New York being what it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if the protesters got [...]]]> The Arizona Diamondbacks played at the New York Mets’ Citi Field last night.  In addition to a couple dozen people protesting Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, leaflets were handed out urging Major League Baseball to move next year’s All-Star Game out of Phoenix.

New York being what it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if the protesters got a lot of support.

Then they had to go and pull this:

The first thing is, you don’t interrupt a New Yorker’s baseball game.

But really, you had to wave the Mexican flag to make your point?  The only way opponents of Arizona’s law will make any traction with the majority of Americans who support it is to play up the possibility that it will discriminate against people who are here legally.

By flying the Mexican flag, you’re showing what your real concern is: that Mexicans might have a harder time sneaking into this country.

A note to La Raza, the Mexican government, and Absolut vodka: You’re never getting that land back.  And incessantly whining about that, and waving that third-world country’s flag on American soil every time you’ve got a gripe won’t do anything but solidify public opinion against you.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

A while back, Iowahawk was wondering what the next Journolist revelation would be.  Not content to wait and see, he wrote it himself.

Like everything he writes, it’s funny and contains many swear words.  Here’s how he wraps it up:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Say, would any of you boys care to join me over at Chatroulette tonight?

SPENCER ACKERMAN [...]]]>

A while back, Iowahawk was wondering what the next Journolist revelation would be.  Not content to wait and see, he wrote it himself.

Like everything he writes, it’s funny and contains many swear words.  Here’s how he wraps it up:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Say, would any of you boys care to join me over at Chatroulette tonight?

SPENCER ACKERMAN has left the room

MATTHEW YGLESIAS has left the room.

ERIC ALTERMAN has left the room.

JOSH MARSHALL has left the room.

DAVE WEIGEL has left the room.

ERIC BOEHLERT has left the room.

EZRA KLEIN has left the room.

KEITH OLBERMANN: hello?

The reality is that not only didn’t they want to socialize with Olbermann, but that Journolisters—Journolisters!—were embarrassed by him.  The Daily Caller has excerpts of a thread entitled “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” which was started after KO viciously attacked beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean. 

New America Foundation’s Michael Cohen said, “At least Hannity and O’Reilly engage with the other side (if mainly just to yell at them). Olbermann is just an echo chamber.”

Katha Pollitt of The Nation: “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy.”

Salon’s Rebecca Traister: “Olbermann has a terrible record of going out of his way to talk about young, attractive women he believes to be stupid in grotesquely dismissive and oversexualized terms.”

Of course, none of these champions of feminism would ever call Olbermann out in public.  In the words of liberal blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “When we liberals were fighting for political survival after 9/11, it was important to be disciplined and to pick our internal battles very carefully. Now that the Democrats are in charge and progressivism is ascendent, we can afford to demand more from our leaders.”

That’s it.  Progressives see principles as tactics, to be used or discarded as necessary.  The trouble is, if progressives wait until they’re “large and in charge” to exercise their moral muscles, the resultant atrophy will have made that impossible.  (What do they get, eighteen months every 10-15 years?  Not a good exercise regimen.)

I wonder if any of them uttered a peep about Olbermann’s misogyny when he bizarrely called Michelle Malkin “a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” (An hour-long Bing session turned up nothing.)

Share on Facebook

It’s amusing for a while.  You can watch the translations as they occur, from English to a random language and back.  It seems that Chinese really cannot be translated by a machine.  When a piece of text completely derails, it’s usually because it hit the [...]]]> That’s how this website translates, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”

It’s amusing for a while.  You can watch the translations as they occur, from English to a random language and back.  It seems that Chinese really cannot be translated by a machine.  When a piece of text completely derails, it’s usually because it hit the Chinese.

Although not in the case of this quote from Tolkien:

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Which becomes:

Many people live lives worthy of death. Some die deserve life. You are a woman? Then, satisfied with the treatment of death in the courts. Because it is so wise can not see any more.

I had to check to see what happened there.

I don’t know any Catalan, but donner is French for “to give” and donna is Italian for “woman” so that’s understandable.  (I can hear some of our lady-commenters now: “That’s right.  We give, and we give…”  And I’m not disagreeing.)

The site’s name is Funny Translator, but as often as not the translations are pretty well done, considering that it’s a game of telephone played entirely by something that can’t understand context.

Children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.

Becomes:

Children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are evil, of course, prefer mercy.

Pretty amazing accuracy for ten translations.  At times, the translations even seem to self-correct:

An armed society is a polite society.

AFRIKAANS : ‘N gewapende samelewing is’ n beleefde samelewing.
Back to ENGLISH : An armed society is a polite society.
ALBANIAN : Një shoqëri e armatosur është një shoqëri të sjellshme.
Back to ENGLISH : An armed society is a polite society.
ARABIC : ????? ?????? ????? ????.
Back to ENGLISH : An armed society a polite society.
BELARUSIAN : ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????.
Back to ENGLISH : Armed society polite society.
BULGARIAN : ???????? ??????????? ?????? ??????????.
Back to ENGLISH : armed society a polite society.
CATALAN : societat armada una societat educada.
Back to ENGLISH : armed society a polite society.
CHINESE : ??????????
Back to ENGLISH : Armed society high society.
CHINESE_SIMPLIFIED : ?????????
Back to ENGLISH : Armed social upper class.
CHINESE_TRADITIONAL : ??????????
Back to ENGLISH : The upper classes of society armed.
CROATIAN : Više slojeve društva naoružani.
Back to ENGLISH : More layers of society armed.

The Croatians narrowly beat back the Chinese assault on the 2nd Amendment, there!

h/t Freakonomics

Share on Facebook

In his post earlier today, Eric admitted to never having seen The Karate Kid.  I’ve never seen it either, but then there are many classic pictures I’ve never seen, often because they’re so talked about and referenced that I feel I’ve already watched them.

A couple of weeks ago, I added quite a few movies to [...]]]>

In his post earlier today, Eric admitted to never having seen The Karate Kid.  I’ve never seen it either, but then there are many classic pictures I’ve never seen, often because they’re so talked about and referenced that I feel I’ve already watched them.

A couple of weeks ago, I added quite a few movies to my Netflix queue that belong to the “films I wish I’d seen” category.  Whether I actually have them shipped when they eventually make their way to the top of the list is another matter.  I’ve tried this before.

Anyway, here are some of the movies that I’m embarrassed about never having seen:

1. Casino
2. Red Dawn
3. Stagecoach*
4. Rambo: First Blood
5. Halloween
6. Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure
7. Raising Arizona
8. Patton
9. Shrek
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
11. Full Metal Jacket*
12. Platoon
13. Saving Private Ryan
14. Glengarry Glen Ross
15. Beverly Hills Cop*
16. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
17. Wayne’s World
18. Rear Window
19. The Jungle Book
20. Hoosiers*
21. Chariots of Fire*
22. Rocky
23. The Third Man
24. Chinatown
25. Raging Bull*

A few of these movies I have technically ’seen,’ in that I was in the room while they were playing (the first Rambo is one, and either Platoon or Full Metal Jacket is another) but I was either too young or too distracted to have any memory of them at all.

I tried watching Raging Bull a couple of years ago but kept falling asleep in the first half hour and ended up sending it back to Netflix. I’ve marked it with an asterisk along with a few other films that I have a feeling will never be shipped.

Anybody else have any embarrassing admissions to make?

Share on Facebook

From a speech Calvin Coolidge delivered upon the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. [...]]]>

From a speech Calvin Coolidge delivered upon the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.

It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

[The American Revolution] was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, [the revolutionary movement] did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

[W]hen we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg

Share on Facebook

Recently, the chain of ice cream stores issued cards to various celebrities entitling them to free ice cream, but one celebrity just couldn’t be trusted to use it responsibly.

From Carvel’s [...]]]> I’ve always been a fan of Tom Carvel and his ice cream.  Loved the homespun television commercials, especially.  But now they’ve gone Hollywood, with predictable results.

Recently, the chain of ice cream stores issued cards to various celebrities entitling them to free ice cream, but one celebrity just couldn’t be trusted to use it responsibly.

From Carvel’s website:

As part of Carvel’s 75^th Anniversary celebration last year, we issued 75 Black Cards to celebrities.  These cards were issued in the celebrity’s name and require the card holder to be present at the time of use. Many celebrities have enjoyed their cards at our Carvel Ice Cream shoppes and have shared their excitement with being included in the celebration.

Unfortunately, the Lohan family has been abusing the card.   While the card was issued in Lindsay and Ali’s names only, their extended family has repeatedly used the card without either present.   At first, we graciously honored their requests while explaining that the Black Card was not a carte blanche for unlimited Carvel Ice Cream for the extended Lohan family and friends.  After more than six months of numerous and large orders for ice cream, we finally had to cut off the card and take it back.

Dina Lohan reacted badly and called the police to have her card returned.  The police responded and did return the card to Dina with instructions not to use it again.

This is an unfortunate situation where certain people feel entitled to use a celebrity’s name for their own purposes.  We regret that the Lohan family is upset and hope this matter is put behind us quickly.

My only question for Carvel is: what did you expect?

h/t Serious Eats

Share on Facebook

A German student “mooned” a group of Hell’s Angels and hurled a puppy at them before escaping on a stolen bulldozer, police have said.

The man drove up to a Hell’s Angels clubhouse near Munich, wearing only a pair of shorts and carrying a puppy.

He dropped his shorts and threw the dog, escaping on [...]]]> From the BBC:

A German student “mooned” a group of Hell’s Angels and hurled a puppy at them before escaping on a stolen bulldozer, police have said.

The man drove up to a Hell’s Angels clubhouse near Munich, wearing only a pair of shorts and carrying a puppy.

He dropped his shorts and threw the dog, escaping on a bulldozer from a nearby building site.

He was arrested later at home by police. The 26-year-old is said to have stopped taking depression medication.

After making his getaway on the bulldozer, he had driven so slowly that a 5km tailback built up behind him on the motorway.

After driving about 1km, he had abandoned the bulldozer in the middle of the motorway, near Allershausen. He continued his journey by hitchhiking.

“What motivated him to throw a puppy at the Hell’s Angels is currently unclear,” a police spokesman said.

The puppy is now being cared for in an animal shelter.

h/t First Things

Share on Facebook

From SPACE.com:

Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most mind-boggling ingredients in the universe. Ever since these concepts were first proposed, [...]]]> We’re all used to the insertion of opinion into news stories, of course.  It happens all the time.  I don’t know why, but I still get aggravated when it occurs in science news.

From SPACE.com:

Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most mind-boggling ingredients in the universe. Ever since these concepts were first proposed, some astronomers have worked feverishly to figure out what each thing is, while other astronomers have tried to prove they don’t exist, in hopes of restoring the universe to the more understandable place many would like it to be.

You’d think a senior writer for a mainstream scientific website would have an idea about what the scientific method entails.  The fact that, given the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary,  not every scientist believes that dark matter and dark energy exist is a cause for celebration.  When scientists challenge each others’ theories, the truth has a chance to emerge.

Share on Facebook

The violence began with the bombings — which sent plumes of smoke over the city skyline — although there were conflicting reports about the number and nature of the blasts.

The first bomb [...]]]> In a caper which appears to have been planned out after watching ‘Die Hard,’ gunmen set off explosions and took over Iraq’s central bank.

The violence began with the bombings — which sent plumes of smoke over the city skyline — although there were conflicting reports about the number and nature of the blasts.

The first bomb went off on the road near an electrical generator, al-Moussawi said. Insurgents wearing army uniforms then tried to enter the bank through two entrances, exchanging gunfire with the guards.

He said three suicide bombers detonated their explosives vests at the main entrance of the bank, while two other militants were killed by security forces at the second gate.

Iraqi security forces then stormed the building, prompting a standoff that lasted at least three hours, according to al-Moussawi’s account.

An unknown number of attackers managed to get to a higher floor and set a fire to burn some documents and may have escaped by blending in with the bank employees, he added, saying the motive appeared to be to steal the bank’s deposits, then blow up the building.

The bad guys are just lucky that Outlaw’s over here, is all.

Share on Facebook