some people call Stalin the grave digger of communism. Meaning that he gave communism such a terrible repuatation that it has been discredited-seemingly discredited.
Is George W. Bush the grave digger of the Republican Party?
Bush utterly changed persceptions of the GOP. The way people think of and talk about the GOP today is totally different from the way they did before 2000. Basically you could say the GOP went from being smart and evil(or heartless) to dumb and evil in its advesarys eyes.
He destroyed that general Gingrich Era perseption of republicans being if not the hippiest party, being atleast responcible, good managers, non-grandiouse thinking. The GOP didn't have a hip image before W., but it wasn't completly social sucide to be a young republican then-the GOP was known for old white guys on the golf course (think Bush 41), after Bush 43, the GOP became sonoymous not only with old whiter golfers but NASCAR rednecks and TV evangelists.
Image wise it will take a generation probably to redeem the GOP in people eyes.
On the issues alone-though-BUsh was (how glad i am to say was rather than is) just as bad and damaging. He made the GOP's agenda basically a terrible minutae of evangelical lefty policys that could be fairly described as Democrat Lite (a brand that includes both Bush and Mccain). Why was Bush 43 leftwing? well no right winger, could have pushed affirmtive action for lending (the primary cause of the current econmic fiasco), amnesty, 2 wilsonian wars for democracy, reckless spending, a massive and the largest domestic spending since LBJ.
So besides the tax cut, you could sum up Bush's policys as a whole as "faith based" he ran things like alot of megachurch pastors might have (someone like Mike Gerson who spends time in African missionary churchs for fun). He was evangelical bleeding heart on abortion but also apparent in his irresponcibly huge aide pacckages to Africa, stupid huge funding of church programs, wilsonians endless wars, amnesty, etc.
Also this neocon nightmare that is tainting the GOP, is essentially his fault he put it in the GOP's hands and the GOP not wanting to admit what the grassroots of the right know aboubt the war on terror being a terrible joke, have made this endless war on terror part of the GOP agenda. The Crucifiction of Ron Paul via Giullani during one of those 08 debates shows that neocon foreign policy is going to be a basic requirment of nomination contenders in the GOP for the next couple of elections.
So he gave the GOP a christian image at a time when doing so hurts the GOP so much more than it at all helps it, and gave up most of the very appealling and timely conservtive policys to replace them with dumb policys that neither the left or right likes.
those timely and appealling (especially to younger people) policys, you ask?
-Opposing racial quotas, and the kind of diastrous and ridiclous affirmtive action as seen in the Ricci case, that is enforced not only in college admissions now but lending, testing for fire fighters and many other areas were affirmtive actions does not belong at all. (This is big among young americans.)
- School Choice. The argument for allowing parents to send their kids were they want is more appealing and strong than ever. Recent stats on how bad public schools are are paticularily outragous. We spend twice as much on public school than we did 40 years ago and results have gotten worse, we spend by far more on our public schools than any other nation on earth and we rank far back in most subjects among 1st world nations. You can also hold up as a killer demonstation, the success of swedens school choice policy and of american school choice programs in D.C. and elsewhere. Also very popular among left and right, very common sence.
-Stopping mass immgration. Republicans should contanstly be telling americans when they argue against amnesty that by 2050 america will have 150 million more people and by 2100 might likely have a billion people and how terrible that will be. make this argument on a enviormental basis, "do we really need more shopping malls and ugly subdivisions? do we want less wilderness and more cars and traffic?". Thats another argument that is popular to all americans. People don't like how aesthetics have gotten in american life, and it';s a very visceral dislike that is never talked about it also fuels the green movement. People misguidedly place there disatsfications with the growth and exspansion of ugly new archeture and the demolision of great old archeture in the GREEN movement not realizing that the source of what they don't like is mass immgration and open borders and amnesty and that they should be supporting not Global Warming gas taxes that will make them much poorer for no real reason, but the anti-Amnesty movement. again very popular across the spectrum.
-Roll back our massive cold war miltrary apprartus and spending. We don't need about a third of our army and air force basis. Jihadism is not a big threat to us. We won't stop it by waring in Iraq or Afganistan but by gaining control of our borders and immgration and being much more prudent in who we let in. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if not for our horrendous immgration failure.
-A new attitude on the enviorment. This means don't join the Global warming idiots, fight cap and trade, but adopt the goals of
1. becoming less oil dependent by building nuclear plants rather than unvialbly exspensive windmills and
2.conserving america's wilderness by stopping mass immgration and opposing amnesty.
the GOP should exsplain why 1. global warming is not a fact and why if it is that we don't know how bad it will be and we can't change it either way because whatever measures we take will be nullfied by china, india, brazil and the rest of the world.
So we rather than make america alot poorer and pretend were saving anything while we squander our own wilderness becoming a latino nation of a billion which the democrats want to do, the GOP should offer americans they laternative of saving our own enviorment, not unnescarily making the nation alot poorer for nothing, and not allowing america to become a latino nation of a billion people by opposing cap and trade and gas taxes and amnesty and building a fence and stopping mass immgration and finnally enforcing our immgration laws by ending the era of sanctuarys citys and rigoursly rounding up 12-20 million illegal immgrants in the US. very popular among americans.
-Getting rid of the religous rhetoric and image by:
1. Make opposition to Roe vs. wade and Gay marriage more of a states right thing than a christian thing.
2. rather than referncing jesus on social causes talk intelligently about how bad the absence of fathers is for children. Encourage stay at home moms and 2 parent familys in the tax code , etc.
- Present a real alterntive to americans to nationaliztion of health care. Give real examples of what health care is like in Candada and how much worse things will get in regard to rationing, wiating lists, malpractice, funding. Exsplain how we cant afford it at all. Put more money into public hospitals to lessen waits rather than get rid of compeietion in the area of health care. Attack democrats on their misuse of false data, like counting illegals as the nations uninsured while not mentioning that there are to blow up the figure, not mentioning that half the uninsured can afford health care. Exsplaing how few people don;t have helath care and how those who don't actually do health care.
-Make state's rights a new main tentant. Go after the supreme courts dicatorship.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
WHEN LIBERALS FIND THE CONSTUITION
the democratic partys record of leglisation and goverance speaks it for itself, and one of the things it commucates to any honest reader is that the democrats have rarealy ever paused to push the constuition and basic freedom to the margins when they must "do good".
Example 1: Busing. would madison say its constuitional to force some parents child to go to a public school 50 miles away from his home when the neigborhood school is down the street in the name of achieving forced diversity? ofcourse not, totally unconstuitional, utterly totilitirian with the best intentions.
Example 2: Does anybody doubt that it's a basic freedom of a owner of a private business to decide who can or cannot enter there store? for a country club to prohibt women from golfing there? ofcourse not.
Example 3: The Employee Free choice: where upon the goverment forced banks to make a certain amount of loans to minoritys or else be sued by the goverment for discrimantion! contuitionalesque? no.
Anyways THEY DO SOMETIMES LIKE ALZEIHMEIMERS PATIENTS REDISCOVER THERE REVERENCE FOR THE CONSTUITION. but its at the funniest times and for the sillyiest reasons.
for instance.....
1. they rediscover federalism when they don't want to enforce the nations immgration laws in our major citys.
2. they rediscover the constuition when they want to make sure the man who planned 9/11 doesn't undergo any pain at all in order to extract information to save lives. cause someone responcible for 3 thousand americans deaths shall never undergo 20 seconds of simulated drowning and discomfort and because jihadisof a private businet are probably more likely to rat on their cause if we ask more kindly for secrets.
3. they rediscover the constuition to claim that gay marriage is enshrined within it (though its not at all) and is a basic human right.
just a little review: so an owners ss can't decide he doensn't want to allow women to enter his property isn't a constuitional right but gay marriage is. fascinating?
ain't the living constuition great? if you want something to be constuitional you don't need to read anything, it just is!
Example 1: Busing. would madison say its constuitional to force some parents child to go to a public school 50 miles away from his home when the neigborhood school is down the street in the name of achieving forced diversity? ofcourse not, totally unconstuitional, utterly totilitirian with the best intentions.
Example 2: Does anybody doubt that it's a basic freedom of a owner of a private business to decide who can or cannot enter there store? for a country club to prohibt women from golfing there? ofcourse not.
Example 3: The Employee Free choice: where upon the goverment forced banks to make a certain amount of loans to minoritys or else be sued by the goverment for discrimantion! contuitionalesque? no.
Anyways THEY DO SOMETIMES LIKE ALZEIHMEIMERS PATIENTS REDISCOVER THERE REVERENCE FOR THE CONSTUITION. but its at the funniest times and for the sillyiest reasons.
for instance.....
1. they rediscover federalism when they don't want to enforce the nations immgration laws in our major citys.
2. they rediscover the constuition when they want to make sure the man who planned 9/11 doesn't undergo any pain at all in order to extract information to save lives. cause someone responcible for 3 thousand americans deaths shall never undergo 20 seconds of simulated drowning and discomfort and because jihadisof a private businet are probably more likely to rat on their cause if we ask more kindly for secrets.
3. they rediscover the constuition to claim that gay marriage is enshrined within it (though its not at all) and is a basic human right.
just a little review: so an owners ss can't decide he doensn't want to allow women to enter his property isn't a constuitional right but gay marriage is. fascinating?
ain't the living constuition great? if you want something to be constuitional you don't need to read anything, it just is!
The "People's Party" standing up for the dowtrodden
THE SITUATION:there are somewhere around 12-10 million americans unemployed, some respected liberal econmist have just issued a paper that estimates that unemployment could soon rise to 12-14 percent.
here's how the democrats-that pride old gaurdian of america's poor and dowtrodden masses respond:
THE DEMOCRATS RESPONCE: So unemployment higher than its been in 20 years? lets pass amnesty then! we have such an abundance of jobs "americans won't do" we need to turn 12-20 million illegal immgrants into citzens! brillant!
QUESTION 1#: isn't this a time when people who care about the working class should actually try to do immgration enforcment for once?
QUESTION 2#:how bout we make our major citys places that follow the nations immgration laws again so that american workers no matter what there color have a better chance of getting the few jobs out there today? i hope this is rhetorical to everyone just in case i'll answer it myself: Ofcourse!
This is really so disullioning. i have lost so much respect for the left (in there putting party above country) and the media (failing to report such a scandal rightly). Utterly appauling this is. it's the shame of every democrat. they do not want to hear about it. they refuse to critize obama, and if you confront them with what there partys doing in this case they just balk or lie or ecovocate.
And when you go so far as to also tell them that the obvious reason for there partys amnesty push is to import millions of new democratic voters they gasp in horror at such a shocking and blamspous suggestion! How dare anyone ascribe such greedy and treasounious motives to Barak "i don't believe in big goverment" Obama! A man who doesn't have a bad bone in his whole body! who would never even think of misleading, lying, misreprsenting, slandering! He would never put his party before the country let alone before the dowtrodden and most needy americans!
And all i can do when i face such piffle is ask (QUESTION 3#)"ok, if its not that obama and his party and everyone else with a brain know that 12-20 million poor latinos heavily depedent on goverment programs with astronemical illegtimacy and drop out rates would be the importing of 12-20 new democrats, then why is obama pushing for amnesty at this time? because of a abundance of jobs? what?"
That right there, ladies and gentlmen, is called striking a blow. They won't have an answer to that one cause there isn't one! and yet why doenst this question above get asked? why can't even FOX news summon it up out of there throats? surely they have a place in the far back of the white house press room.
here's how the democrats-that pride old gaurdian of america's poor and dowtrodden masses respond:
THE DEMOCRATS RESPONCE: So unemployment higher than its been in 20 years? lets pass amnesty then! we have such an abundance of jobs "americans won't do" we need to turn 12-20 million illegal immgrants into citzens! brillant!
QUESTION 1#: isn't this a time when people who care about the working class should actually try to do immgration enforcment for once?
QUESTION 2#:how bout we make our major citys places that follow the nations immgration laws again so that american workers no matter what there color have a better chance of getting the few jobs out there today? i hope this is rhetorical to everyone just in case i'll answer it myself: Ofcourse!
This is really so disullioning. i have lost so much respect for the left (in there putting party above country) and the media (failing to report such a scandal rightly). Utterly appauling this is. it's the shame of every democrat. they do not want to hear about it. they refuse to critize obama, and if you confront them with what there partys doing in this case they just balk or lie or ecovocate.
And when you go so far as to also tell them that the obvious reason for there partys amnesty push is to import millions of new democratic voters they gasp in horror at such a shocking and blamspous suggestion! How dare anyone ascribe such greedy and treasounious motives to Barak "i don't believe in big goverment" Obama! A man who doesn't have a bad bone in his whole body! who would never even think of misleading, lying, misreprsenting, slandering! He would never put his party before the country let alone before the dowtrodden and most needy americans!
And all i can do when i face such piffle is ask (QUESTION 3#)"ok, if its not that obama and his party and everyone else with a brain know that 12-20 million poor latinos heavily depedent on goverment programs with astronemical illegtimacy and drop out rates would be the importing of 12-20 new democrats, then why is obama pushing for amnesty at this time? because of a abundance of jobs? what?"
That right there, ladies and gentlmen, is called striking a blow. They won't have an answer to that one cause there isn't one! and yet why doenst this question above get asked? why can't even FOX news summon it up out of there throats? surely they have a place in the far back of the white house press room.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
How Liberals vs. Conservtives think and talk about taxes and why
do you ever notice that when liberals talk about taxes, equality, distribution of wealth, the top 1 bayonet extends, that they seem to be living in a dream world?
They talk about "the pie" and how much the rich get and so fourth as if the pie aka the wealt of america is as unchanging and permeanat a thing as your couch. You might also notice that they refer to "the rich" as if these rich people were born rich and will always be rich and who do nothing and are nothing else than wealthy people. They never say that the rich are rich because they've become rich working as business owners who employ thousands of americans, inventors who make the things that have improved are lives and entrupueners who have competed to provide people better products and services to evreryone.
However when conservtives talk about the same topics of taxes, welath, etc they talk about such things as if they live not in the liberals dream world where the rich are born rich and will never stop being rich, and where the wealth aka "the pie" they want to cut up is unchanging, but in the real world.
They understand that while it sounds good to simpletons to tax 70 percent of a business owner with a 10 millioin dollars a year salary, that that owner employs thousands of amreicans and invests in the market and builds new franchises and creates jobs and in turn raise the living standards of the vert people liberals want to deliver 70 percent of his income to.
Liberals don't seem to be able to grasp the complexity of reality in this area.
When liberals think about the coroporate tax and how it should be higher, they again look at coroprations as unchanging entitys, they don't realize that they can and will move with all their jobs to another country if america taxes them to much.
Unlike liberals when thinking of how high the coroporate tax should be in america, conservtives, see that america like all countrys are competing to keep and attracted companys aka jobs, and that placing taxes at aat a level that willl atrract buisiness and encourage entrupership and investments will give the lower and middle class much more than what they will get from america taxing coroporations even more and thus driving said compnays out of america taking their jobs with them.
THis relates to my feeling that liberals is humans de fault position because liberals is about atleast they think-getting more stuff for themselves and conservtism is too esortic and complex for most people.
They talk about "the pie" and how much the rich get and so fourth as if the pie aka the wealt of america is as unchanging and permeanat a thing as your couch. You might also notice that they refer to "the rich" as if these rich people were born rich and will always be rich and who do nothing and are nothing else than wealthy people. They never say that the rich are rich because they've become rich working as business owners who employ thousands of americans, inventors who make the things that have improved are lives and entrupueners who have competed to provide people better products and services to evreryone.
However when conservtives talk about the same topics of taxes, welath, etc they talk about such things as if they live not in the liberals dream world where the rich are born rich and will never stop being rich, and where the wealth aka "the pie" they want to cut up is unchanging, but in the real world.
They understand that while it sounds good to simpletons to tax 70 percent of a business owner with a 10 millioin dollars a year salary, that that owner employs thousands of amreicans and invests in the market and builds new franchises and creates jobs and in turn raise the living standards of the vert people liberals want to deliver 70 percent of his income to.
Liberals don't seem to be able to grasp the complexity of reality in this area.
When liberals think about the coroporate tax and how it should be higher, they again look at coroprations as unchanging entitys, they don't realize that they can and will move with all their jobs to another country if america taxes them to much.
Unlike liberals when thinking of how high the coroporate tax should be in america, conservtives, see that america like all countrys are competing to keep and attracted companys aka jobs, and that placing taxes at aat a level that willl atrract buisiness and encourage entrupership and investments will give the lower and middle class much more than what they will get from america taxing coroporations even more and thus driving said compnays out of america taking their jobs with them.
THis relates to my feeling that liberals is humans de fault position because liberals is about atleast they think-getting more stuff for themselves and conservtism is too esortic and complex for most people.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Wear your turban right
i challendegde you to find a funnier paragrapg than this:
"Malkovich has recently developed his own fashion line - Mr Mudd. One of his collections drew its inspiration from the former Taliban spokesman Abdul Salem Zaeef, who was driven into exile after being accused of wearing his turban at too rakish an angle. Such a man, reasoned Malkovich, deserved to be immortalised in fabric."
its from daily telegraph article on john malkovich
"Malkovich has recently developed his own fashion line - Mr Mudd. One of his collections drew its inspiration from the former Taliban spokesman Abdul Salem Zaeef, who was driven into exile after being accused of wearing his turban at too rakish an angle. Such a man, reasoned Malkovich, deserved to be immortalised in fabric."
its from daily telegraph article on john malkovich
thoughts
1. Bill Murrays plays the same charcter in "Broken Flowers", "Rushmore" and "Lost in Translation". a glum, melancholy middle age guy around sexy younger women ala Scarlet JOhansen, the british teacher in rushmore, his ex's and their naked daughters in "Broken Flowers").
2. if you really care for someone (and would never want to not see them again), you should surely place a item of yours in some nook or cranny of their residance. so that-god forbid you break up and you need to see her a month later for some reason, you can just turn up at their place and say whatever needs to be said under the guise of getting something you remebred leaving there.
personal note: when i got dumped and left her house in shock i stupidly came back 1 minuete later to get the VCR that i had moved to her room-under the assumption that we would be together longer- so that we could watch my video cassette of "Mullohand Blouvard".
3. don't get mad at the fact that someone is still sleeping in the afternoon, you don't know how they got into that sleep scycle and they problem are working on getting out of it which is very trick for some o f us.
4. When people say "didn;t lennon(or lenin) say "life is what you do while your waiting"", or with what ever lenin or lennon quote there touting, i never know if theyre talking about lenin or lennon.
3. if i lived in LA or ever do, no matter what i did for a living, i would go to open auditions. i atleast hope you don't need to have a agent to even go to auditions in hollywood for roles other than "waiter number 2".
why? because.......
4. i have a feeling that acting is one of the easiest forms of work. I know easy work personally. I happily and leasurily, spent much of two summers in high school sitting in a chair reading philip roth and christopher hitchens/looking at women during the day for minimum wage. To be exact my job was to write down the permit numbers of middle aged windsurfers and to compassionatly tell a caravan of none english speaking mexican immgrants that they can't enter greenwood beach at this entrace. But the act of doing either of those two things took up probably less than 7 miineuetes of my entire 5 hour work day.
Anyways............
5........... i think acting is easy, finding work as one is another matter. i think training does very little in determining the success a actor has at all. I think most of what accounts for a actors success is in how much people like looking at that person specfically their face and/or heraing there voice. We like people and we like actors for the same superficial intangible things. Look at Bill Murray in his much vaunted late period renaniance as a actor in recent movies like "Broken Flowers" or "Rushmore" or "Lost in Translation" inwhich he plays essentially the same charcters literary. or JOhn Malkovich, now malkovich works very hard but compare him in the film version of "death of a salesman" when he was young and had hair to him in "being john malcovich" as the bald middle age guy we know him as most dearly
or Paul Newman or John Cusack.
6. bjork sucks. and hipsters of the world don't be afraid to admit it. stand up and tell the frizzy haired bitch, "no i don't want to do it to 'Vespertine', i spit on your grave." and walk out.
7. wen u disagree with some1 u look for flaws in that guy and if u can find flaws it can turn ur disagrement into hatred. Case in point:Bush.bush hysteria always fascinated me in how little it had to do with his actions.bush was a Republican lefty. yet judging from the hatred you'd think he had placed a cross on the white house.his dumbness was outragous, and dems then placed that outrage everywere else for 8 yrs.
8. why has barbra walters been famous for my hwole life?
2. if you really care for someone (and would never want to not see them again), you should surely place a item of yours in some nook or cranny of their residance. so that-god forbid you break up and you need to see her a month later for some reason, you can just turn up at their place and say whatever needs to be said under the guise of getting something you remebred leaving there.
personal note: when i got dumped and left her house in shock i stupidly came back 1 minuete later to get the VCR that i had moved to her room-under the assumption that we would be together longer- so that we could watch my video cassette of "Mullohand Blouvard".
3. don't get mad at the fact that someone is still sleeping in the afternoon, you don't know how they got into that sleep scycle and they problem are working on getting out of it which is very trick for some o f us.
4. When people say "didn;t lennon(or lenin) say "life is what you do while your waiting"", or with what ever lenin or lennon quote there touting, i never know if theyre talking about lenin or lennon.
3. if i lived in LA or ever do, no matter what i did for a living, i would go to open auditions. i atleast hope you don't need to have a agent to even go to auditions in hollywood for roles other than "waiter number 2".
why? because.......
4. i have a feeling that acting is one of the easiest forms of work. I know easy work personally. I happily and leasurily, spent much of two summers in high school sitting in a chair reading philip roth and christopher hitchens/looking at women during the day for minimum wage. To be exact my job was to write down the permit numbers of middle aged windsurfers and to compassionatly tell a caravan of none english speaking mexican immgrants that they can't enter greenwood beach at this entrace. But the act of doing either of those two things took up probably less than 7 miineuetes of my entire 5 hour work day.
Anyways............
5........... i think acting is easy, finding work as one is another matter. i think training does very little in determining the success a actor has at all. I think most of what accounts for a actors success is in how much people like looking at that person specfically their face and/or heraing there voice. We like people and we like actors for the same superficial intangible things. Look at Bill Murray in his much vaunted late period renaniance as a actor in recent movies like "Broken Flowers" or "Rushmore" or "Lost in Translation" inwhich he plays essentially the same charcters literary. or JOhn Malkovich, now malkovich works very hard but compare him in the film version of "death of a salesman" when he was young and had hair to him in "being john malcovich" as the bald middle age guy we know him as most dearly
or Paul Newman or John Cusack.
6. bjork sucks. and hipsters of the world don't be afraid to admit it. stand up and tell the frizzy haired bitch, "no i don't want to do it to 'Vespertine', i spit on your grave." and walk out.
7. wen u disagree with some1 u look for flaws in that guy and if u can find flaws it can turn ur disagrement into hatred. Case in point:Bush.bush hysteria always fascinated me in how little it had to do with his actions.bush was a Republican lefty. yet judging from the hatred you'd think he had placed a cross on the white house.his dumbness was outragous, and dems then placed that outrage everywere else for 8 yrs.
8. why has barbra walters been famous for my hwole life?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
something new to be outraged about
as CNN does segments on how to get your arms like the first ladys and Obama going grey and Anderson Cooper talks to food exsperts" about how oranges can keep cancer away, that the dismally small number of patriotic informed americans that read the corner, are always hour by hour hearing about the real news of the day, news since inaguration day, has come to be known simply as the news only readers of conservtive magazines hear about.
One such news story that has not been covered at all, is quite shocking and outragous:
Next time your at a Marriotte Hotel or using a computer at anyother such hotel or if you happen to have NetNanny or anyother brand of Net Filter, try and see if you can visit NRO.com. The national review online, the most popular conservtive website on the web and one of the most prestigous and popular of all poltical websites. Or try to mained your way over to Steynonline.com, the website of the brillant author of the essential milestone book "america alone" (the best book on islamic radicalism and the demographic decline of west minus america bar none) and NRO colmunist, Mark Steyn. A website which pretty much stores his articles that have been published in the most respected and popular publications in europe, australia, canada and america such as Macleans, National Review, the CHicago Sun times and many other Us papers, the Ireland Times, and many other publications who don't publish articles deemed "racist" or "hate mongering" repeadtldy at that.
Noone serious figure on the left and right would charcterize NRO.com or steynonline.com as racist, hate monegering websites that minors nor anyone else needs be protected from. The notion is absurd.
Well, if you try to visit either nro.com or steynonline.com and probably many more such sites, at many hotels and high schools and colleges, or on computers using Netnanny or SiteCoach or other similiar programs, you will find that national review and mark steyn is just to hateful and racist and profane for you to have access to.
However, you'd be amazed at what other sites were not blocked at the same time, you can geuss
heres the post from nro.com's "the corner:
One such news story that has not been covered at all, is quite shocking and outragous:
Next time your at a Marriotte Hotel or using a computer at anyother such hotel or if you happen to have NetNanny or anyother brand of Net Filter, try and see if you can visit NRO.com. The national review online, the most popular conservtive website on the web and one of the most prestigous and popular of all poltical websites. Or try to mained your way over to Steynonline.com, the website of the brillant author of the essential milestone book "america alone" (the best book on islamic radicalism and the demographic decline of west minus america bar none) and NRO colmunist, Mark Steyn. A website which pretty much stores his articles that have been published in the most respected and popular publications in europe, australia, canada and america such as Macleans, National Review, the CHicago Sun times and many other Us papers, the Ireland Times, and many other publications who don't publish articles deemed "racist" or "hate mongering" repeadtldy at that.
Noone serious figure on the left and right would charcterize NRO.com or steynonline.com as racist, hate monegering websites that minors nor anyone else needs be protected from. The notion is absurd.
Well, if you try to visit either nro.com or steynonline.com and probably many more such sites, at many hotels and high schools and colleges, or on computers using Netnanny or SiteCoach or other similiar programs, you will find that national review and mark steyn is just to hateful and racist and profane for you to have access to.
However, you'd be amazed at what other sites were not blocked at the same time, you can geuss
heres the post from nro.com's "the corner:
Marriott, Me, and More [Mark Steyn]
Lots of mail re the blocking of websites. It's not just my own, but NRO, too. A reader writes:
A year or so ago, I purchased Net Nanny for my home PC. It blocked NRO's "The Corner", due to "some hate content". So, for fun, I went to Al Jazeera dot com, and of course it was NOT blocked. I emailed support, pointing out the execution videos pass their filter, but not NRO. They very explained that they didn't support blocking of Arabic language sites, which didn't really answer my question, of course. When pressed, they refused to identify which content on NRO was "hate". In the end, they refunded my money rather than answer my question.
So a jihadist snuff video is perfectly safe for your kids. But Jonah's objections to the New Deal? Whoa, can't let them get anywhere near that. That pretty much confirms my suspicion that "Net Nanny" and the like are not child-friendly filtering services but just the twilight west's usual self-loathing limp-wristed politically-correct illiterate nitwits.
Whoops, I seem to have just upped the "hate content."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
