The Other McCain

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

INCREDIBLE DISASTER! CATASTROPHE! APOCALYPSE!

Posted on | November 30, 2013 | 76 Comments

Being an Alabama fan means expectations so high as to be, objectively, unrealistic. It is impossible that the Crimson Tide could have undefeated seasons and national championships every year.

Yet anything short of perfection is failure to the ‘Bama fan.

So . . . we lost.

To Auburn.

It was an exciting game, but . . . we lost.

To Auburn.

Psychological trauma.

 


Category: Football

FMJRA 2.0: Riding With The King

Posted on | November 30, 2013 | 12 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

The Crisis of the Obama Cult

Weird NY Times Column: Not Supporting ObamaCare Is Slavery or Something

‘Peace for Our Time’

Rule 5 Sunday

Do Democrats Think They Can Spin Their Way Out of the ObamaCare Catastrophe?

Happy #FreeKate Thanksgiving: Lesbian Cheerleader Spends Holiday in Jail

The Fenwick-Sugden Healthcare Plan

Accused Gay Teen Sex Offender Worried Scandal Would Cost Him White House Job

Just Call Me ‘Grandpa McCain’

The World’s Youngest Blogger Salutes The Arrival Of J.W. McCain

#ObamaCare Is A River Of Lies, With Headwaters In Hell

FMJRA 2.0: Cathedral Oceans

‘Gender Integration’ = FAIL

What Canadians Consider ‘Art’

Destructive Totalitarian ‘Equality’

‘It Is Not Journalism. It’s Crime.’

Documents Prove Kaitlyn Hunt Lied; Knew Sex With 14-Year-Old Was Illegal

LIVE AT FIVE: 11.25.13

‘Dark Money’! ‘Corporate Interests’! The Left’s Wisconsin Conspiracy Theory

How Do You Say ‘LOL’ in Spanish?

Did Yale Get SWATted?

New Documents Expose More #FreeKate Lies, Also: ‘Her Issues With Her Dad’?

Because It’s Cute, That’s Why

LIVE AT FIVE: 11.26.13

Steubenville Superintendent Indicted

What #FreeKate and Brett Kimberlin Have in Common (Besides the Obvious)

Alec Baldwin MSNBC Show Cancelled, Disappointing Dozens of Viewers

Be Thankful for Bill Schmalfeldt

LIVE AT FIVESEVEN: 11.27.13

Sex and Fear on Campus

Hispanic Transgender Student Kicked Out After Faking College Hate Incident

‘Forget About Repealing #ObamaCare. Repeal Obama’

The Nadir of Hackery

Perhaps It’s Time to Ask Again, ‘What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?’

In The Mailbox: Black Friday

Bareback Butt Sex Increases 20%

The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview

Helping Dr. Helen Sort All This Out

Top linkers this week:

  1. Dead  Citizens Rights Society, 36 (including 4 DeRP)
  2. EBL, 14 (including 7 BCN)
  3. Daley Gator, 9
  4. Preppers Universe, 7
  5. A View From The Beach, 6
  6. Regular Right Guy, 5

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links for next week’s FMJRA is noon on Saturday, December 7.


Category: FMJRA Award

‘Suck It, Capitalist-Hating Leftists’

Posted on | November 30, 2013 | 44 Comments

So says Professor Donald Douglas in reporting the success of after-Thanksgiving “Black Friday” sales. My wife and daughters went to the stores for their traditional all-day bargain-hunting expedition yesterday, but here’s my favorite quote of the day:

Nancy Ketchen of Scotia, N.Y., stayed true to her family tradition of bringing her daughters to the Crossgates Mall in Albany on Black Friday. They shop, have lunch and then head to a nearby Target, a tradition that she says is more important than getting a better price Thursday evening or online. Her two daughters bought outfits for Christmas Day at Forever 21.
“Sometimes you can get a better deal on Amazon,” she said. “We’ve been doing this for 5 or 6 years. It’s fun.”
Despite the activity at stores, there was early evidence that many stayed home to shop deals online. By 6 p.m. Thursday, Thanksgiving online sales had increased 10% this year over the same period last year, according to IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark, which tracks transactions at 800 U.S. retail sites.

You can buy anything from our Amazon Affiliates links — with free shipping for most orders over $35 — and we receive a small commission at no cost to you, so it’s a nice way to shop conveniently and save money while also supporting the blog. Among the Amazon items readers have purchased this month:

 

Some retailers have been plagued by Black Friday violence, but no one was shot or stabbed while shopping our Amazon links.

We are grateful for the support, and hope our readers appreciate the convenience of Amazon shopping, because we’re all about the shameless profit motive. And as for those “capitalist-hating leftists”?

Yeah — suck it, commie scum!

 

Category: Amazon

‘I’m Not Some Whack Job,’ Says Jailed Alabama Blogger Roger Shuler

Posted on | November 30, 2013 | 44 Comments

Roger Shuler, Shelby County Jail inmate No. 288928

Popehat’s last update on the case carried this headline:

Alabama Court, Roger Shuler Continue To
Thwart Roger Shuler’s First Amendment Rights

The man is his own worst enemy. Even if you wanted to help a guy who had claimed that a federal judge once posed for a porn site — and refused to retract the claim even after the judge adamantly denied it — the kind of help he needs is a good lawyer, and Roger Shuler insists on representing himself, which he does quite badly.

Shuler was sued for defamation (not by the judge, but by another Republican) and refused to attend an October court hearing at which a judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction, so the judge had him arrested for contempt. Popehat says the injunction is unconstitutional as “prior restraint,” and Shuler also has the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, but at a hearing two weeks ago, Shuler refused to exercise his right to a court-appointed attorney.

If your goal in life is to be a First Amendment martyr, maybe this makes sense. Meanwhile, however, you’re wearing an orange jumpsuit in the Shelby County Jail, and you’re probably not helping yourself with interviews like this:

“To call it a kangaroo court is an insult to kangaroos,” Shuler said. “It’s worse than a joke.” . . .
He said he is deeply suspicious of the criminal justice system in Alabama — one of the reasons Shuler said he will represent himself in the case, as he has done in a number of previous legal skirmishes.
He quickly added, “I’m not some whack job who doesn’t want help. I want legal help, but it has to be the right kind of help. I’ve had some bad experiences with lawyers, and those experiences tell me that lawyers tend to take your money and represent the other side.”

OK, he hates judges and he distrusts lawyers, and he doesn’t seem to understand why this attitude leads to trouble, or why even those who otherwise want to help him might be reluctant to do so.

Can you explain to me again how Roger Shuler is not a “whack job”?

 

Category: Roger Shuler

How Desperate Is Sydney Leathers to Extend Her 15 Minutes of Infamy?

Posted on | November 30, 2013 | 51 Comments

It is rather quaint to remember that when Sydney Elaine Leathers was first identified as the former Obama campaign worker involved in a cybersex scandal with Anthony Weiner, some were reluctant to publish her name, seeing her as the victim of a predator.

Yeah. Except she’s a tattoo-covered slut who rented herself out to old creeps she met via “sugar daddy” sites.

The plump brunette harlot immediately seized upon the scandal to launch a porn career. And then . . .

There’s no delicate and polite way to say this: Sydney discovered she doesn’t like how her vagina looks. She thinks her labia are too big.

So she’s going to get surgery to trim her enormous flapping bat wings.

TMZ says the surgery will be performed by Dr. Neal Handel of Santa Barbara, California, for the fee of $8,400. And then . . .

Sydney will auction off the trimmings, encased in Lucite.

Is there a cultural significance to this story? Does my reporting this unsavory news serve any redeeming social purpose?

What we can discern is an extreme example of a trend, the vagina as commodity, which I have previously discussed: The pervasive influence of pornography and the general promiscuity of the “hook-up” culture has created competitive pressures on women, who feel that their sexual performance is constantly being judged, evaluated as a commercial product in the erotic marketplace.

We seem to be approaching a situation in which women are expected to send nude photos of themselves via cellphone to their prospective dates, marketing their bodies and their services in quite explicit ways. The whole “revenge porn” phenomenon originates in this kind of behavior, with women sharing what they think of as private photos, only to discover that their boyfriends have shared the intimate images with the whole world. In such an environment, the sense of being judged in comparison to others is heightened.

Sydney Leathers is self-conscious about her jumbo vagina lips because everybody is going to see them — or, at least, everybody who wants to see them can pay to see them, and she’s apparently embarrassed that “you could make a winter coat” from her excess drapery, as one of the TMZ producers said.

This is wrong at so many levels, it’s hard to figure out where to start.

For example, who decided that having large labia is a bad thing?

Even if Sydney Leathers is extraordinary in this regard — and forgive me for not doing the kind of in-depth investigative journalism that would be necessary to verify this — why is that a bad thing? Isn’t there at least a niche market value for that?

Couldn’t her unusually large  labia make Sydney memorably distinctive among porn performers? “Oh, yeah — Sydney Leathers! Isn’t she the one with the gigantic pink mudflaps?”

Maybe this publicity stunt is a cry for help. Maybe there is some Sydney Leathers fan out there — perhaps a disgraced former Democratic congressman — who will say, “No, Sydney! Don’t get that surgery! I’ve always adored your incredible floppy love-lips!”

Postal Dog brought this to my attention and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t plan to bid on the Sydney Leathers labia-in-lucite auction, but at least you know who to blame for making me aware of it.

 

Category: Celebrities, Sex

The CIA, JFK and Clay Shaw: Paranoia and the Conspiratorial Worldview

Posted on | November 29, 2013 | 84 Comments

Lee Harvey Oswald, arrested after an August 1963 pro-Castro protest

Why did Jim Garrison indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy? It was as ridiculous as it was simple: In 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald consulted a New Orleans attorney, Dean Andrews, to see if he could do something about his undesirable discharge from the Marine Reserves.

“Andrews . . .claimed that Oswald was referred to him by a young blond homosexual named Clay Bertrand.
“Although the FBI was never able to find a trace of this person, Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney, erroneously identified him as Clay Shaw, who was neither young nor blond, and indicted him on conspiracy charges. Shaw was subsequently found not guilty.”
— Edward Jay Epstein, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978)

That’s it, period. From this simple misidentification, Jim Garrison spun an implausible conspiracy theory that became the crux of Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK. Who was “Clay Bertrand”? We do not know. The FBI couldn’t find him and we don’t even know that such a person actually existed. It may be that Dean Andrews was confused. What we do know is that in 1967, Jim Garrison indicted Clay Shaw, a businessman who had served as a major in the U.S. Army and founded the New Orleans International Trade Mart, charging him with conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Beyond the fact that Clay Shaw was not the (possibly non-existent) “Clay Bertrand,” there was no reason on earth to suspect him of wanting to assassinate JFK, nor was there any evidence that he had anything to do with Lee Harvey Oswald. The American Spectator‘s Tom Bethell spent months working as a researcher for Garrison’s investigation:

Over the next year Shaw’s trial was repeatedly postponed. Garrison’s assistants were in no hurry to try the case because they didn’t have a case. . . .
Garrison was reckless, utterly irresponsible, willing to charge a man with the crime of the century regardless of the truth. Above all, he loved to shock people. Occasionally he claimed that Oswald was innocent. Small problem: Shaw’s guilt depended on Oswald’s guilt. When this was pointed out, Garrison waved the objection away. “You can argue it differently in court,” he said. One day he filed charges against Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. No one in the office would sign the papers, so Garrison had to do it himself. . . .
As for Clay Shaw? I agree with the jury that he was totally innocent. There was no credible evidence that he knew either Oswald or [David] Ferrie, let alone planned to shoot JFK. Shaw was homosexual and everyone knew that, but it never came out in the newspapers. Garrison’s people didn’t mention it, but the deal was that Shaw couldn’t produce character witnesses at his own trial.

In other words, Shaw’s homosexuality made him uniquely vulnerable to Garrison’s “reckless” prosecution, because if his defense had introduced character witnesses, those witnesses would have been subjected to cross-examination in which they might have been asked, under oath, about Shaw’s homosexuality — a scandalous fact that Shaw did not wish to make a matter of public record.

Such was the calculation of the “reckless” Jim Garrison, but perhaps you missed this crucial sentence about Garrison’s investigation:

“One day he filed charges against Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA.”

That’s really the crux of the whole thing: The CIA loomed large in the minds of Jim Garrison and others who wanted to believe that somehow the Agency, as the result of a policy disagreement with the Kennedy administration, had decided to have the President of the United States assassinated. And because Clay Shaw apparently had some contacts with the CIA, making him “Clay Bertrand” and connecting Shaw to Lee Harvey Oswald would thereby serve Garrison’s purpose of blaming JFK’s assassination on the CIA.

All of this comes to mind because today I watched C-SPAN coverage of a conference of JFK conspiracy theorists held in October at Duquesne University. One of the “experts” was Temple University Professor Joan Mellen. Her presentation was entitled, “Clay Shaw Unmasked: The Garrison Case Corroborated.” You can read that (don’t miss Page 2) and if you think that Professor Mellen has “unmasked” Clay Shaw or “corroborated” Jim Garrison’s case, you should seek professional psychiatric help immediately.

It is a loopy, disorganized mess.

To the extent that Mellen makes any point, it’s this: At his trial, Clay Shaw denied under oath that he worked for the CIA, but CIA records seem to indicate otherwise, and therefore . . .

Therefore, what?

Damned if I can figure it out. Joan Mellen has evidently never heard of Occam’s Razor, nor of any other principle of logic, and exactly how she thinks she has proven anything is a mystery. Let us stipulate that during the Cold War, the CIA utilized a lot of “assets” who weren’t at liberty to disclose their relationship with the Agency, and that if Clay Shaw was such an asset (as records do seem to indicate) he sure as hell wasn’t going to say so in public — not even when testifying under oath — because that’s just not how the CIA rolls.

It is, however, an implausible leap from (a) Clay Shaw did some work for the CIA to (b) Clay Shaw conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate the President of the United States, when there is no credible evidence that Shaw ever even met Oswald.

But that’s how it goes, see? If you attribute sinister magical powers to the CIA — if the Agency exists in your mind as a sort of omnipotent bogeyman — anything is possible. And if anything is possible, then all that is necessary is to allege that something happened (e.g., a secret meeting between Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald) and, unless someone can prove it didn’t happen, then you have the basis of a conspiracy theory. Also, since the CIA is allegedly all-powerful, they can make evidence disappear, so if you don’t have any proof of your theory, you can just blame the CIA for that, too.

Laugh if you want to, but there are a surprising number of people who think that way. There is a non-profit organization, the Mary Ferrell Foundation, devoted entirely to promoting the kind of “critical thinking” (their term) behind this kind of paranoid nonsense.

 

 


Category: Conspiracy Theories, History

Helping Dr. Helen Sort All This Out

Posted on | November 29, 2013 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

Let’s lay down a few Lefty assertions that, while not absolutely true, may have some explanatory power:

  1. The federal government, staffed with ‘officials’ and ‘experts’, is your parent.
  2. You are a sheep, lacking free will, and are a sort of hormonal robot.
  3. You are a guilt-free slut-o-matic, or dildo with feet, and should both consider the natural plumbing a mere going-in position (heh), and indulge every hedonistic whim in the name of “liberty”.
  4. All of the traditional moral frameworks are, like, over 100 years old. Who can understand them? If you feel a transient confusion, see #1. In any case, do not keep your hormones to yourself, reach a proper adulthood, and attempt to rise above your 20g chocolate ration.
  5. All women are victims, and all males are oppressors. Building upon #4, the notion of equality before the law, irrespective of the selected gender identity of the moment, is dispatched to the midden-heap of history. (How can Democrats build a permanent political hegemony if treating everyone truly equally?)
  6. You are a victim. You didn’t build that family, you’ll never build that family, but if you give everything to #1, the feddle gummint can ensure that nobody else can, either.
  7. So eat, drink, be merry: for that is the career the feddle gummint has set for you.

Dr. Helen is mystified at the asymmetry of college kids, booze, and sex:

Why is it that women can’t think if drunk but men can? Why is it always about men controlling themselves and being responsible for any sex act while women are treated as children?

Given the aforementioned assertions, what we have in modern college is a cultural grinder whose chief product is Democrat sheep who will do several things:

  • make a lot of money, as they are rendered too stupid to grasp heterosexuality and the joy of parenting, and
  • give that money to the Democratic party, and finally,
  • never question what their Progressive Overlords say, as they’re too intellectually stunted.

Of course, that’s idiotic. It’s a purely myopic, culturally destructive, near-term approach. Following such an approach would lead to things like a “knockout game”, and holiday shopping spectacles indistinguishable from a rugby scrum. What country would be stupid enough to buy into all that?

via Instapundit

Category: Culture, Instapundit

The Crisis of the Obama Cult

Posted on | November 29, 2013 | 58 Comments

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

Ace nailed it the other day:

[T]he Liberal Chattering Classes are facing a question now: “Will my reputation and sense of pride survive Obama’s incompetence?”
And: “How absurd am I willing to make myself in order to cover up for this arrogant buffoon’s incompetence?”
Some people may begin to peel off — not because they’re not in-the-tank partisan shills, mind you, but because they’re in-the-tank partisan shills who still have some functioning sense of self-respect left in them.
They are beginning to realize that loving Obama means, in the end, hating yourself. You have to sacrifice everything for him — your honesty, your integrity, your autonomy. Your reputation, your legacy, your pride.
His incompetence and deceit are at such a level that he will not permit you to support him and retain a shred of self-respect for yourself.
Devotion to Obama requires destruction of the self. Obama is a jealous Messiah, and will not permit you to love anything else — even yourself.

Josh Marshall has gone all-in on self-abnegation. Other cultists may be less willing to “step out on faith” so boldly. Remember that the phrase “drink the Kool-Aid” is a reference to the means of mass suicide at Jonestown. And remember that Jim Jones was a leftist.

 


Category: Barack Obama
« 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