I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Sen. Harkin: a history of military service can be "dangerous"

Everyone knows about John McCain's brave and honorable military service in Vietnam. A lot of people know that he comes from a long line of military officers.

According to Senator Harkin, (D-IA), this is a bad thing. Not just bad, but potentially dangerous:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, “and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

“I think he’s trapped in that,” Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

Harkin said that “it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”

A McCain spokesman said Harkin’s remarks were offensive and showed that Democrats are out of touch with Americans’ values.

“Senator Harkin’s comments are an affront to the many thousands of Iowans who have served our country so valiantly for generations,” said spokesman Jeff Sadosky. “This sort of attack shows just how out of touch Democratic leadership has become with the values that have made our country so great.”

So serving in the military at all is bad as is, but you get a pass if you've been drafted. Only an uneducated idiot or a cruel, violent warmonger would volunteer to serve in the military, right?

And gosh, what a horrible way to be raised, in a military family! Imagine -- being raised with values like courage, integrity, honor, valor, selflessness, and sacrifice. How awful!

Of course, Senator Harkin is a liberal, so he probably doesn't understand those kinds of things.

Personally, having a Marine for a father and two grandfathers who served in the Navy (one as a career), I think growing up in a military family is pretty great. The military can instill values that you won't find anywhere else. You learn things and form bonds from military service that you won't find in anything else you will do. I can't convey the respect and admiration I have for those that serve enough. It's just unfortunate that libtards like Harkin can't understand it.

I'll let Ed have the last word:
This comes, of course, from the same party whose Senate Intelligence chair suggested that military pilots have little human feeling. It precedes an effort by the New York Times tomorrow, along with some of McCain’s oh-so-courageous unnamed Senate colleagues, to suggest that McCain didn’t really experience Vietnam because his five-plus years as a POW kept him from learning all of the lessons John Kerry experienced in his three months in a Swift Boat. This also comes from the same party that celebrated Kerry’s military experience while denigrating George Bush’s National Guard service. According to Harkin today, Bush would be a better candidate — right?

If the Democrats want to party like it’s 1968, that’s their choice. The rest of America grew up. People stopped drinking the New Left Kool-aid a long time ago and quit treating veterans like baby-killers and Dr. Strangelove. Tom Harkin, Jay Rockefeller, the New York Times, and a good portion of the Left apparently never stopped.

NARAL doesn't like Hillary anymore

They just endorsed Barack Obama, leaving a lot of Hillary supporters and NARAL supporters furious. They're already feeling the backlash:
With the clock running down on a long-fought primary, NARAL Pro-Choice America leaders sent state affiliates reeling this week by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It was seen as a gratuitous slap in the face to a longtime ally, and it sparked a fear even closer to home: that the move will alienate donors loyal to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Many on this week’s conference call were stunned on learning the news, making urgent pleas for the group to remain neutral until after the June 3 Democratic primaries.

“It’s created a firestorm,” said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. “Everyone was mystified ... saying, ‘What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash.”
There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL’s own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. “Shame shame shame!” read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. “No more donations from me!!!” wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women’s fundraising group EMILY’s List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) — Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder — jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. “Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration ... nothing else makes sense to us,” they wrote in a joint letter.


Now, I'm not going to cry any tears over anyone disassociating themselves with NARAL, regardless of the reason. Hey, I support you wholeheartedly. But I can't really understand what they thought they'd accomplish by endorsing Obama. It seems like Hillary is the one who has lobbied tirelessly for NARAL, and as she is the one who needs the boost, why didn't they endorse her? It isn't like endorsing a candidate who doesn't get the nomination puts a scarlet letter on you for the rest of the election, or that you won't have a voice in the administration of whoever wins. I just don't see what they thought they'd gain from it.

Ed had an idea:
NARAL picked the worst time to make an endorsement. Instead of picking someone early, they chose Obama with just three weeks left to go before the end of the primaries. Did they think they could help him in Puerto Rico, or believe him in danger of losing the nomination? What practical effect would their endorsement have on his ability to collect votes in the handful of contests remaining?

Not much, but obviously that wasn’t their motivation. They wanted to send a message to Hillary to get out of the race now, rather than ride out the short string of primaries left. NARAL wants to show some muscle in the party’s operations, and doesn’t mind throwing Hillary under the bus to do so. Instead, they have enraged their base of women who have seen Hillary as their champion both in this race and on the mission of NARAL itself — and see her opponent as an Obama-come-lately, an ally but certainly not someone who has done the trench work that Hillary has done over a long period of years.

Apparently, sticking by the person who has worked so hard for you for years now isn't all that important to NARAL.

But hey, who cares what their motives are? This is great for me! Let the chaos continue. Anything that can further Hillary's chances for winning the nomination is fantastic. Way to go, NARAL!

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Obama thanks Sioux City... while in Sioux Falls!

But, you know, remembering different cities in fifty-seven states is a tough job. So we shouldn't judge him too harshly for forgetting what city he's in.
The Democratic frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama of another state, Illinois, had an enthusiastic double-barreled stump introduction from two local luminaries, former Sens. Tom Daschle and George McGovern, who was an equally enthusiastic supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton until recently. But he changed his mind.

McGovern knows a little about presidential races, having once been the Democratic presidential candidate himself way back in 1972. He lost though.

Both South Dakotans lavished all sorts of praise on Obama, according to reporters present, including The Times Nicholas Riccardi. As the large, enthusiastic crowd of some 7,000 supporters roared and waved "We can do it" signs and Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" blared, Obama bounded onto stage, grabbed the microphone and said, "Thank you, Sioux City!"

Trouble is, Obama was in Sioux Falls.

So was the crowd, which suddenly fell silent. Where are those Southwest Airlines get-away flights when you need them?

"I'm sorry," Obama quickly caught himself. "Sioux Falls. I've been in Iowa too long."

Sioux City is in Iowa. Sioux Falls is in South Dakota.

Here's video:

Whoopsie. Must be such a tiring, confusing job, campaigning. Imagine being PRESIDENT. Jeesh.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Seattle Times: Hitler's demands were not unreasonable

Un-freakin'-believable. There are no words for the sheer lunacy of what you are about to read.
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. We have learned the hazards of it. But 1938 was only 19 years since Germany's borders had been redrawn, and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following the historical lesson they had learned 1914-1918: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.

Yeah... it wasn't unreasonable to turn over first all of the German-speaking states to Hitler. Or all of Europe. Or eventually the world. And it wasn't unreasonable to let Hitler exterminate millions of people, mostly Jews, because he thought they were inferior and unclean.

That's certainly no reason to start a war, right? I mean, Germany got screwed, so Europe deserved what that got and should've given in to Hitler's reasonable requests, and let him go on murdering millions. That would've been the reasonable course of action, I guess, since all of this was our fault, thanks to WWI, according to this douchebag. And this was to defend Barack Obama!


Hat Tip: Ace

Huckabee kisses his veep dreams goodbye

And all with one little quote:
During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Way to go, asshat. Real classy. Joke about someone trying to kill one of your political opponents. Douchebag.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Sports? Roller coasters? Oh, what IS a poor girl to do?!

This article on MSN annoyed the ever-lovin' crap out of me. It was a list of places you shouldn't take a girl on a date, and, well... I wanted to smack the crap out of the girl who wrote it.
Sports bars
When we’re with you, we don’t want to compete with the big game or struggle to hear you over a crowd of drunken sports fans. We’d rather be in a place where people are less likely to bump into our chair or spill beer on the cute outfit we put too much time into selecting. Likewise, we don’t want to feel ignored by our date because he’s watching his favorite team or can’t hear us because of that old 50 Cent song blaring from the speaker by our heads. The Buffalo wings are pretty much the best part of this experience, and they better be freakin’ outstanding.

Theme parks
In life, there are roller-coaster people and there are those who get queasy looking at the merry-go-round. Find out which one your date is before you take her to the nearest Six Flags to ride the Mind-Eraser. We know you’re eager to be the manly man as we clench your arm in terror while spinning upside down in a quadruple loop. It’s just that some of us are not aching to toss our cookies in the bushes next to the churros stand while you watch. Sure, we might get to know you better while waiting in those long lines, but we’ll probably have other things on our minds if our stomachs are filled with knots and our hearts are racing in anxious anticipation—like avoiding the next date.

Chain restaurants
We love a guy who wants to feed us and perhaps even more so a man who wants to pay to feed us. But if you take us to a place we can find in every major city where the interior always looks the same, you might as well feed us lattes at Starbucks. Fast-food joints obviously rank as the worst dinner choices, but corporate restaurants (oh, don’t make me name names… you know the ones I mean!) also lack originality and thoughtfulness. As a general rule, don’t take us to a place where we know what we’re going to order before we walk in. We’d rather be taken somewhere off-the-beaten path—where there are candles instead of fluorescent lights, and we don’t have to listen to Top 40 songs blaring from a speaker overhead. If you have no idea where those places are, remember—God created the Zagat Guide for a reason.

Gross-out comedies
We know you think the whole dinner-and-a-movie idea is infallible, but not if the movie completely grosses us out. You might find it funny when Ben Stiller is standing near a pier and a fish hook gets stuck in his cheek or when Johnny Knoxville jumps into a vat of plastic balls filled with venomous snakes—we don’t. Men and women have different senses of humor. Various studies have proven this, so try to respect this biological fact and refrain from making us indulge your Three Stooges sensibility for two hours. Your buddies may laugh, but we’ll simply be rolling our eyes.

Yes, some women are members of the National Rifle Association. No, most of us don’t want to be moving targets on a date. We know you might have an urgent need to explore your inner hunter, but we’re gatherers—and those little pellets sting and leave bruises. Being shot by your date isn’t fodder for a romantic afternoon; it’s warfare.

Meeting your mother
True, it might happen eventually, but casually hanging out with your mother — wonderful as she may be — is not our idea of a relaxing time. Neither is getting tips from her on how to find a better hairstylist or job. Sure, she might make the best fried chicken or pasta primavera on the planet, but her long, loving gaze might make us feel less like family and more like we’re on the wrong end of a long microscope—especially if you take us to meet her on the second or third date. If you want to see your mom, that’s cool. Just don’t make us a permanent fixture in her house too early in the relationship or we’ll start wondering why you’re so busy showing us off, or worse—why her opinion of us matters more than your own.

Guys, if you really like us, you should be eager to sacrifice a few testosterone-driven activities to demonstrate your thoughtfulness and consideration. Nothing reveals those qualities more than respecting our dislikes instead of trying to railroad through them. That’s not too much of a chore, is it? Show us a nice date or two, and chances are we’ll be more than happy to share those Buffalo wings with you…

Good Lord, is this chick like, the most high-maintenance girl to ever walk the planet or something?! I would HATE to be her boyfriend if I was a guy. I mean, jeez... "chain restaurants" are forbidden? I can see it now:

Girl: "Are you serious? Come on... Olive Garden?! My God. You're such an asshole."
Guy: "But... I just wanted to take you out for a nice dinner... you know, my treat... "
Girl - "Yeah, but you didn't even think about how I've been to this place a gazillion times. You are so insensitive. Ugh."

And I didn't realize that us women are simply too "delicate" for theme parks. We're apparently sure to be scared and sick the entire times, and couldn't possibly enjoy ourselves. Funny, I was under the impression that theme parks are a helluva good time, and I can't get enough of roller coasters. That would be an awesome date, in my opinion. A sports bar would be, too. It's great: low-key, relaxed, laid back. The food's usually good and there's plenty of entertainment. I love sports, so I'd probably be perfectly content discussing whatever game is on at the moment. But if your girl isn't, there's probably a lot to do otherwise -- play pool, throw some darts, even take the chance to teach her about whatever game that's on. Make it fun. Make little wagers on various things throughout the game, and her playful side will probably come out.

And as for the lecture about comedies and paintball, well... most girls I know loved There's Something About Mary as much as the guys I know did. And oh, no! Heaven forbid a lady participate in a manly hunting sport such a paintball and get a -- gasp!! -- bruise!!

I don't know what this chick's deal is, but usually, if a guy is taking you anywhere on his dime, I'd think you would be grateful. It may not be a dream date. It may not be a perfect night. But he's spending his hard-earned money on you, and making a sincere effort to take you on a date that you'll enjoy -- so relax and enjoy it, and stop being such a high-maintenance bitch! If you're so picky, then next time YOU can pay for the date.

Oh, and the guy one was pretty lame, too. It wasn't quite as lame, but it was close.

Welcome to Tennessee, Michelle, a state where we're proud of our country.


I'm proud of my country every time I see the flag or hear the National Anthem. I'm proud of my country every time I read about how much we've fought and sacrificed in the last century alone to defend freedom. I'm proud of my country every time I remember that no matter who you are or where you come from, you can come to America and build a better life for yourself, as long as you're willing to work hard enough. I'm proud of my country every time I visit the Duval County Veteran's Memorial Wall, where I cannot keep the grief and love I feel for her from running down my cheeks, thanks to the unbelievable sacrifice millions of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen have made for her and for freedom.

Simply put, there is not a single day that goes by when I'm not proud of my country. I love her, and I would fight for her until my dying breath. America has given so much. To say I feel pride for her is an unbelievable understatement, but it's as true today as ever.

Michelle Obama may not be able to understand why it is that so many Americans are proud of their country, and are willing to fight for her, and sacrifice for her. But it's one that's crystal clear to me, and to these Tennessee citizens, and millions of Americans everywhere.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Retard of the Day

Have you ever had one of those really annoying itches on your back, that no matter what position you contort yourself into, you just can't reach?

Well, to introduce you to the Retard of the Day, you first need to put yourself into that position. Your back's really, really itching. You can't reach it to scratch it. You try and you try, and finally, decide that you need some kind of back-scratching apparatus to really relieve that itch. So what do you use?

Hairbrush? No, not long enough. Spatula? No, too bendy. Hey, I know!! Why not a revolver??

Oh, wait, because it might go off and you'll have ended up a retard who just shot yourself? Bingo!
A Fort Worth man trying to scratch an itch on his back used a revolver and accidentally shot himself.

Jorge Espinal, 44, was drinking beer and playing poker around 3 a.m. Sunday in his home in the 3500 block of Montague Street, when he got up from the table and walked into another room, said Fort Worth police Lt. Kenneth Dean.

“He told officers he had an itch on his back and grabbed the first thing he could get a hold of, which was a revolver,” Lt. Dean said. “The gun went off."

Mr. Espinal went back and told his buddies that he shot himself. “They didn’t believe him until they saw the blood coming down his back,” Lt. Dean said.

Mr. Espinal was taken to an area hospital, where he was treated and released with non-life-threatening injuries.


Darwin Awards, baby. That's all I gotta say. I get the feeling this guy will be nominated for one someday.

Prosti-tot Chic

Everyone knows Beyonce. She's had amazing successes as a singer, both with her group Destiny's Child, and as a solo artist (check out her awesome duet with Shakira, Beautiful Liar). She's done some work in movies, and has been a champion for us curvy ladies out there (hallelujah, a celebrity who eats!).

She recently decided to add "fashion designer" to the mix, with her House of Dereon clothing line. She recently released her designs for little girls, and well... I guess I can't say that I'm completely surprised.

Here's the ad that has so many people outraged:

And a little close-up:

Well, I'm not entirely sure where to start with this. Here's some of the reaction from around the blogosphere:
[W]alk through the Mall on the weekend or go to a public pool. Mothers are morons. And where are the fathers? It starts with Bratz, morphs into Hannah Montana, and then we're surprised when our little girls think it's normal to be slutty?
- Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Well if that doesn’t just scream class, good taste, innocence, and childhood, I really don’t know what does. This makes me want to have many girl babies, so I can dress them up like whores and make Beyonce more wealthy than she already is. It’s a win-win for everybody.

What makes this especially touching is that I remember seeing Beyonce in an interview years ago, talking about how she was all about empowering young women to be independent, self-sufficient, and smart. I’m guessing she’s been hanging out with rappers too often and has somehow decided that the path to female independence starts in preschool and involves 5-inch stilettos, heavy makeup, and feather boas.
- Rachel Lucas

As for the mothers of this new crop of Little Girls Gone Wild models, they were undoubtedly thrilled to see their daughters painted up and posing like Victoria’s Secret angels-in-training. If we’ve learned anything from Lindsay Lohan and her hard-partying mother, it’s that the Lolita-posing apple doesn’t fall far from the bosom-flaunting tree.

So, what’s next? Nine-year-olds performing stripper routines? Oh, wait. It’s been done already. I saw that very nightmare last fall on the cable TV reality show “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”—featuring the grade-school-age daughters of Olympic star Bruce Jenner strapping on stilettos and twirling around a stripper pole in their parents’ bedroom as friends and family cheered them on. Future House of Dereon clients, no doubt.
- Michelle Malkin

Unfortunately, this ad and this clothing line for girls doesn't shock ME in the least. Remember what I wrote just a few short months ago about thongs and padded bras being sold at Target to seven-year-olds?
The Bratz empire is based around four dolls, but has grown into much more, with a TV series, games, and a movie. The dolls have abnormally large heads with big eyes, a tiny, upturned nose, and full lips (basically, every celebrity's plastic surgery dream), are usually dressed like hookers, with chokers, "Bad Girl" t-shirts, halter tops, feather boas, thigh-high fishnet stockings, and lace-up, high-heeled boots or stilettos. The Bratz dolls are centered around a love for all things superficial -- gossip, shopping, clothes, fashion, make-up... it's all about making sure your appearance is perfect, because that's the most important thing. Dressing up like your favorite Bratz doll is now a popular Halloween costume. At least Barbie could be a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher... Bratz dolls seem like the Lindsays, Nicoles, and Paris' of the world -- kept girls who do nothing and aspire to nothing, except to be able to party and shop to their heart's content.


We live in a capitalist, free market society. Parents complain constantly about the over-sexualization everywhere, but who is it that is contributing to it? An eight-year-old girl does not usually have the money to buy herself a Bratz doll, thong underwear, and shirts screaming the words "LUSCIOUS" accompanied by two cherries across the chest. Parents are the ones buying these items for their daughters. Parents are the ones letting their daughters get swallowed whole by this culture. All of this is driven by profit. If no one bought these things, then companies would stop making them because it wasn't profitable. But millions of parents nationwide are buying these products for their daughters, so companies across the market keep churning them out. It's a gold mine. If it wasn't, then they'd invest in something else.

I never could understand why parents seem so blase about letting their daughters wear shirts that say "Flirt", "Porn Star", or one I saw that proclaimed, "So Many Boys, So Little Time", why they let them buy bras when they haven't even started developing yet, why they let them become sexualized so young. I just don't get it. Maybe it was the way I was raised. I wasn't allowed to wear a two-piece bikini as a kid, much less thong underwear and bras. Even as a senior in high school, if I wore an outfit too risque, my mom would make me throw it out, even if I bought it. I couldn't wear high heels or knee-high boots, let alone hooker heels and fishnets.


Parents should stop being their daughters' friends, and start being their parents.

Maybe, just maybe, if parents tried being parents, we wouldn't have to worry about the oversexualization of our daughters quite so much.

Those same words are relevant to this.

I'm not going to sit here and point a finger at Beyonce for putting her name on these ridiculous clothes. That's her bad taste. That's her slutty style. I mean, come on -- is anyone surprised that a girl who dresses like this would come out with skanky clothes for little girls?

I mean, seriously -- celebrities are the most shallow, superficial, image-obsessed (and usually slutty) people on the planet. Of course the clothes they come out with will reflect that.

But who is forcing mothers to buy these clothes for their daughters? Is anything about this clothing line much different than the clothes already being marketed to young girls and tweens? Um, not really. Girls are already being sexualized at an alarming rate, and their loving parents are just sitting back and letting it happen. But it's the designers we're howling at.

Someone explain that to me, because I'm not getting it.

It's just this simple: don't buy the product. If mothers weren't buying into this brand of prosti-tot chic for their daughters, it's likely that we'd stop seeing these kinds of things. Why? Because businesses exist to make money, and if no one was buying this crap, they'd be losing profits. What a concept! If no one bought anything from Beyonce's clothing line, then the entire thing would be considered a tasteless, tacky joke and eventually, the line would stop being manufactured. But we all know that won't happen.

Because no, mothers and fathers couldn't possibly be expected to say that evil word NO to their children, so we'll undoubtedly see plenty of little girls walking around wearing this kind of crap.

It's sad that little girls aren't allowed to be little girls anymore. I mean, jeez, I would SO have been the odd kid out if I was growing up today. Check out my sexy style as a kid:

Tucked-in t-shirt. Knee-length shorts. Tennis shoes. Maybe the outfit's a little dorky (OK, a lot dorky), but I'd take that over an eight-year-old slut any day. I mean, jeez, parents. What's the damn rush? Trust me, your daughter will be more than eager to skank it up and sleep around once she gets in high school, if you're so anxious to encourage that kind of behavior.

So, we're all shocked and apalled by these clothes, as we should be. Before we get all huffed up with breathless indignation, there's something we need to remember. The people we should be questioning, the people who deserve our disgust, are the parents who buy this crap for their daughters. Shame on you.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Barack Obama, fairy tale king!

How do you know the left has gone too far with with their idolatry of the Obamamessiah?

When this picture accompanies an endorsement of him for President.

Rising from the sea like a mythical merman, with his loyal white steed behind him, the Left presents Barack Obama, fairy tale king!!

Christ Almighty. Do lefties really not see how ridiculous they have become with the Obama-mania? Seriously.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Congratulations to a great blogger!

Jay at Stop the ACLU is now a proud daddy!!
The founder and driving force behind this site, Jay, is a brand spanking new daddy. He called me to say he had a little girl, 8 pounds and some odd ounces and in my excitement for him I completely forgot to ask the name of the newest lil conservative babe on the block.

So pass along your congrats in the comments section.

What a great day.

That's such exciting, wonderful news!!! Jay later updated that her name is Reagan Dailene, a beautiful name. Congratulations, Jay.

Stop by Stop the ACLU and leave Jay your congrats!

Gess there getting stuc n Irak.

Our kids are failing. Shocker.
... 75 percent of the seniors headed to Dallas community colleges can't read above an 8th grade level, and others can't add or subtract[.]

And for the Captain Obvious quote of the day:
“This percentage is much too high," said Dr. Joan Rodriguez, who teaches developmental reading at El Centro.

Ya think??

And Rachel Lucas points out a grammatical error... which has since magically been fixed in the article!
What is funny is that clearly, the reporter who wrote the article can relate to the subject matter. For example, here’s a paragraph in its entirety:
Showing over the last three years, an average of 75 percent of the DISD students enrolled in classes took at least one developmental education course.

And how about this:
…principals are given a $10,000 bonus based upon how they’re students do on TAKS scores.

Nice work there, reporter person. Maybe you could sit in on one of those remedial writing classes?

The "they're" has now been corrected to "their". Way to go, buddy.

I remember sitting in my English classes in college, listening to the professor tell me the difference between "there", "their", and "they're". I would sit there, bored, as he taught us when to use a comma or a colon. And as he would explain grammatical concepts I learned around fourth grade, I would try to figure out if it was possible to commit suicide via notebook paper. It was clearly the less painful route.

I guess they're all doomed to Irak now. Right, Jawn Carry??

Democrats are just SO above race.

They are so noble, so much better than Republicans, that they don't need to stoop to dirty tricks like race-baiting or smears.


Um... I guess not. Michelle Malkin has an ad the DCCC ran smearing a Republican, Greg Davis, in the Mississippi congressional race, linking him to the founder of the KKK. Check out the ad:


Only problem? The, uh, DCCC got their facts wrong.
[T]he DCCC says "Greg Davis wanted to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in Southaven" and also said the statue was of "the first Grand Wizard." But in reality, the statue was of Jefferson Davis who was not the founder and never in the KKK. In fact, another place that has a statue of Jefferson Davis is the United States Capitol Building. Jefferson Davis is one of the two statues representing Mississippi, along with James Z. George. Furthermore, Senator Thad Cochran uses the desk of Jefferson Davis in the Capitol, one of two "heritage desks" (the other goes to Massachusetts Senior Senator and belonged to Daniel Webster).

ROM further notes that the "founder of the KKK statue" (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was wanted by the Mayor of Horn Lake.

So the DCCC has attacked the wrong mayor for the wrong statue.

Who cares though? There's a margin of error for this congressional seat to eliminate. Besides, liberals can stoop as low as they want.

I always love when Democrats pull out the KKK card, anyways... considering Robert Byrd's illustrious history with the Klan and all. How do they really have any room to talk? They don't seem to mind his direct involvement with the Klan, but they'd lie about Greg Davis, linking him to the KKK, just to win an election?

And they claim that they're the ones fighting for minorities. Go figure.

In presidential election news, Hillary is expected to win has won West Virginia. Moonbattery points out how democrats, of course, are throwing a hissy fit. Because if you don't vote for the Obamamessiah, you're a racist, and don't you forget it.

The whole piece whines about how white voters are racist for leaning towards Clinton, and how the Obamamessiah is the bigger man for not getting involved in such petty identity politics. Like, um, the kind that this writer is engaging in.
So, tonight the polls will close and Mrs. Clinton will have easily collected 99 percent of the white vote in West Virginia. She will crow about her electability in a smug but meaningless victory speech on a stage featuring dozens of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" standing behind her waving flags.

Bill and Chelsea will grimace through it all, knowing that the jig is up and that the dream of the next phase of the Clinton dynasty has come to an ignoble end.

While no Confederate battle flags will be visible, they will feel it in the air. Mrs. Clinton's greatest victory will be a triumph of the kind of identity politics that makes a nation smaller.

Still, she will resist the urge to dip Skoal and spit juice into a coffee can on live television.

There will be plenty of time for that kind of nonsense when she campaigns in Kentucky. There, everyone expects her to continue her total dominance of the rural white working-class vote while perfecting the accent she used to sport back in Little Rock.

Funny how this guy can whine about the Clintons' identity politics in an article like this, that is so completely focused on race and nothing else. And of course, the fact that the majority of black voters support Obama isn't racist, because voting for him means you're above race. Or something hypocritical like that.

And anyways, why does someone's race matter? It's the color of their skin. It doesn't affect their brain or how they think. It doesn't affect their policies or politics. And those are the things that concern me when it comes to who will be running this country.

So the whiny race-baiters out there can rest assured that most Americans who don't vote for Obama aren't voting for him because they're racist... they aren't voting for him because they can't stand his politics.

I guess the Dems just can't grasp the concept of white Americans who aren't racist.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Gun Range

Yesterday, I got to spend some time at a local gun range here in Jacksonville... and I remembered to take pictures for you. See how much I love you guys? ;)

A Sig Sauer P226 .40 cal

A Sig Sauer P220 Elite .45 ACP with a Surefire X200 Mounted Weapon Light.

My target.

Shotgun pictures soon to come...

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Obama likes union corruption.

Is anyone surprised? From the Wall Street Journal:
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.

Well, he likes to associate with terrorists and racists, so why not corrupt teamsters and mobsters, too?

Besides, he's a politician. Who cares about what's good for the people when he could screw them over to get a few extra votes?

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

Arianna Huffington: Iraq is McCain's viagra


Here's the Head Huffpo herself being a REAL class act on the Colbert Report:

I don't know where she gets that McCain is some ulta-right wing conservative now all of a sudden, because honey, he's not. It's interesting, though, that Arianna Huffington, of all people, would criticize someone for switching sides. Isn't she, like, the queen of that?

And apparently, McCain is no longer an American hero, simply because he's adopted a few more conservative values in her book.

Attention soldiers, veterans, and former POWs: you're only considered an American hero if your politics are strictly aligned with the left. Otherwise, your heroic service means nil.

What a freakin' fruitcake.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Obama knows the United States, all 60 of them.

Check out this video, where Barack Obama brilliantly showcases his knowledge of American geography:

Let's see... he has been to fifty-seven states, not including Hawaii and Alaska, and he still has one left to go.

So according to Obama, there are sixty states that comprise the United States of America.

Question: shouldn't the President of the United States know basic facts about the country he's running? OK, so maybe he was "tired". He "misspoke". Who gives a crap? Everyone knows how many states there are, and they know that at approximately five years old. For him to get something so simple, so basic, so elementary wrong is mind-boggling.

Instapundit reader Jeff Cauthen suggests:
Somebody should ask him to name all 114 US Senators.

Now let's just imagine the media reaction if McCain had said this.

Hat Tip: Gina Cobb

Friday, May 9, 2008

Do me a favor...

... and drop by Conservative Grapevine today if you haven't already. Add it to your favorites or your blogroll.

As most of you know, John Hawkins is a good friend of mine. He links me constantly on CG; I'm trying to return the favor. Conservative Grapevine is a great site, and I check it every day to find new and different news stories for the day.

So make sure to swing on by. It's a great site.

And, you know, not just because I'm linked on there all the time. Really. ;)

Thursday, May 8, 2008

DNC Superdelegate is selling his vote for $20mil

Not for profit, of course. Oh no. He's selling his vote for charity... or something...
[O]ne superdelegate is courting the candidates. He says he'll sell his vote for a price. A very high price: $20 million.

Steven Ybarra of Sacramento says that eight-figure price is peanuts for the presidency.

When asked whether it was right to offer what is clearly a quid pro quo, he responded, "yeah, absolutely. People do it all the time," answered Ybarra.

But not like this. Not in public and not for such big bucks. It begs the question: Is he crazy?

"Nobody's said I'm crazy," said Ybarra.

Ybarra wants every cent of the $20 million to go towards registering and educating eligible Mexican-American voters, who he calls the key to the White House.

"And I keep asking the question of the DNC: 'why won't you earmark money for these voters?' And their answer is, 'oh, we can't do that' Which is a lie," said Ybarra.

With the Democratic National Committee saying 'no,' Ybarra waits for a 'yes' from already cash-strapped Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Would he accept less? How about $5 million?

"No, $5 million is nothing," said Ybarra.

It might be a moot point as neither campaign has come calling.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Does it surprise anyone? I mean, really now.

And only a DNC Superdelegate would be concerned with making sure only minority Americans get educated and registered to vote. White male voters need not apply!

Of course, who's to say this guy won't just pocket the cash? In either case, this is pretty damn ridiculous. What's really sad is how very little this story surprises me. Only the DNC would make a wackjob like this guy a superdelegate.

Asking the questions the media won't ask

Everyone knows that no one is supposed to ask Barack Obama any tough questions. We're supposed to be pacified by his empty rhetoric message of "hope" and "change", and not look any deeper. Because, you know, if we do, we find a whole lot of things to be uneasy about, and he is the Obamamessiah and all.

Unfortunately, the RNC didn't get that memo.

Just, you know, don't expect to get any answers. That'd be asking too much.

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

Why don't you lose some weight, fatty?

So I was told by a couple of liberal tolls, indignant over my re-posting of Mary Katharine Ham's debunking of the media manipulation of Obama's newest rally.

Hmm... well, what my weight has to do with media manipulation of the attendance at Obama's rally in North Carolina is beyond me. But that's how liberalism works, right? You have no facts and no valid argument to make, so just make childish personal attacks and smears!

Here are the comments, straight from the trolls themselves:
Wow, talk about a bitter far-right blogger.


Get over it, fatty.

God, you're a whale. ROFL. Hate to break it to you, hunny, but liberals don't WANT to date you. You look like a red-faced, freckled elephant, and that isn't particularly attractive.

I guess us crazy liberals put more emphasis on excercise than conservatives. LOL.

Dude, she's fat. LOL. And she goes and gives this pathetically condescending interview about how she doesn't date liberal men, as if liberal men really care? It's kind of like a black guy telling the KKK "nah, you're not good enough for me to be a member". They're not exactly inviting him in.

Cassy, you're fat, seriously. Until you lose weight, I think it's safe to say that you don't have much room to talk about "liberal idiots" if you're not intelligent enough to stay healthy.

Rofl, do you actually read this blog? This girl is a walking cliche. A fat, white angry Republican ...

Fat? A whale? Come on guys, couldn't you come up with anything better than that? I mean, really. That's like, the most boring, unoriginal insult in the book. Try a little harder next time. Please.

The funny thing is... I'm not fat. Unless, of course, something like this is your standard for "healthy" and "attractive":

Um, yeah. Compared to that, I guess I am a whale. Heaven forbid I eat three meals a day, get moderate exercize, and wear a size 8. And I can't help the fact that God gave me really, really big breasts. They started growing when I hit puberty and kind of never stopped -- and they don't get smaller, no matter how much I work out (believe me, I've tried). So, it's a little bit beyond my control.

But hey, let's compare fat l'il me to the "healthy" model above. Here's the most recent picture of me I have, taken this Sunday at a minor league baseball game.

Now, which one of those two pictures do you think depicts a healthy woman? I would venture a guess that it's me. The funny thing is that I used to be much, much more athletic than I am now. At my peak as a rower, I was in better shape than some football players were. My crew team had practices six days a week, three hours a day. We rowed, we ran, we did calisthenics, we lifted weights -- and, may I point out, the exact same weight circuit the guys were expected to do. Every girl on that crew, me included, had six packs, strong shoulders and backs, and rock-solid legs. And honestly, while being in such good physical shape was nice, I prefer my body now. I like being curvy. I like having a softer, more feminine body. I didn't think it was particularly appealing to have a body that was hard with all sharp edges. I like having a curvy figure that yes, is maybe less athletic than it used to be, but is much more feminine -- and not really unhealthy at all. So I'm not a size two. So a few stupid libtards think I'm a whale. Who gives a shit? They're probably pimply-faced, overweight nerds hacking away at a computer insulting bloggers because they have nothing better to do in their sad, miserable lives.

I really considered not writing this post. But I figured, what the hell. The thing is, there are plenty of these little asshole men running around criticizing women left and right over their weight. Celebrities get called fat for even the smallest amount of cellulite or the slightest weight gain -- usually by men. Men's magazines regularly prominently feature very skinny women in very skimpy clothing, usually complete with protruding rib cages and fake breasts. Women's magazines seem to use the same models. Magazines like Cosmo and Glamour constantly decry the media's use of too-thin models, but continually feature them in their fashion spreads and stories.

Yet somehow, men never get quite as criticized for their weight. Overweight or obese celebrities are never told by celebrity gossip pundits how fat they are or how disgusting they find them. That kind of vitriol seems to be reserved for women only -- why is that??

The worrisome part is that this kind of extreme criticism of women for their weight, and the high standards being put forth in our society, is having a very unhealthy effect on women today. Anorexia is on the rise for women of varying ages -- and women are 3 times more likely to get the disease than men are. In the year 2000, the number of women with eating disorders had doubled in less than three decades. Women struggle with negative body image every day -- barbs like the ones thrown at me usually leave deep wounds -- and what is it that these assholes think they are accomplishing? Does it make them feel big to put women down, to try to make them ashamed of their bodies? Why do so many [liberal] men seem to feel the need to make such personal attacks on women, and especially attacks concerning appearance? Michelle Malkin could probably write a damn dissertation on this subject.

Of course, as I said earlier, this is common practice. Whenever a libtard like these two can't come up with an intelligent response, they resort to personal attacks because they know they have nothing to add.

Also, why is the entertainment industry promoting such an unhealthy ideal? It's bad enough that there are people who look at Kate Moss and think "normal" and look at me and think "fat", but are they completely unconcerned about the effect this has on their audience? Does it not matter to them that they are forcing such an unhealthy lifestyle down people's throats?

There's nothing wrong with women having a little meat on their bones, and they shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of it by a cutthroat entertainment industry, insecure, immature, asshole libtard bloggers, or anyone else. What puts these two in a position to criticize mine or anyone else's weight, or their perception thereof? These are small, unintelligent people indeed. It's one thing to disagree with me, and express a different opinion like an adult. But attacking me and/or my personal appearance is arguing like a five-year-old.

But that really sums up how liberalism works, doesn't it?

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

A Tale of Two Rallies

Obama held a rally to celebrate his victory at Reynolds Coliseum in North Carolina. According to the media, it was a packed house. Here's how it ran on television:

Mary Katharine Ham, though, attended the rally and paints a rather different picture.
Those tables in between my position and the rally you saw on TV are about a quarter full of milling, bored, tired reporters. The rally took up maybe a quarter of the floor space in the arena. Part of running a decent campaign is knowing how big a crowd you might have and planning accordingly so as not to embarrass yourselves with a woefully understuffed venue.

I realize it's standard practice to rope off an area of a venue for crowd-wrangling and appearances, but this is a little drastic. McCain's event at the Wait Chapel at Wake Forest today was nicely filled if not overflowing, but I imagine if he had held it at Groves Stadium and filled only the endzone seats, someone in the media might have said something about it. Obama doesn't have such worries, I guess.

Here's her picture of Obama's rally:

But why report the truth? Far better to distort the facts to make their precious Snobamamessiah look good.

Hollywood insults Christianity... again.

Here's a new picture, supposedly taken by David LaChapelle. It's rapper L'il Kim, who recently got out of jail, photographed as the Virgin Mary, complete with a baby in her lap. She's sitting in a room complete with naked men, cocaine, and heroin. I'm not entirely sure what message this photo is supposed to send, but it's disturbing to say the least.

UW-SC students show tolerance for opposing views on abortion.

See for yourself just how "tolerant" they are when pro-life group Pointers for Life put up a display of 4,000 crosses symbolizing murdered fetuses on campus at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Here's the story:
Students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point butted heads Thursday after an anti-abortion organization planted 4,000 white crosses on campus to symbolize aborted fetuses and a student responded by pulling hundreds of them out of the ground.

The display, sponsored by Pointers for Life and planted on Isadore Street outside the Health Enhancement Center, is called "Cemetery of the Innocents" and features crosses and anti-abortion and religious signs, one of which reads "Seek Jesus."

The group has come to expect minor vandalism each time it displays the exhibit, but students were shocked when Roderick King pulled up many of the crosses in protest.

"It's just so disrespectful, and it's disappointing that this comes from UWSP students. I've always thought of this campus as a tolerant place. ... Someone made these (crosses) with their own hands," said Pointers for Life member Tracey Oudenhoven.

King eventually left the site of the display after speaking with Protective Services officials, but he later returned to protest. King said his anger was not just politically charged, but also related to the anonymity of the exhibit.

"If you're not ashamed of this, then you should claim it and sign it," King said. "My student dollars are going to support this, this travesty."

Pointers for Life reserved the space but didn't indicate its sponsorship of the exhibit. At King's request, students eventually posted a sign reading, "Sponsored by Pointers for Life."

Students put up the exhibit early Wednesday. By Thursday morning, some signs had been slashed and a few crosses had been broken. King said he didn't participate in those acts.

Why bother letting someone with a different opinion than you speak out or protest?

Let's just imagine it was the other way around, and a pro-abortion group had put up a display showing their support. Some members of a pro-life student group came along and started tearing it down because they didn't agree with it. What do you think the reaction would be?

Let me guess: it would be OPPRESSION! Right Wing intimidation tactics! Christian extremists trying to silence opposing voices!

One student gets it:
Passing students paused to watch King debate the moral implications of abortion with Pointers for Life members, and even some who supported abortion rights said they supported the group's right to protest.

"You don't have to agree with this. I don't agree with this, but they have just as much right to be here as the Pro-Choice Alliance," said student Colleen Kiefer.

Only some who supported "abortion rights" thought it was OK for the pro-life group to protest? Wow, how very tolerant of them. It must be the liberal streak in them.

Michelle Malkin shows us past vandalism from pro-abortion groups on college campuses.

Who cares about free speech when an angry lefty college student disagrees with you? Free speech only counts when it fits into the liberal -- and in this case, pro-abortion -- agenda. Too bad these students never got the message.

Well thank you, Captain Obvious.

Which brilliant person can see into the future well enough to make this stunning observation?
We're approaching the second decade of (the) digital age. The Internet has been operating now for 10 years. The second 10 years will be very different.

It's none other than Bill Gates, with today's Thank You, Captain Obvious! quote for the day.

What's he going to tell us next? That the sun rises in the East?

Hat Tip: Wizbang

Monday, May 5, 2008

Light blogging

Hello everyone!

Just wanted to let you know that blogging will be light today and tomorrow. I've just started a new job and am adjusting to the schedule... but I should be up and running again by tomorrow night.

Have a great Monday!

Friday, May 2, 2008

Peace thugs attack Iraq war veteran and his family -- video now released

Last month, I wrote about a group of unhinged peace thugs who attacked an Iraq war veteran, his wife, and his fourteen-year-old son, the Swartout family. The video of the attack is now released.

Brace yourself. It's not easy viewing. The attack happens near the end, and you'll see four of the peace thugs jump onto Carrie Swartout, hitting and kicking her. She ultimately suffered a concussion from a kick to the head. You'll see the peace thugs are the ones who pushed the conflict, who escalated the tension, who resorted to physical violence. It's disturbing.

The leader of the unhinged peace thugs seems to be the girl in the white dress and boots -- keep an eye on her.

More video at Erietube.

How is it that no arrests were made? This video makes it pretty clear that an assault had taken place.

This family did nothing to provoke this kind of attack. As they pointed out to the irate peace thugs over and over again, both groups were in a public place. The only unhinged and out-of-control people there were the peace thugs.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

History of the SUPER-DELEGATES!!


And you thought Republicans steal elections. Snort.

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

Women: are you worthy of a real man?

My post yesterday about how men need to man up ruffled a lot of feathers -- as I knew it would. But it wasn't the whiny liberals complaining this time around. Here, at Wizbang, and on Melissa's blog, the same theme was repeated over and over again: what are women doing to deserve real men?

And you know, it's a good question. Right now, for most women, the answer would be NOTHING.

As much as men may be missing out on what it means to be a real man, women have this problem a hundredfold worse. The state of women today is alarming, and a significant portion of the blame can be laid at the feet of modern feminism. Many women are walking stereotypes and hypocrites. They want a real man, a strong man, to take care of them -- but if he does, he's holding her down. They want to be strong, successful, and as respected in the boardroom as the male CEOs are -- yet they want special treatment to get there. They want to be lauded for their ability to birth children and for their mothering instincts -- but they don't want to be tied down at home, doing "all the work". They want their husband or boyfriend to respect them and make them feel appreciated -- but do nothing to make him feel loved, respected, and appreciated. They talk about being "empowered" -- yet still cry that women are victims.

They're walking, talking contradictions.

Here are some of the comments I got, and Melissa got, on this subject that resonated with me.

Manliness is really the willingness to sacrifice self for the benefit of others, particularly a man's children, wife, family, neighbors and country.

Most young men are willing to die for the respect, admiration and love of a worthy and chaste woman. The problem is that interaction with most women today leads them quickly to the conclusion that few women are worth dying for.

Some will question the need for chastity as a requirement. However, from the male perspective, sex is the greatest compliment that a woman can pay to a man. A woman who sleeps around devalues the compliment.

I am lucky that I found such a woman. As a result, my goals in life in order of priority are fairly simple: (1) provide for my children until they graduate from college, (2) provide for my wife for the rest of her life, (3)provide for myself for the rest of my life, (4) serve my community, and (5) spend as much time with her as I can enjoying life.


Doctor Melissa, what exactly do you bring to the table as consideration for the man acting according to your precise specifications (and also apparently earning all the money)?

Your vagina?

What if the man doesn't think you're worth it, does he still have to act within your precisely defined parameters?

What a spoiled, entitled brat.


Re DuToit's rant, I wonder if there's a corresponding rant by a woman criticizing the lack of real women nowadays? Cos as much as guys *do* need to 'man up,' I see plenty of women who need to grow up as well. (Present company excluded, of course.)


Gosh, little women really think SHAMING men still works? That stopped a while ago. Scream "Man-Up" from your OWN apartment. Men have seen women in action. Whiners, complainers, misandric and endlessly focused on themselves only. Women threw men away. They're just upset that men realized how much happier they were keeping their pitiful, abusives asses to themselves. Womens Groups lobbied for laws which destroyed the Nuclear Family/Marriage. I'm happy to let women sleep in the bed they made. I'm not lifting a damn finger. Women got us in this mess. When it gets bad enough they'll fight the feminist/the source of their problems. Then MEN will show up, Not before. I'm not fighting battles for women who never cared before. Its the chivalrous nature of men which allowed this to get this far. NO LONGER OUR PROBLEM! Women have built up a lot of contempt in men and they dont know how to put the ink back in the bottle. Oh well!

So SHAME AWAY. We no longer care. Your fault! You fix the problem!!! Men are now HAPPY. We adjust. Wwwhhhiinnnne away!

DJ Drummond:
The real men never left. The women stopped noticing us.


What? The bed's been made and now you don't want to sleep in it? Please try to understand. If guys need to "man up", how is that going to happen, because a woman tells them to? T'aint likely. Y'all wanted abortion on demand(kill the children) the pill (sex means nothing) any job a man does (just tweak the standards a little, okay?) sevice acadamies (uh, coporal Sledge raped me) and pretty much anything and everything else. Ok, you got it. Now you want us to act more like men used to, even if it's a whole new ball game. It ain't that men don't want to BE men anymore, it's just that it doesn't MEAN anything anymore, and we just quit giving a shit. And maybe, just maybe, if women didn't behave and look like whores, drink like a Templar, and talk like a sailor, there might be a point to having respect for them. But this is what women wanted, to be more like men, so welcome to club, and when you dilute the standards and race for the bottom, don't be shocked when you wake up in the gutter. I never stopped being a man, and I never needed some woman to tell me how to do it.You got questions? You don't know what happened? You want things to change for the better? Go look in the mirror. I got things to do, I'm a busy man.

I have to say, I wouldn't have looked at the issue this way were it not for comments like these. But every single one of them is exactly right.

While men are more and more emasculated in our society, there's no argument against the fact that it is because of women. Women insisted that men change. Women insisted that they show their emotions more and be less stoic; they insisted that men let themselves be more vulnerable. They try to train boys from infancy to be more feminine so that women can be more masculine.

And now what do we have? "Strong" women with an entitlement attitude and a victim mentality, while men meekly let themselves be walked all over, disrespected, and parodied left and right? Is this how anyone wants it to be?

While men have become emasculated sissy boys, women have become selfish, whiny bitches.

I think anonymous' comment summed it up the best, particularly this part:
Most young men are willing to die for the respect, admiration and love of a worthy and chaste woman. The problem is that interaction with most women today leads them quickly to the conclusion that few women are worth dying for.

So what makes a women worthy of a real man? What does she need to do? I think a large part of the problem deals with the fact that too many women have zero respect and/or appreciation for the men in their lives and the sacrifices that they (the man) are making for them (the woman). How many TV shows today show a smart, strong father figure with a smart, strong wife? When I think of an ideal relationship, that's what I envision. I don't think a real man would ever want some meek, beta female to do everything he wanted. I think he would want a real woman, someone who was his equal, who he could not only love and cherish, but respect and admire.

Anyways, the point was that you can often look to television and pop culture to see what the prevailing attitude of the day is. And too often you see a stupid, lazy husband who's probably not very good-looking and overweight, with a beautiful, brilliant wife who is clearly above him and doesn't appreciate him in the least. He does a lot of smiling meekly and saying, "Yes, dear", while she castigates him in front of her girlfriends.

Why should this guy bother being a better man for her, when she so obviously has no respect for him.

Women today were raised being told that they could have everything. You can have the high-powered career with a six-figure salary, a great husband, two adorable kids, and the house with the white picket fence. No one ever told them that this bears zero resemblance to reality. Therefore, too many women are never satisfied. Nothing their man does is ever good enough; they're never happy in their job; they're always disappointed. They couldn't open their eyes and appreciate what's in front of them if their lives depended on it. Well, that's bad (duh). You couple that with a lack of willingness to make sacrifices (because these kinds of women expect everything handed to them on a silver platter), and you have big trouble.

They expect their man to waste his entire life sacrificing to make her happy, yet she is unwilling to even lift a finger to help, or even acknowledge the sacrifice he's making -- for her. Because in her mind, she deserves all these things anyways, so it's automatically expected. It's not her man going above and beyond to prove his love for her, to provide for her -- it's him doing what's expected of him. The entitlement attitude rears its ugly head, and leaves her disappointed and him bitter.

And then you have to add in the masculinization of women. Feminism seems to view equality as "being exactly like a man". It doesn't allow for the fact that men and women are, indeed, different. So in order for women to be equal, they have to act just like men do -- drink like men, sleep around like men, cuss like men, etc. And while I'm sure it's momentarily thrilling, I somehow doubt that any man wants the drunk chick he saw making out with another girl at a party in the middle of a circle of cheering guys as the mother of his children, as someone he can respect. How is a man supposed to respect a woman who he knows has slept with a hundred different men without blinking an eye? With the advent of abortion on demand, birth control, and feminists cheering slutty behavior on, women have been "liberated" to... sleep around? And this strengthens and empowers women... how?

So what do we have? We have women who expect the world to be given to them, and when it isn't, demand special treatment and affirmative action to get it. They want a man who will do everything she asks of him and more, without ever showing appreciation or gratitude for him. They want to act like men, but be treated like women. They want everything, but are unwilling to do what it takes to get it.

They spent twenty years emasculating men, and eventually realized that it isn't what they want at all. And when they figured out that they wanted real men, many of them had disappeared or weren't interested.

Women need to take a step back -- a big step -- and do a lot of introspection. While yes, this is America, you can't have everything. You can accomplish anything you want, but it always comes with a price. And if women want a real man, then they're going to have to find it in themselves to be able to respect him, to appreciate all he does, and to work as hard as he does at their life, whether inside or outside of the home. I think most men are willing to do just about anything for their wives, if they knew that she was grateful and appreciative. Is it too much to ask to take our egos down a few pegs?

If women want real men to re-emerge, then they need to make themselves worthy of them.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Hillary vs. the Coffee Machine

Try not to giggle and/or snort mockingly as you watch this video. A five-year-old could figure out how to work those coffee machines. You... hit a button. WOW.

Hat Tip: E.M. Zanotti

Paging men everywhere: it's time to MAN UP.

Melissa Clouthier brings us a post today about how men need to butch up. Here's an excerpt:
Do you guys think that by women entering the workforce, that women have had the same effect on the man's role as say welfare has?

I mean, a generation ago, a man wouldn't look down on his woman for not working outside the home. Taking care of the house; cooking, cleaning, caring for the children and basically being the center of the home was what a woman did. It was enough. No one would consider her to be slacking. In this generation, women suffer a vague, and sometimes, explicit, unease about doing that job. She is viewed as not pulling her weight because she's just a housewife.

And it's not just women judging women. Men, too, want their women to work to take the pressure off. A man is simply not interested in carrying all the financial weight and why should he have to? Women are equal now. Equal means doing the same thing--working and living like a man. Feminism means, and it's men that I've seen to be the biggest feminists, being a good man and bring home the bacon, frying it up in a pan and doing it again and again.

But it seems like an unintended consequence has been resentment. Women have excelled in the workplace. They can take care of themselves. They do leave their babies to work. Meanwhile, some men (not all, of course) have gone the other way. They no longer work as hard because they just don't have to. On the one hand, they don't have the financial pressure of their father's generation, but they also don't have the self-respect, work-ethic and noble purpose of their father's generation either.

It seems to me that a man needs to be needed and when that feedback loop is cut either by the government, or even by a working woman, he can (not always) lose his drive and desire to work and succeed.

I've written before about how men need to freakin' MAN UP. My most notable post on this issue was my The Shortage of Real Men post.

It can't be said enough -- if there are any real men left out there, they need to come out of hiding. It's frustrating as hell, even as a woman, to see men becoming more and more pussified each year (yeah, I'm stealing Kim's phrase).

The run-down housewife and over-worked husband myth needs to cease. If a woman wants to work outside the home, then that's great. A real man would encourage her to, if that's what she chose to do. But a real man would also accept her role as housewife if that was what she wanted -- even if it meant taking on extra financial responsibility. A man's job is to provide for and protect his family, and no, it isn't because a woman is incapable of doing so. It's because that is his primary responsibility. It's one of the reasons real men like guns -- because they understand that having a gun is a crucial part of the "protect your family at any cost" mantra encoded into real-man DNA.

As I've said before, I think you see an overwhelming number of real men flocking to military or law enforcement lifestyles. And there's a reason -- the values I listed above are instrinsic to being a real man, and also to succeeding in the military. And, as I've said before, this is a large part of why so many women pine over having a military man for their own. There's a reason women swoon over An Officer and a Gentleman. Being in the military (or law enforcement) means you're signing up for so much more than just a job -- it's a lifestyle, a mindset.

Women, although feminists like to deny it, want and need men who can be a real man. This means they want and need a living, breathing embodiment of values like honor, courage, and integrity. They want someone who will be strong even in the toughest of situations. They need someone they can feel safe and protected with. And you know what? They aren't going to find those things in an emasculated, feminized, sissy-boy who still clings to his mommy's apron and whines about carrying his family's financial burden.

If you're that kind of man, there are only two words you need to hear: MAN UP. Don't whine that you have to pay for every date you take your wife or girlfriend on. Don't bitch that your hair got messed up or your clothes got dirty from doing some manly activity -- or worse, refuse to get involved for those reasons. If your shower and bathroom cabinet is lined and stocked with more haircare and body treatment products than your girlfriend or wife owns, reevaluate your male-ness. Real men have more important things to worry about.

Unfortunately, it seems too many men are willing to let feminists emasculate them. Too many men aren't willing to stand up for themselves, lest they be attacked by the PC Police. Real men have thick skin, and are more worried about doing what's right than what is popular, so who gives a crap what feminists like Amanda Marcotte & Co. have to say? I think all men know, deep down, what their priorities should be, and the values that they need to hold dear. But everything that real men stand for has been under attack for 20+ years, and men have seemingly given up.

Well, I think there's been enough of that. MAN UP, guys. Grow a pair and be willing to express unpopular opinions because you know that they're right. Be strong enough to shoulder extra burden so that your children can get the best possible upbringing they can. Be willing to put your own fears aside if the situation arises where you would need to protect your family no matter what. Don't be afraid to be strong, to be aggressive, to have drive, honor, love of country, courage, and integrity.

This shortage of real men is problematic on multiple levels. It's bad for our sons and it's bad for our country -- and it's bad for our men. And guys, how long are going to sit there and take it?

When are American men finally going to man up?

Here comes... Abortionman!


This is just disgusting. Seriously... there is no humor in abortion. None whatsoever. For or against abortion, no one should sit there and pretend that getting an abortion is no big deal or something to laugh about. It's not like getting a Pap smear or something similarly innocuous. Abortion is a horrible thing to happen to someone, and it shouldn't be celebrated.

What's especially awful is that the woman in the video is -- gasp!! -- happy about having her baby. The boyfriend is the one who forces the abortion onto her.

Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? How many women find themselves in that exact situation -- unexpectedly pregnant and actually happy about it, but her shithead boyfriend pressures and guilts her into having an abortion for his own selfish reasons? Abortion in and of itself is a selfish act anyways, but I think you often find that the woman pressured into having the abortion is a victim, as well.

Mary Katharine Ham discussed this video on the O'Reilly Factor, and thinks it may be a parody. Whatever the intent behind the video was, it wasn't funny. It was crude, it was disgusting, and inappropriate doesn't even begin to cover it.

Link: sevenload.com

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Are Republicans as equal as the Code Pinkos?

I guess we'll see. They've asked for a protest permit with the same privileges as the Code Pinkos... in Berkeley. Who's betting that their request will be denied?
The Berkeley College Republicans are looking to get the same permit privileges that anti-war group Code Pink use to protest outside the Marine recruiting center in Downtown Berkeley.

Working with Councilmember Kriss Worthington, the group is asking for sound waiver permits and a parking spot reservation outside the center on Wednesdays from 12 to 4 p.m., the same time Code Pink protests outside the center, said Kimberly Wagner, activism chair for the Berkeley College Republicans.

“(Code Pink’s) claim is that they’re protecting free speech,” she said. “I kind of don’t feel they are, they are inhibiting the recruitment center in general. It’s important that they are not unopposed, that there are people willing to fight them. Even though it’s Berkeley, the liberal center of America, there will be people (opposed).”

Worthington is working to have the item appear on an agenda in May.

My guess is that their request will be denied.

The group is also circulating to make the recruitment center a protected zone -- sure to go over well with the Berkeley libs.

While I'm glad that someone in Berkeley is standing up to the Code Pinkos (it sure as hell needed to be done), I can't help but wonder what the Marines think. I highly doubt that they ever anticipated that opening a recruitment center in Berkeley would bring on this much attention or put them in this kind of political crossfire. And I doubt that they want this much protesting going on in front of their office, even if it is to support them. It's great that the College Republicans are doing this, but I don't see how it improves the situation for the Marines -- do you?

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Video of the Day
Video of the Day: "Peaceful" protesting in Berkeley
Medea Benjamin finds that the Marines can be useful
"We've served this nation to protect the likes of ingrates like you."
Berkeley moonbats are attacking the police now, too
The Code Pink wackos strike again

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The editor of the Buffalo Beast responds

Remember Ian Murphy, the shithead who had such horrible things to say about our troops? You know, this stuff:
So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo fucking hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.

The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country.

Ian writes for a lovely rag called the Buffalo Beast. I opened my e-mail today and saw the following comment submitted for approval at Wizbang by the Beast's editor, Paul Fallon:
Just so none of you feel you got the wrong dude, the guy in the photo thatMac Lorry posted, is me but the phone number is wrong, so if you call that# you'll be harassing the wrong person. I am the publisher of The Beast. Idon't hide behind screen names like most of you pussies. The dumbmotherfuckers in this country have no conception of how close they are tobecoming the next Gestapo or Hitler youth. Then I suppose the Nazissupported the troops too. If you want to kick my ass drop me an email. Iwas in the military but I was a medic so maybe I'm not so tough. That virusshit is bogus. Watch for a counter-attack soon.

He's referring to one of Wizbang's commenters, Mac Lorry, who published contact information from the Beast's public domain.

Of course, he goes straight for the liberal talking point of how we're THISCLOSE to being herded like cattle into railcars headed straight for concentration camps, all for disagreeing with Chimpy McHitlerburton!! Apparently, if you support the troops, that makes you a Nazi!!

Gee, that's an insult conservatives have never heard. Do liberal have no imagination, no creativity? Sheesh.

Whether or not the virus part is true, the "counter-attack" threat is interesting. What, pray tell, could he have planned for us?? I'll be busy shivering in my socks and pajamas. In the meantime, someone let me know when this douche comes up with an original idea. I won't hold my breath.

Coast Guard Appreciation Day

Last Saturday, I attended the Annual Coast Guard Appreciation Day at Bing's Landing in Palm Coast, Florida. The event was hosted by the U.S. Navy League, and featured lots of great entertainment, including a performance by the Navy Southeast Ceremonial Band. There were also several displays and demonstrations, such as an interdiction of counter-narcotics, a helicopter rescue, and a Coast guard bomb-dog team demonstration. Proceeds benefitted the Northeast Florida Chapter of the Chief Petty Officer's Association.

Personnel from the following sectors were present: Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville, Coast Guard Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron Jacksonville, Coast Guard Air Station Savannah, Ga., Coast Guard Station Mayport, Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Team from Kings Bay, Ga., and Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Team Jacksonville Beach.

Ensign Michael Arnett was my escort for the day, who is stationed at Sector Jacksonville. He is part of the Vessel Boarding and Security Team, which put on one of the demonstrations.

Here are some of the pictures from the event, which was extremely well-attended. It was great to see the Coast Guard get such support and appreciation from local residents.

Me with a few Coast Guard vessels in the background.

A Thunderbird on display along with several other classic cars.

One of the demonstrations of the day -- a rescue swimmer jumps out of a HH-65 Dolphin Helicopter and in these pictures, is being hoisted back in.

Sector Jacksonville Vessel Boarding and Security Team preparing for a law enforcement boarding demonstration.

Suspects have given up due to the presence of a Coast Guard helo and boarding team en route.

A Coast Guard utility boat on display.

A pirate attending chats with a Coast Guard Petty Officer.

A construction tender and aids-to-navigation vessel on display.

This time, they're REALLY going to vote. For real this time. Seriously.

Every election, the media breathlessly proclaims that this time, the youth are really, really going to matter. They're going to show up in record numbers! They're going to make a difference! And then, Election Day rolls around in November and... nothing.

But this year, this year!, it's going to be different. This year, "the youth" actually are going to vote!
Election after election, when all the obvious story lines are exhausted, the media tend to turn to an oldie but goody: "Will this be the race where young people finally start voting?" Youth vote advocates insist that young people are more dialed in than ever this year, while political hacks who have been in the business for decades roll their eyes at the notion.

Given that, The Fix recognizes the danger in making the following statement: The youth vote will matter in 2008. A look back over the last few months shows a massive increase in youth (people ages 18 through 29) voting; the number of young people voting quadrupled in Tennessee and tripled in states such as Iowa, Missouri and Texas, according to a new study by Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

The report goes on to say that the growth in young people's participation in the electoral process is not a "one-time phenomenon" but, rather, represents a "civic reawakening of a new generation."

A civic reawakening? Were 20-year-olds "awake" to politics before and somehow "fell asleep"? Um... ok. And, you know, there's the teensy problem of this poll being conducted with MTV's help, which automatically dampens the prospect of it becoming a reality.

Look, if "young people" vote, then that's fantastic. If they don't, then oh well. They aren't going to make or break elections, no matter how much the media fawns over them. Every election season its the same old song and dance, and it ain't a different tune this time around.

Hat Tip: E.M. Zanotti