The Dream That Should Die With The Dreamer

A one world government perversion of the Federalist philosophy of our Founding Fathers as enunciated by the late Walter Cronkite, who in this YouTube video clip pronounces his fealty to Alexander Hamilton and to Satan, and is then honored by then First Lady Hillary Clinton.

A Million Dollar Mistake

What kind of chump pays over a million dollars to build a home, and ends up building it not on his property, but city property. Luckily he managed to make a land trade to the city of Baltimore, but at the loss of one acre. Plus, he has to pay back rent. Dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.

Democratic Appointed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Puts On A Happy Face

Here are the recent words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, uttered in the course of an interview.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae—in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion....

Many on the left are defending Ginsburg on the grounds that she wasn't giving her own feelings, but what she assumed was the feelings of many others involved in the debate at the time the particular case in question was decided.

Naturally, Jonah Goldberg takes exception, and points out the long history of progressive support for the eugenics movement, from Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes (a former Supreme Court Justice, appointed by President Woodrow Wilson), and myriads of others.

It might surprise many to read that, even though I agree with Jonah Goldberg's assessment as to Ginsburg's true intent-she meant what she said, in other words-it is my intention to actually come to Miss Ginsburg's defense.

Yes, of course many if not most who believe in abortion rights do so as a means of controlling the populations of those they would prefer there not be so many of. And, so do I.

In fact, the great master plan, set in motion years ago by the great trickster gods of the universe rolls full steam ahead as we speak. Not a year goes by that tens of thousands of leftists, Democrats, and Republican RINOs take part in the plot that, if allowed to continue as it should, will lessen their numbers within the great human family. Seeing as how fully two thirds, at the very least, of babies that are aborted in the womb would otherwise over time come eventually to adopt the political beliefs of the parents that aborted them, I can only imagine the gods sigh with relief every time the procedure is performed.

As such, I call on the Republican Party and other conservatives to drop their opposition to the policy of abortion, though I certainly understand and to an extent sympathize with certain aspects of their opposition, such as federal funding of abortions, and any move towards a federal, one-size fits all rule that would allow abortions throughout all states, with no limitations as to the type or when during the pregnancy they are performed.

Look at it this way though. The more and more abortions that are performed on a yearly basis, then the more time goes by, as if by magic, the less and less will be performed, for the simple fact there will be less and less people born likely to take part in such a procedure, unless there is of course valid reasons to do so.

Before you know, abortion as a form of birth control will be a rarity-an extreme rarity.

As for you Democrats, Leftists, Greens, and others who are so determined to maintain your rights to butcher your progeny while they are still residing within the wombs of your women, I say to you-take heart. In this endeavor, you will always have my wholehearted support.

So much to the point that, if the Republicans should ever be successful in their long term stated goals to end the procedure, I will do everything I can to help you. Just let me know, and whatever you need-bicycle spokes, rusty coat hangers, quining, turpentine, you name it-I will do my utmost to see that you acquire whatever you need, unhindered and unmolested.

On this, you have my solemn vow. And as a true blue pagan that wants to see the world become a better place, regardless of what it takes to achieve that goal, you know that means something.

Sonia Sotomayor And Political Pigskin

Come on now fellow Americans, give the woman a break. After all, as pointed out here, Obama never questioned Sonia Sotomayor as to her stand on such issues as abortion, gun rights, etc.

Yeah, that's what I said-bullshit. Sure he never questioned her, because he obviously never had to. This woman's past record on the Appellate Court is a damn good indication of where she is going to stand during her tenure on the Supreme Court. Now she has a chance to vote her beliefs, and know that she can set established precedent that is unlikely to be overturned at least in her lifetime.

But let's be clear, this woman is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice, so why waste any more time on it? Sure, I understand why the Senate Judiciary Committee has to go through the motions, and let Americans know as much about her as they can pull out of her, so they can hold her supporters in the Congress accountable for the decisions she makes, but everybody else might as well acclimate themselves to the reality that, barring a miracle-and probably even despite one of those-she is going to be confirmed. The Republicans know this as well, and some of them will vote for her, for a variety of reasons, not the least is that they know all too well that, if by some unforeseen circumstances she should not be confirmed, it would probably go downhill from there.

Translation-If Sonia Sotomayor is not confirmed, Obama's next appointment will not be Robert Bork.

You can thank the Pro-Life activists in large part for this reality. In any given election, the closer it is, the more likely they are to swing the election one way or another. When the electorate is trending Democratic for whatever reason, that is not a good thing. Now, thanks to them, every bit as much as to the harpies that run the Pro-Choice movement riling up the majority of women, who legitimately fear that if they are raped they'll be forced to just squat down and spit out some bastard that was forced on them, we are where we are-and it ain't lookin' good, amigos.

Both sides of the debate have hi-jacked the electoral process for thirty six years and going, and what do we have to show for it? A Democratic Congressional majority in both houses just chomping at the bits to tax, spend, and regulate us into "prosperity", a Democratic President who is somewhere just barely to the right of Saul Alinsky (we hope), and very possibly coming soon to a Supreme Court near you, a majority clique of liberal hacks known as Democratic apparatchiks operating under the guise of judicial independence.

In the meantime, we have to listen to yet more bullshit about how a judge is like an umpire, and you know (if you are paying attention) just how a typical politician thinks. If we are going to go with a sports analogy, let's do football.

You have the owners, who are the captains of industry and the property owners. The investor class all sit in the front seats and own the season tickets, and they share more and more of their seats with the lobbyists and special interests. The lower classes are all relegated to the cheap seats. The working classes, the skilled and unskilled laborers, are all assigned specific duties inside the stadium during, before and after game time.

The team is made up of the members of society who keep everything running and are considered the pillars of society. The linesmen are made up of your first responders, those who are consigned the task of keeping society safe. The most creative members of society rise to the top. They become your quarterbacks, your wide-receivers, your cornerbacks and tight ends, and of course your running backs.

Your politicians, by all rights, can come from any level previously mentioned, though they tend to come from one group more than the other. They tend to rise to the coaches positions, or to offensive coach or defensive coordinators. Anymore, however, more and more of them make up what we will refer to as the player's unions, and as such they tend to look more and more out for their own interests than they do the actual players, or anybody else who actually makes the game work (that is, the citizens they allegedly "serve").

This bring us round full circle to the referees, who of course are the judges. But the on-field referees are your lower court judges and your appellate court judges, and in some cases, if they do good enough and gain enough seniority, your state Supreme Court judges. So where does that leave the Supreme Court? What level do they rise to in the great game of football?

Those would be the motherfuckers who sit up in the booths, away and safe from the judgment and displeasure of the crowds, while they conduct the final playback reviews. Their word is the final say, and it is irreversible.

Now, does anybody believe that how a judge conducts himself on the field is not a good indication as to how they will conduct themselves up in the booths, where their decisions are irreversible, and where they are unanswerable to the opinions of not only the crowds and players, but of those who appointed them? I hardly think so.

The bad thing is, life and politics are nowhere near as concrete and written in stone as football, and in fact, there are two different rulebooks being adhered to in the game of political pigskin. That's the real problem. You have two entirely differing views of the constitution, and which side is predominant in that view is wholly dependent on which side makes the appointments.

Thus, the next time the right objects to the prospect of the left committing group suicide by killing off their progeny in the womb-for whatever reason-I might suggest that they stop, take a deep breath and ask themselves, "what the fuck am I thinking?"

Otherwise, we can look forward to perhaps decades of a country run as though the states are little more than overgrown counties, much like a French Department, and going more and more down the road to adherence to international law, all in the meantime following a playbook that is straight out of Rules For Radicals.

Edward Moore Kennedy And The Art Of Selling Of Indulgences

Senator Ted Kennedy is at it again. He has proposed a Senate bill that would grant exclusivity to pharmaceutical company Amgen, and a few others, for the making of certain biologic drugs, which are drugs made from living human cells. Obama has proposed granting this exclusivity for seven years. Some in the Senate favor five years. Kennedy, in his bill, has proposed a whopping thirteen years. In what seems to be an obvious quid pro quo, Amgen has agreed to make a remarkably generous donation to a proposed Kennedy Institute in the Senator's honor, to be constructed at some point as an annex to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. So have a number of other pharmaceutical companies and research centers, all of whom have benefited from Kennedy's influence over the years in the way of funding.

Yet, what would this proposed Kennedy Institute involve? Is it yet another research facility, a glorified health care lobbyist or think tank? No, it's not that relatively benign. Its proposed purpose is, in fact, as a "training ground for incoming Senators." There will also be a program of mock Senate sessions, and a theater which will feature film clips of past Senate speeches. This is what Amgen has donated five million dollars to, while many others have donated similar amounts.

And what do they get in return to this monument to Kennedy's ego? They get thirteen years of a guaranteed monopoly on the creation, production, sale and distribution of biologic pharmaceuticals, which guarantees the elimination of any competition, especially from any possible generic products.

Does somebody want to explain to me again just how it is the Democratic Party is the stalwart opponent of the excesses of big business? They are encouraging the protection of a monopoly at the expense of free enterprise. As a result, if this bill is passed, you can not only expect any such drug produced by these companies to be priced higher than it should be by all rights, you can even more certainly expect limits on the quality of these drugs, the best of which might well be shelved, after they are patented in order to prevent any potential competitor from producing a similar product. Will they produce cures? Possibly, in some cases, but at what cost? More than likely, the bulk of the output will be limited to merely more efficient means of treating symptoms.

All so Ted Kennedy can have an Institute named in his honor, the main purpose of which, other than as an outlet to Kennedy's hubris, would seem to be that of making sure in-coming Democratic Senators know their places and tow the party line, under the guise of orientation. Think of it as a kind of kindergarten for newly-elected Democratic Senators. I guess Republicans, if they should want to attend for whatever reason only the gods could hope to comprehend, can do so as well. Maybe they should construct a secret underground section that leads to a hidden tidal pond for the disposal of the more incorrigible, the out-of place conservative Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was originally passed to prevent the creation of monopolies, and the unfair trade and business practices that would entail. It was meant to promote free enterprise and competition. Kennedy and his ilk have turned that principle on its head, by selling indulgences in the form of exclusivity.

The next thing you know they're going to be selling large corporations the right to pollute so they can make sure their smaller competitors are run out business.

Oh, wait a minute.

Bruno-Gay Archetype

Stereotypes become so due to their prevalence in society, and so they are a kind of archetype. Sasha Baron Cohen has utilized the stereotype of the flamboyantly gay archetype to great effect in Bruno, as can be clearly seen even from the trailers for the movie. Bruno takes humanities natural, seemingly ingrained homophobic fears of homosexuality and shoves it in all our faces. What Cohen and the producers of the movie seemingly failed to realize is that there is a corresponding fear and loathing on the part of the gay community that is every bit as visceral-the fear and loathing of societies fear and loathing, one that can produce self-esteem issues to the point of self-loathing.

As such, perhaps it is understandable that many gay activists groups such as GLAAD, and their supporters, and many others, don’t get the joke. It goes beyond that, though. There is some concern that Bruno might well cause a backlash towards the gay community, with a spokesman for GLAAD opining that he felt sorry for the many gay public school children who might now find themselves identified with the Cohen character to such an extent their peers tag them with the nickname Bruno.

Of course, before the advent of Bruno, you see, gay public school children never had to concern themselves with being assaulted, ridiculed, and humiliated, or hearing, “Hey faggot” shouted at them on their way to and from classes.

But, I digress.

Ironically, many of the funniest moments of the movie have little if anything to do with Bruno’s gay lifestyle. Much of it is more to do with the fact that Bruno is simply an ass. For example, in an interview segment featuring Paula Abdul, he convinces her to sit on the bare back of a groundskeeper, as there is no furniture in the newly acquired house/studio on which to sit. Abdul, though taken aback, obliges the ridiculous request, though she draws the line when Bruno offers her fresh sushi off the back of yet another of the workers. LaToya Jackson, who gives Bruno the cell phone number of brother Michael in a scene that was hurriedly cut from the film after Jackson’s death, also sits on the worker’s back and, amazingly, accepts the offer of sushi. (Note to self-I really, really, really want to meet LaToya Jackson).

The most amazing segment concerns a faux television interview show in which Bruno introduces his adopted African baby, an initiative of Bruno to mimic (and of Cohen to ridicule) the fad of celebrities adopting babies from poverty-stricken regions, seemingly as little more than accessories on the order of lap dogs while pretending to display their humanitarian concerns. He explains to the quickly outraged mainly African American audience that he has given the tyke, whom he acquired by trading an Ipod, the traditional African American name of OJ. The baby is with him, dressed in a shirt emblazoned with the word “Gayby”. Bruno assures the audience that if the child decides later in life to get a sex-change operation, he will support his decision one hundred percent. However, if the child turns out to be straight, he will disown him.

Much of the movie seems obviously staged, and revolves around Bruno’s decision to increase his potential for popularity and acceptance in America by trying to turn straight. In one such segment, a fundamentalist Christian minister promises to turn Bruno into a straight man. In another, Bruno enters a military boot camp. In yet another, he embarks on a camping trip with three Alabama good ol’ boys who insist that they have nothing in common with the girls from “Sex And The City”, contrary to Bruno’s observations around the campfire at night. Later, a stark naked Bruno accosts them inside their tent, to their utter horror and outrage.

We have to take such scenes with a grain of salt. After all, the camera crew could not have gone unnoticed. On the other hand, what reasons did Bruno give for their presence? It’s easy to assume such scenes were staged, but how were they staged? What did the victims really know, and when did they know it? Did they really think this was a gay Austrian fashion designer and recent immigrant to America who decided to try to “cure” his homosexuality and was filming a documentary of his quest-or were they actually in on the joke the entire time?

Bruno also accosted Ron Paul, who uttered a gay slur as he hurried away as quick as he could from the faux “interview” Bruno had pretended to seek with the elderly politician, after Bruno disrobed in front of him in an apparent attempt to seduce him.

The comedy of Sasha Baron Cohen is wholly dependent on such reactions from his victims, and that is what makes the character of Bruno as much an archetype as a stereotype. From the safety and security of the theater, we can appreciate the joke, and laugh at the visceral reactions of his victims, all the while knowing deep down we are laughing at ourselves, at our own fears and insecurities. It might even lead us to ponder them more thoughtfully, over time.

What are they based on? Is it possibly in part the fear of not being normal, or of our manhood and sexuality called into question, with all the humiliation that would imply? Is it possibly even an outgrowth of some ingrained, unconscious racial fear that we as individuals are not good enough to pass our heritage on to a succeeding generation? Might such individuals even be under some kind of divine curse? Is this perhaps what leads us as a society to despise homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle?

It is perhaps because of our innate fears, whatever they are based on, that it is perhaps understandably not so funny to many gays.

Nevertheless, Sasha Baron Cohen does outrageous, in-your-face comedy of an evolved type of slapstick variety, albeit a slapstick with a very pointed end. He does not do “humor”. Had he made the film of a more sober, restrained type that concentrated on American’s reactions to, say for example, an outwardly gay man who merely wanted a normal degree of acceptance and respect, it would have been an entirely different type of movie. It might have been humorous, even funny in parts, but it would by its nature be a far more serious work, more poignant and even overtly depressing. One thing it would not be, could not be, is a comedy, at least and certainly not the kind designed to evoke sidesplitting, knee slapping, rolling in the aisles laughter.

That is precisely what kind of movie is Bruno. From the minute he comes to America after being fired from his Austrian talk show for wrecking a fashion show in Milan (he walked through the placed dressed in a Velcro suit and ended up making a shambles of the event), to the moment he arrived in America. Through all his subsequent misadventures, Bruno doesn’t just pronounce his openly gay lifestyle, he screams it. He doesn’t merely ask for or even demand acceptance. He arrogantly takes for granted that anything he wants is his for the asking-and the taking. When it starts to sink in that its not that easy, he is willing then to do whatever it takes to gain the fame and adoration he craves, even if that means changing his sexual orientation, which proves an impossible task. He is to what many believe to be the average straight American, a living nightmare of an in-your-face hedonistic and unapologetic gay man, and what such a creature might be if unrestrained by societal constraints-a creature without any core values, with no redeeming social qualities, a depraved individual beyond hope of redemption. He is to them a man who revels in his sickness and perversions.

The ending brings release, in the form of an Arkansas based professional wrestling event, at which Bruno attends and, in the ring, declares his heterosexuality to the cheers of the audience. Then, he is accosted by a plant in the audience, who happens to be his assistant throughout the entirety of the movie, a man with a starry-eyed crush on Bruno, yet whose attentions and affections have never been returned. Bruno challenges him to enter the ring, and when they do, the audience gets an eye full. Suffice it to say, the fur flies. So do a few folding chairs. Sasha Baron Cohen deserves credit if, for nothing else, unmitigated courage to the point of foolhardiness.

If you don’t mind the thought of Bruno swinging his dick like a lariat-or even if you do-among the many other outrageous antics, I strongly recommend the movie Bruno.

Rated ARRRRRGH

Bruno-Ins Or Da Aus

The title of this video is misleading. Sasha Baron Cohen as Bruno, from this old clip from The Ali G Show, doesn't actually meet Paris Hilton. He just makes some fashion designers/critics look about as stupid in reality as she is by reputation-and even more pretentious.



I'll have another post up later today or tomorrow with my thoughts on the Bruno phenomenon.

A Crime Against Human Decency

The desecration of Emmett Tills grave in Burr Oak Cemetery just outside of Chicago might be hard to understand. At first, I thought it was a matter of a casket exposed to fifty years of constantly changing soil temperature and, especially, rain. How good shape could it be in after so long? And, after all, they gave him a new casket when they dug the old one up in order to further an investigation into the crime of his murder in 1955, a despicable act of wanton savagery that helped ignite the Civil Rights movement.

Only there was more to the story than that. The manager of the cemetery, who replaced the old casket, promised to use it as the centerpiece of an Emmett Till memorial museum and even solicited donations to that effect. When the casket was found, however, in a state of disrepair in a storage building surrounded by garbage, and reportedly inhabited by opossum, it was yet another wound to the black community. Instead of a memorial to Till, his old casket was the centerpiece of a growing criminal investigation into the practice by a number of Burr Oak Cemetery employees, including the same manager, of digging up old graves and reselling the plots. In some cases, the bodies and caskets were smashed by heavy equipment in order to make room. In other cases, the bodies were removed and unceremoniously dumped, in what has to be the most despicable act of craven greed in quite some time. I think we can avoid the use of the term "alleged" here. The only remaining question is, how many bodies have been displaced and/or destroyed? The number at last count was three hundred. I bet it turns out to be more.

Emmett Till was just one of a number of notable figures from the African-American community buried at this cemetery just outside Chicago. Aside from the controversy with his casket, his grave had not been disturbed. Of course, these were black employees, and maybe the thoughts of acting in such a despicable fashion towards the remains of such an iconic figure was too much even for them. Possibly for that reason alone, until the investigation fifty years after his death required his exhumation, Emmett Till remained in his grave.

Not so in the case of many, many unknown others, and it is in fact yet unknown how many persons have been dug up and discarded or destroyed over the years. This has brought further grief and despair upon many of the deceased's surviving family members, who are now learning the hard way that respect for the dead lasts about as long as human memory-actually, it would seem in this case, not even that long. Naturally, there are calls now for further regulations of the funeral industry, something the industry has strongly opposed for years, and something which will, if enacted, merely be yet another cost passed on to the consumer-the family of the deceased, and/or his estate. And to what real effect? What could possibly be done to prevent such an atrocity from occurring in the future?

Once you are dead and gone, you are at the mercy of everyone, regardless of written wills and the wishes of the bereaved, and probably, when you get right down to it, despite any government regulation you could possibly conceive. You don't get a vote-except of course, this being Chicago, on election day.

Prince Michael II

Just wondering if I'm the only one who ever wondered if Prince Michael II, known as Blanket, who is the youngest child of Michael Jackson, and pictured at the bottom of the second photo (the first is of Jackson himself at roughly the same age), might be a clone of Jackson. Would that be so unusual, coming from Michael Jackson? It would certainly explain Jackson's mysterious rambling and contradictory answers concerning the child's mother. The lighter skin is possibly explainable by way of some sort of medical procedure, or even genetic manipulation.

It makes sense when you consider the possibility Jackson might have seen it as a chance to relive his childhood, and at the same time give himself all the things and experiences he never got to have as a child himself.

Not so far-fetched as it might seem. Just Michael being Michael.