PoliticsJust the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: joseffy who wrote (85335)2/22/2012 11:18:01 PM
From: Carolyn
   of 90931

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: joseffy who wrote (85332)2/23/2012 2:06:51 AM
From: ManyMoose
   of 90931
Ya got me. I don't dig into what goes on behind closed doors.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: Brumar892/23/2012 9:33:01 AM
   of 90931
Unplanned Parenthood Illegitimacy and the liberal elite.

By JAMES TARANTO (Best of the tube tonight: We'll appear on Fox Business's "Lou Dobbs Tonight." The program starts at 7 p.m. ET, with our panel around 7:40.)

Social issues are so fascinating for the same reason debates over them are so often dull and frustrating: because the language of ideology, morality and law is insufficient to describe the human complexities involved. Writing at National Review Online, City Journal's Heather Mac Donald calls our attention to a case in point:

Katie Roiphe's full-throated defense of single parenthood should not really come as a surprise, given the iron-clad grip of feminism and the related prerogatives of the sexual revolution on the elite worldview. This proud single mother and NYU journalism professor, who is definitely not "too poor to marry," is insulted by a New York Times article on the 53 percent illegitimate-birth rate among females under 30. . . . But despite its overdetermined status, Roiphe's Slate piece is nevertheless a sobering reminder of how great the abyss still is between those who understand the costs of family breakdown and those who see it as merely "refresh[ing] our ideas of family." Roiphe concludes that there are no (annoyingly retrograde) studies on "what it will be like for . . . children to live in" the coming world without marriage. Actually, we know already. It's called the ghetto. Mac Donald is right as far as she goes. Roiphe's views are fully consistent with the selective nonjudgmentalism that is an essential component of contemporary feminist ideology (selective because feminists are happy to stigmatize men--"deadbeat dads," for instance--and women like Sarah Palin who reject the pieties of feminism). It's also true that Roiphe is blasé about the effects on children, including children less privileged than her own offspring, of growing up without fathers. To her, the only risk worth worrying about is that they will bear the brunt of others' censure.

But when you read Roiphe's article, it turns out there's more going on here. For one thing, ideologically she is just confused. Consider her second paragraph:

Conservatives will no doubt be elaborately hysterical over the breakdown of morals among the women of Lorain [Ohio, dateline of the Times piece], but they will be missing the major point, which is that however one feels about it, the facts of American family life no longer match its prevailing fantasies. For those who have associated single motherhood with the poor and uneducated, and increasingly, with the urban very-educated . . . they now have to confront the changing demographics of the vast American middle. No matter how one sees this development, . . . one has to recognize that marriage is very rapidly becoming only one way to raise children. Having accused conservatives of "missing the major point," she goes on to restate, repeatedly and at considerable length, the point they in fact quite easily grasp.

Further, her actual dispute is not with conservatives, whom she thinks unworthy of anything more than a thoughtless dismissal. Rather, she is upset with the liberal elite--in this case, with the Times--for failing to live up to its professed moral relativism:

The tacit judgment of the New York Times-style liberal is in many ways more pernicious than the overt moralizing of conservatives on the downfall of family and marriage. It is easy to dismiss the Santorum faction for its cartoonishly old-fashioned view of extramarital sex, and this group is at least forthright about its view, whereas the subtle psychologizing put-down of the New York Times-style liberal, the slight hint of self-congratulation that they are not a single mother in Lorain, Ohio, bringing their son to the bar where they work, is more poisonous for its pretense of fairness and open-mindedness. As Mac Donald notes, Roiphe herself is an unwed mother. Roiphe's piece includes a link to a confessions-of-a-single-mom piece in which she describes encountering similar judgment from her liberal friends, which made her emotional enough to repeat herself:

Someone who was trying to persuade me not have the baby said that I should wait and have a "regular baby." His exact words were, "You should wait and have a regular baby!" What he meant, of course, was that I should wait and have a baby in more regular circumstances. But I had already seen the feet of the baby on a sonogram, and while he was pacing through my living room making his point, I was thinking: This is a regular baby. His comment stayed with me, though. It evoked the word bastard: "something that is spurious, irregular, inferior or of questionable origin." Someone said, similarly, to a single friend of mine who was pregnant that she should wait and have a "real baby." As if her baby were unreal, a figment of her imagination, as if she could wish him away. Maybe Katie needs better friends. Someone like Rick Santorum would have supported her decision to give her child life rather than abort him.

What these anecdotes show is that the stigma against illegitimacy (though not abortion) is alive and well among affluent social liberals. Surely that is an important reason that, as Charles Murray has shown, their out-of-wedlock birthrates are much lower than those of the less privileged.

Roiphe seems to want society to shed what standards it has left in order that she can feel good about herself. And this isn't the first time she has issued public demands for acceptance of her personal life. In 2007, she wrote a piece for New York magazine that was subtitled: "Yes, I'm getting divorced. Yes, I have a child. No, I'm not falling apart. So why does everyone insist I must be?"

There's another curious aspect to the story of the man who suggested that Roiphe wait and have a "regular baby": The advice was completely unrealistic. According to yet another Slate piece on the subject, this child was born in July 2009, when Roiphe was 40, at most a few years from the point at which it would be impossible for her to get pregnant absent heroic medical intervention.

In Roiphe's telling, her second child was the result of a pregnancy that was unplanned but not unwanted. She had a longing for another child. Whether or not she had acknowledged this desire, she did not take the usual preparatory step of getting married before getting pregnant, or at least before giving birth.

Not an insignificant number of affluent women who want children make the same mistake of putting off marriage until it's too late, because of unrealistic expectations about men and about the duration of their own fertility. Some, like Roiphe, end up having kids in "irregular" circumstances. Many end up childless for life. Either way, it's as much a failure of family planning as not taking the pill when you don't want to get pregnant.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (85339)2/23/2012 9:41:49 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 90931
Interview with Pop Singer Ava Aston

Pop/rock recording artist Ava Aston is a conservative trying to make her way in a liberal dominated industry. Her new hit and conservative anthem is We The People. Her song I Carry You With Me deals with grief and loss and is dedicated to the military.

She has performed those two songs, as well as the National Anthem and God Bless America for The Faith & Freedom Coalition events as well as The Tea Party Patriots. I Carry You With Me has been featured in several independent films and took grand prize in a songwriting contest that had over 5,000 entries from across the globe. Her husband is a disabled veteran who was injured on base while serving in a support role for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Her mom works as a National Service Officer at the Purple Heart Service Foundation that helps veterans.

The following interview with Ms. Aston was conducted by Jamie Glazov, Editor of FrontPage Magazine.

Glazov: Ava Aston, thanks for taking the time for this interview.

Let’s begin by talking about your background a bit. Tell us about how you got into music and also what makes you a conservative.

Aston: Thanks Jamie.

I started singing about the same time I started to talk. Music has always been a huge part of my life. I was kind of like a little Tina Turner in the movie, singing with the hairbrush in the mirror. As I grew up I started to hear melodies in my head. I did not play an instrument, so I started writing them down the only way I knew how, putting words in notebooks. As the songs came I discovered that as long as I wrote them down on paper they were there forever. I could pick them up at any time and sing them. So I have always just sung my songs to whomever I’m collaborating with – and they play the chords I’m singing either on a guitar or piano. I started taking voice lessons at an early age, and have been told that I have perfect pitch, so it’s easy for me to direct producers/musicians to the melody. I’ve been working on my craft ever since, and working at attaining my dream.

As for being a conservative, it is just how I was raised. My dad came to America from Greece with $20 in his pocket to live the American Dream. He worked hard and became a success. My mom came from a family that worked very hard, and she started working at 11-years-old cleaning houses to help out with the family. It is just something you are either ingrained with or not. Lately we seem to be living in the “Now Generation”. People want things NOW regardless of the consequences to themselves or others. I don’t really “get” a lot of what’s pushed on people as “entertainment”. I see it as nonsense that only encourages the “NOW” epidemic. I’m just a simple girl, I like to sing, write songs, act, love God and my country. I’m not really sure when it became cool to go on stage in your underpants. I know that being shocking sells, but as a conservative I feel you can be relevant, current, and still keep your clothes on, just saying.

Glazov: Share with us what We The People is about and what inspired you to write it.

Aston: Basically it came from a simple place. I saw the country I knew and loved being changed in a way that frightened me. Most of my songs are usually about something I feel or that has happened to me. I was tired of yelling at my TV screen – so I wrote about it.

My song is for every American, it not about left or right, it is about right and wrong. It is about that sacred document — the one thing that was meant to guide our country for all time, the Constitution. People have given their lives for the freedoms we have here. There are many people who do not realize the cost of what we have here in America. People get tangled up in rhetoric, fighting and being afraid to say things in order to be PC. If we are afraid to speak up about what really matters, we will lose our Republic. There are individuals who have a very different idea about America and want to fundamentally change it. If we do not stand up now and stop it now, America will be lost and we might as well be part of the EU. Trust me, my dad lives there and it’s not pretty.

Glazov: Can you talk a bit about I Carry You With Me?

Aston: I lost someone special to me, and wrote about it. My mom wrote a letter about this person that was read at their eulogy. It contained some of the lines about what kind of person she was and how she touched the people around her. I was talking with my producer about it and together we came up with the song.

Regarding the video, my husband Keith is a disabled veteran. He is also an aspiring actor, screenwriter and recently received his Master’s in Business in Entertainment and founded The Erimac Group; a creative consulting and production services company. I am fortunate to have him to help me with everything. He creates my website, branding and videos; other than the music he does it all. Since he is a veteran, and my mom works as a National Service Officer at the Purple Heart Service Foundation helping veterans, we are both very passionate about the military.

The men and women who make up our military give so much, ask for so little and do not receive the respect they so deserve and have earned. Since they more so than anyone have to deal with grief and loss – my husband came up with the concept to dedicate the video to them. He filmed and edited the video, and since he is a veteran, he also played the soldier.

I am honored that the song has been well received. It has been featured in several independent films and done well in multiple songwriting contests. It even took grand prize in a songwriting contest that had over 5,000 entries from across the globe, so it is very humbling. When I write a song, it is a little piece of me, and to know that it touches other people, can help them deal with hard feelings, it is a very touching thing as an artist.

Glazov: Your thoughts on the Obama administration?

Aston: It frightens me. I feel this administration believes what they are doing is good for America. However these beliefs are very different than mine.

I believe in American Exceptionalism. I believe we were all endowed by our Creator with talents and abilities unique to each of us, that we are free to think or be anything we desire and that we have that gift here in America like nowhere else on earth. I believe that hard work is rewarded and if you want something badly enough that you should work hard for it and go after it with everything you have inside of you. America is a place where dreams of all kinds can come true, unlike other countries in the world. America is a country that good men and women fought for and gave their lives for.

I believe that if we do not remain true to the Founding Fathers and to the Constitution then we will lose our Republic. I also believe in virtue, unlike those who feel it is ok to do whatever you want as long as it is not hurting someone else. Unfortunately that is not the case, for in every aspect of human life, if there is no virtue the people perish. This has been proven time and time again in history. I also believe in charity, but I do not believe it is the government’s role to order me to engage in it or to have a bazillion federal programs and red tape in order to do so.

I believe the Obama administration has a very different idea about what America is than I do and are trying to change it. This does not make them “bad” people nor does it make me a bad person because what they are doing scares me. It simply means we do not share the same beliefs. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and a set of guidelines and standards that has worked for centuries. When politicians on either side mess with that, it is not good for America.

Glazov: Ava Aston, thanks for taking the time to talk. Best of luck for you in your music career.

Visit her website at

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: ManyMoose who wrote (85338)2/23/2012 10:51:30 AM
From: joseffy
   of 90931
The Chicago bathhouse Obama went to is a public place.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF2/23/2012 8:29:31 PM
1 Recommendation   of 90931
IRS Harassing the Tea Party?
February 22, 2012, 9:19 am

Sure seems like it. Here is the list of questions the Ohio Tea Party has asked as part of their application, which should be routine, for 501(c)4 status. The Virginia Tea Party had similar requests, including apparently a demand for donor lists and confidential materials which the IRS says will be made public. The latter seems part and parcel of recent initiative on the Left (seen also in the whole Heartland fiasco) to out confidential donors of Conservative and libertarian organizations while demanding no similar transparency of organizations on the Left.

By the way, I am President of a 501(c)4 organization (basically a trade group) and I can say with some authority that we never have received any sort of parallel set of questions from the IRS vis a vis our status, so this is either a very new requirement or one especially crafted to apply only to the Tea Party. I can say from all too much experience that having a Federal agency sit on a request for 9 months and then suddenly demand incredible amounts of work in just a few days from the private party is absolutely typical.

One Comment

anonymous: IRS criminal investigators recently questioned me about a former business associate. They were very interested in knowing about his anti-government beliefs, did he ever mention thinking taxation was illegal, etc. I laughed: He’s not an ideologue, he’s a con artist. Never had a moment of honest moral conviction on his life. He was hiding income from his ex wife, that’s all. They instantly lost all interest in anything further I had to say.

Pretty damn creepy, the narrative they wanted to shoehorn it into.

Probably adds up to nothing, of course.

February 22, 2012, 8:29 pm

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar892/24/2012 7:53:38 AM
2 Recommendations   of 90931
Wanderlust: The Rise of the Counter-Countercultural Comedy

You don’t generally go to bawdy R-rated comedies stuffed with drug abuse, profanity and nudity for political messages, especially conservative ones. So when such a movie comes along and it unashamedly makes the case for monogamy, stability and private property over collectivist ideals, you should pay attention.

The movie is a Jennifer Aniston-Paul Rudd comedy produced by Judd Apatow called Wanderlust. The pair play a married couple who try to find fulfilling work in Manhattan but can’t afford it. (She is a classic artsy but barely employed type who is working on a documentary about penguins with testicular cancer.) George (Rudd) loses his finance job, so he swallows hard and accepts an offer to stay with his well-off but obnoxious brother (Ken Marino) in Atlanta. George and Linda (Aniston) pile their possessions into their tiny car and head South. Along the way, they pull over at what they think is going to be a bed and breakfast, but the establishment turns out to be a hippie free-love commune full of wacky characters such as a bald and chubby little man whose salient characteristics are that he is writing a novel that seems destined never to be finished, he’s always carrying a glass of red wine and he’s always naked.

Having stayed the night at this strange but friendly place, they move on to George’s brother Rick’s house, where things quickly turn unbearable. It turns out Rick’s fortune is in portable toilets, and his personality is as cuddly as his job. He keeps making bad dirty jokes, calling his brother a loser who doesn’t understand the importance of hard work and making his wife (Michaela Watkins) so bored and alienated that she drinks margaritas all day. Lost for a place to go, George and Linda decide that they at least feel loved at the commune. They move in with the hippies and try to fit in with the ethos of the place, which is led by a furry but charismatic dude named Seth (Justin Theroux) and was co-founded by a crusty old survivor (Alan Alda) of the Flower Power generation.

The expected clash of yuppies and hippies leads to some hilarious moments (as well as some jokes that are repeated too often), but it’s the way the movie allows disillusionment to settle in on George and Linda that gives it meaning. The commune renounces meat eating, capitalism, materialism and individualism while celebrating love, egalitarianism, honesty, openness and drug “experiments.” Each of the latter ideas is gradually shown to be unworkable and flawed as the advantages of the former come to light. For instance, a scene in which the Theroux character commands everyone to sit in a circle and be absolutely forthright with each other leads to bad blood between George and Linda. The compound has no doors, which yields a scene in which George tries to use a toilet and is bewildered to find other residents gathering around him to chat. Drugs are held to be a wonderful way to explore one’s inner self — until Linda climbs into a tree while high on hallucinogens and nearly dies because she thinks she can fly.

Everything is shared in the commune, a concept George initially finds charming when he admires another guy’s shirt and the man whips it off and gives it to him. Payback comes when the other resident insists on borrowing George’s car, and promptly drives it into a pond. What’s the big deal, man? It’s only a possession. It happens to be a possession George urgently needs to get to a job interview.

George is tempted by the free-love spirit of the place when a sexy blonde (Malin Akerman) offers him no-strings attached sex, but when he talks his wife into accepting such an arrangement, she immediately sleeps with Seth. Jealousy doesn’t seem like such a groovy feeling, and being unused to the art of seduction George messes up his opportunity with the hot blonde by talking too much while trying to be sexy. Moreover, the supposedly anti-materialist, money-disdaining Seth turns out to be eager to sell out everyone on the commune for his own individual benefit, and the hippie co-founder played by Alda isn’t actually a vegan – every week he sneaks off to the local greasy spoon to stuff himself with ham and sausage.

The turning point of the movie arrives when George, visiting his brother again, discovers the underlying reason why his sister-in-law is so unhappy — infidelity. She has known for years that Rick has been cheating on her, and the information has made her depressed and despairing. George suddenly understands that infidelity, whether you call it “free love” or not, destroys relationships, and by the end of the movie he and Linda are back in a monogamous marriage in their own private living space, with their own private property, solidly middle-class jobs and solid walls to shut out other people. Forty-something years after Easy Rider ushered in an age of countercultural movies, Hollywood rarely produces a work as counter-countercultural as Wanderlust.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: joseffy who wrote (85329)2/24/2012 9:06:38 AM
From: Peter Dierks
3 Recommendations   of 90931
This Whitehouse is the most corrupt in my lifetime.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (85344)2/24/2012 12:10:12 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 90931
Obama’s green energy programs produce the Tesla car electric brick

Obamanomics is all about going nowhere, fast.

by John Hayward 02/23/2012

You remember Tesla Motors, don’t you? Well, you should. Barack Obama forced you to give them $465 million to develop electric cars, bringing the wonders of sustainable transportation to the common man, provided the common man has $100,000 to drop on a Tesla Roadster. This also created 400 of those wonderful “green jobs,” at a taxpayer cost of $1,087,500.00 per job. It has been heartwarming to watch Obama embrace that “Occupy Wall Street” ethic by spending gigantic amounts of public money to subsidize expensive toys for rich people.

Well, it turns out you can only have a limited amount of fun with a Tesla car, because if the battery ever becomes completely discharged, the car turns into a “brick” that will never move again, absent $40,000 in repairs. AutoGuide brings us the exciting tale of how Barack Obama invested our money in the development of The Electric Brick:

Essentially a Tesla Roadster can fully discharge in 11 weeks of no usage, from a full 100-percent charge. Reports are coming in that if the vehicle is driven nearly its maximum range and is left unplugged, it could become bricked in as little as a week.

So once the Tesla battery completely discharges, it cannot be recovered or recharged, which leads to the $32,000 bill to purchase a new one plus the labor, taxes, and installation charges bringing it closer to $40,000.

A regional service manager for Tesla has gone on the record to say that he is aware of at least five vehicles that have become bricked due to battery depletion. If reports of this issue becomes more public and widespread, Tesla could be in for a rough ride in damage control.

Unlike their customers, who will have a very smooth ride sitting in their immobile six-figure electric cars, making “vroom vroom” noises and pretending to work the controls, as they experience the most “sustainable” transportation ever developed by crony capitalism.

By the way, according to Jalopnik, when a Tesla “bricks,” the wheels lock in place – you can’t even tow it, push it, or roll it downhill while making your “vroom vroom” noises.

Also, a Tesla can drop dead even if you’re charging it, “if it isn’t receiving sufficient current to charge, which can be caused by something as simple as using an extension cord.” So, please be certain to park your Obamamobile in the living room, right next to a convenient electric socket. Additionally, you must take your car with you if you’re planning on going on trips lasting longer than a week, if you don’t want it to die. Pro tip: Tesla Roadsters do not fit in the overhead bins on most aircraft.

In case you were wondering, no, this is not covered by your warranty. Tesla is brainstorming innovative methods of addressing the problem… such as remotely activating the vehicles’ built-in GPS systems to monitor the cars and warn engineers of impending brickification. Now that’s the true Hope-and-Change spirit! You say “bug,” but our can-do President says “feature.”

Tesla thinks everyone should embrace the Zen calm of a fully discharged Roadster, because hey, every one of the fabulously expensive electric toys produced by Obamanomics can potentially turn into a brick. From the company’s statement:

All automobiles require some level of owner care. For example, combustion vehicles require regular oil changes or the engine will be destroyed. Electric vehicles should be plugged in and charging when not in use for maximum performance. All batteries are subject to damage if the charge is kept at zero for long periods of time. However, Tesla avoids this problem in virtually all instances with numerous counter-measures. Tesla batteries can remain unplugged for weeks (even months), without reaching zero state of charge. Owners of Roadster 2.0 and all subsequent Tesla products can request that their vehicle alert Tesla if SOC falls to a low level. All Tesla vehicles emit various visual and audible warnings if the battery pack falls below 5 percent SOC. Tesla provides extensive maintenance recommendations as part of the customer experience.

Remind me: do real cars become “destroyed” if you drive them around for a while, then leave them sitting in the driveway for a week, without changing their oil? In any event, this is only a minor setback, provided you’re willing to sleep next to your electric car and remain alert for those visual and audible warnings.

Also in the true spirit of Hope-and-Change, Jalopnik reports that someone is trying to smear the whisteblower who broke the bricking story. He’s a guy who plunked down $50,000 and waited two years to get his electric car, then made the mistake of dropping it in a garage while his house was being renovated. Two months later, he found himself the proud owner of an electric brick. He says nobody from Tesla ever warned him this could happen.

Persons unknown decided to smear this fellow by leaking confidential correspondence to the press, and insinuating he’s just a shakedown artist, an insinuation Tesla was happy to spread via Twitter. None of the leaked emails validate this slander in any way, and the electric brick owner in question, Max Drucker, says he only wanted warranty repairs for his dead $100,000 car. He’s given up on that, and just wants to warn other Tesla owners what might await them,
if they don’t pay at least as much attention to their cars as they would to a pony.

What a silly man! Everyone knows the first rule of Brick Club is that you do not talk about Brick Club.

credit to watsonyouth

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF2/24/2012 12:22:20 PM
   of 90931
Nancy Pelosi on Gasoline Prices
Posted by Chris Edwards

The congresswomen’s comments are so cartoonish, I don’t even have to comment on them. But I thought Cato readers would like to know what the minority leader of the U.S. House is saying about rising gas prices. From a Nancy Pelosi press release today:

Independent reports confirm that speculators are driving up the cost of oil, hurting consumers and potentially damaging the economic recovery. Wall Street profiteering, not oil shortages, is the cause of the price spike.

We need to take strong action to protect consumers from this speculation. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to protect the interests of Wall Street speculators and oil companies instead of the interests of working Americans by obstructing the agencies with the responsibility of enforcing consumer protection laws.

We call on the Republican leadership to act on behalf of American consumers and join our efforts to crack down on speculators who care more about their profits than the price at the pump even if these spikes harm the American consumer and our economy.

For a rational discussion on energy policy, see Downsizing the Department of Energy.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.