Tomorrow is David’s birthday! Let’s all celebrate with some C.A.K.E.!
Since October 1, 2012, I’ve been writing and administrating a new online venture: a webcomic called Poisoned Eden. What is Poisoned Eden, you ask?
Poisoned Eden is a webcomic about faith, family and survival during the Zombie Apocalypse. It deals with mature themes and includes graphic violence and rough language: reader discretion is advised.
The comic updates every Monday, with blog posts and other articles of interest posted throughout the week. Please subscribe to our RSS feed to get updates. You can also follow F. Kim O’Neill on Twitter, and like the official Poisoned Eden Facebook page.
New readers should start at the beginning by clicking the “First” button in the navigation bar. This will take you to the Prologue.
Poisoned Eden is the result of a partnership between published author F. Kim O’Neill and talented artist Jason Fletcher. You can find out more about them by clicking their respective names here or in the navigation bar.
The book I wrote under the pseudonym F. Kim O’Neill still continues to sell well: The Ultimate Guide to Surviving a Zombie Apocalypse.
If you’re at all interested in zombies, survival preparedness, comics, or a darn good story, I look forward to seeing you at Poisoned Eden!
Today is David’s birthday! Let’s all wish him a happy birthday!
And here’s your cake!
Over the last several years, I’ve come to realize something.
Political punditry is a gigantic waste of time.
This website is a gigantic waste of time.
Looking back on the archives, examining current events, and drawing upon my own life experience, if there’s one thing I know beyond any shadow of doubt, it’s that arguments don’t change minds. And, unfortunately, information doesn’t change minds either.
With that in mind, I will be repurposing this website over time to reflect my own changing interests outside of analyzing the news.
There are plenty of blogs and opinion sites out there whose sole purpose is to recontextualize news articles to fit a narrative, analyze reporting to point out bias, or reinforce your viewpoint. That’s fine. But that’s a waste of time, too. What the recent election has taught us is that America isn’t a center-right nation, nor is it populated by citizen voters informed about the issues and ready to cast ballots based on careful consideration of the direction the country is heading. This election was about Big Bird, binders, and bayonets. And the voters are more concerned about receiving government checks, sticking it to the rich, and who Beyonce supports than they are about fundamental liberties, business-strangling regulations, and government takeover of 1/6th of the economy in the form of ObamaCare.
It’s time for the pundits to go out and get real jobs. They were wrong about everything and they cannot be trusted. They gravely misjudged who the American people have become, and misinterpreted every sign imaginable as to where the majority plan to take the United States. This should not have been a close election.
I’ve read article after article about how the GOP has to communicate better to Latinos, to young people, to women, to other minorities. If these voting blocs don’t already understand why we, as a free people, need less government intrusion into daily life in order to stay a free people, then they are missing a fundamental thing: character. You can’t give out character in a speech or a party platform. You can’t inform individuals who aren’t interested in the lofty but graspable ideals that the United States of America was founded upon. You can only pander to them.
For my part, I’ll continue to stay informed about the issues of the day; it’s the proper thing to do. But what I won’t do any longer is read the words of men and women who make their living through sophistry. And that’s the pundit’s game: sophistry. It’s time for them to go. Thousands of emperors without clothes, the lot.
We still have an advocacy news media in this country, but it is slowly advocating itself out of business. It can’t happen fast enough. My disgust over the 2012 election results isn’t for the socialist radicals currently holding the reins in the Senate and Oval Office, but for the buffoons who covered for them and continue to provide them cover. They are a fifth column in this country, and should be treated with deserved scorn and ridicule until the last of them fades into deserved obscurity.
Hearing about the death of Andrew Breitbart was a punch in the gut, and only now have I caught my breath and gathered my thoughts enough to write about it.
As one of the leading lights of the New Media, he had a confrontational, no-holds-barred approach to journalism that I could only admire. He used the institutional left’s own tactics against it, and as a result earned significant hatred and enmity. From making public James O’Keefe’s ACORN sting, to exposing Van Jones’s odious 9/11 trutherism, to showing that Congressman Lewis was lying about being spat upon and called n—er by tea partiers, his work was absolutely invaluable.
The institutional left in the news media, higher education, the entertainment industry, and government have spent decades shaping the narrative to portray anyone to the right of Woodrow Wilson as mean, racist, greedy, uncaring, and stupid, if not outright evil. Breitbart made it his business to expose the left’s moral posturing for what it is: a facade. A relative minority of left-wing individuals who do not respect individual sovereignty, who value confiscation over charity, who hold the rest of us in flyover country in seething contempt and seek to replace all of the mores and values that made this country great with a utopian fantasy of “social justice” should not control the entire country’s media the way it does. Breitbart understood that, and he had the foresight to realize that the great equalizer, the internet, was the only way to get this message across.
He fought them, and he fought hard. He relished the fight: the sort of man who retweeted the horrible things said to him and about him to show the world who he was fighting shows you how much he must have loved confrontation. That’s a kind of bravery few of us possess.
One of the reasons why I left off political blogging, for the most part, was because of the reaction to the Gabby Giffords shooting. Before anything was known about the shooter, before anyone understood the circumstances or reasons for it, the bright bulbs in the media blamed the murders on tea partiers and conservative rhetoric. They painted an appalling picture of their ideological adversaries with the blood of a dead nine-year-old girl. And even after it was shown that the killer, Jared Lee Loughner, was essentially apolitical and likely insane, they refused to walk back any of these truly disgusting claims. I honestly couldn’t believe it: a child was dead, other adults were dead, and a member of Congress was fighting for her life in the hospital, and the left did its best to make political hay out of it. That went beyond indecent. Have you ever gotten into an altercation with someone you start to think you shouldn’t have messed with? That’s how I felt. There was really no depth to which the left would not plunge. So I got out of it. Too dirty. I have a code of ethics, and part of that is to not deny the essential humanity of whomever I disagree with (as long as they aren’t trying to kill me).
It was a mistake. The left did the same thing to Rush Limbaugh in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing as they did to the conservative media after the Giffords shooting. They’ve had a stranglehold on the media narrative for so long that they’ll do anything to keep it. Breitbart was starting to break that hold. Talk radio is breaking that hold. The blogosphere and the New Media are breaking that hold. The left recognizes this now, and it frightens them. So they’ll try to silence us, whatever it takes.
I’m pretty sure that Breitbart would enjoy the left’s sickening orgy of dancing on his grave, and if there was any way to do so, he’d retweet their gleeful posts from the Great Beyond to prove how false their moral superiority really is. I’m personally disgusted by it (after all, he has a wife and four children), but not surprised: the left in this country has shown its hand. I can no longer pretend that my ideological opponents will play by the rules that come naturally to decent men.
So what do we do now? We have to fight, just like he did. We’re up against an entrenched, powerful enemy that will stop at nothing to maintain its hold on the media and higher education, and fights with tactics straight out of the Alinsky handbook. Don’t lose heart like I did once, and won’t do again. Pick up Andrew Breitbart’s standard, gird your loins, and wade back into the battle. We have a country to regain.
Today is David’s Birthday! Let’s all celebrate his day of birth with birthday cake!
Here is today’s political cartoon of the week, submitted by noted political cartoonist, I. P. “Ip” Freely.
Michelle Obama echoes 2008 campaign:
Michelle Obama told high school students taking part in a mentoring program at Georgetown University on Tuesday that being married to the president can be scary at times, because he makes the family get out of its comfort zone.
The first lady urged students not to let fear guide them after a student asked about being worried about going away to college.
“I mean this is scary,” she said. “Shoot, being married to Barack Obama? He’s got big plans. He’s always pushing us beyond our comfort zones, and I’m dragged along going, `What’s he doing now? No, not this.’”
It’s nice to see that someone else is saying, “No, not this,” to Obama’s plans to fundamentally transform the United States into another failing European socialist state. Remember this warning Michelle Obama hit us with in February 2008:
”Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed.”
I remember when our comfort zone was 7.8% unemployment. Sometimes the comfort zone isn’t so bad. Someone should tell Michelle Obama that.
Social scientist outed for “massive fraud”:
When colleagues called the work of Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel too good to be true, they meant it as a compliment. But a preliminary investigative report released on October 31 gives literal meaning to the phrase, detailing years of data manipulation and blatant fabrication by the prominent Tilburg University researcher.
“We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come,” says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel’s work at the university.
Stapel’s eye-catching studies on aspects of social behaviour such as power and stereotyping garnered wide press coverage. For example, in a recent Science paper (which the investigation has not identified as fraudulent), Stapel reported that untidy environments encouraged discrimination ( Science 332, 251-253; 2011).
“Somebody used the word ‘wunderkind’,” says Miles Hewstone, a social psychologist at the University of Oxford, UK. “He was one of the bright thrusting young stars of Dutch social psychology — highly published, highly cited, prize-winning, worked with lots of people, and very well thought of in the field.”
Luckily, this time, he was caught out. This underscores very significantly why we need a great deal of oversight in the social sciences.
Associate Professor of History Julio Pino got “political”:
The speaker at whom Pino shouted was Ishmael Khaldi, formerly the deputy consul general at the Israeli consulate in San Francisco. Khaldi, as a Bedouin and Muslim, lectures on his experiences as an advocate for Israel.
According to multiple press accounts, Pino posed a question to Khaldi after his talk, and then shouted “death to Israel” and left the auditorium. It is the latter statement that has set off the controversy.
This Pino character is a gigantic coward to shout something like that and run out. If you’re going to shout “Death to Israel,” anywhere outside of a mosque or just about every Middle Eastern country in the world, at least have the courage to stick around and deal with the consequences. But the most striking part for me was Cary Nelson’s reaction. Nelson is the president of the American Association of University Professors:
“Calling out a political slogan during a question period falls well within the speech rights of any member of a university community,” he said. “Expressive outbursts do not substitute for rational analysis, but they have long played a role in our national political life.”
Think about it: calling for the death of the homeland of the Jews has just been relegated to the realm of political sloganeering. Like “Change we can believe in” or “Tippicanoe and Tyler too”. It’s just a political slogan. Pino shouldn’t be censured for it, according to this clown Nelson.
Imagine if Pino had shouted “Death to homosexuals!” It’s not an uncommon notion in Islamic countries. Is that just a political slogan? Anti-semitism has found a comfortable home on college campuses for quite some time now; that the president of the AAUP simply refers to an expression of it as a political slogan shows you how deep this cancer in American education has insinuated itself.
Joseph Curl shows us some of Michelle Obama’s less temperate recent remarks:
Mad Michelle this week popped down to Davis Island, Fla., to hobnob with the very people her husband despises – the 1 percent. At a massive mansion on the bay, filled with the wealthiest of the wealthy, America’s first lady launched into a tirade about “them” – the Republicans.
“Let’s not forget about what it meant when my husband appointed two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history, our daughters – and our sons – watched three women take their seats on our nation’s highest court. But more importantly, let’s not forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come – on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly and love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here,” she said to applause.
She’s certainly taking her cue from her post-partisan husband with this kind of divisive rhetoric. I don’t remember the last few First Ladies engaging in such inflammatory talk on the campaign trail, but just as Michelle Obama has redefined beauty, she’s also redefining the role of First Lady.
ABC News reported a few days ago:
At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.
“The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’” Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel.
Interesting how ABC spun this: self-reliance as a bad thing. What Obama actually said was, “You are on your own.” This, to his supporters, is also a bad thing. This is what the American left wants: it wants you to be a ward of the state, a dependent sucking on the government teat. What they know and hope you’ll forget is that it’s extremely difficult to remove an entitlement once it’s been put in place. Self-reliance is a dirty word: just let us take care of everything, and you’ll be okay.
It’s shameful. It’s everything that the Founding Fathers were against.
UPDATE: Spendthrift Michelle Obama’s remarks on being “on your own.”
Lately, it seems that the Democrats in Congress and Obama have been referring to Congress as “the Republican Congress” in public discussions. This is despite the fact that the Republican party is in charge of the House and the Democrat party is in charge of the Senate.
It’s been suggested that this is a new meme being advanced: a way for the Democrats to further distance themselves from the horrible mess they’ve made (and continue to make) of the economy. Put it all on the Republicans, avoid responsibility, and claim that Congress’s terrible approval ratings are all because of the other guys, not them. This is likely the case, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
One of the most amazingly stupid things I’ve ever heard an Obama staffer say was when Valerie Jarrett claimed that the Obama administration was going to “speak truth to power” in its war on the Fox News Channel two years ago. In the interview, Jarrett was flailing; she didn’t have anything incisive to say, so she reverted to form: speak truth to power, hold those in authority responsible, etc. Valerie: you’re the one in power now. There’s nowhere else to pass this buck. The responsibility is yours. That’s the same thought process evident in referring to Congress as “the Republican Congress.” Out of ideas, flailing, desperately seeking excuses, the Democrat party is simply reverting to form. Sticking with the old expressions. Because they don’t have anything else.
Apparently, Moammar Qaddafi was given the Abner Louima “Haitian Love Treatment” before being shot to death with his own gun.
Watch the video here. It’s not too graphic.
After speaking with Josh about it, I have returned to re-take managerial control over The Waterglass.
There will be gigantic quantities of civility served up, along with frivolity and jocularity.