Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Rush MySpace Bulletin - Overreacting

Date: Jan 29, 2007 6:30 PM
Subject Overreacting

Well, the struggling LA Times has seen fit to print an op-ed by David Bell (history prof., Johns Hopkins and contributor to The New Republic magazine) -- scolding America for "overreacting" to 9/11.

Mr. Bell admits that "the people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country." He acknowledges that "Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world." But then he says, "It is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States." Americans "particularly on the right have failed to make this distinction," says the enlightened professor.

Mr. Bell says: "Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come." But, writes he: "Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns, and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat."

Yup. That's it, folks. The terrorists -- they just hijacked a few planes, they sent them into skyscrapers, they murdered thousands, and they crippled our economy. And those of us "particularly on the right" -- why, we dared support all-out war over these mild infractions of civility. Yes; we overreacted.

Mr. Bell's mindset is the same mindset that underpins the Democrats' cut-and-run defeatism, and which infects the Drive-By Media: America is the world's evil. It's the very mindset which underestimated terrorists in the first place, leading to 9/11. Of course, it's found particularly on the left. The lesson: America needs to be taught a lesson!

Justice League of America #168 (cover)

On one side are five members of the Justice League. On the other is the Secret Society of Super-Villains. The heroes and villains have switched minds and bodies. Which basically means that Superman's mind is in the Wizard's body (and vice versa). Wonder Woman and Plantmaster the Floronic Man are inhabiting each other's bodies. That means that the Floronic Man has now switched genders and Wonder Woman has actually switched species as well. That's not kosher. Batman owns the body of Blockbuster and Blockbuster now has a cape and a utility belt. Star Saphire is in Zatanna's body; Zatanna is in Star Sapphire's body. It goes without saying what is the present relationship between Green Lantern and Professor Zoom the Reverse Flash.

Naturally after the event on the cover they switch back. I'm not really spoiling anything to suggest that the good guys win, right?

Monday, January 29, 2007

Stephen Colbert versus Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing interview talk show whom I do not particularly care for. His program (The O'Reilly Factor) airs on Fox News Channel and he also has a radio show (The Radio Factor).
Stephen Colbert is a comedian/satirist and hosts The Colbert Report, an ongoing parody of The O'Reilly Factor airing on Comedy Central. I have never seen an episode (in its entireity). He generally is not as funny as the hype would have one believe. To be fair by the time I saw my first Colbert bit (the notorious "truthiness thing) I was already sick of reading about the guy; there was no way in heck he was ever going to live up the hype. Stephen Colbert's present program is a spin-off of the Daily Show.

As part of a large comedy bit and publicity stunt Bill O'Reilly went on the Colbert Report and earlier in the evening Stephen Colbert was "interviewed" by Bill O'Reilly.

Both segments are actually funny.

Bill O'Reilly versus Stephen Colbert

This Genuinely funny.

Although it's an odd lark to have an object of parody have the person who parodies him on his talk show.

V's speech III - the alliterative introduction

The following is a transcript of speech the character V makes as he introduced his himself to Evey. It's from the movie V for Vendetta (written by the Wachowski Brothers). This is what the Objectivist Center referred to as "like Snidely Whiplash doing a Jesse Jackson impression" in their film review. It's commonly called the alliteration speech or "the V speech".

But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace sobriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona.
VoilĂ ! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

V's speech II - from the movie

The following is a transcript of the televised speech made by the character V from the movie V for Vendetta (written by the Wachowski Brothers). This is the portion of the film that John Podhoretz uses to make the comparison to John Galt from Altas Shrugs. As Atlas Shrugs and John Galt are an Objectivist parable and a Libertarian hero respectively, V would be the champion of the "Loony Left", as Jpod put it. V in the movie is not an anarchist yet still is a terrorist, albeit a literally glorified terrorist.

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

V's speech I - from the comic

The following is a transcript of the televised speech made by the character V from the comic book series V for Vendetta (written by Alan Moore, pencilled by David Lloyd). It takes place near the end of the story and has nothing to do with the movie (or any overall point about equavalence to John Galt). V is an anarchist and a terrorist and his words are a rough and artistic reflection of their author.

Good evening, London. I thought it time we had a little talk. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin...

I suppose you're wondering why I've called you here this evening. Well you see, I'm not entirely satisfied with your performance lately.... I'm afraid your work's been slipping, and...and well, I'm afraid we've been thinking about letting you go.

Oh, I know, I know. You've been with the company a long time now. Almost...Let me see. Almost ten thousand years! My word, doesn't time fly? It seems like only yesterday...I remember the day you commenced your employment, swinging down from the trees, fresh-faced and nervous, A bone clasped in your bristling fist... "Where do I start, sir?" You asked, plaintively.

I recall my exact words: "There's a pile of dinosaur eggs over there, youngster," I said smiling paternally the while. "Get sucking."

Well, we've certainly come a long way since then, havn't we? And yes, yes, you're right, in all that time you havn't missed a day. Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Also please don't think I've forgotten about your out-standing service record, or about all of the invaluable contributions that you've made to the company... Fire ,the wheel of agriculture...It's an impressive list, old-timer. A jolly impressive list. Don't get me wrong.

But...well, to be frank, we've had our problems ,too. There's no getting away from it. Do you know what I think a lot of it stems from? I'll tell you... It's your basic unwillingless to get on within the company. You don't seem to want to face up to any real responsibility, or to be your own boss. Lord knows, you've been given plenty of opportunities...We've offered you promotion time and time again, and each time you've turned us down. :"I couldn't handle the work, Guv'nor," you wheedled. "I know my place"

To be frank, you're not trying, are you? You see, you've been standing still for far too long, and it's starting to show in your work....And I might add, in your general standard behaviour. The constant bickering on the factory floor has not escaped my attention...Nor the recent bouts of rowdiness in the staff canteen. Then of course there's....Hmmmm. Well, I didn't really want to have to bring this up, but...Well, you see I've been hearing some disturbing rumours about your personal life.

No, never you mind who told me. No names, no pack drill...I understand that you are unable to get on with your spouse. I hear that you argue. I am told that you shout. Violence has been mentioned. I am reliably informed that you always hurt the one you love...The one you shouldn't hurt at all.

And what about the children? It's always the children who suffer, as you're well aware. Poor little mites. What are they to make of it? What are they to make of your bullying, your despair, your cowardice and all your fondly nurtured bigotries? Really, it's not good enough, is it? And it's no good blaming the drop in work standards upon bad management, either....

Though, to be sure, the management is very bad. In fact, let usnot mince words...the managment is terrible! We've had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact.

But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I'll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate.

You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous and unproven machines.

All you had to say was "NO." You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company. I will however, be generous. You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at the end of that time you are still unwilling to make a go of it...You're fired.

That will be all. You may return to your labours.

'A' for Absurd

It's 'Atlas Shrugged' for the Loony Left.
by John Podhoretz
3/11/2006 12:04:00 AM, Volume 011, Issue 25

In order to provide a more complete picture to my point of view the following article has been reproduced in its entireity here. Conventional archives do not include it in this form.

THINK OF V for Vendetta, the new movie written and produced by the brothers who made the Matrix pictures, as an Atlas Shrugged for leftist lunatics.

Ayn Rand's 1957 novel portrayed a dystopic future in which every paranoid libertarian fear of evil statism was fulfilled. V for Vendetta is set in a dystopic future as imagined by Noam Chomsky, Harold Pinter,, and Michael Moore--a future in which we learn that the "war on terror" was a plot hatched by evil right-wing politicians who used weapons of mass destruction against their own people to create the conditions for a homophobic, theocratic, totalitarian regime in which the only happy people are those who get paid off by a pharmaceutical manufacturer.

In Atlas Shrugged, the message of liberation is delivered by a faceless figure named John Galt, who commandeers the nation's airwaves to deliver a speech proposing a nationwide strike against the state. The John Galt of V for Vendetta is a man wearing a mask bearing the likeness of Guy Fawkes, the instigator of the early 17th-century plot to blow up the House of Commons. The masked man, known only as V, takes over the British airwaves in 2020 and promises to blow up Parliament.

And just like Atlas Shrugged, V for Vendetta is an exercise in didactic propaganda in the guise of an adventure story meant to appeal to teenage boys and their narcissistic fantasies about being at the very center of the universe. Both works prominently feature a cool, beautiful, and skinny chick who throws in her lot with the nerds. In Atlas Shrugged, it's the railroad manager Dagny Taggart who joins with Galt. In V for Vendetta, the beauteous waif Natalie Portman plays Eevy, who throws in her lot with V and falls for him even though he wears a ludicrous wig, minces about like the Olympic skater Johnny Weir, hands out flowers like Ferdinand the Bull, and is horribly burned.

Speaking for any adolescent male who feels self-conscious about his skin, V tells Eevy that she needn't see his scars, because the face under his mask doesn't represent the real him. V can go anywhere undetected and do anything, but oh, how lonely he is, sitting alone in his basement lair watching The Count of Monte Cristo and listening to music all by himself on his old jukebox, wearing his mask even in solitude. V for Vendetta began its journey to the screen as a comic book, and V is the ultimate comic-book protagonist--the Superhero loser.

Atlas Shrugged is a primer in Rand's own ludicrous Objectivist philosophy, complete with the full text of Galt's broadcast speech, which runs longer and is far less interesting than a Fidel Castro stemwinder. V for Vendetta is a two-hour alternative history lesson of the past four-and-a-half years. There was no terrorist threat to Britain, America, or the world. Rather, the threat was entirely the result of a plot hatched by a "deeply religious politician of the Conservative party" whose security chief uses prisoners at an Abu Ghraib-like facility as guinea pigs in a biological warfare experiment he then unleashes on the people of England. A hundred thousand die, "terrorists" are rounded up, and the "deeply religious politician" is elected dictator by a desperate populace that has allowed itself to be seduced into making decisions from unwarranted fear.

"There is something wrong in this country," V tells the people of Britain in his speech. But he doesn't just blame the government. Like John Galt, he blames the people: "If you are looking for the reason, you need only look into a mirror. Fear got the best of you."

If you believe that the entire edifice of the war on terror is built on lies and more lies, then V for Vendetta is for you. Its admirers, like the critic James Wolcott, are throwing around terms like "subversive" and "daring" to describe this film, for which a corporation called Time Warner ponied up more than $100 million and whose ideology is shared by the vast majority of those who make up the cultural community in the West, from the most recent Nobel literature laureate to Michael Moore, bestselling author and Oscar-winning director of the smash hit Fahrenheit 9/11.

It might have been subversive had V's erotic leanings mirrored those of the movie's co-screenwriter Larry Wachowski, who left his wife four years ago to become a preoperative transsexual named "Laurenca" living under the domination of a professional sadist named Mistress Ilsa Strix, to whom (according to Rolling Stone) he has transferred most of his possessions. But then, nobody would go see the film.

At this point, the only genuinely subversive Hollywood movie about the war on terror would be one in which Osama bin Laden is the villain, George W. Bush and Tony Blair are the heroes, and al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are in cahoots.

This article legally is only available to subscribers. I obtained the article from where it was reproduced, no doubt, illegally. This article is © Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved. I have violated those rights.

What would be victory in Iraq?

Most simply put, victory in Iraq would be the sum conditions in which whenever we leave the country, and under whatever circumstances we withdraw our greatest amount of military presence it is made clear and can be clearly established that we left under our own choice and under conditions of our own will and making, and that our military was not driven off of by an external martial force.

If upon our leaving a bunch of idiots in a basement or a cave can cackle and brag that they have "driven off the Great Satan" then we have lost.

If the international perception is that our military presence in any foreign land was ended upon attack by external forces, like terrorists or insurgents or guerillas, or rebels, that makes our entire nation look weaker for it. That we seem weak at all is what invites attack or defiance by lesser forces.

What are the precise conditions in a foreign country upon which we should withdraw? Whom should be utterly crushed into a fine, mist-like substance before we can safely leave with our reputation intact?

I don't know that.

What are the Lessons of the Vietnam War?

Tell me. now.

Soon I have to finish my ancient unfinished essay about the creation of Paper Tigers.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

movie Optimus Prime

I stole it from an IMDB gallery. Needless to say it's the deliberately released full-body model of the character Optimus Prime for the new Transformers movie.

If Brian dePalma directed John Travolta...

it must be Blow Out.

John Travolta plays a "sound engineer" named Jack Terry so it cannot be Carrie.

John Lithgow is also in the movie.

I've got your art and design for you

The Magistrate and the Evil Ones swivel on and off afoot from life to death.
What do we have to say and see?

Shallow and Shilo up the wall. Here and there and up they go.
Can they succeed?

Ten and Fifteen are numbers in a pattern. Pretend they were also men.
Why would there have to be thireteen other men?

The difference between a hero and villain is intent and purpose, sacrifice and accomplishment.
In the end, for one to be either there must be a survivor to judge.

Tell if one can tell the difference between a random design and a true artisan pattern?
Are these contradictory concepts?

Friday, January 26, 2007

Date: Jan 24, 2007 8:38 PM
Subject Intelligence?

When he was in the minority, West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller wrote a memo laying out Democrat strategery to undermine President Bush's Iraq policies. It was a key part of the Democrat effort to regain power.

Now he's Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Rockefeller's opening new attacks. This week, he accused President Bush of "walking away" from the war on terror. He said our intelligence community is failing and our intel on Iran and North Korea is poor. And because of Bush's "misplaced fascination" with Iraq -- which was based on faulty intelligence -- we don't have enough money for education, health care, the environment, or homeland security. "It's all...the result of something called Iraq. I am furious about that," said Chairman Rockefeller.

Well, time for some facts. Out of their "misplaced fascination" with appeasing anti-American leftists around the world, American liberals have deliberately weakened our intelligence worldwide. Beginning with the Carter Administration, they downsized our intelligence agencies, they took intel agents from the field, and they wrote stupid laws limiting agents' contacts and who we could hire as agents! And we paid the ultimate price on 9/11.

Out of their "misplaced fascination" with political correctness, they're still raising hell over the Patriot Act and President Bush's program to put terrorists here under surveillance.

We don't need intelligence reports to tell us that there are terrorists in Iraq; we know that! We know Iran and North Korea are threats. The only ones who don't seem to know it (and accept it) are liberals. In short, the only intelligence failure is among the Democrats -- like the esteemed "Intelligence" chairman, Mr. Rockefeller.


Date: Jan 25, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject Tories

When Americans fought our first war for our freedom, prominent politicians aligned with the British. Calling themselves patriots, American Tories sought to undermine our victory during the Revolutionary War. Now, thankfully, they didn't prevail -- and today are a minor footnote in history.

During World War II, collaborators in occupied Europe were eager to appease one of the most evil regimes on earth. After the war, many such Nazi collaborators were harshly dealt with by their own populations. The treachery of some, like Norway's Vidkun Quisling, will be forever remembered by history; they're permanently linked with the evil that they embraced.

The struggle against Islamic terrorism is no less epic than the struggle against Nazi domination in World War II, or against Communist domination in the Cold War. When 12 American Senators, 11 Democrats and one Republican, approved a resolution declaring that winning the major battle in the war on terror is not in our national interest, they crossed a serious divide. Our troops are courageously fighting in the theatres of war; victory -- not defeat or appeasement -- is their mission. It's what they sign up for!

Joe Biden, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, Robert Menedez, Ben Cardin, Robert Casey, Jim Webb, and Republican Chuck Hagel -- Senator Betrayus -- have aligned with the professed strategy of Al-Qaeda, to cause America to run from battle in the face of casualties. Like the Tories of old, their actions will be remembered for exactly what they are: shameful.

Date: Jan 26, 2007 7:15 PM
Subject Union Blues

In the 1950s (and for those of you in Rio Linda, that was the 1950s), about 35 percent of America's workforce belonged to unions. By 1983, that number shrank to just a little over 20 percent. After hovering at 12.5 percent in 2005, unions were back on the decline last year -- losing over 300,000 members from their ranks.

Those gloomy numbers explain a lot. Unions blame their decline on economic shifts that have resulted in more outsourcing of jobs once held by union members. But there's more to the story (as there always is). Most telling is the contrast between the private sector and government workforce. In the private sector, only about seven percent of the workforce is unionized, whereas [in] the government sector 36 percent of the workforce belongs to unions.

Now, this is one reason why government and the private sector are heading in opposite directions. I mean, even with occasional economic bumps, our private sector economy has soared in the last half-century, and more individual Americans are soaring with it -- without unions. On the other hand, if you want to see paralysis, look at government -- Big Government -- on local, state, federal levels -- all.

These numbers also explain why Democrats are hell-bent on helping their buddies in organized labor who, in turn, provide millions for their election campaigns. Also explains why they inserted legislation granting airport security workers collective bargaining rights into a homeland security bill. It explains why they target Wal-Mart and other successful private-sector companies that remain non-union. And it explains why Democrats will never, ever support a decrease in the size of government.


This will be the 1000th post on Apologies Demanded, at least I unlock the twenty or so things stuck in draft mode. I have no way to celebrate and I am sure that few people care.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

colorful, beautiful, and surreal

dollars or rubles?

Does the value of a single Soviet ruble on the collector's market actually outweigh that of an American dollar?

Halo and Halo 2 dialogue

Here is some dialogue listed, recorded, attributed, and set for download from both games Halo: Combated Evolved and Halo 2.

if Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford are in it...

it must be The Devil's Own.

The only film that features both actors; one is a cop and the other is his tenant.

if Dean Stockwell and John Pankow are in it....

it must be To Live and Die in L.A.

A synopsis (from "William Friedkin's thriller about a Treasury agent (William L. Petersen) obsessed with nailing a counterfeiter (Willem Dafoe)."

Mr. Stockwell plays a defense attorney; Mr. Pankow plays a federal cop. The former is best known for his role as Al on Quantum Leap while the other's best-known role was on Mad About You.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Prime art

Transformers - Optimus Prime by *MattMoylan on deviantART

Optimus Prime and Elita-1

Pencils by Don Figueroa
Inks by Elaine To
Colors by Matt Moylan

Rush MySpace Bulletin - Dem State of the Union

Date: Jan 23, 2007 10:01 PM
Subject Dem State of the Union

Well, the Democrat response (maybe I should say "pre-sponse") to the President's State of the Union Address was delivered Monday by Ayman Al-Zawahri.

Zawahri is Osama bin Laden's deputy; [he] focused on President Bush's "troop-surge" to bring security to Iraq. Echoing Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrat leadership, Zawahri predicted the Bush strategy would fail.

He said: "I ask [Bush]: why send 20,000 [troops] only -- why not send 50 or 100 thousand? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies? So send your entire army to be annihilated[, Bush,] at the hands of the mujahadeen -- to free the world from your evil, because Iraq, land of the Caliphate and Jihad, is able to bury ten armies like yours, with Allah's help and power."

Now, in the Democrats' domestic pre-sponse, Senator Jim Webb added to Al-Zawahri's argument! He said: "If we're putting all this money into Iraq and ignoring New Orleans, then we're doing something wrong." For the record, New Orleans has about $600 million, designated for rebuilding, sitting around in Washington -- unspent -- because the Mayor, "School Bus" Nagin, hasn't applied for it. (And you never know -- William Jefferson may have already gotten it.)

My friends, it's clear. I never fell for it, but those of you who had hope that Democrats would strike a bipartisan tone with the Bush Administration -- you have been duped. You were destined to be duped. Hatred for Bush -- and an agenda for defeat in Iraq -- is who Democrats are. A tiger is a tiger!

what does anyone think of this purported atrocity?

The following is taken from a MySpace Bulletin (of course), and as the events detailed are genuine I suggest we follow its instructions. As I assume that the atrocities occurred as reported, I reprint it, hoping someone reads it and cares. The list, which would be neccessary to have in case on really does wish to forward this, can be found here. What I have reprinted is an e-petition, which actually has no practical effect, can have no practical effect, and will have no practical effect. I suggest following through in order to take part in my catharthis, or Chenelyn's. I have modified the petition only to include links which were not in the original artifact.

From: Chenelyn

Date: Jan 21, 2007 2:38 PM
Subject RIP (Please Repost)

there is something wrong with you!

Do you remember February 1993 when a young 3 yr. Old was taken from a Shopping mall in Liverpool, NY by two 10-year-old boys? Jamie Bulger walked away from his mother for only a second and Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson. They took Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mommy. Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint in his eyes and pushed
Batteries up his anus. It was actually worse than this...

What these two boys did was so horrendous that Jamie's mother was forbidden to identify his body. They then left his beaten small body on the tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created. These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it look like an accident. This week Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities. We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go on to a University. They are getting away with their crime.

They disgustingly and violently took Jamie's life away - in return they get a new life. Please read it carefully... Then add your name at the end... And send it to everyone you can! Please add your name and location to the list and send it to friends and family. Please copy this e-mail (highlight text, right click, copy and paste into a new email) instead of forwarding so we do not get arrows at the beginning of the sentences.

If you are the 1000th person to sign, please forward email to and attention it to Lady Justice Butler-Sloss. Then start the list over again and send to your friends and family. The Love-Bug virus took less than 72 hours to reach the world. I hope this one does as well. We need to protect our family and friends from people like Robert and Jon. One day they may be living next to you and your small children, without your knowledge. If Robert and Jon could be so evil at 10 years old, imagine what they could do as adults!



Rush MySpace Bulletins

Date: Jan 18, 2007 7:36 PM
Subject Employment!

It really saddens me to inform you minimum-wage earners waiting for your long overdue raise: it might take a while longer to pay you off. Apparently, Senate Democrats are intent on spoiling your lives. By a unanimous voice vote, the Senate Finance Committee passed a measure to provide tax cuts for small businesses, who would be hurt by raising the minimum wage.

House Democrats are angry. House leader Steny Hoyer said giving small businesses tax breaks would "complicate and delay" things: "Minimum-wage earners have already waited nine years and four months for a raise. Congress should not make them wait any longer."

New York Democrat Charlie Rangel, who heads the House Ways and Means Committee? He was even more outraged. "We're not going to accept a tax cut of $8 billion on our minimum wage bill," he snapped. "It's a Senate problem."

No -- it's not, Charlie. It's a Democrat problem. And it's a problem for the poor and the oppressed peoples living paycheck to paycheck -- eating dog food to save enough to afford prescription drugs and put gas in their economy cars. (Of course, women and minorities are hardest hit.)

There is other employment news out there, too. Monica Lewinski is looking. For work. She recently graduated from a master's degree course at London's Skrool of Economics and according to her publicist, is seeking gainful employment in the UK. Maybe she should try an internship first (that's worked for her in the past). Maybe use a headhunter. Shouldn't have to look to hard -- she's got lots of skills, right?

Date: Jan 20, 2007 8:47 AM
Subject Lib Poop

Three quickies today, folks; beginning in Ohio. Cuyahoga County election workers are on trial for conspiring to rig votes in the 2004 presidential election. Witnesses say that two days before a recount, the defendants tweaked the system -- ensuring only certain ballots were counted. That predetermed the result. In his opening statement, the defense attorney claimed this was not usual. These election workers, quote, "[they were] just were doing it the way they were always doing it." FYI, the county is overwhelmingly Democrat.

Quickie #2 is from Greeley, Colorado, where a retired University of Northern Colorado professor is involved in a unique "free speech" case. Kathleen Ensz, 63, a Democrat, sent dog poop to her congresswoman, Republican Marilyn Musgrave. Ensz faces a misdemeanor charge of "use of a noxious substance." Her lawyer argues that sending feces is protected speech, and compares it to Thomas Jefferson's criticism of the King of England. So: a woman whose party has given America more poop than anything else now claims sending poop is constitutionally protected. Right on.

Last quickie. The religious left is all atwitter that SMU is being considered as a site for President Bush's library once he leaves office. Leftie ministers filled with, uh, Bush hate, are pushing an online petition that says: "As United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate."

Intolerant? Yup. (I'm a Methodist. I have no problem with it.) Want to impose their views on everybody? Yes. Bigoted? Yes. But they're also libs, so they think their poop doesn't stink.

Date: Jan 22, 2007 6:57 PM
Subject The First

Hey, folks: let's put things in perspective -- Victoria Woodhull and Belva Ann Lockwood did it back in the 1800s. No, they didn't do it with each other. Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Patsy Mink, Carol Moseley Braun, and Elizabeth Dole have done it, too. Almost forgot: Patsy Schroeder, Colorado, did it -- and then broke down crying and fled to the comforting arms of her husband when she stopped doing it. Black women, white women, Democrat women, Republican women -- they've all done it.

So, with all the women who've done it, news that another woman is running for President is hardly an earth-shattering breakthrough. It isn't trailblazing -- nor is it worthy of the "Kumbaya Village Diversity Award for Overcoming Hardship Under Male Chauvinist Piglet Oppression."

There's something that would be earth-shattering news, though, and that is this: if the Drive-By Media stopped fawning over the notion that Hillary Clinton finally -- pant! pant! pant! -- announced her candidacy long enough to do a little journalism. It'd be news if they'd actually take the time to question -- and seek answers to -- a boat load of questions that the "woman from hope" has skillfully avoided these many years, including questions about decades of murky financial dealings, from campaign fundraising to commodities. (Not to mention her actions in the scandal-plagued Administration of her husband.)

You see, my friends, this national chat -- this "conversation" she wants to have with you and me -- that's specifically so it's about us and not her views so she never has to be asked [about anything]. It's the same old Hillary, who doesn't have the guts to tell us what she thinks.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Halcyon-class Cruiser

UNSC cruiser, The Pillar of Autumn, from Halo: Combat Evolved

Hiatus is not officially over

There has been some activity here after the hiatus is officially started and there is some stuff in Draft form dated in between the official start of the Hiatus and whenever the Hiatus officially ends, as well as between the Hiatus start and today.

Essentially, when all is said and done, whatever got added between the start and finish of the Hiatus will be published, original dates intact.

I also intend to publish some further things on the weblog, as neccessary, between now and the end of the official hiatus. It will be hard to tell there was one. The hiatus will end when everything to get me back on my feet to some extent has been completed to my satisfaction, and then I will again post on a regular basis. I will not post on a regular basis until then.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Transformers Tech Specs

I love it when someone (or some ones) do something useful like upload all of the Transformers Tech Specs. I found all of the American stuff on another site long ago, and a little less long ago the creator took it down.

Other people put up the stuff. I love it.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

temporary hiatus

This weblog is going on an indefinite hiatus until its creator-author recovers from his professional, physical, spiritual, financial, mental, emotional, and academic malaise, issues, problems, and complications, with their accompanying stresses.

and yes. it is personal.

Go read through over three years of Apologies Demanded archives for goodness' sake! My best stuff is behind me. In nearly every way.

If I believe your God can help me I would appreciate your prayers.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Criticism of the Children of Men adaptation

When I saw the movie yesterday I was unaware, either through total ignorance or through forgetfulness, that it was an adapatation from a novel.

Anthony Sacramone writes that he was disapointed in the change from the source novel The Children of Men as the director removes all spiritual content and original intentional messages from what purportedly is a Christian-sort parable and injects left-wing politics.

Ultimately my largest crticial problem with the film is that it seems largely muddled as the high concept is that for whatever reason no more children have been born for twenty years, and suddenly there is one pregnancy, yet so much energy and screentime is focused on a dystopian future which isn't plainly connected to the actual threat of human extinction. It's difficult in the film to genuienly linearly link, even as symptoms or side effects, the horrors betrayed to the original high concept threat, which by itself should be overwelmingly significant. Apparently that sort of threat to humanity is insufficient for a film in the director's eyes; the director isn't very smart.

The Wikipedia article describes such reaction thus
Some conservative and ecumenical commentators (such as Anthony Sacramone writing in the journal First Things[4]) have taken issue with the film's political leanings, claiming it subverts and misrepresents the (more conservative) religious and sociopolitical positions implicit in James' novel.
Taken straight the basic plot seems straightforward, as the political trappings have very little to do with the actual plot, the actual conflict, yet of course the trappings do exist, the viewer sees them near constantly, and there are direct implications that the dystopic future is caused by stuff relevent today. That this doesn't relate to the plot isn't too damaging to the film itself and backstory is always neccessary, however it's backstory which doesn't relate to the high concept. It's simply the useless cause of the world which the main characters navigate.

I didn't intend to review the movie here. I won't delete those words.

Thomas Hibbs explicitly takes on the movie for National Review Online and holds the view that more of the director's views have made the whole thing less.
Cuaron reduces James’s supple account of the human condition and the great political dangers of modernity to narrow ideological politics.
Essentially the novel (which I have never read) proposes that a society without children or any hope for future generations would be immersed in nihilism. For some reason the movie suggests that the state of the world would be fascists without truly linking that to the no-children issue, but certainly as a result of societal collapse in other parts of the world, yet still not quite as a result of not-having-a-next-generation.
In place of James’s remarkably perceptive depiction of the modern threat of nihilism, Cuaron’s film seizes on the most flawed part of the novel, its action sequences. Cuaron’s dazzling action film departs from the book on two big themes: a) the human condition and the dangers of modern politics and b) religion and the raising of children.
Our modern politics is the set-up for the threatening world, and the threatening world is the cause of danger and conflict against the protagonists. The one child in a world without children is merely a macguffin to make the protagonists protagonists and give them a cause. Mr. Hibbs' article is an exansive compare and contrast.
In James’s novel, infertility operates as a symbol of mankind’s despair, of the nihilism that lurks just beneath the surface of modern life. The questions made explicit in the infertile world are: For what are we living? Why do we have children? What do we want to hand on to them? Cuaron is simply incapable of even recognizing these larger issues, let alone dealing with them on the screen...
Cuaron fails to see that... adulation of children is one of the greatest disorders in the world of the novel. James’s book treats of this issue with great clarity, in the case of the Omegas, the last generation to be born. Both book and film begin with the fawning global media attention heaped on the death of the last person to be born, the youngest individual on earth. But, from this point on, Cuaron simply lets the theme drop out.
For some reason immigration becomes a bigger tie-in to the dystopian environs of the movie's society, and that was caused not by anything to do with the infertility.

Libertas attacks the movie for being overtly left-wing, overly non-subtle in doing so, and lambasts the director for intentionally injecting politics into a story (in reference to the novel and the high concept) where those politics are not neccessary. Going further into the comments on that post there are revealing posts. From DC in OC:
The director of Children of Men made an appearance at the 2006 Comic Con in San Diego. He made it perfectly clear that his take on P. D. James book is a commentary on the war against Islamofascism. He did not want to stick closely to the themes she wrote. He believes that films should be political, no matter what the story... Cuaron took a very good dystopian novel and turned into something about environmentalism, immigration, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Cuaron wanted to make a political movie, since, as he said, all movies are political.
What does the director have to say? (Quotes taken by DC in OC)
… we departed quite a lot from the book. I pretty much took the premise of infertility. … What I took from the premise was a metaphor for the fading sense of hope that humanity has. Also contemporary humanity’s lack of care and respect for the next generation.
What is the thrust of the book and what is the thrust of the movie? Is immigration the thrust of the movie? Fascism?

Was the irrelevence of the political undertones intentional? I don't think so. Who can say?

Barely related to the above criticisms, Focus on the Family's PluggedIn magazine reviews the movie for its family-friendly content, Christian-friendly content, Christian antipathy content, Christ-relevence content, anf finally attempts to review the movie on its own merits. It rarely does the last thing well, but it is usually quite accurate as to whether or not a movie is fine for a five-year-old. Normally it's just a clinical or statistical count for nudity and swears and God's-name-as-a-curse.

I won't review the movie here. If I do so, it will be on Monitor Duty. Although I will say: wait for the DVD and rent that. Don't spend seven bucks on it.

Friday, January 05, 2007

It's fascinating

When you are not paying for something, a service, suddenly it's hard to complain that you are not getting what you were promised.

A promise suddenly really is worth less now.

Visual verification

What kind of service am I getting for free here?

Visual verification

Blogger somehow declared my weblog to be a spam blog

Visual verification

I was notified of the following:

Your blog requires word verification

Blogger's spam-prevention robots have detected that your blog has characteristics of a spam blog. (What's a spam blog?) Since you're an actual person reading this, your blog is probably not a spam blog. Automated spam detection is inherently fuzzy, and we sincerely apologize for this false positive.

Before we can turn off mandatory word verification on your posts we'll need to have a human review your blog and verify that it is not a spam blog. Please fill out the form below to get a review.

Because Google/Blogger's idiot systems can't tell my roars come from a wounded and angry human being, I now have to intepret what scribbles equate what letters. It's not always easy but it is a waste of my time!

I don't have a large enough audience to justify this kind of crap.

Charles Lindbergh and the real meaning of isolationism and the Right

Here is an ancient review of Phillip Roth's crap notion of a President Lindbergh making an Anti-Semitic USA during the forties put into prose form. It was my first exposure to the novel years ago and it remains my most comprehensive immersion into the book. I won't read that book. It's too simplistic.

Similarly though John Goldberg goes back this week to analyze the underpinnings of isolationism and isolationists, defend right-wing attitudes that merge with it, point out left-wing isolationism, and actually emphasize distinctions between isolationism and anti-semitism. Essentially, just because there are isolationists during a war doesn't mean that there is local support for those whom would be our enemies abroad but quite possibly there may be a relevent philosophical reason related to dometic polices. An example from our World War II era,
Theirs was not a pro-Nazi argument, as so many jingoist New Dealers insisted. It was a moralistic argument that empire-building was injurious to liberty at home and inept at fostering it abroad.
There is isolationism and there are non-interventionists. One involved engaging other nations in trade and diplomacy but in empire. Also there were leftists involved as "non-interventionists". It's still called what it is. The presence of significant leftists and a significant number of leftists involved in the notion lends further credence to Goldberg's idea, "part of my intent here is to dislodge the idea from the popular mind that 1930s isolationism is the ghost of modern conservatism."

Totally unrelated is this piece in Commentary, "Is Conservativism Finished?" It even, purportedly, defends President Bush. I will eventually read it to see if it can pull me from the dark pit of my cynicism.

What are the odds?

i am cool.caring.honest.i will like to meet people that is good

I am a cynic. Sue me.

Rush MySpace Bulletin - Promised Land

Date: Jan 4, 2007 9:38 PM
Subject Promised Land

Well, the gavel has dropped; the coronation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is complete. On the Senate side of the Capitol, there was a closed-door, "why-can't-we-be-friends" meeting -- after which the Democrat and Republican leadership emerged ready to sing Kumbaya together.

We are, at last, living in the joyous first 100 hours of Democrat rule. Our long national nightmare is over, my friends. We have peace in our time. We have hope! (For the children!) The Republican Empire, which despoiled the political landscape for 12 terrible years, has been obliterated; power has been returned to its rightful owners. Sauron is dead.

Finally, the spirit of love and harmony will produce a new era of domestic tranquility. We'll have a united America ruled by Democrats; a nation without partisanship.

Why, mere hours from now, lobbyists will be banished from the Beltway, their influence ended. Human embryos will finally be allowed to fulfill their divine purpose: a harvested crop to cure disease. The age-old war on poverty will be won, as every worker of every hue in America gets a decent, living, minimum wage. Education? Fully funded; every child, everywhere, will learn...once teachers get raises. And Big Oil -- the No. 1 threat to humanity -- will be brought to its knees.

It's a glorious time to be an American. Let's all hold hands, ladies and gentlemen, raise our voices in praise, and give thanks: that arm-in-arm, hand-in-hand, we can all walk with our Miss Nancy and Dingy Harry Reid into the Promised Land! (You too, Cindy! Aren't you happy?)

Thursday, January 04, 2007


Empty and base accusations of injustice on a global scale are levelled ironically by arch-jerk Kofi Annan. Victor Davis Hanson explains.
So what is Annanism?

First, it is the reification of Western subliminal guilt. American and European elites feel bad about their wealth, bad about their leisure, bad about their history — but usually not bad enough to do anything that might jeopardize their present privileged positions. And so into this psychological disconnect steps an articulate handsome totem from abroad, in requisite stylish dress and aristocratic mellifluousness, to lecture Westerners with moral pieties — as they smile and snore.

In contrast, who wants a ruddy, uncouth, Walrus-mustached John Bolton railing about the sort of U.N. inaction that allows millions to perish and thugs to operate freely?

Such embarrassments might actually cause the U.N. to do something that would require sacrifices in lives and treasure for the greater good. How much better to be charmed into somnolence than awakened by horrific reality. How much better for the soul to be gently chided with moral platitudes about Western insensitivity than electro-shocked about Middle Eastern, African, or Asian genocide that will go on until someone does something very messy to stop it.

Second, Annanism represents the triumph of moral obtuseness: talk about threats to the rule of law or the need for transparency and honesty in global communications and commerce, while ignoring scandal and fraud on a monumental scale that not only enriches cronies and relatives, but contributes to the deaths of innocents in Iraq.

Third, Annanism reflects petty hypocrisy. There is a reason why Annan, like the thousands of hangers-on in the U.N., enjoys New York; there is a reason why he and his equally critical spouse prefer Western culture in places like Manhattan. He knows that the unique social, economic, and cultural life of the United States can subsidize lavish salaries at the U.N., and that with life in an affluent and safe West comes pricey luxury cars and tony apartments.
Ultimately success in the global political field comes best when the United Nations are not involved, and justice can exist where the UN isn't meddling. Never mind that the UN presides over atrocities while our country is mocked for rejecting the UN as a standard.

shallow people versus fat people

Assuming that fat makes somebody physically unattractive as his or her body is less attractive in a physical manner, one admits that being shallow in character is the most garish tatoo indicating an unattractive personality.

That is, if possessing rolls of fat makes you unattractive in general (and I will never assert that claim in public), and your beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, repeating again that a person who would hold the fatness against someone does indeed possess some shallowness even if it is not all-consuming, one could assume that this dynamic is not altogether a negative thing.

Basically a good-hearted positive-thinking worthy-of-love-and-marriage overweight person shouldn't be settling for the approval of the physically-judgemental jerkwad; he's not worthy. Just as he is probably not looking for the inner beauty of someone in his most superficial assessments, he won't attach himself to the fat women in the first place. Personally I find "shallow" to be more unattractive than "fat", or at least I should. Everyone should.

On the other hand, being shallow or superficial doesn't neccessarily make someone a bad person or a jerk. Those are character flaws, or worse, but they are not total condemnation from the realm of personal happiness.

Put simply, two sets of people whom would find the other set romantically unattractive for various reasons within dramatically different categories probably should not hold the negative aspects against the other people too strongly, and should just let the incompatibility go.

That said people who are overweight should excercise to get rid of the weight so they may have increased lifespans and the ability to play with their kids. People who are jerks should endeavor to not be jerks. At the very least I accept that if someone is only capable of being attracted to or infatuated with someone of a particular body shape or body type, the best thing to do is not press the issue. They may end up alone, or they may change, or they may meet someone who meets the superficial aspects of their classifications or expectations.

Really Want the Top 500 Rock and Roll songs?

While it's up to debate what the Top 500 songs of the Rock and Roll genre genuinelly are, here is a torrent made up of what some thinks are those Top 500 songs. They are purportedly mp3 files.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Visible Human Browser

This enables a user on the internet to browse genuine cross sections of human anatomy, in this case a female's.

Do you believe in Incinerator Therapy?

Glenn Beck Program Executive Producer Steve Burguiere is a proponent of implementing the notion. As it stands,
Incinerator Therapy is more of a solution than a therapy... Stick sex offender through the door. Later, remove ashes.
My question to you is, is there a more just punishment, which will still inflict negative feelings upon an unrepetent human monster and quite possibly serve a deterrent to future predators? If so, what?

Voluntary Self-Elimination

There comes a time when a sentient human being with all the trappings of a willing creature, including social interactions and relationships as well as responsibilities, decides that his continued role as a living person should be in all ways terminated. The reasons for that can be varied and not in every instance is it obvious as to why someone decided to end his or her own life. The motivation behind a person's suicide really does not matter.

The fact is that suicide is one of the most selfish things a person can commit/ Glennpedia notes it as "the ultimate in selfishness" because "you take the easy way out, and everyone around you suffers." All the relations and bonds that one makes in the course of life still exist beyond a person's death. Sentimentality and responsibility still exist. A sudden gaping hole is created and the person who dug it, creating a vicious infected wound doesn't have to deal with the ramifications.

What is there more to say? One's self belongs to others greater and more numerous than just his own person. The apostrophe is misleading. Through free will I command my own destiny and direct my own body to a limited extent, through this world. Beyond that, there are others I have to answer to and people who depend on me for various reasons and I must honor various obligations. For it is debts to God and man, friends, institutions, establishments, and family that I cannot say I own myself. If a man represents in an abstract sense a personification of investment, then it isn't up to him when to end the enterprise. A scumbag feels otherwise.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Rush MySpace Bulletin - Mostly Healthy

Date: Jan 2, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject Mostly Healthy

Well, when Democrats complete their hostile takeover of Congress in January, the House Financial Services Committee will get a new head: Barney Frank. The Massachusetts congressman says he's going to delve deep -- I mean, "deep" -- to find out why some Americans aren't reaping the benefits of a mostly healthy economy. That's the "Number One problem" facing America, he says. Now that Democrats are returning to power, you see, the economy is "mostly healthy." That's good. But still, Congressman Frank says that there's an "increasing disconnect between growth in the [GDP] and the well-being of the average citizen." (And you average citizens know who you are.)

Speaking of head (a-hem), poverty has now reared its ugly head in the 'burbs; people are leaving the inner cities and the poverty's following. The Brookings Institution saw it; they just issued a report revealing that for the first time, the suburban poor outnumber their inner-city counterparts -- even though the economy is mostly healthy. The reasons won't sit well with the PC crowd: there's now more racial and economic diversity in the 'burbs –- and a huge influx of immigrants.

But the larger question remains: Why isn't everybody well off in America? Why does life's lottery smile upon some -- and leave others in squalor?

There's only one way to find the answer to this question (which has flummoxed America since it was founded by rich white guys). We need a bipartisan study group to come to consensus and make everybody understand and be happy about this. A Baker-Hamilton Economic Inequality Study group to show us the way forward so that someday in our lifetime every American can be rich -- have everything they want in a mostly healthy economy!