Whacko Politics

New Star Whores Inductees

Today, we are able to induct four new members to our Star Whores Hall of Shame: Alec Baldwin, Meryl Streep, Gary Busey and Billy Zane.

Now these folks are not new to the “dark side” of political opinion. They all have issues and a consistent record of moonbat rhetoric. Some of them even have problems staying on the right side of the law.

Alec Baldwin, actor and abusive husband/father, can’t seem to keep his temper under control (remember his bitter divorce from Kim Basinger? The incident with the photographer?). He recently called the 20 Democrats who voted for cloture in the Samuel Alito confirmation “a number of chickensh*t Democrats.” Baldwin has always been outspoken on political issues, but he uses lies and vitriolic rhetoric in his discourse, seldom with any valid arguments. Welcome to the Hall of Shame, Mr. Baldwin.

Meryl Streep, a very talented actress, falls into the “shut up and act” category of the Hall of Shame. On occasion she will render opinion to the media about political matters (sort of like Tourette’s Syndrome). Her recent remarks about Justice Alito’s confirmation: “I’m so demoralized.” You should check with your doctor, Ms. Streep, and see if you need your change-of-life medication re-prescribed. While you’re at it, you might want to ask about the psychological effects of all those Botox injections. Oh, and welcome to the “Shut up and Sing-or-Dance-or-Act” section of the Hall.

Gary Busey, who has been at the edge of the law for many years now (Remember the DUI? The motorcycle crash?), has steadily accepted the actual lifestyle of the roles he played as a degenerate criminal type (one exception is his role in the “Buddy Holly Story”). Continuing the downward spiral of his career, in the Turkish-made film “Valley of the Wolves – Iraq,” Gary Busey appears as a Jewish-American doctor who carries out organ transplants on unwitting Iraqi casualties, sending the organs off to Israel and the United States. For your role, Mr. Busey, in fabricating the falsehoods about the US for a foreign country’s terrorist interest propaganda, you have been selected for induction into the anti-American Asshole wing of our little Hall of Shame.

Billy Zane always seems to play the on-screen role of a son-of-a-bitch; I think it comes naturally to him. He is co-staring with Busey in the Turkish film, which earns him an induction into the “Son of a Bitch” wing of the Hall. Paraphrasing General Patton: “Welcome aboard from one S.O.B to another”


Hat tips to:
Michelle Malkin
Little Green Footballs
Power Line
Mudville Gazette
Basic Training

By Popular Demand

There has been some interest from other bloggers in this graphic:

Fine with me. Take the following three steps if you wish to display it on your web page:

First download the following two files (right click and select “save link as” or “save target as”):

ugly.swf and ugly.js

Next upload the two files to the directory where your web page source file is.

Finally, edit the web page source; cut and paste the following script where you wish the graphic to appear:

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="ugly.js"></script>

That’s all there is to it! If you have problems getting it going, leave a comment here and I will see if I can help.

Disclaimer: this graphic is for entertainment purposes only; to display it is at the user’s discretion and liability.

Democratic Rebuttal to SOTU

Democratic Governor Tim Kaine of the Commonwealth of Virginia was cast in the role of presenting the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address. Governor Kaine actually presented the opposition point of view (as flawed as the reasoning behind it might be) eloquently and with measured dissenting demeanor. A stark contrast to the histrionics and drama of last years flaccid, unimpressive and vitriolic response from the Democratic minority leadership of Congress:

Apologies (again) to Grant Wood.

Democrats Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Democratic senators in liberal-infested states like California or Massachusetts don’t have much to worry about, but many Democratic senators in middle America should carefully consider supporting Judge Alito. Americans have become increasingly aware that Judge Alito is a highly-qualified candidate and think that he should be confirmed.

Our own South Bay Daily Breeze published an editorial today that joins the Washington Times in questioning the effects of a party-line vote on Judge Samuel Alito.

Party-line vote would be mistake

This week the Senate is expected to vote on the Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor and Justice Department attorney who won the American Bar Association’s highest recommendation. Months of digging by journalists, Democratic operatives and Senate investigators turned up near-uniform testimonials from people of all ages and backgrounds who swear by Alito’s brilliance, kind temperament, work ethic and devotion to the law. Attempts to smear Alito on extenuated guilt-by-association grounds and with wafer-thin conflict-of-interest allegations went nowhere.

Yet only a handful of the Senate’s 44 Democrats are expected to vote to confirm Alito. If this occurs, it will be unprecedented, outrageous and unfortunate.

It is unprecedented in that while nominees have been rejected or faced substantial opposition before, it was on grounds that they were too close to the White House, lacked a suitable temperament or background, or, in the case of Clarence Thomas, faced sexual harassment allegations. It was not because senators objected en masse to their judicial ideology. This is why Democratic President Bill Clinton’s liberal but highly qualified nominees — Ruth Bader Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3) and Stephen Breyer (confirmed 87-9) — won such easy approval.

It is outrageous because it is one more sign of the Democratic Party’s embrace of the blind anger of its activist wing against President Bush.

more . . .

Newspapers in a Slump

Just what does the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post (and a number of other liberal rags) expect will happen when they constantly filter the news and blatantly lie about current events? Thanks to a few conservative outlets, Fox News Channel in particular and the bloggers, newspapers are being exposed for their bias and are in a slump. We believe that network televised news like CBS, ABC and NBC will follow suit unless they get the bias out of their reporting. MSNBC, CNN and other left-slanted cable outlets already dwell in the ratings cellar.

From Dow Jones News:

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–The nation’s newspaper companies are expected to end 2005 on a weak note as the industry grapples with a persistent advertising malaise and declining circulation.

Newspapers will see a median drop in profit of about 10.9% from a year ago, according to a forecast from Goldman Sachs. That would mark the third consecutive quarter of earnings declines, with a slump of 10.6% in the third quarter and 3.2% in the second quarter, Goldman said.

Newspaper companies began reporting their latest quarterly financial results on Wednesday with Lee Enterprises Inc. (LEE), which posted a 16% drop in its fiscal first-quarter earnings, hurt by costs associated with its June acquisition of Pulitzer Inc. Other newspaper companies will start reporting their quarterly results next week.

Newspaper ad revenue will probably gain a scant 1% to 2% in the fourth quarter, its weakest performance of the year, said Peter Appert, who follows the publishing industry for Goldman.

“It’s pretty much the same variables that we’ve seen all year: softness in the retail ad category and very disappointing auto ad trends,” Appert said. “National has been a mixed bag.” Help-wanted and real-estate advertising have seen some strength, but not enough to offset the weakness elsewhere, he added.

Circulation, which accounts for roughly 20% to 25% of industry revenue and is an important metric for setting ad rates, also is expected to drag on results.

Circulation revenue has been “declining hard,” said Fred Searby, publishing analyst at J.P. Morgan.

Part of the drop is because many publishers have been cleaning up their circulation practices in the wake of scandals involving falsified figures at a handful of papers, which have resulted in steeper than usual declines in reported circulation figures across the industry.

“That’s a one-off hit,” Searby said. But the trends in circulation “are bad anyway,” amid competition from the Internet and 24-hour news channels, he added.

Solar X-Flares and Hurricanes

Of course, the left will ignore the hard science and embrace the “blame US industry” and “blame Bush” for not signing up for the flawed Kyoto Accord.

Unusually high solar “X-flare” activity may explain the unusually intense 2005 hurricane season. The numbers and intensity of the flares since the last solar maximum have relentlessly bombarded the Earth with high-energy particles and magnetic flux. The effect of these flares includes a high number of hurricanes, and lightning in the eyewalls of the most intense storms.

First, the cause:

NASA – Solar Minimum Explodes

[On September 7, 2005] a huge sunspot rounded the sun’s eastern limb. As soon as it appeared, it exploded, producing one of the brightest x-ray solar flares of the Space Age. In the days that followed, the growing spot exploded eight more times. Each powerful “X-flare” caused a shortwave radio blackout on Earth and pumped new energy into a radiation storm around our planet. The blasts hurled magnetic clouds toward Earth, and when they hit, on Sept 10th and 11th, ruby-red auroras were seen as far south as Arizona. (Photo: the skies above Payson AZ on Sept. 11, 2005. Photo credit: Chris Schur.)

. . .

“That’s a lot of activity,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Compare 2005 to the most recent Solar Max: “In the year 2000,” he recalls, “there were 3 severe geomagnetic storms and 17 X-flares.” 2005 registers about the same in both categories. Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max.

One unusual effect:

NASA – Electric Hurricanes

January 9, 2006: The boom of thunder and crackle of lightning generally mean one thing: a storm is coming. Curiously, though, the biggest storms of all, hurricanes, are notoriously lacking in lightning. Hurricanes blow, they rain, they flood, but seldom do they crackle.

Surprise: During the record-setting hurricane season of 2005 three of the most powerful storms–Rita, Katrina, and Emily–did have lightning, lots of it. And researchers would like to know why.

Right: An infrared GOES 11 satellite image of Hurricane Emily. Yellow + and – symbols mark lightning bolts detected by the North American Lightning Detection Network. The green line traces the path of the ER-2 surveillance aircraft.

Lightning has been seen in hurricanes before. During a field campaign in 1998 called CAMEX-3, scientists detected lightning in the eye of hurricane Georges as it plowed over the Caribbean island of Hispaniola. The lightning probably was due to air forced upward — called “orographic forcing” — when the hurricane hit the mountains.

“Hurricanes are most likely to produce lightning when they’re making landfall,” says Blakeslee. But there were no mountains beneath the “electric hurricanes” of 2005—only flat water.

For more about our opinions on global warming and for more reference articles, see this article.