Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Hey Gun Grabbers

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/19

Can we at least try enforcing the laws already on the books before we go about violating the Second Amendment? Hmmm?

When you catch a violent felon violating gun laws by having one, and then let him go, this happens. He wouldn’t have kidnapped that teen-aged girl, raped her, tortured her, tied her up, imprisoned her, poured gasoline on her, and tried to set her on fire if you Leftists hadn’t released him from prison early.

This one, as usual, is on you!

Posted in Character, Constitution, crime, Culture, Law, Liberal, politically correct, politics, society | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

I Contributed To #GosnellMovie

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/16

I contributed to help make the Gosnell movie happen. You can, too. Go to www.gosnellmovie.com and you can help make an important movie happen. Hot Air has some important news about who is blocking the attempt to crowdfund, and two actors who have made youtube videos in support of the crowdfunding.

____________________________
Edit: For those who have not heard of the heinous mass murderer Kermit Gosnell (and mainstream media and Hollywood like it that way), read what I wrote and Dana wrote back in 2011. Fair warning: have a strong stomach (preferably empty).

Posted in abortion, Character, crime, Culture, Health Care, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, society | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Atlantic and Billy Jo Bubba

Posted by DNW on 2014/04/08

[Update: This is a posting which was done primarily as an exercise last night, and which was posted prematurely, almost in real-time or on the fly. I have now made a number of "live" changes which make the references more explicit and precise, and less presumptive and garbled. It should aid in a comparatively better understanding of what I was trying to say: in the unlikely event anyone actually read it all the way through it when it first went up ...]

While commenting the other day on our post regarding AOL’s Gay Social Affirmation Hell, commenter AOTC was inspired to provide a link to “The Atlantic” online’s site, wherein an economist by the name of Noah Smith was busying himself in part, with a chirpy celebration of what he the imagines to be the permanent triumph of the so-called “progressive” side of the culture wars.

“The Culture War is over, and the liberals have won. With the legalization and broad acceptance of gay marriage, the last great bastion of government-supported traditionalism in Western society has been swept away. Elsewhere, the armies of traditionalism are collapsing on almost every front. America is becoming less religious with stunning speed. Interracial marriage, once banned, is now the norm. Marijuana is slowly being legalized for recreational use. Women are close to achieving economic equality with men, and female breadwinners are becoming the norm. Casual sex is almost universally tolerated as a permissible recreational activity.”

Now, I’m not even going to bother unpacking the logical confusions and conflations found in that rather typical piece of progressive rhetoric. It is after all rhetoric not reasoning. It’s rhetoric directed at what the polymorphous perverse community envision as the proper temperature and humidity for their planned social hothouse; and not at all what might be more coolly deduced from an objective reality; a reality the objectivity of which they are not only skeptical, but which they – or their philosophical high priests – often go on to assert as ultimately unintelligible and intrinsically pointless, anyway.

So instead, I’ll simply note the next move Noah Smith makes, which is to advise his own side that when it comes to politics, managerial prudence dictates behavioral restraint in unconditional victory. And, that in this case, it is good policy to avoid despoiling the lives and property of those bitter clingers who still retain outmoded attachments to concepts like the supernatural, teleologically premissed morals, binary gender, and quite probably, to the notion of the self itself.

Thus he announces,

“Any time you win a great victory after years or decades of bitter struggle, there is the temptation to pillage the lands of the conquered enemy. This is always a mistake.”

Yeah. They have the freedom and the strength, to actually pillage? Well, I suppose Noah Smith, along with Pajama Boy, and the rest of the kind can be forgiven for imagining that no one would even think of resisting progressive overreach in a way which they might find surprising. After all, the “Taxed Enough Already” movement protests almost caused them a psychic breakdown as it was.

Imagine then what a traditionalist’s pledge of social disengagement, taken in order to allow the progressive kind to live or die in a ditch of their own digging, to reap without underwriting or support what they have themselves sown, might do to the progressives’ mental equilibria.

Anyway, even the mooting of such questions indirectly and in a response to that precious little victory dance, appears, and I repeat here “appears”, to be out of progressive community bounds.

For I tried to do just that: that is to to say to offer up my suggestion that they in effect adopt some critical distance of their own.

However, upon following AOTC’s link to the site, and attempting to leave a WordPress comment there using this Truth Before Dishonor WordPress blogging ID, I ran into some initial difficulty. [Perhaps it was of my own making. I do not know.]

Therefore, I next tried registering to leave a comment using an alternate AOL screen name. That did not work out as I wished, either. So, I finally registered using a Google g-mail address through Disquis, employing an address name which is precisely the same name as my alternate AOL e-mail account. And, ultimately then, after some little while, I was able to post a comment under “North Charlton”. Same, same, AOL and Google. Whoopee.

Which brings us to the following observation. Left-liberals, so-called progressives, seem to be an extraordinarily sensitive lot when it comes to facing the redounding implications of their own worldview; even when so confronted temperately and in relatively sophisticated (or so one would imagine) forums.

We here have witnessed that progressive tendency to bridle in the past on a more local level: on Dana’s old Common Sense Political Thought blog. Repeat the implications of what they, the progressives, have said about reality or mankind back to them, and as specifically applying to them, and they go off the emotional rails. On Common Sense Political Thought however, they could only call for censoring, not effect it.

“Progressives” obviously talk freely of their triumphing over “the enemy”, but they apparently cannot abide “the enemy” granting them in return their assertion of enemy status, and noting that he is in fact prepared to accept that he is their enemy, and as such, an enemy in the very same existential way and sense which they originally intended.

Thus they casually speak of a supposedly justifiable impulse they have to despoil this traditionalist enemy’s life and substance; but in this case while generously refraining from doing so (only so a more efficient and pacific implementation of their vision of human re-engineering might be realized) in the name of the “nation”.

And then, they seem taken aback, or even alarmed, when their peculiar notions regarding the significance of nation or community are scoffed at.

In any event, tempted by AOTC’s pointing toward a potential challenge, I persisted and finally posted a comment.

As a result, one reader graciously remarked that she wished there were more like it.

Another, “Billy Jo Bubba”, asked me to clarify what I had meant by a certain phrase I had used concerning conservatives’ sometimes politically debilitating “moral inhibitions”. I responded to Billy Jo. I checked to see if my response to him posted up successfully, and it did. So I saved the page.

Then, my reply to Billy Jo disappeared.

Billy Jo nonetheless responded to my now missing reply: observing that he had in fact seen it, but that in the meanwhile something had happened to it and it was now gone.

Acknowledging Billy Jo again, I said I would re-post the exact reply to which he was referring for the sake of thread clarity. I did. I checked back. It took. It remained for a while.

Then, it disappeared too.

So, I left a 3rd and textually different response to Billy Jo. This one, stating that my two previous replies to his direct request for terminological clarification had mysteriously vanished, but I knew not why.

I then checked and noted that that reply had also initially posted up successfully; just as did the previous two. There it, however, unlike the preceding two, remained. And there it remains some days later.

What are we to infer from this? Well, as you can see from my remarks above, I have my suspicions based on this and past experiences with progressives. Though, I am not absolutely positive about it in this case. Just, let’s say, reasonably skeptical, that it was a pure coincidence.

I did however as I said, think to save the pages immediately after I successfully placed my original remarks.

I’ll now place the subject chain of exchanges below. I’ve read and reread them, and cannot for the life of me figure out what it was that I said which might cause a progressive, or his proxies, to interrupt a victory lap just to take it down. It was after all no more than a demurrer which was offered up based on the progressive’s own worldview.

But, provisionally, it does seem to be the case that my remarks were repeatedly taken down. I would of course be glad to learn that it was otherwise and that some defect in my browser or use of it caused the problem.

In any event, the last comment in the series is the one that repeatedly “vanished”.

Regarding then, Noah Smith and his Atlantic vaunt …

North Charlton • 2 days ago

Generous of you to forgo the indulgence of revenge.

Though, I am not sure what form of political revenge a progressive could indulge in which would leave the Democrat Party’s own client class of dependants untouched; or which would alternately fail to awaken conservatives to the fact that it has been their own moral inhibitions which have allowed the progressives to flourish as they have in the first place.

Eventually, conservatives may even get wise, and recognize that they’ve been fighting not only the left, but their own moral baggage and scrupulosity: assuming fundamentally like cases when no such fundamental likenesses obtained.

Politically progressive activists, and philosophers like Rorty for example, have long ceased pretending that their ethical claims and social shaping aims and stratagems could in any way be coherently said to follow from their nominalist metaphysical premisses. So, they decided to focus instead on what “we wish to become” rather than what we once were said, or thought, to essentially be.

However, even in a progressive moral universe, one with no notion of actually occurring natural kinds, it’s difficult to initially avoid arguing as if there were real kinds with real natures implying real rights; and maybe rhetorically unwise – even if dishonest – to try and do so.

So, issues have to be gradually re-framed conceptually in terms of emotions and expanding circles of concern for those emotion-things that now stand in place of what we once thought of as humans with intrinsic and shared natures, and objectively deducible ethical boundaries and obligations and entitlements.

It will henceforth become about what we wish to be … whatever it is “we” are made up of, or defined as, by whom or whatever. The progressive reasoning gets a little vague at that point.

Well, the problem of course is that, that “we” word, along with all its allied concepts and terms, is also clearly problematical.

And therefore when it comes to the spectacle of rhetorical flag waving, it is mightily amusing indeed to read someone from the left making concern noises about “the nation”, when the entire concept has become so ridiculously attenuated as to carry little or no emotional weight anyway; not to mention very little if anything in the way of any objectively ascertainable meaning.

Nation is no longer about “ethnicity”, and it’s certainly not about shared values and objectively deduced ideals. Nor obviously, is it about held in common goals and tastes, much less interests. Nor much of anything else as far as I can see.

It – the appeal to nation – is then more or less just the brandishing of a nowadays vaguely fascistical sounding but quickly obsolescing term, held over from the days when American post Civil War political consolidationists figured it carried a bigger emotional wallop, and therefore allowed more constitutional transgressions, than did the term “the republic”.

I guess modern progressives still figure the same.

But they figure wrong.

The question then is why anyone who is not polymorphous perverse themselves, should care to waste their time validating anyone who is, or why it would be in their interest to shore up a system that does …

After all, tolerating absurdity is one thing when it costs you nothing; or, very little apart from annoyance.

But marching in the linked-arm parade of the absurdists, as if you are morally obligated to give a damn about, or even participate in their fate, or can be intimidated to do so without the threat or use of violence, is quite another.

No, it’s probably not over. In fact, things may have just begun to get interesting.

3 △ ▽

Edit

Reply

Share ›

Ellie K > North Charlton • 2 days ago

Why are you among the tiny minority of people who articulate their opinions online? I wish I could upvote you 50 times. You are correct, in every regard. This crummy post , by crummy Noah, makes me cringe in revulsion and fear. It is oppressive and intolerant of diversity of religion (having belief, of any sort, isn’t allowed now), sexual and reproductive preference (no place for being a woman and wanting to marry a man of the same race and religion, wearing a wedding ring, then having a baby or maybe even two, and being faithful to each other all the days of one’s life) etc. There is no national cohesion, thanks to so-called modern progressives. The newly redesigned Dept of the Interior reflects this. There are no white men. There are no Asian people. There are elderly white women, no young ones with children. There are big murals of crowds of Native Americans and black people and Hispanic people, but no pictures of little families or young people going fishing or hunting. Whose land is it? Not yours and mine. It belongs to modern progressives, apparently.

2 △ ▽

Reply

Share ›

Billy Jo Bubba > North Charlton • 14 hours ago

Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?

△ ▽

Reply

Share ›

North Charlton > Billy Jo Bubba • 2 minutes ago

“Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?”

You can think of it operating in various ways, and on various levels.

My reference to Rorty’s nominalism as informing his theory – if you want to call it a theory – of ethical behavior, and the “objects” of his attention on the one hand, in contrast to what is generally some form of realism embraced by conservatives (I am speaking very generally here) on the other hand, should give you a picture of two populations having fundamentally different views about reality, and about what a human “really is”, and is entitled by that status to; if to anything.

Let’s put this in extreme terms. A Roman Catholic child, for example, is taught based on a supernaturally directed belief and a mediated and modified Aristotelian realist metaphysics, that he has a soul destined for eternity, and that what he does in relation to or to other human beings has an objective rightness or wrongness to it in the here and now, and a cosmic and eternal significance that continues beyond the present life, afterwards.

On the other hand, whatever inhibitions the progressive left may have in doing unto others, that is not one of the considerations that informs their consciences.

No Marxist Leninist has any absolute compunction about breaking eggs in order to make his social omelet; human beings are not seen as ends in themselves but social elements entitled, or not, to certain “sensual” (in the Marxist sense) satisfactions.

It is generally acknowledged by progressive writers ( and I don’t think that I need to start listing names, do I?) that politics is useful for shaping and molding society, and as a result the reproducing population, as the progressive wishes it to be.

The progressive has fewer compunctions about shaping the people through the agency of the state. Which is not to say anything particularly remarkable, but just something that needs to be borne in mind; i.e., the moral inhibitions of the parties, conservatives and libertarians on the one hand, and left-progressives on the other, are not symmetrical.

The conservative inhibition I refer to here then, is one that comes from their worldview and teleological moral lens; which sees intrinsic value in (or projects it onto) beings who themselves argue that any such framework is an illusion, and any such value a result of that illusion, or worse, a supernaturally oriented superstition.

My personal opinion is that perhaps conservatives, and most certainly libertarians, should make the following intellectual move: they should hypothetically grant the persons, or the organisms if you will, of the left the dignity of taking them seriously when they say that life has no inherent purpose, that values are radically subjective or relative, that natural kinds do not exist, or that the ends justify the means, and so forth.

And then once having granted that – at least and specifically as regards the progressive person making the claim – the person who is not a progressive, should take a careful look at the person who says he is a progressive, through the progressive’s own metaphysical lens.

And then he the non-progressive should be straight with himself, no matter how brutal the view seems, as to just what he sees when focusing on the progressives through that reducing lens of their own creation; and what ethical implications might follow or inferences be validly drawn.

If after having performed that reductio, one cannot still then see the asymmetry I refer to, then … well …

Posted in Culture, Liberal, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society | Leave a Comment »

Harry Reid’s Koch-Addled Asininity Debunked Here — 21 Months Ago

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/13

That’s right, folks. Harry Reid’s Koch-addled asininity was debunked here, a full 21 months before his rectological rectory on the Senate Floor.

Let me give you a chart from those 21 months ago:

All-Time Top Contributors updated 2012

With Unions pushing that much money around, Dingy Harry has the gall to claim the Koch Brothers (who are Libertarians and not Conservatives) are the biggest danger and biggest source of outside money? He could’ve just come to my site and done a little research before looking stupid. But then again, he’s too stupid to actually, you know, do any research.

Want more information on where Unions stand in political spending, such as rankings?

From 21 months ago:

3. Public Employee Union
5. Public Employee Union
7. Public Employee Union
9. Union
10. Public Employee Union
11. Union
12. Union (that I was a forced member of, twice)
13. Union
14. union
17. Union
18. Union
20. Union
29. Union
30. group of Unions

14 of the top 30 biggest political spenders are all Unions, and yet, Unions represent less than 12 percent of the workforce. But the Union spending doesn’t stop there.

40. Union (that I was a forced member of for nearly 9 years)
43. Union
44. Union
49. Union
52. Union
57. Union
58. Union
59. Union
65. Union
75. Union
85. Union
117. Union
119. Union
128. Union
133. Union

Oh, and I had information on the Koch Brothers back then, too.

Again, since 1989, Unions have spent 667.3 million (over 2/3 of a billion) dollars on politics. How much has the Left’s bogeyman, the Koch brothers, spent? A paltry 12.7 million dollars. So, next time some radical Leftist complains about the Koch brothers, remind that person that Unions are outspending the Koch brothers nearly 55 to 1. And while you’re at it, remind them that Unions are outspending their representative proportion more than 2 to 1.

By the way, those evil Koch Brothers tried to influence me once. One of the political type organizations they’re tied to sent me an email talking about the successful recovery of a community that rejected Federal aid and the floundering of another community that took the aid. I didn’t write about it because I was too lazy to do so, not because the Koch’s are evil (which they clearly are not).

So, the continued hate-filled attacks on Libertarians Who Provide Jobs To The Middle Class are all the Socialist, Fascist, Statist Democrats have to try to scare people into a serf-state.

It didn’t take gobs of research to destroy Hairy Reed’s demagoguery which took place this week on the Senate Floor. All it took was looking up an article I wrote 21 months before the Hairy logorrhea.

You’re welcome.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Culture, Elections, history, Insanity, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, Socialists, truth | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Enemy Aliens

Posted by DNW on 2014/02/26

This is a link to a comment wherein I harp a familiar chord, in somewhat more conclusive and less contingent and ironic terms than usual.

The original posting concerns the little North Korean tyrant. The mention of which, leads us to ask “Why is he still in power?”  A question to which we know the multifaceted answer. One critical facet being that North Koreans, or Koreans of any kind, are not the right kind of victim group for American political “progressives” to exploit on their own incoherently planned and socially totalitarian journey to nowhere.

Consider seriously: When we take what political progressives say about reality and human existence seriously, and then mercilessly apply those principles in axiomatic fashion to them; what in the final reduction do we find ourselves confronting?

What, when observed under the aspect of his own definitions, is the political progressive?

 

 

Update: Eric believes I’m fretting the fabric of progressive life needlessly.  He may have a point.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Liberal, politics, Socialists, society, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

The Perfect Martini

Posted by DNW on 2014/01/22

 

Anyone who has drunk, or imbibed since we don’t want to sound as if we are alluding to intoxication, a sufficient number of martinis to use the term “perfect martini” also knows that there is really no such thing as a perfect martini. Even martinis made to your favorite recipe will obviously vary to some significant degree with the care which one takes – or doesn’t – in making (proportioning) the drink and with the particular brands of ingredients used.

That rocks glass in your hand on the patio in July, the glass sloshingly filled with cubes and gin and vermouth and a couple of olives, and which you hold in the one hand as you flip steaks on the grill with the other, holds the same nominal drink as that carefully proportioned vodka and vermouth mix poured from a shaker into a coupe glass, and then garnished with a twist of lemon zest.

In the name of decency, there are some limits though.

For example, although either gin or vodka (or both together, Mr. Bond) may be used or substituted, most people would agree that no matter how stingy the application may be,  a “martini” made without any vermouth is just not really a martini as most of us understand it.

Not so much vermouth!

Not so much vermouth!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of vermouth, many of us, myself for instance, had become comfortably accustomed to Noilly Prat only to discover a couple of years ago that something awful had happened. I first though I had gotten a bad bottle. Instead of the usual clear liquid I was used to seeing, out came a yellow-greenish fluid with a more pronounced taste, smell, and what seemed to me to be oily character. It tasted like the abominable Gallo vermouth. It made my martini undrinkable. Until recently I could not come up with a satisfactory explanation as to what went wrong. Abandoning my theory of a heat spoiled bottle at the second disappointment, I figured my memory of what I like must have been off … very off somehow.

Turns out that the company had been bought out, and the new ownership of Noilly Prat decided that Americans would henceforth receive the European version of their “dry” vermouth; which was distinctly heavier in scent and taste than that to which we were accustomed. Apparently Noilly had for some years, and long before I ever approached a martini glass, been offering a specially dry version for the North American market. After grimacing my way through those last unwitting purchases of the Euro-style and highly scented version of their “dry”, I dropped any pretense of brand loyalty and grabbed a bottle of Martini & Rossi off the shelf the next time out. According to the blog “The Gray Report” (and Gray himself actually prefers the Euro-version), many others did as well. I certainly hated it. Enough people agreed with me implies Gray, to cause sales to plummet sufficient to get management’s attention and to promise to bring back the American version to this market.

So far, I haven’t seen it. Though I can’t say I have looked very hard.

As far as the mix portions go, I for one, have over the years developed a preference for what some web sites, Vermouth101.c0m for instance, are calling a 1950′s mix … basically 3 measures of gin or vodka to one half measure (I’m not using the technical term for “measure” here) of dry vermouth. So for example, a measure might be one of those ounce-and-a-half shot glasses. Then, three full shot glasses of gin, and one half of that ounce and a half shot glass, of vermouth.

You will notice too that as Mr. Niven above protectively recoils from that bottle of vermouth proffered by the cheerfully smiling pixie, he is simultaneously cradling an almost fishbowl sized snifter, which he’s using as the martini mixing glass.

He obviously wants his martini as dry as possible. And I agree to some extent as I mentioned just above.

But I would not go so far as the version of martini supposedly liked best when I first started drinking them during that late 1980s and 1990′s era sometimes credited with the return of the cocktail to prominence. That version, was reportedly almost pure gin or vodka, and I found it as objectionable to my palate as the early 20th century version said to be preferred by FDR: a two gin to one vermouth mix with plenty of brine added. I tried it. Yech. No wonder FDR had a stroke.

Well, no accounting for the taste of certain statist liberals who smoke cigarettes from holders.

We’ve already addressed what are from my point of view the preferable proportions of the two main ingredients in the mix. How they are mixed together is another matter.

The phrase “shaken not stirred” has become a painful cliche that causes me to actually wince when hearing it. But, that doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer the drink mixed that way. In fact, while doing research – well, while idly scanning various books and other websites for confirmation of my own prejudices – I read that martinis were originally meant to be made that way: shaken.

By the time the James Bond novel Casino Royale was published for Ian Fleming in 1953, in the very year Mr. Niven was saving his bowl of gin in “The Moon is Blue” from the debasement of too much, or almost any vermouth, the mixing process seems to have changed from shaking to stirring. Or at least swirling the mix with cubes.

Which leads us to another painful cliche: one which expresses alarm over the possibility of “bruising the gin”.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, so I can’t explain it to you. And when I hear it, I can only picture some dissipated country club type given to the pointless regurgitation of current mythologies as a way of cementing his image as one who is in need of constantly cementing his image. Out of respect to our early 1950s motif here, I’ll include an image of just that type of fellow as portrayed by actor Louis Calhern, in yet another William Holden movie of that same era, “Executive Suite”.

Better not be bruised!

Better not be bruised!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any event, I not only have a fictional spy on my shaken side, I apparently have the British medical establishment. You may be thinking I am referring to a recent series of articles based on the premise that James Bond liked his martinis shaken and not stirred because had he been a real person who drank as much as seemingly recorded in the spy novels he, would have had a case of the shakes which made stirring impossible … or something like that.

However, that particular bit of politically motivated kill-joy posturing by the PC crowd is not what I am referring to. What I am citing here is an article in the British Journal of Medicine titled “Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis”.

Shaken martinis were more effective in deactivating hydrogen peroxide than the stirred variety, and both were more effective than gin or vermouth alone (0.072% of peroxide control for shaken martini, 0.157% for stirred v 58.3% for gin and 1.90% for vermouth). The reason for this is not clear, but it may well not involve the facile oxidation of reactive martini components: control martinis through which either oxygen or nitrogen was bubbled did not differ in their ability to deactivate hydrogen peroxide (0.061% v 0.057%) and did not differ from the shaken martini. Moreover, preliminary experiments indicate that martinis are less well endowed with polyphenols than Sauvignon white wine or Scotch whisky (0.056 mmol/l (catechin equivalents) shaken, 0.060 mmol/l stirred v 0.592 mmol/l wine, 0.575 mmol/l whisky).

 

With authorities like that behind you, who needs some comic book spy on your side?

How’s it to be served then?  In what kind of glass? A “martini glass” obviously?

Well, there are different theories. I always specified a rocks glass in restaurants. Occasionally a self-confident middle aged waiter in the tonier kind place would good naturedly admonish me with an “Oh sir! Not really!” and I’d give in and have it in a stemmed glass. I’ve kind of gotten used to them by now. The design is supposed to have a certain logic, and I admit that the drink may taste somewhat better in one. Or at least more like an aperitif to be savored, than a concoction to be guzzled.

Still, I like a squat tumbler  in some situations. Summer evening grilling is good time to load up with ice, in my opinion; and a double old fashioned glass works really well for that.

But the classic martini glass is making a bit of comeback without any assistance from me. That is to say, when I say “classic”, a sub 7 ounce capacity glass with a short pulled stem, rather than one of those 12 ounce glass funnels ill balanced on a 6 inch pillar, which has been the popular version for the last 30 or so years.

As an admirable return to basics, take this well proportioned glass sold this Christmas season as an example. Not a pulled stem coupe with that little extra cusp in the bottom (that is to say not one obviously shaped like a mold of Marie Antoinette’s left you know what …) it’s nonetheless pretty appealing all the same.

Short stemmed, made in Poland, and called "True martini" glass

Short stemmed, made in Poland, and called “True martini” glass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, you can still get the champagne coupe/cocktail glasses common in the early 60′s as well. From Germany, just for you: at two for sixty or seventy dollars a pair.

Coupe type glass

Coupe type glass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what’s the perfect martini? I don’t know really, and haven’t the authority to say. Make it 6 to one.  Vodka or gin depending on mood. Rocks or Martini glass depending. Two cubes with the former, or just a bit of cracked ice in the latter.  Mix shaken, well, with ice. Poured over a stuffed olive, and a twist of zest added last. Let sit about a minute. Then …

That’s perfect enough for me.

You, are entitled to your own opinion of course.

 

A satisfied customer

A satisfied customer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, education, Entertainment, history, Philosophy, Science in the news | 2 Comments »

Cumulonimbus + AgI = ?? (revisited)

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/12/13

I’m reprinting an article I wrote 13 months ago. An article I wrote 13 months ago, I’m reprinting. An article that doesn’t even get into the most recent huge schadenfreudig spreading through the sane world. But an article I find especially prescient, given the Obama administration’s desperate efforts to prevent ObamaCare’s huge pains from actually hitting just yet…
___________________________________________

A dark cloud follows him wherever he goes.
Every cloud has a silver lining.

Farmers obviously need rain for their crops, so there are some who resort to cloud seeding, adding silver iodide to the clouds to try to force rain out of them. But it’s a bad idea to seed a thunderstorm cloud. Cumulonimbus clouds can produce nasty things like hail storms, massive lightning storms, micro-bursts, tornadoes.

And of course, there are those who always bring bad luck with them, like Bad Luck Schleprock, our current President.


 
So, today I am telling you about the seeding of a 3,000 mile wide thunderstorm cloud hanging over the US — and the silver lining that comes with it. It’s painfully schadenfreudig. Painfully schadenfreudig, indeed. (Multiple stacked redundancy intentional.) Barack Obama and the Democrats, very cynically aware that their grand scheme to shove the US headlong into Socialism could cause them to fall out of power, set up a series of Laws and programs that would save most of the very bad results until after the 2012 election. After having blamed Bush for all the Democrat-and-Socialist caused travails, they would have a way of avoiding responsibility for the looming mega-disaster. It works like this:

  • Set up a Socialist system with all the false positives front-loaded and all the negatives back-loaded.
  • Get possibly voted out of office before the negatives hit, so the Socialist-caused negatives would hit when Conservatives were in office.
  • Blame the Conservatives in office for the economic disaster the Socialists caused.
  • Get the Socialists re-elected to complete the evil transformation of the Free Market US into a Socialist state, with the Conservatives forever blemished by the results of Socialist actions.

But a strange thing happened along the way. The Socialists got re-elected by a completely ignorant, envious, slothful, free hand-out seeking crowd. And all the back-loaded disasters will hit while the Socialists are in power. (By the way, did you know that tornadoes are also backloaded? They are on the back end of cumulonimbus clouds, and not up front.)

ObamaCare is one such program. As most of it is set to kick in now that the election is over, total disaster is on the horizon. Businesses, who cannot pay the cost of ObamaCare and stay afloat at the same time, will be laying off massive numbers of workers nationwide. Other businesses will be cutting their low-level employees (the working poor) to under 30 hours a week so those businesses can stay in business. Very little expansion will be happening, if any at all. It’ll be full-on contraction.

A nice little poisonberry in ObamaCare — that “make health care cheaper for all” lie — is a 2.3 percent excise tax on all medical devices, such as crutches, wheelchairs, heart stents, etc, etc. And an excise tax is far worse than a profit tax or income tax. It hits the gross revenue and not the after-expenses cost. For example, suppose it costs a business 5,000 dollars for the raw materials to make a single product. Add in the labor costs, the health insurance costs, the retirement costs, the social security tax, the medicare tax, the property tax for the building itself, the electricity cost, the property insurance cost, the transportation cost, the bookkeeping cost, and all other costs associated with getting the already developed product to market and the final cost to the business is 6,800 dollars. The business sells the product for 7,000 dollars because that’s what the market will bear. The business gets a profit of 200 dollars per sale.

In comes the 2.3 percent excise tax. Another 161 dollars off the top. The new profit for the 7,000 dollar item falls from 200 dollars to a whopping 39 dollars (an effective tax rate of 80.5 percent of the profit). Not enough to make the company a going concern. Kill the Research and Development department of the company — the life-blood of all businesses that want to survive, for if a business is not growing and moving forward it is necessarily dying.

But it doesn’t stop there. No, not at all. That same company also has to pay the new, higher costs involved in providing ObamaCare to all its employees (instead of the less expensive insurance plans which were optional, which fair portions of employees did not opt into). That 39 dollars per product, which used to be 200 dollars per product goes negative. It costs more to produce than it can be sold for.

But, again, it doesn’t stop there. Obama’s declaration that electricity costs must necessarily skyrocket and he’ll bankrupt coal-fired electric plants necessarily means the energy-intensive manufacturing industry will get hit hard with skyrocketing overhead costs. Costs that cannot be reduced merely by laying people off. So instead, the companies will shutter its doors and either go off-shore or cease to exist, providing a double-whammy of forcing the products to become far more expensive than they are now and far more difficult to obtain.

Small businesses will collapse. The middle class will become working poor. The working poor will become the unemployable destitute. Products the middle class used to be able to afford will become luxury items. Items that were luxuries for the working poor will become nothing but unreachable pipe-dreams. Inflation will go into hyper-drive. Interest rates will climb, making the cost of borrowing prohibitive. And deficit spending, which has been kept artificially low (yeah, I said it), will explode.

How is 1.2 trillion dollars (or more) in deficit spending “artificially low”? That’s a good question. And I have a good answer for that. Two words: “debt” and “service”. Debt service.

Historical view of the Prime Rate from Forecast Chart.com (8 percent line added).

Above is a chart showing the historic levels for the Prime Rate, from Forecast Chart.com. I added a red line at 8 percent for reference. Below is a chart showing the historic levels for the Discount Rate, from a 2009 article on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (data obtained from the Financial Forecast Center). I added a red line at 6 percent for reference.

US Discount Rate From 1950 as found on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (6 percent red line added).

From Apin Talisayon:

As I said, central banks had recently been dropping interest rates, and so we cannot use the abnormally low prevailing interest rates (0.5%). I plotted the historical data of discount rates set by the US Federal Reserve since January 1950 from the Financial Forecast Center[.]

As you can see in the above two charts, the Prime Rate and the Discount Rate differ in levels, but mirror each other. And they’re not only at historic lows; they’re far below historic norms. That means the future necessarily will provide much higher rates on borrowing than today. And the Federal Government’s debt service costs absolutely must skyrocket. Couple that with the US credit rating crumbling — and will continue to crumble — and the interest on the debt will become astronomical. Even a fairly normal rate of 6 percent with our current 16,000,000,000,000 dollar deficit means 960 BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments alone. By 2015, our national debt will be 20 TRILLION DOLLARS and the interest on that debt will be 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s before paying for roads, bridges, high speed trains to nowhere, free birth control pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free abortion pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free ObamaPhones, free health care, free foodstamps, free college tuition, free housing for the poor and forever pregnant single mothers, free Big Bird, free NPR propaganda, bailing out California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, free cowboy poetry, and oh yeah, paying for our national defense.

1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO PAY FOR ALREADY SPENT MONEY WE DIDN’T HAVE BEFORE PAYING FOR ANY CURRENT PROGRAMS AND EXPENSES!!!

The Socialist who ascended the throne in DC, along with the Socialists in the US Senate who have adamantly refused to produce a Federal Budget since April, 2009, in direct violation of Federal Law and the US Constitution, have successfully Cloward-Pivened the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. The most prosperous nation this world has ever seen has been successfully brought to financial ruin by the Leftists in power who have no use for a document that is “over 100 years old”. The aim? Destroy the Free Market and implement Socialism worldwide.

The silver lining? Conservatives have not been responsible for any of it. Conservatives have not been in charge for any of it. I know, little solace for the loss of a once great and mighty and FREE nation. Will there be anything left to save by 2016? And will there be any conceivable way to save it and return to prosperity from the Abyss of Destitution Obama and the Socialist Democrats have created? Or will it already be too late? I, for one, am not looking forward to the disaster these next 10 years will provide us. (UPDATE: Nice Deb performed her Karnac impression and answered my questions before seeing them. Go to her site to read her answers.)

RELATED
This medical device tax is just not going to end well
Economics 101: Schadenfreude!
Video: What free-market medicine looks like
2013: A Century Of Progress
Gee, why do you think the Obama administration waited until after November 6th to mail these letters?

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Conservative, Culture, economics, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, politics, Socialists, society, Tax, truth | 3 Comments »

The Rich Pay Their Fair Share

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/12/13

From CNBC (owned by that radical left wing NBC, which owns MSNBC) comes this nugget:

Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.

The bottom 20 percent actually pay a negative fifteen percent federal income tax rate! it’s time that the bottom 40 percent pay their fair share. It’s time the bottom 20 percent stop getting more back in income tax returns than they pay in. Because, as the lovely lady from CNBC said, “the rich aren’t only paying their fair share, they’re paying everyone’s share.”

Posted in Culture, economics, media, Personal Responsibility, society | 1 Comment »

This Christmas, Give the Gift of Shinola

Posted by DNW on 2013/11/22

 

Do you know the difference between … well, you know, and Shinola?

The difference is that Shinola, is made in America. Mostly. Or assembled here. Really, and it’s just too cool for school.

Except that it isn’t because it’s connected with school. A famous design school, The Center for Creative Studies, located in Detroit, Michigan.

Hand made bicycles, Swiss watch movements assembled in the USA and fitted with leather straps hand made in Florida; and footballs. Real honest to goodness footballs, made in America and made to be used.

Shinola Detroit

Shinola Detroit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well maybe you would use it. On grass, once or twice.

Bronko, is that a Shinola?

Hey Bronko! Is that a Shinola?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take a look for yourself ….

 

Shinola

 

Made in Detroit … more or less … by college kids and their associates, more or less.

 

This is another “neat things” posting, not commercial advertising; and neither Truth Before Dishonor nor myself receive any compensation whatsoever for these entries. Not even coal ranges. Certainly not Morgan Roadsters. The manufacturers neither solicited nor even approved these postings. Except here, where I got permission to mention, first.

Posted in American pride, Christmas, Culture, economics | Comments Off

Barack Obama At 37 Percent Approval

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/11/20

And M24OH has a questionnaire.

37% you say? Hm, it actually doesn’t seem like 37% of the people I meet are complete morons or absolute pieces of sh**. Maybe I should make up a ‘worthless p.o.s. idiot test’:

1. Are you entitled to an income just for being alive?
2. Are you entitled to healthcare just for being alive?
3. Do you believe your gender, race, ethnicity, or combination thereof entitle you to preferred treatment in any aspect of societal interaction, i.e. preferences for hiring, housing, public assistance etc., or deference in ordinairy social interactions?
4. Would you refuse miltary service, or other public service, to qualify for the above “entitlements”?
5. Are you of sound mind and body but not actively seeking employment?
6. Do your engage in non-contraceptive-use extra-marital sex while without the means to independently (free of public assistance) raise a dependent child?

If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, you are most likely a “worthless p.o.s. idiot”.

And you probably still think Obuggerme is just swell.

(typos in original)

Sadly, far too many people have rejected the US Constitution and would say “yes” to one or more of those questions.

Posted in affirmative action, Character, Constitution, Culture, Insanity, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, society | 1 Comment »

A Troll has demanded an explanation

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/07

A Troll has demanded an explanation.

Just try and keep me out

Just try and keep me out

We all know what trolls are. They generally speaking are attention seeking, manipulative neurotics, sometimes ideologically committed, and presumably found on the Internet.

But they actually existed before the advent of the Internet, and one still runs into them in real as opposed to “virtual” life.

Out in the real world they are usually given labels such as, interfering users, jealous schemers, spiteful meddlers, annoying crackpots, social nuisances, or the like.

On rare occasions, their relentless emotional needs and the drive to satisfy them, lead the Troll into positions of considerable political power or social influence. Once there, their amoral-ism and boundary-less will-to-power-over-others, is likely to wreak more havoc and human damage than they ever could hope to achieve while their noxious influence was confined to some local neighborhood.

Trolls, whether encountered in real life or in a virtual, all share a number of what are by now familiar ploys or gambits which they use in the hope these manipulation techniques will bring them what they want.

This includes the presumption of a right of affiliation, as the context for delivering their casual insults; charges of hypocrisy, or double standards (unfair discrimination) when they are called out; displays of indignation; feigned victim-hood; attempts to intimidate those who resist; and the very common Troll technique of leveraging the moral generosity of the principled man back against him.

Verbally, they engage in equivocation, deceit, constant redirection, and/or any other behavior which will protract and obscure rather than clarify and resolve a specific question.

Clearing the question away, is not their intention.

Their focus is always on maintaining contact with the other as “provider”.

For what they seek is not the freedom to access the material world in order to extract what they want from it, but the social privilege of accessing other persons – made compliant one way or another – in order satisfy their urges.

The difference the Internet makes in their game is that it constitutes an electronic barrier between the Troll Personality and the targets of their attention. Blogs don’t serve liquor, they are private, open to limited participation by invitation – generally by default at first – only, and not subject to government regulation. At least not yet.

Your club is my club

Your club is my club

Nonetheless, a view of Internet practices makes clear that the Internet troll and the modern liberal, (read collectivist) in their insatiable hunger for a piece of the lives of others are essentially one and the same. The Internet troll and the Modern Liberal being merely two manifestations of the same general species, observed while operating in different environments.

What individual trolls sometimes achieved in their neighborhoods, and what the Troll Party has now managed in politics through insinuating itself into the administration of our Federal Government, the Troll Horde now wish to complete by ensuring that they may intrude themselves into every human interchange or transaction that piques their interest or excites their avarice: And to do so on their own terms, and in a way that gives them appropriatve control, be the realm virtual or real, social or political.

This is not to say that a Troll might not be telling the truth about its own views. That is to say it, or they, may be accurately describing their own states of mind when they say that it is wrong to cut them out of your intellectual life, because, say for instance the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Government of the United States, prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”.

They may in fact be so mentally twisted by their needs and their lack of inhibitions in satisfying them, that the techniques I described above have become their unconscious nature. Practice of deceit and manipulation became second nature, second nature became first nature. Eventually nothing is left but a Troll nature where a man’s nature once stood.

Let’s take the specific example of a complaint over the stifling of “free speech”, as our illustrative paradigm.

In a recent accusation over his expulsion from this blog, Mr. Perry Hood has written:

“Regarding free speech, must I remind you that blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control? Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.  Have anything I’ve written constitute a personal threat made to any of you?  Of course not.  So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me?  I would really like to know.And then, again, there is DNW, who by virtue of his hidden identity, forthrightly reveals mine.  Don’t lecture me about values, DNW!”

Let’s look at some of the elements above.

Mr. Hood says, “ Regarding free speech … blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control.”

We notice here that:

1. He now entirely sidesteps the Constitutional issue upon which he had been generally hanging his claims. He must abandon it, since there is no issue of Congress making a law abridging his freedom of speech, when someone in the neighborhood kicks him off their front porch.

2. He attempts to redraw his accusation in terms of control of the Internet.

3. But no one is trying to control his access to the Internet.

4. He introduces the idea of ownership, (of the Internet) in order to refute it.

5. But no one has claimed private ownership of the Internet.

6. He attempts to stake a public claim to blogs which are private, by saying that they are found on the Internet which is not privately owned.

7. But by this il-logic he might as well argue that he may ride in your car because you drive it on the highway, or live in your house because it is on a public street, or molest your children because they attend a public school.

Mr Hood then goes on to say, “Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.”, speciously implying as I mentioned earlier regarding the Troll mind-set, a “ presumption of a right of affiliation as the context for delivering the casual insult”. In other words, his Constitutional gambit bankrupt, his Internet framing proven irrelevant, he must now “presume” a right of affiliation and access where none is in evidence.

Mr. Hood goes on to ask, “ Have anything I’ve written constitute [sic] a personal threat made to any of you?”; while assuming that the obvious answer is, as he tells it, “ Of course not.”

However, because we have had long experiences with Mr. Hood on the Common Sense Political Thought blog, as well as on the First Street Journal blog, we immediately notice that what he says is not true. Which is why he was on thin ice before he was ever granted an exemption and allowed to make any comments here in the first place.

Mr. Hood has, as we all know, had his privilege of participation on the blogs above mentioned and numerous other blogs repeatedly suspended or banned for just that kind of behavior: personal threats.

What apparently grieves Mr. Hood, is that after calling us traitors, and refusing to intellectually justify the supposed moral claims he lays against others as a pretext for calling them treasonous, he was not afforded the 20 or so warnings and advisories, and “second chances”, which he usually gets.

He was given two. Which was two more than the number to which he was entitled.

But when a man labels you as treasonous for resisting his attempts to appropriate the lives of yourself and your family, and then doubles down when called on it, what point is there in further talk?

The Internet is wide open to Mr. Hood. Let him build himself a cozy fire with the means already given to him by someone else, and attract who he can with the wafting aroma of his roasting cant, envy, and malice.

If any do drop by, he is welcome to their company, and to their intellectual and emotional companionship.

Oh, I almost forgot. The Troll asks, “So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me?  I would really like to know”

The answer to the question, though revulsion rather than fear is the right idea, involves having any portion of your life repeatedly wasted on a project which you know from long experience is pointless and foolish before you embark upon it: that is to say, the project of repeatedly attempting to reason with an entity which has deconstructed itself into a sometimes wheedling, sometimes demanding, sometimes threatening appetite, but never right-reasoning man.

Does that answer the question?

Perry, you called your own shots. You made yourself into what you now are. You showed us what you are through demonstration, and told us through affirmation.

What is there that is left to say?

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Culture, Liberal | 28 Comments »

Just because …

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/01

From a picture floating around the Internet. Very “60′s”

No particular reason for re-posting it. I just think that the image has a certain atmosphere, and even beauty. In fact I find it almost mesmerizing.

Our friend Ropelight likes boats, maybe he can do something with this.

A calm sea

A calm sea

UPDATE: I deliberately withheld any reference to the subject matter from the title of this posting because although I was fascinated by the image I didn’t want to attract attention to it on the usual grounds of prurience.

I figured it would just appear as part of the “home page” series.

Nonetheless it’s received an unusual number of individual page clicks. A sophisticated readership this one, unless there are lots of people using search engines to look up the phrase “Just because”, and winding up here.

FYI then, the lady is/was a model and actress in Italian new wave type films.

Regardless of her looks, she’s as you might expect, also Italian by nationality.

The photo is probably, I would guess, from the late 1950′s to possibly the mid 60′s.

I came across her while wracking my mind for alternative movies my folks might be interested in watching, rather than the brainless and unamusing crap they pay for in their monthly satellite bill.

If anyone can “guess” her name, I’ll post an image of a combustion turbine as your reward …

I’ll throw in an image of a copy milling machine too, if you can name one of her movies.

Second update: A PRIZEWINNER!

The contest only lasted a few hours and is well over. Yet commenter out-of-the-blue Tom Hamilton comes in late and wins a prize nonetheless, because: a, he used the word “existential” in his comment, and b, I had a couple of pictures left over.

Therefore, as an anodyne for government shutdown boredom, or in order to more fully celebrate it,  let’s review 1960′s female style, Italian style

A sixties look

A sixties look

Call the cigarette police

Call the cigarette police

Blonde

Blonde


 

 

Posted in Culture, Entertainment, history, Photography, Politically Incorrect, Science in the news, Travel, Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

BO Fiddles While Egyptian Christian Churches Burn – The Egyptian Kristallnacht?

Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/08/16

Is this Egypt’s version of Kristallnacht

Kristallnacht

A massive, coordinated attack on Jews throughout the German Reich on the night of November 9, 1938, into the next day, has come to be known as Kristallnacht or The Night of Broken Glass.

The attack came after Herschel Grynszpan, a 17 year old Jew living in Paris, shot and killed a member of the German Embassy staff there in retaliation for the poor treatment his father and his family suffered at the hands of the Nazis in Germany.

On October 27, Grynszpan’s family and over 15,000 other Jews, originally from Poland, had been expelled from Germany without any warning. They were forcibly transported by train in boxcars then dumped at the Polish border.

For Adolf Hitler and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, the shooting in Paris provided an opportunity to incite Germans to “rise in bloody vengeance against the Jews.”

more here:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/knacht.htm

Meawhile in Egypt, BO’s Buddies, The Muslim Brotherhood is doing to Christians in the way the NAZI’s handled the Jews in 1938

Reported List of Churches and Christian Institutions Attacked in Egypt Since Wednesday Will Astonish You

Aug. 15, 2013 11:59pm Erica Ritz
A wave of devastating violence swept through Egypt Wednesday as the government attempted to disband the supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi from their sit-ins. According to the Associated Press, 638 people have now been confirmed killed, and nearly 4,000 are injured.

The fighting is far from limited to the Islamists and the military, however. Since Wednesday’s violence began, there have also been a wave of attacks on churches and Christian institutions.

Amira Mikhail at Nile Revolt compiled a shocking list with the help of Mai El-Sadany, Amir Beshay, “aggregating information that was shared online about attacks on churches and their institutions around Egypt.”

“Please note that this is a work-in-progress and information so far is unverified although most is backed up with tweets and photos,” she wrote. “We are hoping to continue the efforts to verify details. If you have any corrections or updates to church names, photos, or details, please reach out to am.mikhail@gmail.com or my twitter.”

Though there may be some changes made to the list, what has been assembled so far is staggering.

List courtesy of Amira Mikhail:
Churches

Alexandria
Father Maximus Church

Arish
St George Church | Burned | Source

Assiut
Good Shepherds Monastery | Nuns attacked
Angel Michael Church | Surrounded
St George Coptic Orthodox Church |

Al-Eslah Church| Burned | Source
Adventist Church | Pastor and his wife kidnapped |
St Therese Church |
Apostles Church | Burning | Source
Holy Revival Church | Burning | Source
Qusiya Diocese | MCN

That is a small list of Christian Churches BURNED by BO’s BFF, The Muslim Brotherhood. See the WHOLE list here. Where’s Obama’s OUTRAGE? Hell freezes First:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/15/reported-list-of-churches-and-christian-institutions-attacked-in-egypt-since-Wednesday-will-astonish-you/

Posted in Character, Culture, Insanity, Religion | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

AOL and Huff Po and Manning: Completely Insane

Posted by DNW on 2013/08/14

No one expects Ariana Huffington’s snide exercise in left-wing propaganda to be or to even look neutral. And it has become abundantly, tediously, wearyingly, evident that anything involving or related to homosexual and gender disorders will receive the kind of histrionically laudatory headline ledes usually associated with the notoriously shameless and scruple free British tabloids.

This one though, is so contemptibly and unbelievably lunatic as to (nearly) beggar the imagination.

“Manning delivers heartfelt speech to packed courtroom

Army whistleblower Bradley Manning took the stand Wednesday and spoke candidly about his personal issues, controversial actions and hopes for the future.

‘I am sorry. I am sorry…’

Unbelievable? Believe it.

"Whistle blower"

“Whistle blower”

“Whistleblower”

AOL and the Huff Po have obviously gone completely insane with everyone knows who at the helm.

Marvel then, at the morally disordered interior of Ariana’s mind, laid out for all to the world to see.

Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Insanity, Liberal, media, society | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

How Trayvon Martin was murdered by George Zimmerman …

Posted by DNW on 2013/07/14

UPDATE.  The following changes illustrated by the strikeouts have been made out of a respect for accuracy and fairness, something we, especially those on my side of the Martin-Zimmerman news reporting fiasco issue should be highly mindful of  – even if the attempt to be accurate and fair seems to fly in the face of what seems to be self-evident: i.e., in this case the “CBS This Morning” logo. See the latest posting on this matter.

Second update. It appears that our scrupulosity was was uncalled for.

CBS News was in fact responsible for the computer generated video insert in their report which portrayed George Zimmerman shooting down an non-aggressive and child-like Trayvon Martin (dressed in short pants) from a distance .  CBS, through one of their employees had denied that the video, or the segment, “belonged”  to them, but rather to Reuters,  whatever “belonged” was supposed to mean in their usage. I was never able to clarify it with them, and and continued attempts to do so became pointless in the face of the evidence, still available, that it was they who had in fact had published the recklessly misleading and prejudicial account of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

 

 

 

According to CBS News … Or, maybe not CBS, but Reuters ….

This is John’s blog, so I hesitate to  quote commenter Eric on another blog accurately if vulgarly referring to leftists as being lower than snake shit.

But frankly, how could anyone deny it? How could anyone who as been watching the lead-up to the Zimmerman trial possibly argue that they, the members of the mainstream, left-leaning, almost completely populated by Democrats media,  have any interest in presenting an accurate recounting of facts?

Time after time, they persistently demonstrate they have no such  interest in getting the details right, and that they will elide, insinuate, and even deceptively edit the record for effect; as  NBC News did with the police department recording of Zimmerman speaking to the Sanford Police Department dispatcher.

Exactness, or even accuracy and truth mean nothing to them when their narrative is at stake.

They won’t even get the petty details correct for fear that exposing these details might redound negatively upon the story line they are attempting to push.

Over at the Huffington Post for example, with the trial over and while they are covering the verdict wrap-up, they are still saying Trayvon bought an “iced tea”. Whether they never paid close enough attention to the police photos to notice what it was Martin actually bought, or whether they are sensitive to either a potential racial stereotyping of the purchase, or the possible drug use implications of what it was that he did buy, in each and/or any event, they are perpetrating a fraud on those readers seeking objective information, and a truthful recounting.

“Objective and truthful”: That would be a recounting on which civil peace and other human lives might even depend.

Below is another example of the journalistic malpractice that has gone on during this case. It is illustrated by a screen capture I managed to make some months ago, and which I recently had to do a computer file search on,  in order to find again.

This is the same screen capture I had mentioned in an earlier posting as not being ready to hand.

This looked to be is taken from a “CBS This Morning” computer animation of the shooting which was Reuters apparently allowed to be re-presented on Yahoo:

Zimmerman portrayed as shooting Martin down at a distance

Zimmerman portrayed as shooting Martin down at a distance

Look what’s being shown here for God’s sake: Zimmerman, gunning down a kid in short pants from yards away. No wonder the low information types went out of their minds.

And here is a capture of the web address …

Yahoo presentation of the CBS video

Yahoo presentation of the CBS video

And this is a close up of the logo,

Logo

Logo

And here is the link: news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

Try it for yourself, and see what you come up with.

So now, what do we have here? We have as everyone already knows,  a clear pattern of the news media attempting to inflame passions and railroad a verdict with a grave indifference to the false narrative they were constructing. It may have been motivated by ideology in some cases, racial animus in others, or a “mere” desire to profit from whatever outrage and attention could be stimulated or provoked in others.

What possible excuse though could these sub-moral creatures offer up for their behavior?

Well, my experiences in dealing with the type convince me that their nihilism is so deep that they are indifferent to the harm they might wreak, and the very idea of excusing their behavior would seem as alien to them as considering it within a framework of “right and wrong” in the first place.

That, is what we are dealing with folks. We need to remember that always. As if we could ever forget, that is.

Posted in Culture, Liberal, media, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society, truth | Tagged: | 9 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: