Quote Of The Day

"One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad."

- Dennis Prager, "Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More Than Conservatives Do"

And there's no doubt in my mind who it will be.

Posted by: Gary at 02:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

47% "Definitely Would Not Vote" For Hillary

A new CNN poll shows 47% are guaranteed "no" votes for Hillary Clinton. The same percentage registered "no" for John Kerry and 48% said "no" for Al Gore. The poll of 1,001 adult Americans was conducted June 1-6 by Harris Interactive and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Now being CNN, I'm inclined to believe that they low-balled that figure. Imagine if the real number is 50% or higher? Now that would be news. Of course you also need to qualify the sampling since "adult Americans" does not necessarily mean "registered voters", much less "likely voters". In any case, the fact that Hillary has such high negatives only makes her position even more precarious. Her balancing act between appeasing the moonbats in the primaries and appealing to non-moonbats in the general election will be like threading a needle.

But, hey, it's a still a long way to go to November 2008. Without the results of this year's elections to complete the picture, 2008 is still a wide open race.

Related: Hillary Scares Voters!

Posted by: Gary at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Raise Shields!

With the possibility of North Korea "testing" a new Taepodong-2 nuclear missile, the Defense Department has formally activated it's nascent missile defense shield system.

The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said.

One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added that any launch would be a serious matter and "would be taken with utmost seriousness and indeed a provocative act."

Remember those douche bags who scoffed at missile defense? Remember those Left-wing nuclear-freeze idiots who derided it as "Star Wars" and called the research a waste of money (that could be better wasted on gubment handouts and pork projects)? Remember how they mocked Ronald Reagan and still do today, even though the Soviets admitted that his adherence to the program is what finally broke their system?

Well, thank God George W. Bush said "no" to the out-dated and useless ABM treaty and had SecDef Donald Rumsfeld put a plan in place to implement this program!

Rummy has issued a warning to that buck-toothed little twerp Kim Jong-Il:

"Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL missile defense shield! Fire at will, Commander!"

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

RINO Sightings: Father's Day Edition

Posted by Larry Bernard at Inside Larry's Head. Go check it out.

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

John Murtha Has An Opponent

Who is Diana Irey? She's running against Rep. John "Mad" Murtha for his Western PA Congressional seat - the 12th District. Here's her website.

Looks like Irey is not holding back:

"John Murtha – Wrong on National Defense. John Murtha actually voted to cut spending on our national security by $76 billion. Then, he voted in favor of instituting the draft! And, perhaps most stunning of all, John Murtha spoke out against the brave men and women who are defending our freedom by calling for an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq."

She made an appearance on FoxNews today. HotAir.com has the clip.

Anyone who saw Murtha's appearance on "Meet The Shills Press" yesterday can see the man has lost his mind.

Diana Ivey for Congress!!! Because Benedict Arnold served his country too.

Posted by: Gary at 04:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Lieberman Will Go To Primary

At least that's the plan. And if that doesn't work, there's always plan B: go independent. Allahpundit lays out a fun scenario:

"The primaryÂ’s August 8th. The deadline for submitting the requisite 7,500 signatures for an independent run is 4 p.m. on August 9th. If heÂ’s going to play chicken with Lamont in the primary, he needs to raise the stakes and promise that he wonÂ’t start collecting signatures until the primaryÂ’s over. WouldnÂ’t it be awesome on August 9th to watch the army of Joementum canvassers see if they can beat the clock? You know the nutroots retards would send out teams of anti-canvassers to harass them, too. Imagine someone opening their door in Danbury to find two kids with a clipboard in Lieberman t-shirts and two idiots behind them in black bloc gear trying to shout them down with blood-for-oil slogans. Please, god, make it happen.

Personally, I'd prefer to see Lieberman win outright because it'll make the Kos Kidz and Moron.Org look stoopid. But then if Lieberman wins as an independent, it'll make the DSCC look even worse.

The next six to seven weeks should be fun.

Posted by: Gary at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

World Cup Highlights

Sweden beats Paraguay 1-0.

Giggity...giggity...goo!:

Swedish chicks in bikinis savor victory (and each other)!

Swedish cheerleaders work their butts off showing national spirit!

Oh, and apparently there are a bunch of guys kicking a soccer ball around too.

Posted by: Gary at 11:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

"Superman Returns"...Is That A Good Thing?

Well, how'd we do?

Some of the early reviews are in - caution all contain some degree of spoilers (if it's actually possible to spoil a plot everyone is already familiar with):

Newsweek (thumbs up): "[Director Brian] Singer did the right thing. From the start of this gorgeously crafted epic, you can feel that Singer has real love and respect for the most foursquare comics superhero of them all, as well as a reverence for the Donner version, which serves as his visual and emotional template."

The Hollywood Reporter (thumbs up): "This high-wire act would have gone for naught if Routh had not so capably filled the Man of Steel's costume. Like Reeve, he is just right physically, looking at times like the old comic book drawings of Superman. There is honesty in his acting where the emotions that play across Superman/Clark Kent's face and body come from deep within."

Variety (thumbs up): "Singer imprints his handiwork with its own personality. Despite its acute awareness of what's come before, 'Superman Returns' is never self-consciously hip, ironic, post-modern or camp. To the contrary, it's quite sincere, with an artistic elegance and a genuine emotional investment in the material that creates renewed engagement in these long-familiar characters and a well-earned payoff after 2½ hours spent with them."

And then, to provide a little balast, we have a dissent from Libertas (F*** This Sh*t):

Superman Returns‘ FX tend to be on the hyper-detailed side, and impressive. Clearly about $200 million of the film’s budget was spent on FX, but after a while the visuals cease to be compelling. You just want a character, some recognizably human personality to hang on to. You can’t make a 2 1/2 hour film and not have characters - but that’s basically what Singer’s done here. He expects you to be ‘blown away’ so much that you don’t notice what’s missing: humanity, emotion, personality. One other point: superior filmmakers like George Lucas and Peter Jackson use visual effects to create worlds, new environments. Singer does none of that - his New York looks no different than Spider-Man’s New York, no different from any other New York - just louder and a lot more violent.

IÂ’d like to stop the review here and make a suggestion to the powers-that-be in Hollywood. Although some of you read this blog, you wonÂ’t listen, because the din of the cash registers will be too loud when this film opens in a few weeks Â… but here goes anyway. Hollywood spends a lot of its time and seemingly all its money these days making superhero movies about guys with Â’special powers.Â’ Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four, etc., ad nauseum. And hereÂ’s the rub: I donÂ’t remember guys like Humphrey Bogart or Gary Cooper or James Cagney or John Wayne or even Harrison Ford having Â’special powers.Â’ The only Â’special powersÂ’ those guys had were their fists, their wits, and their character - their substance as human beings. Most of us in life donÂ’t have Â’special powersÂ’ to brood over. WeÂ’re just regular Joes trying to get by, and we have a hard time relating to wonderboys like Brandon Routh or Tobey Maguire because their problems seem extremely trivial, and because while they probably look great in Zegna suits on the cover of GQ they donÂ’t look like they can take a punch. Nor do they seem to stand for much. I know what Gary Cooper stood for in his films. I have no frigging clue what your cute little superheros stand for, other than their own narcissism.

Jason's review may seem harsh and more of a critique of the whole genre, but he does make some valid points. The original "Superman" and "Superman II" were heavy on character and story wrapped in a few well done visual effects and a kick-ass soundtrack. In his opinion, this is more of special effects showcase built around an existing set of characters. In other words, it rings hollow for him.

I felt something similar about this year's "Poseidon", but I think in this case the movie audience will look past this. There's something about "Superman" that really jacks up a young audience and fuels nostalgia for us old farts. I agree that the bar for great filmmaking has been substantially lowered over the last ten to twenty years. "Superman Returns" is probably not a great film. It probably won't stand the test of time as the originals (at least I & II).

But the bottom line is I have a ten-year old who can't wait to see it. And I can almost guaranty that he's going to love it. My own expectations are that I just hope that I like it. Because nowadays when I go to the theater, those are just about the best expectations I can realistically allow myself to have.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 819 words, total size 5 kb.

Happy Father's Day

Sunset at the lake.

Posted by: Gary at 07:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Rather Out On His Ass

Dan Rather has pretty much been given his walking papers. Although technically he's "negotiating" an early exit from his CBS contract, it's pretty clear that the Tiffany network has no room in its attic for this guy.

Dan is the guy on the right standing next to the Cuban dictator.

Once the dean of news anchors (back when the three networks had a monopoly on the information they wanted you to hear), Rather publicly embarrassed himself and lost all trace of journalistic credibility last November with his "fake but accurate" TANG story about President Bush. His attempt to stand by a story based on completely fabricated evidence was so pathetic and cringe-worthy that CBS forced him to retire his seat at the CBS Evening News anchor desk and hoped he would quietly retire. Apparently, Dan couldn't (or wouldn't) take the hint. Now he'll be wandering around his house in his pajamas, pining for the days when it seemed like he mattered.

HA!

Just because you want a story to be true, Dan, doesn't make it true. Too bad some sharp kids in the blogosphere were able to recognize a Microsoft Word generated font when they saw one.

Don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out!

Oh, and Dan?

"Courage"

Posted by: Gary at 04:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

New Poll

Here are the results for the "you pick al-Zarqawi's hell" poll:

Which Scenario Do You Most Hope Is True For Al-Zarqawi's Afterlife?

32.0% Reincarnated As One Of Michael Jackson's Adopted Children

30.7% Satan's Love Slave

21.3% Locked In A Room For All Eternity With Barbra Striesand Music Piped In

13.3% One 72-Year Old Virgin...With Leprosy

2.7% Locked In A Room For All Eternity With A Collection Of Ben Affleck DVDs

Since we about one third into the summer movie season, I thought I'd get a read on which of the higher profile offerings have most underwhelmed your expectations.

Pop on over to the sidebar and place your vote!

Posted by: Gary at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Stay The Course

After somewhat contentious debate, the House voted 256-153 to support the current operations in Iraq.

Among it's provisions:
- Praise for U.S. Troops
- Affirmation that Iraq is part of the GWOT
- Establishing arbitrary withdrawal dates are not in the national interest

In other words, victory is the goal and we are committed to the mission. NO "CUT AND RUN"! Every member of Congress is now on record heading into the November elections. We'll be checking back to see how CT's five voted. [UPDATE: As expected, it went along party lines - Simmons (CT2), Shays (CT4), Johnson (CT5): Yea, Larson (CT1) & DeLauro (CT3): Nay. I'm actually surprise that Shays had the grapes to buck his gold-coast, country club Liberal constituency on this one. END UPDATE]

How do ya like them apples, moonbats?

Related: Run Away, Run Away

Posted by: Gary at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Dems Long For The Good Old Days

The good old days for them, that is. I was just a little tike at the time but I was old enough to recall that 1974 was a horrible time for the nation. America had not yet reached rock-bottom (that was still to come in the form of the disasterous Carter Administration), but things were generally sucky.

For Democrats in Washington, however, these were the salad days of the party. You had Vietnam, Watergate, and a coming gathering of Congressional strength in the wake of these events. Michael Barone writes this morning about how Dems see 2006 through the prism of 1974. For them, Iraq is Vietnam, Fitzmas is Watergate and they are predicting a major shift in power come November.

Unfortunately for them, it's not quite turning out that way. The CA-50 special election was not a harbinger of a Dem takeover in the works, Iraq is a mission that is succeeding more every day (especially now that the Z-man has been terminated) and Fitzmas just flopped worse than they could ever imagine. All in all, a pretty lousy week for the Donks.

Barone observes:

"Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office."

Perhaps if Democrats tried looking forward instead of miring themselves in nostalgia for the past, voters wouldn't be so hestitant to entrust their future to them.

Naahh.

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

A new poll reveals that Hillary scares voters:

"A new poll found the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton scares more Americans than any other likely 2008 candidate.

When a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll asked which of four potential candidates for President "frightens you the most," 36% said the New York senator."

And before you say "oh, sure, FoxNews. no wonder.", the same poll had Rudy Guiliani coming in next at 17%.

But 36%? Egads, that's one out of every three!

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Run Away! Run Away!

What's the best way to embarrass Senate Democrats on the war and get them in hot water with their base? Have them vote on a "cut and run" proposal. We've been down this road before and a lot of Dems will call it a cheap stunt, but frankly they're asking for it.

Sen. John F. Kerry (who, BTW, served in Vietnam - just in case you hadn't heard) has been kicking around a proposal to call for complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year, a proposal similiar to the one Rep. John Murtha has made in the house. Kerry, who is obviously playing to the moonbats, would have the U.S. leave the new Iraqi government in the lurch just as they're getting on their feet and telegraph to our enemies, our allies and the rest of the world that our word is meaningless and we're quick to abandon our friends when the pressure from a vocal minority becomes too much to handle. Did I mention that Kerry served in Vietnam? Right before he betrayed his band of brothers on national television by pushing lies about our troops. And Senate Democrats are happy to let Kerry make his anti-war noise. That is, as long as they don't have to put their money where their mouth is.

"Oh shit! They're calling for our votes!"

So once again, the GOP called their bluff. Sen. Mitch McConnell introduced the measure for a vote and it crashed and burned 93 to 6. Democrats did what they do best. The retreated. Six Senate Dems (a who's-who of Lefty stalwarts that included Russ Feingold, Teddy Kennedy and Tom Harkin) stood firm, only to be left behind in the stampede by their 38 other colleagues.

Mark Coffey has the money quote this morning about this sham:

"A lack of guts, pure and simple; if you believe it, vote it, don’t weasel out by accusing the Republicans of calling you ‘unpatriotic’.."

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

UPDATE: 11:30am
The House just passed it's own resolution affirming the U.S. should not pull out.

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

When Celebrity Gossip Borders On The Ridiculous

Or in this case, ventures completely beyond the borders of ridiculous.

Britney Spears apparently...gasp...got down on the floor in a Victoria's Secret store and...double gasp...changed her 8-month old's diaper!!!

Good God, where is the DCFS when you need them?!?!?

The singer was shopping in Mission Viejo, Calif., on June 4, where she purchased some pink g-string underwear with 8-month-old son Sean Preston in tow.

The tot needed to have his diaper changed and the 24-year-old plopped him down on the floor next to the cash register.

A shocked sales associate recalls, "We don't have the cleanest floors. She just put him down and changed his diaper and then handed it to a sales clerk saying, 'Can you throw this away for us?'

"We told her that we couldn't put that in our trash."

Look, the floor of a retail store is not the ideal place to change a diaper. But what are the chances that a Victoria's Secret store has baby-changing stations in their rest rooms? Come to think of it, do they actually let the general public go to the rest room in a Victoria's Secret?

My guess is that little Sean Preston's diaper was so full of pee that it was practically leaking and while being rung up for the G-strings, Spears placed (not "plopped") her son down to give him a quick change because there wasn't anywhere else better to do it. God knows if she did it on a bench or somewhere else outside the store, she would have been surrounded by gawkers and stalking paparazzi. It probably took no more than a minute. Believe me, after eight months of changing diapers, you become quite skilled at doing it in a flash.

But the funniest part of this whole episode is the sale clerk - probably some high-falutin' tight-assed bee-yotch whose never been closer than a hundred yards to a wet diaper.

"We don't have the cleanest floors", indeed. Gimme a break. I'm sure the floor was cleaner than the baby's butt was. What probably got her panties in a bunge was the fact that she had to actually witness the process of baby being changed. God forbid!

I always get a laugh when someone cringes at a wet diaper, like it's filled with some kind of toxic waste. You can wrap those little suckers up into a neat, dry wad secured by the velcro straps and it's no bigger than a baseball. Your not going to get some kind of infection if you just take it and toss it in the garbage. Get over yourself lady!

Cheer up, Britney. You're going to have to deal with this kind of crap for years to come. Hopefully, she's keeping her sense of humor. Otherwise, she'll lose her mind.

Posted by: Gary at 04:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

The Day That Fitzmas Died

I like when blog buddies alert me to posts they'd like to promote. To be able to link something creative that someone else did brings out the "lazy blogger" in me.

And in this case, Mr. Right has written a song parody that simply MUST be shared. To the tune of "American Pie", this one's very clever. Go check it out!

Posted by: Gary at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Gratuitous Fanny Smacking Pic Of The Week

Because one never needs a reason to post a photo of a hot girl spanking, smacking or slapping another hot girl on the bottom (or butt, bum or behind, if you prefer). Although it's interesting to note that the brunette has a raised fist so she could be going for the proverbial "donkey punch". Shocking, simply shocking.

My name is Gary, and I am shameless Google-chummer. :wink:

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Connecticut Conundrum For The DSCC

The "strategery" of the Kos-sack crowd is becoming clearer with regard to this year's challenge to CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. Normally, when you have a race for political office, you're goal is to win. For the Left, who are fighting to assert their control and influence in the upper echelons of the party apparatus, their goal is twofold: drive Sen. Lieberman from the party (as an example to those that they deem "off the reservation") and force the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to commit its support to Ned Lamont should he win the party's nomination in the August 8th primary.

With Lamont's increased poll numbers, Lieberman has a decision to make as to whether or not he should officially bolt the party and put his name on the ballot as an "independent". Lieberman would have to submit a petition signed by registered voters on August 9th (the day after the primary) to qualify as an independent candidate for November. Clearly, he couldn't wait until then, so he'd have to make that decision over the next seven weeks (preferably sooner rather than later). The Left is already pressuring Lieberman to make his move and if he chooses the independent route, he will likely alienate a number of Democrats who feel he is "bolting" his party.

The truth, however, is that he is being forced in this direction. Were Lieberman to run as an independent, the Democrats would certainly lose a Senate seat. Lieberman is so popular among CT voters overall that he is projected to win easily against Lamont and Alan Schlesinger, the Republican. And as an independent, he would no longer have any reason to associate with his former party. Surely, he could wield more power and influence by allying himself with the GOP.

So where is the logic in this course of action?

Ah, there is the rub. This puts the DSCC in an awkward position. Sen. Chuckie Schumer, the Committee's Chairman, has already publicly backed Lieberman in the race. But they back him as a Democrat. What if he becomes an independent?

"In order to financially support an indie Lieberman, does the DSCC need to have the CT Dem Party officially endorse Lieberman's indie run? Can the state party do that if Ned Lamont wins the Dem primary? Of course, the DSCC could simply sit out, something they regularly do in senate races where they don't believe party outcome is in jeopardy."

Somehow I don't think the DSCC is going to get off that easy, though. Some Lefty powerhouse bloggers have already issued a call to arms. They want Schumer to go on record as saying that the DSCC will support whichever candidate gets the nomination - meaning Ned Lamont, who would be assured the nomination if Lieberman goes independent. If the DSCC continues to back Lieberman, they suffer the wrath of the netroots. If they were to back Lamont, they officially endorse a "retreat and defeat" candidate in a high profile Senate race who would end up losing anyway.

Either way, the GOP benefits from a weakened, divided Democrat party. So the Left is willing to pull a "D" out of the Senate count just to make a point. They go after a guy who reliably votes with his party 90% of the time but supports the GWOT - not for political gain, but because he genuinely supports it on principle. Now, they'll essentially push him into an alliance with the opposition.

Hey, whatever floats their boat.

Posted by: Gary at 10:40 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

104 More Dead Terrorists In Iraq...

Let's see that's 104 multiplied by 72 and you get...7,488! 452 raids carried out in the seven days since they greased the Z-man. That averages out to 64.6 raids and 14.9 dead terrorists per day.

Wow, looks like at this rate Allah is going to have round up some more virgins right quick!

Posted by: Gary at 09:41 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.