The Blogging Equivalent Of Being Whisked Off To The Cornfield

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

#UPDATE `wp_comments` 
 SET    `comment_approved` = 0 
 WHERE   comment_author='gg';

#522 row(s) affected. ( Query took 0.1370 sec )

So, that was a trifle drastic. I had hoped an earlier comment hint I left about opening his own shop on Blogger would have been enough. Then there was this email from Stacy:

GG has just gotten too damned annoying, jumping on every new post to add distracting crap, sometimes tying up posts with lengthy and irrelevant nonsense. Compare and contrast GG to Y4E — an outspoken liberal, but always on-topic and concise.
Therefore, all future comments from GG should be marked as spam and/or sent to trash. Please feel free to put up a post this evening (suggested title simply “GG Is Banned”) explaining my executive decision, and quote this e-mail. I try to be inclusive within reason, but there are limits to my patience when it comes to trolls. If GG wants to create the “GG blog,” fine. But hijacking our bandwith with purposeful distractions is unacceptable.
— RSM

gg, your posts are not gone-gone: if you’re interested in the content, let me know. I can package it up and send it to you with just a tiny bit of Stupid Question Language (SQL).

Also, note that there is no chip on the shoulder. You’re welcome to comment in the accepted internet fashion.

But those three lines of SQL can also be re-run in cases of future post-jacking.

If I could only re-write this to handle Progressives. . .

‘Basically, There’s No Hardcore Ravaging of Women in Novels Anymore. And That’s a Bad Thing.’

Posted on Comments

Hey, don’t blame me — somebody at GQ said that. I’m just quoting it because I saw it linked at Protein Wisdom. So it’s not like I am making the argument that women ought to be ravaged, hard-core or otherwise.

At least not in novels.

One reason I’ve never tried to write a novel is because, sooner or later, you’ve got to have a sex scene. There’s this gnawing fear that (a) the scene would be interpreted as the writer’s own personal fantasy or a roman à clef and (b) the results might be ridiculous.

UPDATE: One of the commenters points out that the GQ writer uses “ravage,” where ravish is actually better. Girl On the Right wants to be ravished, and often, and by someone who knows how.

Great: Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi Have Screwed Up My Last Day in L.A.

Posted on Comments

WOODLAND HILLS, Calif. — My plans were all set: I’d drop by Pamela Geller’s 7 p.m. event on Sepulveda Boulevard, get some quick pictures, jump in the rental car, hustle down to LAX and return the car, and still leave myself plenty of time to catch the red-eye flight back home. What could possibly go wrong?

President Barack Obama will visit Los Angeles this Monday, for a 24-hour stay during which he will headline a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The President is scheduled to land at Los Angeles International Airport at 4:10 pm on August 16th, attend the DCCC fundraiser that evening, spend the night, and depart Tuesday morning.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced last month that she will also be present at the DCCC’s top-dollar event, which is reportedly being held at the home of Marilyn and John Wells and costs between $2,500 and $30,400 to attend.

(Insert profane adjectives and obscene epithets here.) Wells is a liberal TV producer, and guests at the event will include Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Barbra Streisand.

What this means for me is that there will be police blocking off streets, heavy-duty Secret Service/DHS security all over town, and almost certainly an apocalyptic traffic jam between Sepulveda Boulevard and LAX, with further hassles at the airport because of the extra security for Air Force One.

In other words, I’m screwed, blued and tattooed. The 405 will be a gridlocked nightmare. A high-speed “Dukes of Hazzard” run to the airport — zig-zagging crazily through traffic on the surface streets — would almost certainly get me arrested now that presidential-level security is in effect throughout Los Angeles. The cops would run my license number through the headquarters computer which would kick off a red alert on the DHS Right Wing Extremist Watch List and it would quickly turn into an ugly scene. Pepper spray, tasers, K-9 units, SWAT . . .

No, I can’t risk that. Mrs. Other McCain made me promise to stay out of trouble during this West Coast trip, and even if I explain that it’s not my fault (“Honey, I’m a victim of police brutality — like Rodney King!”) she’d let me rot in San Quentin before she’d pay my bail. And I can’t re-schedule the flight for later, because I need to get back East to go cover the Christine O’Donnell Senate campaign in Delaware.

So I’ll have to scratch my plans to attend the 7 p.m. Geller/Spencer event at the Skirball Center and instead leave early for LAX, and probably end up sitting around an airport lounge for hours, all because of Obama.

Hit the tip jar, folks — it’s going to be a long night.

UPDATE: Dan Riehl calls attention to the NRCC’s response to Obama’s traffic-snarling Hollywood trip:

Don’t let Democrats mislead voters – the economic mess is a result of THEIR failed agenda. A group of Republican House Members have come together to agree to match dollar-for-dollar the funds raised through this page to offset the large sums of money the President will raise for vulnerable Liberal Democrat Members.

Suggestion: Skip the national GOP committees and give your money directly to Republican candidates of your choice. Giving $20 directly to individual candidates like Allen West, Liz Carter, Bill Gunn, Ray McKinney or Mattie Fein will have far more impact than giving a similar amount to the national committees, which (a) can collect their money in big lumps from special-interest fat cats, and (b) regularly support backstabbing RINO losers like Dede Scozzafava.

What Do You Mean, ‘WE’?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

In the post on the GZM as an election issue, I had said:

“I’m all for seeing ecumenical centers at all sorts of hallowed sites, like Mecca, Medina, and Ground Zero. Because if ‘tolerance’ and ’sensitivity’ are not omni-directional, then they may just be cheap talking points proffered by the nefarious.”

And our senior critic from the Left, Young4Eyes, replied:

Your point is moot.
It’s not a matter of any tolerance or sensitivity being omni-directional or not; I’ve heard this argument before and it strikes me as sadly devoid of any reason.
Our principles are not theirs. Dare I say that our standards are better? Of course.
Therefore any excuse making that seeks to equate their ways with ours is pathetic. WE abide by principles that distinguish us from their Sharia standards.
You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?
Because we are America.
Anything else reeks of the phony Conservatism you folks espouse.

Actually, the point is well-founded on a reasonable argument. I even expounded on the point here.
The notion of deciding what is and is not tolerance is a purely moral case.
I can espouse and follow as radical a flavor of Christianity as I care to, even dropping out to become an Amish farmer.
Do I get to drag you with me, though?
No, that would be unethical.
WE, in fact, do not abide by standards that distinguish us from Sharia. Sharia, from casual reads of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Andrew McCarthy, is a totalitarian, Borg-like system that, in full bloom, really doesn’t play well with notions like, say, Western Civilization.
And, no, I don’t think Christianity, and its individual moral choices and doctrine of individual salvation require a completely passive acceptance of being treated like a doormat. Furthermore, the notion that the US is a “Christian nation” is truly radical to me, for reasons stated in the previous sentence: Christianity is an individual, apolitical, moral endeavor. If you want to attend my church, study the Bible in the King James version, and build some argument whereby you think your point is tenable, fine.
Until such time, all I see is projection: “You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?”
Who is being denied religious freedom here? Who has explicitly stated “You cannot go to location X unless you are a member of Y faith”? What, specifically, is intolerant about requesting your own views on a matter as emotionally charged as a mass murder receive respect? And not lip service, but tangible action?
What about a church at Ground Zero that was destroyed, and has not been rebuilt, but may not be receiving equal consideration?
I realize you’re here to troll, Young4Eyes, but even you must admit that the Ground Zero Mosque is achieving exactly the opposite of its stated intent, and this Saul Alinsky “Hold the opposition to their standards” tactic is a barrel of hogwash.

Doctor Zero is also worth your time on the topic.
As is the rather more passionate Freeberg.

Obama’s Propaganda Machine

Posted on Comments

Rep. Darrell Issa’s office has issued a new report on how the Obama administration is using taxpayer dollars to promote a political agenda. Jonathan Strong of Daily Caller writes:

One of the Obama administration’s more expensive “propaganda” efforts, according to the report, was a television commercial boosting the then-newly passed health care law. The advertisement features 84-year-old television star Andy Griffith and was designed to sell senior citizens, whom polls show are particularly opposed to ObamaCare, on the “good things [that] are coming” in the law.
“Free check ups, lower prescription costs, and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud . . . I think you’re gonna like it,” Griffith said in the ad. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency responsible for implementing the health care law, paid $700,000 for the commercial, the Issa report says.

Dan Riehl notes that the administration has used blog trolls to spread its message, and there’s more from Bob Owens at Pajamas Media. Fox News featured the Issa report:

Congratulations, Pamela Geller!

Posted on Comments

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America just went into its second printing, Pamela told me last night in a phone conversation. 

Geller is in Los Angeles to speak tonight (7 p.m.) with Robert Spencer at the Skirball Cultural Center in an event co-sponsored by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Pamela told me that they are planning a 9/11 rally against the Ground Zero Mosque with Newt Gingrich. She is quoted in a Wall Street Journal story today:

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller, founder of a group called Stop Islamization of America and a vocal opponent of the mosque near Ground Zero, blasted Mr. Obama in a statement. The president, she said, “has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists.”

It’s as if Obama is trying to help Pamela sell books — as is Hamas:

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Muslims “have to build” it there.

Having Hamas on your side isn’t exactly a formula for success in American politics. Obama has screwed the pooch on this one. This morning I was watching MSNBC, where Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas) was telling Obama to keep his presidential nose out of New York’s business and Pat Buchanan was opposing the mosque saying, “This is sacred ground!” Clearly, Pamela is winning this argument.

UPDATE: Professor Donald Douglas plans to attend tonight’s L.A. event with Geller and Spencer.

Conspicuously Absent Words

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Reading Lefties can be a source of sad amusement. Curtis Valentine at PuffHo has a piece trying to find the ointment on the economic fly. Here is a bit of introductory text for flavor:

Over the past twenty-five years, the exorbitant increase in the American standard of living has had an inverse affect on our tendencies to borrow and share. With millions of Americans enjoying a flourishing economy, the idea of Keeping up with the Jones’ was given new meaning and the term community development was reserved for poor neighborhoods filled with America’s underprivileged.

For all the Americans migrating to major cities and the immigrants arriving on our shores over the past century, this sense of community was the expectation not the exception. The recent age of overconsumption has caused the middle class to become less dependent on one another creating a level of independence that altered the traditional idea of community as we all envisioned it.

But then there is this:

With all the talk about preserving the institution of marriage and strengthening the American family, there has been little discussion about creating communities and institutions that can act as a support system or safety net for the families in times of need. The need is even more pronounced in single-parent homes that depend on extended family members, friends, and neighbors for emotional and financial support.

OK, Curtis, you managed to say “institution of marriage”. You almost uttered a word to describe where such an event occurs; a church, or a synagogue, or even a mosque maybe? See, those are safety nets not only when in need, but even more importantly, before the need arises.

You can generalize to “community of faith”, if you’re fretting an attack for proselytizing. But the statistical truth since the Great Society is that your social programs are a cure worse than the disease.

Socially, as politically, our task is to revive the mostly valuable traditions that the country is founded upon, and tell the Curtis crowd to talk to the hand.