hit the panic button:

That is Newsweek's latest cover and it comes with a hysterical fantasy from the so-called science editor. The article is one of those piece of media paranoia that is so wrong it is hard to know where to start. Since I haven't got time to fisk the whole piece, here are five obvious errors.

First, remember when global warming believers said that single-year activity (for example, the annual lows in the 2000s) didn't equate to a climate trend? She doesn't:

Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage.

Is the "nearly 1,000" line, which is supposed to sound like a lot, even out of the ordinary? A glance at the NOAA's annual tornado statistics suggests that it's not.

And, as I wrote last week when Oklahoma and Missouri got hit, do not under any circumstances believe that graph demonstrates a trend. As the NOAA itself admits, tornado-detection is a much more advanced science modernly than in the past. Merely comparing numbers of tornadoes, is not a meaningful comparison. Contra Newsweek's panicked editor, the IPCC concludes "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in.....small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms."

Second, she overlooks the obvious:

The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weatherÂ’s extremes has reached biblical proportions.

If the Midwest was wetter 116 years ago, you've got to wonder whether phenomena other than global warming are responsible. Say, a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon, perhaps.

Note the personification of the Mississippi. Ordinarily we would say that a wet spring caused the Mississippi to flood, not that the Mississippi "was forced" to flood, as if it would have resisted were it not for the cruddy humans causing global warming.

Third, she exaggerates or, well, lies about measured temperature increases.

And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began. . . . there is wide consensus that the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming of the last century is behind the rise in sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more heat waves, and more droughts and deluges.

Note the curious circumlocution "hottest year on earth since weather records began." NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard correctly points out that the Newsweek panic editor overstated the amount of warming by almost 50%.

Fourth, she exaggerates or, well, lies about the weather of the past to imply that the weather of the future will be different.

From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone.

What "stable climate" of the last 12,000 years? Little Ice Age ring any bells, "Science Editor"?

Oh, on a lighter note, I believe that she's terrified. I just don't believe she's terrified of global warming. She's afraid that people aren't buying it anymore. And, since she has to resort to such obvious lies and exaggerations even to gin up some good-old-fashioned mob panic, you'd have to be a mental defective to fall for it.

And that's the fifth obvious problem with her article: the title -- "The Reality of Climate Change is Upon Us." Of course, rather than discuss reality, a good chunk of her article is made up of paragraphs that start "Picture [dystopian future not based on science, but on fear]." That's not reality. It's fantasy.

Moreover, it is not Newsweek's first panicked fantasy about the weather. Remember this?

Another Newsweek article cited “the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded”, killing “more than 300 people”, as among “the ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically”. But that article was published on April 28, 1975, when Newsweek listed the US tornado disaster of 1974 as one of the harbingers of disastrous global cooling, heralding the approach of a new ice age.

Pathetic, as is anyone who would fall for this bullshit.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:37 AM | Comments (316)
Post contains 793 words, total size 6 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:04 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

It was two years ago on a night just like tonight that the infamous Memorial Day ONT happened. It shocked even veteran moron-types, brought down anger and pinch-faced scoldery from on high, and damn near got the ONT canceled.

So in memory of that debacle, for tonight only the usual ONT rules are partially suspended. So curse all you want and empty out that disgusting potty mouth of yours.

In fact there's a new rule for tonight - everyone must curse at least once in their comments. Failure will be punished by mockery until the next poor bastard screws up. It's not a flame war though. Oh and Vegas rules also apply - what happens on tonight's ONT, stays on tonight's ONT. Afterwards let us never speak of it again.

_{Okay actually most of the usual blog rules do apply - no racial BS, no Penthouse Letters, and no creepy sexual stuff.} more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:54 PM | Comments (884)
Post contains 1122 words, total size 9 kb.

Whew!

Well, he doesn't say that, exactly. But when we have confirmation the police have not been contacted, and Weiner is "loathe" to purse a "pranking," well well well well well, I tell you I just sighed a sigh of vindication.

You want a lawyer to advise you on the next step? The next step, after you've been the victim of a serous crime? You need advice on the next step?

How about from a blogger? Let me tell you the next step, free of charge:

CALL THE COPS, ASSHOLE.

I know, sounds crazy, but there's all sorts of precedent and caselaw on this sticky fact of law.

You're "loathe" to pursue this any further?

I bet you are.

And now it's "prank"? We went from #Hacked!, which well-nigh demands law enforcement intervention, to #Pranked!, which conveniently does not?

All that happened?

What a weekend. What a blessed weekend.

Yeah, don't call the cops. Do exactly what I predicted you would do two days ago: Retain a private firm to "advise" you. People you pay and control.

To say what you want them to say.

Damn, too bad the FBI doesn't have that kind of pay-for-play deal, huh?

Sure, I said he'd hire a private security expert, and he will do that; but for now, he's got himself a lawyer-- not to protect himself, you understand, just to suggest he might sue people for saying there was no hack.

Um, bluff called, dude. As Derek Hunter said:

Victims call cops.

Perps call lawyers.

So, thanks for the confirmation, feller.

As a funny Tweeter said (sorry, can't remember who), calling the police would only result in the classic horror movie reveal: We've traced the hack! And the hack is coming from... INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!

What are you doing here? Do you know how young this girl is?
I have an explicit tweet here -- no, let me show this to you.
It's a picture of a penis. Is this your penis?
What did you think was going to happen here?

Corrected: I got two ideas mixed up. In fact, CNN reported there was no police involvement, and that Weiner was "loathe" to pursue it. That was not the full foreswearing of LEO involvement I suggested. But... close enough.

Distraction? You have something better to do, punk, than bring down the "Teabagger" bloggers who "hacked" you? Isn't that your whole job? Isn't that what you do day-in and day-out in those stupid YouTube videos where you peacock around for your lefty moron fans?

Really?
more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:00 PM | Comments (246)
Post contains 463 words, total size 4 kb.

Couple of biases: 1, I thought the first one was okay but to this day do not understand what the fuss was all about. I thought the first film's premise was stronger than its actual execution. I was expecting an almost mystery-like plot as they retraced their steps, such that finding out what happened would be exciting as well funny, but I didn't think they really did that. There weren't any sudden comic pieces-coming-together realizations or intersecting plot lines (a la Seinfeld); they mostly just retraced their steps. Funny enough, but not clever, I thought, and nowhere near as funny, or wild, or I-can't-believe-what-I'm-seeing as others seemed to think.

2, I've been stuck looking at a dude's dirty gray drawers for two days and he's not even hot. So I was primed to laugh.

So my expectations were pretty modest and I was a good audience for the movie. That said, I thought it was better than the first one, at least a half-star better.

On the plot, yes it's a nearly-beat-for-beat rewrite of the last plot, but, what could be expected? That plot wound up being a surprise smash, and that plot is the entire franchise, so you betcha, this plot follows the last one's major beats. They got out the stopwatch and timed the beats from the first movie. I can't blame them. If I had this assignment, I would have gotten out the stopwatch myself.

There are differences, though. The first Hangover began the "hangover" plot of the movie with a slow pan over a super-luxe Vegas hotel room, displaying the comedic aftermath of a night of really really hard partying, including an abandoned baby, a chicken (do I remember that right?), and of course a Bengal tiger. Funny, but almost funny in a Mad Libs sort of way -- let me top you next with my crazy aftermath item, then you top me, then we write it into a scene. Silly and funny, but kind of light-hearted, despite the desperate circumstances the movie suggests they're in.

The "hangover" plot here starts a dingy, roach-infested Bangkok hovel, and the vibe here is less Tom Hanks' Bachelor Party Turned Up to 11 and more Hostel 3: Bangkok Limbhackers. It's not as funny, not in a laugh out loud way, but to me it's a little funnier, because it's so dark: Okay, last time was just some fun and games, but this time they're really in a bad way. To me, at least, turning up the grimness and darkness was actually kind of funny, not because I'm so dark-hearted, but because now I felt that edge of genuine danger and calamity I thought the last one was trying for, but pulling punches on.

I think the vibe they were going for was "Urban Legend" -- like "A man wakes up in a tub full of ice to discover his kidney is missing..." That sort of dark opening. And, in patches, it does get a little worse than that.

There's a flip-side to this, though: As far as content, the entire movie goes far further into sickness and darkness and just plain awfulness than the first movie. Funnier, I think, but stronger than usual hard-R content warning for a nearly unrelenting indulgence in every crime and depravity known to man. I have edited that word in-- "depravity" -- thoughtfully. It applies.

Funny? Yes. I laughed consistently throughout it. And, as I said, there really was a pall of danger over the proceedings, and anything awful could happen at any moment, so the movie had the feel of a thriller, too, with genuine moments of shock. And relief.

Although I didn't realize I liked the characters from the first one all that much, it turns out I guess I did, because from the first moments of seeing "The Wolfpack" back together again I felt a nice feeling of good-to-see-them-again. Bradley Cooper has sharpened up his character some, as the guy who thinks he's pretty damn cool, and actually is pretty damn cool, but he's not nearly cool enough to get away with the substance abuse he's indulging in; Ed Helms, too, as the safe, bland guy who under no circumstances wants to go back to that hell again.

Chuckles here and there and Ed Helms makes various pronouncements about what will not be happening in the future, because, of course, we've seen the trailer. We know how terribly wrong he is.

Zak Galifanakis is good, but not as good as in the first outing, where the character was a surprise original, and on top of that, I don't think they've given him lines that are equally as funny. I can't remember anything quotable like "reh-tard." He is still funny though. More of a matter of him losing 10% off his game while the other two elevate by 10%.

One disappointment for me was that they didn't work Doug into the movie this time, and they could have. I guess I just felt bad for Doug, the actor himself, sort of getting short-shrift in a surprise blockbuster, and had expected them to work him more into this one; but, in fact, I'm pretty damn confident there's less of him. Just seems unfair. And it might have been a little funny to have Doug along, who did not go through the horror-hangover plot of the last film, seeing what this is like, while the other three -- now old hands at this -- say things like, "Yeah, this happens."

One minor thing is that I really wanted a certain horrible thing to be fixed at the end, or undone, or demonstrated to have been not as bad as assumed; they didn't do that, but left the horrible thing as the horrible thing. Ah well.

The closing pictures of the night's events contain, again, some of the biggest laughs in the movie, and I think they might have outdone themselves from last time.

Overall: I think this is minority opinion, because I was in the minority last time of not thinking the first Hangover was so great, but I think this one is better. But it is pretty darned dark for a comedy -- not just raunchy, but dark -- and isn't for everyone.

Here's the Difference, I Think: In the first one, I felt there was a sitcom-y, gaggy nature to the proceedings. This is naturally sort of reassuring, in that it's distancing; you're aware this is a goof, so it's not really serious.

That helps people deal with the awfulness, that feeling of unreality.

I think this one pushes away from comic unreality more towards naturalistic/horror reality -- not all the way there, of course; this is still a comedy -- and that makes it darker, more dramatic (in the sense that this feels more playing-for-keeps and less madcap-romp), and for me, funnier, because I thought the humor was more rooted in reality.

On the other hand, there's less of that reassuring distancing, so if you're put off by awful material, there's less comfort that this is just a gaggy movie.

And there is some awful material here. If the question is "Would you recommend this to your mom?," the answer is no, I would not recommend this to my mom or yours or anyone's.

Reconsidering/Re-Warning on Content: Dr Spank and others remind me that despite my being down on the first Hangover -- liked it, didn't love it -- there really was a lot of funny material there. And it was, overall, cheerier.

So maybe this one isn't funnier. I think this one is more desperate and grounded in a dark reality. Maybe as funny, or nearly the same level. Others find the first funnier.

And I also think that I should offer a stronger warning than I had. Without wishing to tell you the exact nature of the material here (that would spoil jokes), I will note the original featured drugs and prostitution. This is a sequel. The rule of a sequel is "bigger," or, for this type of movie, more extreme.

And I do not want to give spoilers, but let me stress there is very objectionable, raw, hard-R material here that may upset some.

For the sequel, they had to go further, and they did.

What the hell they could do in the next one, short of amputation or forced gender reassignment surgery, I have no idea.

I guess Martin Lawrence says it best, as he says everything best.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (127)
Post contains 1425 words, total size 8 kb.

Ok.

A spokesman for Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, told The Daily Caller the Congressman’s team has “retained counsel” and is exploring the “proper next steps” after his official Twitter account posted a picture of a man’s erect penis underneath gray boxer shorts. The internet-driven scandal has come to be known online as “#Weinergate,” a pun on the Congressman’s last name.

“We’ve retained counsel to explore the proper next steps and to advise us on what civil or criminal actions should be taken,” Weiner spokesman Dave Arnold said in an email. “This was a prank. We are loath to treat it as more, but we are relying on professional advice.”

So in Wiener's World hacking multiple social media platforms of a sitting US Congressman in what's clearly an attempt to damage his reputation and limit his participation in debates of national importance is just a "prank"?

Most people would call it something else...a crime.

I'm not a high priced NYC or DC lawyer but allow me to offer some advice. Call the FBI.

Now in an effort to help out the Congressman in his battle to clear his name, here's how to report a cyber crime.

You're welcome.

On second thought, perhaps I'm being too hard on Congressman Weiner. I mean every PSA I've ever seen about crimes always urges people that if you are the victim of a crime or see one committed you should immediately call the cops retain counsel to help you consider your options.

I bet the idiot who illegally accessed Palin's emails wishes he'd picked on Weiner instead. She called the cops but apparently Weiner is more forgiving of being violated.

I think it's wonderful that Weiner is such a let bygones be bygones kind of guy but doesn't he owe it to the Comley Coed to bring the perpetrators of this 'prank' to justice for the anguish they've caused her?

If liberals are so sure this is an Andrew Breitbart or conservative hit job, shouldn't they be hounding Weiner to call the FBI? I mean if they could send a conservative to jail for something like this, it would be a big plus for them, right? I wonder why they aren't. Oh, right.

Transparency!

WeinerÂ’s office did not answer specific questions about the photograph, whether he has contacted authorities or the Seattle woman who received the photograph.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:19 PM | Comments (455)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.