Thursday, November 1, 2012

We Rob Banks (part 1)





Standby, Massachusetts, for Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren's deployment of the technology of negative writing has manipulated  the electorate into supporting a hard-core leftist criminal gangster whose ambition is the shakedown of the US financial and banking sector possibly resulting in effective nationalization. The axiomatic suppositions emitted by the Warren campaign suffuse the public consciousness as if a billion nanobot drones were programmed by some magic host to spiral into the ear and infect the rational brain. The victim may feel as if his or her ideas were spontaneous, but they are really the product of this modern media fee-faw-fum - Ephesian letters for the internet age.

It's too bad that Senator Scott Brown himself, or his campaign handlers, fell victim to these brain-worms, ceding all philosophic ground to the Warren gang, only differing in the methods used to secure "the middle-class" and "women" from  imaginary dangers.  Brown's nebbishy me-tooism only served to advance the false premises extruded by the leftist haters of free markets and individual responsibility.

Warren rose to prominence on the back of the financial crisis of 2008 through her rigged "studies" of bankruptcies uploaded with the veneer of Harvard University scholarship to land as a work-through-the system  plant for the Occupy Wall Street "movement".  She worked her plan for an agency the would attach  like a vampirish parasite to the US financial system - her baby: the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), slipped into the the (finance reregulatory) Dodd-Frank bill like a Trojan Horse - a new bureaucracy, with almost unlimited power and zero congressional oversight, set to bleed the banking system for the beneficiaries chosen by Warren and her kleptocracy of  redistributionist racketeers.

So here she comes: cue the hip hop - it's "Occupy" Liz-Z, political gangstah. Seen on TV news clips leaving campaign events with the requisite "entourage" of toadys and bootlick suck-ups, the Professor is taking bank robbery to a new level. Willie Sutton, in an apocryphal, but probably false, quote said he robbed banks "because that's where the money is". Sutton, John Dillinger, Jesse James - these were American independents, but they were anachronistic players: bringing off two-bit one-at-a-time hauls. The Italian mob, and later our own Whitey Bulger brought modern business methods to financial malefaction by imposing a hierarchical structure to regional outlaw enterprise. "Occupy" Liz-Z thinks bigger - way bigger. Next to her, the Brinks gang were pikers - small time hustling jokers - like the Charlestown junkie bank-jobbers who were so predictable that the Staties merely had to wait to pop them on their post-caper arrival at the bottom of the old spiral City Square ramp off the Tobin bridge.

Last month, the largest heist in history - $25 billion - was pulled off by a gang of state attorneys general, Democrat legislators, the CFPB and other government bureaucrats.  It was called a "settlement" in the polite, face-saving way that a mafia hood allows drug dealers to pay "rent", or his plug ugly stooges to sell "protection" to mom and pop shops. It is a refined advancement of the political tradition that allows solicitation of "contributions" from a union boss who in turn leans on rank-and-file for "dues", and "negotiates" with contractors.

Our pallid paladin deemed the $25 billion a good start: "the beginning, not the end".

Yeah, it's an old fashioned shakedown. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Can the World be as Sad as it Seems?



It's 11 years after 9/11, and Islamism is on the march, again. Really it has never let up, but the swerve and bend of world events and a barbarous anniversary attack on U.S. diplomats has by commodious vicus of recirculation served to focus our attention. 

All actors are returning to the stage in this theater of the absurd. Leading actors from the top of the Islamic pyramid - the high mucky-muck mullah from Uupper Buttcracki, the Krazy Kat in the big black hat, aka Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khameni himself, Twelver and no nice guy by all accounts; Khameni's  Fars state news agency; Egypt's "newly democratically elected President" and Muslim-brother-in-chief Mohamed "Spare Tire" Morsi - down to the angry males thronging the Arab Street (how come Arabs are the only ones that get to have a "street"?) - all parties playing their roles as if dress rehearsing for Allah himself. No shitting around. Guest stars include the US State department, scrums of lapping yapping reporters, old fart liberal columnists, with choral backup by the self appointed, self involved, self righteous nasty nags of the leftist blogosphere. Oh yeah, our Democrat president and his Republican rival Romney, guided, of course, by their invisible stage-whispering  handlers, have made cameos, too. 

What are the the elements that make up our act? A tragicomedy in which we are subjected to a fatuous domestic display of mealy mouth obeisance: apologizing, excusing, bowing and scraping in hopes of expiation of the collective guilt assigned and accepted for a heretofore obscure snippet from an unfinished film which purportedly says not nice things about the historical figure known as "the Prophet Mohammed". Which film clip has elicited wrath among Mohammedans as automatically as a post-sneeze Gesundheit, and as seemingly mindlessly as an electrically induced spasm in a pithed frog. The Prophet's teachings, as written in The Koran, and codified into Shariah law, have been used by Mohammedans to keep their fascist institutions of oppression in place across hundreds of years for hundreds of millions of unlucky souls. Why would anyone say not nice things about him?





Here at home, the trumped up, holier-than-thou, tut-tutting indignation over the perceived disrespect, and the calls for the punishment of the film clip's creators (and even some not responsible for it, but deemed guilty due to past imprecations) are emblematic of a society that has evidently discarded its core values and picked up a virus which turns its victims into irrational purveyors of PC mush. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution it is not your fucking business what movies people watch or what movies they make. "Blasphemy" is not, has never been, and never will be a crime in the US, unless the liberal left somehow classifies it as "hate speech" and such statutes were upheld by the SCOTUS.

Comb the 'net for five minutes and one can find enough direct attacks on Islam to fill a library. Why do you think that is? In the West, we express outrage through words, not murderous "demonstrations" of demented, frenzied mobs. The First Amendment was put in place to protect unpopular speech - words or ideas that are not locally renowned.  The notion that foreign enemies would demand apologies and even arrests for commentaries perceived abroad as offensive would not have occurred to our forebears.

It would also not occur to me to engage in rioting if, say, I stumbled upon a video originating in say Assbaki, Pakistan which portrayed, say, Moses as a bloodthirsty homo. Nor would anyone with any common sense, but that doesn't seem to stop leftists from imputing hate-mongering Islamophobia upon any critic of Islam, and then pointing at them the finger of blame for the violence perpetrated by those who cite hurt religious feelings as the motivation for their rage, and as the reason for their inability to constrain their behaviors to within civilized norms.




If there is any hate-mongering going on, it is result of the structure of the Muslim faith.  Muslim laws that keep women oppressed; Muslim laws that hang gay people from cranes; that deign to control every aspect of life; that prescribe death for "apostates" - those unfortunate enough to have Muslim parents and wish to have a mind of their own. No Mrs. Clinton, Islam is not "a great religion".  It is a scourge.

When a person or persons engage in flag-burning, mobbing a diplomatic mission, or similar aggression far short of actual murder, exponentially more disrespect is being shown for those who they target than merely producing a critical or even a scathingly blistering commentary, book, movie etc.  The only unacceptable "intolerance" here is the Islamic nasty habit for hypersensitive ridiculously excessive responses and bogus claims of injury to any (but not all -  the presentation must make the so-called malicious material seem out of the ordinary) art or media depictions deemed disagreeable.  There is a direct line between the death Fatwa issued by Islam's big dogs against Salmon Rushdie in 1989 (and just this week the bounty was raised to $2.3million); to the savage murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for his own cinematic censure of fundamentalist Islam, Submission; to the idiotic "cartoon riots" that resulted in deaths in 2005. It is difficult to wrap one's head around the concept of people going on a killing rampage OVER SOME LINE DRAWINGS!  Another sad episode that falls into the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up category is the "Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case."


Here's an idea fellows: put on yer big boy britches and get used to taking a modicum of shit, or stay off the internet. Apparently your mothers did not relay the lesson that "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me". Grow a pair, grow some skin, grow up - the world is saying "pretty please".

Does it not occur to these lunatics that mass protests with their wildly inappropriate hyper-sensitive over-reactions and silly demands for repression of free speech or "respect" for the peculiar idolotries of their world-view only serve to highlight their insanity, popularize the media they endeavor to suppress, and lend credence to the content of that they wish to excise?

These violent behaviors bring to mind psychopathies similar to self-hypnotic inducement of aggressive seizures of the central nervous system or the sudden allergy-like sensitivity reactions seen in fulminating rabies. These guys don't need Friday prayers, they need a trip to the ER for a haldol shot followed up by 90 days observation.

Unless, that is, it is all an act. Given the stupidity of these uneducated rioting jerks, I don't rule out that it is not, but one must be a bit credulous to believe that the world is full of semi-retarded religious fanatics with hair-trigger tempers who so easily cede free will to appear as herky-jerky puppets, stylized, like ballet dancers from hell. This can't be the optimum way to obtain the dignity they claim to cherish.

So, perhaps this was a plot coordinated by national enemies in a way that is calculated to keep us off balance. Taking advantage of the current charged politics, the foreign actors may reason that each side will blame the other. With good reason. The left has let loose a barrage of commentary in effect bolstering the Islamic narrative: decrying the violence, but attributing it to callously or even deliberately provocative right- wing "Islamophobic" Christian or Jewish extremists, who are at best demeaned as irresponsible kooky cranks who should be ignored, or, more likely, painted as out-and-out hate criminals who should be prosecuted and sent to the clink. For their part, some on the right have acted as if the misbehaving mobs get their marching orders straight from Obama "The Muslim-in-Chief" or, slightly more rationally, with the complicity of the O administration or, the cynical default, that perhaps our gov't is disorganized and incompetent, or even maybe just doesn't give a shit.

United we are not.

Certainly the Libya assault was planned. Our ambassador was lured to the Benghazi consulate and intentionally set up for an assassination organized and directed by a Jihadist group (it is said) as retaliation for the killing of a top al-Quaeda dog Abu Yayah al-Libi , and carried out on intentionally on September 11 by a trained military force using heavy weapons. The phony film was a pretext, a decoy, a sleight of hand. Allegedly, the ambassador was finished off with a brutal rape and suffocation. The left would have us believe that these boys were only letting off steam after enduring a humiliating internet insult.

Just like the 9/11 twin towers attack the assault on the Benghazi consulate is a follow-up to a failed first attempt back in June.

It is reported that the Marines had guns but no bullets. Were they expected to pistol whip any aggressors?

Given the negative reviews (based on descriptions, and for some careful reporters, actual viewings of the 14 minute youtube trailer) handed down for "Innocence of Muslims"  by such top film critics as Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, The New York Times, a faceless tweeting bureaucrat at the State Dept, and even President Obama, the movie-going public might want to look elsewhere for a good flick about Islam. Old school fans may want to check out the epics Lawrence of Arabia and Khartoum  (which showcased the charming Arab custom called head-on-a-stick). Modern anti-Islamic documentaries include the two Dutch entries Submission, for which effort the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was brutally killed, and especially Geert Wilder's Fitna. Wilders is the brave Dutch politician whose efforts to push back against the Islamization of Europe have resulted in his being dragged before a Dutch court for a hate crimes trial (charged with "insulting religious and ethnic groups") and, naturally, a fatwa demanding his assassination.

Much has been made in recent days over the exact ethnicity of the rascal who financed or created the now infamous trailer for "Innocence of Muslims".  Egyptian Copt or Israeli Jew? Home grown hater or transplanted troublemaker? Many man-hours and journalistic shoe-leather have gone into this intrepid inquiry, but sorry, no one cares. Unfortunately, to the the aggressive "leaders" of the Islamic world and the uneducated trash that follows them, such fine distinctions (Egyptian Coptic Christian vs. American-Israeli Jew) are meaningless. The only classification they recognize is crude: Muslim or non-Muslim.


People who are so hysterically predictable to anger at certain "trigger words" are asking to be needled. But layer a high-strung insecure brainwashed fanatic with a sociopathic borderline personality and the result is an extremely dangerous individual. Now add the synergy of the mob, whipping itself into a murderous frenzy as if it was one group-think pulsating insectile organism. This is Islam. Come celebrate diversity with me.

Islam and its tenets is incompatible with the modern Western values of democracy, freedom, and individual human rights. And it's a political system that intends to control all dimensions of  human life. 


And now in some kind of kindergarten mentality we must regard this mindless brainwashed revolting savage philosophy as equal to our own traditions and way of life, and refrain from "insults" and "disrespect". Islamists  appear to care less for real life than they do for symbols, lies, and obeisance to false prophets, so what's to respect?

 
Now, hundreds of millions of people are trying to drag the rest of the world back to an animal existence. The worst part is, in the name of multiculturism we are inviting the wolf and all his brainless nonsense right into our living room.









Thursday, September 6, 2012

The Professor Gives a Lecture


Speaking before the crowd of Democrat power brokers and their sycophants, die-hard left wing fanatics, and a slew of stupid people bused in to puff up the crowd, Professor Elizabeth Warren sank to a new nadir of negative speechifying. Not since the cold war has there been a similarly fanatical, ideologically motivated speech, and then only in Communist countries.

Warren pushes a bullying brand of deep cynicism that plays off of the basest human qualities: ignorance, lazy thinking, class envy, gullibility, insecurity and out-and-out fear. It is predicated on urban legends, outdated tropes, ossified grudges, and 70's-style conspiracy myths. This sort of "worst of" greatest-hits type stump speech could have been arranged by a software program: a mealy melange of vapid banalities, boilerplate bromides, and hackneyed trite shibboleths we've heard till our ears bleed this silly season.

With absolutely no facts or evidence to support her misanthropic world-view this nasty dishonest arrogant left-wing jerk and liar simply points at a group of people and swears out a slander: "The system is rigged". In other words "They robbed you". Who "they" are is not articulated so you fill in the blank: millionaires and billionaires, rich people, corporate "multinationals" as the phonies like to say, along with Romney, Ryan, and their gang of  teabagging repugs.

This is rabble rousing of the most degrading sort. If the entire "system" is "rigged", the citizen is disburdened of all responsibility for anything that has gone wrong. If the whole shebang is cooked, one can reason, honest efforts are futile, and all kinds of treacherous immoral behaviors can be justified: petty corruption, gaming the system, or simply throwing in the towel and applying for every benefit and freebie one can connive.

This aggressive garbage encourages failure, sloth, resentment and it eschews personal responsibility. Warren keeps an arm's length from her Occupy troops but she has admitted setting the mental table for those lost souls and hardened ideologues who would cause our destruction.

All the other tired stereotypes were there last night too:
"where billionaires pay their taxes just like their secretaries do" -- A smarmy misleading smear without coming right out and saying it thus avoiding any "fact-checkers".

"No, Gov. Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance..." Women love that line evidently. Pass me a barf bag.

"He wants to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. But for middle-class families who are hanging on by their fingernails? His plans will hammer them with a new tax hike of up to 2,000 dollars." Repeat ad infinitum

More lies: "For years, families had been tricked by credit cards, fooled by student loans and cheated on mortgages." Lizzie to the rescue: "I had an idea for a consumer financial protection agency to stop the rip-offs. The big banks sure didn't like it, and they marshaled one of the biggest lobbying forces on earth to destroy the agency before it ever saw the light of day"  Good grief. With "protectors" like these, who needs attackers?

She got it all in: "Cayman Islands" "oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies."Middle class"

This "speech" was a mealy stew of distortions, falsehoods, innuendos, and stone cold lies. Warren is apparently the kind of sociopathic liar that could commit a crime and then calmly pass a polygraph or a Sodium Amytal session.

Pray that this shameful wretch loses so she can no longer pollute the political discourse of our great nation.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Elizabeth Warren: GOP, Scott Brown "against women"

Like a drowning, panicked, rabid dog, Warren is desperately snarling and flailing about, spewing a propagandistic lie so breathtakingly arrogant that only those totally brainwashed loons such as those that read and comment on the Huffington Post and thinkProgress will pretend to buy it. And that only includes out-of-state residents unfamiliar with the gentlemanly Brown and his lovely wife and daughters. 

Warren reminds me of a fat little spoiled brat who just got sent to her room and is beginning the wailing and stomping ritual that she thinks will reverse the decision. 

I've never seen a more mendacious and dishonest candidate for office in any race, local or national. Like the George C. Scott character in "The Hustler" her stock in trade is feeding on other peoples' weaknesses and lack of knowledge, and hopes to profit by it. I don't know which is more frightening - the possibility that she may schizophrenically believe in her own flapdoodle and self-styled paladin persona, or actually has the chutzpah to flat out demagogue in such an obviously specious and slimy way.

Let me get this straight Ms Warren - because one nobody from nowhere congressman 1200 miles away made some careless and stupid statements, ALL Republicans including the moderate Brown are adjudged to be guilty of the same blasphemous remarks by association. Wishing a hallucination real doesn't make it so honey, sorry.

Even sensible Democrats are realizing this. Scott Brown will win in a landslide.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Akin thrown to the wolves for unPC blather

Evidently, respect for the core Western value of freedom of speech does not apply to the parasitic, pseudo-intellectual scum that describe themselves as "progressives". The anti-freedom mob of PC fascists can concoct dubious racist conspiracies regarding "code words" and "dog whistles" to besmirch conservatives, but when a Republican white male lets loose with some old wive's tale he may be as freely attacked as if he was serial murderer. Actually, a real killer garners more deference than a loose-lipped man of power as even the craven pols on Congressman Akin's side of the aisle join in the lynch mob. 

Remember when the Harvard Univ. president, Larry Summers had the audacity to broach the issue of differences between the sexes (regarding under representation of females in tenured positions in science and engineering)? What a concept - men and women distinct by nature - I never heard of such a thing; but you would think by the reaction he had had an illicit and tawdry liaison with a young intern. Never mind, bad example. Summers was subsequently run out of Harvard U. on a rail, "censured" by a gang of dishonest, reverse prejudiced, dried up crusty maggots who hide behind their own tenured degree status as supposedly society's brightest and most enlightened.

What an sloppy collection of narrow minded double standards these folks harbor. Nancy Pelosi can talk about seeing ghosts and apparitions as if she were ready to get fitted for a rubber room strait-jacket, and no one says a word. Harry Reid, the top dog in the Senate belches up completely unsubstantiated rubbish and what do we hear from the Left? Nada. Joe Biden? Pick anything he says. And, as a final instance, Presidents Obama's team as much as accuses his rival of murder. Crickets. It's a one-sided game all the way.

This is how fascism operates - the aggressive people going counter to the first amendment intimidate, castigate and threaten those who dare to speak their minds. Liberals are superficially high-minded, but really just opportunistically stick with the side that seems stronger and can help them financially. Are you listening Elizabeth Warren? 

Their market value is nil and the malevolent bile they spew is a stinky pile of institutionalized garbage.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

I have a tiny little gun.....

Fully foreign automatics manufactured after 1986 are already illegal to buy or own, so let's start with those imported before the cutoff. Then, ban all semi autos such as the Glock 17. Next, go the the semi automatic rifles, before banning and confiscating all revolvers, pistols, muskets, Saturday night specials and miscellaneous handguns. 420 million guns sounds like a lot, but every journey begins with a small step, and Americans are a law-abiding people. I am sure that the 59% of households in Wyoming [that are gun-owning] for example would cheerfully hand over their ordnance to government agents. I'll bet though that the 3.8% of DC residents that fess up to having "a tiny little gun" will bitterly cling to their sidearms as the homicide rate there is 22/100,000. (Oddly, Wyoming's murder rate is 1.4/100,000 or about 6% of DC's - go figure!) Anyway after we've rounded up all those armaments and those hunting rifles that are always lickin' off at inopportune moments, it's only a beginning - knives over certain lengths, switchblades, stilettos, boker knives - these bad bad things only have one purpose and we don't need 'em in a free society. 
I hear Google's working on a driverless car. Good. Til' then, a GPS activated speed governor on each vehicle will make us safer. We need to rubberize rocks and bottles, too.
We won't rest until the children are able to walk down the street without fear of a crazy man with weapons.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The Boston Phoenix: Our Paper is Free; Your Speech is Not

The Boston Phoenix is the flagship publication of the Phoenix Media/Communications Group, closely held and totally controlled by one Stephen M. Mindich. Mindich recently sold (pending FCC approval) WFNX, the storied alternative rock radio station, to Clear Channel Communications Inc., pulling the rug from under the Boston market's last rock station. (Lest anyone accuse him of making a straightforward business decision, Mr. Mindich did agonize, in a WBUR interview, about this sale being the "most difficult day of my 47-year business career.") ClearChannel has since announced it plans on using the 'FNX signal to broadcast a conservative talk format.

The Phoenix keeps circulation up (cited as 253,000/week) by its $0 cover price and its ubiquitous presence in sidewalk boxes and convenience store piles as well as the fresh Thursday stacks that yield Monday messes in regional college foyers. Revenue for the rag comes from adult classifieds, nightclub listings, and advertisments including the always salacious, often jailbaity, back-cover layout advert for American Apparel.

The Phoenix makes no pretense to journalistic balance: its editorial orientation is flat out leftist, and, as the President Obama's political fortunes dwindle, its slant is trending ugly leftist. Last fall, as Occupy Boston graced our downtown domain, the Phoenix was not merely an Occupy cheerleader, it was its de facto house organ. Then, what appeared to the cloistered to be a burgeoning  people's movement evaporated, revealing a thinly populated gang with a sour attitude whose doctrines were  based on spurious axioms.  The result is a 2012 full of bitterness among the Left - the shrill disappointment of sore losers as the evanescent utopianism hit a wall of reality that has sent the nastiness over the top.  This is why the Boston Phoenix has dropped even the veneer of objectivity, making the liberal Globe, Boston's boring broadsheet, seem, by comparison, a model of editorial judiciousness and impartiality.

The Phoenix's Occupy Boston editions were laughable, giving self-important partisans an echo chamber for their inanities - a closed loop if you will, leaving the impression of a world-changing movement, with Occupiers taking point, not just politically, as agents of change, but as an organizational model: this is what democracy looks like. No, this is what foolhardy sanctimoniousness looks like!

All this is by way of introduction, for those who may not be familiar with The Boston Phoenix and its left-wing proselytizing. For those of us who are, it is no surprise that the periodical's output is one sided.  However, the article that prompted yr obt svt's logorrheic reaction is out of bounds even by Boston Phoenix standards - combining a nasty personal attack with a premise so breathtakingly stupid that it ends up actually making the case it purports to decry. The piece is entitled "Shit Boston Cops Say" and was last week's cover story (though on the front page the word shit is demurely rendered sh*t).  It aims, evidently, to be a shocking expose  of rampant "far-right wing" thought that local law enforcement  dared to put in print over "at least six years" in a professional newsletter, Pax Centurian, the "official union newsletter" of the BPPA (Boston Police Patrolman's Association).

The Charge? "Boldly bigoted" sentiments put to paper. The Phoenix's crack investigative team went to work scouring the formerly "obscure paper's archives" shining a "spotlight" on its heretofore unrevealed "vile content."  Starting by likening the periodical to a "[Ku Klux] Klan fanzine...", the Phoenix writer, Chris Faraone, immediately characterizes his journalistic brother-in-arms, Pax managing editor James Carnell, as a monkey - and an intellectually challenged one at that: "...scribbled by a chimp pushing a crayon."


Imagine if the spotlight team had uncovered its target similarly ascribing simian qualities to the author of, say, an NAACP  essay.  My guess is that it would not merely elicit indignant scandalization, but would have evinced a a firestorm of outrage and revulsion, with calls for immediate resignation of the writer and whole editorial staff, if not demands for arrests on hate-crime charges.  But such standards don't apply to the righteous, of course.


Faraone lays it out in the second sentence - the accused - mostly one poor cop it turns out, James Carnell, writes "screeds." Screeds. It's hard to believe Faraone wrote this with a straight face, but I suppose he was just so shocked by the sentiments uncovered, he lost his sense of irony. 


The verbal hate crimes alleged run the gamut: racism, homophobia, misogony, Islamophobia, and (how low can you go?) insensitivity toward crime victims, as well as, gird your grid, "progressives." The horror!


Upon reading such an intro, the reader is prepared for the worst, and Mr. Faraone tries to bolster his case by citing long-standing "ire" from unspecified "activists" and "union members" as well as the always articulate Boston Mayor Tom "Mumbles" Menino.  According to Faraone, Hizzoner last week weighed in with a characteristically nuanced analysis, calling the Pax in its entirety "garbage".  And, in a sign of the momentousness of the burgeoning scandal, the Commish himself, Ed Davis, took to twitter and "condemned the rag" says Faraone. Wow.  Moreover, "recent developments" we are pompously told, include "big-brand advertisers" yanking sponsorship, as if the ad dollars involved approached Super Bowl status, and the dauntlessness of these companies' stance would soon lay bare a moral turpitude that would bring down the entire bad element among  Boston's finest . Stay tuned!


A veteran reporter like Faraone wouldn't bury his lead, so the most appaling examples of the twisted right-wing mind would be up front, right? Well, maybe, but each of the first three examples of alleged bad-cop intolerance elicited in me not just puzzlement as to why anyone reasonable would take offense, but out and out agreement with the (police) writer's sentiment.  Actually, and maybe it's just my Neanderthal mind, I was tickled with a "damn right!" moment with each supposedly hate filled quote from what the author calls, alternately, tirades, spiels, rants, and screeds.


You be the judge:



ON PREGNANT HOMELESS WOMEN: "And now the city, in its infinite wisdom, will be acting to enable these little trollops to have exactly what they want simply by getting knocked up."
Hmm. Using the "put the worst first rule" it is clear the whole story is going to be way overblown. Trollop?? Whew, tough stuff. We'll have to amend Carlin's 7 dirty words with an eighth I guess if you are a lockstep liberal, but "trollop" to this ear sounds rather quaint.  I suppose questioning any welfare program is mean-spirited and should be verboten.

ON MURDER VICTIMS: "I'm so sick of hearing how each gang member that gets shot is 'turning his life around' . . . because I have never actually seen one turn his life around."
How many of you have made the same comment?  I'll bet every one of you because "turning his life around" is among the most laughable of hoary cliches, and, at best, a way to avoid speaking ill of the recently deceased.

ON MUSLIMS: "They want to kill you. Do you understand? THEY WANT TO KILL YOU."

And? is this something unknown to the Phoenix? Was this not the paper, in an uncharacteristic, if somewhat bizarre moment, that put the Daniel Pearl execution video on its website? You know the one, Mr. Faroane: it shows Khalid Sheik Mohammed aka "the architect of 9/11", CHOPPING OFF THE HEAD OF A JEWISH REPORTER! Maybe in Faroane's world the Danny Pearl beheading and 9/11 did not happen.
These are the three bullet points that are supposed to render the reader indignant.  Pretty mild stuff, but the next one has potential.  Faraone accuses Carnell of an "attack" on the mother of a young lad (hey only 'cos there was no dad in the picture to rough up - Carnell's old school, right?) - a recently deceased young lad who was, I'm sure, on the cusp of, you guessed it, turning his life around, when he unfortunately "died" in "a police shootout." Brace yourself:
Carnell wrote: "All due respect to motherhood and fully understanding a grieving mother's attempts to put blame anywhere but where it belongs, but your son was a maggot and a scumbag."


This one's not a matter of opinion but pure fact, which I'm sure Mr Faraone knows, but chooses to - and I'm being generous here - be a bad writer and mislead his audience.  A bit of searching revealed the truth: the kid  shot at cops from a porch at 2 Navillus Terrace (off topic trivia: how did Navillus Terrace get its name? 
Sullivan backwards, as in the WWII heroes 5 Sullivan brothers) with a .45 caliber automatic handgun, drops a clip and reloads, then while under police fire, puts the gun to his head and commits suicide. Forensics and many witnesses confirmed the account, yet this information is hidden from the Phoenix reader. But when the straight talking policeman calls for a bit of personal responsibility, we are asked to see it as a beyond the pale
example of out and out racial animus, because the "tirade" we are told, ticked off "black and Latino 
community leaders, as well as officers of color."

One can only construe Carnell's admittedly blunt statement as racist only if one is misled as to the circumstances, which Faraone does in a disgraceful way unworthy of a real reporter.  He deems the incident "a shootout" as if two bad hombres cleared leather at high noon, and though he does not come right out and say it of course, by playing the race card, he obviously hopes to evoke in the reader an image of a Charles Bronsonesque-type dirty cop taking justice into his own hands vigilante-style, then adding insult to injury by verbally "attacking" the black-clad mourning mama, calling the dead boy mean names.  Such a cop has blood of ice, we are to think.


This is not journalism, but negative writing at its worst. With negative writers such as Mr Faraone, the logic is never explicit, it's placed between the lines, counting on the readers' imaginations to suggest.  The technology of negative writing is deftly employed by propagandists such as Mr. Faraone in hit pieces like Shit Boston Cops Say. It is of course the exact opposite of what a good writer does which is to elucidate facts or conduct a narration. A negative writer throws in unrelated ideas as a foil to confuse, and employs squishy, hard-to-define concepts, such as racism, which have different meanings to different readers, thus obfuscating the truth, and letting  readers develop the coaxed insinuations without realizing they are being manipulated.


Another arrow in the quiver of the negative writer is to leave direct accusations to a third party -  someone who is introduced as an expert, or an ostensibly unbiased voice such as a colleague of the target, whom the reader will presumably find credible.  For example, in this article, an African-American detective named Ellison is brought out.  He is quoted admonishing Officer Carnell for "his blanket indictment of people of color." Those strong words from such an unimpeachable source serve to burnish Mr Faraone's case that Carnell is a bad apple to his rotten and racist core.


Ellison's censure, plus Carnell's on-the-record tough talk, are likely enough to close the case for the person predisposed to think ill of policemen.  Remember people seek out information in ways that confirm what they already believe.  But the skeptic or someone new to the issue will reserve judgement til he gets confirmation. In this article one might expect to find such damning additional statements in the sidebar "The Worst of Pax" of whose 10 blurbs, 7 are attributed to Ofc. Carnell. With 58 issues of Pax Centurian to choose from one would expect the excerpt under the heading "On Race" would be impeachable enough to seal the case for the prosecution, as it were.  The gruel has been pretty thin so far, but with gobs and gobs of police editorials and commentaries to pick through, how hard can it be to ferret out an incriminating racial generalization? Perhaps the sentiments of a burned-out cop who has cuffed countless offenders, who are disproportionately "of color", and who blurts out a bigoted condemnation of black people at large? Nope. Or maybe we'll find an ill-advised (for a white guy) Bill Cosby-type dressing-down of young black males for their reputed irresponsibility and lack of commitment to marriage, family, and fatherhood? Not there either. How about a "Sister Souljah" moment then, a la Bill Clinton, taking on "hip hop" rap lyrics and their moral vacuousness? Sorry, uh uh.



What horrible is found then under the treacherous "On Race" category? Of all things, a mild reproach to a Boston Globe report on an "anti-violence summit and listening session" starring the Rev. Bruce Wall (Boston's local version of the Rev Al Sharpton, but less of a huckster. Wall has dedicated his life to helping inner city youth steer clear of thug life, but with little to show for it) The sidebar quotes Carnell in Pax as quoting the Globe, which quotes the Rev., who quotes nobody in particular, as the powwow was yet to occur, saying that "young people want to work with officers that look like them" meaning they won't talk to the white cops whom Wall seems to say they'll be stuck in rooms with at the event, even though the description implies only "police officers of color" will be invited . Got that? Carnell adds a tongue in cheek parenthetical that he is "of color" too: tawny pink and lobster red.  This corny anachronism is I suppose an acme of boorish disrespect worthy of a Klan dragon, such as, say, the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-SC).



It seems then we'll have to look elsewhere for the smoking service revolver that will hang Officer Carnell as an intolerant  race baiting fanatic.  Perhaps the final outtake, entitled forebodingly "On Racial Profiling" will provide the conclusive proof of a flawed character.  But here, Ofc. Carnell only explains that, in practice it is more often than not impossible for a cop engaging a traffic stop to make out race/sex/ethnicity of a vehicle's occupants prior to pulling it over. Evidence of bigotry is totally lacking here as well.

One can now surmise that what rankles Mr Faraone and his sidekick Neil Patch (and by the way I've had Peter Kadzis, the Phoenix's executive editor, in my cab as a passenger, and have often seen him on TV's "heavy hitters" with Cosmo Macero, and he seems like a heck of a nice guy), who helped him compile the sidebar of shame, is simply that a uniformed city servant dares to voice conservative opinions at all, even in a format meant to be consumed only by other members of Boston's finest. This may be, but there's something else at work too, and the first clue to what I believe really frosts Faraone's nose, to paraphrase The Mayah, is found in the 5th paragraph. After mentioning a Pax reference to "disgusting J.P. liberals" (all quotations are offered naturally with zero context) Faraone tells us what (metaphor alert) "lit the fuse...that popped the powder keg." Are you ready? A scurrilous attack on President Obama? Nope. Perhaps an inappropriate reference to somebody's kids, as Faraone himself indulges later in the piece? Wrong. Maybe an off-color comment re the late great Ted K, Lion of the Senate? Wrong again. I'll let Chris Farone tell it:

"It was an evisceration of an Occupy Boston activist"

Now that's hitting below the belt!

As Faroane relates the tale, alert "Occupiers" - for those of you who thought they went away, they only did in the way cockroaches scurry for the crevice under the fridge, where they lurk unseen - happened upon "Carnell's latest carnage" (figuratively speaking one presumes) "around the internet", "even making its way onto jezebel.com" (so stated, as if if you are unfamiliar with such site, you don't deserve an introduction as to its nature.)  These "offended Occupiers and their allies" (also unelaborated is who these allies may be - shy scribes for an alternative weekly perhaps - or ones who know direct involvement in the story might detract from its credibility) "alerted the tract's many advertisers."

We are told that these models of corporate courage either "backed off", whatever that means, or "told the Phoenix they are investigating".  None of the sponsors identified were directly quoted.  We must take the reporter at his word that the companies either claimed "they were unaware of the newsletter's toxic content" or, of the "investigating" group, are "trying to figure out how their logo wound up funding so much race-baiting and gay-bashing." If anyone told the Phoenix to fuck off, Faraone does not say.

By the way, "gay-bashing" and innuendos about insults to "gays" are mentioned numerous times (I counted at least 6) in the piece without ONE instance of any ACTUAL anti-gay slur or even a single reference to homosexuality by the allegedly homophobic writers-in-blue. Space considerations? Sure, and I'm Lady Gaga in real life. If they had the goods, I'm sure they would've served 'em up with relish. Just more oily insinuations to leave the reader with an icky impression. I am sure they don't teach that in journalism school. (Goebbles said a 100 times repeated lie becomes the truth and this is why leftists believe their own fantasies - they repeat them back-and-forth till they become unquestioned presuppositions, such as global warming.)

At the heart of the S.B.C.S. article is a whole section that expresses outrage at the Pax bits that "viciously deride Occupiers" whom they feel cops "have been gunning for" since their gig babysitting the Dewey Sq. encampment last fall. Much is made of a particular personal letter exchange between Carnell and a Bil "One L" Lewis, a "progressive activist and school teacher".

Carnell poked fun at Bil's name, evidently an offense tantamount to the worst of the race-baiting and gay bashing.  I think it is all they could find fault with Carnell's Occupy Boston analysis, which is so spot on it should be featured on op-ed pages across the country. (I will reprint it below.)  Miffed by the insults, we are told in the Phoenix. Occupiers "rallied around Lewis." Could this be the whole problem?  Disappointed that their movement fizzled, and frustrated at their inability to provoke the professionals of the BPD to violence, the Occupy grudgemeisters opened their book of dirty tricks and orchestrated this campaign to cause the BPD embarrassment or even foment racial discord among Police ranks?

I personally visited the Occupy campgrounds several times. I took pictures, and talked to activists, homeless hangers-on, cops, day-visitors and others there.  Here's a photo of the wall that featured an honest if not deep expression of an Occupy credo:



I am sure this "ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS   GET OUT OF OUR CAMP" sign prominently placed endeared the boys and girls of camp OB to the rank and file officers assigned to keep the peace at the site. The cops seemed to spend a deal of time keeping the dedicated idealist Marxist types separated and protected from those not so intellectual individuals who were variously homeless, petty thieves, drug addicted, mentally ill, or combinations of these, who were attracted to the place like bugs to spilled garbage. 



Here, two fine fellows, dedicated to economic equality I am sure, go to the mat over a sandwich. Notice the BPD officer in yellow declining to referee. In other venues this would have been considered an assault (the fight had started, broken up, and resumed and I was told it was a continuance of a previous bout.) The cops nicely let the peaceniks sort it out: the aggressor, actually the thinner guy on the bottom, was banished - his free lunch and supper privileges revoked, at least until the next day, when other hippies would rotate to the unwanted peace officer duties. 



As the camp spiraled down to a disordered sinkhole of filth, boredom, and petty squabbles, it was the BPD that showed the forbearance of a Mahatma Gandhi. Sorry. And, as the detritus accumulated to levels raely seen outside of a "Hoarders" episode, these supposedly community conscious citizens let someone else clean up the mess. Thanks, dad!


Back to the S.B.C.S piece: other Pax quips that got under the writer's skin were a joke (which was labeled "sinister") about a fat woman in "a stupid animal hat"; a complaint about drunken college kids from Saudi Arabia that 99 out of 100 people would sympathize with; and a comment about welfare scams that is so succinct and on target that it should be incorporated into every pol's stump speech.

The idiocy reaches its summit as the Pax writers are chastised for tweaking "metrosexuals" (as close as they get to a gay reference) for their unmanly "sissified" habits such as pedicures. Complaining in print about being called sissified proves the designation, in my opinion.

The Phoenix hits a low point when they allow their reporter to stray off-topic and attack the police writers on a personal basis. A son in trouble with the law is gratuitously thrown in, as well as the salary of one of the officers, and the amount of sick pay he drew last year - hey aren't these progressive guys the ones who lobby hard for generous pay and bennies for civil servants?

When writing a hit piece based on the supposedly outrageous speech of others, an assumption is made about the audience. That is, outrage, not concurrence will result. So the Phoenix writer here makes a very amateurish blunder which undermines the precept of the whole article, at least to this reader.

The paper also made an error, albeit of bad timing, when Dorchester State Rep. Carlos Henriquez' words are cited as a moral nag. See today's news.

But the stupidest assumption, the one that proves that leftists are totally lost in a pretend world, is the one that seems to presume that sensible persons would expect tough old Boston cops will exhibit a level of sensitivity and PCness normally only found in a Seven Sisters college girl going for her PhD in Social Work - WHEN THE COPS ARE TALKING TO OTHER COPS!

Fuck the Boston Phoenix and its liberal writers. Boston cops are among the best cops in the world, and having been in the cab business in Boston for over 30 years I've had plenty of interaction with 'em. Sure they get a lot of stand around detail work, but they also go face to face with danger every day, and each decision they make is a combination of intuition, experience, training and judgement that synthesizes the best qualities a human can have.  The Phoenix wordslingers couldn't tie the cops' shoes.

Then again, maybe the whole article was an excuse to use this priceless quotation which ends the piece, by one Jamarhl Crawford "a Roxbury community organizer and past target of Pax slander" (and one supposes, a potential future POTUS):
 "It's the Boston Police Department's dirty little secret. They talk about gays, about Muslims, and everything else you can imagine. It's that Archie Bunker outer-space banana-cake type of thinking that people don't even realize goes on anymore."


You got a quote like that, you gotta use it, somehow.


Thursday, June 21, 2012

Herald comment: City of Cambridge Soda Ban


cdlover  
  ?   +10 Good Comment 0 Poor Comment
The busybodies that are concerned about "obesity" and want to regulate soft drink sizes are the same neurotic fussbudgets who fret over "harmful substances" and "third-hand smoke". These are the party-poopers who make sure adults can't enjoy a cigarette in A COCKTAIL LOUNGE. And, oh yeah, these are the same buttinskys who worry more about what the other guy makes and pays in taxes than improving their own financial condition.

Welcome to liberal America 2012!
 

Friday, June 1, 2012

Red on the Inside


Red on the Inside

The end of the century was near
When not so accidentally
An Okie gal called Granny Warren
Embellished her history

Her skin is fair, her eyes are blue
She's white as white can be
But when a university needed diversity
She bumped other profs-to-be

Says she:
"Don't be fooled by my complexion
When you make your Senatorial selection
I'm counting on you in this election
Pay no attention to that Globe correction"

"Don't vote for Scott, please vote for me
'cos I'm one-thirty-second Cher-o-kee
That makes me as red as red can be
If not by heritage, then by philosophy"

But confronted with her silly lies, she hemmed and hawed and stammered:
"Scott Brown wears Armani suits, the middle class is getting hammered"
These tag lines are getting old and stale and really should be retired
And if Harvard U had common sense, Granny would be fired!

It's embarrassing to hear her say
"I don't know" "I can't recall"
Apparently her favorite pol of all
Is the guy called Jackson (Stonewall)

Her handlers hollered "Lizzie, girl
Here's what you should have said:
'Well bless my pop-eyed paleface soul
I'm better RED than dead'"

Her defenders claim these little untruths
Don't rise to the level of crimes
Hey who among us has never lied
Or cribbed from the New York Times?

But Howie Carr is on the case
He'll dust her up and bust her
He'll dig up the truth of her callow youth
And her great grand-pappy named Custer

So when you're in the voting booth
Don't mark the ballot for this clown
Your liberal friends will never know
You pulled the lever for Scotty Brown!
 

Monday, May 28, 2012

The Worms that Eat Our Brains

     Last fall, when the Occupy folks were gracing Dewey Square with a semi-permanent encampment, I observed that most normal working people were incensed by the squalid joblessness of the denizens, and they were put off by the snooty high-handed manner in which the Occupiers' grievances were dispensed. Nevertheless, many folks felt the need to add, after making their repugnance clear, that they "understand" their "message" or "why people are angry".  Evidently some of the precepts on which the Occupy case was founded, such as the purported culpability of large financial institutions in the mortgage debacle of '08, or the notion that "greed" (a human emotion) is warping wealth distribution resulting in average people "getting the shaft" are generally accepted as factual by large numbers of otherwise sensible citizens.

     These and other leftist suppositions became accepted axioms, spread from person to person, with the help of media, like a thought virus or meme, worming their way into the national psyche as established truths with little attention paid to the actual validity of the doctrines. In this way, while people rejected the messengers and their anarchic, fetid and crime-ridden barracks, the underlying deep cynicism of the Occupy creed infected much of the populace, who then transmitted it orally and otherwise like a virus.

     Now comes Elizabeth Warren, a cleaned-up intellectualized version of the Occupy grudgemiesters, a self-styled White Knight who is supposed to ride to the rescue of "the middle class", somehow (we know how actually -  with redistributionist taxes and entrepreneurial unfriendly regulatory schemes), protecting folks from the hoggish hammerers of Wall St., their rascally Republican enablers, and the greedy clutches of corporate America's bloated plutocrats and corrupt moneybag capitalists. Ouch.

     But now the would-be Lioness of the Senate, the paladin, is tainted with scandal. While it would be a service to the people of Massachusetts, the U.S., nay, the world, if Ms Warren's Senatorial bid went down in flames, to take her out simply because of the breathtaking hypocrisy of the grubby way she climbed the career ladder as a "woman of color" would be a failure. It would be curing the symptom while letting the disease fester.

     Warren spokes-mouth Alethea Harney, when questioned about the role false ethnic claims played in her employer's meteoric career rise  told the Herald that "Scott Brown is trying to distract people from his voting record for Wall Street, big oil and big increases in student loans (sic)".

     Here behind Ms Warren's Indian-gate idiocy, is a trio of tropes that badly need debunking, lest they further worm themselves into the public psyche, becoming solidly ensconced as accepted truths:

1. I assume Ms Harney meant to refer to "doubling the interest rate", as this is the distortion Warren referred to when asked about her fake Indian claims. The Democrat congress passed the "College Cost Reduction Act of 2007" with this scheduled reversal cleverly planned to exact future political mileage tarring any attempt to let it (the small rate break) expire. Once again, lessons that should have been learned from the housing bubble go unheeded. Just as the feds forced banks to lend big bucks to shockingly unqualified borrowers, this time around it's the government pushing millions of high school "graduates", many of whom can barely read and write, to attend colleges where they are destined to wash out or be pushed through with useless degrees and then default on said loans. The default rate for "two year proprietary" colleges has been 47% or higher for five years. It's a trillion dollar bubble coming down the track.

2. As for those big bad oil firms and their evil speculator buddies, of course the truth is turned exactly backwards. Subsidies for energy companies? Wrong. Exxon-Mobil, for example, pays about $100 billion in taxes per year, more than their profits, which incidently go to pension funds and 401k's all over the country. The subsidies we supposedly lavish on big oil turn out to be ordinary deductions and depreciation allowed for capital equipment. (The President relies on public innumeracy when he maligns traders - for every "speculator" who bids the price up there is a bearish "speculator" who takes the opposite side of the trade - where is The President now that they've run the price [of oil] DOWN to $78/barrel?)

3. For politicians such as Ms. Warren, the mere utterance of  the words "Wall Street" suffices to smear the target. Those well versed in the technology of negative writing know that the more left to the readers' imaginations, the better.

     Demagogues such as Ms Warren and President Obama foment hatred, class envy and deep cynicism, while they should be telling the American people the optimistic truth: that our energy, financial and technology companies are the best on the planet, and should engender pride and excitement, not suspicion, shame and fear.

Monday, May 21, 2012

News of the Tautological, or, perhaps, "Bottom" Story of the Day? (Letter to Best of the Web Today, James Taranto's column)


Romney, Obama vie for female support  This was the Boston Globe headline that grabbed my eye yesterday as I passed the newstand, and it reminded me of why I dumped the paper after 40 years of readership. (In New England, one "takes The Herald" or one "subscribes to The Globe") I no longer have to be subjected to opinion pieces that are disguised as objective journalism, and, my wife must no longer endure random eruptions from the other room when I would read a particularly execrable item.
The "article" in yesterday's edition apparently, as it was placed above-the-fold and top-right, was the lead headline - deemed the most important story of the day, journalistically.  This is an example of a generic topic, prepared in advance, that could have been run any day recently.  Didn't any real news happen on Sunday? Has the Globe laid off their Sunday staff?  Par for the course at Boston's boring broadsheet. I didn't even need to read the piece to know the contents: One could be certain that "concerns" would be cited about "health care issues" or "access to contraceptives", as if all voting women have this as their top issue.  Obama of course would be seen as protector of these "rights" and "benefits" which Republicans want to withdraw in their "war on women".  Romney for his part would be reduced to "reaching out".
Well, curiosity got the better of me and I bought the edition.  This article, (and the similarly focused top piece in the same edition's Metro section [Senator Scott] Brown steps up focus on women), was a thinly veiled attempt to woo votes for The President, and readership for the sagging newspaper that used to be New England's flagship.  One can see the focus groups and surveys rattling around behind the lines - "Independent women" (you like to be called independent, don't you, huh huh?) will save the election and save the dying paper too, so we'll fixate on this category and their putative concerns.  This is The Globe as purveyer of identity politics.  I suppose it is simpler for the journalist, (or pol, or pollster) to assume persons' interests are defined by their category: woman, black, Jewish, seniors, Latino etc. Thus an article (or speech or poll question) can be matched to the presumed issue of interest: health care, race and entitlements, pensions, Israel, immigration. Not only is this style insulting, but also, as the National review headline put it, mind numbingly predictable.
As was the article itself. As I foresaw the writer (Michael Levinson, Globe staff) in just the 2nd sentence cited  women who were "angry about attempts to roll back contraception coverage, restrict abortion rights, and cut funding for Planned Parenthood...They perceive their rights are under threat" . Mitt Romney for his part, the piece goes on, has responded by basically ignoring these concerns, keeping the focus on economic issues, taxes and spending, as if the Repubs are too cheap to pay for that which women so desperately need (males, evidently, don't get sick and have no health worries).  Not having anything to say, Romney must be content with "deploying his wife as his designated emissary to the opposite sex" as if American ladies were a foreign country, and he needed a plenipotentiary and translator. 
The piece goes on to specify "benefits of the president's health care law" whose heretofore tepid support among the gals is attributed to lack of knowledge of "the features that specifically benefit them".  So, we learn from "video testimonials from, among others, a breast cancer survivor and a mother whose daughter was born with a congenital heart defect" that "the law guarantees that [women] cannot be charged more than men for coverage, that insurers cannot charge copays for mammograms and cancer screenings, and that women cannot be denied coverage if they are pregnant or have been victims of domestic violence."
Where do I sign up?
For "balance' a photo of Ann Romney (in a red dress) is shown. "Ann Romney has moved  beyond her usual role vouching for her husband, Mitt, as a family man" say the picture caption.
The article ends by hammering home the main point:
Mary Welch, 68, a retired high-tech consultant who brought a casserole and spent several hours calling women throughout New Hampshire, said it was important to educate them about the benefits of the law. She dismissed the idea that the law is a political liability for the president.
“I find,’’ she said, “that most people just don’t understand it well enough.’’
Arrrrrrroororororoogggghhhhh

Lizzie Warren's Thanksgiving Day Roast Turkey Stew


lcdlover  
  ?   +61 Good Comment -21 Poor Comment
Lizzie Warren's Thanksgiving Day Roast Turkey Stew

Substitute bull for turkey
1 whole chicken
1 can Spam
2 cups firewater
heap of dog chow (dry)
1/32 of a Turnip 1/32nd of a beet, 1/32nd of a parsnip, 1/32nd of a rutabega (hat-tip to James Taranto)
Native corn
ACORN
8 slices forked tongue
1/2 cup sour grapes
Hot air
Hair of dog
Eye of Newt
1 stick Halvah
4 grains of salt

Lard crock-pot generously with pork. Set aside.
Cut chicken in half: keep left side, smear right with anything handy, then discard.
Slice bull thickly and pile very high
Pound table
Mix the rest of ingredients all together (discard grains of salt)
Cook in oven until half baked
Garnish with diverse selection of fruits and nuts

If serving company - throw the whole mess out and send to out to Whole Foods for real meal
(Tell guests recipe is from NY Times)
Serve with a good Jewish whine
Distribute to guests according to income
Send food bill to U.S. taxpayers
(and don't forget not to say grace)
 
Posted 2 days ago

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Herald Comment on "Granny" Warren's Pow Wow Chow Brouhaha



Injuns!
Pull the wagons up into a circle!

[Elizabeth] Warren's stump speech containing the line: "America's middle class is getting hammered.." now will be "America's middle class is getting scalped..."
Seriously, Warren and her ilk blame the financial woes of recent years on "Wall St. banks", diverting our attention from the real cause and problem: government mandates which forced lenders to discriminate - not looking solely at a borrowers assets, credit history or ability to repay a loan, but at their skin color or minority status. Had westuck to the Canadian model - 20% down, sufficient income to repay and a good credit history - none of this would have occurred. Who are the racists here?

"Scalp her, Tantric!"
"Hee-mo, keemosabee
 
Posted 3 hours ago

Monday, March 5, 2012

The left hasn't won its war against religious liberty (but by thus framing the issue, the right is losing the battle).

By framing the ObamaCare contraception mandate as an issue of of religious liberty, conservatives have played right into their antagonists' eager phalanges: the young,  liberated, free-thinking modern women vs. dried-out, repressed old males (and likely deviants)  imposing a Taliban-like moral code on the 99%. Yes, google "war on women":  It yields, among the 1st ten of 1.2 million results, 4 or 5 variations of "The Republican party declares war on women" (The Guardian); "Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women" (MoveOn.org);  "A War on Women?" (asks The New York times in I guess a genuflection to impartiality); a slightly more leading question in Politico's "Has the 'war on women' gone too far?" and my favorite, The Daily Kos' entry, "This week in the War on Women: Sluts unite!" Yee Ha. Oh, and don't forget the catchphrase's eponymous digital base stopthewaronwomen.com where one is exhorted to "tell Republicans no!" and prevent us from "moving right back to the dark ages under this congress."  (In something of a tabloid or Cosmo mag style section called "Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women", the reader is informed about "Republican"proposals such as "a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care"  and apprised that "Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids" as well as the real shocker: the hypocrite repub (Dan Burton) "who has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses" while having the cajones to [push] "to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program")

Somehow, I think, we've lost command of the conversation.  The focus must be economic commonsense only, and leave the squishy sexuality and ethics questions for another day. Ms. Flukes's  $3000 pill bill, versus $324 the generic pharmacy value was not "misleading", nor was it "a lie" , but an unintended perhaps gaffe revealing the ObamaCare bottom line compared to the direct cost.
Think of two fictional women, Sue and Alice. They each need birth control pills. They are both employed making $60,000 per year. Sue calls her doctor and makes an appointment for some weeks hence. She pays a $20 copay and the MD prescribes a months supply with 11 refills. She bills the insurance company and Sue visits the pharmacy where the pharmacist fills the Rx for zero cost to Sue and his ass't bills the insurance company. The insurance company processes the bills. The total tab? $24.99/month is billed to the provider.
Alice simply goes to the druggist, consults with the pharmacist or nurse practitioner and buys over-the-counter birth control pills and pays cash. $9.00 for a month's supply.

Am I missing something?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

angry afghans

Afghans were unexcited, even blasé, when our Marines were recently caught on camera urinating on the dead bodies of their(the Afghans) Taliban comrades. Hey, no problemo, amigo, we can dig it. But accidentally toss a Quran in the garbage and all hell breaks loose. Plainly, the whole of Afghan society is gripped by a kind of collective hysteria, an obsessional behavior rooted in a sick pit of superstitious tribalism, whipped to a psychotic fury by so-called Imams (aka opium dealers). Good job, President Obama. The prison library for Taliban terrorists is well stocked: books of inspiring Islamic songs and poetry, "hadith" interpretation tracts, 70 different editions of the Quran, along with a a new "I Moved Your Cheese: For Those Who Refuse to Live as Mice in Someone Else's Maze" as well as an old dog-eared copy of Dan Greenberg's "How To Be a Jewish Mother". Oy.
Does anyone really think it a capital idea to stoke the religious mania of those who ALREADY COMMITTED A CRIME IN THE NAME OF ALLAH with more of the mumbo-jumbo that forms the filamentous skeleton of their mania? Kinda like giving the alkie whiskey for breakfast.  Here's an idea: at Bagram, we confer the jailed terrorists with unlimited access to The World Book Encyclopedia and bequeath the Qurans to The Afghan home for Advanced Alzheimer patients.