I’ll lead it off: “(Christie): I wasn’t going to run for President in 2012 but since you gave me my official campaign photo I’ll reconsider”.
photoshops welcome (no profanity) also… highalpine03 a t yahoo dtcom.
Other photo caption contests:
Support Your Local Gunfighter
Cowboy Blob
Wizbang
Family Security Matters
Military Times
Rodney Dill
RT’s Ponderings
Someone wise used to say “character is what you show when you think nobody’s looking”. There’s no better example of this than former US VP Algore’s apparent attack on the international therapeutic massage industry. It took some time to settle in, but the ramifications of what Algore has allegedly done are far-reaching.
This industry has worked so hard to put forth the image of therapy and healing and has done a terrific job creating a level of comfort and credibility into its ethics (including that no sexual contact take place, so asking a licensed massage therapist for sex is asking them to reject their professional standards), that no one but the densest pigheaded idiot around would think that when you call for a therapeutic massage that you’re going to get “your chakra released” (link).
Now as a public figure, you’re supposed to be a role model. You (broadcasting from your mansion with a $1300/per month energy bill) tell people to go buy hybrids, and a whole bunch do. You (fly in on a private jet and) tell them to calculate their carbon footprint, and they probably do, while chanting “reduce, reuse, recycle”. How many Gorebots are going to be out there now looking for happy endings after getting their “adductors” massaged?
Among the friends who are connoiseurs of therapeutic massage, I always thought it took some stones to get nekkid under the cover. I always keep the boxer shorts on. There’s kind of a trust there, me being a married man, and you never want the masseuse (I only patronize females) to think you’re looking for “that kind of massage”.
When you look at how much a massage therapist makes for the work they do, it’s not all that much. How many hours per day could you give massages? I don’t know the answer to that but it couldn’t be an eight hour shift, and it IS physical labor. So there you are, a former Vice President who always was on the side of women and workers (right? of course…) and you’re going to say for $75 dollars or so this woman should do what? No, keep your tip Mr. Vice President, nobody wants to see it. For that money, who would want to take the risk of some eco-weenie wanting to show you his?
Now I don’t know what the market price is for the “other massage” or related services, but I imagine that there are two classes: the ones doing it for drugs (which would be less expensive) and those doing it for high-end clients (like Governors or New York and nearby states southwest of New York), which would be more expensive. So not only would he be sexually assaulting her but also insulting the heck out of the masseuse by placing her in the lower, “doing it for drugs” price range.
I don’t see this being prosecuted because it’s difficult to prove, but I enjoy seeing Algore humiliated after attacking this industry of hardworking entrepreneurs (link):
PORTLAND, Ore. — Detectives interviewed former U.S. Vice President Al Gore this past week in San Francisco, a law enforcement source has confirmed to KATU News.
Portland police detectives interviewed Gore on Thursday, questioning him further about allegations that he sexually abused a licensed a massage therapist.
Investigators had filed a special report in January 2007, recording the massage therapist’s claims that Gore grabbed and groped her when she gave him a massage at a Portland hotel in October 2006. The woman went public in a June 23 National Enquirer story and held up “soiled” pants for a June 30 Enquirer cover.
On July 1, the Portland Police Bureau reopened its sexual assault investigation into the former vice president. Officials said the extra review was needed as detectives looking into the matter this past year failed to notify high-ranking officials of the decision to drop the case.
The Enquirer has published the stories of two other massage therapists. Those therapists, who worked at hotels in Tokyo and Los Angeles, have also claimed Gore made unwanted sexual advances toward them.
Now with more allegations out there (link), it’s becoming more clear that Al Gore apparently puts “the rapist” back in massage therapist.
A friend returned from the Afghanistan theater recently got the “scrambled” look on his face when I asked if the Taliban had leftover CIA stinger missiles. By “scrambled” I mean the look that friends in “alphabet agencies” get when you wind up asking them something that’s a bridge too far about their work. It’s kind of a pained expression, as if you’ve triggered a painful memory of the promise of federal penitentiary if they lapse and let it out.
He changed the subject and I didn’t push (I don’t want my friends to go to jail or break oaths), I figured it wasn’t an unreasonable question because some Stinger missiles had to have been left there in the 1980′s and I would guess that if they were distributed to rebel groups they’d be tough to track down.
Anyway, among the Wikileaks document leaks (via Daily Mail) about Afghanistan comes this answer on the question (link):
The Taliban has acquired surface-to-air missiles and used them to shoot down a coalition helicopter, the logs reveal.
A British Army photographer, Corporal Mike Gilyeat, 28, was among seven soldiers killed when a Chinook was blasted out of the skies over Helmand in May 2007.
The leaked documents also report coalition aircraft coming under fire from Stinger missiles – supplied to Afghan rebels by the CIA to help them fight the Soviet invaders in the 1980s.
Several Soviet Hind helicopters were brought down – one of the reasons the Kremlin decided to withdraw troops and abandon the country in 1989.
U.S. and British commanders have been accused of covering up the fact that the deadly missiles had fallen into the hands of insurgents.
The leaked documents record at least ten near-misses by surface-to-air weapons fired at coalition aircraft in the last four years. However, top brass have insisted that missiles passing within yards of allied helicopters were actually rocket-propelled grenades.
Insurgent leaders, who have no aircraft, are known to prize the downing of allied planes as part of their propaganda war. Colonel Stuart Tootal, who commanded the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment in Helmand Province in 2006, has warned it is a case of ‘when, not if’ a UK helicopter packed with troops is shot down by insurgents.
Helicopter pilots who saw the CH-47 Chinook carrying Cpl Gilyeat, of the Royal Military Police, five U.S. crew and a Canadian soldier nosedive to the ground reported that it had been hit by a ‘Manpad’ – a military term for a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile.
The fears were apparently confirmed by two Apache attack helicopters hovering over the crash site which also came under fire from missiles 30 minutes later.
While both devices missed, the pilots reported that they were ‘not an RPG’ but a ‘probable first-generation Manpad’.
The entry added: ‘Clearly the Taliban were trying to down an Apache after downing the CH-47.’
In June 2006, a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter evacuating casualties came under fire 25 miles from Kandahar but evaded the missile.
The log report read: ‘The crew chief saw only the smoke trail due to evasive manoeuvring but determined that the missile was a type of Manpad.’
Maybe they could have a Stinger missile buyback program. Offer them a virgin goat for each missile or something.
Oh look, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) hired Captain Frikkin Obvious to do some groundbreaking research!! (link):
New GAO Report Finds Students with Disabilities Face Challenges to Participate in School Sports
Lawmakers Urge Secretary Duncan to Clarify and Communicate Schools’ Responsibility to Support All Students Participation in Sports
June 24, 2010 3:44 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report yesterday that found schools provide students with and without disabilities similar opportunities to participate in physical education (PE), but face serious challenges when serving students with disabilities in general PE classes and extracurricular athletics.
The report was conducted at the behest of U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), chair of the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee, U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Assistant to the Speaker and U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), chair of the Senate Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee.
“All students, including students with disabilities, should be able to reap the benefits of physical activity and team sports in school and in life,” said Miller. “It is clear from this report that we need to work harder to remove the obstacles students with disabilities face in physical education and athletics.”
“While many schools have made great strides educating students with disabilities in mainstream academic classrooms, sports programs and physical education classes are the final frontier for full inclusion in schools,” said McCarthy. “The benefit of increased physical activity of all people, including those with disabilities, is well established, but understanding the barriers to participation specific to students with disabilities is critical to crafting appropriate responses. The GAO report is a step toward understanding and addressing these barriers. I look forward to working with Chairman Miller, the Department of Education, and interested students, parents, and groups to respond to the concerns raised and recommendations provided in the GAO report.”
“I thank the GAO for conducting this study. As we see from their conclusions, while many schools make good faith efforts to include students with disabilities, we can do more to provide guidance on best practices and the requirements of the federal law. I look forward to working with the Department of Education to disseminate this information on the local level,” said Van Hollen.
If this isn’t government waste on a criminal scale, I don’t know what is. You know what? In addition to the unfortunate fact that school sports often exclude the disabled, the physically disabled are also excluded from military combat roles. DO YOU KNOW WHY? I’m just glad our nation has found the resources with a $13 Trillion deficit to figure this out. Damned wastrels should be incarcerated.
From the story (via Say Uncle) on the German troops in Afghanistan not having enough ammo comes this commentary on practical adequacy of the 5.56 NATO round (link):
The commissioner explained: “There is a lack of ammunition for deployment and training. This is partially caused by the extremely high consumption in the field. That, in turn, is due to the Bundeswehr using weapons which require an elevated ammunition usage. The small calibre ammunition does not have a large impact depth and often doesn’t achieve the intended effect.”
Fortunately my AR is semi-auto, so I won’t waste as much ammo failing to penetrate targets. Ruh Roh.
Maybe Obama lap-dogs like Michael Smerconish or the spinners at Journolist can come up for a good explanation of this. Blame it on the big corporation first (link):
President Barack Obama on Tuesday welcomed the congressional investigation into any role BP may have played in the release of the only man, a Libyan, convicted of the 1988 airline bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, an inquiry that could reveal whether the embattled oil giant lobbied for the bomber’s release to win drilling rights in Libya.
“I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber,” the president said, speaking in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. “We welcome any additional information that will give us insights and better understanding on why the decision was made.”
Here’s some potential insight for ya, basehead (link):
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as “half-hearted” and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future “frank and open communications” with other governments.
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
The note added: “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”
Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland “would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi’s release”.
The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.
It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.
The US Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi’s doctors thought he could live for another decade.
A source close to the Senate inquiry said: “The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer.”
Ahh yes, let’s see if/when this appears in the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times. The Cabalist needs to move quickly to blame this on Andrew Breitbart.
I’m pretty sure the entire GIN has turned off the radio when it comes to “nationally-syndicated host” Michael Smerconish. We’ve discussed him before- he played a conservative host on the radio and then began to reevaluate his views (or maybe evaluate for the first time) a few years ago. He did some good work on keeping Mumia in jail and does write some books for little personal profit (donating to causes). We had it figured out long before the 2008 election that he was going to dump the GOP candidate. And he did so for Obama, and then has gotten some access to administration officials and was nationally syndicated shortly after the ’08 election by a Capital group filled with lefties.
To take the “morning drive” segment out of play for the GOP in the Philly ‘burbs on the big AM talkradio channel was a huge thing. To tell “moderates” that Obama’s not such a bad guy, to minimize his associations, c’mon, it’s old Mikey here telling you how it is. How many listeners each day went to work after being told “he’s a good guy…” What if a Hannity was on the radio then? How many listeners would’ve gone into their offices and had that watercooler conversation about “can you believe what Obama’s minister said?” These things ripple, and someone knew that. I’d almost bet for every listener that hears it, ten more people hear of it.
Now I’m not one to say Smerconish “sold out”. But he’s definitely profited from sticking to his embargo on criticizing Obama. I don’t know if it’s written into his contract, but he knows who’s supporting his shows (and I’m guessing it’s not listenership).
I do read Smerconish’s columns on Philly.com (he’s kind of a token GOP guy that works for Democrats), mainly to see if he’ll ever criticize the President. Inevitably, his columns target new media (bloggers and talk radio), conservatives in the GOP, or talk about something completely inane (using the “Seinfeld”-esque “it’s about nothing at all” template).
Today Smerconish weighs in on Andrew Breitbart, bringing nothing new to the table but taking the opportunity to lambast his standard targets. Rather than just commenting online, I figured I’d put my comments parenthetically in with the column (link):
By Michael Smerconish – Inquirer
Inquirer Currents Columnist
Last week, blogger Andrew Breitbart released a mischievously edited video. It showed a black Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, recalling her seemingly racist reluctance to assist a white farmer more than two decades earlier. Some in the audience of NAACP members are heard engaging in a sort of call-and-response approval of Sherrod’s sentiments. Reacting to the edited video, Sherrod’s boss, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, demanded her resignation.
Now imagine if it had gone a little differently – if, before Sherrod could resign, the White House had intervened and saved her job. Imagine the reaction of those now trying to put President Obama at the center of this debacle by blaming him for Sherrod’s unnecessary resignation (like leftist Daily News Senior Writer and alleged-”Journolister” Will Bunch of Attytood, who called it “A Political Lynching- By the Obama Administration”). They would have been outraged if he had backed her up in the face of the initial information (Nope, they would’ve blindly supported him).
Should Vilsack have investigated further? Yes. (So sue him) Ditto for the NAACP. (The NAACP President was mentioned being in the audience of the f-ing video, unless he was used to sitting in for white-bashing sessions, don’t you think he would’ve said “no way I was there for that”?) But White House spokesman Robert Gibbs should not have been the first to offer Sherrod an apology. It should have been Breitbart, the man who started the controversy. What he did was tantamount to releasing the Zapruder film minus the moment of impact. (great analogy?)
Breitbart’s explanation – that he didn’t realize the video had been so maliciously manipulated – only amplifies his irresponsibility. Of the “source” who gave him the video, he told the Daily Beast: “I don’t know this person. I can’t divine what that person’s motivation was. I don’t know.”
A little less trust and a little more verify next time, Mr. Breitbart. (He contacted the NAACP for comment/verification, and they denounced her)
Even shallower was Breitbart’s description of his own motivation: “The video shows racism, and when the NAACP is going to charge the tea party with racism . . . I’m going to show you it happens on the other side.” (I agree. This attack on Shirley Sherrod is no different than Ben Jealous slandering TEA parties)
Even if you take that bogus explanation at face value, Breitbart at least should have highlighted the fact that the NAACP audience also expressed approval when Sherrod brought her story full circle and said poor people of every race need help. But he didn’t.
Such are the pitfalls of a media world in which everyone plays whisper-down-the-lane, but nobody fact-checks the message. (Whisper down the lane sounds a lot like a listserv of journalists and democrat operatives…)
The reality is that the audience’s reaction was not a tacit approval of Sherrod’s momentary reluctance to help a poor white farmer. Rather, it was the kind of response you might hear when any engaging story is told in an African American church (Smerconish has accepted Obama’s premise that Obama’s church was just any church). Any remotely honest observer who watches Sherrod’s full speech must acknowledge that the audience was rooting for her ultimate redemption – not applauding her outdated shortcomings.
Too bad everyone – including Breitbart, his loyal readers, the media, the NAACP, and the Department of Agriculture – was willing to accept the video at face value. To fully understand why they did, a little context is in order.
First, in the polarized media world we live in, Breitbart enjoys credibility he does not deserve. (If only he’d gone to Penn for law school) The only credential required to cast oneself as a media player today is a partisan one. (Again, the elephant in the room is Journolist) If you are willing to conform to the artificial extremes of left/right, liberal/conservative, and blue/red, you get a keyboard or a microphone and, voilà, you are in business!
Some of those bearing such credentials have conditioned their audiences to believe that Obama is a racist. (Conditioned is a little condescending tone for a guy who depends on the same demo’s of listeners for his own ratings. What are we, little Pavlovian bitches?) Glenn Beck has said the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” Rush Limbaugh called the commander in chief “the greatest living example of a reverse racist” after his Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, herself an alleged “reverse racist” and “hack.” Newt Gingrich, who also called Sotomayor the R-word before walking the comment back, charged that Sherrod showed a “viciously racist” attitude. ( “racist” might not be the best term, it’s more that he believes the leftist slams against “White” western civilization, of which the nation he leads has traditionally played a large role).
All the false charges (proven false how?) of racism condition these talking heads’ followers to readily accept that a minority woman speaking any ill of white farmers must be racist, without even pausing to wonder if there could be more to the story. (The words were pretty clear, and played in the context they were didn’t require any more thought to whether she had an axe to grind with white farmers)
Which is not to say there isn’t plenty of blame to go around. Vilsack and the NAACP should have reserved judgment, especially if Sherrod was telling them that Breitbart’s clip was part of a longer speech with a different message (which, presumably, she was). The news outlets that ran with the clip also should have done more to determine whether it was authentic.
The only mistake the White House made was in failing to tune out Breitbart, the same “journalist” who lent his heft to a guy later charged in a plot to tamper with phones in the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.). (Isn’t “guilt by association” a PC thought-crime? Didn’t Smerconish criticize Bill Ayers as an attempt to sink Obama by Guilt By Association? (link) What about smearing Breitbart with the “charge” of another person, not the conviction? James O’Keefe wasn’t trying to tamper with the phones, he was trying to prove that the Senators’ offices were ignoring the calls of their constituents, something that a “journalist” might want to report on.)
The administration would have been better off remembering the words then-Sen. Obama spoke in the midst of another racial kerfuffle: “The profound mistake of Rev. Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society,” Obama said at the National Constitution Center. “It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made. . . . But what we know – what we have seen – is that America can change. That is [the] true genius of this nation.”
We should have known right away that Shirley Sherrod was making the same point. For missing it, Tom Vilsack owed her the apology he offered. For obscuring it, Andrew Breitbart owes the rest of us one as well. (For accepting the role of public gadfly and doing nothing to stop what is happening to this nation, Smerconish owes us one too.)
We’re beginning to see the impacts of the insidiously horrendous legislation that’s been passed here on the ground, and with the passage of the “Financial Reform” bill we’ll see even more. Smerconish is building the case to take over as the “reasonable” guy when the Fairness Doctrine is unveiled, and advance himself by way of government intrusion. In the grand scheme of things, someone whowillfully joined with the destroyers, profited by them, and became a passive enabler is far worse than an Andrew Breitbart who (provided he didn’t know what he was doing) posted something without being sure it wasn’t edited.
Remember, Smerconish and the left are attacking Breitbart for posting the video (which generated the conversation leading to the truth). Breitbart sought confirmation from the NAACP, as it was an NAACP event, and they publicly condemned Sherrod. What are we to take away from that?
In case you noticed, the blog was down for a few hours. I guess my renewal notice went to my spam box, so I missed the renewal. Should be good to go now.
Dear North Korea, you don’t have to follow through on your threats to make me believe you’re deranged enough to do this or impress anyone. Sincerely, BadIdeaGuy (link):
BUSAN, SOUTH KOREA
BUSAN, South Korea (AP) — A massive nuclear-powered U.S. supercarrier readied Saturday for maneuvers with ally South Korea in a potent show of force that North Korea has threatened could lead to “sacred war.”
The military drills, code-named “Invincible Spirit,” are to run Sunday through Wednesday with about 8,000 U.S. and South Korean troops, 20 ships and submarines and 200 aircraft. The Nimitz-class USS George Washington, with several thousand sailors and dozens of fighters aboard, was deployed from Japan.
The North routinely threatens attacks whenever South Korea and the U.S. hold joint military drills, which Pyongyang sees as a rehearsal for an invasion. The U.S. keeps 28,500 troops in South Korea and another 50,000 in Japan, but says it has no intention of invading the North.
Still, the North’s latest rhetoric threatening “nuclear deterrence” and “sacred war” carries extra weight following the sinking of a South Korean warship that killed 46 sailors. Seoul and Washington say a North Korean torpedo was responsible for the March sinking of the Cheonan, considered the worst military attack on the South since the 1950-53 Korean War.
The American and South Korean defense chiefs announced earlier in the week they would stage the military drills to send a clear message to North Korea to stop its “aggressive” behavior.
When you look at how quickly things could escalate, consider the proximity to China and what they’d do if they thought (rightly or wrongly) someone was picking on their little buddy and started a regional nuclear war. As Fidel Castro said the other week (you know it’s a weird day when this blog quotes Fidel), this stuff is pre-programmed.
Thankfully, if it does go nuclear, our military is ready for nuclear war. Right? Oh, nevermind (via Survivalblog via Tam@ViewfromthePorch) (link):
If, by some chance, you end up surviving the nuclear apocalypse, don’t count on the U.S. military to be around to help you rebuild. Or don’t expect all its fancy electronics and communications equipment to work, at least.
That’s the strongly worded, rather ominous assessment from a joint Defense Science Board/ Threat Reduction Advisory Committee Task Force, which warns in a recent report that the military needs to wake up to its vulnerability to nuclear attack.
“Actions — both by others and of our own doing — are combining to create potentially tragic consequences on military operations involving the effects of nuclear weapons on the survivability of critical [military] systems,” notes the report, spotted by InsideDefense.com.
Since the U.S. stopped squaring off against the USSR, American military leaders haven’t been taking nuclear threats that seriously, the report implies. (Do they know something we don’t?)
“Many of the post-Cold War generation of decision-makes simply do not have this issue on their ‘radar scope,’ while others pay little or no attention to it because they fail to see is as a legitimate concern,” the report says.
The Board concluded that there is an “alarming atrophy” in understanding of nuclear issues within the military. It stems from a perceived remoteness of an attack and the cost and complexity of radiation-hardening equipment and training troops for nuclear environments.
Even if we’re past the days of “massive arsenal-exchange scenarios like those of the Cold War,” a limited nuclear engagement could still put military communications systems at serious risk, according to the report.
The American military counts more and more on its communications networks to fight. The task force is worried that infrastructure may not be nuke-proof.
It’s strange to think how much our military technology has created a bottleneck that (say, the loss of geosynchronous satellite communication) could be exploited against us.
