Steve Sailor over a V-Dare.com gives a reasonable review on Tom Cruise’s Movie.
I will be the first to admit, that every time that I think of Tom Cruise, I think of this:
Steve Sailor over a V-Dare.com gives a reasonable review on Tom Cruise’s Movie.
I will be the first to admit, that every time that I think of Tom Cruise, I think of this:
The Forth Estate continues it’s assault on citizen media, or as it is commonly known as; The Blogosphere.
It seems that Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star Ledger is coming out swinging against us. However, instead of sounding like a legit reporter, he comes off sounding more like grumpy old man, full of sour grapes.
Of course, Glenn Reynolds, the Conservative Blogosphere’s God Father is having none of it. Glenn Says something that I totally agree with here:
That, of course — as Mulshine should have known then, and now — is exactly what J.D. Johannes does — along with Michael Yon, Michael Totten, Bill Roggio, and others in the blogosphere. Mulshine, meanwhile, brags about having once covered the Toms River Regional Board of Education in New Jersey. That’s worthy work, of course, but if his reportage there was as poor as his work in the Wall Street Journal, then — oh, who am I kidding? “If”?
Anyway, it’s certainly true that bloggers as a class are more competition for careless pundits like Mulshine than for go-getter reporters who find out things that people don’t know, and report them truthfully. It’s also true that those go-getter reporters who put the truth first are pretty scarce in the world of Big Media reporting, and that management shows no sign of wanting more of them, and many signs of wanting attitude-mongers like, well, Mulshine. This is, as I’ve noted before, a dumb business strategy, which explains in part why newspapers are doing so badly.
The awesome thing about the Blogosphere is this. We Bloggers; Yes, I do mean Conservative and Liberal, keep the press and Washington D.C. and dare I even say it? The White House honest. Gone are the days of the Nixon era, when you could pull the preverbal wool over the eyes of the American people. Bloggers are there, pointing out the half truths, lies and outright distortions.
Need I remind anyone, that it was the Liberal Blogosphere and the Libertarian and Paleo-Conservative Blogosphere, that basically pointed out the fact that George W. Bush was, quite frankly, full of crap, when he tried to say that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Something that the Republican Blogging world is still to acknowledge to this very day. Even after the White House is fully conceded that fact. This was well before the time that the Main Stream Media even tried to start questioning the tactics of the Bush Administration.
So, basically, either the Forth Estate can learn to work with us or die. But the way things are looking, they’d rather die first. This might just be a good thing.
Others: Jules Crittenden, Wake up America, The Other McCain, Ed Driscoll.com and Fausta’s Blog
For some reason or another, I just don’t believe it at all.
The full report is over at Politico, if you care to read such stuff. Patterico also has a good take on it as well.
Quotable Quotes:
“Parties become much more pragmatic when they’ve won,” says Joe Trippi, who heads the media firm Trippi Multimedia, and who managed Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign and advised John Edwards in 2008.
“At least in the initial stages, they’re going to try to work together [with Obama] to see what parts of their agenda they can get through,” he says. And they recognize, he adds, that they will get more of their agenda passed if they don’t start trouble when they don’t need to.
[….]
For his part, Pariser says he will do what his members want, no matter which way it takes the organization or what the implications are for its future. “I believe the fact that we hear something from all over the place at the same time means it probably is what we should do with the country,” he says. “I maybe drank the Kool Aid in civics class a little too much, but I think if you put your faith in that, you really don’t go wrong. People gravitate very quickly to the big things that are at the core of their problems.”
“It also makes our jobs easier,” he adds, “because we just do what we’re told.”
Okay, here’s why I don’t buy this line of bunk for one minute. Because I know how Liberals think. President-Elect Obama is not in office yet, nobody, not even me; knows how he is going to Govern. The so-called experts say he will run from the Middle; and based upon his cabinet picks, this might be true. To me, however, it looks more like a Clinton retread White House. So much for the “Hope & Change” mantra throughout the campaign.
Anyhow, however; you let Barack Obama let one of his big campaign promises slip, like Nationalized Health care. The very minute that Barack Obama begins to make noises like he is not going to be able to pass Nationalized Health Care, and MoveOn and DailyKos will turn on Obama on a fucking dime. I know how Liberals are, They lack something that is pretty much a norm in the Conservative circles; and that’s Loyalty. Loyalty to Party, Loyalty to principles; this past election being a perfect example of that, and loyalty to a leader. Oh, they’ll be loyal to him, as long as Obama performs for them, and carries out their agenda. But the very minute he strays; it’s over man. The far left will turn on a dime and it will be Bush Derangement on the other foot in full force. Sorry Trippi, I don’t buy the B.S. line of Liberals being Pragmatic. If 1968 was proof of anything, it was proof that the far left or the rank and file within the Democratic Party is nowhere near Pragmatic.
So, to sum it up; while this might sound nice and pretty and all. It is nothing more than some sort of a “Dog and Pony Show” to appease those within the Democratic Leadership that might worried that groups like this may try an turn popular opinion against Obama. While the mindless sheep might buy it, I do not; because I know the mindset, I know how they act. Loyal, until you slip up and then BAM! It’s over.
Nice try guys, but we’re just a bit more smarter than that.
Personally, I hope Israel mops the floor up with them bastards. They’ve been bullying Israel for years, and they’ve taken enough from them idiots.
I just hope the United States stays out of it, and let Israel deal with thier own.
(fixed massively stupid typo….Ooops!)
When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, “this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,” referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, “by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith “Rick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.”
In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such “coming together” rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of “diversity” has one again proven to be a farce. For a true “coming together” of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warren’s stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasn’t budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired “coming together” means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.
The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans – issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if it’s practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they aren’t important – but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand states’ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.
Rick Warren’s invocation at Obama’s inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars – but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naïve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.
When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, “this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,” referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, “by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith “Rick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.”
In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such “coming together” rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of “diversity” has one again proven to be a farce. For a true “coming together” of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warren’s stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasn’t budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired “coming together” means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.
The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans – issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if it’s practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they aren’t important – but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand states’ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.
Rick Warren’s invocation at Obama’s inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars – but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naïve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.
Jack Hunter Blogs at The Southern Avenger and Taki’s Magazine
It seems that Bambi made it to see the vets. How nice. Pretty funny, seeing he hasn’t served a damn day in the Military.
I also have an e-mail to share, that I got this morning, I was wondering what it was about. Now I know.
President-elect Obama stopped by the Marine Corps base in Hawaii Kaneche Bay where servicemen and -women were eating Christmas dinner in Kailua Thursday evening.
“Just wanted to say hi, hey guys,” Obama said as he walked into the Anderson dining hall which was decked out in Christmas decorations.
The diners represented seven military units — Marine and Navy — some of whom were joined by their families for Christmas dinner.
As Obama entered the room, it was absent of the regular fanfare of cheering and clapping. The diners were polite, staying seated at their respective tables and waited for the president-elect to come to them to stand up.
Obama, dressed casually in a blue polo shirt and dark khaki trousers, worked his way around the room — table by table — and took pictures with the service members. He slapped them on the back at times, shook hands, and signed some autographs.
“Hey guys, Merry Christmas,” The president-elect said as he walked from table to table.
The servicemen and -women were already seated at their holiday dinner when the president-elect made his impromptu visit. They were dining on salad, candied sweet potato with marshmallow topping, cream of mushroom soup, mashed potatoes, beef, ham, turkey, broccoli and corn.
The president-elect spent about an hour with the troops. Obama transition aides say that Obama did not eat with the uniformed men and women — he ate at his beach home with his family and friends Christmas night.
I think it goes without saying, that Obama was not among friends.
Others: Atlas Shrugs, Sister Toldjah, RedState, BLACKFIVE, Gateway Pundit, Hugh Hewitt, Power Line
A stunning admission from the far left, but not a huge surprise.
Via The L.A. Times:
I don’t love America. That’s what conservatives are always telling liberals like me. Their love, they insist, is truer, deeper and more complete. Then liberals, like all people who are accused of not loving something, stammer, get defensive and try to have sex with America even though America will then accuse us of wanting it for its body and not its soul. When America gets like that, there’s no winning.
But I’ve come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws. But calling your wife fat isn’t love. True love is the blind belief that your child is the smartest, cutest, most charming person in the world, one you would gladly die for. I’m more in “like” with my country.
A rather mind-numbing statement and a rather frank admission. That is the whole problem with Liberals, they would rather focus on America’s flaws, than focus on it’s greatness. He goes on to blather on about Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
But this is what bothered me:
Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy. If it had been Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Israel or one of those Scandinavian countries with more relaxed attitudes toward sex, that would have been fine with me too.
Hell, why stop there? Why not just move to somewhere more inline with your beliefs, like say, Iran, Russia or maybe North Korea?
The Communist Blathers on:
I wish I felt such certainty. Sure, it makes life less interesting and nuanced, and absolute conviction can lead to dangerous extremism, but I suspect it makes people happier. I’ll never experience the joy of Hannity-level patriotism. I’m the type who always wonders if some other idea or place or system is better and I’m missing out. And, as I figured out shortly after meeting my wife, that is no way to love.
Stop The ACLU agrees with my assessment:
And yeah, I understand the point of the column. It’s a criticism. We’re “blinded” by love to the point where we don’t even see America’s flaws. But that’s not quite true. I see them, as do many conservatives. But unlike liberals, that’s not all I see. I look at America and love her for everything she is, both the good and the bad. I look at my country, and despite the mistakes we have made and inevitably will continue to make, still know that this is the freest, best country on the face of the Earth, know that anyone from anywhere in the world can come here and build a good life for themselves if they’re only willing to work hard and play by the rules, that America will always stand for freedom and justice and democracy.
Liberals look at America, and have a hard time feeling the love and patriotism that conservatives feel because they can’t get get past the flaws. They can’t love America unless she is perfect. Conservatives, however, don’t require perfection to know that America is, indeed, a special, blessed place. It doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is a terrible, terrible place. It doesn’t mean that no one can possibly have a great life anywhere else. However, despite what many Little League coaches and PC teachers may believe, not every runner can finish the race in first, and while the rest of the world may be great, it’s just not the USA.
I could not have put it better myself. However, I’ll take it a step further, if the Communist is dissatisfied with America and all of it’s supposed “Flaws”, he can always leave, there is not a law forcing him to live here.

more animals
Indeed, Toyota claims losses for the first time in 70 years—though how Toyota’s management was able to keep sales up in 1945, when Gen. Curtis LeMay’s B-29s were conducting their nightly visits, escapes me.
Bush may believe he has sinned against free-market principles, but he is following the path of his great free-market predecessor. Ronald Reagan, too, was not prepared to see Japan take down the U.S. auto industry, or steel industry, or computer chip industry, or Harley-Davidson.
Believing Japan was dumping to destroy U.S. companies, Reagan put patriotism before ideology and imposed quotas on Japanese imports. He, too, was castigated by the same commentariat that is berating Bush.
Vice President Cheney, too, has endorsed the bailout of Detroit. Of the senators who voted to pull the plug on General Motors, Cheney is said to have remarked, “It’s Herbert Hoover time” up there in the GOP caucus.
[….]
Like Prohibition in Hoover’s phrase, globalism is “an experiment, noble in purpose, that has failed.”
I must confess, I laughed, quite hard when I read this. 😛
Via the Washington Post:
The Afghan chieftain looked older than his 60-odd years, and his bearded face bore the creases of a man burdened with duties as tribal patriarch and husband to four younger women. His visitor, a CIA officer, saw an opportunity, and reached into his bag for a small gift.
Four blue pills. Viagra.
“Take one of these. You’ll love it,” the officer said. Compliments of Uncle Sam.
The enticement worked. The officer, who described the encounter, returned four days later to an enthusiastic reception. The grinning chief offered up a bonanza of information about Taliban movements and supply routes — followed by a request for more pills.
For U.S. intelligence officials, this is how some crucial battles in Afghanistan are fought and won. While the CIA has a long history of buying information with cash, the growing Taliban insurgency has prompted the use of novel incentives and creative bargaining to gain support in some of the country’s roughest neighborhoods, according to officials directly involved in such operations.
In their efforts to win over notoriously fickle warlords and chieftains, the officials say, the agency’s operatives have used a variety of personal services. These include pocketknives and tools, medicine or surgeries for ailing family members, toys and school equipment, tooth extractions, travel visas, and, occasionally, pharmaceutical enhancements for aging patriarchs with slumping libidos, the officials said.
“Whatever it takes to make friends and influence people — whether it’s building a school or handing out Viagra,” said one longtime agency operative and veteran of several Afghanistan tours. Like other field officers interviewed for this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity when describing tactics and operations that are largely classified.
[….]
After a long conversation through an interpreter, the retired operator began to probe for ways to win the man’s loyalty. A discussion of the man’s family and many wives provided inspiration. Once it was established that the man was in good health, the pills were offered and accepted.
Four days later, when the Americans returned, the gift had worked its magic, the operative recalled.
“He came up to us beaming,” the official said. “He said, ‘You are a great man.’ “
“And after that we could do whatever we wanted in his area.”
Hey, Whatever works I say. Although, I’m not sure what is more funny. The story itself, of some of the hilarious comments over at WaPo’s Site.