Anniversary of Arafat’s death

Tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the announcement of Yasser Arafat’s death.

Looking back, the entire circus surrounding the old terrorist’s corpse screaming “WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS FOR THE BANK ACCOUNTS?” at his deaf, dead ears was a laugh-riot.

So, how will you be celebrating?

Carnival Of Comedy #27 Funny, Funny Weird, and I Don’t Get It.

Taleena of Sun Comprehending Glass is our Hostess for the Carnival of Comedy! this week. On short notice no less.
Thanks Taleena! Good Job! (sorry about the caps)

An Editorial by RWD – Admitting a Quagmire

I’ve been looking at the news and I have to say that the casualties are really starting to get to me. Victim after hapless victim has fallen to this administration in a conflict that makes no sense. So we have to ask the very important question:
Has the Democrats’ War on President Bush turned into a quagmire?
Maybe it’s time for them to look at reality of the Senate and, if appropriate, start formulating a comprehensive plan for withdrawal.
Since 2000, how many Democratic Senators have been lost to the RNC re-election war machine? Has it been worth it? How many reporters? Mr. Rather? Ms. Mapes? I don’t have the Fake But Accurate data on hand, but I’m sure it’s a lot.
Sure, there has been a glimmer of light. A two year investigation about outing a CIA operative turned into an indictment. Because of it, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s Chief of staff, was forced to resign. This set back the Vice President’s office for two hours until somebody found the Staples Office Supply Catalog. Then all was well. But shouldn’t a two year investigation yield a conviction into the actual real charges?
Sure, the Democrats can try to come up with false numbers of hope:like MOST of the Democratic voters were dead AFTER they voted, but the reality looks them in their grim, non-photoshopped faces. The elections numbers tell the story. The Dems are losing this war and it’s only getting worse. They are the Ding Dongs on the Michael Moore Plate Of Life.
Can they beat these brave RNC insurgents? Republicans are people who fight with unconventional tactics. They’ll remember Democrat’s speeches and quote them when it contradicts the current, and opposite Democrat position. They’ll ignore polls and do what they believe. And most importantly, they’ll never be convinced that either Communism or Barbra Streisand can be a force for good.
The RNC has a lot of religious zealots. People who won’t think twice about storming a clinic and carrying out the unthinkable — letting an innocent fetus suffer a cruel and torturous life — never to die again — except when they’re old and gray maybe. How do you fight that enemy? Without using bullets of course because gun control is very important. The answer is : they can’t.
Sure the Democrats have their own suicide bombers like Howard Dean — but what they really need is leadership. Hillary Clinton (Motto: I don’t have an official opinion yet — but I’m sure I’ll denounce it.) is a good candidate but she’s trying too hard to look Republican.
Harry Reid? This is a war of subtlety and ideas. He has neither. The Clintons do their dirty deeds in the dark. Not Harry. If Harry had Monica Lewinsky, he would have had her right there at the podium, with a big giant Tip Jar front and center for all his Democratic supporters. Even when he calls a private, closed session, he’s determined to tell the whole world about it.
Let’s face it. The Dems battle with George Bush has turned into another Vietnam. It’s time to give them our support by helping them go home.

Top Ten Reasons Given for Rioting in France

As you know, there are riots going on in France. I decided to research the issue and find the reason for the riots, and, oddly enough, there were ten in number:
TOP TEN REASONS GIVEN FOR RIOTING IN FRANCE
10. Unable to afford wine for their children.
9. France’s “free healthcare” is a kit containing a band-aid and a shot of whiskey.
8. Grueling thirty-hour work week doesn’t leave enough time to brood.
7. Decided it was time to take French rudeness to the extreme.
6. Too much American cultural imperialism and not enough Monopoly game pieces at the local McDonald’s.
5. Someone tawt he taw a German.
4. Current leader not arrogant enough.
3. First they make you wash hands after going to the bathroom, next they make you take showers.
2. The elite are hogging all the smelly cheese.
And the number one reason given for rioting in France…

Continue reading ‘Top Ten Reasons Given for Rioting in France’ »

French and Riots

Should I be making fun of the French riots? Seems like there should be jokes there, but I wonder if it’s too serious.
People should really spell these things out for me.
UPDATE: According to Scrappleface, yes, I should make fun of the riots in France.

How Do These People Even Have the Intelligence to Use a Computer?

Someone needs to teach people at DU what a “metaphor” is.
Or maybe we should just nuke them. ::snicker::
The funniest thing is how these people keep lamenting about how much smarter they are than everyone else.

Blackfive Needs to E-mail His Address

All judges of the IMAO T-Shirt babe contest are invited to the wedding, but I haven’t gotten Blackfive’s address. SarahK tried e-mailing him, but she hasn’t gotten a response yet (maybe it got lost in his e-mail pile as happens to so much sent to me). If you could help me out and click over to his site so maybe he notices the traffic and e-mails me (plus, he has a charity drive going), then you are an honorable ronin.

How Much Left-Wing Nonsense Is Too Much?

When a show has great characters and some great writing, how much liberal idiocy are you willing to put up with? Boston Legal really seems to be posing that question better than any political point it ineptly tries to make. It has some of the most entertaining characters of any show (especially the characters played by James Spader, William Shatner, and Candice Bergen) and is extremely enjoyable at its best, but how much irritation am I willing to put up with to have that enjoyment? It’s like watching a good movie but having to put up with some idiot next to you who ever once in a while accidentally elbows you in the head.
I watched their latest episode last night (it originally aired Tuesday; yay, HD-Tivo), and I knew from the promos that this one might be a deal breaker. One of the cases (there are usually multiple ones per episode which one would call subplots) dealt with a woman suing the government over her brother being killed in Iraq. It had a few things inserted very clumsily for balance: one lawyer at the firm was angry about the whole case as he was a veteran of the first Gulf War and found it insulting, the parents were against the case though never appeared in the show, and Denny Crane, the rightwing buffoon – though a sympathetic rightwing buffoon that the audience is supposed to like despite his rightwing buffoonery – says a few incoherent rightwing things as usual. It still basically accepted the Michael Moore version of things as fact and the main conclusion was that not enough bad things about the war are being presented by the media.
Yes, that was really the main conclusion.
It then had the audacity to end pretending it had a neutral discussion of the issue which just furthers either its dishonesty or ignorance.
Now let me go on a complete tangent and compare The Simpsons and South Park. I haven’t watched South Park in a while – it’s often too vile for me – but it takes on many hot topics and often comes to the conservative conclusion. This can be very cathartic for those used to be inundated with the liberal viewpoint with whatever were watching, but it looks clumsy when compared to The Simpsons (or at least, older Simpsons episodes) which would take on an issue and not reach any conclusion. It’s much more skillful; it involves primarily making jokes at the expense of the stereotypes of both sides and then ending ambivalent — no alienating anyone.
With drama, being neutral is much harder. While being a political moderate take the least amount of thought, presenting an issue in a show without beating your audience over the head with your own viewpoint is quite difficult as it means you have to take both sides seriously and present each side realistically. Most TV shows wisely tend to avoid politics entirely (with perhaps a little jibe in dialog here and there), but taking on issues without alienating larges groups of thinking people is entirely possible as proven by perhaps my favorite drama right now, House. It has taken on some very controversial issues that most shows would avoid entirely (i.e., abortion) while leaving the viewer free to make his or her own conclusion. In its episode from this Tuesday, there was a character who spent his life treating TB in Africa and is frustrated by how millions are dying because they can’t get meds that drug companies have sitting in warehouses. He then gets TB himself, and refuses his meds to bring publicity to the issue. For most shows, the obvious way to treat this character would be saint-like, but in House he was made to look equal parts hero and buffoon (thanks, in part, to the ultimate curmudgeon, Dr. House), and the end let you make up your own mind about him.
How is a show written like that? I assume you need writers of both viewpoints and restrain from making contrived events in the episode that support one side or the other. The problem with shows like Boston Legal is they have talented liberal writers who probably assume they know conservatives well enough to write them when, in reality, they to conservatives are like those monkeys to the black obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey. And it’s disappointing because of the talent involved, but there’s a limit to how much my intelligence can be insulted and I still enjoy a show.
Just had to get that off my chest. Our next serious discussion will be why 5 is the coolest number ever.
UPDATE: I tried to see if Boston Legal has an address I could write a letter to suggesting they hire a conservative writer to explain conservative viewpoints to the other writers and that they watch House for how to handle hot button issues. Instead, I found this bboard. I wonder if they pay any attention to that.
From the bboard, here is a soldier’s opinion on the episode.
UPDATE2: I think this is the address:

American Broadcasting Co.
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4622

Maybe I’ll still write them and see if I get a response. I wouldn’t care so much if I didn’t like the show when it isn’t spouting infantile politics.