BREITBART: Boycott Greg Gutfeld's 'Red Eye'
Monday, January 26, 2009
"Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" on the Fox News Channel must be boycotted or taken off the air. Its sexist, misogynist, homophobic, racist, speciesist and self-hating host must be maimed, lynched and/or killed.
If not, someone might be offended. And that cannot happen - especially now that President Obama is poised to make everything really great.
In an era of extreme political correctness, when almost everyone is offended by almost everything, and with self-appointed advocacy groups organized to find offense on behalf of almost everyone - offensively, without the majority in the group's consent - it's nice to know that there's a place to go where everyone can be offended almost all of the time.
Even if it's hidden on the offensive cable news network, according to offensive liberal watchdog David Brock's Media Matters, and shown at an offensive hour - Monday to Friday, 3 a.m. EST.
Two years into its late, late, late-night (or early, early morning - depending on your biological clock) cable news run, "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" has solidified itself as television's most reliably absurdist, unpredictable and laugh-provoking news hour.
It's less a comedy competitor to "The Daily Show" - the budget's too low, and Gutfeld isn't a marm at heart - or an insomniac's "The O'Reilly Factor" (Who cares what people who wake after noon think?) than it is a surrealistic "Fernwood 2-Night" (Fred Willard rocks!)
No topic of discussion - ethnic houseboys, torture pits, cannibalism as a "lifestyle choice," seedy tricks in parks, allusions to drug abuse, etc. - is off-limits, and no ideology is predetermined. Show regulars Bill Schulz, a liberal; Andy Levy, a libertarian; and Mr. Gutfeld, a conservative, ensure that the show's point of view isn't rigged.
That means, unlike all other cable news shows, participants aren't pitted to hate one another for disagreeing over farm bills, sex dolls and first-family fist bumps. It's also the go-to show for the rigid and the joyless - those poor wonks at watchdog blogs whose only way of income is creating a universe of make-believe offensiveness.
"Red Eye" guarantees that their shrill cries of outrage keep their fridges stocked with hummus for another day.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
BREITBART: Boycott Greg Gutfeld's 'Red Eye'
Posted by No Apology at 7:58 AM
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday, Jan. 26, 2009
by George C. Wilson
Dear President Obama:
The military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech to the nation 48 years ago this month is now taking us to the poor house in Cadillacs that have little, if anything, to do with fighting the here-and-now threat of terrorism.
Your Defense secretary, Robert Gates, said as much several times while working for former President George W. Bush but didn't cancel anything big.
It's time, Mr. President, to use your awesome powers of persuasion to convince the American people and their hired hands in Congress that we'll never get out of this recession, or depression, unless the Pentagon is forced to join your crusade to cut costs.
Far too many generals, admirals, senators and representatives have fallen in love with these luxury weapons. The politicians who oversee Pentagon spending no longer care what these weapons cost as long as jobs back home are attached to them.
The way Congress oversees the Pentagon "has certainly become dysfunctional," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told me. "Congress instead of being the watchdog is the dog that has to be watched."
The defense agenda you put on the White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/defense/
More Army and Marine troops: 65,000 more for the Army, 27,000 more for the Marines; "greater investment" in manned and unmanned aircraft; "recapitalize our naval forces;" counter "possible threats to U. S. space assets, modernize the National Guard and reserves." Where was the call for the Defense Department to make cuts to help pull the nation out of the recession? A long list of fallen dictators armed to the teeth testifies to the reality that national strength depends more on the economy than on planes, tanks and guns.
Sure, I realize no politician, including you, wants to look weak on national defense. But cutting fat out of the military budget and insisting on accountability for cost overruns on weapons are not signs of weakness.
Your reviewers of major weapons will not have to look hard to find waste and mismatches between the weapons the Pentagon is buying and the threats America faces.
The Pentagon's Selected Acquisition Reports are one place for them to look, while the high stack of GAO reports documenting how military procurement is wildly out of control is another.
The cost of major weapons has skyrocketed so high that no military service, despite Bush's record peacetime defense budgets, can afford to buy enough of them to cover the world's hotspots. No Cadillac of a weapon, no matter how fancy, can be in two places at once.
A new book, America 's Defense Meltdown published by the World Security Institute's Center for Defense Information, includes a chapter by long-time Pentagon executive Thomas Christie, who spent decades in the sand fighting the procurement bull.
"The overall decision process is broken and in need of far reaching, even radical, remedial actions," writes Christie, who worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. The basic problem is that contractors and defense executives underestimate what a weapon on the drawing board will cost and overestimate how much money the Pentagon will have to pay for it, the veteran analyst says.
Please insist, Mr. President, that your reviewers zero in on the costs of the Cadillacs and ask on your behalf how they would combat the most likely threats facing our country. Also, it would impose immediate accountability and inspire reform if you told the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps that their procurement budgets will be cut by the amount of their cost overruns on weapons. No more hitting the spare parts budget to make up for the overruns.
Among the many Cadillacs worth challenging are these:
· Army Future Combat Systems. The Pentagon estimates in its latest SAR that 15 systems in the Army program will cost $159.3 billion, or $10.6 billion for each system. The FCS has all kinds of problems.
· Air Force F-22 fighter. In another example of a mismatch, the F-22 has not been deployed to fight terrorists. The Pentagon's own price tag for this plane, designed to take on the now-defunct Warsaw Pact air forces, stands at $351 million a copy, according to the Pentagon's SAR figures, which include research and development costs.
· Navy Littoral Combat Ship. Can you believe, Mr. President, the cost of this supposedly simple ship for brown-water operations is now priced at $1.4 billion each?
· Marine V-22 Osprey. Several Defense secretaries tried to cancel this $118 million aerial taxi cab but got rolled by Congress. Why keep buying such an expensive limo?
CBO calculates the cost of national defense, including nuclear bomb-making by the Energy Department, has climbed to $600 billion this fiscal year not counting the second supplemental of about $70 billion on the way. That total of $672 billion, Mr. President, works out to spending almost $77 million an hour for our protection.
There is an old saying in the military that the commander who tries to be strong everywhere is weak everywhere. The numbers are shouting out, Mr. President: " Houston, we have a problem."
George C. Wilson, former national defense correspondent for The Washington Post, is the author of six books on military affairs. He currently writes the Forward Observer column for CongressDaily.
Posted by No Apology at 11:22 PM
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
January 5, 2009
BREITBART: A million stories to tell
By Andrew Breitbart
On Tuesday, I launch Big Hollywood (bighollywood.breitbart .com), a big group blog that will feature hundreds of the big minds from the fields of politics, journalism, entertainment and culture.
Big Hollywood is not a "celebrity" gabfest or a gossip outpost - it is a continuous politics and culture posting board for those who think something has gone drastically wrong and that Hollywood should return to its patriotic roots.
Big Hollywood's modest objective: to change the entertainment industry. To make Hollywood something we can believe in - again. In order to give millions of Americans hope.
Until conservatives, libertarians and Republicans - who will be the lion's share of Big Hollywood's contributors - recognize that (pop) culture is the big prize and that politics is secondary, there will be no victory in this important battle.
Hollywood is no longer an American industry. And it took a prolonged war in which the studios and most of the stars didn't show up to fight for America to draw attention to this hard truth.
American corporations, the FBI, the CIA and elected U.S. officials are the bad guys in flicks these days. Radical Islamists are seldom vilified while the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are smeared too often.
Film production - and countless jobs - have been steadily shipped abroad for cost-cutting purposes. Standing ovations at Cannes and Golden Globes - not American popular opinion - determine who wins the Oscar. And homegrown actors are hailed as First Amendment heroes for speaking out against the United States.
The anti-hero rules this celluloid world. Nihilism is packaged as edginess. And there's zero sense that anyone's watching out for quality control. Even the respected awards are often given to the most outlandish and gratuitously deplorable.
In 2003, Meryl Streep told the Wall Street Journal: "We export the crap. And then we wonder why everybody hates us and has a distorted picture of what Americans are."
In the period since Sept. 11, 2001, international box office receipts have steadily exceeded domestic numbers. Film financing now usually begins with international investors and creative decisions are crafted to geopolitical sensibilities rarely simpatico with our own.
Big Hollywood box office analyst Steve Mason will explore these trends and be the first national reporter to crunch the movie numbers throughout the week. Politicians need to pay attention to the results as close as studio executives. Or elections beware.
Globalization explains a good portion of the Hollywood leftward lurch but alienated and demoralized Americans turning off and tuning out further undermines the case for inserting proud Western ideals into entertainment product. We are now giving the world what we think it wants as we turn our heads in disgust. That's not a good formula for a civilization to survive.
Most heartbroken by this cultural and financial sea change are those who ply in the powerful trade of make-believe, who got into show business, for among other reasons, to carry on Hollywood's patriotic mission. It's hard to believe, but not everyone in the business thinks Sean Penn is a gonzo genius.
Hidden amid the "dissent is patriotic" glitterati are thousands of deeply concerned artists and industry players who have mostly privately and sadly watched Hollywood reflect ideals that are not their own.
Non-left-leaning writers, producers, directors and "below the line" members of the creative community will slowly begin to tell "flyover country" that their values are shared - even in glitzy Los Angeles. In fact, to foreshadow its big message, Big Hollywood will be an invitation to aspiring conservatives to drop their political dreams for the grueling Hollywood grind.
Returning veterans of the current war, please move to the head of the line.
Big Hollywood also will offer politicians, think tank brains, pundits and sundry wonks the opportunity to show another face to the conservative movement and the Republican Party. No longer will "South Park" and Dennis Miller carry the load alone in pointing out the absurdities of the modern left.
On Day One, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter invokes the Beatles' "Dear Prudence," inviting Hollywood's "closeted" conservatives to "come out and play." Actor and raconteur Orson Bean remembers that the hopeful movies of his childhood during the Great Depression gave him and many other Americans the will and drive to succeed.
We need to discover that spirit again.
If conservatives don't figure out popular culture soon, the movement will die a deserving death. If Hollywood liberals can't learn how to play well with those with whom they disagree, Big Hollywood will have a field day at their close-minded and intolerant expense. The days of open bullying in the marketplace of ideas are nearing their end.
Consider this a warning.
Editor in Chief John Nolte is veteran of the film blog world, and a director in his own right. His love of the best of Hollywood - yes, there still is great product - will keep the readers and the writers enthusiastic about the future.
I will be writing and recruiting like the madman that I am.
Hollywood may not be completely anti-American yet, but it is certainly no longer pro-American. And no one has put up a public fight to change that.
Andrew Breitbart is the founder of the news Web site breitbart.com and is co-author of "Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon - the Case Against Celebrity."
Posted by No Apology at 9:31 AM
Saturday, January 10, 2009
I watched this 20-minute lecture Hitchens gave to some Canadians some time ago, and watching it for the second time, feel it deserves posting. Some will disagree, as is their right. But It's my blog and so here it is in 3 parts...
Already getting stiff opposition from fellow Democrats who are none too pleased with his political maneuverings, Obama is going to be in for a long, hard four years. And the fun hasn't even begun yet.
Here is HuffPo, no less, having a go at him...
The Huffington Post
Posted January 8, 2009
By Andy Borowitz
Hoping to calm a nation whose nerves have been rattled by economic woes, President-elect Barack Obama today delivered the first in a series of numbingly boring speeches designed to put the nation to sleep.
Viewers who were able to remain awake for the entirety of his speech could boil down Mr. Obama's economic plan to two points: stimulate the American economy while tranquilizing the American people.
"The President-elect is well aware that Americans are having trouble sleeping," said chief of staff designee Rahm Emanuel. "These speeches are designed to fix that."
By that criterion, Mr. Obama's speech on economic matters today was a huge success, with over half of his audience losing consciousness five minutes in.
"That speech was a home run," Mr. Emanuel said. "If he gives more speeches like that, you can throw away your Ambien."
But even as Mr. Emanuel was touting his boss's sandman-like oratory, Mr. Obama's Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, offered Americans the following warning: "If you are listening to one of President-elect Obama's speeches on the radio, do not attempt to operate heavy machinery."
Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, blagojevich is being offered up as the sacrificial goat (couldn't happen to a nicer guy) by fellow thuggians, who somehow hope to convince the world that with his passing, the phoenix will rise from the ashes, leaving the public with a fresh scent of honest Chicago politics. Uh Huh. Oh, brother.
Posted by No Apology at 12:03 AM
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
from Political Humor
It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control
by Michael Z. Williamson
1. That incidents where people shoot criminals in self defense are very rare, and shouldn't be used as excuses to own guns, just as incidents where presidential press secretaries are shot are very rare, and shouldn't be used as excuses to ban guns.
2. That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn't the person involved.
3. That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won't harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.
4. That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.
5. That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.
6. That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because "Violence never settles anything."
7. That it's wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.
8. That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.
9. That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.
10. That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker
11. That if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.
12. That pilots have enough to do in the cockpit, without having to worry about distractions like firearms to stop hijackers and fire extinguishers to stop fires, and these activities should be left to "trained professionals."
13. That such "trained professionals" will only be available on one flight in five.
14. That rather than have the pilot risk human life by shooting at a hijacker, we should simply have the Air Force shoot down the plane, thus preserving life.
15. That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.
16. That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.
17. That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.
18. That the press reporting a shooting is "responsible," but failing to report that the shooter was stopped by an armed citizen is an attempt to prevent the "glamorization of guns."
19. That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.
20. That Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.
(brief aside) This is my idea of GUN CONTROL...
21. That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).
22. That "assault weapons" are "very powerful" but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.
23. That assault rifles are "underpowered" for hunting, but can "punch through police body armor." More powerful hunting rifles, however, cannot.
24. That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can't use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.
25. That we don't need the Second Amendment or arms to protect our Constitution, but should instead use the courts and the government system, just as we did in 1776.
26. That the lack of mention of guns in wills in colonial American cities proves that most Americans didn't own them, just as the lack of mention of outhouses proves that most people squatted in the yard.
27. That this alleged lack of ownership is as relevant to the Second Amendment as the lack of interest in newspapers at the time was relevant to the First Amendment.
28. That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but "gun nuts" are "obsessed with violence."
29. That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against "types" of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the "obsessiveness" of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.
30. That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.
31. That according to investigative reports, alarm systems are expensive, often easily defeated, and the alarm company may not respond for three hours, even then only driving by rather than stopping, but an alarm system is a more reliable means of protecting the home than a firearm.
32. That less guns in an altercation is a good thing, so you should not be armed against a criminal to keep yourself safe.
33. That rather than spend a few hundred dollars on a firearm and an afternoon learning how to use it, one should instead spend thousands of dollars and several years learning a martial art, so you'll be well-prepared to fight anyone, as long as they're in your gender division and weight class.
34. That it's terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.
35. That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.
36. That because of the bombing at Oklahoma City and the knife-point hijacking on September 11, we should take guns away from people who weren't involved.
37. That a police officer under 21 shouldn't be able to buy a gun for off duty use, because his competence depends on that blue jacket.
38. That people buy guns as "substitute penises," because they know that only people with small penises ever get attacked by criminals.
39. That Hitler and Stalin didn't disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other "undesirables." (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post, quoting www.potomac-inc.org.)
40. That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the "legitimate fears" they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I'm beginning to wonder.)
There are another 316 reasons which Williamson has thoughtfully provided on the Political Humor website. Some are really hilarious.
Posted by No Apology at 5:00 AM
Friday, January 02, 2009
Wall Street Journal
JANUARY 2, 2009
Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'
Hamas are the real war criminals in this conflict.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Israel's actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defense against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.
Since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets designed to kill civilians into southern Israel. The residents of Sderot -- which have borne the brunt of the attacks -- have approximately 15 seconds from launch time to run into a shelter. Although deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime, terrorists firing at Sderot are so proud of their actions that they sign their weapons.
When Barack Obama visited Sderot this summer and saw the remnants of these rockets, he reacted by saying that if his two daughters were exposed to rocket attacks in their home, he would do everything in his power to stop such attacks. He understands how the terrorists exploit the morality of democracies.
In a recent incident related to me by the former head of the Israeli air force, Israeli intelligence learned that a family's house in Gaza was being used to manufacture rockets. The Israeli military gave the residents 30 minutes to leave. Instead, the owner called Hamas, which sent mothers carrying babies to the house.
Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.
These despicable tactics -- targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians -- can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding.
The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality -- by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets -- is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.
Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed. This is illustrated by what happened on Tuesday, when a Hamas rocket hit a kindergarten in Beer Sheva, though no students were there at the time. Under international law, Israel is not required to allow Hamas to play Russian roulette with its children's lives.
While Israel installs warning systems and builds shelters, Hamas refuses to do so, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel's military actions. Hamas knows from experience that even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed inadvertently will result in bitter condemnation of Israel by many in the international community.
Israel understands this as well. It goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties -- even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilians.
Until the world recognizes that Hamas is committing three war crimes -- targeting Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations -- and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace" (Wiley, 2008).
Posted by No Apology at 6:05 PM