POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

Hamlet, Prince of YouTube

From Xelander Thomas:

Alas! poor Charles. I knew him, Horatio.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

NSFW, But Unbelievably Great

Hot streaker scores goal in league play:

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Shorter Day at the UN

Qaddafi: "Barack, I am your father!"

Barack: "Daddy!"

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Behavioral Correctness

In the late eighties, while attending college, many things were the rage: Womyns Studies, African-American studies... pot... erm, wait - pot is timeless. In any event, if you recall the music we were tortured with (Level 42 anyone?) left us with idle hands. And well, the Devil's workshop and all that. But of all of the refuse permitted to float to the top was something called Political Correctness. As I have stated before, depending on your objectives, the PC movement was pure genius. To me, it was eeeevil genius, but nonetheless, confusing language and setting about maligning certain words and phrases... banning them to Elba, as it were, was effective. Very effective. And exceedingly oppressive. Which, I guess was the point. Oh, and it did in fact have the impact of reducing "debate" to near zero. Only one stance/opinion was acceptable on any given topic (allowing for nuance and all). Any opposing view or contrasting view that did not fit the "sanctioned" viewpoint was not only taken off the table - but left not bloodied and beaten for having failed to defend itself on merit and logic - but left to waste in the corner collecting dust - in most cases, despite being meritorious. The result, of course, was nothing short of thought control. The language, logic, and free expression of ideas having been suppressed, one was left to presume that those positions outside the permissible were guilty as charged. And thus they were not articulated in polite society. And being then exotic to the ears (offensive to the sensibilities) they were treated as arguments only fringe (conservatives) would ever utter.

One cannot help but note how frustrated these same beneficiaries (those who would be the thought police) of the PC movement are.

There is Obama, of course, who must be fit to be tied. In his reality, the pleebs aren't smart enough to know what's good for them. His own party must appear to him to be made up of Dinos (Dems In Name Only). Of all people, these highly-educated, well-read, open-minded, pillars of Elitism, should, to his mind, be running with him rather than tripping him up. If they don't get it... or STFU and get out of the way, how can he hope that the ruled will do anything to help themselves. They do, after all, take their direction from their rulers, don't they?

There is the Globular Warming crowd as well. They must be cursing the Fates for the ill-fortune of low sun spot activity. Goddammit. Here on the precipice of cramming global warming cum climate change down the throats of the world's citizenry the Sun goes and f**ks it all up. The vision of the Big Climateers and their profitses all but going down the tubes. Where is Manbearpig these days anyway? Haven't had a sighting recently, have we?

Political Correctness succeeded to the degree that it did, at least in the American Experience, because it was novel. But it is not novel any longer. And very few are as frightened of the Thought Police as they once were. Things can be discussed again, if not with Polite Society, at least at the bar. Its stick has, to a large degree, lost its sting. Moreover, the people who remember being suffocated on campuses across this land are now parents. So the final laugh is yet to come. But Political Correctness is in its death throws... to be sure.

Likewise, the Race Ca[na]rd, as Rocketman has written well about on this very blog. Overused, misused, overplayed... like a bad Beyonce song. What was once a Death Brand is now more easily side-stepped than not. People just don't buy it anymore. Even, dare I say it, when there is some merit to the charge (not referring to Obam-evasion here with regard to health care).

So, I will now look into my crystal ball to see what can be seen with such things. And it looks like this:

On Health Care Reform Insurance Reform Hard but Necessary Changes: "These disruptions are ...simply un-American."

On Global Warming Climate Change "...[they] aren't acting in a way that they should act." h/t Drudge.

So, before someone else lays claim to it, I am going to put it out there: there is a movement coalescing. And that new movement is "Behavioral Correctness." And by that, it is not meant that you have to be civil... this is not about civility per se. Please do not confuse. You will be relieved to note that you won't be required to say "please" or even "thank you." If a dude, you shouldn't feel suddenly compelled to start being gentlemanly - opening doors, deferring to women, or giving up your seat on the bus to a woman with child. You shouldn't feel compelled to help someone out of the ditch during a snow storm either, because this Behavioral Correctness will instead relate to things like the following...

- raising your voice when being spoken to having your beliefs thoughtfully corrected by superior intellects elected officials over a PA system
- shifting noticeably in your chair when a devotee in ecstasy someone sings the praises of The One
- not nodding in full-agreement when The New Messiah speaks at to you in a sincere yet convincing tone, whether by radio, telepromptervision, or visions and consolations email
- failing to laugh at Obamassiah's jokes
- not shaking your head in concerned disapproval when you suspect someone is about to disagree with the thoughtful and proper conclusion drawn by The Dear Leader.

Even if this should come to pass - we can count on it being contained to the US and UK - as neither the Mexicans, nor French... nor Greeks, nor Italians are game for this sort of thing. You know, on account of being unsophisticated and all.

Enoch_Root

AKA. Bobby Donn Brubaker (the most popular man in Mesa, AZ), the Umbrella of Terror, Jack Ketch.

Website - More Posts

Extinction with Dignity

Every day, I read stuff that I regard as really, truly, deeply wrong, but it's very seldom that I get to read something as perfectly wrong as this account of the views of BBC presenter Chris Packham, entitled, "Let the panda die out 'with dignity', says BBC expert Chris Packham."

You know, on a relative scale, I'm probably not much of a relativist, but I wonder whether Mr. Packham might be, you know, projecting his personal valuation of the concept of 'dignity' on these poor pandas. This is the sort of article that makes me wish that Scott Burgess were still blogging, but I will have to do. Let's take a look.

The BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham has questioned the millions spent trying to save the giant panda from extinction and suggested that the bamboo-eating bear should be allowed to die out "with a degree of dignity".

Well, fair enough, I guess. We could apply a Lomborgian analysis and consider whether those millions of pounds ought to be expended elsewhere.

The zoologist, who has replaced Bill Oddie as a presenter on BBC's Springwatch, risked criticism from wildlife conservationists in an interview with the Radio Times in which he describes the giant panda as a "T-shirt animal" on which too much conservation money is wasted.

Scorn for t-shirt animals? What about Che? What about Obama? What about Black Sabbath?

"Here is a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It's not a strong species," he said.

Well, it certainly was short-sighted of them to go by their own accord down that evolutionary pathway to that cul-de-sac. And so willfully, too, although animals on all sides were shouting at them, telling them, "Don't become too reliant on bamboo forests!" You'd almost think that this Chris Packham is some kind of eeeeeeeeeeeeevil natural capitalist, requiring pandas to take responsibility for their own destiny and to make retrospectively wise choices. I blame the schools.

"Unfortunately, it's big and cute and a symbol of the World Wide Fund for Nature and we pour millions of pounds into into panda conservation. "I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go, with a degree of dignity."

"Mommy, did you ever see a Giant Panda?" "Yes, dear, when I was very young, at a zoo. They were big and cute, but at least they were allowed to go extinct with dignity."

Packham's comments raised hackles at the WWF, which has used the giant panda as its symbol since its foundation in 1961 and is active in panda conservation in the Chinese forest reserves where the animal still survives.

Do pandas have hackles? I am not sure.

Dr Mark Wright, chief scientific adviser at WWF UK, dismissed Packham's assertion that the giant panda was at an evolutionary dead-end because it relied on bamboo. "It's like saying the blue whale is in an evolutional cul-de-sac because it lives in the ocean," he said.

That's true. I've seen blue whales on t-shirts.

He added: "Chris has taken an irresponsible position. Pandas face extinction because of poaching and human pressures on their habitat. They have adapted to the area in which they live and if left alone, they function perfectly well.

"However, he is right in his assertion that we must secure habitat in order to protect endangered species. This is exactly what we work to achieve in the case of the giant panda.

"Importantly, in protecting those mountain areas where pandas live, we are also retaining vital habitat and resources for thousands of other species (many also endangered) and helping the human communities that depend on this landscape."

Think of that, next time you eat bamboo shoots, you greedy bastard.

In his Radio Times interview, Packham, a noted wildlife photographer, was especially outspoken about agricultural policy in the UK.

"Farming policy has trashed this countryside more than any other part of Western Europe," he said. "Go into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with a flamethrower and torch all of the stupid bureaucracy that dogs our farmers. Let's start organising fair pricing for UK farmers."

Bully for Chris! I stand with the farmers against the stupid bureaucratic dogs! And while we're at it, screw the Delta Smelt and let Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer die with dignity!

It's not only pandas that need worry, however. Asked which animal he would not mind becoming extinct, he replied: "Human beings. No question. That's the only one."

B-b-but . . . oh, never mind. Think of the gazillions of pounds saved by the extinction of humans!

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Thought-Provoking Article on NEA

I won't say that I agree with all of it--if you read the UK's The Guardian, you know what I mean about an absolute abrogation of any community standards--but it's true that social cons have some blame for the interpenetration of art and government. The author offers to sever the NEA completely from government; I would rather see the NEA deep-sixed entirely.

Of course, it's interesting that just as Breitbart is breaking this story, the President's on the Sunday news programs saying that he's not ruling out a newspaper bail-out.

Lately, though, I've been too deeply immersed in politics in my writing, so, I'll just point out the discovery of a gemstone in Israel, of some archaeological significance:

"Despite its miniature dimensions – the stone is less than a centimeter high and its width is less than half a centimeter – the engraver was able to depict the bust of Alexander on the gem without omitting any of the ruler's characteristics," notes Dr. Gilboa, Chair of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa. "The emperor is portrayed as young and forceful, with a strong chin, straight nose and long curly hair held in place by a diadem."

*******

Alexander was probably the first Greek to commission artists to depict his image – as part of a personality cult that was transformed into a propaganda tool. Rulers and dictators have implemented this form of propaganda ever since. The artists cleverly combined realistic elements of the ruler's image along with the classical ideal of beauty as determined by Hellenistic art, royal attributes (the diadem in this case), and divine elements originating in Hellenistic and Eastern art. These attributes legitimized Alexander's kingship in the eyes of his subjects in all the domains he conquered. These portraits were distributed throughout the empire, were featured on statues and mosaics in public places and were engraved on small items such as coins and seals. The image of Alexander remained a popular motif in the generations that followed his death – both as an independent theme and as a subject of emulation. The conqueror's youthful image became a symbol of masculinity, heroism and divine kingship. Later Hellenist rulers adopted these characteristics and commissioned self-portraits in the image of Alexander.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Bad Luck for Andrew Breitbart’s NEA Scandal

The basic information has been around for a couple of weeks that the NEA was involved in a conference call with various arts groups urging them to get on board the Obamaganda bandwagon. Today, Big Hollywood, Big Government and Power Line explain the ins and outs, which involve White House collusion, lies, violations of the Hatch Act, and general marching orders given to recipients of NEA largess, generally.

It was going to be a difficult matter for this to hold up to the standards set by last weeks series of video on ACORN, in part because it was accompanied by no video, and in part because it would be difficult to explain to a casual audience the linkages involved, and in part because everybody's aware already that the NEA is a hopelessly corrupt secular humanist bastion of dumb. Now, though, Breitbart's project is put in the shadow by the looming colossus of this scandal:

Hassan Nemazee, a fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, has been indicted for defrauding Bank of America, HSBC and Citigroup Inc out of more than $290 million in loan proceeds, U.S. prosecutors said on Monday.

The announcement follows last month's indictment of Nemazee, head of a private equity firm and an Iranian American Political Action Committee board member, on one count of defrauding Citigroup's Citibank.

The new indictment adds allegations that he defrauded two other banks, Bank of America and HSBC Bank USA, in a similar fashion by falsifying documents and signatures to purportedly show he had hundreds of millions worth of collateral.

The office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and the FBI said he used the proceeds of his scheme to make donations to election campaigns of federal, state and local candidates, donations to political action committees and charities.

(h/t Insty) Just, you know . . . wow.

Jim Hoft on background.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Rebellion – a National Passtime

UPDATE 1: Erm... Bummer

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

As a son of history. As a son of immigrants. As a son of those who founded this country and have bled and died for this country, I believe that these words are more poignant today than perhaps they have been for many, many decades.

The optimistic men who penned the Declaration of Independence were sensitive enough to provide their rationale for such a radical departure from the status quo. They provided evidence of having exhausted all peaceful remedy to the injustices under which they lived. Evidence that no other course of action was left to them but rebellion from oppression. These men were revolutionaries in the truest sense of the word. And by that I mean regular gentlemen who decided that the time had come to stop being gentle - but who had no problem fulfilling their obligations to the unfurling of history as men of action.

It is an odd place in time to be living in these United States. I say this because I am not sure there has been a time like this particular one. Sure there have been times of stress. Times of war. Times which were violent. But there have been long periods of peace as well. All in all, peace has reigned throughout our not-always-peaceful American Story.

Peace is peculiar. And lasting peace, while desirable, is something extraordinary for any nation to lay claim to. It is fair to say we have had, here in the US, unbelievable blessings in this regard. But peace is peculiar. And there is no guarantee that tranquility is lasting. Our expectations, now several generations out form WWI and WWII are out of whack. Severely out of whack. Sure there was Viet Nam. There was Korea. There was the first Gulf War. And now Iraq and Afghanistan. But it has been a very long time since we have committed to an all out, price is no object war. In part, this is because the stakes have not been as high.

WWI and WWII made good sense. The entire world was literally in the balance. The future of the entire world was demonstrably threatened. But more specifically, Liberty was threatened in a real way. Liberty of people who we here in the US felt an actual and very real kinship. The numbers of Americans hailing from UK, Ireland, Norway, France, Poland, at the hour of WWI and then WWII was substantial. There were those who successfully rallied for isolationism early on, but even they (or many of their numbers) eventally saw that remaining on the sidelines would not cut it. There was something about Liberty that called us to arms.

And peace remains a strange thing today as it has been forever and will be forever more. There is, to be sure, an equilibrium at play. A tension existing between our ability to tolerate a state of affairs and our willingness to abide the status quo. I imagine all wars of conscience - the real wars - where Liberty and the threat of Tyranny are both possible outcomes - begin when normal gentlemen are no longer able to tolerate a given state of affairs - and therefore, no longer willing to abide the status quo.

A radical socialist, frustrated with the status quo - a muslim terrorist frustrated with the status quo - will turn to any mechanism which seems to offer relief. In the case of the former, a fifth column approach makes very good sense. In the case of the latter, a hijacked plane makes very good sense.

What is curious about this current state of affairs is that we, as a nation, do not even fundamentally agree on why we are a nation. What we stand for as a republic. What value we have as a republic of affiliated states. Or even if we are or should remain a "republic" at all.

Unless I am completely mistaken, I do not think that brothers have disagreed so fundamentally with one another since the years prior to the war of aggression. Or, maybe I will refer to it as the Civil War. Maybe it was about slavery. Maybe it was about commerce. Maybe it was about both. Maybe it was, really, about an over-reaching federal government. Maybe it was about all of those things. But what it was for sure was a disagreement between brothers as to what we stood for. And it seems to me that these men who fought - on both sides - took the words of the Declaration quite seriously. To the degree that they were really willing to die at the hands of one-another.

One has to begin to ask the question: do we even want to be a unified whole any longer? Pragmatically, what are the benefits for any given citizen to be a citizen? What rights do I have as a citizen that I wouldn't as an undocumented worker? Likewise, what rights would I likely have as a citizen of Wisconsin that I don't have as a Citizen of the United States of America? Would I have fewer? Would I have more? Also, to what extent is the State of Wisconsin, for instance, willing or capable of interfering with my daily business? What do I gain from, say, being affiliated with DC? Or Alabama? Or Louisiana? Or New York?

These are just questions, of course. But they are legitimate questions. Really, what do I have in common with Whoopi Goldberg? I mean to say, what foundational beliefs do she and I share that would call us to affiliate? She should ask the same. Howabout Pelosi and Reed? What the hell do I have in common with them? What do they have in common with me? We do not even envision Liberty in the same way. Why, we may as well swap the words "Liberty" and "Tyranny" out completely. From my perspective they do not understand these terms in the same fashion as I do. And form their perspectives, I am sure they feel the same way.

So, what precisely do we gain from being joined at the hip? Could one argue that depending on these few questions, there may be a real argument for de-coupling our futures?

And if we believe that men are rational to the degree that they will tolerate most anything for peace, can we assume that when they decide to put their lives on the line and strike out at their own government - flying the flag they have sworn allegiance to - that they are not without cause to do so?

Enoch_Root

AKA. Bobby Donn Brubaker (the most popular man in Mesa, AZ), the Umbrella of Terror, Jack Ketch.

Website - More Posts

SEIU’s Dangerous Rhetoric [UPDATED x4]

Will it cause Nancy Pelosi to weep? It's almost as though it constitutes demonization of political opponents. You can bet that they've been given their talking points, and that these characterizations will emerge everywhere on the left, this week.

Working Women and Men Will Not Be Silenced by Right Wing Attack Dogs; We Will Win the Change America Needs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Published September 18, 2009 1:33 PM

Michelle Ringuette: (202) 341-7057

Statement of Andy Stern, President of SEIU

WASHINGTON DC--Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union, issued the following statement today regarding recent attempts of right wing extremists to silence working families by attacking progressive individuals and community organizations:

"This is a moment of profound change for this country--from kitchen tables to town halls to the floor of the Senate, this nation is engaged in a vigorous and heated debate about how we rebuild our economy, solve our national healthcare crisis and restore the American Dream.

"As has always happened when progressive change is in the air, the backlash gets fierce, ugly and anti-American. This time is no different. Right now, there is an insidious and coordinated effort on the part of the extreme right to target individuals and grassroots community groups as a way to silence the voices of women and men who have suffered the most under 8 years of right wing policies.

"These extremists will attempt to shut down and shout down anyone with a different point of view.

"Let's be clear who we are talking about--call them attack dogs, call them Teabaggers, call them Glenn Beck--these are the same folks who cheered the policies that crashed our economy. Who make up lies about death panels to try to kill healthcare reform. Who scream about democracy while denying workers a voice on the job. Who target anyone who poses a threat to a status quo that for too long has rewarded greedy CEOs while leaving people who work out in the cold.

"This is not the America we believe in.

"Their lies, their stunts and their smears will not silence us. Glenn Beck, FOX News and their pals have demonstrated that they don't care about what janitors, security officers, nurses, teachers, and other hardworking Americans go through each day trying to give their kids a better future. But make no mistake--these hardworking women and men will not be the next casualty of the cruel and cheap attempts of a loud and venomous minority to silence people who want to restore the American Dream.

"We are going to make sure healthcare is affordable and accessible for every man, woman and child in this country. We are going to demand transparency and accountability in the financial industry. We are going to create a fair and just path to citizenship. We are going to make sure workers get a voice on the job. And we will protect our democracy by calling out those extremists who would silence the voices of women and men who work each day."

The Service Employees International Union is an organization of 2.1 million members united by the belief in the dignity and worth of workers and the services they provide. SEIU is dedicated to improving the lives of workers and their families and creating a more just and humane society.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more on Andy Stern and his corrupt buddy, Tyrone Freeman.

UPDATE x2: Is Wade Rathke calling Obama a raaaaacist?

UPDATE x3: Dan Riehl uncovers some Stern connections with the leftosphere.

UPDATE x4: SEIU dues sent to ACORN offices

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Matthew Vadum’s Simply Great Article on Attempted Leftist Whitewashing of ACORN

The first couple of pages of Vadum's piece are devoted, mostly, to excoriating Joe Conason with the facts of ACORN's criminal behavior, and he rightly points out that leftists generally are appalled that the right has learned to produce political theater. On the third page, he turns his sites to other useful idiots:

Others on the left are rushing to ACORN's defense and the more prominent defenders are just lip synching Conason's lyrics.

The most famous member of the useful idiot brigade is actress Whoopi Goldberg. She said on "The View":

Everything, I mean, you know, there are boneheads in all organizations. We've worked for them. We know that they're there. But do you kill the whole thing? And I don't think so. A lot of people think that you should kill it. But you can't answer, you can't tell me where those people who become even more disenfranchised go.

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post concurs and links to Michael Tomasky, who in turn follows Conason's talking points. Tomasky is editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. George Soros's Open Society Institute funds it.

The American Prospect's Adam Serwer taps into his inner useful idiot once again, arguing that the right takes "the ACORN scandal as a kind of vindication of all their paranoid fantasies of what ACORN was responsible for." Would that it were true.

Fellow Salonista Glenn Greenwald joined the chorus too, while Amanda Terkel of Think Progress preferred deliciously naughty misdirection as she harped on Republicans' own hooker hypocrisy.

The consistently execrable David Neiwert of the appropriately named Crooks and Liars blog was particularly creative in coming up with the argument that Fox News was "punk'd" by O'Keefe and Giles. Neiwert wrote a book called The Eliminationists in which he argued that within every conservative there is a Nazi waiting to break out and murder leftists.

ACORN will not go away quietly. It's too big and too powerful. Power never concedes anything without a fight, so it's not at all surprising that the group is already trying to whitewash its deep-seated, systemic problems.

The independent audit announced by ACORN last week is a fairy tale.

It is packed with left-wing political hacks including Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and SEIU President Andy Stern. Both men have the ear of President Obama and Podesta even helped organize the Bush-to-Obama transition. Of course, SEIU Local 100 and 880 are part of the ACORN network, a fact that ACORN tried to cover up earlier this year by scrubbing references to the locals on its "affiliated organizations" page.

Longtime ACORN ally Jerrold Nadler, who was endorsed by ACORN's political party in New York state, the Working Families Party, came up with a truly original defense of ACORN. The legislation to cut off funds for ACORN is a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder, he says.

Maybe the congressman's right. We should heed his advice and just skip the constitutional concerns altogether and head straight to a criminal prosecution under federal racketeering laws and deal with these people the way we do with other gangsters.

Appointing a special prosecutor might be a good start.

Read the whole thing, and check out this Chris Wallace interview of ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Darrell Issa. Shorter Lewis: "We're happy that you caught us, and I'ma letchoo ask a question, but first I gotta say . . . ."

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts