God Speaks To GoreFebruary 26th, 2008
Al Gore certainly won’t debate or discuss his insane notions of man’s effect on the planet with anyone who doubts him, so God has decided to tell Gore directly that he’s dead wrong. Coming straight from the top, as it were, should be recognized as an admonishment that we are not nearly as significant as we dream, but I’d still wager that the message will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
He’s been trying, God has, with subtle little messages like snowing on a global warming protest to gently nudge Gore, et al, to tone it down a bit. He’s been sending signals that He alone controls what happens here, not we mere children of His, but He finds Himself increasingly forced to use ever more blunt signs. He shakes His head slowly; we’re so dense. I hope He doesn’t resort to the practice some frustrated, terrible parents do of shaking more than His own head!
There are articles like this one beginning to make the rounds and, proving that He even loves the Godless commies in China, he has not left them out of His example. And, just to show that He has a Supreme sense of Humor, He has even included places like Afghanistan to deliver this message.
The message should be clear: “AL! THIS IS THE LORD! SHUT UP, ALREADY!!” My biggest fear is that Gore’s relentless goading of God will really piss the Big Guy off because, as George Carlin once mused (and I take literary liberty here), Is God so all powerful that he can create so much snow that He Himself can’t shovel it? What happens then?
We could be in for a long, cold, bleak winter. I just hope I can save enough money for one of those really cool “snow-cats” that Scatman Cruthers drove to his ultimate demise in The Shining. If Gore and his ilk don’t stop, God may show off.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
God Speaks To GoreFebruary 26th, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
People have a propensity to believe not so much what they hear, but what they see, which is understandable to a degree. When you combine a lie with visual proof which appears to validate the lie, it becomes child’s play to convince people of pretty much anything you desire them to believe.
Now add to the mix deliberate omissions of fact or distortions of the facts, and it becomes even easier.
First case in point.
UK’s “The Daily Mail” was one outlet that circulated this photo with a heart-wrenching caption:
They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe,
their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.
You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a
perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the
middle of the ocean and they are going to die…But they were not that far from
the coast, and it was possible for them to swim…They are still alive and having
Interestingly enough, the Antarctic Peninsula is only about 745 miles from the Argentine Peninsula.
New York Times ombudsman slams article on McCain
Feb 23 06:48 PM US/Eastern
The New York Times' ombudsman strongly criticized the newspaper's insinuation this week that White House hopeful John McCain had a tryst with a female lobbyist 31 years his junior, nearly 10 years ago.
"The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics -- sex -- it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance," public editor Clark Hoyte wrote in the Times' online edition.
In an article signed by four reporters that raised more backlash against the daily than the candidate, the Times Thursday cited unnamed McCain advisers who, "convinced the relationship had become romantic," had asked Iseman to keep away from the senator.
"The article was notable for what it did not say," wrote Hoyte in his column to be published Sunday. "It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance.
"It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately -- an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad," he said of alleged comments McCain made to his advisers.
Hoyt also criticized Times executive editor Bill Keller's explanation that the article's main thrust was not the alleged affair but the political favors the Republican bestowed on a lobbyist, which Hoyt said "ignored the scarlet elephant in the room."
"A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. ... The stakes are just too big."
"The pity of it is that, without the sex, the Times was on to a good story," Hoyt added, recalling that McCain, 71, had been reprimanded in the past for cozying up to lobbyists -- the influence of money in politics is a recurring issue in Congress.
On Saturday, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Newsweek all said McCain's denials about the Times' article contradicted earlier statements of his that he did have contacts with two business clients of Iseman, 40.
Meanwhile, several conservative media commentators who up to now had been critical of McCain rallied to his side against The New York Times, which they consider a bastion of liberal, left-wing America.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
A Cornered, Wounded WolverineFebruary 23rd, 2008
Those who have known about Hillary Clinton’s proclivity for extreme vitriol all along should not be surprised in the least at her latest salvos launched at Barack Obama. I’m certain that Dick Morris could have predicted this long ago, but Hillary is pulling out almost all the stops in her effort to seize control of America.
Her rhetoric today belies an obvious envy of perhaps the only person ever to “out-politick” her and her husband: Karl Rove. Certainly though, she is capable of much worse than Rove could ever dream. She has boundaries to live within as a candidate, where Rove had none. Rove never had to debate on national television and didn’t have to personally win over the voting public. The life of a behind-the-scenes campaigner is so much sweeter. But neither Clinton would ever acquiesce that much control to anyone but themselves. Just ask Morris.
So, trailing badly going into Texas and Ohio, bruised and bloody, Hillary has been forced to take the reigns personally and it will not help. She is not capable of projecting a congenial persona, and the absence of such in the candidate herself will only serve to further alienate voters. Obama got this far on charisma…Hillary’s further rejection of what little she had will be akin to tossing gasoline on a fire.
In this article today, she has effectively “dropped the gloves”, a hockey term for getting ready to fight for real. In the article, she says, “Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook.”
Huh? She is going to make a feeble attempt at claiming the high road even as she prepares to descend to whatever level necessary to win this nomination. I truly must marvel at her chutzpah, and I also have to wonder how many people will follow her. Surely her hardcore believers will be there but then again, none of this effort would be needed on them anyway. All this speaks of is obvious desperation.
The old adage is, “Never corner a wounded animal”. The advice is sound, because the wounded animal will do anything to survive. Sometimes, though, they just get snuffed out by a superior being.
Will The “Old Gray Lady” Be Available At The Checkout Line?February 21st, 2008
Proving yet again that the Jayson Blair debacle was no anomaly, The New York Times has taken another step towards tabloid credibility. But mere credibility is not all that’s at stake with this latest episode of betrayal of the public trust. It’s a direct assault on the principle of journalistic integrity and purpose. Almost equally as disturbing is the increasingly cavalier attitude the Times exhibits toward the obviousness of their agenda.
One of the great blessings America offers is freedom of the press, and that freedom is there as a safeguard against tyranny, a truth meter if you will. The press is supposed to be objective and give us the story, not what it wishes the story to be. In the past decade, perhaps longer, the press has shown a transparent bias, but it has been accepted in a way because people recognized it and dealt with it by migrating to alternate sources.
What we have here, however, is the Times perpetrating an outrageous shell game on the public. Instead of merely reporting on the progress of the presidential candidates through the course of the primaries they have actively plotted a course by misleading their readers. In other words, they have been doing what they can do to promote John McCain as the Republican nominee for the purpose of knocking him down once he attained that status.
When the timing of the story of McCain’s alleged infidelity was questioned, the Times defended itself. To paraphrase Executive Editor Bill Keller, the Times publishes stories when they are ready. To quote him, “This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works.”
Is that a fact? Then why would a “highly respected newspaper” such as the Times endorse a candidate that they were prepared to smear? Less than a month ago, the Times Editorial board Wrote this piece. It was titled:
Primary Choices: John McCain
“In it, they wrote: We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle.“
While that was being written the Times was busy building the case that McCain was a man of bad character because “he cheated on his wife”. If this isn’t a clear-cut case of attempted king-making (or Queen-making, as the case may be), I don’t know what is.
At this point, I wouldn’t even insult my parakeet with this rag.