Via TMZ:
I don’t listen to the guy; so, don’t think I’m a fan. Stern’s a fucking douche noozle. But this was well played.
Via TMZ:
I don’t listen to the guy; so, don’t think I’m a fan. Stern’s a fucking douche noozle. But this was well played.
Another little gem being served up by HotAir.com, is this little gem from the most unfunny so-called comedian in America.
As expected the Conservative Blogosphere is absolutely livid about this; and rightly so. Hell, there’s even a Conservative-turned-Liberal Blogger who is a bit pissed about Letterman’s performance as well:
You know, I have no idea what the hell David Letterman is thinking or what he thinks he is accomplishing with crap like this, but this was inexcusable. He should be ashamed of himself.
And I’m not trying to sound like some politically correct scold, and I have no problem with comedians being comedians. There are lots of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin, there are lots of reasons to not be impressed with her leadership, her beliefs, or, well, anything about her, but when you start with the “slutty” crap, or are making jokes about her daughter getting “knocked up,” you’ve crossed a line. I have no problem attacking Palin for her idiotic proposals and all the stupid things she has said, but this just is the kind of nonsense that is no good for anyone.
Maybe I’m over-reacting, and I know I’m not always perfect, but I’m really losing my patience and tolerance for this kind of stuff. There was no place for this kind of stuff with Hillary and Chelsea, there is no room for it with Michelle and their kids, and the same standard should apply for Sarah Palin and her kids. Hell, it should apply to all women. – John Cole @ Balloon Juice
Let me be the first to say that, not only do I wholeheartedly agree with Cole; I also commend him for having the guts to stand up and say, “Wait a Minute!” on this little issue here. Hats off to you John, you’re one hell of a good man for doing this.
Not only was this a classless attack on Palin, everyone is assuming Palin’s oldest daughter went with her to the ballgame. It was not her, it was her 14 year old daughter Willow that went with her to the Ballgame. Not smart David, Not smart at all. When your own fellow Liberal Democrats are calling you on stupid joke; an apology is order. expect to see that here in the next few days.
Jim Treacher also states the obvious:
I realize I’m just an inbred backwoods moron who can’t abide by any criticism of Sarah Palin whatsoever, but is this really the precedent we want to set for our politicians and their families?
After all, Samson Obama, one of the president’s many half-brothers, isn’t allowed in the UK because he tried to assault a 13-year-old girl. Are we to impose the Letterman standard there? Is it okay to make a joke like this?
“How come the First Family never invites Uncle Samson to visit? Because whenever Sasha and Malia sit on his knee, it takes six Secret Service guys to pry them off!”
Or how about this?
“Joe Biden keeps saying he’s not really sure where all that stimulus money is going. In other news, Ashley Biden’s coke dealer just bought Luxembourg.”
Hey, I didn’t say they were good jokes. But are they really worse than what Letterman just got away with on national TV? If so, why?
Good point, good point indeed.
Memeornadum has the Roundup of other Blogs covering the story.
Update: Thanks to Memeornadum for the pull!
It’s a little early for this yet. But it’s quite true and very powerful:
What is the matter with Obama that he cannot defend our Cold War conduct and Cold War presidents like Ike and JFK?
Answer: Obama cannot, because at heart he buys into the anti-American narrative that ours is a deplorable history — of genocide against the Indians, of slavery and segregation, of robbing Mexicans of their land and of disrespecting our Latin neighbors.
Obama is determined to make the requisite apologies to show the world he does not condone the sins our fathers committed.
Thus, as Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation has cataloged, Obama has apologized to Europe for our having “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” He apologized to Latin America for our having been “disengaged and at times … sought to dictate.”
He told the Turks that we are “working through our own darker periods in our history. … Our nation still struggles with the legacy of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”
Obama, however, did not ask the Turks to confess to their own “darker periods,” which might have taken some time.
Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us — and everyone within earshot — of our own and our fathers’ sins.
Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it.
If Obama believes he can build himself up by tearing America down, he is mistaken. Cynical foreigners will view it with snickering contempt, patriotic Americans with disgust. What kind of leader is it who talks down his own country on foreign soil?
America’s performance in the Cold War was hardly flawless. But does anyone deny that we were on the right side, that the Soviet Empire and Mao’s China and communist Vietnam and Castro’s Cuba were on the side of tyranny — and that the neutrals were by and large irrelevant or worse in that great cause?
A nation is an extended family. While families fight and quarrel, often bitterly, you do not take the family quarrel outside the family.
You don’t hang the family’s dirty linen on the communal clothesline.
Obama, however — like some Hollywood actress seeking sympathy and public approbation with her tell-all biography detailing how she was abused by her father — trolls for popularity with America’s adversaries by reciting for the benefit of the world all the sins his country has allegedly committed.
When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?
This one’s via HotAir, In the interest of full disclosure; I have not watched this. I cannot handle watching stuff like this, it gets my blood pressure up and I want throw stuff. The back story is here, with a partial transcript.
This goes on and people wonder why citizens like Richard Poplawski take up arms and kill 3 police officers. You cannot assault the people and not have people retaliate in kind; When will the Government figure that out?
Police State? You decide.
Meh. It is not entirely unexpected. But, yes it is blocked.
(Snark)
I guess we Jew-Hating, Paleo-Conservative, Neo-Nazi’s are not welcomed over there.
(end of Snark)
Shocking, but not entirely surprising. But eh, that’s the breaks for being a Buchananite Conservative.
An update to a story that I blogged on the other day. One of NRO’s writers named Ed Whelan outed a centrist Blogger who we now know is named John Blevins, but blogged under the pseudonym of publius. Earlier I shared my feelings about this. But it appears that Ed has apologized and John has accepted.
On reflection, I now realize that, completely apart from any debate over our respective rights and completely apart from our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging, I have been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius. Earlier this evening, I sent him an e-mail setting forth my apology for my uncharitable conduct. As I stated in that e-mail, I realize that, unfortunately, it is impossible for me to undo my ill-considered disclosure of his identity. For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate.
Done in very good form and I hereby retract my statement about him being an f’ing a-hole. It takes a big man to apologize and admit you screwed up.
Publius as well, in good form accepts the apology:
Ed Whelan has written both publicly and privately and apologized. I know it was not an easy thing to do, and it is of course accepted. I therefore consider the matter done, and don’t intend on writing about it anymore.
The real story here wasn’t really about me anyway — it’s about whether the norm of pseudonymity is a good thing. And there’s a legitimate debate about that. Personally, I think that pseudonymity is a net benefit, whatever other costs it brings. More voices are better than less — and pseudonymity (to me) enriches the public sphere by adding voices that could not otherwise be heard. But people can disagree in good faith about these things, as Whelan correctly notes.
Anyway, I’m moving on. I appreciate Whelan’s update. And that’s all I have to say. Let’s talk about Jon & Kate Plus 8 instead. I’ve heard they hired attorneys.
Some are saying that this apology was forced. Whelan is denying this charge and I do believe him. I highly doubt that NRO would get involved in such matters.
Anyhow, to both of them; well done. I just wish that the rest of the blogsphere was this civil and decent.
Others covering, on both sides of the aisle: The Moderate Voice, Right Wing Nut House, The Anonymous Liberal, Winds of Change.NET, Balloon Juice, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Washington Monthly, Outside The Beltway, The Daily Dish, Macsmind, Lean Left, Bloggasm, The American Scene, Southern Appeal, And So it Goes in Shreveport, QandO and Majikthise, The Moderate Voice, Bench Memos, Riehl World View, The Debate Link, The TrogloPundit, The Daily Dish, TBogg, The Anonymous Liberal, PointOfLaw Forum, The Opinionator and pandagon.net
Why must I blog about such stupid stuff? But eh, what else is there? Besides this and bitching about Obama’s socialism; there isn’t much else.
John “Horndog” Hawkings is again making a list of hot Conservative women. There’s 15 of them, here’s my reaction to them all.
Update – 5/20/14: I feel the need to update these, because I see it’s being brought up a bit here as of late. I know a good deal about them now. All the next update info will be bolded.
1) Dana Loesch

Cute, Don’t know her. But she is pretty. I’m not much into short haired women though… She’s a looker. Update: I respect this woman, because she’s in the political game and all; but she is a bit of a pistol and she can be an asshole towards other bloggers. At least she was towards me. She’s also happily married to a guy named Chris, who owns a studio. Don’t know her personally, but the way she acted towards me on twitter and the stuff she said about her real Father, who served two tours of duty in Vietnam, really turned me off. Sorry, I don’t disrespect the Military, I don’t care who they are. Just my way.
2) Ashley Herzog, Townhall

Ugh, That pose tells me all I need to know about her; and believe me it is not good. But, I don’t know really know her so…
3) Shelly Roche, Bytestyle TV

Bleh…. You see one Ann Coulter wanna be, you see ’em all. Pretty, Blonde, Nuff said.
4) Tabitha Hale, Pink Elephant Pundit

I sorta know this one, cute, but quite stuck on herself. As are most Conservative women. Too young for me anyhow. Update: When I originally wrote this, I didn’t know much about this woman, except that she posted many pictures of herself on twitter and facebook. 😀 But, honestly, I got nothing personally against her at all. She’s went on to do some big things in the conservative blogging world. She’s also been looking pretty hot as of late. 😉 😛
5) Moxie

See #3 please.
6) Media Lizzy, Media Lizzy & Friends

Lizzy is a cutie. I follow her on facebook. Most of her stuff is basic cut and paste Conservative Blogging, not much on original thought. But her looks make her work. She deserves a spot on here.
7) Michelle Oddis, Human Events

See #3 and #5 please.
Update: I removed her profile and picture from this blog for some very good reasons; and anyone who reads my new blog or follows me on twitter, knows why.
9) Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

Overrated Screechy Michelle Malkin wanna-be and married with kids. Also see #3 and #5 Update: When I wrote this, I didn’t know about much Geller at all. I do now; Geller does her thing, okay? Pam Geller is an anti-Jihadi blogger, that’s her thing. I commend her for having the stones to stand up for what she damned believes in. She’s not married, she is divorced. She was married to Michael Geller, a car dealership owner, who was caught up in a huge scandal; and shortly afterward died of a heart attack. Geller is Jewish and stands for her Jewish Heritage and you know what? That’s okay! She’s been attacked by a particular pony-tailed asshole in California and she weathered it and is still trucking. God Bless her for it too. 😀
10) S.E. Cupp, Red S.E. Cupp

Pretty, Red-headed, I follow her on facebook. Well, actually, she followed me first, which was a shocker. She needs to get a wordpress blog though. Deserves face time on Fox News, I think.
11) Bettina Inclan

Don’t really know much about her. She’s a Conservative and a Latino. So, that’s always a plus.
12) Dr. Helen

Here we go again…. UGH! This is Glenn Reyonld‘s Wife. Cute, but she’s married. Why pimp out married women on a Hot Conservative women list? I just do not get that, at all.


13) Ann Coulter

The queen on Neo-Conservative Screech herself. Pretty, but totally unapproachable and terminally unfuckable. Besides, she’s pushing 50. Egad, Egad indeed.
14) Amanda Carpenter, Hot Button

Pretty and quite married. She still got the hotness thing going on though. Update: She’s now married with two babies and still HOT! If given the chance, I’d rip her clothes off and stick my….. *&^%^^%^&%** NO CARRIER 😉
15) Rachel Marsden

See #3 and #5
Okay, they missed one… The douche nozzles:

Mary Katharine Ham writes over at the Weekly Standard, which is decidedly Neo-Conservative in nature. But I still like this woman very much. She’s a southern gal, with a very down to earth personality and pretty face to boot. She’s just pretty enough to make any guy take notice and just tom-boy enough to get away with it. I think her exclusion from this list was a HUGE mistake. If I were about 10 year younger, I’d sweep this beautiful woman off her feet and marry her. 😀 Update: All that and now married with a baby. 😥 er, um, I mean 😀
But of course, is that not what Democrats always do? When a problem arises, they throw more money at a problem and exert more Governmental Control over it; thinking that will fix it?
Anyhow, here is the story; The Voice of America reports:
The White House says America’s employment picture is worse than the Obama administration had anticipated just a few months ago. The somber admission follows the latest jobless report showing the highest unemployment rate the United States has seen in more than 25 years.
U.S. unemployment jumped a half percent in May, to 9.4 percent prompting this comment by Austan Goolsbee, a member of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors:
“The economy clearly has gotten substantially worse from the initial predictions that were being made, not just by the White House, but by all of the private sector,” said Austan Goolsbee.
Economists point out that the current jobless rate is already higher than the hypothetical rate that was used to calculate the health of banks and other financial institutions in so-called “stress tests” earlier this year. And, the upward unemployment trajectory is expected to continue in coming months, even if the overall economy begins to recover.
But never fear your Government is on the case! They are going to do, what Government has always done; especially Liberal Governments. They going to throw money at the problem! Woo Hoo! 🙄
The Barack Obama Apologist, Politico reports:
President Barack Obama is announcing Monday that he is ramping up stimulus spending exponentially in the next three months, allowing the administration to “save or create” 600,00 jobs — four times as many as during the first 100 days since he signed the bill.
The spending plans include National Parks, summer youth jobs, veterans’ medical centers, police and teachers.
Obama will make the announcement during a late-morning Cabinet meeting, when Vice President Joe Biden will present a Roadmap to Recovery, which the White House calls “an Administration-wide effort to accelerate implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in its second 100 days.”
“As a result of this accelerated pace of activity, over 600,000 jobs are expected to be created or saved by the Recovery Act in the second 100 days,” compared with roughly 150,000 in the first 100 days, the White House said.
While the administration is sensitive to criticism that stimulus spending has been too slow, a new Gallup Poll shows danger in the other direction. For the first time, a majority of respondents disapprove of Obama on the issue of “controlling federal spending” (51 percent to 45 percent), compared to the 67 percent who view him favorably overall.
Here’s what the “Magic One” is going to do with all that money:
Here’s the problem; The President or more specifically our wonderful Government is going do all these wonderful things with money that we don’t even have; because we are barrowing it all from China. After all, did not the President say that we are broke? Yes, he did!
Quotable Quote:
In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: “We are out of money.”
C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.
SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we’ve made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we’ve seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.
So we’ve got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it’s putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.
So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don’t reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can’t get control of the deficit.
So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it’s too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can’t afford it. We’ve got this big deficit. Let’s just keep the health care system that we’ve got now.
Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything…
But yet, we are going to throw more money at the jobless problem. But we’re broke? Does anyone else see the problem with this picture?
I am commenting on this because I think it deserves a comment. I have very mixed feelings on the outing of a centrist Blogger, who blogged under the name of publius over at Obsidian Wings.
The reason why I have these mixed feelings is this. Because I personally know how frustrating it can be, when you have some anonymous Blogger or even person on the internet harassing you. Believe me when I tell you; I have been there and done that. However, I also believe in the right to privacy as well. So, I am quite conflicted.
To his credit, publius or John Blevins gives some very valid reasons for his wanting to remain anonymous:
As I told Ed (to no avail), I have blogged under a pseudonym largely for private and professional reasons. Professionally, I’ve heard that pre-tenure blogging (particularly on politics) can cause problems. And before that, I was a lawyer with real clients. I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible – and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts. So I don’t tell them about this blog. Also, I write and research on telecom policy – and I consider blogging and academic research separate endeavors. This, frankly, is a hobby.
Privately, I don’t write under my own name for family reasons. I’m from a conservative Southern family – and there are certain family members who I’d prefer not to know about this blog (thanks Ed). Also, I have family members who are well known in my home state who have had political jobs with Republicans, and I don’t want my posts to jeopardize anything for them (thanks again).
All of these things I would have told Ed, if he had asked. Instead, I told him that I have family and professional reasons for not publishing under my own name, and he wrote back and called me an “idiot” and a “coward.” (I’ve posted the email exchange below).
So there you have it – I’ve been successfully pseudonymous since the Iowa caucuses in 2004. During that time, I’ve criticized hundreds of people – and been criticized myself by hundreds more. But this has never happened.
And yes – I criticized Whelan rather harshly. But that’s what the blogosphere is about. Blogging is not for the thin-skinned. And you would think that someone who spends their days trying to destroy other people’s reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn’t be so childish and thin-skinned.
Again, I believe that Ed did have a right to know who it was that was criticizing him. However, I have reviewed the posts in question, and I simply do not believe that a public outing was necessary and quite frankly; it shows a lack of class and a very childish demeanor on the part of Ed Whelan. I do however disagree with the line of “But that’s what the blogosphere is about.” I feel that if you are going to criticize someone, you should have the guts to give your true identity. Criticizing someone behind the cloak of anonymity is the essence of cowardice, in my humble opinion.
The bottom line is this; if you are going criticize someone and you are going to hide behind an assumed named, you should be prepared to be exposed for the coward that you are. Further, one should not complain that they are being exposed, because a “pen name” is not a guarantee of privacy.
However, in the wake of the shooting of the abortion doctor and many of the other incidents in the last few months, one would think that Ed Whelan would have used a bit more common sense in a situation as this. But then again, we are talking about Neo-Cons. Not that they care about privacy, just ask George W. Bush. 🙄
Update: Ed Morrissey gives his take and quite surprisingly basically somewhat agrees with me. Not to rip off Redd Foxx or anything, but….This is the big one, Elizabeth I’m coming join you honey! Oh hell, Here’s Mr. Foxx doing it better, than I ever could: (Scroll to the 3:13 mark, if you want to see what I’m referring to…)
Update #2: Ed Whelan posts a follow up, further proving that he’s nothing more than a fucking asshole. But then again, you most likely already knew that. I retract this, click here to see why.
Update #3: Whelan Apologizes and Outed blogger accepts. Case Closed. Well done on both sides.
Others:The Anonymous Liberal, Washington Monthly, Outside The Beltway, JustOneMinute, Opinio Juris, The Strata-Sphere, Riehl World View, PointOfLaw Forum, PoliGazette, Sadly, No!, TBogg and Balloon Juice
An examination of the U.S. schizophrenic policies toward communist regimes in light of North Korea’s recent testing of nuclear weapons.