"Adamant for drift"

"Adamant for drift" my friends:

In the near future America will look remarkably similiar to Canada in the following ways 1. Ever head of the Quebociouse? the French (terrorist) seperatists in Quebec? Southern California and then most of the south west of the US will be a near seperatist region (truelly New Mexico in all the worst ways) and you will have all the usually talk of "homeland" & "la reconquestidora" 2. We will have a European/Canadian style social welfare state with a rapidly declining economony and population as white women aren't having kids & the welfare state will will have killed that good ole American can do spirit!

“So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful for impotence.”

- Sir Winston Churchill

9:07 Wisdom

the best liberals are coy and mildly ashamed of being on the left (if not openly contempicious of much of the naives in there party). I need a spelling teacher, yes? I'm convinced I have Lou Gehrig Disease and the opening prelude phase of my dissent into crippledome is spelling ashamed "ashashamed" and staring blanly at the screen for way too long. I suggest curing insomnia by getting on the National Review email alerts cause they send you 3 old National Review articles (including 1 WFB column every fucking day). Reading a William F. Buckley column from October 3, 1975 makes the Cold War seem like a brisk picnic.

We couldn't get the Olympics but we got the jail

By moving the gitmo detainees (who should all have been pubicly beheaded 7 years ago) to a prison in Illinois, Obama has bestowed a great gift upon the natives of this state: at this moment five guys named Muhommad (RACISM ALERT!!!!) are circling a city on a map called Chicago. I don't think anyone can deny that Obama has increased the possibility of a terrorist attack upon Chicago by a factor of 40. If it happens and your or my relative is even grazed by a brick I'll go Timothy McVeigh on Obama's ass & make John Wilkes Booth look like Oliver Cromwell. (oh that would have gotten me kicked out of Oberlin!) jk sucides for sissies

Atlas On The Whipping Post

It took me a couple weeks to realize how huge the recent Supreme Court desiscion that lifts the unconstuinal ban on corporate campaign contributions. We are going to dunk these fucks in their own shit i swear to god know that the successful have been un-gags politically and can partcipate fully in our democracy by putting there money were their heart is (and hopefully never vice versa). You see the reason that the liberals fliipped out the way they did is ofcourse not because they just "can't believe" Alito thought that it constuinial (no it never somehow seems to be that) but because they realize, being not official borderline retarded, that people who start businesses and employ millions of Americans and have done 400 times more for people than Barak Obama has are all Republicans and the fact that they are Republican is more often than not integral to their business success ("I was a pothead till i saw "Firing Line" with Buckley on TV,I cut my hair and learned about the stock market the next day and never looked back").
See liberals being naive and unknowing about the world around them in the sense of how the world works (e.g. why people in Russia starved to death by the millions in 1915, etc.) and think that the private sector is "selling out" to nothing short of the devil. Business is lowly and corrupt and sinister. It's not be respected, "they aren't working for the public good! There working for their own self intrest the greedy fucks." So Nancy and Barak and Barney all spent their adult lives steal the productive sectors hard earned dollars to redirect to their prefer intrest and/or racial griveance racket of choice. And yet know one realizes that the average sellsman, let alone business owner has done more "for" his community and other people in a year that Obama has done his whole life. Redisturbting money, raising taxes, suing banks, suing police departments for not passing enough blacks on entrace exams doesn't help anyone it only hurts people, they don't realize but every time they try "to just do my part" they leave behind a vertiable trail of bankrupted business, closed down store fronts, welfare dependpenent Americans their souls and ambitious dilalted in a marijuana induced hazed.

Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb to help the world. No one works that hard for entirely selfless reasons. People do things most of the time for their own self intrest and their is nothing wrong with that at all especially when you realize that usually a person's self intrest involves mimproving other peeople's lives and giving to others. The guy who invented the world wide web did so because he wanted to buy a huge house and drive a ferrario and now the entire world has benefitted unimaginably from his gift yet he was apparently in inventing the internet being "selfish." If you truelly want to help people you should be selfless. The people who help others the most are in the private not the public sector.


THE STRING ATTACHED: The reason i wasn't partying after i heard about this descion is because i hear the descion may spell serious trouble for the Nation Question of

All You Need To About Global Warming Profiteers

Al Gore's flock claim, with their usually uncanny certitude (e.g. "It will be this cold in 200 years!") that we only have about 10-15 YEARS till its too late to avert "diaster" (by the way:in 20 yrs. they'll be saying we have "10 years left") If they were not lying they would be THE BIGGEST FANS OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE WORLD b/c they'd realize 1.There's no chance of switching EVEN 30% OF THE US ECONOMY (which would do nothing if u could) to solar & etc.because Americans wont pay 3 times more for energy but they will switch to non poulluting nuclear power which is very cheap. So the alarmists if they belived their b.s. would comprmise to save the "earth".

Soledad O'Brien: The Diversity Triple Threat of Cable News

Since diversity is now legally mandated in every sector of America life and enforced via hefty discrimination and dispirate impact lawsuites from racial grievance rackets like the SPLC and/or the Justice Department (which have become indistuishable in the last year) every company, its plain to see, has their own token minority employees in legion. You'll notice how rare it is to see black criminals on crime sitcoms and films. For instance from Steve Sailer:

Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002.

One of my readers recently pointed out that with non-Hispanic whites accounting for only about ten percent of the violent crime in New York City, the three Law & Order television shows were likely to feature more fictional white New York murderers in 2005 than there will be actual white murderers in real life!

Another reader pointed out:

"In the first 24 episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent there's only one black murderer, and she is a corrupt police officer. Make of that what you will…"

You'll notice how disportionatly blacks are anchormen and salesmen in the Obama era aswell. The reason that Chase bank and Chilli's all want a black guy selling their product in ad's is to quell potential Jack Jackson's from exhorting them for not having "enough" black employees. When the head of Google recently testified infront of the Senate, Sheila Jackson, the embarssingly ghetto black and proud senator from California used her time to reprsent her constiuents by asking,

"How many black employees does Google have?"

Well, CNN, FOX, MSNBC are all under the same threat of exhortation and to varying degrees work to avoid the R word by clearly having on regular black guests and, in the liberal cable news channels case more ofcourse, having a huge amount of black and hispanic and non-white, non-male anchors and reports. I can only recall 1 or 2 white male anchors at CNN. But more importantly take two constant commentators on FOX and MSNBC: Washington Post black colmunist Eugene Robinson on MSNBC and NPR's Juan Williams on FOX. Both Williams and Robinson hardly have never uttered anything orginal or intresting and are clearly products of affirmtive action for to go by merit cable news on the left and right would be all-white as far as commentators are concerned.

Among the most obvious affirmtive action babys as anchors and reporters are Gwen Iffel and Soledad O'Brien. Soladad is the queen of diversity in media bullshit affirmtive action or should I say diva? She is really hot, and not very bright thats not unique among cable news anchor women but what makes this airhead special is her de facto current position at CNN. Basically, CNN decided that rather than hire 1 black male affirmtive action reporter hire, 1 black female affirmtive action hire, 1 latino male hire, 1 latino female hire they would get multi-racial Soledad to play black and latino at once and make terrible PC documentrarys for CNN called "Black in America" and "Latino in America" (the latter of which didn't even try to hide its pro-amnesty agenda) both which no one in America including blacks and latinos wanted to watch. Soladad apparently had her own show once on CNN but it did so bad they had to delegate her to "making" 2 documentarys a year. Vdare.com's Joe Guzzardi writes brillantly about Soledad below:

O’Brien, who is half Cuban black, half Australian Irish, has gathered many boring conventional awards, including one named after herself: the “Soledad O'Brien Freedom's Voice Award” from the Morehouse School of Medicine for being a “catalyst for social change”.

But, because the competition is stiffer, ours is harder to win—and therefore more prestigious.

I note that the “O’Brien Award” given to O’Brien is significant because, as you will soon learn, she’s in love with herself.

O’Brien has also been included twice in Irish America Magazine’s list of top 100 Irish Americans—as well as on Black Enterprise’s hottest list!

Newsweek featured O’Brien on a cover story and named her as one of the “15 People Who Make America Great”.

Therein lies the secret of O’Brien’s success. No matter what the assignment O’Brien, ethnically speaking, is the right reporter for the job.

When CNN wants a black to interview Michelle Obama, the Hurricane Katrina displaced, or Haiti’s victims, there’s O’Brien posing as a black. (See O’Brien with Obama, her “passion for justice” for New Orleans’ residents displaced by Katrina and the Haitian orphan victims here, here and here. More evidence: in this interview discussing another of her documentaries, “Black in America”, O’Brien identifies herself as black.)

However, if CNN decides that it would be a good idea to run a documentary about being “Latino in America”, they can call on O’Brien, a self described Latina. (Here, among a Hispanic audience, O’Brien reconfirms that description.)

When a highfalutin’ organization needs an ethnically all-purpose speaker, O’Brien is their girl. Her appointment calendar is booked solid because she’s everything all rolled up into one: female, African-American, Hispanic and Irish.

For example, last year on November 10th O’ Brien travelled to Yale University as the guest of the Poynter Fellowship in Journalism to present her speech agonizingly titled “Diversity in the Media: Behind the Scenes & in Our Lives”.

Chances are good that O’Brien used the same notes from her October 28th speech at St. Joseph’s University: “Diversity on TV, Behind the Scenes and in our Lives”.

Or perhaps O’Brien rehashed her January speech given at Duke University, “Black in America: African Americans in the Last Forty Years”. (Watch here.)

Before I launch into why O’Brien won this year, a little biographical information will help you understand why my choice is an easy one.

O’Brien never misses a chance to literally cash in by referring to herself by her complete name, María de la Soledad Teresa O'Brien.

Although she doesn’t speak Spanish, this gives O’Brien an excellent opportunity to define herself as a multicultural maven who’s perfect for CNN or any other mainstream media outlet. Maybe if she looks back far enough in her genealogical tree, she’ll find Asian ancestors!

Against all evidence, O’Brien stretches to make a point of her black/Latina roots. In an interview for her official CNN biography, O’Brien states that she has: “a mass of kinky hair, light brown skin and lots of freckles”.

Photographs of O’Brien do not support her claim. In this ethnically ambiguous photo I see a traditional hairstyle, no freckles and either light brown skin or too much make up.

Now to my topic: During her seven year CNN career and before that at NBC, O’Brien has been consistently terrible on immigration and race.

What iced our award for O’Brien is her two-part documentary, “Latino in America”, which bombed in the ratings and had the curious effect of angering everyone including some Latinos. Her 2007 documentary, “Black in America”, also raised the ire of many blacks.

Defending “Latino in America”, O’Brien tries to make the case that she represents a “voice for the voiceless”.

This position is patently absurd. Anyone who follows immigration knows that immigration reform patriots are the voiceless ones, to the point that the media regularly censors us.

The immigrant story is told repeatedly in the most sympathetic terms on CNN or in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and other major dailies.

What the CNN documentary does, apparently without O’Brien catching the irony, is emphasize why illegal immigration does not—as she would have you believe—make the case for diversity but instead exacerbates the problems of multiculturalism.

One of O’Brien’s subjects is Francisca Abreau, a Dominican high school student apparently in the U.S. illegally, who when pregnant at 14, contemplated suicide. Then, after Abreau gave birth to her anchor baby daughter Destiny (!!!), she received therapy for her continued identity struggles.

Here’s what I take from Abreau’s story: at taxpayer’s expense she took up a seat in a New York classroom, delivered a baby and underwent costly psychological treatments. In the light of my twenty-five years in the California public school system, I would place Francisca’s odds for success as an adult at near zero.

In another segment, O’Brien featured Tucson illegal alien activist Isabel Garcia, who during an open borders rally beheaded a pinata that resembled Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (See it here.) Garcia (email her) defended it as free speech.

One of the interesting things about O’Brien is that for as much time as she spends defining herself as black or Latino, she never refers to herself as American—even though she is American-born, raised in Long Island in comfortable, middle class surroundings.

When O’Brien discussed the conceptual evolution of Latino in America, she said that she was approached by many ethnic groups urging a special on Asian in America, Gay in America, and Muslim in America. But O’Brien never mentioned what would be the most interesting of all: White in America. At least one black viewer agrees.

O’Brien is sharp enough to realize that the multicultural angle works for her. She’s parlayed it into a fat salary and inflated speaking fees. Moreover, she’s married to an investment banker and lives the high life in Manhattan.

Her ethnic roots, whatever they may be, have paid O’Brien rich rewards.

Along with her five siblings, O’Brien is a Harvard graduate. However, she didn’t learn much.

During her recent appearance on Celebrity Jeopardy, she came in last and finished behind basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (UCLA).

The final jeopardy question that O’Brien couldn’t answer: “Trees with biblical names include the Joshua tree and the world’s oldest tree, a 4,700-year old pine named for him. What is it?” O’Brien’s reply: “Who is Moses?” (Correct answer: “Who was Methuselah?”)

O’Brien’s excuse: the buzzer is hard to operate.

Along with her complete failure to report honestly about immigration, I deducted points for O’Brien’s smug attitude and grating voice, a big minus for a television anchor. (Watch her talk about Spike Lee here.)

Finally, O’Brien is not only a phony but flat out just not a nice person!

In a non-journalism related incident, last year O’Brien signed an eviction notice for her co-op neighbor because she did not like his dog!

According to O’Brien, a Neapolitan Mastiff in her building offended her because of its "size, slobbering, shedding, drooling, gassiness and odors".

Luckily for Ugo and his owners, the judge threw O’Brien’s case out.

I'm Your Worst Nightmare

I realize that I am liberals worst nightmare, much more so than a Palin or Beck. Because to a liberal Sara Palin is just a confirmation of how right they are about everything, about how Republicans are all hicks and how anyone with brains is a Democrat, etc. However I am not a yokel or a Jesus-freak, I don't compare Obama to Hitler or call him a commie instead I make arguments so cogent they usually can't respond with anything but ad hominems. Palin makes it easy to disregard us, I don't.

Living In A Dream World

As I begin reading Mark Thiessen's great earth shakingly important book called "Courting Diaster" (which the MSM is ignoring because it makes Obama look terrible and Bush look alot better) I realize more and more that basically Obama might as well live a puffy cloud land where any cliche he and David Axelrod dream is obviously true. We elected a guy who writes speeches like a High School senior: put in what sounds good don't worry about whether its true or not.
For instance remember his big line at the 2004 that got the zombies clapping, "There is no conservative America or liberal America, there is only the United States of America"

Wow, what a rhetorical craftsmen. Genius! Except of all people liberals assembled at the 2004 DNC in Boston knew that their was a discrenible blue state America or red state America, a cultural and moral and patriotic divide, they pride themselves on not being like the racist yokels in the red state's who want to preserve culture (how reactionary!). If you got teary-eyed watching Obama's vaccous 2004 speech your not worth your salt anylatically in my book and are most probably a women.

2. "We do not have to choose between our morals and our security."

Great! Again, totally disconnected from reality. As Thiessen's book shows in great detail waterboarding (which wasn't toture clearly) was the CIA's best tool and resulted in the stoping of several would be 9/11's under Bush's watch. Obama has dismantled our best counter-terrorism tool.

The Truth About Waterboarding

I. WHAT IS WATERBOARDING? WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE PERSON WHO UNDERGOES IT?

ANSWER: WATERBOARDING
1. INFLICTS NO SHORT OR LONG TERM INJURIES
2. IT DOES NOT CAUSE EXTREME OR SEVERE PAIN
3. IT MERELY MAKES DETAINEES FELL LIKE THEY ARE DROWING FOR AT MAXIMUM AROUND 3-5 SECONDS AND RESULTS IN USUALLY 1-3 SECONDS OF UNPLEASENTNESS AT THE FIRST MOMENT ONE FEELS THEY CAN'T BREATHE THEY EITHER YELL THE AGREED UPON CODE WORD OR DROP AND/OR THROW THE "DEAD MANS GRIP" WHICH ARE TWO TINTY BARS THAT ONE GRIPS IN BOTH HANDS TO THE FLOOR AT EITHER OF WHICH POINTS THE WATERBOARDING IMMEDIATELY ENDS.

Here is a video of the shockingly un gruesome method of extracting life saving information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E

II. HOW MANY TERORRIST DETAINEES AT GAUNTANMO BAY WHERE WATERBOARDED?

ANSWER: All of 3 terrorist murderers we're waterboarded the entire time at Gitmo in 7 years.

III. WHO WHERE THE TERORRIST DETAINEES THAT WHERE WATERBOARDED?

ANSWER: The first ever detainee to be waterboarded at Gitmo was the number 3 guy in Al-Quada the terrorist organization which had just attacked the United States and killed thousands of innocent civilians. In fact, all 3 where high up in Al-quada. Another detainee who was waterboarded was Khalid Sheik Muhommad, the confessed mastermind of the murder of 3 thousand plus civilians on 9/11/2001. (QUESTION: Does a unprovoked, delibrate murderer of 3,000 innocent civilians not deserve to be hung let alone to exsperience 3 seconds of temporary unpleasentness in order to not punish him but to extract information about future attacks that would save lives?)

IIII. IS IT TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS TRUE THAT WATERBOARDING IS A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS PRINCIPAL SIGNATORY?

ANSWER: Absolutely not. The Geneva Convention, which came about after WW2 in order to prevent the toture of soliders of nation states held capitive in a war does not apply to Khalid Sheik Muhhomad or any one ever detained at Gitmo for Al-Quada terrorists are not solidiers of a nation state being held behind enemy lines in a war between two nation states. (And even If they where it's debated where waterboarding would count as toture under the Conventions but thats irrelevent because they aren't. By the way, the conventions did not apply to spies of a nation state behind enemy lines or solidiers who didn't play by the rules of war. For instance, German solidiers who put on US solidiers uniforms during WW2 when caught behind the enemy lines trying to collect information where immediatly executed and no one thought that a violation of the Geneva Convention because the German officers had broken basic rules of war. In the same way, the Geneva Convention didn't apply to any solidier who broke the basic rules of war (of which it was apart), if you delibratly slughter civilians or solidiers waving a white flag or a group of red cross medics, you weren't going to receive the benefits of the basic rules of war that you defied. The Conventions applied to solidiers of a nation at war who where simply captured the usual way not captured along killing a child in the other nations uniform, etc.. Bin Laden broke the basic rules by delibratly targeting civilians.)

WHY DID THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ONLY APPLY ITSELF TO SOLDIERS OF A NATION CAPTURED IN A WAR RATHER THAN SOMEONE LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN IF HE WHERE CAPTURED?

Because it really would be cruel and unjust to waterboard, or even just make stand for 24 hours a, say, captured 18 year old German solidier who A. Didn't nesscarily go to war by choice for they would be jailed or executed for treason if they evaded the draft or deserted and B. They didn't kill civilians, they where commanded to, shoot at other solidiers in a war they didn't start of choose to fight quite often and 3. they were solidiers of a nation state at war and finally 4. A rank and file officer or private captured behind enemy lines has almost never any life saving, war winning information that would be at all worth waterboarding them for while OSAMA BIN LADEN and KHALID SHEIK MUHOMMAD and MUHOMMAD ATTA and all 3 of those terrorists the United States waterboarded to try to get life saving information that did save thousands of lives and prevented attacks, all 1. weren't forced to slaughter 3,000 innocent civilians, which they did delibratly, on September 11th, 2001 and 2. They where not the solidiers of any nation state (and weren't in a official war between two or more nations) 3. They weren't Americans and weren't entitled to Meridanda rights or a lawyer present and all the rest inturn 4. They, such as the number 3 man in Al-Quada or the mastermind of 9-11, had valuable if not life saving information that they weren''t going to give up by asking nicely and didn't give up when not coarsed by waterboarding and other techniques.

HOW DOES ONE DEFINE TOTURE?

One common sense of definition of toture is that if your willing to undergo a interrogation techinque voluntarily just to see what its like, or just so you can be a US Marine or Navy SEAL or just to write a article on a technique for your monthly column: it isn't toture.

If I ask you would if you'd like to try getting your finger nails pulled or your hand bashed with a being slamming hammer would you try it? Ofcourse not.
If I said that you could only become Navy Seal if you let your arm be cut off without anistetic would you do it anyways? Not a Chance
If I said that if you had your teech pulled out with out novacaine your could write about the exsperience in Vanity Fair, would you do it? No.

Now, then consider the following information:

1. The famous Anglo-American writer, Christopher Hitchens, last year, decided voluntarily to be waterboarded and write his monthly Vanity Fair column about it. Graydon Carter even had the whole waterboarding session photographed and filmed. Not only did Hitchens do this without receiving any short or long term injurys but feeling he could have held out longer than he did he, at his own insistance was waterboarded again-twice in one hour.

Now If you can possibly imagine a free man voluntarily getting his hand smashed by a huge metal hamme, I ask you, can you imagine any man after having their teeth pulled without novacaine coming back within the hour for more teeth pulling of this kind for any reason? Again, ofcourse not.

2.Talk about conviction those who render waterboarding to be not just toture but a procedure that would be completly unjust and cruel if employed even in order to extract potentially life saving information on, for instance, the mastermind of 9/11 and de facto murderer of 3,000. However, these same people raise no objections, and do not accuse our arm services of toture when they force every Navy SEAL to undergo waterboarding in their training for combat in order to prepare Navy Seals for potential interrogation tactics emplyed in the case of their capture. Why when a Navy Seal, a law abiding citizen of the US who has never murdered any innocent civilians (delibratly atleast) not being totured when they are waterboarded but the mastermind of 9/11, KSM being totured when he is waterboarded? Why is it unacceptable and unhumane and barbaric to put the number 3 man in Al-Quada through waterboarding but just fine for a Navy Seal. Isn't toture toture whenever its imposed on someone or carried out. If the Navy Seals where being made to have their teeth pulled with no antistect just like terrorist detainees at Gitmo would leftists be saying that only the detainees where being totured further more would America ever stand for that? No.
Usually at adolscent boys schools freshman hazing traditions don't inovolve 14 year olds and 16 year olds regularly toturing boys of 13 or 14 or 12 year olds, right? They usually lock kids in lockers or make kids pay for the tables food or beat up once for hazing rather than, say, pull their finger nails off their fingers with plyers right? Well according to those who say waterboarding is toture boys military academy cadeats have been toturing one another (committing war crimes that many on the left believe warrant decades mininiumum in jail) as part of school hazing rituals with younger cadeats for centurys in America because for centurys, junior cadeats would waterboard each other.

Finally, doesn't the mastermind of 9/11, the confessed mastermind, KSM deserve to die for their actions? It's almost certain that all 3 of those who where waterboarded will be setenced to death and If by some amazing miscarriage of justice they aren't, America will erupt in rage. Assuming they will all get death, why is it ok for us to kill them but not to put them through temporary distress for 2-3 seconds via waterboarding in order to extract information from them while their still alive that can save lives? Why would it be moral to put KSM to death or Osama to death after not even trying to extract life saving info out of them because they said no when asked for information and refused to go further? Isn't it moral to save lives when lives can be saved by possibly just putting a terrorist murderer through temporary discomfort?

Considering all this, I think it should be obvious to any honest person that waterboarding KSM or any of the 3 we waterboarded wasn't toture and that it is absolutely wrong that the left think that being against waterboarding the likes of Osama Bin Laden is humantarian since we know that if such people had been listened during the Bush years, many innocent civilians would be dead today as a result of terrorist attacks that were foiled as result of forced interrogation techinques. Ofcourse the stopping of these attacks such as the blowing up of the Brooklyn Bridge by the CIA and the FBI just like all the other incredible facts mentioned above like tha fact that only 3 detainees have ever been waterboarded at Gitmo are suppressed and ignored and/or hardly covered by the leftist media.

Let me leave you with another one of those facts you'll feel outraged that you weren't told about years ago. This one is from Mark Thissens excellent recent book, "Courting Diaster":

The first terrorist detainee to be waterboarded, Abu Zabada, thanked the CIA interogators for waterboarding him, he said "you must do this for all the brothers" and he said this because the Jihadi philosphy is that allah will prevail no matter what they do so there moral responcibility is to resist as much they can and once they've resisted there free to spill their guts.

Case closed.

John Yoo!: I Hate You!

I don't hate many people on the Right, my political adopted homeland, but i think John McCain gots company cause now I hate my second Republican: John Yoo. Plus, I can't stop saying "John Yoo! I hate You!" try it, its addictive, my god. Anyways, I hate John Yoo, not you, just John Yoo, for the following reasons,

1. I watched this interview with nice-guy preppy interviewer of the Right, the Hoover Instuition's Peter Robinson, the Reagan speechwriter who coined the sentence, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" at an enviously young age and has since hosted the one time PBS, now even better NRO hosted, show, Uncommon Knowledge, which to me all true conservatives watch regularly,

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NjI4ZWFmZTQ5ZWUyNzVhMjZhYzliM2JlYjc3ZTdlZGY=

2. Here's my charcheter sketch of John Yoo: As you can see if you watch all 5 unusually unlively segments of the Uncommon Knowledge interview with Yoo, the man is such a neocon, so totally preoccupied with foreign policy and the "vital importance" of the Afganistan and Iraqi wars, that he has, quitely (though, really, whose asking?), morphed into a Obamacon as he divuldges here). I mean you really do get the sense from the manifestly unstimulating, John Yoo, that he cares about anything outside foreign policy, politically, at all. He exsplains to Robinson that he thinks Obama is going to go down as a great president because alone, he "realized Afganistan wasn't another Vietnam" and has gone hawkish. Now A. Afganistan is Vietnam exactly and it shouldn't take much more than Berkely proffership to realize that and B. even if Yoo was right and the Afgan war was this hugely important war as the Neocons hype it to be it is going to be only a segment of Obama's legend. Yoo reminds me of a mediocre follower, true beliver type who comes to the scene to late, like a Reaganite graduating college in 1996 but with an ideology that is terrible for America and self evidently weak unlike Reagonomics aka free markets. John Yoo seems like the only frustrated youngish product of the College Republicans brigade in America to have not just liked George W. Bush (which isn't something few so called active younger Republicans even did post-2004) but saw George W. Bush as Peter Robinson and David Frum and Ann Coulter, saw Ronald Wilson Reagan, a far far superior and more admirable man and politician. It seems, I'm almost certain of it, that Yoo was a very smart asian kid (you know the type) who has little talent or flair for talking especially public speaking but can kick your ass at a Geometry test, who is outside being incredibly gifted at Math is the model Everyday Average Kid and who thinks politics and liteature which white males tend to be suspetible towards at a early age than asian males. Suddenly, the John Yoo i have erected in my imagination goes to Stanford Unviersity just anothe brick in the great wall of American Education that is the Asian-American college student, having had hardly any intrest in politics, writing, liteature, music, or the like at all. At college, he finds his smartness, steely work ethic and traditional Chritian mores alienate him from dumb pot smoking leftists: a Republican is born! Yoo, his intrest in mathematics fading, applies his steely Asian-American Christian work ethic to a new field of intrest and work, the Republican Machine. Accept with one caveat, John Yoo is going to college in the post-Reagan era, post-bloated welfare state, post-huge taxes, post-hippies America. During Yoo's college days at Stanford, Clinton is in office, John Yoo's mind like the nation itself is no longer so focused on internal, domestic issues because the hippies are off the street (and in the establishment), the hige welfare state is being somewhat dismantled, taxes are not so high, immigration is not yet a big issue, the decline of morals doesn't attract John Yoo or any youngsters energies, so there is a huge void for some conservatives like John yoo and that void is filled by foreign policy, the fight against depotism, spreading of democracy and fighting of terrorism. Remember, at this time, during the political dogdays of the Clinton adminstration on the American right which was to an extent, save the brief 94' revivial, neutralized and partly co-opted by Bill Clinton with the help of the brazen if brazen aide of Jesse Helm's former political strategist, Dick Morris-who would resign only to rise back to promimence on the right after the curtain was raised on his ludicrous and often hilarous escapades with a high class D.C. rent-a-chick. The inevtiable lull for conservativtism in the years after immediatly following the twin triumphs of the Reagan years, the ending of the Cold War and the economic Reagan revoultion, had opened up the way forward for those strange guests within the Republican Party, the Neo-Cons, to hijack the Republican Party. Hense the rapid rise of the flagship neoconservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, which is launched in the mid-90's by David Brooks and the less talented, Ivy league, sons of neoconservatisms two founding fathers, Bill Kristol (son of Irving) & John Podhoretz (son of Norman). The Weekly Standard was symbolic not only of a resurgent neoconservtive movement during the 90's but of a mainstream rebranding of neoconservatism as no longer just a almost exsplicity ethno-centric, in this case, Jewish, movement.
The Weekly Standard would supplant Commentary magazine, father Norman Podhoretz's exsplicitly jewish centered magazine which began as the magazine of the American Jewish Commititee until Norman Podhoretz, a friend, at one time, to the leftist celebritys of NYC such as Norman Mailer, Allen Ginsberg and the Trillings, took the magazine toe the left in reaction to the tumultious hippy student movement in the 1960's.
So John Yoo became a Neo-con young true believer, with not only a bookshelf full of books by Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Sidney Hook but his very own magazine, the Weekly Standard, just like the Grover Norquists and David Frums who grew of age during the late 70's and ages had William F. Buckley books and Nation Review. For non-whites in America it is hard to leave the left without feeling a sense of betraying the race. I don't know how much of this pathology is present among asians but I know it is present and wouldn't be suprised if neoconservatism was the perfect for Yoo ideolgically because it could give him an identity (e.g. "I'm a neoconservative...that's reall grown up & cool."), a mission, and also a exsplanation to Asians who might think he wanted to be white by being a Republican, he could always say as neo-cons love to say that, he was part of the "good conservtive movement not the racist, nativist, old right of Robert Taft" that carried about immigration and keeping America out Europe's wars and mantaining American white Christian civilization. So off Johnny Yoo goes to some senators office or think tank in Wasshington D.C.. He takes the Matt Latatimer route and finds himself, just essentially naother college Conservative "geek" at the top end of the US State Department and find yourself at the center of a firestorm over executive power in regards to the Iraq war. Some provocative and, if I may say so, rather ridiclous statements in your memos about the Commander in Chiefs executive priviledges exsplode on the left. In these memos John Yoo deems that the executive has the power to declare war without Congressional or Senatorial approval and many other absurd statements. PBS does a Frontline episode inwhich Yoo is a central focus (he is interview in it making some the type of ludicrous constuitional assertions I reffer to). According to the Frontline documentrary which seems honest enough, Yoo was essentially used in the drum roll to war in Iraq in 2003 basically given the job of being in-house constuinal yes-man for the Bush adminstration. Its seems as if Dick Cheney or Wolfwitz gave one of his Strausian friends at whatever law school John Yoo was teaching constuinial law at the time and said "Look, do you have any young, wide-eyed, neocon true belivers on the Law School staff whose crazy enough to believe the President can go to war with the Senate declaring war?" and they had returned the name John Woo. I would even go so far as to say and i could easily be wrong, that Yoo was kind of brought into the Bush adminstration as kind of the desiginated constuitional fall guy.
And what was and is (because no one is more consititant than neocons) John Yoo's Constuinal law? Yoo is a living-document "conservative" legal guy who thinks that we can go to war without a declaration of war on the grounds that "we've had alot of wars without declarations" and that dispirate impact law is da bomb. The only bright spot in Yoo's constuinalism is his defence of waterboarding. John Yoo has rehabilated himself very well finding himself a job as a proffesor at Berkely of all places and publishing two books. The first book is just another forgettable Bushie White House memoir entitled "War By Another Name" and the recent book, "Crises and Command" which is far better in my view for its an actual history extending from Washington to Bush. Yoo's arguments are so weak as you can see here that it seems almost certain that he was a mediocre Bush adminstration buercrat that was shot into the spotlight by accident and was wiley enough to squeeze a book deal out of that. Yoo has the terrible job shared by the neocon movement of trying to exsplain why America needs to stay in two useless wars in Iraq and Afganistan for another decades, talking about 9/11 till its worn out beyond belief. Yoo as a indivual is innocent enough but insidious for what he reprsents. He reprasents the part of the GOP that is obbessed to an bizarre degree with neocon hawkishness and foreign policy epitomized by Rudy Gilullani and Glen Beck and the other segment of the party which is obbessed with talking about 9/11 and big goverment alone.

Spending Freeze: Obama's Brillant Gambit

I hear that a bomb has been dropped on American politics. Obama has proposed a 3 year spending freeze. I knew this was coming a clever chess move from the Obama whitehouse after a spending spree. The brillance is

1. It helps re-boot Obama's fiscally responcible, moderate image that helped win him the 2008 election so crucially.

A: "Obama's spent too much money!"

Liberals for next 4 and/or 8 years:"Are you kidding?! He passed a spending freeze!"

brillant.

2. This is a great bull fighter move. The Obama White House holds out the red piece of cloth for the GOP bull or, better yet, elephant to go after oppose to Obama's political benefit. What better way to make the GOP spend its Scott Brown momentenum in the matter of a couples ending the GOP pendulum swing after they stupidly and akwardly oppose or are said to oppose Obama's spending freeze. You see the media can design the Republican opposition to every thing any way it wants. A Conservative take on Haiti? The collective liberal Obama footsoliders that produce and run the Mainstream Media all megaphone Pat Robertson's silly Haiti devil comment. And with everyother issue they will and have done the same, to differing degrees of success in defaming the Republicans. But what will the GOP responce be to a 3 year spending freeze? I think i should put the term "spending freeze" in quotes because I can't believe that its literally true:3 years no spend?! If it was true, it would be, a great move it would be so radical that it would as i show neutralize talk about the socialization of American healthcare and talk of the huge debt Obama greatly and recklessly enhansed, etc. I knew there would be some big gambit from the smart guys like Rahem Emanual sometime soon cause so much was mounting up against them.

3. Whats left after healthcare? I've been asking liberals this question for awhile. Why else be a liberal? Now that you've voted yourself free healthcare, what? fight for amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens? fight for more racial quotas? higher taxes? what? However now i think I should've been asking conservatives "after healthcare, what?". Because after healthcare issues like affirmtive action, amnesty, immigration policy, Obama's lack of nation intrest patriotism, and the like and the GOP's ability to seize these issues as it should but which the McCainites don't have the balls to do will make or break the GOP in 2012. The fact is that the average Republican is cowardly and middling and poltically correct in the extreme and won't talk about immigration, lowering it, amnesty, racial quotas, the Ricci case, and so fourth unless forced at gunpoint on the New York subway. And if asked to speak forcefully about the urgent need to secure our border, to abolish racial preferences and dispirate impact law, they will say to the mugger holding the gun to there head on the New York City,

"Ok, just do it quickly. Shoot me. Anything so that Rachel Maddow doesn't call me a racist"

Putting "Country First"?

This point comes approximately 1 year or 2 too late but who cares:

You shall remember that during the dreadful campaign of 2008, the lackluster Republican Nominee, John McCain's campiagn slogan was "Country First" below a military-esque star logo.



Over time the hypocritical absurdity and audacity of McCain making "Country First" his official campiagn slogan has only become more and more apparent. It's no mystery why he choose "Country First" because McCain wanted to play up the only issue his pollsters said he did well next to Obama on: national security.

"Country First" doesn't imply as much as says and promises and proclaims, at once, that John McCain is the kind of Presidential candiate who would never put his campaign ahead of his, ya' know......country.

The kind of politician that puts "Country First" is the kind candiate who wouldn't back a policy that was bad for the country just because they think it will, say, help them win a descive amount of votes among a certain voting bloc in the Arizona, er, i mean, nation's electorate. Like those white male Republican politicians from states with large latino populations like George W. Bush who back amnesty, a policy that is terrible for America in every way, because there political guru's tell them that if they do they can gain a extra slice of the latino vote that will prove descive in the upcoming election, kinda right? This reminds me, why did John McCain go to that Hispanic Caucus luncheon immediatly following the his defeat to Barak Obama and have a breakdown grabbing the microphone to accuse latinos of "betraying" him after all the "sacrifices" he made for them. What could McCain have meant by "sacrifices"? I mean, what did he do for hispanics that sacrificied his popularity with other (more patriotic-minded)? It's a real mystery.

And ya' know, John McCain was really putting politics second and "Country First" when he picked Sara Palin to be his running mate. Because, McCain decided to put stretagic political consideration to the side and just pick the most qualfied person in America for the job of VP when he choose Palin.
Sure, McCain could've picked some airhead who Republican pollsters and campiagn gurus like Karl Rove thought would poll we and help him out with a certain segment of the populations like women or hispanics but when it came time to pick a VP nominee John said,

"I do not care, do you understand me?, I repeat, I do not care if it's not good for our campaign I've got to pick the most qualified person for the job of Vice President, someone who knows the most about the world, whose read the great philosphers and historians, whose shown a profound understanding of the issues for years, some one with not just a brillant mind, there are lots of those, but the most brillant mind, someone who doesn't just know who Martin Van Buren's Secretary of State was but knows his whole biography let alone his name and thats why I've decided to pick Sarah Palin. I know that you guys are going to say that, 'she's too cerebreal! She's too intellectual! She'll never connect, let alone, relate with the common man!' or tell me that 'She's another Adlai Stevenson!'. But, look, I'll say it one time only: Sara Palin may not be the most attractive person that we could've picked, sure she doesn't exactly have sex appeal and sure she's a little plump and sure, theres more than a few wrinkles on her brow but shes got the most brillant mind of any politician in the United States. She may not prove to be the best for me poltically, but she's the best qualified for Vice President, for 2nd in command and I'm pointing country first!...For if, god forbid, I pass while in the White House, my friends, I want to know, I want to go to bed at night knowing, that I will have left for my beloved nations sake, not some airhead Republican who looks good but who hasn't a clue who Edmund Burke is but rather the most capable and equipt and eurdite American (available to me right now) in my place, as commander and chief of the United States of America. Lets face it my friends, I am well into my 7th decade and I still have cancer that at the moment lies dormant but at any time can return and put me 6 feet deep, when I picked VP, unlike Obama, I could very well be picking my succescor as President and thus I have a duty to place politics to the side and pick Sara Palin."

My List of Best Conservatives

Would you like to know how I formulated this list? The list is based on two variables: influence and righteousness. Thus if I were ranking conservatives by who is the best on the issues and stating their views I might include myself in this list and Christopher Hitchens wouldn't be in it at all but that would to boring like being a communist.

1. Steve Sailer


2. Patrick J. Buchanan


3. Micheal Savage


3. Paul Gottfried


4. John Derbyshire


5. Peter Brimelow


6.Mitt Romney


6. Peter Hitchens


7. George Will


8. Antonin Scalia


9. Peter Schiff


10. Thomas Sowell


11. David Frum
David Frum has some defects on some of the policies he wants (give in on carbon taxes, etc.) but thats not his self-realized role in the GOP. Frum has taken on a crucial crusade, he was and remains the leading and sometimes, seemingly, the only Republican critiquing Sara Palin during the 2008 campaign. Quite simply he pointed out the obvious, or what should have been ovbious truth about Palin, that she was a yokel, a embarssment and catosphere for the GOP that reinforced all the worst sterotypes of the right that Bush had enforced for 8 years in which the GOP became a laughingstock because Bush like Palin can't speak and is not up to far for high office intelllectually. Frum wants to David Cameron-ize the Republican Party in a sense which is to say he wants to
reform the Republican Partys terribly managed image from jesus-freak, unsophisticated, uncultured, anti-intellectual yokels to smartly dressed conservative urbanites with nice suites and Evelyn Waugh by the bedside which is the image of the new Tories lead by David Cameron. This is crucial because the current GOP image has blocked the conversion of millions of Americans, paticularily young people and city slickers to the right for converting to the party of Palin and Bush is social society and too embarsing for millions who would move right otherwise. If America woke up tommorow to find a GOP, un-changed policy wise, but which looked like, dressed-like, was as clearly euridite as the British Conservative Party I gaurnetee that in the course of 6 months of re-adjustment tens of millions of Americans, mostly located in urban areas and under 35, would quitely move to the right. This would entail, there being no Sara Palin, no George Bush as face of the GOP but David Frums insteads (he is, in person the model of what the new Republican showuld look like). It would mean that rather than old, dreary, senile, out of touch, old geezers with white hair like John McCain and Newt Gingrich running the GOP and always having a monopoly on the nomination that conservatives in their 40's who look like David Cameron or Scott Brown should be the GOP presidential candiates. This is the good part of Frum's rigetous crusade there are just a few down sides policy wise. Frum seems to make dumb moves to the left on the enviorment, taxes, and so fourth (though this might not be as bad as I describe it, anyways its not anywhere near the fore front of his crusade). David has also been notable on the right side of history when it comes to immigration which is more important than one might think considering that David Frum has kind of supplanted David Brooks as the favriote or preffered Republican of the Left which is usually a indiment of a respective Republican's oppurtinism but with David is the product of the very image-related subjects that I write of. Frum, as i say knows how to do what the GOp needs to learn how to do, and what Sara Palin doesn't know or try to do, which is how to talk to not just the left, the young, the upper middle class, the urban, the well educated who revile the ignorance of Sara Palin.


12. Christopher Hitchens
So Christopher Hitchens makes the list because, although he is wrong on foreign policy, religon and much else and is a intertionalist to the bone, he has morphed in the last 10 years into one of the best critiques of the more masochist elements on the left. He is read by the media and political and ruling classes so his influence is huge. If anything he is injects a crucial self-conciousness into the left that makes the Democratic Party ignore the Nation magazine (his former employer somehow) more which is always a good thing. He has admirable integrity and has displayed it by recently checking movements and groups on the left that need checking especially by a polemcist with the gifts of Hitchens, recent victims include: the religous Global Warming movement, the inane-sheep like audience of the Daily Show, Al Franken, Obama worship, the leftist pussyfooters who won't even try to stop jihadist terrorists in airports, etc. He also has been the most brillant critique of anti-Americanism and sympathy for jihadism on the left.


13. Rush Limbaugh


14. Rich Lowry


15. Mark Steyn


16.Taki Theodoracopulos


17.Victor Davis Hanson


18. Tom Tancredo


19. Jonah Goldberg


20. Ron Paul


21. Thomas Woods


22. Niall Ferguson


23. Robert Bork


24. Mark Sanford


25. Mike Pence


24. Peter Robinson


25. Mitch Daniels


26. Clarence Thomas


27. Ramesh Ponnuru


28. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts


29. Richard Brookhiser


30. Steven Hayward


31. L. Brent Bozell III


32. Paul Rahe

Flowerings of Democracy?

All in all, the second American-Gulf War was a terrible, if noble, mistake for the United States-that is if national intrest is your metric. However, I am suprised to find that no one has mentioned that the tumlitous uprisings in Iran are a direct result of the creation of democracy in Iraq.

they'd all be extremist right wingers

One hears the leftists chirp that "the GOP has gone so far right they used to be moderate" one way or another.

But i realized the truth is that about 10-20 years ago the left went far left, not economically or militarily but in totally abandoning national intrest, with amnesty, etc. I would bet a great deal of cash that every American President of any party save Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford (and perhaps FDR) would, if they had to vote today, vote Republican down the line. I gaurntee that if you gave Woodrow Wilson or Andy Jackson or FDR or Truman or JFK or Thomas Jefferson a week to re-adjust themselves to the current political landscape, would all report revolt and disgust at the existence of such a thoroughly and proudly nearly treasonist Democratic Party. I mean could you imagine if any of the founding generation got to hear about Eric Holder or about what happened in Brown v. Board of Education and dispirate impact law?


What do you think Jefferson and Madison would say if they heard that when Californian voters voted to not give there tax dollars to illegals in free welfare that the Supreme Court in 1996 over ruled California and deemed there voicing of their will unconstuinal? They would become nihillists i'm sure and booze it up.

You Can't Say That!: A Lesson In Crime-Speak

I picked up a liberal little book called, "They Said What?" by Jim Hunt, which the editor of The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, describes as "a compendium of reactionary statements by American officials. Outragous in content, pitchy in style, the quotations reveal the long history of jingoism, racism, exism, and elitism that so mars our country. You want the evidence? Here it is." on the back cover.
Well, anyhow it's a collection, mostly, of quotes from Woodrow Wilson and TR era type politicians identifying difficult, impolite, un-PC truths about race, gender, intelligence, culture, and the like. Hunt makes use of the changing mores surrounding the word "negro". Many quotes within the small book would be prefectly unremarkable if you merely replace the word black with "negro". They are saying all the crucial difficult things that we are not allowed to say today thanks to the likes of Mr. Hunt and are dying as a nation because of it. For instance, coincedentally, the first quote i flipped the book open to see was the following quote from Woodrow Wilson's Secterary of State, Robert Lansing discussing a subject that has boomranged its way back into the forefront of American news media: Hiati and why the Dominican Republic is so much richer than it.

"It is well to distinguish at once between the Dominicans and the Haitians. the former, while in many ways not advanced far enough for the highest type of self goverment, yet have a preponderance of white blood and culture. The Haitians on the other hand are Negro for the most part, and, barring a very few highly educated politicians, are almost in a state of savagery and complete ignorance."

- Sectetary of State Robert Lansing, 1917.

The funny thing is that just 2 weeks ago when Haiti went nuts, i read Jared Diamond, PC as one can be, gently pointing out the exact same point Lansing points out here almost a 100 years ago about why Haiti is so poor and the Dominican Republic is so much richer and well off (cause Haiti has hardly any white blood).

Why was Lansing discussing this recently resurgent subject of the root of Haitian poverty? Because as alarmingly few people have pointed out since the Haiti earthquake America has occupied Haiti before for as long as 15 years. Woodrow Wilson got the Marines into Haiti in 1915 and they quickly came to the conclusion about Haiti (that its virtually helpless under black rule and would do better back under a French protectorate).

This is 1984 the nation we live in today, in which pointing out such things is simply against the social law.

Air America No More

Citing a “very difficult economic environment,” Air America Radio ceased operations Thursday and shut down its financially troubled progressive talk radio network. But on Chicago’s WCPT-AM (820), its effect will hardly be felt. The only Air America program on the station’s weekday lineup was Ron Reagan from 5 to 8 p.m. (All of the rest come from other syndication sources.) “It’s business as usual,” declared Harvey Wells, outgoing vice president and group station manager of parent company Newsweb Radio. WCPT is simulcast on WCPY-FM (92.5) and WCPT-FM (92.7) and WCPQ-FM (99.9).

told you people didn't want to listen to Poltical Correct liars!

Will me and my piers be writing on eachothers facebook walls at 54 and 78?

I've been wondering since early on the post-Facebook era what will become of the orginal facebook generation (my generation). I mean, will we stay on facebook forever or will we slowly deactivate our facebook accounts like responcible adults around our mid-to-late 30's when we start getting married and/or having kids?

Must would probably say the later but i am very dubious about how easily my piers will be able to give up their facebook profiles just because of something as seemingly arbitrary as age. And the connection between young people and their facebook profiles is generally quite under-estimated. Consider how much time young people spend on facebook not just per-week but per-day. Our facebook profiles our our memberships cards, if you will, our surrogrates, our proxys in a digital commune where we all have become used to interacting on the average Wenseday night at 8 pm. We like writing status and getting instant comments and all the rest. Plus, consider photos on facebook. Now some men but almost all girls have a ton of facebook photos of themselves surrounded by friends. As me and my piers have gotten on in life having all mostly joined facebook (after saying we wouldn't) around Sophomore year of High School girls now have a pretty long history in there facebook photos. They can scroll back and see what they were doing, what color hair they had, how fat or thin they were, who they where hanging out a lot with Freshman year, Sophmore year, Junior year and so fourth and so on. By the time the girls i know are in there late 20's their facebook photo collections will be a priceless part of their collections of stuff (like a scarp-book or a year book X 10). To give up all those photos, would be like burying all those cherished memories of the good ole' days, it would be like erasing their past with the click of a button. Then think of the value added by facebook chat which allows friends from high school dispersed around the nation at colleges, jobs, etc. never be really more than a mouse click away. It wouldn't be to easy to get rid of that kind of conveince, would it? And what would you do instead? Go back to calling friends to ask them "How's Boulder?"? 1. The phone is so much effort 2. it costs money 3. it would be weird to call just to ask "hows boulder?" with some people your friends with but not that close with but wouldn't be weird on facebook. Finally, one of the eternal appeals of staying on facebook, even in a nominile way is that people can contact you that probably wouldn't call you or write you (for whatever reason) the same thing if you didn't have facebook. For instance, with girls i like but aren't close friends with, facebook chat allows for me to talk to them in a non akward way to strike up conversation with them (and possibly kindle something more) by asking them stuff like "Hey, Maddy, i heard you got in a car crash? did you?". And, atleast for me, it would be tough deactivactinng my account because if i did i'm afraid i'd be contsantly be wondering about all the possible out of the blue suprising/at times life changing facebook messages i could have been sent from some girl i like but never thought liked me writing,

"Hey long time, no see. I know we hardly talked at ETHS but I always thought you where really intresting and funny and cool and I always wanted to chill with you. Anyway, i heard your in town right now and i just moved back home too and I was wondering what your up to. I hope you don't think this is weird of me. If you want to ever hang out my numbers 1-847-477-2389. bye Daniel."

I've actually gotten a few of those in the past. There the kind of things you read that make you feel like a million bucks and give a rush of adrelaine and excitement and ancipation, ya' know? Well, for some reason, I haven't checked my facebook messages in 3-4 months (i now have 291 messages to read) and I'm hoping to find some messages like the one above the day i devote to opening all those letters/messages. My fear is that they'll all be facebook-group or event mass messages like

"SUMMERCAMP 2010, line up announced today! merchandice available too!"

p.s.

A FINAL THOUGHT:

Like i said by the time my generation is 30 or 40 years old our facebook accounts will be so valuable to us with all those photos, that huge archive of old status' and wall posts and videos and messages, etc. that we can look to look back on our lives. This raises to unappealing possibilities:

1. That facebook will start to charge people who have had facebook accounts for over 10 or 15 years knowing that we will pay to keep our 83,000 photos and wall posts &

2. That all this constantly looking back at facebook photos of us at 18 and 24 when where 37 or 40 will make us the most depressed and nostlagic generation ever.

The Facebook Face

Anyone under atleast 20 years of age (in America) knows the above faces very well. They've seen it a thousand times before: 1 or 2 or more girls hanging around one of there cribs, one girl talks about this guy she hooked up with from the next town over last weekend and she shows them his picture on facebook, one thing leads to another and boom! They've found there way to the photo booth application on there Mac's and are photo-boothin' away doing what girls love to do look at themselves in the mirror and in pictures, making goofy faces and giggling (chicken soup for a young ladies' soul). And what is produced after this spree of self-absortion/slumber party antics/school girly fun is a digital teenage wasteland of millions of facebook photo albums full of picture after picture of usually 2 or more girls, there faces blue with the glare of there computer screen, making the exact type of goofy, moderatly annpying, zany- in a girly way facial exspressions (as seen above).

I mean I could and perhaps will someday soon go and spend 2 minuetes rounding up a batch of nearly identical pictures from girl's i know's facebook photo album's with girls making, literally, the exact same facial exspressions as these 2 girls.

I decree the above face: THE FACEBOOK GIRL FACE.

A Blast From The (Un-Forgotten, Non-American) Past: Peter Wyngarde

This great photo is of Peter Wyngarde, a famous British acter who the Australian blog,The Outland Institute well describes below better than I ever could:

"Jason King – and Peter Wyngarde, the actor who played him – was a major sex symbol of the 1970s. No, seriously, he was. Women would mob him in the streets. I really, truly am not making this up. It’s hard to see exactly why now, but it’s true. He was part of the team on Division S, an Avengers-style spy-caper show at the end of the swinging 60s. Wyngarde’s character was so popular he was given his own eponymous spin-off.

In 1970 Wyngarde was brought to Australia to promote Channel 7. On March 1st he arrived at Sydney Airport to be greeted by 35,000 fans. In Queensland women climbed the outside of a hotel trying to reach his 12th floor balcony, and the hotel maids are reported to have stolen his chest hair while he slept. That last one just sounds made-up, but there you go.

He returned to Australia again in 1972 to similar hysterical scenes, yet these days he is barely remembered. Possibly that’s due to his conviction in 1975 for an act of “gross indecency” with a truck driver in the toilets of a bus station in Gloucester. Yes, the incredibly camp man with the outrageous clothes turned out to be gay – what were the chances of that? To quote Austin Powers – who was reportedly based on the character of Jason King – “I can’t believe Liberace was gay. I mean, women loved him! I didn’t see that one coming”. Wyngarde’s audience turned their back on him and his celebrity faded, although he continued to make sporadic appearances in TV and film (such as Flash Gordon in 1980, and the Doctor Who story Planet Of Fire in 1984). It could be said Wyngarde’s popularity was on the wane anyway, as IMDB doesn’t list any credits for the three years between Jason King ended and his arrest, but it’s interesting to see the effect the court case had on Wyngarde’s career compared to George Michael’s twenty years later." 

This guy is the tops. His wit is off the chains but what do you except from a dandy who got both his feet broken as toture alongside, a young J.G. Ballard in a Japanese concentration camp (in Japanese occupied China) during World War 2? Here's a taste of this men's rhetorical flourish:

here

& here

& this wonderfully hilarious clip of Wyngarde discussing British "skinhead" culture and sounding quite like Jeremy Irons doing so (by Skinheads i mean not the neo-Nazi's but the reggea-loving, working class, white British youths reaction to the hippies, aka, the guys with buzz cuts, red suspenders and boots and the girls in the plaid skirts.)