Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Matt Parrott on Buchanan's Endorsement of Romney

Yesterday I reprinted part of Pat Buchanan's endorsement of Romney and remarked that I pretty much agree with it.  But Matt Parrott doesn't, and he has well thought out reasons and a good evaluation of Pat Buchanan's character and role in history.  I hope he's exaggerating the situation, but I'm afraid hes' not.  He says:

I respect Pat Buchanan, but I respectfully disagree with his endorsement of Mitt Romney and his reasons for that endorsement. While I’m somewhat disappointed by it, I’m certainly not surprised. His chosen role is as a sort of gateway between the faux Right and the far Right. It’s a role he performs very well and for which he’s uniquely suited. Unlike virtually every other supposedly “far right” politician on the landscape, he doesn’t hide behind extreme individualism and libertarian fantasies. Beneath his carefully evasive and soft delivery, he’s a White Nationalist. (Read the rest HERE.)

Obama: Less to him than meets the eye?

Lots of theories out there about Obama.  On the pro-Obama side, he's thought of as just the smartest guy ever, who can do anything and make the world oh, so much better.  Or he could, if those nasty Republicans would just roll over and do as he says.  These are people who don't quite grasp the concept of checks and balances.  I remember a vaguely similar notion about Henry Kissinger way back.  They're both exotic, non-American types, so they must be really smart, or so goes the thinking, though it's seldom put that way explicitly.

On the anti-Obama side we have Obama as Marxist, which is fairly accurate, but he's not Mao or even Che.  He's an academic, middle-class Marxist who doesn't like to get his hands dirty dealing with the icky lower classes, and he really doesn't have a grasp of any principle of actual Marxism.  To him, like most of his ilk, Marxism is all about how rotten Western Civilization and the White Race are.  He's got that down pat.

But though that Marxist thing is somewhat accurate, it doesn't really get at Obama's core.  And I think the most significant thing about Obama is his intrinsic insignificance — that is, nothing about him really means anything.  Suits don't get much emptier.  He's not Superman, he's Superficialman.

Steve Sailer thinks Obama is more accidental than occidental, and what he says about him rings true.  Read his theory of what Obama actually is HERE.

Benghazi again

Most of the press is utterly delighted with the hurricane, as it gives them the opportunity to avoid any reporting on the Benghazi disaster.  I made the point a few days ago with THIS that Obama was far, far, more concerned about the death of the wannabe thug Trayvon Martin than he is about the death of Tyrone Woods.  This cartoon says it better:

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Islamophooey

Two words drive me nuts.  "Islamophobia" and "Islamofascism."  A criticism of Islam or a distaste for it does not constitute any kind of a "phobia."  Nor does an awareness of the dangers it presents to outsiders, and, for that matter, its own adherents.  And as for "Islamofascism," well, that's just using "fascism" as a suffix meaning "bad."  Fascism as an ideology is rather indifferent to religion, and is all about the state serving as one's first loyalty rather than social class.  The phenomenon usually called "Islamofascism" is better just called "militant Islam," because that's what it is.  It's anti-nationalistic, if anything.  The closest thing to a Muslim version of fascism would be Ba'athism, which you should read about.  Anyhow, I'm working up to a riddle:  What famous "Islamophobe" said this:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Racism, Racism, Racitty-Racism!

Guest post by DailyKenn that puts racism in perspective:

A lesson in racism


Bob and Tom are friends. They are very much alike. Both are middle aged, both have families and mortgages, and both work day jobs.

There is one obvious difference: Bob is white and enjoys white privilege. Tom is black and faces constant racial discrimination.

To demonstrate that awful reality we asked two volunteers to shadow Bob and Tom for one day and report their findings.

The outcome was shocking.

As Bob was driving to work Monday, a rude motorist cut in front of him. The motorist was obviously a jerk. Another motorist cut Tom off in traffic because he is black.

Bob had the unfortunate experience of being pulled over for exceeding the speed limit. The cop gave him a ticket for his offense. Tom was also speeding but was pulled over by a cop because he was 'driving while black.'

Bob was late for work. No one said anything, but the scowls from the boss were apparent. When Tom arrived late to work he was faced with a racist white employer who gave him that dirty look that says, "I hate you because you're black."

Bob had a few good sales that day, but lost one customer to a competitor. Tom also lost a white customer who obviously preferred to do business with a white salesman at another firm.

After work Bob met his wife at a restaurant for dinner. They had to wait nearly half an hour for a table due to a staff shortage. Tom and his wife faced the indignity of being forced to wait nearly fifteen minutes because the white staff really didn't want to serve Negros.

Upon arriving home that evening, Bob was disappointed to discover a bill from the plumber that was considerably higher than he was originally quoted. Bob decided to call the plumber the next business day and firmly plead his case. Tom received an overcharge from a plumber who, as he knew from years of similar experiences, was trying to rip off the black man.

Bob was also disappointed to receive a letter from a credit card company that had rejected his application. He determined to improve his credit score. Tom received a similar rejection letter and wondered how the lending institution knew he was black.

Bob scolded his young son for getting a "D" in English. Tom complained that institutional racism is so deeply embedded in the education system that his son could never do well, even with his black teacher and school principal.

Bob ended his day by watching a sitcom and then a movie on television. Tom watched a sitcom and was outraged that the black characters were portrayed as white people in dark skin. He was further enraged when watching a movie. Blacks were reduced to stereotypical roles of jive-talking ghetto dwellers.

Bob looked in the mirror as he was brushing his teeth and noticed a gray hair. Tom was brushing his teeth and noticed he was black.

Bob fell asleep that night grateful that he lived in a prosperous nation. Tom had trouble sleeping, his mind occupied with the never-ending legacy of racism in America that he faces everyday.

Reason #4 to vote for Mitt Romney

ILLUSTRATION FROM HERE
Actually, this is more than one reason.  First off, you have four options:

1. Vote for Romney
2. Vote for Obama
3. Vote third party
4. Don't vote

We'll discuss #1 last.  As for #2, that would be senseless, idiotic, self-destructive, and any other adjective of that sort you can think of.  There's talk out there among libertarians of the flaky variety that we need things to get really bad really fast so everybody will see how bad our system is and switch to libertarianism and the best way to get bad really fast is to stick with Obama.  Tortured reasoning.  I reject it.

#3 is, well, a useless gesture at this point.  None of the candidates has any chance of coming near carrying a state.  Most people who like Gary Johnson are, like me, going to vote for Romney as the best we can do.  Nobody is going to pay any attention at all to Johnson's vote totals.  Ron Paul had a big impact on people's thinking.  Johnson will have none.

#4 another useless gesture, even more useless than #3, because non-voters will universally be described as apathetic.

That leaves #1.  Only sensible option.  Yes, Romney is a pain.  Yes, he's a flaming liberal.  But, as I reported elsewhere, none of his sons looks like Trayvon, and he doesn't think that way anyway.  Romney's idea isn't "race and inheritance," but family, nation, and religion. Far from perfect, but utterly delightful when contrasted with the prospect of more of Barack.

Again, I find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan, who says:

Romney for President

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

So wrote John Jay in Federalist No. 2, wherein he describes Americans as a “band of brethren united to each other by the strongest ties.”

Monday, October 29, 2012

Guess what else happened fifty years ago.


Hey, we've all been hearing about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we have another 50th anniversary.  Here's an article from the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation about it:

The 50th Anniversary of the Integrating of Ole Miss:  
A Landmark Toward Improved Race Relations

by Allan Brownfeld
fitzgerald griffin foundation


ALEXANDRIA, VA -- On the night of September 30, 1962, hundreds of federal marshals and thousands of Army and National Guard troops confronted a violent mob of segregationists on the campus of the University of Mississippi -- Ole Miss. Two people were killed and hundreds were wounded. The next morning, James Meredith enrolled in classes and Ole Miss was integrated.

       In September 2012, that anniversary was celebrated with a program called "Opening the Closed Society." The program's name is a reference to the book, Mississippi: The Closed Society, written in 1964 by James W. Silver, an Ole Miss history professor. Professor Silver, who died in 1988, was hounded by white supremacists and left the university a year after the book was published.

       Today, the president of the student body is a black woman and so is the homecoming queen. Writing in The New York Times, Kitty Dumas, a writer and communications consultant who is completing a memoir, reflected on her arrival as a student in 1982:

       "The university was for so long synonymous with violence and racial hatred, and I, an African-American woman and a native Mississippian, am linked as is everything else here by the past, which regularly rises to meet us. I am who I am because 50 years ago... James H. Meredith braved a deadly riot of angry whites, described by historians as the last battle of the Civil War. The university's revolution from war to reconciliation in a span of 50 years is a human triumph. This is not to say that it has become a racial and social utopia; that was never anyone's goal, anyway. Nevertheless, Ole Miss is a modern-day history lesson in what is possible."

       Dumas recalls, "Last year, on a different trip to Ole Miss, I was asked to share my memories in a videotaped interview. After the interview, a young white man, the student who had been behind the camera, approached me with an outstretched hand. 'I just want to thank you for what you did for us,' he said.... I was gratified by his realization that the changes had been for him, too.... At 50, I am part of a generation of African-Americans who were not Medgar Evers, James Meredith, Martin Luther King, Jr., or countless others....We did not take the beatings, feel the sting of hoses, endure a thousand and one indignities....We are old enough to have attended segregated schools by law, to have felt the tug of fear and angst before we could explain it. Yet we are young enough to have college educations we needed only to apply ourselves to achieve, to own iPhones on which we can read news of a president who looks like us. We have a front-row seat at American history, with a debt we can never repay no matter our achievements. We are like refugees not from another country, but from another time, carrying memories that propel us forward."
       It is unfortunate that, despite dramatic improvements in race relations -- including the election of a black president -- charges of "racism" seem to proliferate, particularly in our current political campaign.


To show how race relations have changed
over the past 50 years, Mitt Romney was
rebuked by a culture writer for criticizing
policies of Barack Obama.
         
       The culture critic Toure, for example, rebuked Mitt Romney for calling on the president to take his "campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago." Romney also said, "This is what an angry and desperate president looks like." This, of course, was typical overheated campaign rhetoric -- to be found on all sides. But Toure found a racial subtext: "You notice he said 'anger' twice. He's really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes against the angry black man. This is part of the play book against Obama, the 'otherization' -- 'he's not like us.... This is 'niggerization.' You are not one of us, you are the scary black man who we've been trained to fear."

       On MSNBC, Chris Mathews, interviewing Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus on the party's criticism of Obama's welfare policy, declared:  "When you start talking about work requirements, you know what game you're playing, and everybody knows what game you're playing. It's a race card."

       If America is a "racist" society, and candidates are appealing to race to gain votes, why do public opinion polls show that the public prefers Obama as a person to Mitt Romney? Washington Post columnist Charles Land notes, "Most whites express admiration for his (Obama's) intellect and character -- not what you'd expect racists to say. The Pew Research Center's January 2012 survey found that large majorities of non-Hispanic whites call Obama a 'good communicator,' someone who 'stands up for his beliefs,' 'warm and friendly,' 'well informed'....Whites' views are less favorable now than they were when Obama took office, but they declined at the same rate as everyone else's."

        Gallup has consistently found that about 20 percent of Americans would not vote for their own party's presidential candidate if he or she were a Mormon. In contrast, only 5 percent now say they would refuse to vote for an African-American.

       It is time to recognize that we have undergone a dramatic change in race relations in recent years. As the demographics of our society changes, our country is no longer divided between white and black. There are increasing numbers of Hispanics, Asians, and others. Our society has shown an ability to make men and women of every background into Americans. In the 19th century, many doubted whether the Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants could ever assimilate. Now they are simply referred to as "white." To belabor any tensions that exist at the present time is to ignore the larger, positive story.

       The 50th anniversary of the integration of Ole Miss should provide an opportunity to recognize the dramatic strides we have made. Recently, one-time black radical, the poet LeRoi Jones, who changed his name to Amiri Baraka, recalled:  "Newark, pre-1967, is a different place.... I used to get held by the police for going to a poetry reading. The police would take the script out of my hand. That's like living under some kind of fascism. This is another era. My son is a councilman in the South Ward. In a sense, that's what we always wanted, that he'd go away to school and not disappear into the suburbs with some degree. His brother is his chief of staff. His other brother is his chief of security."

       If Amiri Baraka can recognize the progress we have made, there is no reason the rest of us cannot as well
 ###

Betcha don't know what became of James Meredith.  Kind of interesting that he was a Republican.  Make of that what you will.  Wikipedia article HERE.  But it leaves out his association with David Duke.  That's discussed HERE. I don't entirely agree with the 'progress' theme of this article.  Actual progress wouldn't involve so much race-rioting as we have these days.  But some of these facts are worth knowing.

"First Time" parody

If you think about it, it's hard to tell the difference between feminism and misogyny.  Or maybe, feminism is just a version of misogyny for women.  You keep hearing stories about these awful Republicans who hate women.  When you dig into the story, "hate women" equals "aren't knee-jerk liberals or sycophants to femism." Those of us on the right respect women and think them capable of rectitude and rational thought.  On the left, they encourage them to behave irresponsibly and to chant slogans instead of thinking.  At any rate, nice parody here.

This napkin doodle offends dogs

Guest post from Baloo.

Ex-army's been using a lot of my political cartoons lately, what with the election and all, but instead of inflicting another one on you today, here's one that just arrived over the e-mail transom from the great Dave Holle. (That link should have some good stuff soon.)  Anyhow, this is an art form probably originated by Da Vinci when he was down at the corner bar and didn't have anything to draw on but paper napkins. This tradition continues with Dave, who did this:
No, not ready for publication as is, so I diddled with it in Photoshop, and this is the best I could do.  


I'm sure somebody with more Photoshop skill could do better, but I wanted to get this on the blog to inspire as much anti-Obama electioneering as possible.  More Dave Holle stuff HERE.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Racism Explains Everything

Cartoon by BALOO
Not looking too good for the Obama.  As I was saying to a friend the other day, just visualize a person who voted against Obama four years ago.  Now try to visualize that person saying, well, I sure was wrong about Obama.  Things are so much better now.  So I'll change my mind and vote for him this time.  I'm not saying such a person doesn't exist, but I will say that he's a rarity.  On the other hand, there's quite a gang of the opposite types:  those who voted for the Great White Hope and Change four years ago, but damn well won't do that again.  Even those who think Mitt is icky will enthusiastically vote for him to get Obama out of office.

So the Obama lovers out there who see defeat coming are trying to figure out how to explain the defeat away as anything except the just plain pathetic awfulness of the Obama administration.  And guess what the overwhelmingly most popular explanation will be.  C'mon, you've heard the word often enough — racism — used to explain away everything from poor test scores to mass murder.

As a matter of fact, the Associated Press is on the Obama team, and has already conducted a poll designed to prove that it will be White racism that denies Obama a second term.  Steve Sailer reports on it HERE.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Another Version of "Comparisons"

This one should go viral, too — send it and/or the URL to everybody, especially "Homeland" fans.

Comparisons

Another one that needs to go viral.  Spread the file around or just the URL or both:

Génération Identitaire

We're not alone.  The MAG (Median, Academia, Government) want us to think we are, and give us the impression that the concept of pride in being White or a member of Western Civilization is outmoded, stupid, and racist, and that only a few American rednecks believe in such nonsense, now that the Vibrant New South African government is completing its program of White genocide.  But that's not so.  There are a lot of people throughout the Western World who are thoroughly sick of the "hate whitey" theme of practically everything, but they have their own MAG, and, like us, feel kind of alone in their opposition to the Zeitgeist.  But, as I say, we're not alone.  The Greeks are catching on that oodles of African immigrants isn't what they need to get their economy straight.  Germans are wondering if they really need all those Turks.  Brits have had it up to here with their own idiotic immigration system.  And now, in France, the Génération Identitaire is expressing itself.  They have a website HERE that most web browsers will translate into English for you if you don't read French.  So cheer yourself up.  Watch the video, and maybe even achetez le t-shirt.


Transcript:
From "The Generation of National Identity"| - A Declaration of War
We are Generation Identitaire.
We are the generation who get killed for glancing at the wrong person,
for refusing someone a cigarette, |or having an "attitude" that annoys someone.
We are the generation of ethnic fracture,
total failure of coexistence,| and forced mixing of the races.
We are the generation doubly punished:| Condemned to pay into a social system
so generous with strangers it becomes| unsustainable for our own people.
Our generation are the victims of the May '68'ers| who wanted to liberate themselves
from tradition, from knowledge and authority in education.
But they only accomplished to| liberate themselves from their responsibilities.
We reject your history books to re-gather our memories.
We no longer believe that „Khader" could ever be our brother,
we have stopped believing in a „Global Village" and the „Family of Man".
We discovered that we have roots, |ancestry and therefore a future.
Our heritage is our land, our blood, our identity. | We are the heirs to our own future
We turned off the TV to march the streets.
We painted our slogans on the walls. Cried through loudspeakers
for "youth in power" and flew our Lambda flags high.
The Lambda, painted on proud Spartans' shields, is our symbol.
Don't you understand what this means ? |We will not back down, we will not give in.
We are sick and tired of your cowardice.
You are from the years of post-war prosperity,|retirement benefits, S.O.S Racism and
„diversity", sexual liberation and a bag of rice from Bernard Kouchner.
We are 25 percent unemployment,|social debt, multicultural collapse
and an explosion of anti-white racism.
We are broken families, and young French soldiers dying in Afghanistan.
You won't buy us with a condescending look,
a state-paid job of misery and a pat on the shoulder.
We don't need your youth-policies. |Youth IS our policy.
Don't think this is simply a manifesto.|It is a declaration of war.
You are of yesterday, we are of tomorrow.
We are Generation Identitaire.| 

Beware of Blue Helmets

We right-wing fanatics have been saying "Get the US out of the UN" for a long time now, and the converse, "Get the UN out of the US," is becoming more and more apropos.  You were aware, were you not, that we will have UN observers at our Presidential election?  Actually, this has been going on for several years, but this year, to his credit, the Texas Attorney General is threatening to arrest the sons of bitches.  This annoys people like Janez Lenarčič, and I'm sure our Founding Fathers wouldn't want to offend someone with a name like that.

So I say arrest them, shred their passports, and send them back to Ruritania or Jolliginki or wherever.  If we had an actual President, instead of a Prom King, that would be automatic.  DailyKenn explains why we need to do that.

Welcome UN inspectors


How to avoid becoming an alcoholic: Decline that first 'harmless' drink.

How to avoid being policed by the United Nations: Refuse that innocuous inspection.

When I was little my dad took me to a rescue mission in downtown Indianapolis. Wondering why the leather-skinned men were dressed in tattered clothing, were dependent on charity for a single night's shelter, and seemed to the last one to be smitten with a mental fog, I asked my dad to explain.

He informed me these were alcoholics; street people who, at the time, were labeled with the less generous term, "bums." They had surrendered their families, livelihoods and lifestyles in deference for a constant flow of alcoholic beverages.

It seemed insane, even surreal.

But sitting at the side while dozens of drunkards mumbled through the obligatory hymns and slouched through a sermon by a fiery, red-faced, fundamentalist preacher, I had no choice but to absorb reality.

I considered.

If any one of these guys had refused their first drink he would not be here. He would be sitting at home, enjoying the evening with a wife a family; watching Leave It to Beaver or laughing at Jackie Gleason. He would be wearing decent clothing like my dad and the other churchmen. He would have a car and enough cash to buy food for himself and his family. He would have his right mind.

I made a decision that I would be that one guy who never imbibed in a first swig.

That was over fifty years ago. I've never chugged a beer, sipped wine, or tasted anything considered to be an alcoholic beverage. Overweight? Just a tad. But sober.

The presence of United Nations monitors assigned to oversee our elections is akin to a first drink. We are told they are harmless. So why not allow them to snoop? After all, they have no authority and, in the end, will generate a few reams of reports that no one will read.

What's the big deal?

Think Pandora's box.

The problem should be apparent. We are being imprinted. We are being taught to ignore the presence of de facto UN cops in our neighborhoods. We will grow accustomed to them and consider their increasing presence to be a normal part of our lives and infrastructure.

Let them have a look, they say. We have nothing to hide.

Today they will inspect our elections. In time they will be welcomed observers of our civil rights applications, our education structures, and our process of social justice. As they assure our voting is proper, they will assure our Affirmative Action policies meet international standards.

They will take note of affinity associations deemed 'hate groups' and assure their demise. They will look into our neighborhoods and recommend, then demand, they be appropriately integrated. They will eschew to evils of unfair privilege, observe jurors inflicted by prejudice, and take note of unequal distribution of punishment through incarceration.

They will enforce their ISO standards on every aspect of our lives and, in time, guarantee we meet international standards of social and economic Marxism.

But only if we take the first drink.

Barry & George

Some of you young whippersnappers out there might not be aware of a couple of odd facts in political history.  The first is that the Republican Party, until the Goldwater upheaval, was the socially-liberal party.  It's always been more business-oriented — that goes back to Fremont and Lincoln — but being dominated by the Eastern Establishment of Rockefellers and Scrantons and such, it was always socially liberal on sex and race and that sort of thing, while the Democrats were mostly socially conservative.  And that's a second fact.  Democrats of, say, 1940, thought a lot more like George Wallace than George McGovern.  On the social side, Republicans of that era thought more like Barry Soetoro than like Barry Goldwater.  I know, that's quite a stretch, but I couldn't resist the name thing.

Pat Buchanan lived through the change, and was paying attention.  He tells us about George and Barry and the changes they wrought HERE.

Friday, October 26, 2012

More Reaction to Benghazi












Pass this around, or at least the URL. Make it go viral.

The Ideal Democratic Woman

Sandra Fluke, the Ideal Woman according to Democrats
Here she is.  Whiny, single, needy, promiscuous, barren, non-productive, parasitical, and, dare I say, bitchy?  Kind of like Julia, only real.  A Judas goat in the real war on women, declared by the left, which is also a war on men, children, and civilization itself.  But a small price to pay for the coolness of Obamaism, right?  Sandra would say so.  I'm starting to rant here, so, speaking of coolness, I'll hand the microphone over to DailyKenn, who, is, well, cooler on the subject than I am, but more incisive, if anything.


Why women are shifting to Romney



Moron. How could Obama be so obnoxious as to think his trashy pick-up lines would work?

And the phase, 'War on Women' is just that: A pick-up line.

Women understand that Obama isn't interested in them. He wants nothing more than to screw them over for their vote; to use them. They are offended!

Consequently, women voters are brushing off Obama.


1. Pick-up lines

Obama is the sleezy sot in the seedy saloon who sees every woman as the two-bit slut.

This was made evident by the Sandra Fluke narrative crafted by the marketing fops in the Obama camp. Obama thinks every women is a 'Sandra slut'.

How could anyone be more disgustingly offensive?

Women know that the phrase 'War on Women' is nothing more than their degrading pick-up line.

To Obama, the iconic woman is a delusional 30-year-old slut who is obsessed, not with her family or making a living, but with contraceptives. When you see photos ops of a crowd of Obama supporters, the nation's first black president views those women as nothing more than a crowd of cheap whores whose votes can be had for a pick-up line and the promise of free contraceptives.


2. Pandering

Obama's handlers underestimate the American character. They presume that we are a nation of selfish, egocentric leftists who want something for nothing. Obama's miscalculation will cost him the election.


3. Patronizing

Obama's over-zealous attention to women is obviously disingenuous. He attempts to think in terms of segregation. He fails to view us as Americans and chooses, instead, to isolate women as a class unto themselves. The fatal flaw is failing to realize that women are directly affected by the cost of gasoline, rising food costs, and the insanity of Obamacare mandates.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Whew! That was close....

Cartoon by BALOO
Yes, I'm going to vote for Romney.  Not with any enthusiasm, understand, because there's damn little I agree with him about.  He mostly agrees with Obama, not me. Same foreign policy, and no fundamental differences in economic policy.  And, finally, no detectable difference on the immigration disaster.  On the other hand, I find it, if not palatable,  at least possible to vote for Romney because he didn't pick the despicable Marco Rubio as a running mate.  Rubio, as I've pointed out before, is a ready-made traitor, and also thinks of himself as a Trojan horse for what amounts to unlimited immigration from Latin America and probably everywhere else, too.  Think about it, people — Anybody who wants your ethnic group replaces by another ethnic group is not a fried of your ethic group.  Capeesh?

Here's what "Washington Watcher" has to say about our narrow escape (so far) from the wretched Rubio:

Look On The Bright Side—We Dodged A Bullet When Romney Passed Over Rubio For VP
By Washington Watcher on October 24, 2012 at 9:38pm


Yes, Mitt Romney’s slithering away from his previous (relatively) restrictionist posturing during the primaries is disappointing, albeit unsurprising. But there is still no doubt that America dodged a bullet when Marco Rubio was not selected to be the GOP vice presidential candidate.

Ever since being denied the VP nod, Rubio has been touring the country bashing both Obama and the Republican Party for not being sufficiently supportive of mass immigration. (If either were only the case!) Responding to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s assertion that “you can’t just trot out a brown face or a Spanish surname and expect people are going to vote for your party or your candidate,” Rubio agreed: “I think what he’s saying, quite frankly, is true for both parties.”

Needless to say, Rubio, like most Hispanic leaders, does not have aC“brown face.” But if Republicans and conservatives did not have this silly illusion that trotting out a “Spanish surname” would somehow win them the Hispanic vote, Rubio would probably never gotten the nationwide support to mount a US Senate campaign. Certainly he would never have been immediately promoted to national GOP hero.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Trump pulls a fast one on the Barack, or, Trump Trumps Tramp!

Just informed by Luke Oehler on Facebook:

"If Obama releases his college records and passport application records before 5PM on 31 October, Trump will cut a check for $5,000,000.00 to the charity of Obama's choice. So Obama's got a choice of either looking like Trump's little bitch (again) or making people wonder, with an election 2 weeks away, what's so damned incriminating in those records that he'll stiff orphaned, disabled, starving, homeless, inner-city, undocumented-immigrant, vegan lesbian whales with AIDS and cancer out of 5 million dollars just to keep it under wraps. Well played, billionaire with $5 haircut..."

And he adds this suggestion:

"Here's an additional thought- if Trump put the funds in escrow and set up a ChipIn campaign for this, that pot would be $10-15 mil by Monday morning."


What does Trump think Obama will pass on the five mill to keep under wraps?  Some possibilities.  Bad grades?  I doubt it.  Claiming special treatment and freebies as a foreign student?  All too likely.  You see, when Mr. Soetoro adopted Barack, Barack became an Indonesian citizen at the very least, and would a guy like Obama pass on any Affirmative Action goodies?  Not very probable. This applies to his passport records, too, if he's identified as an Indonesian or Pakistani or Kenyan or God knows what on that. On the other hand, it could be something even worse.  If it turns out that Obama's ineligible to be President because of his citizenship status, does that mean the wise Latina woman and the wise Ladino woman aren't officially on the Supreme Court?  God, I hope so.

Read more about all this HERE, or just Google Trump in Google News.

Reason #3 to vote for Mitt Romney

Illustration from HERE.


Romney supporters don't threaten to riot and murder people.  Obama supporters do.  See HERE.  And HERE.  If Romney wins, they will riot because of anger.  If Obama wins, they will riot because of joy.  They will attack Whites, as Tom Sowell says here, without regard to whether they're 'liberal' or not. If they can get past the Secret Service, they'll attack Joe Biden.  They will riot in two weeks no matter what happens.

Video from HERE.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

A Terrifying Mutation!

Here's a disturbing science-fictiony idea. If you're squeamish about biological ickiness, read no further.... Imagine a species, a normal sort of omnivore.  Certain individuals undergo a mutation, enabling them to prey on other species in a unique way — by consuming the other species' milk.  This leads to very weird interspecies relationships, far more complex and intricate than the normal predator-prey structure, with bizarre sexual overtones mixed with bondage.  Whew!  Gregory Cochran, a very imaginative scientist, speculates about this eldritch phenomenon and what to call it HERE.

Tweedlerep for President!

Tweedledem and
Tweedlerep agreed
to have an
election, for
Tweedledem said
Tweedlerep had
far too fair a
complexion....

Well, enough of that. But the tweedle part is somewhat accurate, especially given last night's strange attempt to argue about a foreign policy that they both seem to agree on in every particular.  I get it.  They both love overthrowing Arab dictators, blowing Bedouin up with drones, and kissing up to Bibi.  I get it. Except for a mile disagreement about bayonets, you can't wedge a... well, a bayonet, in between their two positions.

Despite all this, I'll cast my ballot for Tweedlerep, for reasons already given HERE and HERE, but I'm not going to argue with those of you who just can't bring themselves to do it.  And one of you is L. Neil Smith, who says:


The Doldrums
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com

The doldrums is a strip of land and water near the equator where the trade winds, east and west, cancel each other out. Vessels that found themselves there without wind to fill their sails, were said to be "becalmed in the doldrums". A similar nautical expression is "adrift in the horse latitudes". I'm not sure whether they're the same thing.
It's an altogether appropriate metaphor for the political position that we eternally homeless libertarians find ourselves in at this precise moment. We have reached that point in the election cycle— hardly for the first time—where we are compelled to choose between voting for the lesser of two or three or four evils and not voting at all.
The available choices have been very carefully narrowed down for us to an individual whose real name none us of knows, and another we know all to well. One—at least to judge by his past mentors and various offhand remarks he's made over the years—is a communist partisan who has already come very close (with copious help from the previous administration) to wrecking the biggest and strongest economy on the planet.
The fact that he may be a Muslim is the only good thing about him, as he seems inclined in foreign policy to end the preference given for the past sixty-four years to the police state called Israel and to deal more open-handedly with vastly greater populations in the middle east. However he mixes his message by sending killer drones into that same area, seemingly at random, killing the same pregnant widows and ten-year-old goatherds that the previous administration did by other means.
At the same time, the other major candidate has said or done nothing to distinguish himself, policywise, from the incumbent and, in his own way is as much of an enigma as the sitting President. It should be apparent to everyone by now that elections in this country are far from free, that they are pantomimes with scripted outcomes whose only purpose is to legitimize rule by and for the corporate elites.
Most of the time, the elites have been content to let the country be ruled by hired hands. From time to time, however, when feeding this parasitic class has upset the delicate balance, they have felt it necessary to send in one of their own to clean up the mess. The first time this occurred—and I was aware of it—was when Nelson Rockefeller was sent in as Gerald Ford's Vice President after Nixon had made a tangled mess of the economy and all the President could come up with was a big red button that said "WIN", for "Whip Inflation Now".
In those days, inflation could be blamed on greedy capitalists hiking prices so high that nobody could afford whatever they had to sell. Or even more absurdly, inflation was the fault of consumers, for being willing to pay those high prices—for bread or milk, or other frivolities.
The problem is that, today, many more people understand clearly that the birthplace of inflation is the printing presses run by the Treasury Department, and, even more diabolically, the distribution of empty, baseless, fraudulent credit—"air currency"—to favored institutions.
The past two administrations have permitted so much of that kind of criminality that today, the once healthiest nation on the planet is on the brink of economic collapse. So the elites have sent in another pitcher or quarterback or whatever sports metaphor you may prefer, and instead of being a hired hand, he is one of their own. We can judge their power from the outcome of this election. If Obama can defeat Romney, that means they're not as strong as they have been in the past.
For those of us who align themselves with neither group, the Usurpers or the Old Guard, this is a barren season. The one candidate who speaks anything like our language wasn't going to win anyway. But when he reveals his plan to tax us in a whole new way, as I heard him do again, very recently, on a Denver radio talk show, he seals his fate.
That candidate, of course, is the former Republican governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, running under the Libertarian Party banner. Yet Libertarianism is the political expression of the Zero Aggression Principle, which holds that nobody has a right to initiate force against another human being for any reason. No libertarian candidate should be talking about a new tax scheme. He should be conveying our solemn commitment, as individuals, as party members, as Americans, and as human beings to end the ancient evil of tax-slavery forever. As it is, this candidate simply presents himself as a peculiar kind of Republican, and I would no more vote for him than I would for Obama or Romney.
Anyone who knows me or my writing understands why the Green Party candidate is out of the question. It would be fun to attend a news conference given by the Greens and ask her where she stands on the United Nations, Agenda 21, and their award-winningly insane goal to eliminate nine tenths of the human race for the sake of lovely Mother Gaia.
So here we sit in the doldrums, at a moment that ought to be filled with excitement and anticipation, and what have we got, instead?
My ballot has arrived in the mail, and I have not opened it nor marked it yet. It's possible I won't. One candidate—no libertarian, but an individual who understands that it is the function of the Bill of Rights to limit the State; it is not the function of the State to limit the Bill of Rights—was cheated out of his party's nomination. I'd have voted for him gladly, but that choice was illegally denied me.
I wonder who he's going to vote for.

L. Neil Smith is the Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE, as well as the author of 33 freedom-oriented books, the most recent of which is DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis:
[Amazon.com dead tree]
[Amazon.com Kindle]
[BarnesAndNoble.com dead tree and Nook] 
DOWN WITH POWER was selected as the Freedom Book Club Book-of-the-Month for August 2012


Obamucation

What would you expect a kid to learn in, say, "Benny Hill Academy"?  How to tell jokes, how to run like hell from thinly-clad girls chasing him, how to grin like a fiendish little boy? Sure.  A harder question:  What do you suppose it's like at "Barack Obama Global Preparation Academy"?  You'd think they'd teach public speaking and constitutional law and coolness, right? I mean, what better way to prepare to be global or to be a globe or whatever that means.  Well, you would if you're naive. Actually, it's like Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard — not a place for civil disobedience or passive resistance.  No, sir.  In reality, it's in a bit of a mess, but guess who has the solution?

We all owe Steve Sailer a lot for first, finding out about such bizarre phenomena as "Barack Obama Global Preparation Academy," and then for writing about them in his uniquely benign snarky manner.  So here's yet another thing I (and therefore you) would most likely never have heard of if it weren't for Steve Sailer.  Learn all about it HERE.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Welfare and Corruption

Cartoon by BALOO
Power corrupts, sure, but welfare really corrupts.  Probably because the recipients tend to be more weak-willed than average in the first place, and are therefore all the more corruptible.  Yeah, sure, we're all for charity, and helping each other out when necessary.  That's been the case for centuries, and is true in more than one culture.  But in Western Culture today, the trend is to help people out when it's not necessary, and to use public money to do it.  Public money collected by the tax man.

You need a really powerful moral code to avoid such corruption, and when the corruption spreads beyond a certain point, no moral code can stop it.  Let me illustrate:  Everybody in a certain town pays taxes that provide unemployment insurance for everybody.  For years, nobody collects unemployment insurance unless they lose their job because of circumstances beyond their control.  That's the whole theory of unemployment insurance.  People will use it if and only if they need it.  Then, one day, a guy loses his job the usual way, signs up for unemployment, and instead of rushing out to look for another job, decides to take a few days off to relax first.  Other people notice this.  They do the same thing.  Eventually, everybody takes longer off, until they almost all take as long off as the insurance lasts, and then look for a job.  Politicians notice this, decide that jobs are "harder to find" for some reason, and decide to extend the limit on the insurance, and guess what happens.  Next, people start goofing off and trying to lose their jobs now and then, because, hell, they've been paying for unemployment insurance, and why should they pay for a bunch of lazy bastards and never get any of it themselves?

Some places, like, say, Scandinavia, have a very powerful work ethic, and people take longer to get corrupt that way, but it happens eventually.  Other places, like most of the Third World, the corruption takes place instantaneously.

We have a hell of a lot of people corrupted that way right here in the USA, and, no, they're not all Black or Hispanic.  I'm related to some of them.  So is Jim Goad.  He relates his feelings about the freeloaders and layabouts and who they tend to vote for in....



Just as 2011 was the year that no one would shut the hell up about the “99%,” this year’s election season has birthed another obnoxious quotient that refuses to die—the “47%” of Americans that Mitt Romney reputedly mouth-raped at a fundraiser by claiming that they “are dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims.”

Barack Obama’s dutiful cliff-divers, rickshaw drivers, and shoeshine boys seized upon this quote as evidence that Romney is out of touch with average Americans—no argument there, but so is Obama—and that it would drive a fatal wooden spike in the bloodsucking Mormon plutocrat’s campaign.

What surprised me about many of those who felt targeted by Romney’s comment is that not only didn’t they shy away from the insult, they embraced it as a matter of pride—a misguided pride, a defensive pride, a dumb pride, sure—but of pride nonetheless.  (Read the rest HERE.)


Sunday, October 21, 2012

Watch your step, China!

I've blogged before about trouble spots in the Far East that could erupt into actual military conflict.  Most especially, between Japan and China.  We've been led to think of China as unstoppable lately, what with the sheer size of its population and its recent embracing of free-market reforms that does indeed make it a powerhouse.  And its Army had to be enormous, right?  Well, if push ever comes to shove, we might not be ready ourselves, but Japan sure will be.  Look at the training they're giving their high school girls! Imagine what the boys are doing!

You can see more of Girls und Panzer at Crunchyroll.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Whiteness: Defects of the Virtues

People differ, countries differ, cultures differ, and races differ.  Damn shame, maybe, but there it is.  Different people have different strong points and weak points.  If you want to cram a lot of people into a small space and have them live peacefully and efficiently, your best bet is to recruit some Japanese, who have culturally (and probably biologically) evolved to prosper in such circumstances.  You definitely don't want, say, Navajos, who are notorious for preferring to live out of sight of other people.  If you need some running done competitively, you should start with Africans — I believe it's East Africans who dominate the Olympics in either sprinting or long-distance running, I can't remember which offhand.  As a matter of fact, most racial/ethnic stereotypes are pretty much accurate.  Otherwise they wouldn't be stereotypes. Think about it.

Well, my particular group is the White race, and it has a lot of good points.  The modern world and most of its technology was pretty much invented by the White race, starting more or less with the Renaissance.  A lot of the generally-accepted ideas of ethics and morality was largely developed by the White race, starting with the Ancient Greeks and spreading around all over the place.

But virtues have their defects.  The White race tends to be individualistic and democratic in nature, and most of us Whites make the mistake of thinking that everybody really wants to be like us, so we try to extend our individualism and democracy to other groups, most of whom don't want anything to do with them.  That's one example of White pathology, and Matt Parrott has some more.  He says:


Lawrence of Suburbia:
Coping with White Pathology

The White race is uniquely disposed to pathological responses to interaction with racial outgroups because of its relatively strong will to power. This genetic predisposition has fueled a great deal of our progress and is a vital aspect of our racial character, but it introduces unique and potentially fatal vulnerabilities.

Within a random sample of White males, a greater number of them than any other advanced race will be averse to socially submissive behavior. The number of natural leaders outspans the available leadership roles in contemporary society, leading to a variety of racially unique coping mechanisms.

The first coping mechanism is primordial democracy. From the earliest recorded histories of White populations, we find a prevalence of superficially egalitarian social orders. The Germanic ‘thing’ assemblies, the Hellenic experiments in democracy, the Roman Senate, and the development of the American Republic were all products of this social dynamic. The driving force behind this phenomenon is that a distributed power arrangement is the only stable power arrangement when so many of the tribe’s males strive to be the alpha male. (Read the rest, and see some nice illustrations, Here.)

Friday, October 19, 2012

Reason # 2 to vote for Mitt

Cartoon by BALOO
Mitt Romney is nothing to write home about.  He's a liberal Republican, and he's even wishy-washy about that from time to time.  But, here again, it's a matter of contrast.  Romney will do the usual stupid White liberal stuff that Republican Presidents tend to do, which is pretty much the same as what Democratic Presidents do.  But we don't have a regular Democratic President right now.  We have Barack Obama, who has three really big flaws:  1.  He was brought up by radical leftists, including his mother, his grandmother, and his grandfather.  His father, to be sure, was a radical leftist maybe even to a greater degree, but he wasn't around much, as we all know.  2.  When he wasn't being bathed in the basic Marxism of his family, he was a protégé of the corrupt Chicago Daley machine, where he learned to pair his hatred of conventional capitalism with the cronyism and criminality of Chicago politics.  3.  He hates Whitey.  Everybody taught him to, from his proto-hippie-chick mother, who liked to play White goddess to the dark masses (the psychology gets complicated), to his superflaky grandfather, who accused his own leftist wife of racism, to Frank Marshall Davis, to all the educational types who ever coddled him.  Now, to Romney.  He has none of these three flaws.  Not even remotely.  So, please, let's get Obama out of office by getting Romney in, and maybe the Trayvons of the world will feel just a little less empowered to act up and savagely attack Whites when Eric Holder no longer has their back.  Speaking of that, Fred recently wrote:


White Girl Bleed a Lot

The Raging Success of American Racial Policy

October 15, 2012

Having just gotten home after three weeks of travel in the US, I find on the web yet more accounts of racial attacks on whites by mobs of black punks. They grow more common. How long are we going to tolerate this? Why do we put up with it at all?
Because of race. Race almost everything in America, but silently, very silently. The unendingly bad relations between blacks and whites determine even things that ostensibly do not involve race. Race determines admission to universities, what tests can be given to students in high school, who has to pass exams for promotions in police departments whether they can read or not, how many of what groups you have to hire. It determines what can be taught in the schools, what standards are required of teachers, what mode of dress must be permitted to students, even whether standard English may be required.
It is everywhere. Beneath the debate of outlawing guns lies race. Conservatives want guns to protect themselves against blacks, but can’t say so. Liberals want to eliminate guns so as to disarm blacks, of whom they are afraid but cannot say so.  If you think this is not true, tell me who people fear when they buy guns. Are liberals worried about being shot by white, forty-five-year-old duck hunters? Do conservatives expect to find Jewish violinists crawling through their windows at night? Then whom do they fear?  (Read the rest HERE.)



Thursday, October 18, 2012

Dreams....


He had a dream....


And so do we!


Many thanks to NICHOLAS STIX!

The Debate Again

This is the best cartoon response to the last Romney/Obama debate. It's by Gary McCoy, and you can see his other cartoons HERE.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Candy-Coated Debate

This pretty much sums it up.  In case you're unaware, Crowley stuck her oar in to claim that Obama had referred to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act the day after.  In fact, he didn't.  He didn't.  He spent two weeks lying about it, claiming it wasn't a terrorist act. Crowley... Well, just google her and read all the news.

Self-Defense hints for Blacks

Ken Hamblin, a Denver talk-show host, used to advise young Black men that if they wanted to get shot, they should move to a city with a Black mayor, where young Black men get killed at a much higher rate than the national average.  Before you dismiss Hamblin as some kind of racist White guy, look at his picture.  Of course, this death rate for young Black men in such cities is a result of them being killed not by neo-nazis or hillbillies, but by other young Black men.  The Black mayors, by and large, seem to be the enablers in all this, emboldening the young Trayvons to act up because a Brutha is in charge and they can count on feeble opposition by the police and the justice system.  Whatever the reasons, though, it's a funny thing that Blacks in America have always been in the most danger not from Whites, but from other Blacks.  This really ought to be taking into account when formulating policy, don't you think? The statistics are kind of shocking. This from DailyKenn:


Kinsmen, not Klansmen, are killing blacks

by DailyKenn.com

1,500 is a nice round number.

That's the number of homicides committed by the Ku Klux Klan since its inception according to the Tuskegee Institute.

The problem with nice, round numbers: They're almost always bogus; tell-take indications of estimations at best, exaggerations at worst.

If one were to subtract the exaggeration factor, remove those who were killed in self-defense, eliminate murders by rogue Klansmen who acted outside the auspices of the larger groups, and discount goofballs like D.C. Stephenson, you would derive a number mush less than the rounded 1,500. Divide that number (whatever it is) by 1/3 to account for whites allegedly killed by klansters, and you get an honest number of blacks murdered by official Klan edicts.

15 is a nice round number.

But lets set aside my low-ball exaggeration and assume the upper shift is accurate -- just for sake of argument.

A cursive peek at the less-then-reliable data provided by Wikipedia reveals that, over the three waves of Klan activities, there has been a total of 6,556,000 members.

That is, there was 1.5 murders for every 6,556 klansmen. Or, for comparison purposes, a murder rate of .0229%

Let's compare.

In 2011 there were 706,585 residents in Detroit, MI. That same year there were 344 homicides. The murder rate in Detroit, then, was .0487%.

Is that more than twice the murder rate of the KKK? Are we to conclude that blacks in Detroit are more than two time more likely to be killed by their kinsmen than by Klansmen.

Not so fast.

The Detroit stats represent only one year whereas the Klan killing were spread over decades that spanned the century from the conclusion of the Civil War to the advent of the Civil Rights movement. Multiply 344 times 100 to get a more accurate reading.

To be dead-on accurate, pardon the pun, we'd need to compare black-on-black homicides to Klan-ordered black murders ove the same 100-year time frame; that's data we don't have. But relying on what statistics are available, we can draw reasonably accurate assumptive calculations:

The percentile chances of a black person being killed by a Klansman is .0229%. The percentile chances of a black person being killed by a kinsman is 4.087%.

Be mindful. The nice-round stated Klan homicide statistic of 1,500 is almost certainly an over exaggeration to the upside. The murder rate in Detroit is matter of public record.

And, indeed, not all homicides in Detroit were black. Likewise, about one third of the victims attributed to Klan homicides were white folks.

Let's dig deeper.

In 2010 there were about 9 million black males between ages 18 and 49 living in the USA; about 3 percent of the population. 5,942 of those were murdered; nearly all by members of the same demography. By percentile the murder rate among young black males is .066%, or about three times the rate of blacks allegedly killed by Klanmen over a one-hundred year span. If we account for 15 percent of black homicide victims killed by non-blacks, the number drops insignificantly to .056%.

Note, also, that white-on-black homicides are almost non-existent. I know of no reports of the KKK instigating a black murder in over 50 years, though such may exist. The number of black-on-black homicides, however, is a matter of routine headlines in major American cities and cited annually in government crime reports.

For the record, I have no affiliation with the Klan nor have I ever. What's more I don't personally know any Klansmen nor, to my knowledge, have I ever even met a Klansman The above is neither to endorse the Klan nor to discredit young black males. It is merely to engage in the revolutionary act of telling the truth; something few others in the media are willing to do. And the truth is: Kinsmen, not Klansmen, are killing blacks.

source

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Hillary falls on her distaff for Obama, sort of

Hillary has "accepted responsibility" for Benghazi, though it's not clear to me if she's also accepting responsibility for the Obama Administration's lying about it in an outrageous cover-up for a week.  She is, evidently, accepting responsibility for the attack happening and for the fact that security was outrageously inadequate, despite pleading from the now dead Ambassador.  She hastens to say that none of this should be a campaign issue (as does the Ambassador's father), because how crazy would it be for foreign policy to be a campaign issue?  The only proper issue is how cool the candidates are.

But, come to think of it, what exactly does "accepting responsibility" mean in a case like this.  I guess it doesn't mean resignation and a confession of incompetence, no siree.  Does it mean she's going to personally pay compensation to anybody?  Seems not.  Nobody crawls to Canterbury any more. In short, it doesn't mean a damn thing except that we all ought to vote for Obama anyway, because he's so cool, and despite the fact that it's all his responsibility, it's not his responsibility.  It's hers.  But that doesn't mean anything, like i said.  So let's get back to talking about Big Bird and how White Romney is.

For an analysis of the attack and the cover-up, and why it all happened, who better to turn to than PAT BUCHANAN?

Monday, October 15, 2012

A Touching Time Travel Story from Japan

Well, still not feeling very political today, but something interesting, at least. I've already blogged about Joshiraku (じょしらく), and the Rakugo (落語) it's based on. If you followed those links, you sort of know what Rakugo is, but somebody's actually put together a Rakugo episode, or routine, on the video below here. The performer is the main character in Joshiraku, Marii Buratei (蕪羅亭 魔梨威 Buratei Marii) [first name last in Japanese], which, if you say it slowly, turns out to be as close as you can get to "Bloody Mary" with Japanese phonology. That's her pictured to the right. Anyhow, we have Marii telling the story of a time traveller with an ironic twist worthy of Larry Niven or Terry Pratchett.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Interesting Trivia

We were watching an old movie yesterday, and I said:

"Who is that actor, anyway."

Wife:  "Edward Everett Hale, I think."

"No, wait — isn't it Edward Everett Horton?"

"That sounds familiar, too — Which is it?"

So I went to Google, and here's the trivia:  Edward Everett Horton was a character actor you've all seen, probably most prominently as the looney bin manager in Arsenic and Old Lace. He also was the narrator for "Fractured Fairy Tales" in the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" show, if you're old enough to remember that.  That's him in the picture.  Well, his grandfather was Edward Everett Hale, the author of "The Man Without a Country."  Bear with me.  His great uncle was just plain Edward Everett. And he had another great uncle who was Nathan Hale.  Some family, eh?  Gives the Adams bunch a run for their money.