October 17th, 2009 by Jason
The new GOP.com, a site “meant to rival the digital operation run by the Democrats and President Barack Obama”, crashes within the first few hours of launch (via the CS Monitor)
There’s a metaphor lurking in here somewhere. The same day GOP Chairman Michael Steele unveiled a new online home for the Republican Party, the website apparently crashed, leaving users unable to log on to GOP.com.
The site was meant to rival the digital operation run by the Democrats and President Barack Obama, who used social networking to great effect in the 2008 elections. GOP.com has a YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr presence, and an array of blogs, including the “What Up” blog, which will be penned by Steele himself.
“[The new site] takes advantage of various online tools to connect Republicans and concerned Americans across the country to each other and party leaders, creating a larger, more informed, more organized, and more energized Republican community,” Steele told the Associated Press today.
But early this afternoon, bloggers had found a mass of bugs and glitches, including repeated php problems. By 3:30 p.m. EDT, GOP.com slowed to a crawl, eventually shutting out users. The official cause? A network error.
No word yet from the GOP tech staff. In the meantime, we’ll have to make due do with digs from the Democrats, who are basking in the glee of their technically inept rivals.
“You know your web program is in trouble when your site can’t even handle the traffic bump from people making fun of your web program,” Joe Rospars of Blue State Digital told Talking Points Memo today.
» Full article
October 16th, 2009 by Jason
A Louisiana justice denies an interracial marriage license out of “concern for the child” (via the Huffington Post)
NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.
» Full article
October 15th, 2009 by Jason
Today’s dose comes from the sanity-deprived readers of WorldNetDaily, specifically the the part of the site where the readers get to ask questions for Barack Obama.
Some of the stupider questions so far:
RE: RE: Mr. Obama, are you bisexual,etc? Do you have no respect for Judeo- Christian foundation of U
Posted by bs120748 on Oct 14, 2009 15:26
Those two questions are: Mr. Obama, are you bisexual? Mr. Obama, are you muslim?Mr. Obama, if the answer is no to both of those questions, why do you give so much consistent,glowing support to homosexual activists, when they are the small majority of Americans that they are? Why do you give such glowing kudos to those who practice Islam, when most of the US is not muslim?
Mr. Obama, I feel I already know the answers. But please give whatever direct answers you could anyway. Thank you.
Are you an uninformed bigot? If the answer is no, why do you sound so much like one when they’re such a small minori– Oh, oops, forgot that uninformed bigots are in the majority at WorldNetDaily.
What will your children think?
Posted by DrDoom on Oct 14, 2009 14:50
As you deceive the masses (and likely even yourself), you are tearing down the pillar of freedom, justice, and human generosity that the world so needs, but yet seems to despise (just like you despise it). I’m sure your children will be brainwashed to the point of not being capable of recognizing truth from fiction (like you). But oh what a burden they will carry as adults knowing that the blood of this nation will be on their father’s hands. That their father had the power to change the country for good, but instead chose to change in a manner that destroyed it. That your children will inherit a legacy that no other child has ever had to endure. You have personally ushered in the end of the USA and everything good that it stood for in its 233 years. The blood will be on your hands, and you will be judged appropriately for that blood.
You have no sense of right and wrong, only your version of right and wrong. You understand not truth, but your view of truth. And with these traits, you sir, are a danger and enemy of this country.
May God have mercy on you and your children.
You forgot to include a question in your nonsensical rant, DrDoom.
Simple inquiry Prez.
Posted by 2sayf on Oct 08, 2009 11:16
Pres. Hussein Obama-
With all of the issues facing the United States why do you continually choose to waste everyone’s time with irrelevant causes and issues. For example,( http://wp.me/pBfFK-ef ) How could you waste such an unimaginable amount time improving, of all things- your penmanship during one of the most tumultuous years in our nation’s history? Want another example? Maybe this will jog your memory, given the state of the union- how were you able to find the time & energy to champion such a poppycock cause like the Olympics? Couldn’t you have sent Biden instead, or maybe your Olympics Czar?
Thank you-
Tou Saiyfe
Mr. Saiyfe’s argument is undercut by the fact that his evidence consists of 1) a link to a satire blog, 2) a trip in which Obama spent a total of four hours in Copenhagen.
Who’s your PUPPETMASTER Mr. President?
Posted by onebaldcat on Oct 07, 2009 23:30
Mr. President,
It is obvious that you are not writing your own policies, or even your own speeches (because many times you have quoted others without referencing them – i.e. clip from Sean Hannity show Oct 6, 2009). I would like to know who REALLY is President? What is their REAL agenda? You are merely a Junior Senator and lack experience. Who is pulling your strings? One last question: why do you HATE America so much?
You, my friend, are merely a junior conspiracy theorist.
Posted by su368098 on Oct 06, 2009 14:35
Mr. Soetoro,
Exactly how much will we be fined if we choose to not to purchase health insurance?
This one I don’t understand. “Hussein” sounds Muslim and scary like that guy Saddam from Iraq. “Soetoro”… how is that even worse than “Barack Obama”?
October 14th, 2009 by Jason
This gem comes to us from Jay Weidner, of “Sacred Mysteries Productions”, who has somehow become convinced that major cinematic works by Stanley Kubrick are actually a highly symbolic cover-up for his role in the faking of Apollo 11 (and, apparently, ensuing marital drama).
The Shining is surely Stanley Kubrick’s most misunderstood masterpiece.
I use the word ‘masterpiece’ guardedly because I have never really thought that The Shining was a very good film.
At the time, in 1980 when I first saw it, I didn’t like it at all. The way that Kubrick threw out so much of Stephen King’s great source material and replaced it with a lot of things that just didn’t seem to make any sense, really bothered me.
Hopefully, before I am finished with this essay, the reader will see it is only when Kubrick dramatically alters the script from Stephen King’s novel that we can begin to understand what Stanley Kubrick is trying to tell us in his version of The Shining.
It should be understood from the beginning that The Shining is Stanley Kubrick’s most personal film (outside of, possibly, Eyes Wide Shut). Before we are done here it will be easy to see that Kubrick was only using Stephen King’s novel as a launching pad (excuse the pun) to be able to tell a completely different story under the guise of making a film based on a best-selling novel. He did this for a very important reason – mainly to save his life.
» Full article
The full article is certainly an amusing read. We’ll let Weidner make some huge, ridiculous assumptions and give the whole moon landing conspiracy theory a shot. Even letting this slide, Weidner’s argument that Stanley Kubrick was somehow involved is rather tenuous, given that it relies entirely on vague symbolism from Kubrick’s The Shining that reaches the analytical complexity of a 9th grade film class paper. Some of the more amusing parts:
What happens next is crucial to understanding everything else that happens in the film.
Danny, bewildered, walks down the hallway. He sees that Room 237 – the room that Halorann warned him about – has a key in the lock and the door is wide open.
It is important to note that the room in question was numbered 217 in the Stephen King version of The Shining. For unknown reason’s Kubrick changed it to 237.
Those unknown reasons are about to be come known.
Danny is literally carrying a symbolic Apollo 11, on his body, via the sweater, to the Moon as he walks over to room 237. Why do I think this?
Because the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 237,000 miles.
Only… it’s actually 238,857 miles. However, since I didn’t want to ruin Weidner’s theory right out of the gate, I attempted to find the true meaning of “room 237″, one that maybe had some sort of basis in actual science. So, after doing some exhaustive research that consisted of searching Google for “moon apollo 11 237″, I learned that astronauts found trace amounts of neptunium 237 in lunar rocks. I guess Kubrick actually intended for Danny walking to room 237 to represent the Apollo 11 astronauts finding neptunium 237 in lunar samples. And already I’m a better conspiracy theorist than Jay Weidner.
Just in case you weren’t already convinced, Weidner concludes his exposé with the following slam-dunk:
Seven Apollo missions went to the moon, but only six landed. Six crates of 7-up.
While it is tempting to think that maybe this is just some sort of strange mind exercise or a very poorly-constructed joke, Weidner has actually written several other articles relating Kubrick to the moon landing and various supernatural events, in addition to relating other artists to the same ideas.
October 13th, 2009 by Jason
I guess the 2012 doomsayers just trust Hollywood more than actual Mayan elders. From the Associated Press:
Apolinario Chile Pixtun is tired of being bombarded with frantic questions about the Mayan calendar supposedly “running out” on Dec. 21, 2012. After all, it’s not the end of the world.
Or is it?
Definitely not, the Mayan Indian elder insists. “I came back from England last year and, man, they had me fed up with this stuff.”
It can only get worse for him. Next month Hollywood’s “2012″ opens in cinemas, featuring earthquakes, meteor showers and a tsunami dumping an aircraft carrier on the White House.
At Cornell University, Ann Martin, who runs the “Curious? Ask an Astronomer” Web site, says people are scared.
“It’s too bad that we’re getting e-mails from fourth-graders who are saying that they’re too young to die,” Martin said. “We had a mother of two young children who was afraid she wouldn’t live to see them grow up.”
Chile Pixtun, a Guatemalan, says the doomsday theories spring from Western, not Mayan ideas.
A significant time period for the Mayas does end on the date, and enthusiasts have found a series of astronomical alignments they say coincide in 2012, including one that happens roughly only once every 25,800 years.
But most archaeologists, astronomers and Maya say the only thing likely to hit Earth is a meteor shower of New Age philosophy, pop astronomy, Internet doomsday rumors and TV specials such as one on the History Channel which mixes “predictions” from Nostradamus and the Mayas and asks: “Is 2012 the year the cosmic clock finally winds down to zero days, zero hope?”
» Full article
October 12th, 2009 by Jason
The Weekly Standard’s Anne Bayefsky takes on Obama’s purported support for a UN resolution that would supposedly restrict the right to freedom of expression.
The Obama administration decided that a revamped
freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt–a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.
Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1–adopted by consensus the following day–the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:
“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased–for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that “freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,” insisting on limits consistent with the “true nature of this right” and demanding that the “the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner.”
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”
» Full article
Bayefsky’s cherry-picking of the text of the proposed resolution reaches a rarely-seen level of absurdity. The relevant parts of full text of the draft of the resolution, which is available online, read as follows:
Recalling that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, in accordance with article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
(several paragraphs later)
4. Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations, to address and combat such incidents;
While Bayefsky’s first attempt to construct an argument by selectively quoting parts of sentences that are paragraphs apart might seem convincing, her most powerful criticism of the resolution comes later on.
Pakistan’s Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion … The Obama administration’s debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.
Seriously. There is nothing in the resolution that comes close to indicating that preventing religious defamation supersedes the right to free expression. Perhaps it was too hard for Bayefsky to concoct a way to misinterpret and distort the draft to support her ridiculous claims that met even the Weekly Standard’s evidently low standards for journalism.
October 11th, 2009 by Jason
Glenn Beck fails to define “white culture” during Katie Couric interview. It’s like she has this magical power to get people to look as stupid as possible by asking basic questions.
October 10th, 2009 by Jason
FL-20 candidate Robert Lowry holds an event at a local shooting range, at which someone evidently decided it was a good idea to shoot at “targets that appeared to be gunmen with traditional Arab head scarves” and a target representing incumbent Congresswoman and breast cancer survivor Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (via the Huffington Post)
A South Florida Republican said it was a mistake to shoot at a target with the initials of the Democratic congresswoman he is trying to unseat.
Candidate Robert Lowry made a brief statement to a local newspaper but refused to speak further Friday about the incident, which happened Tuesday during a weekly GOP meeting held at a gun range.
Organizer Ed Napolitano defended the gathering, as well as the use of targets that appeared to be gunmen with traditional Arab head scarves.
“That’s our right,” said Napolitano, president of the Southeast Broward Republican Club. “If we want to shoot at targets that look like that, we’re going to go ahead and do that.”
Lowry declined to comment to The Associated Press. He initially told the South Florida Sun Sentinel that shooting at a target with the letters “DWS” – a not-so-veiled reference to Democratic U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz – was a “joke,” but then said it “was a mistake.”
His campaign manager, Chris Leggatt, said Friday: “I don’t think we need to make any further comment about it. It’s an issue that’s been addressed.”
Wasserman Schultz, who made headlines earlier this year when she announced she had been secretly battling breast cancer, represents a liberal district that includes a stretch of South Florida from Fort Lauderdale to Miami Beach. She is expected to easily win re-election, though Lowry and three other GOP candidates are vying to face her.
» Full article