Friday, July 27, 2007

Oh, snap!

A quick lesson in the art of the verbal beatdown.

Bob Costas is a master.

Ward Churchill, not so much.

I'd like to see the two of them pair off. Mostly just to see a Great Indian Warrior (or so he claims) get his ass whupped by a scrawny little white guy.

As one of the commenters noted yesterday on Ace, Herr Doktor's responses to the heckler all basically classics. Among 3rd graders. But to me, the best part was his lightning quick responses. It takes him almost 30 seconds to make a reply along the lines of "well.... you suck!"

Hat tips to With Leather and Ace of Spades respectively.


I first read about this yesterday, and knew it was a strong-really strong- possibility for our little award. However, I held off on posting, since the original article said the formal report would be issued today.

Well it was. And as expected, they admitted that some of our astronauts are drinking before- and possibly just before their flights.

I don't know what's worse: That people with this amount of training and responsibilities like these would drink beforehand, or that the powers that be were apparently ignoring any warnings about it.

So, rather than try and limit it to anybody particular, I hereby raise a glass to NASA as a whole, and ask them "WTF were you thinking?"


Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Oh, to be an athlete

I had forgotten this story for a while. But it's back, and I'm pretty cheesed off. I know a thing or two about Michigan gun laws, and this is so far over the top that I can't believe it.

Rule number 1 of legally carrying a gun (in every state that I've ever heard of) is that you do not- can not- carry one if you've been drinking.

According to the story, Rogers was drunk and had a gun.

Gun violation number 1, check.

Rule number 2 is that you don't ever carry one into a place that serves alcohol on the premises. (In MI, the rule is that they can't make over half of their money from alcohol sales. My guess would be that this holds true of a strip club)

Gun violation number 2, check.

And he allegedly had it in plain view, stuck in the waistband of his pants. Here's a tip: To carry a "concealed weapon" you have to... "conceal" it. If it's in plain view, it's not concealed.

Gun violation 3, check.

And finally, he may have sorta threatened people with it, or at least had it out in plain view for the intimidation factor. That's known as "brandishing" and it's grounds for a revocation of the carrying permit. And can lead to jail time.

Gun violation 4, check.

And yet, Big Baby gets away with it completely. Yup, equality under the law. Now imagine if someone like me- 5 ft 10, and 200 pounds, white, and not rich- went into a strip club and did all of the above. Think I'd be able to shrug it off? Yeah right.

I'm contemplating a letter to the State of Michigan about this. There seems to be no debate about the facts here, and yet there are no charges being filed. Consider if something had happened- if Rogers or somebody else had gotten shot. The outcry would've been huge- drunken people carrying guns on the street! Threatening others with them for no reason! The horror! Revoke all gun permits and make all guns illegal! It's for the children!

But instead some lazy, rich black guy walks off utterly devoid of any consequences. Again. And we see how the law really operates.

It's disgusting. And it's a crime. Or in this instance, possibly 4 crimes.

See? I told you so

Yesterday, while reviewing the nominees for the award and congratulating slimeball Michael Vick for winning the most recent "WTF was he thinking?" contest, I made the following statement about one of our nominees:

"He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)."

So today, I'm hardly surprised to see (via LGF) an article on Daily Kos which starts off with:

'The British BBC reported yesterday that President Chavez of Venezuela is creating a "single, separate party", suggesting thereby that he is creating a single party state. This is untrue, and yet another example of the pervasive misinformation the western media is distributing about the reality of Chavez and his government.'

Yeah, he's amending the Constitution to allow himself to serve for life, forcing opposition radio stations off the air, and beating up opponents all in the name of democracy.

But no fear! Our intrepid reporter "Justina" has a few other tidbits to toss out. See if you can pick out a few vague threads of her bias here:

"It is indeed ironic that Bush-Chaney administration, the most bellicose, undemocratic, and secretive in U.S. history, dares to charge President Chavez with undermining democracy in Venezuela.
...Democracy is thriving in Venezuela. I only wish it were doing as well in the United States, where the threat of dictatorship is very real."

See? Chavez=Good, Bush=Hitler.

Now on the other hand, we have a comment, (which from what I know of Kos, will likely be removed in a short while, so I add it here) which points out:

"...On a serious note, though, Hugo Chavez has been dismantling privately held businesses and NEWS organizations, nullifying official agreements and governemnt contracts with outside international contractors, and otherwise tightening his grip with an iron fist around the throats of any and all companys and corporations he see's fit, not to mention jailing outspoken Venezuelan citizens who are critical of his leadership, for quite some time. He has also decreed that thou shalt not besmirch his name under penalty of expulsion... among other dictatorial proclomations. Haven't we seen this type of blooming megalomaniacal leadership before, once or thrice, over the last... oh, couple of millenia or so? The company he keeps in private meeting rooms is dubious, to say the least, as well."

Note: All the mis-spellings are from the original. I just can't be bothered to correct the spelling of people who were never taught how to write English. Or use spell-check.

And remember, the loonies at Kos are the ones trying to become the voice of the dhimmicratic party, and leading the charge against Bush. Cuz you know, he's Hitler. And ruling by decree is A Good Thing, provided that the one making the decrees is a leftist. Refusing to give Congress the right to oversee the Executive Branch is a Bad Thing.

At least if you're a Conservative.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

...And the next batch of nominees

Away we go. No sooner do we crown one moron, than we have to nominate a few more. Like clockwork.

Today we have three nominees to start with. First, we have Senator Joe Biden. Another in a string of candidates for a lifetime award. Last night, the Dhimmicratic Party had yet another in the endless stream of debates, which are designed to prove to us that the election cycle in this country is too long. In response to a person in Michigan (one who didn't come across as too bright, admittedly) who wondered if his "baby" i.e. his "assault rifle" would be safe under the new administration, Biden replied that the man needs to have his head examined, and said "I don't know if he's mentally qualified to own that gun". And then he turned it into a riff on keeping guns out of the hands of those folks that are "unqualified" to own them.

I'll assume for the sake or argument that the questioner, Jered Townsend, bought the gun legally. He said he did, and went on national TV to do so. Therefore, he would seem to be "qualified" to own it. Except that Biden and his buddies seem to disagree.

But then, I suppose they think I'm "unqualified" to own one as well.

Alienating a large and politically active group right off the mark is always a good move for a politician. So, Biden gets a strong nomination for this week's award, with a move that will come back to bite him if he gets the dhimmicratic nomination.

But of course, he won't.

So let's all say it together: Senator Biden, "WTF were you thinking?"

Hat tip to Eddie. Khaaaaan!!

Now onto our next candidate. Remember A. Whitney Brown? Me neither. I guess he was on Saturday Night Live, sometime during the crappy years.

I know, that doesn't narrow it down too much. Only limits it to the past 20 years or so.

But this comedic genius, who apparently now is in the midst of an exclusive engagement with YouTube, (how pathetic is that, when Hollywood makes movies out of every fifth-rate SNL skit?) posted a video explaining his "support" for the troops:

"Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should. But what about those troops who are not so brave? Perhaps they just signed up hoping for some extra money for college, for the medical insurance, or even some hot gay military sex."


Sorry, it was just too damn funny. Right?

Then there's this gem:

"But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded."

Wow. A lecture on morals and ethics now. From a man that presumably doesn't know the difference between someone that straps a bomb onto a small child, and someone who does what he can- even kill someone- to protect that same child. And the dozens of innocent people around him.

And then there's this final excerpt:

"So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You."

So, for being completely ignorant about the world, the US system, reality, morals, and (most especially) humor; A Whitney Whoeverthehellheis gets himself a nomination for this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.

Hat tip to Little Green Footballs. I'd link it, but I don't see any need to give this A Whitney Asshat any more publicity.

Our final nominee is another football player, this one retired. Even better, it's our second nominee related to the "Michael Vick torturing innocent animals" trial. Over the weekend, Emmitt Smith, the all-time NFL rushing leader, and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Over the course of the weekend, he made the following comments:

"He's the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond so they're putting the squeeze on him to get to everyone else... Now, granted he might have been to a dogfight a time or two . . . but he's not the one you're after, he's just the one whose going to take the fall -- publicly."

Ummm, Emmitt, not quite. First off, as almost anyone can tell you, the Feds don't normally go after the "biggest fish", in order to get the minnows. They do it the other way around. It would appear that they've already gone after the minnows, and I suspect the little guys have already agreed to help get someone. And guess who that Someone is?

Furthermore, check your facts first. It doesn't appear that Vick went to a dogfight "a time or two". It looks like he went to a lot of them. And hosted a lot of them. And gambled a lot of money on them. And spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on dogs and equipment.

Hint: he's the guy with the money, the dogs, the property, the equipment, and the name recognition. That makes him "the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond" alright. But not just among the 4 losers that were charged. I suspect that makes him probably one of the biggest- if not THE biggest- fish in the whole dogfighting universe. (Yuck! Horrible mixed metaphor there).

So this would appear to be the Feds going after the Kingfish. If they get him, they can possibly do a lot of damage to the whole culture, and that's assuming Vick shuts up and takes his hits like a man. If not, he could wind up flipping and giving up a lot of other rednecks that like to torture dogs as well.

At any rate, Emmitt, you blew it. You're completely wrong, and completely ignorant. Rumor has it that making this idiotic comment has already put your new career as a broadcaster in jeopardy. Networks like their staff to think before they make stupid comments, you know.

And so here we have a football legend risking his legacy, and his future, to make a stupid, ignorant comment about a loser who's accused of a disgusting crime. Dude, maybe you should go on tv and dance the next time you want to make an ass out of yourself.

Congratulations, Emmitt Smith. Here's one football fan who's wondering "WTF was he thinking?"

Our third winner

Well, better late than ever, I guess. It's time to review the candidates, and crown a new idiot with the "WTF was he thinking?" award.

Our first candidate was the moron who called for the overthrow of the Bush Regime (remember, Bush=Hitler.) He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)

At any rate, we can't give this jackass the award. He of course believes this inherently. In his pathetic, ignorant view of the world, it makes perfect sense. Again, we have to bow to the insanity of the Left. While a normal person (i.e. Me) can sit here and scratch his head and think "WTF??", it seems logical to the leftists. Sad but true.

Sorry, pal. You're a fool, but you're acting completely logically. For a fool. No award for you.

Our second candidate was HBO, for their new hardcore sex series "Tell me you love me". A hardcore show during prime time. Really good idea.

But I guess they can't win either. Handjobs are something that men like, especially if the woman giving it is attractive. And the woman (I guess she qualifies as an actress, though I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a documentary or not) in question appears to be hot. So while most men would prefer the real thing, and from an honest-to-God-woman-who-looks-like-an-attractive-woman-they-might-know-rather-than-a- silicone-inflated-porn-star, doing the deed will likely get some audience. It might not last too long, but at least initially, the audience will be there.

And besides, they got a couple seasons out of Deadwood, which seemed to exist only for the reason of using the F word every sentence. I'm an ex-infantryman with a potty-mouth, and even I found it to be too much.

So again, sorry. HBO might be kinda dense, but they don't quite rise to the level we require.

Our third nominee was Nebraska Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, for refusing to allow an alleged rape victim to use the word "rape" in court. Ditto for any other witness. Kinda hard to prove a crime if you can't describe it.

Reminds me of the tale I once read of a woman testifying on the witness stand that the accused had made an inappropriate comment to her. Since it was so awful, to protect her virtue she was allowed to write the comment down, and then it was passed to the jury to read. When it reached an attractive woman there, she read it and passed it to her neighbor. Unfortunately, he had been dozing while the witness talked, so he missed the basic story. When he got the note from the woman next to him, he winked at her and then pocketed the note, refusing to give it up, since he said it was "personal".

But onward.... The judge in this case would ordinarily rise to the level of stupidity that would earn him the award, but there are circumstances which prevent it. First off, this is the second trial of the accused, Pamir Safi. The first one couldn't return a verdict.

This kinda set off some alarm bells in my mind, but not strongly enough.

It turns out that, as far as I can piece the story together, it's too much a matter of "he said/she said". I gather that the "victim" Tory Bowen, admitted to meeting the accused at a party, getting drunk and then finding a flat surface (or not) and doing the thing that drunken coeds often do with men they meet at parties. And doesn't deny that this first time was consensual.

The problem arises from the apparent fact that, after they had consummated their new relationship, they apparently went back to the party, where Tory did some more drinking. Later, they apparently left together, and Pamir assumed that her earlier... cooperation... meant he still had a green light, despite her alleged inability to consent to the second time.

This is a toughie. If she was drunk and he had sex with her when she was passed out, that would seem adequate to satisfy me that it was rape. However, if she consented a couple hours earlier, and was still hanging out with him and drinking afterward, then that would seem to be a matter of Tory having a guilty conscience. I.E. The old "I don't usually do this, but...." problem.

The first time she could shrug off as being drunk and horny. The second time? Well she's either a slut, or she was raped!

Guess which one the average woman would choose?

So I can't award the judge the prize. I still don't think it was a good call on his part, but it's impossible to decide if she was raped or not- if she had sex with him a few hours earlier, and it was consensual, then how can one "prove" via normal investigations that the second time was rape?

Which I guess is why the first trial ended with no real verdict.

So now we come to our final candidate. Michael Vick. Let's see.... you're a multi-millionaire when you're 20, due to your incredibly physical gifts. One of the faces of the most popular sporting league in the US. Besides millions of dollars in salary, you earn millions more in endorsements. And you decide to gamble some pocket change on dog-fighting, which is illegal.

And not just that. According to the charges against you, when a dog doesn't meet your standards, i.e. isn't willing to fight to the death for your entertainment, you slaughter it on the spot. Through such humane methods as electrocution and (still my own personal "favorite") slamming it to the ground over and over.

I question whether Vick and his cronies rise to the level of "human", after acts like that.

So.... for risking his entire career, his millions of dollars, his future, his (relatively) good name, the image of the entire NFL, and possibly his freedom, in order to watch Man's Best Friend kill another animal, Michael Vick gets this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.

Congratulations, Mikey. Now I hope you burn in Hell.