Yeah! Work It!
The Camera Loves You!
Let's See That Attitude!
You're A Superstar!
You Own That Runway!
Sassy!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Glam Cats
Yeah! Work It!
The Camera Loves You!
Let's See That Attitude!
You're A Superstar!
You Own That Runway!
Sassy!
Friday, January 14, 2011
Dumb and Dumber
via Digby:
"Could be perceived as threatening?"
You know, it's already a crime to actually threaten a member of Congress.
Seen these recent headlines?
Seriously, you really think Capitol Hill security isn't strong enough?
Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.
"Could be perceived as threatening?"
You know, it's already a crime to actually threaten a member of Congress.
Seen these recent headlines?
Palm Springs Man Arrested for Threatening Congressman
Man Arrested in Denver for Threat to Shoot Aides to U.S. Senator Bennet
Relatives Says Man Arrested For Threatening Democratic Senator Was ‘Under The Spell That Glenn Beck Cast’
But using imagery that might be perceived as threatening? You want to make that a crime? Palin's cross-hairs map was irresponsible and in very bad taste, but it was NOT a crime. Her people have every right to be irresponsible and tasteless. That's called free speech. And when idiots like Rush Limbaugh start whining that people asking them to be more responsible in their rhetoric really means that the "left" is trying to censor or silence them, it makes it a lot harder to say "you're full of shit, Rush" when you propose an asinine law like this.
But wait! Someone has come up with an even stupider response to the Tucson shootings:
Wow. You better hope B-1 Bob Dornan never gets re-elected.*Gohmert drafts bill to allow guns on House floor
Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert says his office is drafting a measure to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the District of Columbia, including in the Capitol and on the House floor.
Seriously, you really think Capitol Hill security isn't strong enough?
yr
a
W
And do you think that if some dangerous lunatic actually manages to make it past all this highly-trained, heavily-armed law enforcement personel, you're going to stop him?
You?
sorry, wrong picture.
I mean. . .you?
You're gonna take the criminal down with your Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle? Think again, buddy boy. Or not "again," just think. Think.
* Dornan made headlines in March 1985 for a confrontation with Representative Thomas DowneyD-NY) on the House floor. Downey asked Dornan about comments he had made calling Downey "a draft-dodging wimp". According to Downey, Dornan grabbed him by the collar and tie, said "It's good you're being protected by the sergeant-at-arms. If I saw you outside, it would be a different story," and threatened him "with some form of bodily harm". Dornan claimed he was merely straightening Downey's tie and refused to apologize for the incident or the derogatory comment. A Dornan aide said "It will be a cold day in hell before he gets an apology from Bob Dornan."[3]
Thursday, January 13, 2011
You Stay Classy, Boehner!
No matter what tragedy may occur, you can NEVER postpone a fundraiser!
From Roll Call:
Oh, well. That's different. There's nothing you can do if your event was already scheduled. Except. . .
From Roll Call:
Boehner to Host RNC Party During Tucson Memorial
Speaker John Boehner will host a cocktail party for the Republican National Committee at the same time that President Barack Obama will be addressing the nation at the memorial service for victims of the Tucson shooting.Boehner turned down a Tuesday invitation from Obama to fly to Tucson with him, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other lawmakers for the Wednesday night memorial service.
Another Boehner aide emphasized that the RNC reception was scheduled before the memorial event was set.
Oh, well. That's different. There's nothing you can do if your event was already scheduled. Except. . .
Separately, Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday that he canceled a meet-and-greet event Tuesday night for new members on the committee and the defense community because it would not be appropriate in light of the tragedy. Giffords is a member of the committee.John Boehner, class act.
The Malkin Machine
If you say to a normal person "President Obama made a speech yesterday at the memorial in Tuscon," a normal person will react something along the lines of: "Let's see what he said. Oh, that was a good point. Hmm, I disagree with that point. That was well said. That could have been phrased better, etc." Or you could just feed the information into the Malkin Machine.
"Bizarre Pep Rally?" It's actually shocking that she used the words "right speech," thge Malkin Machine must have a slight malfunction. But too late? Should he have given the memorial speech before the people were killed?
Boneheaded venue? Where should he have given it? Somewhere other than the site of the memorial? That would make sense.
Granted, "Together We Thrive" is a pretty retarded theme for what is basically a huge funeral, but seriously, you object to the logo being blue?
Of course, there's also this little detail:
Hmmmmm. . . the U of A came up with the slogan and the logo. But still, it must somehow be Obama's nefarious doings.
Damn, the machine is hitting on all cylinders now! Either Obama is responsible, or the if the University is responsible then Obama is still responsible.
Now, I seem to remember the headline to this "liveblog" thing including the phrase:
I will agree with Malkin on one point, whoops and hollers for anyone are really unseemly at a memorial service. Just tacky and disrespectful to those who are in mourning. But why lie about Governor Brewer's reception? What the hell is the point of that?
See, now that's just being dishonest. What Sheriff Dupnik and others have said, and probably incorrectly in this particular case, is that the steady stream of hate and violent rhetoric from right-wing blowhards like, for instance, Michelle Malkin, can be dangerous in that it can inspire acts of actual violence. That's not vitriol. That is a condemnation of vitriol.
Also, why is it that when barack Obama speaks at a memorial he is politicizing the event, but when Jan Brewer speaks at the same memorial she is " bring[ing] reverence and sobriety to the event"?
The technology is a little complicated, but it the process is basically this:
Which is how Michelle Malkin ends up trashing things like the President speaking at a memorial for 6 innocent victims.
Really.
Look:
Branding the Tucson massacre: “Together We Thrive” in white and blue; Updated: Liveblogging the bizarre pep rally; Gov. Brewer booed; in sum: right speech, too late, boneheaded venue (WOOT!)
"Bizarre Pep Rally?" It's actually shocking that she used the words "right speech," thge Malkin Machine must have a slight malfunction. But too late? Should he have given the memorial speech before the people were killed?
Boneheaded venue? Where should he have given it? Somewhere other than the site of the memorial? That would make sense.
President Obama used to preach that there was no “Red America” and no “Blue America,” just one America.
But tonight at the memorial for the Tucson massacre victims, it will be a sea of blue as the White House unveils the “Together We Thrive” logo and slogan.
Granted, "Together We Thrive" is a pretty retarded theme for what is basically a huge funeral, but seriously, you object to the logo being blue?
Of course, there's also this little detail:
Update: As noted above, the University of Arizona announced the Together We Thrive event — and a few readers write in to say that the campus initiated the logo/campaign.
Hmmmmm. . . the U of A came up with the slogan and the logo. But still, it must somehow be Obama's nefarious doings.
. . . a few readers write in to say that the campus initiated the logo/campaign. Given U of A president Robert Shelton’s embarrassing, thinly-veiled partisan cheerleading for Obama tonight, it may indeed be a 100 percent-campus-initiated campaign. Given the Obama White House’s meticulous attention to stage prop details, however, I would say the odds of involvement by Axelrod/Plouffe & Co. are high.
Damn, the machine is hitting on all cylinders now! Either Obama is responsible, or the if the University is responsible then Obama is still responsible.
Now, I seem to remember the headline to this "liveblog" thing including the phrase:
Gov. Brewer booed
And yet, according to your account of the events, this happened:Gov. Brewer takes the stage to polite applause and pays tribute to the victims. The shooting “pierced our sense of well-being.” Arizona’s hope “will not be shredded by one madman’s act of darkness.”(emphasis added by me)
Brewer brings reverence and sobriety to the event, God bless her: We will go forward “in prayer, unbending and unbowed.”
And immediately, the sobriety is broken by massive whoops and hollers for Janet Napolitano.
Just. Gross.
I will agree with Malkin on one point, whoops and hollers for anyone are really unseemly at a memorial service. Just tacky and disrespectful to those who are in mourning. But why lie about Governor Brewer's reception? What the hell is the point of that?
Bottom line:
Speeches and leadership are not the same thing.
Obama delivered one tonight, but failed at the other over the past three days as Pima County Sheriff Dupnik, Democrat Party leaders, and media abettors poisoned the public square with the very vitriol the president now condemns.
See, now that's just being dishonest. What Sheriff Dupnik and others have said, and probably incorrectly in this particular case, is that the steady stream of hate and violent rhetoric from right-wing blowhards like, for instance, Michelle Malkin, can be dangerous in that it can inspire acts of actual violence. That's not vitriol. That is a condemnation of vitriol.
Also, why is it that when barack Obama speaks at a memorial he is politicizing the event, but when Jan Brewer speaks at the same memorial she is " bring[ing] reverence and sobriety to the event"?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Do These People Have Any Idea What Words Mean?
"Blood Libel?" The Palinistas are throwing out the term "Blood Libel?" Because that term means something. Something very specific.
According to Zionism-Israel.com:
So who dug up this term? Because clearly Palin didn't come up with this on her own. So who did her writer crib it from?
It looks like soulless lie machine Andrew Breitbart may have been the originator, using it in a "tweet" on Tuesday:
That seems about right. Breitbart is exactly the kind of dishonest bottom-feeder that would purposely use this sort of terminology to imply that the right-wing machine is some sort of oppressed minority.
The term has also popped up on the truly awful "Human Events" website:
committing child murder in order to consume human blood. But to Palin and her supporters, any criticism of her or them may actually feel like being unfairly accused of a heinous crime.
Oh, well if Douchewitz has used it in a somewhat more relatable context to defend the State of Israel, then of course a lightweight political celebrity should feel free to invoke the memories of countless pogroms and persecutions to paint herself as blameless.
Of course, there is a difference. Originally the blood libel was a horrific lie designed to justify the persecution, expelling and killing of an ethnic minority. What has been said about Sarah Palin is essentially true, that her rhetoric plays a part in creating a climate of hatred which could potentially influence someone to act violently. It may be somewhat unfair to connect her to this particular tragedy, but what her critics are saying is basically true. No one is accusing her of committing any acts of violence herself.
Saying that Palin ought to tone down the violent imagery hardly seems equivalent to accusing someone of child murder. But I think maybe to someone like Palin, any criticism feels like an unfair and outrageous accusation. Because she's always the victim.
According to Zionism-Israel.com:
Blood Libel - The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various "medicinal" purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions. It is one of the central fables of Anti-Semitism of the older (middle ages) type.
So who dug up this term? Because clearly Palin didn't come up with this on her own. So who did her writer crib it from?
It looks like soulless lie machine Andrew Breitbart may have been the originator, using it in a "tweet" on Tuesday:
And to the gutless GOP establishment who watches in silence the blood libel against @SarahPalinUSA. We will remember. #TeaParty
about 17 hours ago via web
Retweeted by 100+ people
Reply Retweet .AndrewBreitbartFooter© 2011 TwitterAbout UsContactBlogStatusResourcesAPIBusinessHelpJobsTermsPrivacy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That seems about right. Breitbart is exactly the kind of dishonest bottom-feeder that would purposely use this sort of terminology to imply that the right-wing machine is some sort of oppressed minority.
The term has also popped up on the truly awful "Human Events" website:
committing child murder in order to consume human blood. But to Palin and her supporters, any criticism of her or them may actually feel like being unfairly accused of a heinous crime.
The Giffords Blood Libel Will FailAnd for some reason, Palin's use of the term has been given the OK by Alan Derschowitz, who was, at one time, a respected legal scholar but has evolved over time into ten pounds of douche in a five pound bag.
The Left rides a horse that is dying beneath them.
by John Hayward
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report.
Oh, well if Douchewitz has used it in a somewhat more relatable context to defend the State of Israel, then of course a lightweight political celebrity should feel free to invoke the memories of countless pogroms and persecutions to paint herself as blameless.
Of course, there is a difference. Originally the blood libel was a horrific lie designed to justify the persecution, expelling and killing of an ethnic minority. What has been said about Sarah Palin is essentially true, that her rhetoric plays a part in creating a climate of hatred which could potentially influence someone to act violently. It may be somewhat unfair to connect her to this particular tragedy, but what her critics are saying is basically true. No one is accusing her of committing any acts of violence herself.
Saying that Palin ought to tone down the violent imagery hardly seems equivalent to accusing someone of child murder. But I think maybe to someone like Palin, any criticism feels like an unfair and outrageous accusation. Because she's always the victim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)