Thursday, June 12, 2008

Around the World Wide Web 66

1. A woman attempts actually to teach in public schools. She fails.

2. He's apologized, but Rupert Everett's statement about today's soldiers being wimps reveals him to be a very stupid man. It's funny coming from this pansy.

Famous liberal actors suffer from living in a double cocoon -- the liberal cocoon and their circle of yes-men and ass-kissers. Within that double shell their idiotic statements go unchallenged.

3. The Clinton Age is not over. The vampire is not dead until you drive a stake through his heart and the morning sun incinerates his body to ashes. Hillary Clinton will be back.

4. Life expectancy in the US continues to rise.

Here are the 2006 life expectancy figures for each of those groups:

  • White women: 81 years
  • African-American women: 76.9 years
  • White men: 76 years
  • African-American men: 70 years

Can we conclude from this that social security, in part, is a system in which African-American men subsidize white women?

5. This is dumbfounding:

"Should Congress quit funding for Public Television and NPR, Public Radio?"

A man named Richard Guess from someplace called Charlestown says, "Congress should continue paying for it because if they don't, the taxpayers will end up paying for it."


6. Edward Cline examines Barack Obama in depth.


Rational Jenn said...

Regarding #3: Where's Buffy when we need her?

Regarding #5: I tremble for our future.

mike18xx said...

Regarding Obama, take a look at this.

-- What's it got to do with Obama, you ask?

Guess what'll be the first that happens once he takes office? Answer: Half of the doddering, senile, 67 million year-old dinosaurs on the Supreme Court will finally resign, enabling Der Messiah to nominate fresh, thirty-something Marxist replacements.

McCain has a head full of rocks, but at least his team of wonks won't propose out-and-out commies.

Kyle Haight said...

Really? Bear in mind that half of the "liberal" justices on the court now were nominated by Republican presidents. (Stevens by Nixon and Souter by Bush 41, as I recall.) The odds of McCain nominating justices who would defend individual rights against encroachment by the state are about zero. They might not be Marxist, but they'll be statist nonetheless.

Joseph Kellard said...

What, no mention of the Lakers' utter collapse in Game 4--one they absolutely had to and should have won? The bottom line is that Kobie is an outstanding player who can carry a team on his back—but no great player in basketball can win a championship without at least one other outstanding player by his side. And like LaBron James in the finals last year, Kobie’s supporting cast just isn’t that good.

Jordan had Pipen, but while he was a good defender, Pipen didn’t provide a whole lot of points like Shaq did when he and Kobie one three rings together. Nevertheless, Kobie was virtually nowhere to be found at the end of Game 4 when he usually and should have shined. The Big Three on Boston are, collectively, just better than Kobie and Co. Ray Allen should get the series MVP, but it will probably go to Peirce. We’ll have to see how the next game, or two or (I doubt it) three go.

Boston in six.

Joseph Kellard said...

Sorry, that's Pippen and Pierce. I've got to edit my posts more often before I send them.

~ JK

Myrhaf said...

No, I was hoping to ignore game 4, the most devastating loss in Laker history. But I look at it this way: now the Lakers have a chance to make more history. All they have to do is win three in a row against a low scoring team. As Yogi said, it ain't over 'til it's over.

If the Lakers don't win, then there's always next year. Bynum will be back at center, Gasol will be at power forward, all the young players will be a little better and now experienced in the finals. I hope Boston is not too old next year to make it back to the finals. Let's keep this rivalry going.

Joseph Kellard said...

Well, the Yankees were up 3 game to one on the Red Sox in the playoffs a few years ago (2004?), but Boston fought back and went on to win the World Series that season -- so there is precedent. In basketball, no NBA team was come back to win the finals after being down 3-1. It’ll be a tough road, esp. to win in Boston, where the Celtics never seem to fall.

mike18xx said...

> Really? Bear in mind that half of the "liberal" justices
> on the court now were nominated by Republican presidents.

I'm well aware of that. What's different is that Obama will nominate thoroughgoing *commies*.

-- And why shouldn't he, if he wins?

Kyle Haight said...

And I still think McCain will nominate thoroughgoing statists. It's possible to be a disaster for liberty without being a communist, you know.

Inspector said...

I think that the nominations will go down like any other aspect of the presidency. There will be no essential difference between the aims and actions of McCain or Obama. What is different is that if Obama does it, people will see it for the commie bilge it is. If McCain does it, there will be a deal of confusion and Republican apologizers and other things which will:

A: Remove resistance and obstacles.

B: Make the blame for the consequences less clearly placed on statism.

mike18xx said...

> What is different is that if Obama does it, people will see it for the commie bilge it'd think so, but eight years of Clinton didn't result in a better Republican Party -- so I don't buy all of this Machiavellian horseshit in re: "It's better than have Obama, because then everyone will see the communism for what it is!"


There is a slight-to-modest chance that McCain would actually nominate someone decent after listening to advice from his aides. With Obama, there's absolutely no chance at all, because his aides are all Marxists.

Kyle Haight said...

I disagree on both counts. Two years of Clinton resulted in the Contract with America and the GOP takeover of Congress. The Contract was the best political platform the GOP had put forth in many years. The fact that they couldn't make it stick, and the Gingrich GOP turned into the Bush/Hastert GOP, doesn't mean the Gingrich GOP wasn't an improvement.

I also think the chance of McCain nominating a decent justice to the SC falls somewhere between 'slim' and 'fat'. The man has more or less declared open war on small-government conservatives, and if elected won't consider himself beholden to them. And even if he were to nominate someone decent, I very much doubt the Senate would vote to confirm. (This latter point is one I never see addressed by the "Vote McCain because of judges" contingent.)