Thursday, September 28, 2006

Heard on Benny Hill--

"fire broke out in the dressing room of bombshell Gina LaBamba last night after a show... it took two hours to put out the fire and another hour to put out the firemen..."

Yeah! What *I* Said...

It's official

The research is done, the numbers are in, and it's now a matter of record--

A liberal is a person who's right at the edge of the cliff, about to have a major mental meltdown.

Don't believe me, follow the link.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Home Grow Your Overthrow!

LGF gives us this article concerning Abu Izzadeen (Omar Brooks), who is seeking more wives:

"Omar Brooks, who described the 7/7 suicide bombers as “completely praiseworthy” and heckled Home Secretary John Reid in a high-profile confrontation last week, has signed up to a Muslim marriage website. Although already married with three children and reportedly living off £700 a month in state benefits, the 31-year-old is seeking more wives, with the intention of fathering more than nine children."

700 a month from the taxpayers, nine children - all state supported. And this clown goes on to say later in this article that there is nothing but Islam. Think about it: all of this guy's productivity goes not toward helping anyone, or creating anything useful, but instead bringing down the very culture that provides him succor.

To me, one of the definitions of societal suicide is when you pay people to overthrow you. You can rest assured that all of the children in this man's household will grow up very Islamic and likely very anti-Western. If a society does enough of this, they'll subsidize their own demise, as they depleate their own resources and enrich and bolster their enemy's.

This highlights Milton Friedman's idea that you can't have open immigration and a welfare state. I've said it before and I still say it: Europe is in trouble.

Stupid Bumper Stickers

Phat Phree is up-in-arms over those arcane and vaguely pretentious ovate stickers on the back of cars.

Emu Phillips Says:

"I'm a great lover... I bet!"

Tuesday, September 26, 2006


Condi's Running

The fact that, for the first time that I can recall, Condoleeza Rice is jumping up and pounding on someone (even if it is President Clinton) in an overtly political sense tells me one thing:

Bush feels like she's going to be on the '08 ticket, and has given her the go ahead to start swinging away.

Look to see more of this, as the heretofore politically reticent Condi has stepped forward and stepped up.

Homer Simpson would be proud

Apparently, the people in whom we place our trust regarding inspection and verification of nuclear compliance matters related to international treaties are BUMBLING IDIOTS.

Or at least one is.



This Just In...

Senator Lindsey Graham announces he will no longer support violence against terrorism. Instead, he will henceforth resort to taunts.

When asked about how to proceed against Al-Qaeda, he responded: "They're only this big, I tell ya. They can barely go pee-pees without wetting their pants!"

Spokesmen for Al-Qaeda fired back immediately "Well hot damn! We may not push through the back, but we give those walls hell!" (Source - Reuters).

Unnamed sources confirm that this situation could very well escalate, but only with proper medication.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

"Oceans Cooling, but Global Warming Still On"

I hope no Mullahs read my blogposts.

I wouldn't want a fatwa declared on me on account of using the banned-by-Islam mental function called 'rational thinking'....

But I have applied a little of it to the latest story on global warming.. read here...

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Mow That Stupid Building Down NOW!

"Congratulations on making partner...."

About once a month I find a news story somewhere which was designed to publicize (and, of course, embarrass) ExxonMobil as one of the few big companies left in America that do not offer gay partner benefits.

Here's this month's installment, courtesy of al-Reuters.

It's the old Chinese water torture, I guess... no single story makes any real impact, but over time, the drip drip drip of the news might shame the old boys into stepping up. We journalists are just humbly doing our part to change the world for the better, you know.

As an ExxonMobil stockholder, allow me to state the obvious:

ExxonMobil is not in any way obligated to give spousal benefits to distant relatives, close friends, pets, favorite cars, bridge partners, dance partners, law partners or gay partners.

Benefits are not obligatory, just good business practice for getting and keeping high quality employees.

And let's face it, you can't marry your dog, your Corvette, your bowling team or a person of the same sex as you. None of those things is marriage. Benefits are for employees, their spouses and their kids.

And if they DO give benefits to "partners", will the partners then be required to prove they're having sex?

After all, if I ever get divorced I'll probably live with a roommate to save money. Couldn't I then say, "it's totally unfair for those two gay guys to share corporate benefits when I can't. have a roommate too, we share expenses, we plan for the future, the only thing we don't do is have sex with each other. That's unfair and discriminatory!"

Such a case is coming, folks, and it won't be long. And they'll probably win.

Giving benefits to gay partners opens the door, and soon everyone who lives with or shares expenses with anyone is going to demand them, and might get them, STARTING with hetero couples who live together but have not made the commitment of marriage. And there are LOTS of those.

This will be expensive, and it will prove to be one more good reason for marriage that has gone by the wayside.

You do realize they've already successfully altered the meaning of "gay". It used to mean "lighthearted, happy". Now they want to make "marriage" mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Which of course is how a word ends up meaning nothing at all.

What's next? A "waltz" in 4/4 time? A "water heater" that makes water colder? Hey, why not market a "sugar free" soft drink that's loaded with sugar? They're only words, after all, and they can mean whatever we want them to mean.... right?

Or maybe we'll have a "religion of peace" whose practitioners commit mass murder and slaughter and bloodshed and--

Oh, wait. Already got one.

The CBS Ambush Jumping The Shark

Austin Bay puts down on paper what I've had rattling around in my head for a while but have never gelled: the CBS Ambush.

Coordinated Bloodspilling + Sensationalism = CBS Ambush.

The recent murder of a nun, and it's sensationalism thereof pursuant to the Pope's words is a prototypical example of such an attack.

But, for CBS Ambush to work, the "S" has to be present.

Amercians have shown themselves as willing as any to feast on lurid displays of mayhem and stupidity, but they also have shown themselves to be quite flighty in their tastes for said luridness. So what happens when the sensationalism of these attacks isn't enough? What happens when we can't change the channel?

Two things will happen: the CBS'ers will step up their attacks till they indeed hit a trip wire, and that trip wire will be a historical spasm.

Tony Blankly said that history comes in fits and spasms: Pearl Harbor, and the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand, for example. The United States has historically been slow to react in the face of growing historical pressures, and usually only really swings hard at the ball after such a spasm. I think that CBS attackers have in general purposely avoided attacks in the US in order to avoid that spasm.

My fear is what this next spasm will bring. Notwithstanding the rantings of many of the left, who say that we are imperialists and that we are actively trying to take over whatever, we really do have enormous and historically unprecedented destructive capability. If we were really, really mad, I shudder to think what could happen.

After Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto feared that Japan had awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve. The next time we won't need to wake up. We'll just be watching TV.

Note to Gloria Steinem

Has anyone wver thought about asking the fish if he'd like a bicycle? Hmmmmm...?

Didn't think so.

Emu Phillips Says:

"Did ya ever have to kill an Ostrich because they were the devil?

...but other than that, it's been a pretty good day."

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Congrats to Ixman...

... for his first Instalanche!

Welcome Instapundit readers... good grief, this blog (in its newest iteration) is only a couple of weeks old and already an Instalanche... :-)

The cream rises to the top...

Today's Really Cool Post

Today's interesting post comes from the good folks at

It's NOT fake.

Washington Times Image Manipulation?

Am I the only one to notice that this picture seems to make Frist look like he's wearing a sombrero?

This image is posted at a time when Frist is considering a 700 mile fence along the border!

Monday, September 18, 2006

4 Beers with Hitch and the Ixman!

You know, I have a really great idea for a nightly talking head show.

It stars Christopher Hitchens and the Ixman (hey - it's my blog). We'll feature the usual topical interview roundup as most everyone else. The catch is that all guests must have had 4 beers (or the equivalent of some other adult beverage) before they go on screen.

Don't you think we'd learn a whole lot more about our guests if they were under a more induced state, temporarily free from their, er, constraints? I bet, for example, that George Will would be completely different, and altogether more interesting, after a few Shiners. Wouldn't you love to hear Rosie try to defend some of her more assinine statements after she - oh wait - you'd not be able to tell the difference there. But you see my point. Don't even get me started on Mel Gibson.

The beauty of this format is that the principal interviewers - Hitch and I - would be more or less unaffected, as we are only just getting started at 4!

We could have a cool little counter or meter across the bottom of the screen which would show the number of drinks thus far consumed. Of course we could turn that to a digital counter for popular figures like John Daly or Keith Richards.

This is ideal for HBO, as the language would be scorching and the topics - to say the least - broad.

UPDATE: Thank you Insty readers and Instapundit! Please come in and have a seat. Uh, would you like a beer?

Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

So let me get this correctly: The Pope implies that a certain religion is maybe a little, uh, violent.

The punchline.

Kos Kids Krazy with BDS

... even the outbreak of e-coli illnesses caused by bacteria in packaged fresh spinach.

If you're a victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome, as are almost all readers and certainly all writers over at the Daily Kos website, then Bush did it, no doubt about it.

They don't go so far as to suggest conspiracy, merely incompetence in government. I'm sure, though, that the "he did it to kill black people" crowd will show up in the comments section.

HT Hugh Hewitt.

Civilisation 1, Islam 0

Okay, so the Pope's speech made this main point; a religious conversion is a matter for the soul, a movement of intellect and an emotional response to a convincing argument of some sort.

And in the course of attempting to show that religion is NOT a matter for the body, and thus cannot be forced through fear or violence, he quoted a 14th century Catholic philosopher who had said (in a discussion with a Muslim) that Mohammed had brought nothing new to the religion table, only what is evil and inhuman, which was to say forced conversions.

All of fundamentalist Islam is now upset that the Pope mentioned "evil and inhuman" and the prophet in the same breath-- so to prove him wrong they've gone out and burned churches and murdered people.

They backshot a nun from ambush. Killed her.

As she lay dying she said "I forgive, I forgive".

Wanna know what an actual martyr looks like? Killed for her religion, forgave her killers with her last breath.

That's a martyr, in the tradition of Christ's apostles, of Christ Himself when he said "forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do".

I can't help wondering if Jesus would implore God on behalf of violent militant Islam with the same plea of ignorance. Do these people know what they do? Are they so convinced that God Himself wants them to murder innocents, or are they just giving in to the temptation of striking out in anger at the visible superiority of the West over Islamic society? Are they men of God or just angry young men using the cover of religion to justify their rage?

There is the metaphorical advice given by Jesus that says you will be able to tell the nature of a tree by the fruit it bears. Clearly the fruit of the tree of fundamentalist Islam is threats, fear, terror, murder... and even a non-Christian modern American something-ist has to ask himself, "is this the kind of fruit that the tree called God would be growing? If there's a God, would He be the kind of God who would tell angry young men to murder people in His name?"

It's been a dozen years or more since an abortion doctor was shot by a nut calling himself a Christian. Whenever that happens in this country, Christian organizations across America make statements denouncing that action and saying it isn't part of Christian doctrine to murder people who don't toe the Christian line.

It's been, oh, a couple of hours since an innocent person was murdered in the name of Islam... anyone heard any blanket denouncements of violence in the prophet's name by mainstream moderate ordinary whitebread Islam?

Me neither.

If you're so inclined, say a prayer for Sister Leonella.

HT Michelle Malkin.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Wow.... Just, wow.


Are those Nava-ho's?

Mastercard Great Lady Golf Commercial

As the proud father of two girls who are becoming exceedingly good at golf, I have now found a new favorite commercial (click "View Commercial"), put out by the folks at Mastercard.

It's very subtle, but there's so much about what people love about golf here: the look on her face - both when she unexpectedly chips in and when she nails the final drive - says so much about golf. Good acting, too.
Okay, so IF I were to buy a realistic fake penis with a urine reservoir, in order that I might "pee" in front of a security guy and therefore pass a drug test with someone else's urine in the device, and IF (and I'm speculating here) I were to take it to a convenience store before I get there, so as to microwave it to body temperature in order to help pass the test, would I then be so absent minded as to hand it to the clerk and ask him to put it in the microwave?

Probably not. But somebody did.

And if this isn't bizarre enough, the story seems confused about the gender necessities. A woman is pleading guilty to having done this, but who was supposed to use it, and with the urine of whom? I can't figure it out from reading the story. You try.

If you've got nothing better to do. Which is inconceivable.

Friday, September 15, 2006

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

What do you get if you take Charles Johnson and don't feed him for a while?

A long while...?

It's Friday!

And since it's Friday, I present to you burqa-free beauty from the folks at Seven Floor.

Note: Their pictures are not, uh, edited like mine, so parents beware.

Hitch: Saddam and Al-Qaeda

Chris Hitchens schools an ABC (that's Australian Broadcasting Corporation) questioner on the link (yes! there really was one!) between Saddam and terrorism.

Tony Jones downright fetishizes Richard Clarke, to the point where he all he has left is well, Richard Clarke says your wrong, even as Hitch lists fact after fact demonstrating the fact that Saddam was very much interested in aiding terrorists.

TONY JONES: Isn't it more important, though, to create or to make a link between September 11 and Saddam Hussein, if you are going to invade the country virtually as a direct result of that?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes, well I mean, I think the links were pretty adequately demonstrated.

TONY JONES: Not according to Richard Clarke, for example, who makes the claim that the President himself, only 24 hours after the attacks, came to him urging him to find the evidence that Iraq was involved with the September 11 attacks and he couldn't find that evidence?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: I've read that too. I wouldn't myself have tasked Mr Clarke with that, nor would I have trusted the CIA to get that right, even a tiny thing like that, because they've always got everything else wrong. The CIA continues to say there can't have been a connection, because if one was ever proved - and there's a great deal of evidence for it - they would look stupid. Because they always said, not just that it wasn't there. Do observe this distinction. They said it couldn't be there. They said, by definition, Saddam Hussein could not help Islamic terrorists because his regime was supposedly secular. Now that to anyone who knows anything about Iraq is sheer fatuity. There is an overarching analysis as well that, to some extent, puts these matters of linkage in perspective. When one examined the situation, and realised that al-Qaeda and its co-thinkers have been incubated by what was, in effect, a political slum in the Middle East, which we've been letting rot and decay for far too long and, therefore, it would be a good thing to begin some slum clearance in the region. This meant turning the Pakistani Government from a sympathiser of the Taliban to at least, neutrality. It meant taking away their Afghan colony from them. That's what they've been treating Afghanistan as being. It meant warning the Saudi Arabians we knew what they were doing; it meant undercutting their oil monopoly, by trying to liberate the oil fields of Iraq. And it meant removing the most outstanding supporter of terrorism and jihadism in the region, who was a man with whom we in any case had a political rendezvous. A man who should have been removed from power in 1991. So if you could get over your obsession with this idea that there were invented linkages, you would see there is a broader intersection of argument that favours regime change in the Middle East.

TONY JONES: I understand Christopher Hitchens...

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Excuse me, they would have made maintenance of the status quo much more dangerous.

TONY JONES: I understand what you're saying but the claim of Richard Clarke and others.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Which you really obviously won't let go of, will you?


Thursday, September 14, 2006

For my first post..... :-)

Something non-controversial, because heaven knows I don't like to stir the pot....

Men are more intelligent than women!


Ixman's secret older brother Racer Ix

Pierre Rehov's "Suicide Killers"

I only recently stumbled upon this interview with Pierre Rehov, a movie maker who takes a decidely un-pc slant on the Middle East. He maintains, among other things, that sexual repression, a constant diet of religion, and systematic poverty generate suicide bombers like a factory:

Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.

A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don'tsee good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the after-life in Paradise.

This did worry me, however:

Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see theabsolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs.. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

I'd certainly like some of the more devout Muslims to tune in and convince me that this is not so.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Let's see what you're REALLY made of. Part One

You know, Madonna - and really just about any popular "edgy" performer - has been hammering on Christianity for so long that her schtick has gone long beyond banal, way past stale, and deep, deep into comical territory. I was around for her first performances, when she was shoving crucifixes in her rectum or whatever, and for her '90's rehash of the same (along with her dog squatting), and I get to see it all again front and center on the Drudge Report .

I'm not really mad or anything (remember that I said that it was comical), I'm just making an observation of sorts: Madonna et. al. are real good at kicking those who don't kick back. For all of the talk about oppression this and scandal that, the Catholics, and Christians in general, are really pretty safe targets. There's really nothing very envelope busting (or fearless, as she would have us believe) about her whole act.

But, you know what would show me she's fearless? Why doesn't she come out against honor killings or genital mutilation, or a whole slew of barbaric acts as practiced by - let's face it - largely adherents of another very popular and powerful world religion? By come out against I mean of course openly mock, much as she does with Christianity. Imagine the fun she could have with chadoors! Burqa Burlesque anyone?

Why indeed?Because - and I say this without a hint of glee or irony - she knows that in all liklihood she would be, uh, held accountable for what she says and does. I don't mean held accountable in a social justice way or anything like that, and don't say that fact is a good thing (remember that this is just an observation). No, Madonna and her ilk will gladly crap on Christ because deep down they know that they won't face the same repercussions that some other artists have who were openly critical of the Religion of Peace.

C'mon, Madonna, I want real edginess. I want you to do what artists always say that they do and put it on the line for your art! Think about it: all of the major religions have atrocities and some bad will in their past, yet the so called cutting edge of progressive thought concentrates almost exclusively on one religion and neglects the other main religion. Both bad, yet you dis(cuss) only one?

I realize the reason for a lot of this is the fact that the aforementioned artists are commenting on the culture they grew up in, but every damn artist I hear spouting off on the radio or TV refers to himself or herself at least tangentially as an agent of change for good. Yet nobody will comment at all about a culture which - to a large degree - still has large groups who won't let women drive. Let me rephrase that: nobody in the artist community with anything at stake, openly critical of our culture (the very one they just whored themselves out to to get hugh piles of cash) , and mostly from the political left will say anything.

But hell, even after Parker and Stone (and the Comedy Channel) gleefully proclaimed "ha ha, the joke's on you - we were satarizing," the quiet fact remains that they did not show Mohammed, and in fact they never will. None of these established artists will.And they won't because they're just an act - rich, comfortable, and afraid.

Let's see what you're REALLY made of. Part II - Everclear

ART ALEXAKIS was on O'reilly the other day, supposedly being grilled by Bill on his new video "Hater," which is dedicated to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and all others who hate in the name of Jesus.

OK, I'll agree with Art's nominal premise that anyone who hates in the name of Jesus is, uh, evil. But in this video, Art was clearly using provacative imagery designed to offend Christians in general. And why not? It's a safe target, and by now really quite a banal message. Yet I'm sure in his mind he can claim some sort of solidarity with somebody somewhere who whines about all of that "oppression" and "hate" by televangalists (not that their liberty or freedoms were actually impinged by said televangelists).

It's the same as I mentioned before in this blog: people like Art, and bands like Everclear (and others) will absolutely - for a buck - wipe their ass with anything that people will hold sacred - as long as those people won't in any way threaten them! I am absolutely positive his tune would (literally) change if he were asked to write about another major religion that has proponents who absolutely preach hate - and then follow through on that hate.

So c'mon, Art. Let's see a video with some loser walking the streets who is obviously Mohammed. Make sure you show him drinking, whoring, and just generally doing mean and crass things. While you're at it, sing some cute little song about how maybe folks shouldn't blow shit up in his name.

Don't worry, I already know your answer. I'm sure it will have something to do with your artistic freedom this, and your creative license that, and our problems really come from some amorphous "religion in general," and oh by the way the whole Islamic terrorism thing is not your bag and blah blah blah.

And I know why that's your answer, like all of the other lickspittles in the "edgy" music world: you're all PUSSIES! Limpwristed, feckless, fearfull, fat PUSSIES.

Ah, well. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure that, in his mind, Art feels like he's a bold defender of...something.