Cavewoman Casting 11/22: The BigAss Reptiles

It seems so unfair, I know, to limit the preliminary casting choices for Cavewoman 2011 (catchy working title) to just those charming anchor-babes and correspondent-babes at the Fox family of networks.  So to be fair, but not necessarily balanced, how about we include a few non-Fox personalities for consideration?

For the TRICERATOPS, I'm thinking Joy Behar, Rosie ODonnell, or maybe Janeane Garofalo. 

Playing the PTERODACTYL, how about Katie Couric or Whoopie?

Helen Thomas, not really a teevee personality (and well, not much of anything, and could use some work), could do a cameo appearance as herself in a death-match against the TYRANNOSAURUS played by Rachel Maddow.

Other ideas?

No Bailout

If you're one of my elected representatives, when California comes seeking assistance from the federal gubmint, just say no.  The voters there have chosen to embrace liberalism instead of responsibility, and should be required to shoulder all of the burdens pertaining to their awful choices.

As Dennis Prager points out in today's TownHall.com,

We watch as one of the greatest places in the world -- with its extraordinary natural beauty, almost uniquely beautiful weather and agricultural abundance -- wastes all of this as a result of having become a left-wing experiment. What is particularly saddening is to see a state whose success was achieved because it was a Mecca for the adventurous in spirit do everything possible to crush that spirit and drive away those who have it.

There is a silver lining here: clarity. Americans living elsewhere need not elect liberal Democrats to know what will happen if they do. They only need to look at California if they want to see what happens to a state governed by the left (and, for that matter, they can look at Texas to see what happens to a state's finances when governed by the right).

The left and its teachers unions have ruined public education in California. The left and its public service unions have saddled the state with $500 billion in unfunded pension liability. California's left-governed cities have set themselves up as "sanctuary cities" for those who have come into America illegally. And the left passes more and more rules governing the behavior of California citizens. Two examples: San Francisco just banned McDonald Happy Meals because they come with a toy and therefore entice children to eat fattening food; and the Democratic legislature has made it illegal for a California employer -- even in a retail operation -- to ask a male employee who comes to work wearing a dress to wear men's clothing while at work.

And the left and its voters have cursed (and continue to do so) the rest of the country with the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, and other career shop-a-holics and big-government fiends.

No bailouts, no pork, no "stimuli", no earmarks, no lifeline.  Sink or swim, assholes.

I ask this rhetorical question of my fellow citizens...If you were asked to support a special tax to prop up the Golden State's "left-wing experiment", how violent would your reaction be?

Intellectual Left?

Contradiction In Terms

The politically charged arguments you have with the screaming-hair-afire nutcase liberal in the cubicle next to you (or in the comments section of your favorite blog), leave you exasperated, and it's not because he has insight and wisdom which you cannot refute.  The reason arguing with him or them gets you nothing but aggravation is because deductive reasoning, logic, and even knowledge are something they avoid.  Want proof?  Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal.

Daniel B. Klein and Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic surveyed 4835 American adults with eight questions, all based on economic principles.  They also asked those participants where they stood politically: progressive/very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative, and libertarian.  The scores are reflective of each person's ability to apply reason and logic to the questions, and designed to give partial credit for actually not knowing, as opposed to pretending to know...which gets no credit.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.


Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.


Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

All the other seven questions are shown in the article, and the ratio of correct answers (demographically sorted) are given as well.  The results are illuminating as to what your debate adversary has in his arsenal of wit, but it still won't help him see the inanity of carrying on the argument.  The argument will only come back around to some, "but what about Bush?"

Which is why the only manner wherein I choose to engage them, anymore, is to smite them with ridicule.  Debate with these fools is no more productive than seeking automotive repair advice from a special needs child.

This also reinforces my argument for a national competency exam as a requirement for voter eligibility.  Am I the only one lamenting the fact that our society is now defined by that which represents average, as opposed to being defined by those people, ideas, institutions, and endeavors which are exceptional?

Keef Undermann Comments!

Or perhaps this is from Chris "You've lost that tingly feeling" Matthews, or Allahpunted, or the O!Bummer himself.  They are all lurkers here at the House of Livermush, and are the suspected authors of frequent anonymous comments to older posts.  This one was received this most-recent Friday but in response to the BLOGBURST of Oct. 23rd.  As if they can vandal-tag my posts when my back is turned and I wouldn't notice.  Don't think I don't recognize the poor command of spelling and syntax you learned from the Cornell Tractor College, Keith.

Nice research but please let me asure you that its not what you think. The Arc is so big that a person would struggle to find the exact centre that they would have to face for prayers. Also you are right that most older Mihrabs are not exactly correct and the intension is what counts, but as a land surveyor myself Obviosuly in this day and age with acurate survey & GPS the norm there is no excuss for new constructions having the direction wrong, the intention would then be false and it would not be a mehrab for prayer to mecca. Either way, you dont have a mehrab without a mosque and its not Islamic custom to make a house of worship to God out of trees.

I say this as a Muslim who strongly opposis any act of terrorism and belives in the True teachings of Islam, not the misinterprated and twisted to suit their objectives religion of terrorists.

Let me just say I ain't buying your "I say this as a Muslim" bit, any more than your half-hearted claim to be a surveyor. If you were a surveyor on the ground there in Shanksville, you'd point your wing-stretched fingertips at the ends of the crescent and slap a 90 (real surveyor's field technique for establishing a surprisingly accurate perpendicular bisector). The architect could have been trying to incorporate an adjustment for magnetic declination, but I don't think so, and I bet you know better, too. His intention is called "plausible deniability." He needs to be able to tell one story ( I didn't design any real Islamic symbolism into it, because if I had, I'd have made it more precise) to the National Parks Service, and the opposite story (This is a Mosque, wherein the greater orientation is slightly off, but with enough interior elements to help you fine tune your direction) to those Muslims he wishes to appeal.

For anyone to suggest that this architect has benign intentions (don't forget that the focus of his grad school thesis was Middle Eastern influence in architecture), is an insult to anyone paying attention.

Also don't discount the presumed "value" for the architect later claiming that the "3-degree error" is reflective of his presumed American inferiority. His intent is to memorialize the terrorists, to symbolically complete their mission by martyring them on the ground in Shanksville. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool. Anyone who vandalizes my blog posts with anonymous comments on old posts is a coward.

And if you really think you've "asured" me: Uh, no. Dipshit.

My assurance will come with the widespread exposure of this dispicable design and the project's cancellation.

Puttin' the biscuit in the basket

If you've been doing as you were told, you've been coming here on a daily basis and checking through my blogroll for updated nuggets, and at least clicking the Ann Coulter link on a weekly basis so some of her brilliance might rub off on you. Something tells me, though, you've been remiss. This is me...telling you. Consider this blog your vital FAVORITES FILE for kick-starting your websurfing. Don't make me come down there.

Case in point, if you haven't visited Miss Coulter's site recently, here's your chance to catch up. Last week, she tried to help the Obamination fit a difficult decision over troop-strength (and honoring the input of his chosen military expert) between rounds of golf:

The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.

What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" while the war in Iraq was a "war of choice." (Oh, and as long as you're back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay "school safety" czar.)

The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 -- or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over "regime change" in Iran in 1979. Both countries -- and others -- gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.

As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.

By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.

It's always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator -- Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) -- or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders -- Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.

And this week, she (once again) takes Matthews and (my favorite whipping-boy of hers) Olbermann out behind the woodshed. This is Ann going five-hole on Keitheepoo:

Every informed student of the 1988 campaign knows that the Bush ad didn't show Horton's picture. And yet in Keith's discussion of Bush's allegedly vile, racist use of Willie Horton, he used a phony version of the ad, doctored to include a photo of Horton.

I don't blame Keith personally for this blatant distortion: He gets all his research material from Markos Moulitsas and other left-wing bloggers, so he can't be held responsible for the content of his show. Keith's principal contribution to the program is his nightly display of self-congratulation and pompous douche-baggery.

Remember, Keith, like his MSNBC colleague Contessa Brewer, majored in "communications" in college, not a research-related field, such as political science. In his coursework, he learned such skills as: Dramatically Turning to Camera, Hysterical Self-Righteousness, Pausing Portentously and Gravely Demanding Apologies/Resignations From Various Public Figures.

Given this background, it's understandable that Keith will make errors. As viewers witnessed recently, he can't even pronounce the name of prominent American economist and philosopher, Thomas Sowell. (Although he did spend three weeks at a Berlitz course in Arabic honing his pronunciation of "Abu Ghraib" to razor-sharp prissiness.)

The bloggers and Keith bring different skill sets to the game. They provide the tendentious half-truths, phony opinion polls and spurious social science, while Keith provides his booming baritone, gigantic "Guys and Dolls" suits and gift for ridiculous, fustian grandiloquence. Keith is far better equipped than, say, the pint-sized, girly-voiced, Frito Bandito-accented Markos Moulitsas to deliver the party line.

But here's the fly in the ointment: Keith has once again been victimized by left-wing blogs into thinking that the 1988 Bush ad showed Willie Horton's picture, when in fact, Horton's race was deliberately scrubbed from the ad.

Again, in fairness to Keith, he's never been a "content guy." He was a communications major. (The agriculture school Keith attended offered a degree in this field.) He lifts the material for his show from liberal blogs, overwrites it, and throws in his trademark smirking and snorts. But that's all he does because, again, he was a communications major.

When you read Ann Coulter's work (and why don't you have Godless on your nightstand?) you can't help but be better-informed. You'll get a chuckle out of how masterfully she beats down the Ostrich Media, but you'll also glean wisdom worthy of Krauthammer, and likely be a better person for it. The text above represents only a portion of her those weekly essays. Click the respective links for the full articles. Yes, reading is not as effortless as listening to Oprah or The View. But, your time will be much, much more well-spent.

Cockroaches scurry under Malkin's bright light

You've gotta love Michelle Malkin. Listening to her, you get calm rational logic. But pay attention also to the so-called hosts of these shows. It should come as no surprise that Matt Lauer and the ladies from The View are blind, mindless disciples of the O!Bummer messiah. See how they (especially the one named Joy, I think) spit bile when Malkin says unfavorable things about the Big Zero's top-to-bottom infestation of cheats, crooks and cronies in the administration. Watch her disgust as she says, "...every broken promise: transparency, accountability, ethics...failing to deliver" and then squirming in their seats to interject and derail. Listen to Whoopie a time or two and see if her "question" even sounds like a question. See if you can easily substitute the phrase, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to displace what you're saying with nonsense, or so our audience members don't hear everything you say, you heretic."

First, get some of this...

Then go check out how she lays waste to Lauer. I love his "she just completely ate my lunch" look as he says, "lot of comments there, this is Today and we'll be back."

But in the 2nd half of the Lauer video, Krauthammer unifies the entire point: Obama's campaign led so many of the middle-ground voters to believe that his presidency would transcend the muck and mire and general bullshit that we've come to expect from politicians...that there would be a genuineness and wholesomeness in the White House, and that what we've gotten instead is perhaps the most corrupt and dispicable administration in history, and precisely the loathing of America preached by Reverend Wright.

Lauer said at one point, "He (meaning Obama) hasn't gotten to where he has today by being a 'racial opportunist' has he?" Well yeah, Matt. That's exactly why.

FEEDOM ROCK, MAN

Stupid Friday poll:

Which of the following do you think makes an appropriate anthem for this generation of moonbattery?

A) Crosby/Stills/Nash-

Don't you know we're riding, on the Stupid-Ass express?
Don't you know we're riding, on the Stupid-Ass express?
They're taking us to Stupid Ass

B) America-

I been to the desert on a whore with no shame
It's been good to cast Cheney some blame
In the desert, your middle name is Hussein
'Cause you squeaked out the 'lection versus Johnnie McCain

C) Hair-

This is the dawning of the Age of Ridiculous
The Age of Ridiculous...
Ridiculous!
Ridiculous!

D) Other- Please feel free to submit your own...

As creative inspiration for you, I found the old "Hey Man, is that freedon rock? Well, turn it up, man!" youtube video. Embedding was disabled, so if you need that as inspriation, here 'tis... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKDk-mg1J9Q

Nancy Pelosi, hero of fools and terrorists

If you're like me, and you're probably not, because apparently more of you cast your ballots for the hopeandchangeandrainbows crowd, then you've been whistling past the graveyard since November. And hoping that those fearful things which we can't see, can't really harm us physically, or might not...yet. And praying for things to not get too bad to fix once we can boot the bozos out on their asses in 2012. Those few of you who are of that mindset that the biggest electoral con-job of all time has us, America, in the most precariously teetering position in our 233 years understand and worry right along with me. There are others amongst us that had not yet seen the potential calamity toward which those Democrats, if and when they had their way, might guide us.

I still don't know how my friends, relatives, and neighbors failed to see and hear what was so plain-as-day for me: the preference by the Democrat Party leadership that we actually lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I can't grasp how those same people weren't as consequently horrified and repulsed by those "leaders" as I was. And I can't fathom how or why they aren't yet disassociating themselves as I did.

You see, I was registered as a Democrat up until 2002. I hadn't truly believed that it mattered so much as the character of the person you chose for each office. That's when I started hearing, and recognizing, the scuttlebutt from the left, the naysayings of Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons et al. And I thought back ("back" was a shorter distance then, obviously) to our cries of "how did we get here?" that we all felt in the aftermath of 9-11. Y'all remember that? "How could we be so vulnerable?" we all were asking. And do you remember the answers? One of those answers was the realization of how gutted and weakened our intelligence community (read: the CIA) had been effected by the Clinton administration. Billy-boy was the one who started us on that global apology tour and scaled back preparedness for and knowledge of those who would do us harm in favor of a supposedly less-threatening American image worldwide. Cause and effect, assholes, cause and effect.

And when the ACLU and their pals were spouting, "let's not over-react to terrorism and grant carte blanche to the CIA in the interest of national defense" I was all, fuck that. Ramp that sucker back up to the point that the bad guys are known, fucking known down to their dental records, well before they take any flying lessons or get their hands on some Anthrax or even meet up with other bad guys where they think up destructive shit. I mean, come on. How paranoid do you have to be, Democrats, about your little grow-light-cannibis in your closets or your sexual deviances, that you remain willing to handcuff the double-naughts into doing nothing against the real dangers? Your little criminalities and perversions make this country's overall balance sheet of character a weaker one, as it is, without the added vulnerability you bring upon the rest of us. And that is what I despise so much about this bitch...



Pelosi is THE top representative of your party, Democrats. And this is characteristic of her (and their) motives. It is more important to get and maintain political power than to strengthen the security of our nation. She was so wrapped up in A) smokescreening the failures of the current administration and B) casting aspersions and blame upon the President who cared enough about our country to take political risks, that she now sees fit to call those CIA people liars and misleaders. YOU are the misleader Nancy, and the liar. And I think it's time your enablers begin pulling their collective heads out of their collective asses and disowning you.

I'm not necessarily feeling like this post is my best work...the bile that's raging in my gut over how easily Pelosi is prepared to revisit the Bill Clinton Age of Ignorance is choking my brain. And while she and those of her ilk are murdering our national security here at home, the Community Organizer in Chief has allowed (dare I say, fostered) a powderkeg of instability on three simultaneous fronts: Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. Go read Scott's essay at Flopping Aces and then tell me you feel good about our country's current footing worldwide.

I changed my affiliation, not because I was fundamentally opposed to the notion of democracy, but because I didn't want to be associated with the weak and those who would engender weakness upon me and my country. I saw then, as I do now, that such association is no different than a welcome mat for the terrorists. Which fools among you are not yet ready to disown the Democrat political machine, its machinations, and its carelessness with our safety? If not yet, then what will it take?

Junior Green says you can keep your job, in spite of your honest opinion...for now

Ron Green, Jr. wrote the other day that David Feherty shouldn't lose his job over a statement he wrote. According to Green, Feherty wrote:

“if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he
found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden,
there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice and Harry Reid and
bin Laden would be strangled to death.”

Hoo-aah for David Feherty, if that's what he wrote. It just serves to make me a bigger fan of his and I'm more likely to listen closer to what he has to say in the future. But, boo and double-boo to Green. This is just another case of the lamestream media pretending to some authority over someone else's career and/or livelihood. Feherty has the balls to show his support for President Bush, and you think your job is to insinuate that it's not quite bad enough that he be fired?

Let's check the big scoreboard, Ronnie. Feherty wrote an article (as you admit) for a Dallas magazine...not his day-gig. In that day-gig, he's more successful, influential, and popular than you (or anyone else at the Obscurer) can ever hope to be. That statement isn't an example of "humor" as you said, but sarcasm in reference to Pelosi. You say it was a mistake, as if you ever had the stones to write the truth. You work for the Charlotte Observer, which is a McClatchey vehicle that believes its purpose is to shape the news and call it "reporting." You and your gang have so alienated your readers with your liberal moonbattery, that your circulation has thereby dwindled to the point that you need the gubmint to prop your sorry asses up. Who the fuck are you to say who else should keep or lose his job?

I would say that, were it me in that elevator with bin laden, Pelosi, and Reid, I'd be tempted to pistol whip all three of them to death, and save the bullets for any liberal "reporters". Wanna recommend I lose my job over that?

Too late.

Your spread-the-wealth socialist brethren have already beaten you to that plum.

Cavuto vs. One Communist

I like the content I get from FOX, but sometimes not so much the "Anchorpersons." I believe they all mean well, but it hurts my ears when it gets to the point of two or more people yelling at each other. Here's what I'd like to see: Some liberal/appeaser/apologist/socialist/American self-loather comes on Hannity, and instead of arguing, this person is hooked up to some voltage wherein every time Sean asks a question that produces an answer somewhat less than candidly genuine or that guest (let's say maybe "thuffering thuccatath" Barney) interrupts or goes off-topic, a producer throws a switch long enough to re-focus that guest's attention.

A patriotic American could only hope.

In the meantime, though, I'll say my favorite has got to be Cavuto.

When someone proposes to give government the control over how much money anyone can make, the next thing for them to do is control how much money everyone can make. This guy is a US Congressman, who has crafted a bill to give the Treasury Dept. the authority to dictate the worth of employees in a company. There's only one word for this program.

Communism.

And just in case you didn't get the memo: Communism is bad.