The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

What Were They Thinking?

Posted on | July 11, 2014 | 55 Comments

Why would the editors of Esquire assign Tom Junod — or anybody else, for that matter — to write “In Praise of 42-Year-Old Women”? And, having made that assignment, why would they not demand a re-write after he turned in a horrifying mess that begins thus:

Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman. With half her life still ahead of her, she was deemed to be at the end of something — namely, everything society valued in her, other than her success as a mother. If she remained sexual, she was either predatory or desperate; if she remained beautiful, what gave her beauty force was the fact of its fading. And if she remained alone … well, then God help her.

What is the purpose of publishing this? Never mind. Here’s some advice for magazine publishers everywhere: Before you assign or publish an article, ask yourself, “Will this article be more enjoyable than the Gawker blog post viciously mocking the article?”

Tom Junod, according to Wikipedia, was born in the Eisenhower Administration, and is currently either 55 or 56 years old. Nevertheless, Tom Junod is gracious enough to admit he’s capable of wanting to f–k women who are within 13 or 14 years of his own age.
I, myself, by coincidence, am 42 years old right now. But I am male. As such, I would like to follow Tom Junod’s lead and reassure all the 28-year-old women of the world that I do not believe their advanced years should render them sexually unattractive to me.

Read the whole thing — the Gawker piece, I mean, not the Esquire article.

 

Category: Sex

LIVE AT FIVE: 07.11.14

Posted on | July 11, 2014 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Obama Offers To Broker Gaza Ceasefire

No comment from Netanyahu on when ground forces will join in

Palestinians claim most of the dead and injured are civilians
Rocket fire from Lebanon joins barrage from Gaza
Turkish PM Erdogan says Gaza offensive threatens rapprochement


Gov. Perry To Obama: Send Guard To Border Now
Criticizes President for not visiting border
Even Texas Democrats question Obama’s border no-show
Data suggest many illegal children will get to stay



POLITICS
Florida Judge Orders Gerrymandered Districts Redrawn

Districts may have to be redrawn for 2014 elections

FL-5, FL-10 found to be illegally affected by partisan lobbying


Boehner Announces Obama Lawsuit Will Focus On Healthcare Law Delays


Colorado Gay Marriages On Shaky Legal Ground

Federal Judge Orders IRS To Explain Lost Lerner E-mails Under Oath

Joint Chiefs Unanimously Supported Bergdahl Swap



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Mixed As Supply Fears Recede: WTI $102.91, Brent $108.73
Portuguese Bank Fears Rekindle Euro Market Tension
Reynolds Reportedly Near Merger With Lorillard
Family Dollar Posts Lower Profit As Icahn Presses For Sale
Inventor Pushes Solar Panels For Roads, Highways
UAW Won’t Take No For An Answer At VW Plant In Tennessee
FTC Sues Amazon For Allowing In-App Purchases By Kids
Can You Shun Facebook For 99 Days?
GameStop Wants To Fund Exclusive Video Content
Microsoft CEO Promises To Shake Up Company’ Culture: “Nothing Is Off The Table”
Box, Dropbox Brace For Impact Of Amazon’s Zocalo



SPORTS
Headley Homer Ends Kershaw’s Scoreless Streak

But the Padres lose anyway.

One dinger not enough as Dodgers win 2-1


Trout Homer Among Four Hits As Angels Rout Rangers 15-6


Tanaka Could Need Tommy John Surgery


Volquez Victorious As Pirates Thrash Cards 9-1

Tigers Maul Second-Place Royals 16-4

Carp Delivers For Red Sox As Pale Hose Fall In Extras

Tribe Scalps Yankees Again 9-3

M’s Get 12 Hits, Still Lose 4-2 To Twins

Kazmir Notches Win #11 As A’s Thump Giants 6-1

Colon’s Rough Start Costs Mets Win

Phillies Beat Brewers Again, 9-1

Cubs Beat Reds In Extras, Avoid Sweep

Sterling Trial On Hold Until July 21

Why Soccer In Brazil Is Better Than Cricket In India

O’s Hang On To Beat Nats 4-3



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Margot Robbie Doesn’t Consider Herself Particularly Attractive

We’ll be the judge of that, young lady.

“Wolf Of Wall Street” actress says her girlfriends are better looking

Teen Huntress Kendall Jones: There’s A Target On My Head Thanks To Facebook

Why They Were Emmy Snubs: “Girls”, “Homeland”, “Survivor”

“Glee” Star’s Boyfriend Found Dead In Philly Hotel Room

“Sons Of Anarchy” Star Kurt Sutter Feeling Kinda Susan Lucci

First Look At Yaya DaCosta As Whitney Houston In Lifetime Biopic

Complete Emmy Nominations List

Unspeakable Armenian, Vile Rapper Living Separate Lives After Wedding

More Details Emerge About Jeff Robinov’s Studio 8 Deal With Sony

Jimmy Kimmel, Molly McNearney – It’s A Girl!

Robin Thicke’s New Album Sells Just 530 Copies in UK, 55 In Australia

Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling Joining Cop Drama “Nice Guys”

Esquire Praises 42-Year-Old Women

Jimmy Fallon Spends Less Time Talking Than Jay Leno, Talk Show Peers

Joy Behar Slams Elizabeth Hasselbeck For Rosie O’Donnell Comments Amid “The View” Drama



FOREIGNERS
Four Servicemen, Five Miners Killed In Latest East Ukraine Violence
Kerry Hopes Solution Can Be Found To Afghan Vote Mess
Germany Expels Top US Intelligence Official
Seven Injured In 5th Running Of Bulls At Pamplona; No Gorings
Red China, US To Cooperate On Counterterrorism
Kerry To Join Iran Nuke Talks As Deadline Nears
Rupiah Lead Emerging Market Gainers On Indications Of Jokowi Win In Malaysia
“Looking Forward To Results-Oriented Visit,” Says Modi After Formal Invite From Obama



BLOGS & STUFF
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Another Reason Black People Might Be Nervous About Illegal Immigration
Doug Powers: Hey, Maybe Removing The Word “Illegal” From The ICE Lexicon Will Solve The Influx Problem
Twitchy: Dems, White House Attempt To Portray Obama As Man Of Action
American Power: MS-13 Actively Recruiting In Flood Of Illegals At Obama’s Shelters
American Thinker: L’Etat, C’Est Gay – Taking The New Sexual Fascism Seriously
BLACKFIVE: Trailer Talk – No Photo Ops, Obama’s Working (It)
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin Justifies Impeachment On Hannity’s Radio Show
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, July 10
Jammie Wearing Fools: President Selfie Not Interested In Photo Ops, Unless You Pay $5000 At Swanky Fundraiser
Joe For America: House Resolution Filed For Arrest Of Lois Lerner
JustOneMinute: LOL
Pat Dollard: IT REALLY IS A WAR – Mexico, Guatemala Sign Agreement To Invade US
Protein Wisdom: Coulter To MS Conservatives – Just Shut Up And Take It, Wingnuts
Shot In The Dark: Everyone’s A Racist!
The Jawa Report: CAIR Dumps Pretense, Posts Dead Babies In Support Of Hamas
The Lonely Conservative: Obama On Vacation For Half Of August
This Ain’t Hell: R. Lee Ermey Talks Military, Acting, And Reality TV
Weasel Zippers: Obama Laughs His Way Through Meeting With Governor Perry
Megan McArdle: Students Face Debt By 1000 Fees


Category: Live at Five

Atheist Progressive Makes Rape Threat About Conservative’s Teen Daughter

Posted on | July 10, 2014 | 143 Comments

Preston Smith (@common_alias) is an atheist progressive supporter of Hillary Clinton’s incipient 2016 presidential campaign. C. Steven Tucker (@CSteven) is a Chicago businessman, Tea Party activist and ObamaCare critic. Wednesday afternoon, Tucker sent out a Twitter message about calls to impeach President Obama. Smith responded with a sick comment — CC’d to Tucker’s wife Andrea — that appeared to be a rape threat directed at one of their teenage daughters:

Why? Beyond Smith’s perverse interpretation of an Old Testament passage, it seems Smith had devoted enough attention to his target to be able to locate Tucker’s wife’s account, showing her with the couple’s three children in the profile picture.

You can imagine how any parent would take alarm at such a comment. Tucker said he has reported Smith to law enforcement, but I’m afraid the Tuckers will be disappointed to learn that, from a legal standpoint, a comment like Smith’s is not be considered a “threat.” A threat, in the legal sense, requires that there be some reason for the target to fear that the person making the threat will actually carry it out.

In other words, if I say, “I’d like to beat Preston Smith to a bloody pulp,” that’s not a threat, legally. On the other hand, if I were to say, “I’ve got Preston Smith’s home address and I just booked my flight from Dulles to Miami tomorrow so that I can kill that vicious bastard with my bare hands” — well, the specificity of such a comment could be seen as a legitimate threat that might cause him to fear that an enraged redneck could show up at his front door with murderous intent.

The difference between these hypothetical scenarios may seem trivial legalistic hair-splitting to the layman. On the other hand, if I told you that Delta Flight 6224 left Dulles at 6:10 a.m., connnecting through Detroit via Flight 1829 to arrive at Miami International Airport before noon, you might believe I’d given it serious consideration. And if Steven Tucker posted a selfie of himself at O’Hare Airport boarding a non-stop flight to Miami, that could also be taken as indicating Preston Smith has reasonable cause to fear for his safety.

But these are just hypothetical scenarios, of course.

(Hat-tip: Big Fur Hat.)

 

Category: Progressivism

What Is Radical Feminism? ‘Make Deviance the Core of Our Identity’

Posted on | July 10, 2014 | 59 Comments

“Both femininity and masculinity are heteropatriarchal terms that establish the boundaries of what is ‘acceptable,’ ‘permissible’ appearance and behavior for females, Lesbians included. Heteropatriarchal semantics equates femininity with femaleness and masculinity with maleness, as though behaviors and personality traits were determined by biological sex. On the basis of that equation, heteropatriarchy values femininity in females and masculinity in males. . . .
“What is Lesbian identity? What does it mean to be a Lesbian, live as a Lesbian, think as a Lesbian, in a Lesbian context? So we have to begin by identifying how we differ from heterosexual women and bisexuals and make our deviance the core of our identity. Lesbians don’t fuck men. We are the only group in the world that refuses to place men at the center of our lives. We are the only group whose lives are focused on women.”
— Julia Penelope, Call Me Lesbian: Lesbian Lives, Lesbian Theory (1992)

Some people are ahead of their time, and Julia Penelope Stanley — who dropped her heteropatriarchal surname early in her career as a radical feminist academic, author and activist — was an angry lesbian man-hater before being an angry lesbian man-hater was cool.

Her eccentricities of style, grammar and orthography are very reminiscent of Mary Daly, and make her work difficult to quote because apparently freedom from heteropatriarchal oppression requires that nobody is permitted to edit your work for ease of reading. Admirers of the late Ms. Penelope’s radical feminist work will therefore take umbrage at the tiny bits of editing I’ve done to the quote above, but her abbreviation of “heteropatriarchy” as “HP” struck me as silly, and at least I didn’t change her habitual capitalization of “Lesbian,” a quirk that seems to have had some significance  to her.

She described herself as a “fat, butch dyke who never passed,” which is to say she was the perfect stereotype of a feminist, and thus viewed as something of an embarrassment to the movement. Despite the fact that her writings were (and to some extent, still are) influential within radical feminism, that she participated in the founding of important feminist organizations and suffered in her academic career on account of her early status as an “out” lesbian, Ms. Penelope was largely forgotten by the time she died last year.

Born in 1941, she developed her lesbian identity at an early age and, by the time she was 16, was hanging around lesbian bars in her native Miami. Her lesbianism led to her being kicked out of college twice (first at Florida State and then at the University of Miami) before finally getting her bachelor’s degree at New York’s City College when she was 25, then getting a Ph.D. at the University of Texas. She taught English for more than a decade at the University of Nebraska, and blamed her lack of promotions on sexist homophobia, which we might accept as valid, except that (a) she was hired as an English professor and (b) apparently her publications consisted entirely of writing about lesbianism. This was many years before angry lesbians could get their Ph.D. in Women’s Studies and spend their academic careers publishing treatises on Queer Theory, so if Julia Penelope suffered the usual fate of those who are ahead of their time . . . Well, whatever.

Unlike some of the “political lesbians” of the 1970s — who became lesbian only after feminist “consciousness raising” convinced them they were oppressed by men — Julia Penelope was a “stone butch” lesbian for more than a decade before joining the feminist movement. Also unlike most Second Wave feminists, who were aligned with the antiwar New Left, Ms. Penelope’s politics were idiosyncratic and even right-leaning: She became a devotee of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism in the late 1950s and, in New York in the 1960s, was a libertarian conservative at a time when all her close friends were either Communists or Socialists. Furthermore, unlike most feminists, she had a sense of humor and a reputation as a joker, describing herself as a “cunning linguist.” Her friend Anne T. Leighton recounted an occasion when Ms. Penelope used LSD:

“Julia, delightedly addled on acid, standing mesmerized in the bakery section of a Midwestern supermarket, fondling a package of rolls. While we worried about security guards, Julia remained amazed. With a shyness she rarely let others see she gestured with the rolls, offering her pronouncement then beaming at our understanding. ‘Breasts’ she whispered. Julia: alive to the wonder of a world filled with breasts.”

Her lesbian separatism was rooted in a simple logic: Women’s oppression by men (i.e., patriarchy) was the result of heterosexuality, hence the term “heteropatriarchy” to describe the male-dominated system she opposed. Furthermore, anticipating the arguments of Third Wave feminist gender theory, Ms. Penelope saw the sex/gender categories of “masculine” and “feminine” as inherently related to women’s oppression. In an autobiographical essay from her book Call Me Lesbian, she wrote:

“I believe that, as Lesbians, instead of using our energies trying to transform what we’ve learned from heteropatriarchal cultures, trying to squeeze ourselves into their framework or bending it until it feels comfortable for us, we should be actively unlearning what we’ve been taught by heterosexuals, and busy transforming ourselves. . . . Everything we believe, we’ve learned from the heteropatriarchy — every single bit of it. We have no experience to call our ‘own,’ because, from the day we’re born, our experiences were described for us by heterosexuals, starting with our parents.”

Thus, according to Ms. Penelope, even the beliefs and attitudes of lesbians are shaped by the male-dominated system of heteropatriarchy, so that these attitudes must be unlearned. And this is especially true of femininity:

The United States is a heteropatriarchal society, a culture that assumes that heterosexuality is “natural,” that male dominance is “natural,” and that female subordination is “natural” . . . The words masculine and feminine exist only because they express concepts essential to the maintenance of heteropatriarchal reality. But the existence and continual use of these words doesn’t mean that they denote “real” or actual things. . . .
Sexual dimorphism is the foundation of heteropatriarchal semantics, politics, and personality. Personality, according to heteropatriarchy, is based on biological sex. Biology determines behavior, mannerisms, appearance, emotional style, and how one thinks. This is a monocausal ideology. . . . Contrary to popular thinking, it’s not at all obvious that biological sex or reproductive potential should be the basis of personality. . . .
If one is female, then one must be a heterosexual and a breeder, and behave in appropriate, “feminine” ways. If she doesn’t . . . she isn’t a “real woman.” . . .
It’s way past time for Lesbians to stop using heteropatriarchal words as though they were meaningful. Any Lesbian who defends femininity and compares another Lesbian to a man by labeling her “masculine” subscribes to heteropatriarchal “consensus reality.” . . .
If Lesbians want to deny the “naturalness” of heteropatriarchal categories, and assert the positive value of our deviance, adopting femininity doesn’t make any sense. . . .
Lesbians who can pass as heterosexuals must understand and admit that they acquire specific social privileges because they can hide their Lesbianism. The privileges and rewards of femininity, in addition to money and social approval, are a false sense of worth and self-esteem because they are grounded in hypocrisy and pretense. Furthermore, Lesbians who prize femininity either believe they are superior to “obvious” Lesbians or they sexualize the difference. . . . Because femininity in women is so highly prized by men, femininity cannot be positively valued in a Lesbian context.

This hostile rejection of the values of what we would call normal or traditional society — where the masculinity of men and the femininity of women are accepted as natural — is striking. Ms. Penelope’s claims make sense, however, if instead of viewing them as political analysis, we consider them as psychological symptoms.

Her theories were an elaborate, jargon-laden “sour grapes” rationalization: Being very un-feminine herself, she knew she had no access to the “privileges and rewards of femininity” she described. Within the context of “heteropatriarchy” (i.e., the normal world), these feminine qualities were “highly prized by men,” and her condemnation of “femininity . . . in a Lesbian context” was an attempt to prevent herself (a clearly “masculine” lesbian) from being reduced to an inferior status within her own community.

Feminism has always attracted malcontents and misfits, offering them political theories to explain their unhappiness with the normal world. Yet even as the influence of feminism has changed the world, the grievances of the malcontents persist. In order to explain this — why feminists remain unhappy, despite feminism’s success — the evils of men must be continually exaggerated, and insidious power must be attributed to the male-dominated system of patriarchy. Whatever women are unhappy about must ultimately be blamed on men, even the unhappiness of lesbians within their own lesbian culture.

Therefore, Julia Penelope accused some of her fellow lesbians of adopting the value systems of heteropatriarchy. Similarly, although for different reasons, Ms. Penelope was hostile to the arguments of liberal “mainstream” feminists:

Liberal feminists have made the word choice so attractive, as though all women were capable of acting as autonomous, self-determining beings. “We must respect all women’s choices,” they say, as though our choices are made in a vacuum, as though every single woman knows what her choices are or might be. Humanism ignores the fact that our choices, such as they are, are made in the context of heteropatriarchy. . . . If there is a “politics of liberal feminism,” it’s nothing more than a way of rationalizing the fact that women continue to choose men. . . .
Many Lesbians cannot “go back” to men because we didn’t start there. One can “go back” only to something she’s previously “left.” The metaphor of “returning” to men or heterosexuality reveals the heterosexism of liberal feminism, because it assumes that ALL women are or have been heterosexuals, first. Heterosexuality becomes the touchstone of their identity. . . .
We’re not engaged in a dialogue with heterosexuals. Most of us, however reluctantly, have decided that our energies must go to other Lesbians; attempts to talk to heterosexual feminists are usually frustrating and depressing. Lesbians are the focus of our lives. . . .
What does it mean to say that one “loves a man” and, at the same time, to acknowledge the male violence experienced every day by millions of women? What does it mean to “love our oppressors”? Women have been loving men for millennia, and I can’t see that it’s done anything but worsen our situation. What does it mean, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, to believe that men, now, today, can be “rehabilitated,” and to commit one’s life to that belief? . . .
Here’s what I believe I know: Men rule the world. Men rape women. Men rape all females, their daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, granddaughters, and any other female unlucky enough to be accessible to them when “the urge” strikes. Men beat women up, cripple them, maim them, starve them, kill them. Men make money and war. Heterosexuality ensures that men will always have a ready and willing supply of females for their uses.
That’s what I see around me every day I live, and some days are worse than others. I would welcome anyone who can demonstrate to me that I’m wrong, that my perceptions are distorted by where I stand in the world. But don’t trot out your “exceptional man” to show me; everyone has one or claims to have one, including me. But I’m not willing to base my entire political analysis on his existence. I wish I had a dollar for every heterosexual feminist who’s challenged my Separatism by claiming that “her man” is “different,” and, then, after she’d become a Lesbian, confided to me that he was a rapist, a batterer, a violent misogynist.

Well, gosh, ma’am, why don’t you tell us how you really feel about men? As extreme as Julia Penelope’s lesbian separatism was, though, isn’t her universal condemnation of men — written in 1985 — fundamentally the same argument promoted by the #YesAllWomen hashtag campaign? In case you’ve forgotten, #YesAllWomen was about making the deranged killer Elliot Rodger a symbolic representation of all men as complicit in misogynistic violence. It’s the same rhetorical abracadabra involved in “rape culture” discourse, where anyone who disputes feminist claims about the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses is accused of being “anti-woman,” if not indeed “pro-rape.”

That this mode of discourse has, in the past three decades, migrated from the extremist fringe of lesbian separatism to become a staple of “mainstream” feminism — and no one seems to have noticed the migration. Nor, for that matter, does any critic of feminism dare point out the source. If you mention that the anti-male rhetoric of feminism echoes the claims of radical lesbians, you will be accused of being a homophobic bigot recycling ignorant stereotypes — even if you cite your sources by name!

Is it “anti-woman” to tell the truth about feminism? Do I examine Women’s Studies textbooks and Women’s Studies curricula because I hate women? Is it ignorance, homophobia or misogyny that leads me to the conclusion that feminism is a journey to lesbianism? No, it’s simply a recognition of the undeniable truth that radical feminists reached by a process of intellectual circumnavigation. The unabashed male-hater Julia Penelope recognized that the differences between men and women — the masculinity of males and the femininity of females — are necessary to their normal relationships.

Ms. Penelope angrily denied that these traits are “natural” — a reflection of basic biological differences — even while paradoxically insisting that all men are naturally violent, oppressive and sexually predatory. She accepted that there is such a thing as male nature (evil!), but insisted that what is considered natural for women — “femininity . . . so highly prized by men” — is actually an artificial imposition of the heteropatriarchy. Yet if there is nothing “natural” about women’s femininity, why would a lesbian like Julia Penelope be attracted exclusively to women? If differences between men and women are just figments of our imaginations, imposed by society, shouldn’t all of us be basically bisexual? Why is it that only traditional heterosexual relationships — and the cultural and social norms associated with these relationships — are subjected to this kind of criticism by intellectual theorists?

Julia Penelope died in January 2013 without ever answering those questions, and probably never even thought to ask them. She also died a few months before the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, which declared as a matter of law that a lesbian relationship is no different than the marriage between a man and a woman — and one wonders what Ms. Penelope might have said about that.

She was a critic of lesbians who sought to assimilate (to “pass”) within the context of a society she condemned as “heteropatriarchy.” It is therefore difficult to see how a lesbian separatist who urged lesbians to make deviance the “core” of their identity could have reconciled that philosophy with the Supreme Court’s declaration that lesbians are just like everybody else. But being a feminist means ignoring contradictions between radical theories and the reality of most women’s lives, and in that regard, Julia Penelope was quite typical. R.I.P.




 

\

 

Category: Feminism, Gays

LIVE AT FIVE: 07.10.14

Posted on | July 10, 2014 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Israeli Drones Hunt Hamas As Terrorist Rockets Strike Deeper In Israel

An Iron Dome battery fires an interceptor rocket in Ashdod

PGM strikes kill more jihadi leaders, but collateral damage deaths among civilians still high

Uttar Pradesh Hero Amit Shah Named BJP President
Expected to take the party to greater success

Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin Sentenced To Ten Years For Corruption
Bribery, wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, tax evasion, armed robbery of citizens, state banks and post offices, the theft of sacred objects, arson in a state prison, perjury, bigamy, deserting his wife and children, inciting prostitution, kidnapping, extortion, receiving stolen goods, selling stolen goods, passing counterfeit money – no, just kidding, it stops with tax evasion.

POLITICS
Obama Challenges Rick Perry To Help With Border Boodle

And the President gets his photo op after all.

Wants Texas governor’s support for $3.7 billion funding request
Still no presidential visit to border

Government Making $100 Billion In Improper Payments Annually


Senate Democrats Finalize Bill To Reverse Hobby Lobby Ruling

Obama’s Counterterrorism Director Resigns

Chinese Hackers Crack OPM Networks

“We Need To Be Careful What We Say In E-Mails” – Lois Lerner, 2013

Utah Appealing Gay Marriage Case Directly To Supreme Court



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
WTI Drops For Tenth Straight Day On Expanding US Gasoline Stocks: WTI $101.81, Brent $108.03
Red China Trade Surplus Narrows In June
Fed Details End Of Bond-Buying Program
Dov Charney’s Sleazy Struggle To Control American Apparel
Colorado Completes First Legal Weed Market Study
Gold Nears High For The Week On Fed Minutes, Mideast Tension
Google Forms Patent Alliance To Ward Off Trolls
Dish Boss Criticizes TWC-Comcast Merger
Apple Loses Siri Patent Case In China
Report: Deleted Smartphone Data Can Be Easily Recovered
EU Begins Questioning Facebook Rivals Over Whatsapp Deal



SPORTS
Red Sox Snap Skid With Walkoff Win Against White Sox

Sox mob Brock Holt after his game-winning single brings Daniel Nava home

Pale Hose relief pitchers fail Sale


Grossman Breaks Out Of Slump Bigtime As Astros Beat Rangers 8-4, Sweep Series

Tanaka To The DL, Uehara To The All-Star Game


Perez Powers Royals Past Rays In Ninth

Blackhawks Sign Toews, Kane To Eight-Year Extensions

Hernandez Shines As Phillies Beat Brewers

Braves Fail In Clutch, Lose Fourth Straight

Simon Earns 12th Win As Reds Beat Cubs Again

Devils Sign Schneider To Seven Years/$28 Million

Bombs Away: Nats Jack Three Homers,  Beat O’s 6-2, Move Into First In NL East



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Lilly Ghalichi Axed From “Shahs Of Sunset”

“Boring”

“Persian Barbie” joined in season 2, cut before season 4


“Sharknado 2” Official Trailer


Stacey Dash: Kanye West Should Go To Rikers Island, Find Out What Rape Is


Ryan Gosling, Eva Mendes Expecting First Child

Why “Transformers 4” Big Box Office In China Won’t Mean Big Bucks For Paramount

Justin Bieber Cops Plea Deal In Vandalism Case

“Orphan Black” Renewed For Season Three

George Clooney Responds To “Completely Fabricated” Daily Mail Report

Miley Cyrus Secretly Dating Her Producer

Poppy Montgomery Expecting Third Child…

…And So Is LeBron James’ Wife Savannah Brinson

Courtney Love Joins “Sons Of Anarchy” For Final Season



FOREIGNERS
Indonesian Leader Calls For Calm After Election Standoff
Over Fifty Bodies (Including Two Children) Found In Alexandria, Iraq
Tropical Storm Neoguri Slams Into Kyushu
Nork List Of Japanese Abductees Contains Thirty Names
US, Red China Begin High-Level Talks
EU Agrees To Add 11 Names To Ukraine Sanctions List
French Police Foil Jihadi Plot Aimed At Eiffel Tower, Louvre
Netizens Up In Arms Over Malaysian Legislator’s Hitler Tweet
Bahrain Questions Opposition Leader After Expelling American Diplomat
Taiwan Diplomat Fears “Explosive” China-Japan Incident



BLOGS & STUFF
Proof Positive: Remember When Republicans Were Trying To “Kill Big Bird”?
Michelle Malkin: Obama’s Immigration Lawyers Enrichment Act
Doug Powers: Patty Murray Authors “Not My Boss’ Business Act” To Exempt Obamacare From Law She Voted For In 1993
Twitchy: President Selfie McGlamourshots Claims “I’m Not Interested In Photo Ops”
American Power: As Bodies Of Illegals Stack Up, Obama Laughs It Up With Beer, Pool, And Gambling
American Thinker: Obama’s Tiresome Delusions About Peace In The Middle East
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Wynne’s War
Conservatives4Palin: Howard Kurtz’ Questionable Credibility
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, July 9
Jammie Wearing Fools: Dem Congressman Shreds Obama – “Aloof”, “Bizarre”, and “Detached”
Joe For America: Costco Surrenders To “America” Consumers
JustOneMinute: Deep De-Carbonization – Can We Get There From Here?
Pat Dollard: Senator McCain Blows Up At Border Patrol Chief Over Photo/Interview Ban At Detention Facilities
Protein Wisdom: “Dem Rep Cuellar: White House Called Me For Speaking Out Against President”
Shot In The Dark: The Ninny Elite
The Jawa Report: Annual Insult Omar! Open Thread (Fatwas Issued!)
The Lonely Conservative: EPA Plans To Garnish Wages Of Those They Deem Polluters
This Ain’t Hell: Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
Weasel Zippers: Obama Claims “By Almost Every Measure” We’re Better Off Than When Bush Was In Office
Megan McArdle: Uber Makes Economists Sad


Shop Amazon – Save Time and Money with School Lists

Category: Live at Five

Obama Fails Again: Are We Surprised?

Posted on | July 9, 2014 | 54 Comments

“Obama: Anatomy of a World Leader,” by Alex Gray (detail)

The escalating mess at Murietta and the general bankruptcy of President Obama’s “immigration policy” — the scare-quotes necessitated by its haphazard and improvised nature, so that it isn’t actually a policy at all — isn’t something I’ve said a lot about, because the disaster is so obvious that everyone sees it without me feeling any need to point it out. Whatever there may be left to say about this catastrophic situation, Adriana Cohen says it pretty well:

The massive crisis of tens of thousands of illegal children and hundreds of thousands of illegal adults flooding over our borders is, no surprise, not President Obama’s fault. It may have been entirely preventable, and certainly was highly predictable. But as usual, six years after he took office, the blame belongs elsewhere.
It’s the Republicans, blocking immigration reform, the Obama administration wants you to believe. They’re even trying to hang it on Obama’s favorite blame target, George W. Bush . . .
The crisis is in fact wholly owned by the Democrats.
Democrats . . . have been pushing for years to let people without Social Security numbers have driver’s licenses and welfare benefits. They’ve pushed for in-state university tuition for people who don’t belong here. Obama himself acted to dramatically reduce deportations — specifically of children — and has broadly signaled he wants to legalize the estimated 12 million illegals.
Who can blame the hundreds of thousands flooding across our borders for thinking they are welcome? The Democrats told them so. Never mind that 92 million Americans are unemployed or no longer looking for jobs. . . .

Read the whole thing.

 

Category: Immigration

Fire Can’t Melt Steel, and ‘The View’ Can’t Possibly Become More Ludicrous

Posted on | July 9, 2014 | 69 Comments

They’re bringing back Rosie O’Donnell, because there obviously aren’t enough celebrity conspiracy theorists on network daytime TV, and no one is happier about this news than Allahpundit:

To celebrate the occasion, take my arm and stroll with me down memory lane, back to Rosie’s finest hour. Watch the whole clip if you can — she mentions impeachment around halfway through, a topic not unknown to would-be “View” panelists — but if you can’t take the full seven minutes, at least skip to 5:50 and watch from there. The line about how fire’s never melted steel before always makes me wistful for the show’s heyday. Sigh.

“I do believe it is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven — building Seven, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. . . . Miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”
— Rosie O’Donnell, March 29, 2007

Good times, my friends. Good times.

 

Category: ABC, Celebrities, Conspiracy Theories

Exhausting the Blitzkrieg Metaphors

Posted on | July 9, 2014 | 19 Comments

Everyone who watched Tuesday’s World Cup semifinal match between Germany and Brazil was astonished by the historic 7-1 destruction the Germans inflicted on the host squad:

It is not Brazil, alone, that is in shock after the greatest humiliation in World Cup history.
Those of us who have held the 1970 Brazil team of Pelé, Gérson, Tostão, Carlos Alberto and others as the pinnacle of how soccer can and should be played must now put Brazil’s capitulation on Tuesday as the nadir.
Germany was good — very, very good in trouncing the Seleção 7-1 in one of its own stadiums Tuesday. But we cannot yet know how good because this was not, as some have said, a ruthless German exhibition of modern soccer. It is a Germany team that has been six years in the making, a squad that has coasted through this World Cup so far.
In Belo Horizonte, Germany met no opposition. Brazil, shorn of its poster boy Neymar because of an injury and deprived of its defensive leader Thiago Silva because of a suspension, simply rolled over like a puppy afraid at the sight of a Rottweiler.

By halftime, Germany was ahead 5-0 and the humiliation of Brazil was so intense it sparked fears of rioting and political instability:

The aftermath of Brazil’s defeat could turn ugly. There were reports of a mass robbery at a fan party in Rio de Janeiro and of fans setting fire to Brazilian flags in the streets of São Paulo even before the match was over. Local organizers and government officials have been concerned for weeks about the possibility that demonstrations — which have, for the most part, been subdued — would become more intense if Brazil were to be eliminated.
Many Brazilians have been upset about the billions of dollars spent on new stadiums and other World Cup-related projects. The success of the national team provided a natural balm, but now those emotions may become more inflamed.
“The time of bread and circus is over,” said Lisa Rodrigues da Cunha Saud, who attended the game with her brother. “Instead of stadiums, we need hospitals and schools,” she added.

Anyway, another occasion for Twitter sarcasm.

 

Category: Brazil, Germany, Sports
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin