THIS Should Get Interesting

THIS Should Get Interesting

This year’s $uperBowl®©™ ads will apparently (unless someone successfully sues to get it yanked, or CBS caves under pressure) include a message not seen before among the scantily-clad, beer-swilling, job-seeking multitudes we’re used to seeing on Game Day:

Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based Christian group led by James Dobson, is paying big bucks — perhaps $3.2 million — for a 30-second spot featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tebow and his mother, Pam.

In 1987, pregnant Pam Tebow and her husband, Bob, were in the Philippines as missionaries when she contracted dysentery. Doctors believed that the disease would result in the death of her baby and that a fruitless childbirth might kill her too.

But mother and son survived. After years of home schooling, Tim Tebow went on to become 240 pounds of All-Southeastern Conference, football-slinging whoopass with Bible verses written on his cheeks.

The point of the ad isn’t to pass a bill or defeat a candidate who believes women have a right to elective abortions, but to encourage women to “choose life” when faced with desperate options.

The reaction has already begun:

News of the ad had a predictably Pavlovian effect on the Left. Since the spot combines many of the elements that the “educated class” most detests about America — frank expressions of Christianity, pro-life advocacy, home-schoolers, football hero worship and the South — they were incensed that cash-strapped CBS would take Focus on the Family’s money.

Jehmu Greene, head of the Women’s Media Center, is leading a drive to punish CBS for airing the ad, which she claims is “sexist.”

Here’s your QotD:

A little decoding is necessary here.

In terms of Super Bowl ads, “sexist” is code for “anti-abortion.” But “sexist” does not apply to parading women around in their underpants to sell beer.

Got it?

You know, Alinski’s Rules for Radicals works no matter what side of the aisle you’re on! RTWT. Especially note this, about the recent Supreme Court Citizen’s United v. FEC decision:

The Supreme Court decision means that anyone who can get the dough together can try to influence the outcome of elections.

That’s exactly right.

The Internet Detects Censorship as Damage . . .

The Internet Detects Censorship as Damage . . .

. . . and routes around it. From what I’ve seen, this video is getting yanked from YouTube and other sites, so I thought I’d host it until Photobucket gets pissy.

http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/America_Rising__An_Open_Letter_to_D.flv
From what I’ve read recently 14 House Republicans, 10 House Democrats, six Senate Republicans and two Senate Democrats have announced that they will not be running for re-election. Who will be replacing them? And what about the Democrats who do run?

Of course, I’m going to repeat Ken’s comment from this post:

Yeeeeaaaaaahhhh, but the idea of hangin’ our hats on 2010/2012 puts me in mind of a comment from a post at Jaded Haven. Quoted in part: the subject of Daphne’s post “…is prepared to learn that he must leave it to Republicans to move the progressive agenda at a pace at which it can be absorbed.”

In your heart, you know he’s right.

Voting out the Democrats does not equal “taking back the country.” There’s a reason the Stupid Party is called “Democrat-Lite,” and the choice between the Evil Party and the Stupid Party a choice between castration and a wedgie.

Right-Wing Anti-Intellectualism

(I)ntellectuals are free from one of the most rigorous constraints facing other occupations: external standards. An engineer will ultimately be judged on whether the structures he designs hold up, a businessman on whether he makes money, and so on. By contrast, the ultimate test of an intellectual’s ideas is whether other intellectuals “find those ideas interesting, original, persuasive, elegant, or ingenious. There is no external test.” If the intellectuals are like-minded, as they often are, then the validity of an idea depends on what those intellectuals already believe. This means that an intellectual’s ideas are tested only by internal criteria and “become sealed off from feedback from the external world of reality.”

An intellectual’s reputation, then, depends not on whether his ideas are verifiable but on the plaudits of his fellow intellectuals. That the Corvair was as safe as any other car on the road has not cut into Ralph Nader’s speaking fees, nor has the failure of hundreds of millions of people to starve to death diminished Paul Ehrlich’s access to grant money. They only have to maintain the esteem of the intelligentsia to keep the gravy train running.

Intellectuals, of course, have expertise — highly specialized knowledge of a particular subject. The problem, according to Sowell, is that they think their superior knowledge in one area means they have superior knowledge in most other areas. Yet knowledge is so vast and dispersed that it is doubtful that any one person has even 1 percent of the knowledge available. Even the brightest intellectuals cannot possibly know all the needs, wants, and preferences of millions of people. Unfortunately, they have considerable incentive to behave as if they do.

– David Hogberg, National Review OnlineThe Divine Right of Intellectuals

Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.

– Robert Anson Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

Out here in the hinterlands, we’re well aware that you and your Ivy League buddies believe that you are the only actual educated people on the planet, but you ought to have learned somewhere along the way that belief in an idea does not turn that idea into reality. Asserting as much, to borrow a line from the late John Hughes, just makes you look like an ass.

What (David) Brooks, with his touching faith in “pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise” doesn’t want to talk about, of course, is just how badly the Ivy League class has failed over the past couple of decades. All those rows of degrees from Harvard didn’t keep a pack of Brooksian elites – mostly members of the Democratic Party – from running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac straight into the toilet, and taking the private economy with them. Hiring out of the Ivies also didn’t save Lehman Brothers or AIG from doing remarkably stupid things with other people’s money. And as for “professional expertise…” just what profession does the Obama cabinet posses expertise in, other than hardball politics?

This president and his government are not only largely inexperienced when it comes to the private sector or even practical knowledge of middle America, they tend to view both in outright contempt. Recall Obama’s famous “bitter clingers” speech and autobiographical aversion to “the suburbs,” or his wife’s admonitions against “joining corporate America.” One with an overweening faith in “pragmatic federal leaders” probably hasn’t been paying much attention to Ivy-accredited politicians like alleged geniuses (and TARP/Fannie Mae culprits) Barney Frank or Chris Dodd.

– Will Collier, More Arugula From David Brooks

It’s not that those on the Right hate “intellectuals,” it’s that we hate that so many are so often wrong yet never seem to be penalized for the results of their failures. Instead, they are rewarded.

UPDATE: Thanks to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, the original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post is available here.

Give ‘Em Hell, Bill

Give ‘Em Hell, Bill!

This t-shirt notwithstanding, Bill Whittle’s latest Afterburner installment is an inspiring piece indeed.

Spread it around, would you?

UPDATE: However, reader Ken reminds us in the comments that simply throwing out the Democrats isn’t going to fix anything:

Yeeeeaaaaaahhhh, but the idea of hangin’ our hats on 2010/2012 puts me in mind of a comment from a post at Jaded Haven. Quoted in part: the subject of Daphne’s post “…is prepared to learn that he must leave it to Republicans to move the progressive agenda at a pace at which it can be absorbed.”

In your heart, you know he’s right.

Yeah, I do.

Detroit has Been the Perfect Laboratory . . .

“Detroit has Been the Perfect Laboratory . . .

. . . for Leftist policies at work for nearly half a century. It’s the perfect vision of the Left’s Utopia that this administration sees.”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&w=640&h=385]
Sweet bleeding jeebus. Detroit looks like a goddamned war zone.

They would have never bothered her if she were on welfare

They Would Have Never Bothered Her if She Were on Welfare

Unbelievable. No, actually, too believable. I found this at AR15.com. The title of this post comes from the first response to the original post:

$10 an hour with 2 kids? IRS pounces

Rachel Porcaro knows she’s hardly rich. When you’re a single mom making 10 bucks an hour, you don’t need government experts to tell you how broke you are.

Rachel Porcaro knows she’s hardly rich. When you’re a single mom making 10 bucks an hour, you don’t need government experts to tell you how broke you are.

But that’s what happened. The government not only told Porcaro she was poor. They said she was too poor to make it in Seattle.

It all started a year ago, when Porcaro, a 32-year-old mom with two boys, was summoned to the Seattle office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). She had been flagged for an audit.

She couldn’t believe it. She made $18,992 the previous year cutting hair at Supercuts. A few hundred of that she spent to have her taxes prepared by H&R Block.

“I asked the IRS lady straight upfront — ‘I don’t have anything, why are you auditing me?’ ” Porcaro recalled. “I said, ‘Why me, when I don’t own a home, a business, a car?’ “

The answer stunned both Porcaro and the private tax specialist her dad had gotten to help her.

“They showed us a spreadsheet of incomes in the Seattle area,” says Dante Driver, an accountant at Seattle’s G.A. Michael and Co. “The auditor said, ‘You made eighteen thousand, and our data show a family of three needs at least thirty-six thousand to get by in Seattle.”

“They thought she must have unreported income. That she was hiding something. Basically they were auditing her for not making enough money.”

RTWT. It gets worse.

But I’ll skip to the dénouement:

Rachel says an irony of her year in tax hell is that the IRS is right about one thing — you can’t get by in Seattle on what she makes. That’s why she’s living with her parents. To try to make a life in our shimmering city without relying on welfare, food stamps or other public assistance.

“We’re an Italian family,” she said. “We’re surviving as a tribe. It seems like we got punished for that.”

Of course you did. Can’t have the plebes fending for themselves. The next thing you know, they’ll start thinking that they don’t need government.

At the time of this posting, there are 420 comments on the original story. The natives seem restless.

Hopenchangen Hopenhagen Carbonhagen

Hopenchangen Hopenhagen Carbonhagen

So Obamateur is flying to Carbonhagen on his way to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize to inspire other World Leaders™ to Do the Right Thing© and cut per capita CO2 emissions back to 19th Century levels in order to Save the Planet!©® In the mean time, the Imperial Senate Democrats are preparing to throw their female constituency under the bus® by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to pay for abortions just so they can get Health Care Reform©® passed and fvck the rest of us, too.

Just when do the actions of our Congressweasels fall to the level of “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object…a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”?

Just askin’.

UPDATE: Who needs Carbonhagen? The EPA can just make sh!t up as they go!

First “Law Abiding Citizen” now “Harry Brown”

First “Law Abiding Citizen” now “Harry Brown

Watch the trailer:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVOSfHFNlcI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&w=640&h=385]
It was supposed to release in the US on 11/6/09, but I can’t find it showing anywhere. It’s also supposed to have opened in the UK on 11/11. Someone’s seen it, because there are currently 40 User Comments at IMDB. This is typical:

This film accurately depicts life in modern Britain today.

Not the image of a flowing rolling countryside of middle class England which is often depicted in typical international films but one of an inner city “sink” estate – Elephant & Castle in London – with all of its associated problems.

I saw the film last night and it brought back all the memories I have of having lived in similar circumstances.

Michael Caine is excellent, this is probably one of his best films and I expect film nominations for his role.

The film gives a gritty but realistic view of the life most people live on the sink estates of Britain, all are there through no choice of their own, but some are aware of the conditions they are forced to live in.

I don’t think we’ll see the British government promoting this film as it portraits the country in a very bad light, though, if you are not from Britain and would like a taste of what some of us have to put up with I recommend you see this film.

I’d like to see it.

Interesting Question

Interesting Question

This is a serious question to all readers of The Market Ticker.

Where is your personal breaking point?
No, I’m not asking how far you have to be pushed before you “go postal” and commit random acts of violence. That’s not a question to ask in polite company, even though for virtually everyone, there is such a point.

No, I’m asking how much abuse you have to have personally served upon you by the banksters and other scam artists in this country before you have had enough, and start doing unto the other guy – because he has done you.

The Market Ticker, Where’s the Breaking Point?

RTWT, and the links.

The natives are getting restless. Billy Beck gives us the Quote of the Day:

I am beginning to consider this year since January as a fairly close comparison to events elsewhere in 1917, with the temporal slipped-disk of George Bush as Alexander Kerensky for eight years. If we take Obama as the first post-American president, then Bush was the president of a provisional government. In any case, the slow-motion revolution of Amsoc is no longer slow-motion. We’re living a moment in history that will reverberate through history as the turn of a great wheel, into precisely what cannot be completely foretold right now, but it must surely be enormous in its consequences.

We are more and more in it, every day, and none it is anything good for anyone. As the struggle intensifies, every person’s principles will be more clearly illuminated, right down to the street-level where you live. Pay close attention, and keep both hands on the wheel.