I’ll Take LOSERS for $2000, Please, Alex

Awful. Awesomely bad. Embarrassing. A train wreck in slow motion.

It’s all over the internet already, of course. Wolf Blitzer, host of one of CNN’s prime programs, The Situation Room, has just lost all credibility as an anchor. Why? Because he lost on Celebrity Jeopardy! And he didn’t just lose, he bombed. He crashed and burned. He absolutely tanked.

And this isn’t the regular Jeopardy! show. No, this is the watered down version; Jeopardy Lite; Jeopardy for Dummies. Because of course you can’t allow celebrities to look like idiots, so you have to keep the questions basic. But no matter how hard they tried to keep it simple, no matter how easy the questions were, Mr. Blitzer defied all expectations and made a complete idiot of himself.

He ended the Double Jeopardy round with a score of -$4,600. Not just a negative number, but a huge negative number. But since it was Celebrity Jeopardy!, he qualified for a bail-out. In effect, the studio gave him back the $4,600 he lost, and then another $1,000 to compete in Final Jeopardy. Of course, the Final question was so easy that had Wolf missed it, CNN would have had to fire him immediately.

How bad was it? This bad:

And I speak from experience. As a former Jeopardy contestant, I know it’s not easy being on a stage, in front of bright lights, with people running around, clocks ticking, neon blinking, having to think quickly on your feet, and having to answer actual hard questions. But face it: here’s a man who’s accustomed to being on camera, he’s used to the lights, the bustle, the pressure of a TV show, he’s comfortable with deadlines and quick changes. He reports and discusses national and international news as his job, for Heaven’s sake.

There’s simply no excuse for his disastrous performance on a game show with questions already diluted to “very easy”; and if I were CNN, I’d seriously consider not renewing his contract when it’s up.

Because he’s proven to the country that he’s just not very bright.

Stoutcat

International Talk Like a Pirate Day

Ahoy, me hearties! It be September 19, and ye all know what that means. Aye, it be International Talk Like a Pirate Day! As ye can see, Cap’n Stoutcat knows how t’ talk like a pirate, and will be pestering all an’ sundry with th’ lingo all th’ livelong day.

In case ye don’t know how to talk like a pirate, here be a video for you t’ watch. It be narrated by Cap’n Slappy and Chumbucket. They be well-practiced in talking like pirates, an’ they offer a few simple rules t’ follow f’r expert pirate linguistics.

So talk like a pirate, else ye’re a scurvy dog!

Arrr!

Cap’n Stoutcat

Government-Only School Loans?

 

Wait a second… Just wait a second. I’m confused (like that’s something new). If I read this WSJ piece properly, the House of Representatives just said that as far as they’re concerned, private school loans are a thing of the past? Now, collegiate wanna-bes  have to turn to Gov’ment and Gov’ment alone?

WASHINGTON — House approval of an education-financing bill Thursday marks a first step toward sweeping changes in U.S. higher education that would cut out private lenders and leave the government as sole provider of student loans under federal programs [emphasis mine].

And the more I read, the worse it gets… Is this some sort of tit for tat for ACORN?

House lawmakers attached a measure to the student loan bill ending all federal government funding of the community organizing group Acorn – the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The group has long been in the cross hairs of Republicans, but more recently has been accused of widespread fraud and other illegal activities.

I mean, really! I may not be Charles Krauthammer, but I do follow the news. Where the Hades did this come from? This is like the midnight good-night ride of Van Jones,  or the Executive power grab for the Census.

Why should I be forced to deal with Big Brother if I want a college loan? Suppose I don’t fit the Fed’s mold of “needy” or “worthy”? And who controls those standards? And when might those standards change? And what about my existing student loans?

In theory, this is supposed to save taxpayers $87 billion over the next 10 years, but wait! There’s always a catch:

While the measure would eliminate private lenders from originating government-backed loans, banks and other lenders would be allowed to bid for a limited number of contracts to service government-made loans.

Ah, so the government is nosing its way into the private student loan business, but will allow some private lenders to service the government loans? Oh good, let’s create another level of bureaucracy there to suck up that $87 billion savings, and probably suck up a lot more, if past experience is any indicator.

Am I missing something here?

Yeah, I expected change, but not busting the speed of light, and not forcing private enterprise out of the picture all togehter.

Alan Speakman

Pelosi: Fire Her Useless Keister

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has to go, and here’s why…

On Monday, September 14, 2009, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to cut off funding to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). If you’re reading this, the odds are pretty good that you learned of this back on Monday when it happened. Also, the odds are that you don’t even work for the government, let alone work as a U.S. Representative.  Yet consider that the Speaker of the House of Representatives ”confessed” on Wednesday that she didn’t even know of the vote that had happened in the other house of Congress. It defies belief.

Keep in mind also that “Her Royal Nancyness” voted not once, not twice, but six times to block some sort of control of ACORN’s access to public funds.

So, it looks like there are three possible explanations for this “I missed that defund ACORN vote” on the part of Pelosi:

• She really didn’t know because she (typo fix… that should be “she’s”) incomprehensibly incompetent.
• She really didn’t know because she’s profoundly stupid… (This is a real possibility since Nancy thought we were losing 500,000,000 jobs per month and said so twice.)
• She did know about the vote, and just lied to us.

Take your pick, but however you explain this one, Nancy Pelosi should be looking for new work. At this point, I seriously wonder if she has the integrity and/or brains to flip burgers.

Alan Speakman

P.S. Here are the “Acorn Seven” who voted to keep funding ACORN… Remember, some of these folks come up for re-election in 2012.

Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Roland Burris (D-IL)
Robert Casey (D-PA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Breaking: Massachusetts Pols Still Hacks and Hypocrites

 

Massachusetts politicians are at it again. The Democrat-laden state legislature is currently debating a bill that would allow Gov. “Coupe” Deval Patrick to appoint an interrim successor to fill the late Sen. Edward Kennedy seat, until a special election is held next January.

And why are they debating this bill? Because five years ago, many if not most of those same politicians changed the rules for succession of a Senator when it seemed possible that John Kerry might actually fulfill his soi disant destiny and report for duty to the White House in 2004. The rule prior to that had been that the Governor would appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of a term in the event that a Senate seat falls vacant.

But in 2004, there was a Republican sitting in the Governor’s Office who might appoint a Republican replacement, and we couldn’t have that! (Massachusetts may frequently tolerate Repbulican governors but our representatives in DC, especially those in the Senate, must be blue all the way through.) So the rules was changed to prevent such an abomination even though John Kerry’s preseidential ambition remained sadly unfulfilled. 

Fast forward to August 2009. Senior Mass Senator Ted Kennedy sends a letter requesting the rules be changed yet again, back to the way they were. Stating the importance of having Massachusetts be fully represented in the Senate, Sen. Kennedy eloquently makes his plea, not just to the governor but in effect to the entire state; the last request of a dying man, as it were.

The trouble is, if Sen. Kennedy really had been all that concerned about Massachusetts representation, why didn’t he send that letter when he was first diagnosed with his illness? Or barring that, why didn’t he step down as Senator so that a special election could be held that much sooner? After all, he hadn’t participated in a Senate vote since April of 2009. That’s a long time for us to operate with only one Senator in DC, isn’t it?

No, the only reason this is being done is to get that all-important 60th Democrat back in the Senate as soon as possible, to preserve the fillibuster-proof majority the Dems would once again have if this travesty goes through. And make no mistake, this move has the full support and approval of the White House:

David Axelrod, President Barack Obama’s chief political strategist, called Murray earlier this week to discuss the proposed law change. Axelrod called to “see where the process is in terms of replacing a vacant Senate seat, understanding that we have important debates” coming up in the Senate, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday.

So once again, regardless of what the residents want (whether it’s removing bilingual education in favor of immersion programs, tax rollbacks, or clean elections), the will of the people still comes in a distant second place to the will of the politicians.

Stoutcat

Carter: Still A Moonbat After All These Years

 

Question: If former President James Earl Carter says something incredibly stupid and there’s no one there to pay attention, is he still a Barking Moonbat?

Thank goodness I don’t work in the Senate Chambers. As such, I still enjoy (for the moment, anyway) free speech. And let me add the disclaimer that what I am about to write is my opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of others (but it probably matches a lot of ‘em).

For those of you who may not have heard, former President Jimmy Carter said today during an interview that  Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst last week was “based on racism” and that an “overwhelming portion” of criticisms against President Obama by anyone are rooted in bigotry.

Um… Mr. former President? Have you been hitting your head with your Habitat for Humanity hammer again? If not, then perhaps I can offer you some advice. Start doing so immediately. Then you will have an excuse for such ludicrous statements.

Carter, like most left wing loonies, has taken it upon himself to criticize those who disagree with the President’s policies as racists merely because Obama is part black.

Without bothering to attend any of the tea parties, they will pass judgment on those who were there to protest the direction of the current administration. In other words, “to hell with the facts! You’re racists if you don’t cheer on the President.”

This is the same James Earl Carter, by the way, whose administration is responsible for introducing the nation to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who, in the opinion of many, was the most inept President in the history of the country (until now).

Using Carter’s logic, any criticism of the President is automatically racist. Yet is that not a racist comment itself? If you accept Carter-logic as anything other than the twaddle it is, Barack Obama is incapable of making a mistake because he’s black.  If that’s the case, could we therefore make the case that Carter is incompetent because he’s White? Hmmm… that would go a long way toward explaining some of the things… no, no I’m just not going to go there.

In an article on the Fox news website, Deneen Borelli, a black conservative who spoke at the protest rally held in Washington Saturday said,

“I don’t see race as an issue. It’s all about the policies that are coming out of the current administration… I just see this as the race card being used once again to distract the American people from the core issues.”

As for former President Carter, a word of advice. There’s an old adage I find applicable here, sir: ”Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you’re a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Work on it, OK?   History will thank you.

Gerry Ashley

Lucid Conversation on Racism

 

…Over at Ann Althouse’s place. The Professor posits the following:

Imagine if, before last year’s election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

1. I would have viewed that argument itself as racist. If that is really true, I would have said, then it means that we have to vote against the candidate because he is black, since it is not acceptable to have a President who can’t be criticized.

2. I would also have said: It is racist to say that it’s racist to criticize a black President, because you are being patronizing and you are saying that a black person needs to be coddled and protected in some special way that doesn’t apply to white people.

The whole post is well done but the crux of the matter is her two points listed above. Her commenters then take the ball and run with it. They do a terrific job of debating the issue, and the thread contains one of the most insightful remarks I’ve read on the subject by commenter Lucid:

The culture of affirmative action is a major part of the reason we are hearing the nonsense that criticisms of Obama are motivated by racism.

Affirmative action policies displace fairness with unfair preferences for “protected” groups. Beneficiaries of affirmative action therefore have a strong vested interest in its continuation–ask any appplicant to a competitive college, law, or medical school.

But the continuation of affirmative action policies requires a victim and an oppressor. Thus, the continuation of affirmative action requires not an end to racism, but its perpetuation in the myths and narratives of the culture. And one of the best ways to do this is by accusing white folks of racism.

Those who benefit from afirmative action literally cannot afford to not accuse others of a pervasive racism. And at this point in our history, the truth is that racism among blacks against whites is much, much more extensive than white racism about blacks. Blacks often don’t even recognize it. This is why Obama could sit for 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright’s racist rants and think it was no big deal. Because in the black community, it is no big deal.

The advantage of the discussion we are having now–and of Obama’s election as president–is that it opens up the secret, hermetically sealed racism of the black community, and its unwarranted sense of special entitlements and dispensations, to the frictive and dissolving effects of free speech. But expect the beneficiaries of affirmative action and of the mythos of racism to scream bloody murder

Althouse and her commenters (or at least most of them) are definitely a cut above average, and well worth reading. So go. Read.

Stoutcat

You Might Be a Racist If…

Hey kids, let’s play a game! Okay, I know Jeff Foxworthy probably never intended his “You might be a redneck” schtick to morph into this but honestly, Maureen Dowd’s latest diatribe was the last straw. You simply cannot avoid the accusations of racism that will come screaming your way if you disagree with the president or his policies or even his cronies in the slightest way. It seems we’re not yet in the post-racial era we were promised.

So with that in mind, let’s play

You Might Be A Racist!

If you didn’t vote for Obama… you might be a racist!

If you thought Jeremiah Wright’s preaching is racist… you might be a racist!

If you don’t think that America is a nation of cowards… you might be a racist!

If you even wondered whether Sonia Sotomayor was the best choice President Obama could have made for his first Supreme Court nomination… you might be a racist!

If you attended a Tea party… you might be a racist!

If you’re a policeman simply doing your job… you might be a racist!

If you think that universal health care is not actually a right guaranteed by the Constitution… you might be a racist!

If you think Kanye West was rude to Taylor Swift… you might be a racist!

If you don’t think Mark Lloyd should be Obama’s “diversity czar”… you might be a racist!

If you wonder why we need a “diversity czar” in the first place… you might be a racist!

If you thought then-Sen. Obama called you a racist way back in 2006… you might be a racist!

If you’re even reading this post… you might be a racist!

Stoutcat

We Are All Racists Now (Part 2)

 
As Stoutcat pointed out in her rant We Are All Racists Now, the liberal media, currently in the form of the clearly insane Maureen Dowd, has taken to hallucinating racist statements made by white Republican males. But isn’t it interesting how the charges of racism only seem to get applied to the perceived actions of Caucasians. Key word: perceived.  This is a clear example of what I  call an L-STD (liberal socially transmitted disease) known as “political correctness.”

Anyone with an IQ above nutmeg would question the charge of racism levied on Joe Wilson for his outburst (“You Lie!”) during the President’s joint address to Congress (and the Nation) last week. Obama had just told a whopper of a lie, shortly after saying that he, himself would call out people when he caught them doing so. In effect, Wilson was employing what Obama had just claimed HE would do. Nothing racist there whatsoever.

Taylor Swift

Interestingly enough, this week-end, we got a prime example of the opposite end of that spectrum.  During the annual Video Music Awards (VMA), talented young  Taylor Swift was announced as the winner of the best female video of the year. It was the first VMA for the country singer in a world dominated by Rap and urban hip-hop. This was a shining moment for the 19- year-old, who happens to be Caucasian. Among other nominees she had to beat for the honor was none other than lovely Beyoncé Knowles the uber-talented American superstar of African and Creole descent.   Taylor went up on the stage to receive her award, clearly thrilled; and had just started into her thank-you speech when suddenly,  rap/hip-hop star Kanye West,  ran on stage,

Kanye West Mugs Taylor Swift

yanked the microphone from the stunned Taylor’s hands, and proceeded to announce to the world that Beyonce should have won the award, describing her video as “one of the best videos of all time.”

A stunned Taylor stood speechless, her moment of recognition stolen from her. When West handed the microphone back to her, she was too stunned to continue and simply walked off stage, her big moment marred   by an act of arrogance, rudeness, and  stubris (an act of stupidity-fueled hubris).

Notice the absence of anything? I was easily able to define West’s actions without resorting to accusations of racism.  But just imagine, if you will:  had the winner been Beyoncé and country star Tim McGraw grabbed the microphone from her to state that, in his opinion, Swift should have won… You can pretty much assume the protests would have begun with cries of racism.  Clearly they would if the story was covered by Maureen Dowd.

Incidentally, later in the broadcast, Beyoncé won the award for best video of the year. In an amazing show of class, she took center stage and  remarked how excited she had been when, at the age of 17 she won her first award… and with that, she called Taylor Swift back to the stage and yielded the balance of her time to give Swift back her moment.

Take note, Mr. West. Class is something you either have or you don’t.  And it’s got nothing to do with race or racism. Beyoncé has it. You don’t.

At what point do the liberals understand that it is possible to take issue with the actions of a person of a different race without it being a racial issue? None of the criticism of West  included assumptions of racism… precisely how it should be. It damages us all when people throw that brick-bat about with nothing to support it.

Joe Wilson made a mistake in calling Obama a liar. Not because it’s untrue (as Obama has demonstrated that he lies on a regular basis), but because he chose to do it in the wrong venue – a joint address to Congress.

To his credit, he apologized. To President Obama’s credit, he accepted it and has moved on.  Time for Dowd to get a her facts straight, get beyond this. and move on (talk about asking for a miracle…).

To hell with political correctness.  We need truth in our lives and our news. Or as Robin Williams once said, “Reality! Whoa! What a concept!”

Gerry Ashley

Maybe This is Why the Tea Party Struck Such a Nerve

One of our commenters asked the following questions concerning the now (in)famous Wednesday Congressional Speech in which lawmaker Joe Wilson(R) shouted out, “You lie!” at the POTUS…

Is it true that the Democrats and Obama supporters at that same meeting interrupted the president’s speech 102 times with applause/wild cheering and/or standing ovations?
If so, am I to understand that being disrespectful and interrupting the president once because you “disagree” is rude, but being disrespectful and interrupting the president 102 times because you agree is okie-dokie?

To answer the first question: According to the Huffington Post, the President was indeed interrupted 102 times (65 times for applause, and 37 standing o’s). However, some of those interruptions also came from conservatives when President Obama touched on subjects they liked.

As for the second question, I think I’d rather be interrupted by praise rather than being interrupted by, “You lie!” But it raises an interesting question: Speaking as a guy who’s spent way too much time in front of a classroom, interruptions (good or bad) can be extremely annoying when you’re trying to make a point or explain something. It breaks your concentration, possibly derails your train of logic, and throws off your rhythm as a speaker.

But I think our commenter also hit upon a much larger idea. People (like the folks who attended the Tea Parties) are yelling at government because they don’t feel like government is listening to them. Congressman Wilson was just a microcosm of that frustration when he yelled at the President, because quite frankly the administration isn’t listening to the GOP.

It’s interesting to note that as Fox News interviewed various participants at the Tea Party, an all-too-common explanation for attendance was, “My government isn’t listening to me.”

Maybe this is why the Tea Parties struck such a nerve… No wonder we’re all yelling, including Mr. Wilson.

Alan Speakman