Christopher J. Arndt fights a never ending battle for truth and justice...


Syndication





Blogroll Me!

Ralph Nader is screwing and cheationg college kids

Go here and learn, and it's true: more than just this Fox News article believes this and tells us this.

He's not just some wacko for being Green Party. He's not harmless.

The guy's a scumbag!!

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/31/2006 09:55:00 PM | |

Guy's rules

1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.

2. 1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one:
Subtle hints do not work!
Strong hints do not work!
Obvious hints do not work!
Just say it!

3. If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

4. 1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

5. 1. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.



posted by Chris Arndt at 8/26/2006 04:44:00 PM | |

the Pinger

Click the Ping-o-Matic link and set the audience into motion.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/26/2006 02:15:00 PM | |

YAF Fixes the Anti-MCRI Rock



As an opinionjournalist It's up to me to report things even when I'm not present. That means that I cannot go Hunter S. Thompson on everything.

So the leftist socialist stalinist entitlement society freaks want to make a point about the just inclusion of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative's proposal on the ballot this November? They wish to paint our Rock? The Young Americans for Freedom paint it back!

In the intest of full disclosure I admit that I am the Eaton County Chairman of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/26/2006 12:34:00 PM | |

Eric Spratling on Firefly boxed set

In resonse to Chuck Dixon's review:

A couple quick things because I'm on a pay-by-minute connection currently

1) Too much backstory for all the characters? Wha? Were you really that drowned in the dark history of, say, Wash? And what's wrong with that sort of thing anyway-- it's a common device in media that we get introduced to a bunch of characters and then find out things about them gradually. Should "Star Trek: TNG" watchers have never been introduced to Picard's brother, Riker's old Captain, Worf's father's supposed crime, Data's "twin," etc? And since you like watching "Lost" I find it extra strange that this sort of thing would irritate you....

2) Um, I never had a problem understanding what the characters were saying, to the point of needing subtitles. Unless of course they were speaking Chinese, in which case you're not supposed to know anyway.

3) Inara wasn't just a whore, she was a courtesan trained in the highest levels of lovemaking, manners, etiquette, companionship, etc. "What world would this happen on?" Try Japan, a couple hundred years ago. Firefly's "Companions" are pretty much souped-up versions of Japanese geisha.

4) The Western aspect, in appearance if not just in theme, was obviously meant to deliberately parallel humanity's new tendency to settle on bleak, harsh worlds with America's old expansion into the Old West. It's obviously carried to extremes for artistic effect, but it's not too much of an suspension of disbelief to think that six-shooters and the like would be easier to mass-produce/cheaper to purchase than lasers (or that "frontier" clothing was a lot more practical than most anything else).

5) The dialogue.. okay, yeah, it's hard to disagree with you. Joss Whedon's characters, although they do differ in tone and characters aren't usually interchangeable (e.g., Jayne wouldn't make a joke meant for Kaylee) the characters always sound like what Joss THINKS they would sound like. It's a filter. And you like it or you don't. I can see why someone wouldn't.

I would go more into it but my time is expiring....

source IP:24.172.25.214
Posted by Eric Spratling on August 19, 2006 at 10:21:56

Labels: reprints

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/25/2006 10:16:00 AM | |

Chuck Dixon Teaches Dialogue

In response to questions about good dialogue, rendered in light of his Firefly review.

School's in!

There's nothing wrong with the dialogue in Firefly per se. There are some clever exchanges. The trouble comes when they're TOO clever and EVERYONE is having them.
The "voices" of the characters in Firefly were too similar. Everyone spoke in practically the same meter and using the same lexicon and the same level of wit.
The best example for a contrast I can think of is the show Northern Exposure. When the show first aired it was fesh and surprising and bright. The characters were clearly drawn and entirely different from one another. Each had his or her own distinctive voice and way of phrasing. By season three that distinction was gone and all of the characters were speaking in the same way and often using phrasing and vocabulary that flew in the face of their established characterization. They were all "speaking to plot" rather than character and the audience fled the show in droves. I left when the Barry Corbin character began making cultural references that his character would not have been aware of only the season before and started speaking in airy-fairy soliquies like the rest of the cast had taken up.

An example from the movie HEIST. Mamet has learned when to have a cute exchange and when not to have one.
In this first example, Pinky has been established as a rare wit. He’s a guy with a ready answer for everything. Bergman is impatient to learn what Pinky knows but enjoys a bit of verbal sparring as well. So they are established as nearly evenly matched and Mamet takes advantage of this for a few snappy exchanges. But all the while, character is being brought to the fore and the sense of menace beneath Bergman’s words is always there. We know he means business and we know that Pinky knows it.

Bergman: Where's the gold?
Pinky: You know, I'm reluctant to tell you.
Bergman: When we put it to you, you know when we put it to you, you're gonna be telling us the gross national product of Bolivia.
Pinky: Hey...
Bergman: You're gonna be telling us the area codes of Belgium and Luxembourg.
How do you pick up your share? Where's the gold? Where's the meet?
Pinky: What're you gonna do, hurt me?
Bergman: Well, no, actually, no. I'm not gonna hurt you. But tell a guy, I'm full of admiration. What was the deal? What was the deal?
Pinky: The way you're looking at the deal, the deal was we get away with the gold. Cute, huh?
Bergman: No, that's charming. And then what?
Pinky: We slip away.
Bergman: You slip away? And me and my guys, we go to the meet and we find a truck full of pig iron. Is that the thing?
Pinky: Well, Joe figured you weren't ever going to the meet.
Bergman: He did? You know, your guy doesn't get it in his head to fly off on a variation, we're all out on the patio right now, we're all having a margarita! Where's the gold?
Pinky: You understand my reluctance to tell you.


In this next exchange, Pinky is not on equal intellectual terms with his adversary and so the dialogue goes differently.

Pinky: Nice day for the race.
Thug: What race is that?
Pinky: The human race. Kids growing up, so on. Hope for the future.
Thug: Get in the f******g car!

This last exchange is called a reversal. Bergman and Pinky had this clever tete a tete and we’re set up to expect that other characters will respond in the same way to Pinky’s observations on life. Not so.

This brief exchange lets us know that Pinky’s time is up. He’s been rendered over to Bergman’s underlings and will no longer be able to use his gift of gab to stall for his life. The dialogue speaks to character rather than plot but carries the plot along with it better than a more didactic exchange would have.

As I always say, you can learn more from a bad movie than a good one. Here’s an example from a bad movie:

Private Reiben: You want to explain the math of this to me? I mean, where's the sense in risking the lives of the eight of us to save one guy?
Captain Miller: Anyone wanna answer that?
Medic Wade: Hey, think about the poor bastard's mother.
Private Reiben: Hey, Wade, I got a mother, you got a mother, the sarge has got a mother. I'm willing to bet that even the Captain's got a mother. Well, maybe not the Captain, but the rest of us have got mothers.

This exchange from Saving Private Ryan speaks to plot in a painfully obvious way. It’s made all the more painful because nearly EVERY exchange of dialogue in the film is used only to cover plot points and the SAME plot point over and over again. And nothing here speaks of character. Reiben is a griper and that’s a deep as we get. Miller is their officer but, even though he’s been very direct and articulate to this point, has no answer. Back when flmmakers understood dialogue better and had more respect for moviegoer’s intellect, the scene might have gone like this:


Private Reiben: So, they’re willin’ to spend eight guys to save one?
Captain Miller: Do you have a mother, Reiben?
Private Reiben: Everybody’s got a mother, Cap’n.
Captain Miller: Just checking, is all.
Private Reiben: And I’m just asking, is all, sir.

Same plot points are covered but less painfully. AND we learn from his simple response that Captain Miller is losing his patience and won’t be answering any more stupid questions. AND, now that his question had been answered, Reiben will follow orders in the true, fatalistic attitude of the men who served in WWII. We also imply that the question has been asked before though we were not privy to it. And the open insubordination (that would have gotten Reiben a .45 slug to the end on D-Day +1) of the first exchange is more implied than apparent in the second. AND, if it were John Garfield or George Tobias playing Private Reiben, you would have gotten a laugh.

Now here’s an exchange of dialogue to cover a simple a plot point. It’s from RED RIVER:

Matthew Garth: Buster, where's Cherry?
Buster McGee: Cherry? Well, he figured there was no need two of us coming. One was . . .
Matthew Garth: Is she pretty?
Buster McGee: Oh, Matt, do you remember that little filly I used to own?
Matthew Garth: That's what I thought.

How much ground is covered in this simple conversation? We learn that Cherry Valance is a lady’s man and that Garth already knows this. We also learn that Garth and McGee have been friends a long time, long enough that the merest reference to a horse McGee once owned is enough to entirely fill Garth in on the situation as well as fill US in just by his reply. In this very brief exchange we also see that Matt is direct in his questioning and that Buster tends to beat around the bush. The actual plot point (that Cherry will not be returning to the herd any time soon) is never directly referred to. The scene ALSO serves to firmly establish that Cherry is a heterosexual. Anyone who’s seen this movie and was paying strict attention will understand why this was necessary. The audience at the time certainly picked up on it.
The whole thing is covered in a very brief time in a clever turn of dialogue, deceptive for its simplicity, in which the humor of the situation is left for us discern rather than being spelled out for us. And with Buster being played by Noah Beery Jr you know you’ve got a little, sparkling piece of cinema gold.

source IP:70.127.193.210
Posted by Chuck on August 19, 2006 at 14:14:54

Labels: reprints

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/25/2006 10:07:00 AM | |

Chuck (Dixon) Finally watched the Firefly boxed set.

I still have liscense to reprint this stuff. Hard to believe he hasn't seen this program until recently; harder still to believe that he likes it as much as he does.

Didn't care for it.
The suspense level was nil in most of the episodes.
The imponderables piled one upon the other until they distracted from the storyline.
It was a by-the-numbers ensemble show where every character has a backstory that is revealed little-by-little in dull flashbacks. Each character had a “moment” in each episode to either re-define them or bring up a cryptic element to make them more “interesting.” But no one’s story was advanced to any great degree. I know the series didn’t get a full season but after 14 episodes I think we should have advanced a little, bitty bit.
And “space western” shouldn’t mean chaps and cowboy hats and people saying “shucks” a lot. Star Wars is a space western and there ain’t a cowpoke in sight.
Any show that also requires me to turn on the subtitles option so that I know what’s going on is also in trouble.
I was willing to give it a chance and kind of enjoyed the first few episodes. But the dealbreaker for me was Princess Whore-a-lot. I got tired of the elevation of a woman who trades sex for cash to the level of a Shaolin monk. What is this fascination H’wood folks have for prostitutes? It’s like those movies where the cop falls in love with a hooker. What world would this happen on?
After that I began questioning everything. Who would believe the pilot and the woman warrior as a married couple? It was never credible for even a second.
They travel through space at FTL speeds but everyone’s packing six guns. Thye HAD laser/maser technology.
In what economy would carrying LIVE cattle over lightyears of space make sense? Did anyone ever see them take on the tons of feed they would need?
Why did everyone talk so tough but never actually stick to any of the tough decisions they made. "We're not going back to rescue them. But now we ARE."
The Jayne character (who should have been the ship’s captain instead of the cipher they had) acts alternatively crazy brave or cowardly as the story demands.
And EVERYONE talked in cute exchanges. This worked on Buffy because the core characters were teenagers filled with self-esteem. But we never saw Giles joining into these over-articulate teen-speak sessions. On Firefly, everyone, even strangers or new arrivals, talks in the same "ain't I clever" patois.
It’s a sci-fi show that kept breaking my suspension of disbelief. And I have a suspension of disbelief made of pure titanium. I liked CONGO for pete’s sake!
And the music…The country music industry should sue over the theme song. And the “folk” music sprinkled throughout the episodes was painful.
I know the show and subsequent feature film have lots of fans here. But I’m always asked if I watched the series and I’m just posting to say I have and was left wanting.
And how DID that feature film happen? A failed TV series gets greenlit for big budget, big screen treatment? What’s next? THE ROPERS: THE MOVIE?

source IP:70.127.193.210
Posted by Chuck Dixon on August 18, 2006 at 13:36:52

Labels: reprints

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/25/2006 09:42:00 AM | |

business trip and a guest writer-blogger

I am leaving on a week-long business trip on Sunday moring, August 27th. My flight departs at 7 AM.

I will be in Arlington, VA for five days where the Leadership Institute will train me in the ways of the Field Representatives. I will return the following Saturday and then depart again for my work in the field, which will last three months but I will likely get opportunities to write while I am out there.

In my week-long absence Apologies Demanded will not enter into a total null. The weblog will remain semi-active because I, ironically, have obtained a guest writer. Michael Hutchison, creator and webmaster of Monitor Duty, as well as the last editor-in-chief of Fanzing and the owner of theHutch.com, has volunteered to occasionally (and thus irregularly, based on his availability) take over and post political stuff for the next week. That will be whatever comes into his head, but since he has a comic book site already, I imagine that only political commentary will be here. If you came for comic stuff, goto Monitor Duty for that week.

Hopefully the hit-count will not substantially drop in the comic weeks, just because I am busy becoming a better human being. That means I will be a professional earning an income.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/24/2006 04:39:00 PM | |

Beau Smith and Heroes Ages

For Immediate Release
Contact Beau Smith 304-453-6565
Beau@flyingfistranch.com

Wolverine, John Byrne and Old Age.
Busted Knuckles Looks At What Super Heroes Have Their AARP Card.

Ceredo, WV. (August 14, 2006) John Byrne and Wolverine. You either
agree with them or you don’t. Main thing is you always know where
they stand on things. Like fine wine it’s always an interesting
discussion if either age very well. This week in Busted Knuckles, Beau
Smith agrees with John Byrne on the subject of one of the most popular
X-men ever, Wolverine.

Speaking of Busted Knuckles, this week’s episode also brings you a
new talent on the rock scene in the form of the Busted Knuckles Babe
Of The Week as well as turning your TV into a time machine with the
Busted Knuckles Manly Cover Of The Week.

All this and more so much Beau Smith manly sweat that athletes are
trying to use it instead of steroids.

Just click on the manly link or cut and paste it…What ever it takes to
get there. http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/busted/115559343486514.htm

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/23/2006 12:56:00 AM | |

PROTEST - WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The following was forwarded through the listserv for Michigan State University Young American for Freedom (MSU YAF).

YAFers,

Americans for Prosperity's Ending Earmarks Express will be making a stop in East Lansing on their national campaign to stop earmarking and pork barreling at the federal level. The Michigan stop will be in the parking lot of the MSU Family Horticultural Center, in the heart of MSU's agriculture, forestry, and horticulture departments on campus. The stop will highlight a $4 million earmark MSU received of our money to explore possible uses of wood! The media will be on hand, so we need to have as many activists there to show support for smaller government and less taxes.


The stop will take place from 11:30 - 12:45 a.m.. Box lunches will be served to activists and all participants will receive an Ending Earmarks Express t-shirt. Speakers for the event will be:


Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Prosperity
Amy Hagerstrom, State Director, Americans for Prosperity - Michigan
State Representative Leon Drolet
Former U.S. Senate candidate and AFP-MI Advisory Board Member Jerry Zandstra
Taxpayer activist and founder of the Kalamazoo County Taxpayers Association Isaac Moorehouse


Please email Amy Hagerstrom at amy.hagerstrom@afphq.org to let her know you're interested in attending so she can make sure she has a lunch available for you and send you a map to the event. Thank you for supporting Sen. Coburn, Congressman Flake, and the movement to end earmarking.

The event is this Thursday, August 24th.


posted by Chris Arndt at 8/22/2006 02:32:00 PM | |

cracking facebook

Minor tips... stuff soon to be gone next time Facebook's resident evil bogeymen discover how to plug the holes.

Discover random Facebook imagery.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/22/2006 01:28:00 AM | |

Evans-Novak Political Report on Conservative victories in August primaries

Like last time, I post this verbatim:

Conservative Nominees: After last Tuesday's primaries, the media paid much attention to the defeat of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) by liberal, anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont (D). Yet relatively little attention was paid to the defeat of moderate freshman Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.) by conservative former State Rep. Tim Walberg (R).

1. President Bush's closest political lieutenants were not happy about Schwarz's loss. Bush backed him and contributed to his re-election effort with automated phone calls, even though Schwarz had opposed the President on key issues such as stem-cell research, the environment and population control. In the end, though, Schwarz was probably too liberal for the district. He won in 2004 over a crowded field full of conservatives, and it made him a target for the Club for Growth.

2. Walberg's victory for a House nomination, of course, should carry less weight than a Senate seat. But it is also part of a much larger trend that promises to make the GOP caucus in the House more conservative after the 2006 election, whether or not they hold on to their majority. Even before Schwarz's downfall, several primaries had shaken out in a way that ensures that sitting and exiting congressmen will be replaced by more conservative lawmakers.

3. The trend began with primary victories by conservatives in several key open-seat races.
   
   

   • State Sen. Jim Jordan (R) is now a lock to replace Rep. Mike Oxley (R-Ohio).
     

   • State Sen. Adrian Smith (R) will likely replace Rep. Tom Osborne (R-Neb.).
     

   • State Rep. Bill Sali (R) will probably replace Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho).
     

   • State Sen. Doug Lamborn (R) will replace Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), whose falling out with House GOP leadership has reduced his profile this year.
     

   • Conservative State Rep. David Davis (R) will easily win in November and replace the quiet Rep. Bill Jenkins (R-Tenn.).
     

   • The same is true of Walberg. Despite worries privately expressed by Bush advisors about keeping the seat, Walberg will have an easy time winning in November over organic farmer Sharon Marie Renier (D), whose campaign reports a current negative cash balance of $1,209.

In each case, a staunch conservative bomb-thrower defeated moderate primary opponents to win the nomination. Each of the above has at least a very strong chance replace an exiting incumbent who is less outspoken and at least a bit less conservative -- in some cases much less conservative.

4. In other cases, the general election outcome is far less certain, but the nominees are still more conservative and more outspoken than the members they hope to replace.
   
   

   • State Sen. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), one of the fiercest conservative advocates in her state's legislature, won her party's endorsement to replace the less outspoken Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-Minn.).
     

   • State Sen. Ray Meier (R-N.Y.) faces a tough race, but he is at least slightly favored to replace liberal Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.).
     

5. Only in two cases has a more moderate candidate replaced a more conservative member. One such winner is Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), who won a special election to succeed disgraced Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) after the latter's conviction on bribery charges. The other came in Tuesday night's Nevada primary, won (as we predicted) by Dean Heller (R).
   

6. Moreover, some of the House's few moderate and liberal Republicans figure prominently among those most likely to lose their seats to Democrats. Moderate-liberal Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) is considered to be in grave danger, and moderate Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) in slightly less danger. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) is facing her toughest race yet. The seat of retiring moderate Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) has a great chance of going Democratic.
   

7. One lesson is that Republican voters are disappointed in the failure of Republican leadership in Washington to deliver on key domestic issues important to the right. Conservatives grumble that the administration has used so much political capital on the Iraq War that it has been powerless to advance other priorities -- spending reductions, earmark reform, and social issues such as marriage protection, entitlement reform and tax reduction, to name a few examples. A more conservative Congress will be needed to deliver on ANWR drilling and a host of other issues dear to conservatives.
   

8. Also significant is the number of current and former state legislators on the list of conservatives. This is the culmination of a long-term effort to build a more serious farm team of identifiable conservatives on the state level. This has been the baby of several activist groups on the right, including Americans for Tax Reform, whose "no-tax" pledge has become something like a seal of approval. All of the conservative hopefuls listed above are pledge-signers. With the clear identification of a conservative "team," it is easy for a group like the Club for Growth to swoop in and fund a serious, conservative candidate who can actually win.
   

9. This is a large phenomenon, so again, the lack of media attention is curious. One explanation recently offered is the tendency of the major news organs to engage in "Democratic strategizing" as they analyze political races. The right or wrong of this is irrelevant to us -- the phenomenon is noteworthy because it is real and it actually could be affecting the political landscape. This year, full of talk about a Democratic wave, is strikingly different from 1994, when the Republican takeover of Congress caught most commentators by surprise.

This helps create a vague image problem for Republicans, but it is not all bad for them. A side effect of the media echo-chamber is that many Republican incumbents, scared by all the talk, are running for their lives instead of taking re-election for granted.

I point out that Mister Novak and Mister Evans were correct about the District 7 situation, as was I, and that the President's wisdom, the larger Republican common wisdom, and the state GOP's supposed wisdom were all wrong. It is a mistake to run a weak Conservative Republican when a strong one will do, especially in every seat where a Republican will win the November election regardless of his personal politics or ideology. The lack of faith undermines the movement for justice as well as the Conservative Movement.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/22/2006 01:08:00 AM | |

an e-mail from the Center of Individual Freedom - foreign criminals, invaders, get more rights than our guardians

The following is pulled straight from an e-mail sent by the Center for Individual Freedom.

The next time you hear a Member of Congress speak about so-called "comprehensive immigration reform," remember the story of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Ramos and Compean are U.S. Border Patrol agents who are facing 20 years in prison for attempting to apprehend an illegal alien -- who was also smuggling drugs -- at the border.

Hard to believe, but it's true! Consider this account of the incident from the Internet magazine WorldNetDaily.com:

"When Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos pulled the trigger last February, all he knew was that his partner was lying on the ground behind him -- bloodied from a struggle with a fleeing suspect -- shots had been fired and now, it appeared, the drug smuggler he was pursuing had turned toward him with what looked to be a gun in his hand...

"Ramos, 37, is an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.

"On February 17, he responded to a request for back up from agent Jose Alonso Compean, 28, who noticed a suspicious van near the levee road along the Rio Grande River near the Texas town of Fabens, about 40 miles east of El Paso...

"Behind the wheel of the van was an illegal alien, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila of Mexico. Unknown to the growing number of Border Patrol agents converging on Fabens, Aldrete-Davila's van was carrying 800 pounds of marijuana.

"Unable to outrun Ramos and the third agent, Aldrete-Davila stopped the van on the levee, jumped out and started running toward the river. When he reached the other side of the levee, he was met by Compean who had anticipated the smuggler's attempt to get back to Mexico.

"'We both yelled out for him to stop, but he wouldn't stop, and he just kept running,' Ramos told California's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Aldrete-Davila crossed a canal.

"'At some point during the time where I'm crossing the canal, I hear shots being fired,' Ramos said. 'Later, I see Compean on the ground, but I keep running after the smuggler.'

"At that point, Ramos said, Aldrete-Davila turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.

"'I shot,' Ramos said. 'But I didn't think he was hit, because he kept running into the brush and then disappeared into it. Later, we all watched as he jumped into a van waiting for him. He seemed fine. It didn't look like he had been hit at all.'"

But that wasn't the end of the story! Two weeks later, a Border Patrol Agent received a call from the drug smuggler's mother-in-law in Mexico who claimed that Ramos had actually shot the drug smuggler in the buttocks.

And our own government filed charges against Ramos and Compean for violating the civil rights of this illegal aliens and felon.

In the words of U.S. Assistant District Attorney Debra Kanof, "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon."

That's not all. Not only did our government give immunity to this drug smuggler to obtain his testimony at the trial, but this illegal alien and drug smuggler is now suing Ramos for $5 million dollars.

I think that it's somewhat disapointing that the Center's first and best response is some sort of electronic petition to the President of the United States. When would the Chief Executive pay attention to that sort of measure?

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/22/2006 12:56:00 AM | |

matriarchists' politics and thier blogs

I'll be honest: I don't find silly people too threatening.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/21/2006 01:08:00 AM | |

Chuck Dixon on The JonBenet Ramsay case

They finally have their man in this odious child murder.
I don't generally follow these "hot" murder cases. But this one has always bugged me for several reasons.
I still have my doubts and a lot of questions.
There were so many odd, maddening and incongruous elements to this case.
The parents did just about everything they could to complicate the investigation process.
The initial police search did not find a body inside the house. Then JonBenet's dad insisted on another search and let them directly to his daughter's body.
The ransom note brings up a LOT of questions. Did her mother write it? And why?
The Ramsays lawyered up almost immediately and insisted on every Byzantine process they could dredge up to keep the cops at arms length from them.
This confession from a guy in Thailand is suspicious as well. He's being held on a sex charge by the Thai authorities. Being arrested for a sex crime in Thailand is like being hauled in for gambling in Las Vegas. What exactly did this guy DO to violate Thai moral statutes?
And what are the chances that a guy facing Thailand's style of justice would confess to the most publicized child murder case of the past decade? That's a confession even the Thai authorities couldn't ignore. So, he gets extradited back to the good ol' USA to face trial and do time in a Colorado prison. Better than a Bangkok lock-up. Hell, a Mexican prison would seem like Club Med in comparison.
I still have questions. And since this clown will probably recant his confession the second his Reeboks touch down in the Land of the Free to Walk, we'll now have some of them answered.
My crazy, wild-eyed theory? Little JonBenet died by misadventure in her own home. Fell down a flight of stairs. Took a header in the bath tub. Something lethal but not criminal. Her parents, with their WAY over-exaggerated sense of their own importance in the community (they both EXUDED this in interviews and statements to the press) went blood simple and cooked up first a kidnap plot and finally a bizarre, ritualistic sex murder to cover the fact that their child died in a common home accident due to their own negligence.
Yeah, it's a nutty idea. But it's the only scenario that explains, to me anyhow, the events of that night and the following days.
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy jetting in from Thailand doesn't have his story fall apart quickly or fails to prove that he was even in the Boulder area at the time of the murder.
No matter how this plays out, I'm still convinced that there's far more to all of this than meets the eye.

source IP:70.127.193.210
Posted by Chuck on August 16, 2006 at 19:38:12

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/20/2006 11:10:00 PM | |

Chuck Dixon on Saving Private Ryan

Chuck Dixon replies on the question of why Saving Private Ryan was really such a bad movie.

We might have to make this a permanent post.

All historical movies are guilty of sacrificing some accuracy for the sake of drama, expediency or whatever. But the misrepresentations of fact, attitude, tactics and reality of Saving Private Ryan represent a high-water mark of cinema dumbness.
We start at the very beginning of the movie. The old vet in the memorial cemetery having the flashback will be revealed at the end of the movie to be Private Ryan himself. But he flashes back to his memories of Omaha Beach and the fighting there; experiences he could not have had himself since his unit (the 101st Airborne) parachuted into France the night before, many miles from Normandy and its beaches.
From there it’s all downhill.
I haven’t seen the movie in a number of years and lots track of some of the gaffes. But a few stick out in my mind.
First and foremost, Captain Miller (played by Tom Hanks) puts up with a level of open insubordination throughout the film that would never have been tolerated in a WWII combat situation. They were summarily executing guys in the field during this operation for refusing to obey orders. The entire rifle squad’s lives are constantly at stake because Miller hesitates to take control.
The language of the GIs is also anachronistic. It’s sprinkled with phrasing that would not have been used then. Chief among them is the use of the “F” word as a verb, noun, adverb and adjective. Soldiers do use salty language. But this particular Anglo-Saxon term was not in nearly the common useage that this flick suggests and certainly not in the all-purpose forms we hear in this movie.
The squad itself just sort of ambles along like they were heading for a picnic. No one walks point, no one walks drag. When moving through occupied territory a small unit places a man in front to scout for trouble. A man walks behind in case the unit is being followed. In SPR they all walk in a clump where a single grenade or mortar round could take them all out at once. They also walk up on trouble without any advanced warning at least twice in the movie but don’t think of changing their order of march to prevent it happening again.
In the name of artfulness, they are continuously sky-lining themselves; walking along ridgelines and hilltops so we can see their silhouettes against the sky. Very pretty. It also would make them plainly visible to any Germans who happened to be looking for American soldiers that day.
The squad goes through piles of dogtags while members of the 101st march by watching with curiosity. These paratroops are shown as fresh-faced kids who teleported in directly from an Iowa cornfield. In reality, at this point of the battle, these guys would have been awake for 72 straight hours high on adrenalin and amphetamines and coming off of one of most savage hand-to-hand battles of the war. In this instance, reality could have aided the drama as Miller and his unit would have been in real danger for their lives from their own side for their behavior.
The worst comes when Miller and co. finally find Private Ryan. He’s in a village where his paratroop unit has been tasked with holding back German reinforcements. This is a pressure point at a small bridge over a canal. The krauts cannot be allowed to cross that canal or they’ll be able to bring armor against the advancing Americans. Rather than blow the bridge and flee with Ryan, Miller chooses to defend the bridge FROM THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CANAL. He deploys his men (none of whom have anti-tank weapons) to buildings on the opposite side of the canal.
The Germans are all dopes as well. Panzer-grenadiers show up. These guys are motorized infantry assigned to armor units to scout ahead and clear obstacles, mines and take out anti-tank positions. German tank were expensive and the Reich did everything it could to protect them from unnecessary risk. But here, the grenadiers helpfully run along either side of the tanks so they can be mowed down in the open like Imperial Stormtroopers.
These are the ones that I recall. The errors that allow a movie like KELLY’S HEROES to stand as a paragon of research over this much-vaunted movie.
In articles I read while SPR was being filmed, the military advisor on the movie, Dale Dye, was quoted in articles about the difficulty of working on this movie because there were so MANY mistakes in the screenplay. He stated that he could not talk the filmmakers out of keeping many of the egregious errors out of the film. He nearly exhausted himself convincing them to excise the repeated use of the term “motherf*****r” from the dialogue as it was a profanity that did not yet exist in the patois of anyone in 1944.

source IP:70.127.193.210
Posted by Chuck on August 20, 2006 at 12:10:50

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/20/2006 04:56:00 PM | |

Is the Mainstream Media Fair and Balanced?

From Imprimis August 2006

Fred Barnes
Executive Editor, The Weekly Standard

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard. From 1985 to 1995, he served as senior editor and White House correspondent for The New Republic. He covered the Supreme Court and the White House for the Washington Star before moving on to the Baltimore Sun in 1979. He served as the national political correspondent for the Sun and wrote the Presswatch media column for the American Spectator. He is host, along with Mort Kondracke, of the Beltway Boys on FOX News, where he also appears regularly on Special Report with Brit Hume. Mr. Barnes graduated from the University of Virginia and was a Neiman Fellow at Harvard University.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Palm Beach, Florida, on February 22, 2006, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on “The News Media in the Twenty-First Century.”

Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/20/2006 04:36:00 PM | |

Michigan State University Pro-Life Rally



Ken Curell
President, MSU Students for Life
MSUStudentsforLife@yahoo.com
www.msu.edu/~msusfl

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/20/2006 04:27:00 PM | |

Nitro incinerates Wolverine



click the image above to enlarge as neccessary.

from Wolverine Vol. 2 #43 pencilled by Humberto Ramos

Nitro uses his power on Wolverine and agents of SHIELD. Wolverine's flesh is incinerated clean off of his unbreakable skeleton. Despite logic or the stories written by previous writers over the last few decades, the character survives this attack, which should have killed him.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/20/2006 04:20:00 PM | |

X-Men 3 on Film Journal

This article analyes the third X-Men movie and demonstrates that the writer either did not stay l until after the credits before leaving the show, or he just did not pay attention near the end,

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/18/2006 10:02:00 PM | |

The DVD Lexicon

by the DVD Journal


click here.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/18/2006 09:16:00 PM | |

Stealing to Study

Facebook: Threats to Privacy

Students used a special script to steal data on a few thousand students directly from Facebook and then used that to do a study on what people reveal and how that can be made public to those outside the specific internet community.

The link goes to a HTML translation of a PDF file.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/18/2006 09:09:00 PM | |

Please Pray for...

these people.

There was a car accident. There would be healing.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/18/2006 08:33:00 PM | |

Book Burrow

Lansing, MI

Lansing Library and Information Center
Book Burrow
401 S. Capitol Ave.
517-367-6319
Bookburrow@hotmail.com
Bookstore

* Wed 11-6, Fri, Sat 11-2
* Many thousands of books; 50% donated; 50% hardcover; sorted; Most .30-$3

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/18/2006 09:59:00 AM | |

Wictory Wednesday

This week, Wictory Wednesday present Thomas Kean for the US Senate for the state of New Jersey. Tom is a known conservative supporting sound economic and political policies that will keep America going in the right direction.

Much has been said about the "culture of corruption" that permeates both parties nationally as well as in New Jersey. Recently, the New Jersey Attorney General resigned over ethical violations. Kean is no stranger to the destruction a corrupt government causes and is committed to the cause of reform to clean up not only corrupt politicans, but wasteful bureaucratic spending and expansive government agencies.

Kean understands that funding education is essential but that it must come with accountability. Projects and organizations that are achieving results should be funded and expanded. Bureaucracies and programs that are failing students and parents should be defunded and discarded. Throwing money at a problem without taking the time to ensure results just wastes money and condemns American youth to second-class status in the global economy.

As a supporter of lower taxes, Kean understands that this must come with lower spending. While the economy is growing and reducing the impact that the budget deficit has on the economy, much greater gains would be made if wasteful spending never took place to begin with. Ending absurd taxes such as the marriage penalty and the ever-expansive alternative minumum tax would not shackle the middle class. The best way to create jobs is to keep the cost of running and expanding businesses economical.

Kean would be a solid voice for conservative values in the United States Senate where it seems to be needed the most. Please consider contributing to the Kean campaign.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/16/2006 11:48:00 PM | |

a Speedway

Store #6616 2765 Eaton Rapids Rd Lansing, MI 48911-6334

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/16/2006 11:46:00 PM | |

a (Moorewatch) Bio page for a Blue Spider

Bio

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/16/2006 09:29:00 PM | |

students for life- an easy, free, powerful event

The following is from Michigan Student for Life chairwoman Joanie Barrett. It was sent by e-mail through the sfl listserv.



Joanie Barrett
SFLM President
SFLMichigan@yahoo.com
www.SFLMichigan.org
(248) 890-8738

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/16/2006 09:19:00 PM | |

P90

I first heard of the P-90 from watching Stargate SG-1 and saw it and assumed that the firearm was fictitious. I saw it as something like the BFG from Doom or those guns shaped like mailboxes that Cable tended to wield in the nineties. My assumptions that it didn't actually exist were reinforced by a reference that Richard Dean Anderson made to the weapon on an appearance on the Wayne Brady Show, referring to in such a manner that it wasn't something a child would run across or that the presence of that particular weapon on the show was something that distanced the program from real life enough that his kids would not make a violent connection. Obviously I misinterpreted, but Mr. Anderson's statement wasn't entirely clear to begin with.

Awhile back, and quite some time after Mr. Anderson's statement, I was surprised to discovers that P-90s were real. The FN P90 is a submachine gun, designed to balance the needs of an ammo load, with size, compactness, weight, and accuracy. The Arms Site puts it this way:

Military organizations have struggled for generations with two frequently overlapping problems: (1) how to arm troops whose primary mission is something other than the use of small arms; and (2) how to arm troops who need compact firepower for conducting special operations. A remarkable array of pistols, submachind guns and carbines have been fielded over the years in an, attempt to give people such as vehicle drivers, operators of crew-served weapons, support personnel and special operators a weapon with the optimum mix of compact size, hit probability, sustained firepower and terminal ballistics. Recent decades have also seen a similar quest in law enforcement to provide superior sidearms and auxiliary weapons for officers facing a changing tactical environment. The result is that sidearms, submachine guns and carbines developed for the aforementioned special military needs have become widely used tools within law enforcement. One of the most provocative attempts to solve the common requirements of both the military and law enforcement is the select-fire P90 Personal Defense Weapon designed and manufactured by Fabrique National Herstal SA of Belgium.

In other words it's a gun for non-infantry that is still effective for killing people wearing protective gear. This weapon appears to be so awesome I'm surprised that I have not run across it in more fiction.

The FN P90 submachine gun (SMG) was developed in the late 1980s as a defensive weapon for the troops whose primary activities does not include small arms - vehicle and tank crew members, artillery crews etc. Standart pistols and SMGs chambered for pistol rounds were proved ineffective against enemy soldiers, wearing armour (bulletproof) vests, so FN Herstal developed a new round with enhanced penetration - the SS190. This round looks like scaled downt 5.56mm NATO round and forces the pointed, steel core bullet to the 600-700 meters per second at the muzzle, thus being capable to defeat standart CRISAT helmets and armour vests at reasonable distances (50-100 meters).

Suddenly I wish to own one. I don't think it's possible.

From the FNH USA TACTICAL SYSTEMS listing:

The P90 is the ultimate system for operating in urban and other close-quarter battle scenarios. This system is built around our revolutionary FN 5.7 x 28mm ammunition. It utilizes the SS190 armor piercing duty round, but since the dual core destabilizes on impact, overpenetration is unlikely. The P90 provides a compact, lightweight and completely ambidextrous platform for this ammunition. The 50 round magazine runs horizontally across the top of the P90, keeping it compact and empty casings are ejected downward, where they cannot interfere with the user. The P90 fires from a closed bolt, giving it outstanding accuracy and making it easy to keep on target. Ideal personal defense weapon for armored vehicles or helicopter crews. Perfectly fitted for law enforcement tactical teams. Other P90 configurations include the P90 Triple Rail, P90 Laser Visible, P90 Infrared (IR), P90 USG and the P90 USG IR. The Triple Rail and Standard are also available in semi-automatic.The Five-seveN pistol, also chambered for 5.7 x 28mm, is an excellent companion to the P90.

From the description at that site and my two other primary resources I'm not entirely certain I understand why Colonel O'Neil and the others in the SGC have used this as the primary weapon considering how most of the time following Gate-Travel is hiking, walking, and running. Then again much of what I see on the show resembles depictions of resl-life urban combat, and the United States Air Force acts, in real life,as a consultant for the program; I trust these are the right weapons.

I cannot afford to purchase a civilian model P90. "The PS90 is the only civilian legal version", and it costs upward of $1,489.99! That is the "On Sale" price and it's for the long-barreled version. The short barrel model costs $510 more. If I desire to purchase another firearm for sport or protection I wouldn't spend two grand on a watered-down civilian version of a kick-ass military-class firearm when I can get a Glock, any other handgun, or even purchase another shotgun or rifle. All of those choices are far less expensive and are just as reliable for tearing stuff up.

I find it fascinating, for no particular reason, that the manufacture of the weapon is Belgian and even that it was the Belgians that invented it. On the other hand my resources don't list it as common use by the American military, instead Modern Firearms lists the use "by Saudi Arabia, Peruan Special Forces and some special units of Thailand army, and offered for export by FN." Perhaps I assume too much, or perhaps for the ASAF the use of the FN P90 as a standard issue weapon is as fictional a concept and as fictionalized of an institution as the Stargate Command.

My primary sources are

• Modern Firearms - SubMacineGuns - FN P90
• the Arms Site - FN P90
• FNH USA Tactical Systems P90 Submachine Gun

The last one, ultimately, is a product pagem but an informative and useful one. The middle one is a reprint of a weapon review.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/15/2006 05:40:00 PM | |

A Serving Soldier's View on Heroism

The following is a recollection/reprinting by a writer with the nom de plume of "Not From Around Here". His brother served in Iraq and was doing so through last year and during that time sent e-mails home, which got posted on the Dixonverse Message Board. This post is new.

Some of you may recall this from last year. It's my brother's description of one action he witnessed:
"They tried our gate yesterday, too. I was out checking progress on the ECP4 mission then a white 4-door sedan pulled off the road and turned toward the gate. It was dragging its springs and the back windows were blacked out, which are fairly-certain indicators. I hit the ground and locked and loaded. Startled my buds (Chief ***** and MSG ****** of the *****), but they soon understood. Anyway, the guards fired a warning shot with no response, and then shot the car up with a .50 cal MG. Big chunks flew off the car under the hammering of Ma Deuce, the car staggered to a stop, and then it blew. Even flat on the ground 200m away, it felt like a punch in the gut. And me without my camera! When I got back to the hooch, I took a pic of the smoke. The best (worst) moments always pass without being able to record them. Anyway, the blast took out about six Iraqi cars either on the road or parked. No Coalition casualties. Don't know about Iraqi civ casualties yet, but cou ldn't be more than 8 or 10, maybe less, several of the cars looked unoccupied. I'm not sure if this has made it into the news. The prelim assessment is 500+ pounds of explosive equivalent. I had a ringing headache for the afternoon."

I commented after reading this that his lastest post was "kind of harrowing." He sent this in reply:

"You know, the bomb at the gate is more harrowing in retrospect than in the experience itself. When things do happen, they seem to happen so fast that there's little time to do anything but realize "I'm okay, now who can I shoot?" I suspect the difference between one who can react effectively and one who cannot rests largely in the individual's ability to swiftly settle that first question: am I okay? Those we call heroes are frequently those who forget to ask the question at all."

Posted by Not From Around Here on August 14, 2006 at 10:39:52
source IP:170.94.169.20

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/14/2006 05:03:00 PM | |

Sistren

see Brethren and Sistren and cistern

Definitions and explanations of the uncommon word are found there. But at least it is real!

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/14/2006 04:00:00 PM | |

Brethren and Sistren and cistern

I have been utterly convinced for some time that there was a feminine equivalent of the word "brethren", that being a stylized and archaic plural form/reference of brother and brothers. I knew it was "sistren" but for the life of me I cannot recall where I got that knowledge and I discovered why people doubted my knowledge of this word; although I knew why they thought I was referring to the word "cistern" no one should doubt that the word "sistren" is not something that I made up, but a real word. I looked up the answers and discovered why.

What is the feminine equivalent of brethren?

There is a word sistren, though it has a somewhat different history from its male parallel. Both words were used in Middle English (12th to 15th centuries) simply as the plural forms of brother and sister. From about 1600, brothers began to take over from brethren (Shakespeare used both), except in referring to fellow members of a religious community, or a society or profession. Even this use is now rather archaic (though groups such as the Plymouth Brethren keep it in use). Sistren, meanwhile, had fallen completely out of use by the middle of the 16th century, but has been revived (and used almost exclusively) by feminist writers.

The reason why it was so difficult for me to look up the word in standard references and normal resources is that the word fell completely out of common use by the middle of the 1500s! The word has been gone for nearly 500 years now! My diction hasn't been normal for half a millenium. Rest assured that I did not acquire the word from a feninist text or any work by a feminist writer. That leaves the point of introduction a mystery.

A cistern is a "receptacle for holding water or other liquid, especially a tank for catching and storing rainwater." I knew that.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/14/2006 03:48:00 PM | |

Getting an Absentee Ballot in the state of Michigan

Follow the link to Michigan's Absentee Voting Process

If you already have an idea how it all works and don't care much for the specific rules, laws, minutia, and details then simply download an absentee ballot request.

You can fill one of those out using the proper Adobe PDF reader, print it, sign it, and mail it to your local township clerk for processing. You can find his or her identity and address through here. Then you can expect to receive your absentee voter ballot.



There is no shame in voting straight-ticket Republican and it is especially vital that we support the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which, as I recall is Proposal 2 this year and if we vote correctly we can remove racial characteristics as a standard measurement in academic assessment.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/14/2006 03:24:00 PM | |

Reiko Aylesworth



The Reiko Aylesworth Interview from/at Television Without Pity

There is an unofficial Reiko Aylesworth Fan Blog.

It's actually rather embarrassing. The bulk of the content is tiny pictures; most of the which are actually seperate frames from individual scenes fron a television program or movie. The entire month of March is just Ms. Aylesworth sitting at a table, but with slightly different positions in each image because she was actually moving in the television scene! I would be embarrassed and I know what blogs I have.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/14/2006 03:15:00 AM | |

what? row house!

“Just break even”

“sell it to a moderate income family for 250 (thousand dollars)”

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/14/2006 01:00:00 AM | |

Seattle Terrorism and such

From Sid Fredrickson, July 30, 2006

Will Justice Be Done In Seattle?

Sound Politics is really doing very good coverage of
the recent terrorist attack in Seattle, Washington
USA.

http://www.soundpolitics.com

This article in particular is a must read.

King County Prosecutor Maleng Must Seek Death Penalty
For Jew-Killer Haq

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006579.html

Please Contact the King County Prosecutor

norm.maleng@metrokc.gov

And King County Executive Sims who hasn't even
expressed much outrage regarding this yet.

ron.sims@metrokc.gov

Sid Fredrickson also sent one other fascinating note.

Seattle Terrorist Loves Cats

Here's the Seattle Terrorist's Friendster's page.

http://www.friendster.com/6276814


About Me:

Exercising is a passion for me. I like to stay in
shape and I like biking. Being opinionated is not me
but I lean on the liberal side. I don't do anything
real crazy, like ice climbing or bungee jumping. That
would require getting off land, which I don't like to
do. Finally, I like cats, but currently I have no
cats.

Who I Want to Meet:
A person who has a sense of humor and is easy going
like myself. A woman of the world, but not a worldly
woman. I'm not sure what that means. It just sounded
good. Last but not least, people with felonies need
not seek my company.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/13/2006 12:20:00 PM | |

A Hero Falls...

WPTF Terrorism Expert Dies In Accident

(WPTF)--Former comrades from numerous military units and public
safety agencies are shouldering the loss of Capt. Craig Marks, U-S
Army Retired.

Marks, who was an authority on terrorism for 680-WPTF, died in an
land-clearing accident at his Harnett County home.

Among his many responsibilities, Marks served as a reserve police
officer with the Lillington P-D, where Frank Powers is chief...

"He was always willing to help...a very good guy. He helped us in a
number of ways...You can't replace somebody like Craig."

Craig Marks was an expert in law enforcement, emergency
management, and military science. He was a veteran of both the Marine
Corps and the Army Special Forces.

Randall Rickman - WPTF News
Copyright: Curtis Media Group
Fri Aug 11, 11:09:42 AM EST
******************************************************

E. Clark says:*

I never met the man. Never knew him at all, but I did listen to him
when he was on the air. He was knowledgeable about the topics and
helped me understand more about the conflict and put in to context
the situations we find oursleves in in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

But while I knew he had served his country overseas, unfortunately I
didn't find out about the ways he continued to serve his country at home
until after his death. I thought you guys might like to read a testament
to a real American hero, Capt. Craig Marks. He will be missed.

* on August 11, 2006 at 19:46:52
source IP:68.221.68.146

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/12/2006 09:37:00 PM | |

The Cooler...

do you ever want to see William H. Macy's naked arse?

I've never seen so much of his naked ass.

His naked ass, the image, has been cauterized onto my eyeballs.

Burned seared horrendous horrible.

Granted the Kevin Costner nudity is tolerable but unpleasent.

But so much exposure of the bottom portions of William H. Macy, both sides, unclad and barely covered when covered are enough to justify R-rating and more? What's the Rating for Unpleasent Nudity, Undesired Nudity?

Eeeeeyai!

The Cooler the Movie.... William H. Macy is naked. Completely naked. Too much so.

Granted the movie is a good. It's a good movie. I like the movie. But parts are incredibly unpleasent.... interestingly those must have been the parts most pleasent for the Bernie character. William H. Macy probably did not protest his exposure or interaction with Maria Bello. Again though, I warn you of the mighty, terrible things you may see in this film. Mind you: if you want to see William H. Macy in the buff, that's your terrible taste but I tell you that H does does not stand "Hiney, wonderful".

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/12/2006 01:59:00 AM | |

another instance of Judd Winnick not knowing the characters

and then writing them as if they are crap, and then maiming/crippling them.

Example: the second Dr. Light.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/11/2006 02:11:00 PM | |

interesting

Big Red Lance

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/11/2006 01:56:00 PM | |

What Cricket has to do with this Terrorist Plot

From Sid Fredrickson:
As early as 16 years ago, Lord Norman Tebbit, a
British politician expressed his concerns about the
increasing numbers of British Citizens who identified
with a foreign nationality more than their British
citizenship.

An example he gave was what he saw at a cricket match
in Great Britain between their national team and that
of Pakistan.  He saw a great number of British
citizens of Pakistani descent rooting not for England
but for Pakistan.  And they weren't all naturalized
first generation  British citizens, but third and
fourth generations as well.

How, he wondered, can these people be considered
British citizens and take part of the responsibilities
of British citizenship, when they themselves don't
even really think of themselves as British as
indicated by them rooting for a foreign team instead
their own national team?

And what are the consequences for British society of
having a significant segment of its population that
will not integrate itself into British Culture but
instead identifies itself more with a foreign country
than their own?

This "test" of British citizenship came to be known in
England as the "Cricket Test" and as you can imagine
was greeted with hostility and calls of racism from
the Left.

But his concerns were unfortunately vindicated on July
7th, 2005 when "home grown" terrorists hit the London
Underground subway system with suicide attacks

And now we have another terrorist plot which might
have just included "home grown" terrorists in Great
Britain.

Too bad people didn't listen to Lord Tebbit's concerns
in 1990 instead of ridiculing his "Cricket Test".

For More Information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_test

Tebbit attacks 'unreformed' Islam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4163484.stm

Lord Tebbit said the 'cricket test' was a means of
gauging whether a community had integrated.

"If a community was looking back at where it had come
from instead of looking forward with the people to
whom they had come to, then there is going to be a
problem sooner or later."

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/10/2006 05:35:00 PM | |

Jocasta versus the Taskmaster



from Avengers #196, pencil art by George Perez

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/10/2006 01:39:00 AM | |

Kevin Smith on Superman Returns

from Fox News:

By the way, I couldn’t resist asking Smith what he thought of the new "Superman Returns,"as he was one of the many screenwriters who took a crack at the script along the film’s torturous route to the big screen.

“I always think it’s great to have a director see his vision realized, and Bryan Singer’s vision of Superman as Jesus was definitely achieved,” he told me.

Yes, this Superman may have the mildest manners of all who donned the “S” before him.

But forget about viewing it as a filmmaker, I said. What did Smith think as a fan?

“Well,” he answered wryly, “I would have liked to see Superman punch someone.”

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/10/2006 12:13:00 AM | |

Wictory Wednesday

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Steve Laffey for the US Senate for Rhode Island. Steve is running against well-known *insert appropriate adjective here* Republican incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee. The reasons to vote against Chafee are many, but as a rule, we should cast votes for something.

A vote cast for Laffey is a vote cast for fiscal restraint. Laffey understands that the federal government spends other people's money and that pork projects are an egregarious example of government waste and corruption. He also is against raiding the Social Security Trust fund (yeah, I know, it's a joke) and corporate welfare. It is a national disgrace that our tax system cannot be understood by even the enforcers of that system, the IRS, and that such a system is an oppression and shackle against the American family. He supports simplifying the system so that the average person doesn't need to hire a team of professionals to figure out what their "fair share" of taxes is.

Laffey is a strong economic growth candidate supporting policies that will keep the economy moving forward. He supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent and will work to introduce additional tax cuts. He understands that tax cuts also need to come with spending cuts. Laffey is an experienced politician who, as mayor, led his town from having a near junk-bond rating to financial solvency and has overseen some of the greatest economic renewal Cranston has seen in decades. The Club for Growth has endorsed his campaign recognizing that he will move the nation forward and avoid the recession-prone policies of the Democrats.

Please consider contributing or volunteering for Steve Laffey's campaign for the Senate.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:


posted by Chris Arndt at 8/09/2006 11:35:00 PM | |

How To Sustain a Conspiracy Theory

The following is a parody-joke-satire-commentary thing by our good friend Eric Spratling, in response to a string of inane conspiracy theories and idiotic comments advanced at his own weblog and on the Dixonverse Message Board. It has been reprinted mostly in its entirity without context. It's hilarious.

"How To Maintain Your Conspiracy Theory Despite the Awkward and Painful Intrusions of Reality" by SPC (P) Spratling
(shhh! don't tell anyone that I'm undercover here in the Army!)

STEP 1: ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU IS IN COLLUSION WITH THE CONSPIRATORS.

Note that this is probably the most important one to remember! The beauty of any good conspiracy theory is that when you're backed up against a wall, all you have to say is "You're one of them!" and you'll be good. Because if you ever start believing that your enemy has something going for him besides lies and propaganda, then the whole house of cards would collapse, and really, where's the fun in that?

To the conspiracy theorist (or CT, why not), there can only be three types of people: a) the evil organization (usually the gov't) who is pulling all the elaborate strings; b) the ignorant, sheeplike masses who are too intellectually scared to question said government, and c) the CT himself, a valiant David-like hero who is alone able to pull the wool off of the sheep's eyes.

If someone you know offers a compelling, disinterested argument, then see 1b: he/she is an ignorant sheep who couldn't fathom questioning their own government; too bad for that poor chump! If someone offers you actual evidence against your ramblings, then see 1a. Etc, etc.

Moving on....

STEP 2: YOURS IS THE ONLY VALID VIEWPOINT.

This ties in with Step 1 in an obvious way: remember, the only three types of people are the good CT, the evil government, and ignorant sheeple. Obviously, anyone who expresses a viewpoint other than those of the first kind are to be shunned.

It is in this way, then, that an article published in a respected scientific periodical can be safely dismissed as "biased," "propaganda," "pro-government," and "wholly intolerant of questioning the government" simply because it uses terms like "outlandish" and "extremist" to describe people who subscribe to the theory that a cast of tens of thousands successfully conspired (and later covered up, without a single leak) to pull off the most gruesome mass murder in American history.

Why would PM publish articles critical of President Bush for such comparatively "little" things like Civil Rights infringements, then go ahead and (deliberately or not) help him cover up the most gruesome mass murder in American history? We can never know. Hey, maybe those previous criticisms were a deliberate trick just to throw truth-seekers off the trail... yeah, that's the ticket! Don't you see? IT ALL MAKES SENSE!

STEP 3: THE "GOVERNMENT" IS A MONOLITHIC ENTITY THAT ACTS WITH ONE MIND.

A lot of people are under the crazy impression that the United States governments consists of millions of Americans all over the country and indeed the globe, including but not limited to such diverse institutions as the executive/legislative/judicial branches, police, firefighters, FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF, FCC, the entire U.S. Military, the Departments of Health, Sanitation, Commerce, Treasury, Education, Homeland Security, Motor Vehicles, etc etc etc ad nauseum. And while this is technically true, it does not take into account the part of CT gospel that all of these organizations operate in perfect lockstep and act unquestioningly from a central, micro-managing leader: The President.

This is how we can dismiss anything the NIST says (in addition, of course, to the reasons we can already dismiss it under what is established under the all-important Step 1) since the NIST is subordinate to the Department of Commerce and that's the government. This is why none of us genius CTs were surprised back in the late 90s when President Clinton failed to be successfully removed from office: both the defensive White House and the impeaching Congress were the government. And why on Earth would the government convict itself?

You need to be careful when exercising Step 3, though, because it can lead to awkward questions. When you're exercising Step 3, someone might approach you and ask, for example, if Bush's iron fist is so successful about maneuvering the findings of the Department of Commerce, then how come he can't keep one of his own intelligence agencies, the CIA (which his own father at one point ran, for Heaven's sake,) from leaking to the media like a sieve any information that could potentially embarass him? Why, in fact, if the CIA is part of The Government, is it such a shockingly anti-Bush organization that has worked for years to humiliate and compromise its own leader? Surely The Government that cannot keep a simple thing like a wiretapping program a secret could not be successful in pulling off a massive terrorist attack in plain sight of the entire country?

If someone comes at you talking like this, it's important to remember Step 1.

STEP 4: EXPERTS, SCHMEXPERTS

If there's a piece of evidence against your case that could be made to sound silly to a layman, do not hesitating in making it so.

For instance: the idea that the flights weren't shot down because there were only 14 jets on active alert status in the continental U.S. "What? Only 14? That's ludicrous? Where did all our tax money go?"

Of course, you, the CT are probably not in the Air Force and do not have a history with Norad or any such organization. You're just an average guy (with a superpower of seeing the truth, of course!)and you likely have no background that you could use to state definitively whether, in pre-9/11 times, only 14 fighters being on alert is totally normal. But guess what? Your intended audience probably doesn't either. So just pour on the silly. Make 'em hurt!

Don't know much about construction, foundations, and anything else that would tell you about why cement would have been "scooped" out from under a building? Don't have a history of the area to tell you why such a project would or would not have been necessary? Doesn't matter, because those chump sheeple probably know about as much as you do about it. Distract them from wondering about why such a thing might be legitimately true by saying something really goofy. Maybe about a dragon. Hardy har har!

Now, we know that we have trained a lot of you to make high-minded quotes about your opponents being guilty of contempt prior to investigation. But don't worry: that only applies to your opponents, and usually when they might be starting to outsmart you. You can feel free to pile on all the pre-investigation contempt you want!

STEP 5: EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IS IN YOUR FAVOR.

Along with Step 1, this is really the true beauty of conspiracy theories. If you uncover even the tiniest shred of "evidence" (in context or not) that, say, evil Zionist Reptilians secretly run the world, then you are free to seize that and run with it: it's much harder for the rest of the world to prove a negative against that then it is for you to "raise questions" and as long as your questions cannot be answered immediately by the layman, then you can claim victory. However, if your theory about the evil Zionist Reptilians has NO evidence, then you can whisper that that just shows how effective the conspiracy is.

It's that same kind of logic that leads to arguments like this one:

"Also, it's curious that they found 16 common conspiracy theories....and they think that they've conclusively de-bunked all of them. Weren't some of their studies, ya know, inconclusive? Didn't they research something and just say, 'Hey, maybe the theory's right, maybe not, but it's simply impossible to know.' Nope. They claim conclusive evidence against every single one. I don't know about you, but that really undercuts their credibility to me."

See what our experienced CT did there? To argue that the PM's counter-arguments are just propaganda and lies, he cites the fact that they think all their counter-arguments are conclusively right. Surely those mental gymnastics are amazing, but they are doubly so when you consider that if Popular Mechanics had arrived at less than 100% conclusive finishes on some/all of their points, or, God forbid, came to the opposite conclusion, then Mr Brennan would of course still be jumping with joy. If you can't prove me 100% wrong, then I'm right; and if you DO prove me 100% wrong, then I'm still right because it shows just how much of a tool you are.

This, of course, ties in with Step 2.

[I'm sorry, but I just have to break character here to say how this reminds me of a great quote from "Married with Children" where the Bundys are in the video store, trying to agree on what to rent.

PEG: "Al, you're just being negative. You don't want to see any of the movies I want to see!"
AL: "Well, Peg, all the movies you want to see suck!"]

So, to recap:

1) They're all out to get you
2) They're all out to get you
3) They're all out to get you
4) You are smart
5) You are smart

Just always keep this handy manual at your side, and you'll never have to worry about losing an argument about your conspiracy theory ever again.

Congrats!

-The Royal Society of Conspiracy Theories


originally posted by Eric Spratling on August 09, 2006 at 08:41:24 on the Dixonverse Message Board
source IP:72.24.81.91

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/09/2006 09:53:00 PM | |

Android Super-Heroes

I promised a whimsical comic bookish thing here.

Sentient robotic super-heroes are listed here. Synthetic human beings, imitaitons, and artificial men who have a tendency to wish that they were real boys.

You will not find cyborgs here nor you will you find DC Comics' second Robotman, for a reason that I will note later. The lists are seperated by company.

Marvel Comics

• the original Human Torch aka James "Jim" Hammond
  
• the Vision (the second Vision) aka Victor Shade
  
• Machine Man (real name X-51 or Aaron Stack), formerly called Mister Machine
• Jocasta

DC Comics

• the Red Tornado (the second Red Tornado) aka John Smith
• Hourman III
• Tomorrow Woman
• the Metal Men
  

Wildstorm/Image Comics

• Spartan

That's a short list. Expand the parameters and the list only grows a little. The original Robotman and the second Robotman, Cliff Steele, were both cyborgs. At one point Cliff Steele became a posthuman being, of sorts, but I wouldn't abandon the original premise and call him a robot (despite that his post-Morrison status made him resemble the Vision more than the original Robotman character from the 1940s). DC Comics has another robot/android figure called Powerman, but he's not really a character since its a sacrificial automaton that Superman used a decoy during a Batman-must-not-join-in-on-this-adventure-for-his-own-good World's Finest story. Powerman had no powers, aside that its strength was beyond human, and was not even close to resembling a sentient being. Powerman had only slightly more of a brain than the Energizer Bunny. The Super Powers action figure collection included a robot character, Cyclotron, that never appeared in any story medium.

One could also question the validity of the Metal Men's inclusion.

Anyone have any ideas for further entries?

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/09/2006 09:36:00 PM | |

fair? pretty!



Mrs. Steve Burguiere

Steve Burguiere is Stu. Stu is this guy. I claimed that it is not fair. Actually it's proof that that sitcom tendency of fat (relatively speaking) guys having hot wives is not unrealistic.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/09/2006 01:23:00 PM | |

let's go nuts - I present to you a message from the Prime Minister of Israel

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world. I, the Prime Minister of Israel , am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures. There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel. We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana. Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
Here, there and everywhere. The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon. We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens. No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children. This anarchy is over. You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.

A voice for six million citizens. Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish race off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims.

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers. Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives. Now we have our own air force. The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction – those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children. They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility.

Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack. This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all. You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us. But to kill us? Absolutely not.

Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria, the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and
to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us. The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves. The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli
presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement? Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium? Or, of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya? What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly.

We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more. In a loud and clear voice. And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. What did it get us? A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm. And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.

An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees. And make no mistake - we won't go down alone. You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy. I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq. Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent. And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya. And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent. What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't?

In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders. It is also your battle. I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.

ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM FACTS
1. ISRAEL BECAME A STATE IN 1312 B.C., TWO MILLENNIA BEFORE ISLAM;

2. ARAB REFUGEES FROM ISRAEL BEGAN CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" IN 1967, TWO DECADES AFTER (MODERN) ISRAELI STATEHOOD;

3. AFTER CONQUERING THE LAND IN 1272 B.C., JEWS RULED IT FOR A
THOUSAND YEARS AND MAINTAINED A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE THERE FOR 3,300 YEARS;

4. THE ONLY ARAB RULE FOLLOWING CONQUEST IN 633 B.C. LASTED JUST 22
YEARS;

5. FOR OVER 3,300 YEARS, JERUSALEM WAS THE JEWISH CAPITAL. IT WAS
NEVER THE CAPITAL OF ANY ARAB OR MUSLIM ENTITY. EVEN UNDER JORDANIAN
RULE, (EAST) JERUSALEM WAS NOT MADE THE CAPITAL, AND NO ARAB LEADER
CAME TO VISIT IT;

6. JERUSALEM IS MENTIONED OVER 700 TIMES IN THE BIBLE, BUT NOT ONCE IS
IT MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN;

7. KING DAVID FOUNDED JERUSALEM; MOHAMMED NEVER SET FOOT IN IT;

8. JEWS PRAY FACING JERUSALEM; MUSLIMS FACE MECCA. IF THEY ARE BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES, MUSLIMS PRAY FACING MECCA, WITH THEIR BACKS TO JERUSALEM;

9. IN 1948, ARAB LEADERS URGED THEIR PEOPLE TO LEAVE, PROMISING TO
CLEANSE THE LAND OF JEWISH PRESENCE. 68% OF THEM FLED WITHOUT EVER
SETTING EYES ON AN ISRAELI SOLDIER;

10. VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE JEWISH POPULATION OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES HAD TO FLEE AS THE RESULT OF VIOLENCE AND POGROMS;

11. SOME 630,000 ARABS LEFT ISRAEL IN 1948, WHILE CLOSE TO A MILLION
JEWS WERE FORCED TO LEAVE THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES;

12. IN SPITE OF THE VAST TERRITORIES AT THEIR DISPOSAL, ARAB REFUGESS
WERE DELIBERATELY PREVENTED FROM ASSIMILATING INTO THEIR HOST
COUNTRIES. OF 100 MILLION REFUGEES FOLLOWING WORLD WAR 2, THEY ARE THE ONLY GROUP TO HAVE NEVER INTEGRATED WITH THEIR CORELIGIONISTS. MOST OF THE JEWISH REFUGEES FROM EUROPE AND ARAB LANDS WERE SETTL ED IN ISRAEL, A COUNTRY NO LARGER THAN NEW JERSEY;

13. THERE ARE 22 MUSLIM COUNTRIES, NOT COUNTING PALESTINE. THERE IS
ONLY ONE JEWISH STATE. ARABS STARTED ALL FIVE WARS AGAINST ISRAEL, AND LOST EVERY ONE OF THEM;

14. FATAH AND HAMAS CONSTITUTIONS STILL CALL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. ISRAEL CEDED MOST OF THE WEST BANK AND ALL OF GAZA TO THE
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, AND EVEN PROVIDED IT WITH ARMS;

15. DURING THE JORDANIAN OCCUPATION, JEWISH HOLY SITES WERE VANDALIZED AND WERE OFF LIMITS TO JEWS. UNDER ISRAELI RULE, ALL MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL FAITHS;

16. OUT OF 175 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UP TO 1990, 97 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL; OUT OF 690 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS, 429 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL;

17. THE U.N. WAS SILENT WHEN THE JORDANIANS DESTROYED 58 SYNAGOGUES IN THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM. IT REMAINED SILENT WHILE JORDAN SYSTEMATICALLY DESECRATED THE ANCIENT JEWISH CEMETERY ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, AN D IT REMAINED SILENT WHEN JORDAN ENFORCED APARTHEID LAWS PREVENTING JEWS FROM ACCESSING THE TEMPLE MOUNT AND WESTERN WALL.

THESE ARE TRYING TIMES. WE MUST ASK OURSELVES WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, AND WHAT WE WILL TELL OUR GRANDCHILDREN ABOUT OUR ACTIONS DURING THIS CRISIS, WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/09/2006 12:54:00 PM | |

Tim Walberg versus Joe Shwarz ii

I'm not deluded, again, into thinking that the majority of those interested in the Primary election come here to look.

Regardless, I had a good dozen posts left (in Draft form and in my own primitive superhumanly intellectual brain) covering the subject, including audio of leftists and blind Party loyalists endorsing Schwarz.

I write this as if a lot of those posts made it through but we ran out of time. Naturally I will cover those topics regardless. Even if some of it must be done in hindsight. Now for two years, ever since he was elected Dr. Joe Schwarz has sent out mailing lit to all the Republicans and Conservatives and basically a lot of his constituents because he has been afraid for his seat for two years. The Republican always wins District 7 so the Primary is the real race. Nick Smith had the seat for a long time; he was Conservative enough that there was no need for a Primary. Last year there were too many candidates. Most of them were right-wing and Joe Schwarz was a Moderate at best and a Liberal RINO at worst. So the Conservative vote was split nearly a dozen ways and the minority of the Moderates voted as a solid bloc. That means that Joe Schwarz got forty percent of the vote, sizeable enough to demolish the Right's front-runner, Brad Smith (the son of Nick Smith, as well as a successful lawyer). Essentially, though, Joe Schwarz got 40% of the vote and 60% of the people voted against him. Dr. Schwarz got the minority of the votes so he was more insecure than most Congressmen and easily the least secure of any 7th District US rep that I have ever seen or heard of.

Now he gets support from MIGOP and the US Republicans because as policy they back the incumbent (if he's Republican, regardless of politics). NRA changed their entire system to back him because as an elephant he's better than the alternative, in their vision, and they are pessimists. Any Republican will win here.

The Conservatives waited two years to challenge for the seat again and now is the chance, I wish I had time to cover it further today; maybe I will tonight. The truth is that I have to leave now. It's Election Day in all ways that count.

Here's some helpful links:

• Finance complaints filed against Schwarz
• Left Sours on Schwarz Over Brochure
• Schwarz vs. Walberg: A Microcosm for the GOP?
• Top 10 Reasons Joe Schwarz must go
• Republican Michigander: Joe Schwarz in primary fight with Tim Walberg
• Human Events Online: A Mini-Interview with Tim Walberg

For any poor soul coming here from the Comics Weblog lists check back tomorrow (or perhaps tonight if I am feeling truly whimsical) I promise I will have something and perhaps given the energy it might even be worth the trip.

oh and I endorse Sheriff Mike Bouchard for US Senate.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/08/2006 10:22:00 AM | |

US Congress District 7, Michigan



from the National Atlas

thanks to this guy

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/08/2006 10:17:00 AM | |

I endorse Tim Walberg

in the District 7 Primary race for Congress

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 11:44:00 PM | |

watch the Robocop opening theme

for the animated series. I have fond memories of the Marvel Action Universe.

via YouTube.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 11:42:00 PM | |

pikers shrewd

I'm a tad confused when I come to this blog. The self-identified "Taming of the shrewd" boasts a knowledge of merchandising and expensive stuff it fits a sort of archetype: prissy. Then the language is rough and the intentions/descriptions direct.

So it's Pikers.com Taming of the shrewd.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 11:29:00 PM | |

Slimer makes one hideous toy



It's hard to believe that this character from Ghostbusters became the "cute" child-friendly mascot for the franchise.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 10:41:00 PM | |

Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment

In his own words:

The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.

This supposedly limits the viciousness of aggressive statements and rhetoric between two Party members during a Primary for any public office, and says nothing really about the existence of Primaries at all, especially in the case of an incumbent already in office and that incumbent being a member of the Party.


David C. Wilcox summarizes it thusly

It was proposed by State Republican Chairman Gaylord Parkinson to help prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater that laid the foundation for Goldwater's trouncing in the 1964 presidential election. Just as Nelson Rockefeller and his East Coast cronies had branded Goldwater as an "extremist" who was unfit to hold office, so candidate George Christopher and California's liberal Republicans were leveling similar personal attacks on Reagan. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson's advice, and the rest is history.

The rest of that article follows modern-day California politics and the supposed stringencies of partisanship as far as Party loyalty goes, along with the correlating stregnths. Apparently rejecting loyalty in favor of politicking and currying favor with the popular politicians, even the Democrats, is the in-thing. I'm not concerned with that; my biggest issue may be the limitations for challenging the incumbent if he is of your Party. Party loyalty then may fly out the window, but a good clean fight is still required, right?

On the other

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 04:02:00 PM | |

a bit on the extreme and extremism

We acknowledge that "extreme" is an adjective, the sort of word used to modify nouns and their respective meanings, and that since "extremism" is an "-ism" it is a noun. The definition of it (the adjective) is fairly simple. "Extreme" can also be used as a noun and it's still simple but overly vague (in fact that is why it is too simple). The adjective, for example, from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ¹ex·treme
Pronunciation: ik-'strEm
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin extremus, superlative of exter, exterus being on the outside -- more at EXTERIOR
1 a : existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : RADICAL extreme diet> c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>
2 archaic : LAST
3 : situated at the farthest possible point from a center extreme north>
4 a : most advanced or thoroughgoing extreme political left> b : MAXIMUM
5 a : of, relating to, or being an outdoor activity or a form of a sport (as skiing) that involves an unusually high degree of physical risk <extreme mountain biking down steep slopes> b : involved in an extreme sport extreme snowboarder>
synonym see EXCESSIVE
- ex·treme·ness noun

Defining the noun, extreme, demonstrates how the word is even less useful.

Main Entry: ²extreme
Function: noun
1 a : something situated at or marking one end or the other of a range <extremes of heat and cold> b : the first term or the last term of a mathematical proportion c : the major term or minor term of a syllogism
2 a : a very pronounced or excessive degree b : highest degree : MAXIMUM
3 : an extreme measure or expedient extremes>
- in the extreme : to the greatest possible extent

It's a term of relativity, only utilitarian in a sense of precision if one has a notion or grasp or knowledge of what the set standard is. Quite rarely is that middle point common knowledge and in the terms of public rhetoric, especially politics, "extreme" is a moral declaration, and thus made totally worthless, for a more than a few reasons.

I think I'll only go over the few reasons.

First of all, since to be extreme is to be distanced from a fixed point in order to intelligently use the word as a moral judgement you have to judge the zero-standard to be moral and thus morally good, declare it to be so, and then you have to justify that stance. Declaring that you are"not extreme" and thus are standing on good moral ground is both arrogant, and automatically counting on your audience to consist primarily of ignorant boobs. It is also an action of speaking literally meaningless things. Something can only be extreme if someone is being extreme in regard to something else. Otherwise we are left to assume and infer. Explicitly stating that you are not something, say "extreme" is implying that you are something else, and if not extreme then you must be at a middle point. In politics there is no zero point nor is there truly a median value. There is a spectrum of accepted political positioning in this country/society, with placement determined by comparative stances on specific issues, and the majority of active, successful political parties in the United States (as well as American elected officials) exist within that narrow band of the political continuum. To be inside this stretch is normal, and inside of that there is a right and a left but the closest thing there is a median value does not literally fit the definion. One can be a moderate.

To a lot of people being a moderate is a virtue. That being a political moderate is to be virtuous is in fact a (political) philosophical stance. Not many agree. For many the defense of political moderates is a reaction to attacks from other political factions and for others it's the starting ground for their assault/condemnation on extremism. But what's wrong with being extreme? Paging Jonah Goldberg...

Self-appointed guardians of our national "discourse"... constantly disparage partisanship, ideology and, most of all, "extremism" as inherently bad.

This hatred of extremism is a bit odd. Nowhere else in life do we think extremism is inherently bad regardless of context. When doctors use "extreme measures" to save a life, we don't tar the surgeon as an "extremist." Meanwhile, the moderate or middling thing to do is often morally and intellectually indefensible. A surgeon who agrees to work on a patient for three hours but no more — because that would be extreme — is negligent. Refusing to perform "radical surgery" for fear of being an extremist is criminally childish. In other words, sometimes the "extreme" thing to do is also the right thing to do.

The word "extreme" is stupid! We're discussing what is the right thing to do, as well as the alternative. Unless we're talking about physical activity, mechanical use, consumption, or something of that sort, then whether or not something is extreme or not is an irrelevent description given that what action we're supposed to take is not something that's determined by comparing anything to standards of middling! Also, if there is a debate between something that is right and something that is wrong (there's always a group that believes and thus argues that what is wrong is right and what is right is wrong; that's what a debate is made of) then the middle-ground between those two positions is not what's right! Between accurate and inaccurate the middle ground between the two still is not accurate!

On issue after issue, the left and right get into a tug-of-war over their preferred policy solutions. And politicians, extreme people-pleasers that they are, try to split the difference. The journalists who cover politicians are cynics and assume that true believers are by their very nature suspicious. Moreover, because politicians and mainstream journalists alike get the most grief from "partisans" of the left and the right, they both assume that the middle is the most enlightened place to be, since they think that's where they are. But compromise is not always the smartest way to go. Leaping a canyon in one jump may or may not be stupidly extreme, but it's a hell of lot smarter than the more moderate approach of trying to leap it in two jumps.
Lest I seem too bipartisan myself here, it should be noted that the bias against extremism is not a purely centrist phenomenon. It comes in large part from a sustained liberal campaign against conservatives. The most famous illustration of this is probably Barry Goldwater's perfectly sensible declaration that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. But for a generation of liberals, extremism was something to be found only on the right, never on the left, and Goldwater's observation was taken as code for extremism liberals don't like.
Paladins of bipartisan moderation may not realize how responsible they are for today's polarized climate. In America, it is impossible to gain traction on an idea unless you first assure everyone that it's not "extreme" or "radical." Assurances that "this is a moderate, centrist reform," and that "this is mainstream," proliferate whenever a policy is put forward. There's a deep cynicism in the assumption that Americans will only agree to things that aren't too inconvenient. But, more important, there's a profound dishonesty to such assurances, which inevitably cause people with opposing views to get very, very angry.

One can certainly see then how "extremism" is a codeword sent to trigger a visceral reaction in stupid, ignorant people who believe they pay attention.

Let's all keep in mind then that declaring a set of moral stances or ideas as "extreme" then insults these people and yet if you don't automatically see "extreme" as synonymous with "excessive" in the sociopolitical context, then in fact to be extreme is the ideal, and the compliment, which is what led to the best interpretation of and the intended meaning of Barry Goldwater's axiom. The unfettered pursuit of what is right, proper, and good is not a sin. There are lots of things that are right. There is one word to describe anything that isn't right and that word is "wrong". Declaring someone else as extreme when you see yourself as something else is obviously an attack. For the most part I find it dishonest. It is dishonest. It's polarizing without clarifying. Putting someone in the evil zone without clearly delineating the lines ahead of time is a dirty trick. Overall it's not seeing and saying where everyone is in the real world.

That's the problem with "extreme" being a word that's too vague. It's used as an attack because it's vague and because people are usually too shallow to question what's so extreme about something or what's so bad about it anyway. As said before there is an acceptable stretch of what is good and bad for political beliefs. To be truthful there is nothing conventionally extreme about any of the standard beliefs, stances, and visions held by the Democrats and Republicans. There is the Liberal and the Conservative and that is alright. Beyond that on either side we radicals, reactionaries, communisits, fascists, socialists, (sometimes anarchists), and the far ends of the spectrum are totalitarian philosophies. Traditionally asserting that someone is extreme (still in the context of politics) is suggesting that someone holds to these beliefs. The issue is not what lies between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the political philosophies that follow neither of those nor their movements: the Moderate. This is not about the Moderates. Moderation is a virtue when it comes to taking care of your body but not when it comes to the body politic. The problem with being a Moderate may be that it is more difficult to anticipate the ideals of the Moderate (and it is) but the relevent thing is that casting someone else as "extreme" is implying that the opponent is outside the norm, when in fact it simply is far from the Moderate in position, yet still inside the acceptable terms. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

Which extreme is it? We the just proclaim that an extreme is a clearly delineated point or stance. We know what's right and it's just to pursue that! It's better to pursue that than to work to appear as acceptable to all. There's one more saying that I take as an axiom: those who sit in the middle of the road have a tendency to get run over.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 01:24:00 PM | |

The Barry Goldwater Money Quote

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

from his 1964 acceptance speech as Republican Presidential candidate

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 01:16:00 PM | |

The Easter Bunny Hates You

The Easter Bunny's one UNHOLY TERROR. He's kicking tail and taking names. WHAMO!!!

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/07/2006 02:17:00 AM | |

Joe Schwartz and Planned Parenthood



Click the above. Enlightening, isn't it?

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/05/2006 10:48:00 AM | |

Who Does Right to Life Endorse?



In the race to be the Republican candidate for Senate we see both Keith Butler and Mike Bouchard "meet criteria". Governor Granholm does not get the endorsement.

Mike Nofs, Patricia Birkholz, and Rick Jones are fit to keep their jobs.

Surprise surprise Joe Schwarz does not get the endorsement! Michigan Right to Life PAC endorses his opponent Tim Walberg.

The above card that I have digitized was recieved by my household in the mail and was/is not campaign literature from any campaign, especially not the Walberg Campaign. Right to Life of Michigan made a choice.

Ironically that card sent to persuade people to "Vote Prolife" was addressed to my father, whom passed away in 1996.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/04/2006 11:06:00 PM | |

Infinity Man Respect Thread

A comic book character created by Jack "King" Kirby" in the late sixties/early seventies - a being with incredible power and abilities rivaling Superman. He was only introduced into the story when the five characters called the Forever People got into trouble, and Infinity Man dealt with enemies so easily that drama was gone.

I love that.

That's besides the point here is an Infinity Man Respect Thread.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/04/2006 10:37:00 PM | |

Evans-Novak Political Report on our Michigan District 7 race

I post this verbatim:

Michigan-7: In 2004, moderate Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.) came to the U.S. House by winning just 28 percent over a crowded field of conservatives. Michigan's 7th District, in fact, became the classic case of conservatives' splitting the vote and letting a moderate into a conservative seat. Schwarz ran for governor in 2002 as a moderate, and he is an ally of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whom he supported in 2000.

This time, things are different. Just one of Schwarz's conservative opponents -- state Rep. Tim Walberg (R) -- is running against him this time, and the race is extremely close. Schwarz now has the endorsements of all his other former opponents, but he is in serious enough trouble that he is filing FEC complaints against Walberg and has not released any of his own polls. The Republican Main Street Partnership, a liberal Republican group, has come to Schwarz's side with what it estimates will be $1 million in advertising (the real number as of this writing is supposedly closer to $600,000).

Walberg, a former Protestant pastor, has the backing of the Club for Growth, which, as of late June, had raised hundreds of thousands of his $581,000 take. Schwarz had raised $1.2 million this cycle but had spent a million dollars by July 1 on ads and mailers that even his Michigan allies say were not particularly effective. His campaign's anxious posture says a lot right now.

Schwarz finds himself wedged between the pro-immigration Club and the anti-immigration Minutemen, who are both raising money to push Walberg over the top in the last days, but he hasn't figured out how to use this to his advantage. Schwarz's recent votes in favor of bilingual ballots and same-sex marriage could tip the balance in the last two weeks of the campaign. The race is still too close to call, though. Leaning Walberg.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/04/2006 09:48:00 PM | |

stolenvalor.blogspot.com "John Kerry's Stolen Valor"

He's not unjustifiably angry, is he?

Kerry's STOLEN VALOR AND FAKE DD214

Stolen Valor

MEDALS THE U.S. NAVY AWARDS WITH A "V"

DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS For heroism or extraordinary achievement in aerial flight. Bronze "V" device is worn by Navy and Marine Corps personnel to denote valor.

BRONZE STAR MEDAL For heroic or meritorious achievement of service, not involving aerial flight in connection with operations against an opposing armed force. Bronze "V" device worn to denote valor.

AIR MEDAL For meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight. Bronze "V" device worn to denote valor.

NAVY COMMENDATION MEDAL Awarded by the Navy and Marine Corps for heroic or meritorious achievement or service. Bronze "V" device worn to denote valor.

SILVER STAR MEDAL
For gallantry in action against an opposing armed force. (NO "V")

THE U.S. NAVY DOES NOT ISSUE A "V" FOR THE SILVER STAR SO KERRY IS A BULLSHITTER AND HIS DD214 FAKED. THE DATE OF PAGE 1 AND PAGE 2 OF THE PDF FILE HE POSTED ON HIS WEBSITE ( http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf ) HAVE DIFFERENT FORM DATES. PAGE 1 SAYS DD (FORM NOV 55) 214 AND PAGE 2 SAYS DD (FORM JUL 68) 214N AND LISTS THE SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT "V" UNDER MEDALS, DECORATIONS AND BADGES.

A NEAT TRICK BUT WRONG XXXXX FAKE. WRONG DATES, WRONG AWARDS.


Source:
U.S. NAVY MILITARY DECORATIONS
http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter5/Chapt5_MedalsRequirement.htm

all originally published here - http://stolenvalor.blogspot.com on Thursday, October 21, 2004 at 9:41 PM by "Hanoi John"

Essentially this blog should have been closed out for being old and unused but then so should many blogs, including my own, to free the URLs by one view of morality. The data I am keeping and preserving but frankly I'd rather have the stolenvalor.blogspot URL rather than the stolenvalor1.blogspot that I using for my review of the Burchett book.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/04/2006 04:51:00 PM | |

James Dobson versus Joe Schwartz



One can acknowledge primarily that this is indeed a piece of literature, one of a series of mailings from the Walberg campaign as much as it is an issuing of a statement on behalf of the campaign and Dr. Dobson. Dr. Schwartz is a medical doctor and the Representative of District 7. Contrary to the mostly Conservative viewpoints of we in District 7 Dr. Schwartz would sannction and condone the abortion of human life. The noted psychologist, well-known for his work within Focus on the Family and formerly of the Moral Majority, opposes the Congressman in his crusade for a second term on obvious grounds. Since Joe Schhwartz usually takes positions that are contrary to moralists', logically Dr. Dobson's choice would be contrary to him.

Some days it's important to abandon partisan loyalty and just approach things on values and that is the proper duty during a Primary election. If values are the important thing, then certainly it is not a bad idea to bring in endorsements and such from outside the District. Values aside, it has never been above the Schwartz Campaign to bring in outside supporters.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/03/2006 11:35:00 PM | |

Wictory Wednesday

This week, Wictory Wednesday presents Thelma Drake for US Congress for the Second District of Virginia. Representative Drake is running for reelection for her second term in the Congress and is running against MoveOn backed candidate Phillip Kellam. Polls indicate this will be a tight race, and from the amount of money being poured in by MoveOn, a race of importance in 2006.

Rep. Drake has been a supporter of victory in Iraq, rejecting calls to surrender to terrorists and leave the region in chaos. By providing support that the troops need, it gives the military and administration the latitude needed to do the hard work of reconstruction.

Also a supporter of free trade, Rep. Drake has voted to create a free trade zone in South America to further economic development that is beneficial to all parties. Many protectionists keep railing against the trade deficit without realizing that the trade deficit does more for other countries developing their economies than humanitarian aid could ever do.

Lastly, in the light of the recent debate on immigration, Rep. Drake gets it. Regulating the flow of immigrants is not xenophobia, it is common sense. It is one thing to be generous in allowing immigrants to come here to build a better life. It is another to have no real border and allow anyone, including terrorists, free reign across the border. Immigration is healthy for a county, unregulated flaunting of a border is not.

Please consider supporting Thelma Drake in her race for reelection.


This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you
would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot}
com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:


posted by Chris Arndt at 8/02/2006 05:54:00 PM | |

Anti-Science

Recent attempts by Liberal Democrats, definitive Leftists, dogmatic scientists, and Progressives to frame Republicans, Conservatives, right-wingers in general, the 43rd President of the United States and his Cabinet, and Christians as "anti-science", "anti-scientific" or the agressors in a so-called "war on science" or "was against science" enter my sensory perception to be the same as bigots.

It is ideological bigotry driving people to claim that others are "against science" as if science itself were a consistent concept that could be warred on, fought with, and defeated or eliminated. If one's knowledge, conclusions, ideas, beliefs, or understanding conflicts with anothers that does not (in and of itself, obviously) neccessarily give anyone the right to try and impugn the other's credibility on a basis of that person's so-called relationship to science.

While it is true that anybody has the right to say anything it is certainly unfair for any non-omniscient professional to attack anybody for a personal stance that certainly cannot be proven outright or definitively, especially when arguments like "they are all anti-science" can damage credibility and reputations and create biases especially when they people declaring Republicans to be anti-science have beliefs that they declare to be scientific using stuff that they claim is hard data when that hard data is impossible to verify.

Anyone being dogmatic about stuff that's placed before recorded history shouldn't deny that there's an edge of religion to their notions.

posted by Chris Arndt at 8/01/2006 12:06:00 PM | |