Description
Our opinions of and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.
Comments and suggestions can be sent to:
Dana - virtual_zero@hotmail.com
Bob - bobtheright@hotmail.com
Syndicate this site: Atom RSS
Latest Posts
The Stink Over Undercover Cops - Dana
On Chinese Goods - Dana
Tweaking The Template - Dana
If I Posted... - Dana
On Automobiles - Dana
The Grim Endpoint Of Public Healthcare - Dana
My Idea: Club His Sorry Ass - Dana
Robbed Again - Dana
Nothing To See Here - Dana
Finally Got Backlinks Working - Dana
Links
Our Sponsors
Miscellaneous
Privacy Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
A simple lesson is how the media distorts language and photos to convey a message can be seen here.
Another classic can be found here.
And the media wonders why people hardly trust a word they say or write. Sad.
[Via littlegreenfootballs]
Monday, September 26, 2005
For tonight's dose of humour I present the latest rantings of Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi:
What's crackalackin', y'all? I know it's been long-time-no-post, but I gotta tell you it's a little hard to keep up with the blogging when you're getting a daily enema from infidel Tomahawks. I knew that war is supposed to be hell, but dude -- this one is starting to totally fucking suck. Bigtime.Go check out Iowahawk. I would suggest starting in the archives around February 2004 and working your way to the present.
Case in point: after taking in the nards in Tel Afar last week, let's just say the martyr recruiting has gone a little slow. And speaking of 'a little slow,' can we talk about this latest busload of asswipes from Damascus? Jeez, I thought the Saudis were stupid, but these Syrians take the fucking baclava. Send one of these choads on a simple martydom operation against a Bagdhad collaborator elementary school, and they're like, "Durrrr, a thousand pardons effendi, I got lost! Doyyyy, can I have a martyrdom car with OnStar?" Then you end up having to print out MapQuest directions for them, which totally chews up printer cartridges, and they end up smeared along some desert freeway because they mistook the detonator button for cruise control.
Just between us, it was almost a relief when Team Satan and their Iraqi puppets greased a couple hundred of my lovable losers last week. 'Thinning the herd,' if you know what I mean, and I suppose it probably raised our average insurgent IQ ten points. To 67, maybe. Still, word-of-mouth about this kind of missile strike crap gets around, and it has really screwed our recruiting. Even with the dipshit teenage mosque-rats in Damascus and Riyadh. It's gotten so bad, in fact, that we had to open up a recruiting office in France. I shit you not: reduced to recruiting Le. fucking. Fron-say.
...
Friday, September 23, 2005
I'ld like to think that the average Canadian has a reasonable understanding of economics. Perhaps that has always been wishful thinking but today's poll at The Globe And Mail proves me wrong.
According to the poll, over 60% of respondents thought that the government should regulate the price of gas.
Oh really.
So if the government regulates the price of gas below market cost who exactly do these people think is going to sell them the gas they need?
Or put another way, would you continue to run a business where you were forced to charge consumers less for your product than the price you paid for it? If you answered yes to this question I'd suggest you submit your name to all the banks so that you can be placed on the "don't ever give this idiot a business loan" list.
It seems that the South African government is caving into pressure and will be taking the first tentative steps of forcing land reform on unwilling landowners:
South Africa says it will for the first time force a white farmer to sell his land under a redistribution plan.Now I'm not debating whether some type of land reform is necessary. Any country where 80% of usable farmland is owned by 10% of the population is not structured for good social relations.
The decision was announced by the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, set up to return to black people land lost under apartheid.
An official said talks to agree on a price for the farm had failed and the farmer has vowed to challenge the move.
South Africa's government says it wants to hand over about a third of white-owned farm land by 2014.
But... have we not seem what this leads to in Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe was once a net food exporter. Today, the country is a basketcase.
So why does the future look grim for South Africa. Well just listen to the politicians:
But Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka says the pace of reform should be speeded up - as in neighbouring Zimbabwe, where most white-owned land has been seized by the state.Nothing more needs to be said.
"There needs to be a bit of oomph. That's why we may need the skills of Zimbabwe to help us," she said.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Rarely do I have something good to say about The Globe And Mail but surprisingly today is one of those days.
I noticed today that the G&M now provides a means to leave comments on all of it's stories. They may have been allowing this for weeks for all I know but I like how the comments are included with the main page of the article like you'd see on a blog. See here for an example.
They even provide a means to link directly to the comment. Very smart.
Of course as a media outlet they screen the messages before posting them which given legal reasons is probably a good idea. It will be interesting to see if any bias can be detected in how they screen the comments.
All-in-all a very smart move.
Monday, September 19, 2005
People will believe anything these days. Check out this video clip:
Three guys decided to go to New Orleans for a College football game. One of their fathers works for Roots Canada and gave them each a Canadian Winter Olympic jacket to wear. So with that said, they decided that when people ask them about the jacket they would tell them they represent Canada's Hide and Seek team. Well, they b.s.'d enough to get interviewed live during the game on ESPN.Suckers.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Via Best of the Web Today we have another example of how the loony-left doesn't accept blame for their stupid policies and instead try to blame others.
As R. Emmett Tyrrell explains regarding Hurrican Katrina:
So where did Al choose to deliver this critical compendium of misjudgments, hyperbole, and error? In San Francisco, of course, where on September 9 he said, "The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences." And he urged that "the leaders of our country be held accountable" for the flooding of New Orleans. Unfortunately he was addressing the Sierra Club, which was not the best place to bring up the flooding of New Orleans.So there you have it. The next time some blockhead blames G.W. Bush for the levies failing just point out that it was actually the Sierra Club that must accept responsibility.
The very day he spoke a congressional task force reported that the levees that failed in New Orleans would have been raised higher and strengthened in 1996 by the Army Corps of Engineers were it not for a lawsuit filed by environmentalists led by who else but the Sierra Club. Among those "leaders of our country" to "be held accountable" for the flooding of New Orleans, would Al include the Sierra Club? How about the Save the Wetlands stalwarts? According to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times, a 1977 lawsuit filed by Save the Wetlands stopped a congressionally funded plan to protect New Orleans with a "massive hurricane barrier." A judge found that New Orleans' hurricane barrier would have to wait until the Army Corps of Engineers filed a better environmental-impact statement.
And being the clueless bunch of twits that they are the Sierra Club now has a Gulf Coast Environmental Restoration Project in place. Fitting since they're basically responsible for most of the mess.
And as a slight deviation here, why is the Sierra Club wasting it's time trying to clean up the environment along the Gulf Coast. You'd think they would take pride in Mother Nature's handiwork.
Asshats.
I know that in general a nation's politicians are not an accurate reflection of it's people. But after seeing this, someone please tell me that the German people are not the same worthless pieces of shit that their politicians are?
Are German's in particular, and continental Europeans in general, so obsessed about the United States that crap like that actually wins votes? How pathetic have you people become that you fall for this foolishness?
Your countries have enough of their own problems to worry about but instead of dealing with them you allow your politicians to distract you from their incompetence by such childish tricks.
Pathetic.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Via No Pasaran I came across this interview with Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple never fails to provide a wealth of interesting subjects and concepts and is always a pleasure to read.
A few select quotes:
FP: Your observation about humans’ thrill for danger and how this interrelates with humans’ pattern of self destruction and the voluntary choosing of misery is very profound. Could you share your thoughts with us about this?Go read the whole thing.
Dalrymple: It is clear to me that people often want incompatible things. They want danger and excitement on the one hand, and safety and security on the other, and often simultaneously. Contradictory desires mean that life can never be wholly satisfying or without frustration.
I think it was Dostoyevsky who said that, even if the government were 100 per cent benevolent and arranged everything for our own good, as judged by rational criteria, we should still want to exercise our freedom by going against its dispensations.
One reason for the epidemic of self-destructiveness that has struck British, if not the whole of Western, society, is the avoidance of boredom. For people who have no transcendent purpose to their lives and cannot invent one through contributing to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who have no religious belief and no intellectual interests to stimulate them, self-destruction and the creation of crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness. I have noticed, for example, that women who frequent bad men - that is to say men who are obviously unreliable, drunken, drug-addicted, criminal, or violent, or all of them together, have often had experience of decent men who treat them well, with respect, and so forth: they are the ones with whom their relationships lasted the shortest time, because they were bored by decency. Without religion or culture (and here I mean high, or high-ish, culture) evil is very attractive. It is not boring.
...
FP: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?
Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
...
FP: Islamists and leftists have many things in common. One of them is that they are miserable, hate life and see cheer and joy as a dangerous enemy. You make the comment that “the acceptance of the inherent limitations of existence that is essential to happiness.” Can you illuminate this a bit about life in general and also connect it to the toxic nature of Islamism and leftism?
Dalrymple: I take it as given that man, having contradictory desires, is always subject to frustration, even when happy. For example, we want both adventure and safety, and when we have the one we long for the other. All forms of human happiness contain within themselves the seeds of their own decomposition.
Modern man particularly - or so it seems to me - is particularly bad at recognising that much of his unhappiness or discontent stems from this inevitable source. Rather, he blames the structure of society and thinks that a perfection that will resolve all contradictions and eliminate all frustrations can be achieved, if only we abolished private property or followed the example of the 7th century followers of Mohammed. The attempt to force people to do so gives meaning to their existence, and of course a lot of sadistic pleasure into the bargain.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
I'm sitting here listening to the Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway debate and I must say that I'm totally enjoying watching the ass-whooping Galloway is taking.
The poor fool is pretty good at throwing insults and diverting people's attention but man, is he a tool. He doesn't answer any of the questions asked of him without trying to bring up unrelated historical events as a means of avoiding what and who he supports now.
One of the more amusing parts of listening to the debate was listening to the pre-debate show put on by the lefty wack-jobs hosting the event. Man... are these people nuts.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Rarely do I read something so utterly stupid that I find it worth commentating on. Well folks, that time has come thanks to the twisted thoughts of Harold Evans at the BBC.
Harold has decided that his finely tuned senses can predict the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina. The fact that his knowledge of history, both American and European, consists of what he has seen on and written for the BBC doesn't seem to detract him.
The fun begins with the first sentence:
It takes a lot to shake America to the core - 9/11 did it four years ago this weekend; the war in Iraq still has not.I'm not exactly sure how to interpret this statement. I'm not sure what planet I'm on but for a BBC reporter his memory of the last three years of newsprint is pretty bad. If my memory serves me correctly I remember non-stop coverage of the Iraq war. I also remember non-stop reporting on every half-wit who had an opinion on it.
I can only interpret it to mean that since the American people haven't demanded the course of action he prefers regarding Iraq, that they simply could not have given it as much thought and reflection as he has.
Harold then goes on to give us a refresher in Social Darwinism and how the United States took it just a tad to far:
Social Darwinism never infiltrated politics as much in Britain as it did in America where it was brilliantly propagated by a Yale polemicist named William Graham Sumner.The entire point of this bit is to reinforce the European image of a United States where the winner takes all. This of course is a pile of baloney. The entire principle of Social Darwinism is meant to apply to groups of people, not individuals. Europe, contrary to what Harold Evans remembers, has been the only region of the planet where the idea of Social Darwinism was put into practise.
Interventions by government to regulate housing, public health, factories, and so on, were wrong, he argued, because they impeded individual enterprise that alone created wealth. My mind, said the steelmaster Andrew Carnegie, was illuminated in a flash by Sumner's theorem that mankind progresses through the "ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong".
Politicians of all colours agreed. It was a Democratic president - Grover Cleveland - who epitomized the philosophy in a memorable decision in 1877. Asked to release $10,000 of surplus seed for drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he declared: "I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering... The lesson should constantly be enforced that though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."
The attitude has never entirely disappeared and probably never will. Its appeal is not only to the economically powerful with a central faith in the sanctity of the marketplace, but also to the romantic ideals of Jeffersonian individualism.
The concept of Social Darwinism was widely discussed in many parts of the Western world at the turn of the 20th century but only the Nazi's and their collaborators (mostly Europeans I would point out) put it into practise. Social Darwinism has never been put into practise as a model for society in the United States. It has been in Europe.
Harold also implies here that a government that fails to regulate housing, public health, and factories, is failing to do it's job. Once again, I wonder if Harold has cared to read the volumes of government regulations relating to these matters? Probably not considering it would probably take him the better part of a year to do it. Since he hasn't bothered to read up on these government regulations we can only assume that he simply doesn't like the way the US government deals with these areas of government policy.
After the sociology lesson he then takes a stab at American history:
So why then is Hoover almost a dirty word in the history books? It is because faced with a bigger challenge than the floods - the Great Depression with 13 million out of work - he refused to recognise the responsibility of government to relieve individual suffering.Harold like so many of his ilk is trying to find a parallel in history that will back up his underlying theme. He implies here that government can solve all problems if only the right man (a progressive by the way) is in charge. He thinks that if only the American government "cared" enough most if not all of the suffering during the Great Depression could have been avoided. How this would be possible he doesn't care to inform us. The entire global economy was affected by the Great Depression and all manner of approaches were taken by different countries to deal with it. Perhaps Harold would have preferred the United States had taken the approach of European Nazis or Facists? Perhaps he would recommend the Communists approach?
He believed that economic depressions, like natural disasters, were acts of God that must run their course. He expected voluntary acts of compassion by business and good neighbours would be enough, as they mostly had been in his humanitarian work in World War I. But the Depression affected so many millions it was too big and complex for that.
So slow was Hoover to respond that the shanty towns of the unemployed became known as Hoovervilles. He refused to believe that anyone was starving.
Of the men selling apples in the streets, the symbol of the depression, he said, "many persons left their jobs for the more profitable one of selling apples." It was not a joke. He had a tin ear, rather like George Bush.
The entire quote seems to be nothing more than an attempt to find someone who believed in God, note their failures, and then take a shot at G.W. Bush.
Moving on, Harold ends with:
And Bush, like Hoover, has found it hard to confront reality. He has said nobody expected the levees to break - thereby flying in the fact of scores of predictions in official reports, science journals and newspapers.Here he tries to blame G.W. Bush for the lack of an evacuation but fails to mention that in the United States local governments are responsible for such things. Contrary to what Harold may think the mayor of New Orleans is responsible to make such a decision. On top of that, the governor of Louisiana is responsible for threats to the state. That is why elections are held. To vote into position people to make those decisions.
Back in the 30s, clinging to the log of Social Darwinism did not save Hoover. He was swept away by a riptide of anger and fear like that which may threaten the Republican ascendancy today.
In 1932 Hoover lost both his reputation and the presidency in a landslide to his Democratic challenger Franklin Roosevelt. The New Deal FDR ushered in - signing 15 bills in his first 100 days - almost drove a stake through the heart of Social Darwinism. Never before had government so directly shored up the lives of individual Americans at every social level and class.
It was the foundation of a welfare state - a ringing reaffirmation of America's commitment to huddled masses yearning to share in the great American Dream.
George Bush is not an expert of the status of the levees in New Orleans and if you somehow expect him to be then you're an idiot. Harold takes the time to point out that George Bush didn't think the levees would break but doesn't care to mention the million or so other people who live in and around the city who thought the same thing.
He closes with a couple of statements about how a stake was nearly driven through the heart of Social Darwinism and that the United States is a welfare state. This seems to be totally contradictory to the theme of this article since the whole point is how uncaring the American government is.
This entire piece is nothing but a sad attempt at twisting history to fit one's perceptions of the world. Instead of recommending that the people of New Orleans vote for a mayor that isn't an asshat he instead suggests that the entire American social model should be reworked to be in line with some of the wonderful examples that Europe provides.
Since a more "progressive" social model would have lessened the impact of Hurricane Katrina I wonder how a European country would have dealt with a disaster of such magnitude? How about France where over ten thousand died a few years ago due to a heat wave? Is that the social model American should emulate? How about Germany where flooding a few years back brought the country to a halt? Is that the model Harold is recommending?
I guess we'll never know since Harold is suggesting nothing constructive. Harold thinks a progressive social model is better and hence he naturally thinks it would have dealt with this situation better. As I said he doesn't bother to go into the details of how that might be since he naturally assumes his reader agrees with him.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Nothing brightens my day more then watching my favourite "useful idiot" make a fool of himself:
Mr Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug a hole in the bottom of the vessel, which began taking water within seconds of its launch.Nothing better than watching the Sean Penn Ego Tour go bust.
The actor, known for his political activism, was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out of the sinking vessel with a red plastic cup.
When the boat's motor failed to start, those aboard were forced to use paddles to propel themselves down the flooded New Orleans street.
Asked what he had hoped to achieve in the waterlogged city, the actor replied: "Whatever I can do to help."
With the boat loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer, one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"
What an ass.
Unfortunately Hassan Almrei ended his hunger strike this past Saturday:
Seventy-three days into a hunger strike that had him fearing for his life, Hassan Almrei ended his protest Saturday because of the hope he says he's been given by Canadians.This may seem quite innoculous if not for this:
The 31-year-old Syrian national, one of five people being held on a national security certificate as a threat to Canada, had been subsisting on three glasses of orange juice a day and some water in an attempt to gain the same rights as a federal inmate.
Alexandre Trudeau, son of the late prime minister Pierre Trudeau, was among those in attendance.What in bleeding hell is Alexandre Trudeau doing supporting such a maggot! Almrei has admittedly broken Canadian law and spent time training in Afganistan. Has anyone cared to ask Alexandre what Almrei was training for while in Afganistan. Multi-cultural ambassador perhaps? Gourmet chef? Human rights activist?
“We're here because of the hunger strike, and this is sort of a fine point of this issue,” said the filmmaker, who has been an outspoken advocate for Mr. Almrei and Moroccan detainee Adil Charkaoui, whom Canadian authorities have accused of being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent.
“This campaign has to go on, we have to be aware of this and really come to understand whether this is something we want in this country or not — which I personally do not.”
Mr. Almrei is fighting Canada's attempts to deport him to Syria, where he says he will be tortured.
He has admitted to lying about his past to get into Canada and training in Afghanistan, but denies any ties to al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.
And not only does Almrei have Alexandre's support he kicked us in the nuts with this classic:
“I am sad that the Ontario government will not give me my basic human rights,” Mr. Almrei said in a written statement read to the hundreds of protesters gathered outside the Metro West Detention Centre in Toronto.Not give you your basic human rights? Oh the humanity! This coming from a man who spent a couple of summers training to kill infidels.
Why oh why don't any of this so called jihadists and martyrs have any self-respect?
Monday, September 05, 2005
Bill Wittle has written another classic discussing the differences between two types of people:
So, on one hand, we have a very blue city – New York – confronted, out of the clear morning of a perfect fall day, with no warning – with a terror attack, and they march toward the sounds of screams and falling bodies and die by the hundreds. One the other hand, we have New Orleans law enforcement – also blue – whining about wet shoes and helping themselves to the happy period of lawlessness that followed an event that had been expected for no less than seventy-two hours.Bravo!
In New York, we had a governor who got every available resource on the ground as fast as it could get there, and in Louisiana we have a governor who...cried. Governor, your job is to not cry. Your job is to be strong. We have plenty of civilians crying. You want to cry, cry in the car on the way home like everybody else did four years ago. Crying Governors, race-baiting mayors and looting police do not a Finest Hour make.
In New Orleans we have a mayor who left some 400-500 buses sitting fueled and underwater in the Ray Nagin Memorial Motor Pool saying that evil white conservative America was selling out his people within 24 hours of the catastrophe, from a safe and dry and adequately toileted location, while four years ago we had a Mayor who ran to the site of the disaster so quickly it is a full-blown miracle he was not killed when a building collapsed literally on top of his magnificent, combed-over head.
Now, much has been made of the fact that Ray Nagin is an incompetent, race-baiting black man, and Rudy Giuliani, who was neither, is white. Also, feminists are upset that people dare attack Governor Blanco because she is incompetent, weak, indecisive, and also a woman. And no doubt there are salivating long-haired, short-cortexed idiots just waiting for this to be over so they can sail into the comments section and tell me what a racist and misogynist I am.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Nothing amuses me more than reading how all the lefty moonbats are blaming G.W. Bush for the situation in Louisiana.
In response to such stupidy I came across this simple and eloquent statement:
They aren't stranded because of politics, SUVs or climate change. They are stranded because a planet that graces us with sunshine and warmth also makes storms.Indeed. Mother Nature is a bitch.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
One has to wonder about the gaul or the ignorance required to twist a situation into something it is not.
While checking out the BBC this morning I came across this classic where Jonah Fisher wastes my precious time by telling me that the Sudanese Arabs are victims of the genocide taking place in Sudan:
It has been a difficult couple of years for the nomads. One man we spoke to has 12 wives. He inherited 10 of them when six of his brothers were killed in a rebel attack.Seen as the enemy in an organized camp? Is he serious? Did he ever consider that whenever the Arab nomads get near a refugee camp that they are often riding under the cover of military aircraft?
Nomad on camel with loads of possessions
Nomads are continually on the move to find new grazing
After this meeting, we travelled north to meet another group of nomads.
Strictly speaking they are ex-nomads.
A year-and-a-half ago they were attacked by rebels, lost most of their animals and stopped travelling.
"Everything was taken in attacks by the rebels in 2004. We had large herds of camels, cows, sheep, goat and even donkeys," the group's religious leader Khatir Idriss said.
"We are now three different nomad tribes come here to live together and provide ourselves with some safety."
I asked him if they were armed.
"Some of us who still have some animals have guns so we can protect ourselves," he replied.
And this is the essence of these ex-nomads problems: an Arab on camel or horseback sporting a Kalashnikov has become the symbol of Darfur's evil - the Janjaweed, blamed for driving people from their villages.
If these ex-nomads tried to go to an organised camp they would be seen as the enemy.
Conflict between nomads and farmers has long existed in Darfur. But this war has destroyed any sense of normality for both communities.
The conflict in Sudan is so straight-forward that I'm stunned that much of the media is trying to do their best to blur people's perceptions of it. In a nutshell, the Sudanese government is supplying and funding Arab nomads to drive off the Africans. It is basically a small part of a general strategy by African Arabs to drive black Africans further south.
Simple enough, but why is it that not only do you rarely if ever read a story about how the government funds these murderers, but instead we are treated to a story telling us how sorry we should feel for them? Disgusting.