Monday, June 25, 2007

Obama the Hypocrite

Lot's of people fell for Barack Obama's (Barack Oh-BORING!) flash at first, but even Democrats are beginning to see through his lack of substance in growing numbers. I may not be a fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least there are substantive issues behind her for disliking her. Obama is just an empty shell, devoid of substance.

This weekend, Barack Hussein Obama said the following at a church convention on June 23, 2007:
"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart... Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us."
So, Barack-ster, you're complaining about divisiveness by singling out and attacking a particular group, blaming them for what is wrong with America? Right, you're so much different and better than they are.

Now I'm not a big fan of the Christian Right, nor am I a big fan of Obama-man, but I'm not off trying to pretend to be some middle-of-the-road uniter, somehow above the fray of partisan politics (as B.O. tried to suggest he was at the Democratic Convention a little while back). The Christian Right is perfectly entitled to have opinions about others, just as you are to have opinions about them. I don't fault Obama for disagreeing with the Christian Right. I have no problem disagreeing with them myself over a variety of issues. But for him to act somehow superior to them, while at the same time engaging in the behavior he's decrying, is just pathetic.

I am so sick of slick politicians with their lies and propaganda. Cut the crap! I cannot count the times I've seen these jackasses contradict themselves, or spin themselves into illogical spirals of unreason, in an attempt to sound as if they're actually saying something worthwhile or vaguely in tune with some unclear concept. Oh, he's for unity. I'm voting for that fucker. Debate the damn issues, and stop vilifying the other guy - and most ESPECIALLY stop vilifying the other guy by saying all he does is vilify you. Discuss something important. If people want to believe abortion is evil, fuck it, let them. We don't have freedom of religion in this country just so some dipshit, empty-headed Presidential candidate can complain about it. Religion has not been hijacked - there are just *gasp* differences of opinion that are theologically based, just as there are differences of opinion that are based on all kinds of other reasoning.

Probably the most vile aspect of the Obama quote is his use of the word "hijack," a word associated with terrorism, which is in turn is associated with the religious fundamentalism and violence of extremist Islam.

Denice Denton, Still Dead

Those of us that work for the UC System received this annoying little message via email today from UC President Bobby Dynes:
Dear Colleagues:

As some of you may recall, June 24 marked the passing of one full year
since the death of Denice Denton, who served as Chancellor of the
University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to take a moment to
pause and reflect on this great talent who was with us for far too short
a time, but who had a tremendous influence on so many throughout the
University and across the nation. As I recalled at her memorial
service, Denice moved us forward into new territories of excellence and
inclusiveness. Along the way, she inspired us, by her own example, to
strive always to be better people, and she challenged us to see our
differences as strengths to build upon and as opportunities to grow.
The University of California is the better for her having come our way
and, in remembering Denice, I hope we will continue to build upon the
rich legacy she left us.

The Santa Cruz campus has posted a special tribute to Chancellor Denton,
and it can be found at
encourage you to take a moment to visit it and to be inspired by this
extraordinary and gifted individual.


Robert C. Dynes

Now, of course, a corrupt piece of crap like Dynes would be the first to be unable to distinguish between "new territories of excellence" and innovative ways to rip off the taxpayer or bypass ethical behavior. When she was hired, the UC system also hired her lesbian lover to a newly created position in the UC Office of the President, which is in Oakland, which paid $192,000 annually. Denton received benefits that weren’t disclosed when she was hired - part of a UC executive scandal which also implicated our lovely President. She also managed to get $30,000 spent for a freaking "dog run" as part of $600,000 in renovations to the chancellor’s campus house.

Behavior such as this is the exact opposite of "[inspiring] us, by her own example, to strive always to be better people." Unless you of course you consider her an example of how not to behave.

But of course, since she was a lesbian, her incompetence and thievery are to be ignored by the lunatic left that has infested UC campuses with their insane agenda of diversity-bigotry over rational thought and fairness. In some great quest for "inclusiveness" people are to be judged on labels rather than morality and ability. I'm sure she was a fine engineer, but she was a piss-poor administrator and an even worse example of a principled person. She was a militant entitlementist, who thought anyone that dared disagree with her was a bigot, but it was she who showed true prejudice by suggesting she deserved special privilege and consideration due to her sexual orientation.

That said, that she chose to take her own life is a tragedy.

Feinstein Equals Fascist, But Does Not Equal Fairness

Check out what the so-called "liberal", anti-liberty, pro-fascism, pure-evil twat Senator Dianne Feinstein had to say about free speech on FNS yesterday:

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Color me shocked. First off, let's look at her insane assertions about the immigration bill. If anyone is dwelling in extremism and hyperbole, it is Feinstein. She is being "explosive," and downright insulting, suggesting that those that hold different views, be they listeners or hosts, regarding this bill someone are ignorant of what is in it. Believe it or not, Dumb-anne, those opposing the bill are fully aware of what the legislation entails. People are aware it is "complicated," but complexity does not necessarily translate to actual reform or effectiveness, especially considering that we have the laws we need already on the books, and they have not been enforced. Disagreeing with whether or not this bill works, or is fair, is not the same as not comprehending what it does.

She also puts forth the moronic "silent amnesty" argument in favor of this bill, but fails to address the fact that those opposed to it want neither silent, nor government endorsed, amnesty. People on and listening to talk radio are quite aware that the current administration and Congress does NOTHING to enforce the laws of the land now, in fact granting "silent amnesty," but fails to fix it. This bill only makes things worse, will encourage more illegal immigration, rewards illegal behavior, and offers no real solution. If she actually LISTENED to some talk radio, she would hear that hosts go into the flaws in the current system all the time. It's bullshit to assert that because people are opposed to this current attempt to "fix" the system, that they are opposed to fixing the system at all. There was an attempt to start fixing the system last year - by building hundreds of miles of new border fence (not a comprehensive fix by any means, but a start) - which was passed by Congress and signed into law, yet that has not yet been built.

Equally insulting is the assertion that talk radio "pushes" people into certain opinions, views or actions. People listen to talk radio hosts because they agree with them (or enjoy disagreeing with them). It's not like they've suddenly become brainwashed by the radio waves. Heck, what would motivate them to tune-in in the first place? What is most chilling about Feinstein's pathetic attempt at reasoning here is that somehow this disagreement justifies censorship or governmental control of media content. And even worse, it targets only a tiny sliver of the media and biased opinion. What you will not hear Feinstein calling for is a Fairness Doctrine effecting the editorial sections of liberal newspapers, liberal bias in college classrooms, leftist slant on TV News or comedy shows, left-wing bias in movies or music, or any of a million other forums. And what amazes me is that liberals and Democrats will foam at the mouth in these forums, online, etc., about how Bush and the Republicans are attempting to erode civil liberties with the Patriot Act or calling for an end to bias in college education, but have no problem pissing all over the 1st Amendment when it comes to opinions that don't fall in sync with their own.

Guess what, Dumb-anne, you or anyone else has no right to "present the other side" on someone else's editorial forum. And attempting to silence dissenting opinion is about as fascist as you can get. But it's about the sort of utter hypocrisy I've come to expect from the Democratic Party. No wonder Congress has an approval rating as low as Bush's.