Not only is the bastard a puppy frier, a Frenchy sympathizer, and an all around white guy, Glenn Reynolds is also secretly working for the Communist Underground, VRWC, Inc. has learned.
One of our top secret spies was able to capture this picture late yesterday morning while Glenn was at home when he thought no one was around.
On with the Rebellion!
Everyone always complains in politics that such-n-such party is only after power.
My answer: So what?
I don't blame the Democratic Party for trying to obtain power. I think it is great that the GOP has power right now and I hope they work their asses off to hold that power.
Holding power in politics is the whole point to politics. You have an agenda that you believe will make this country a better place. You want to institute that agenda but the only way you can is if you hold power. The Republican agenda is not advanced without power and neither is the Democratic agenda.
If a politician gets up and says he doesn't want the power, he's full of shit. What does he want then, the neat looking office to sit in day after day twiddling his thumbs?
Saying someone is after power in politics is like saying all Michael Jordan was after was winning NBA titles.
And yet, somehow, this is used as a derogatory statement, by both sides.
The real question should be is how do the sides work to obtain that power. Take the Dem presidential candidates right now. They are working their hands to the bone to bump Bush out of the White House. While I do regard them as the enemy, I can hardly blame them for wanting power. But the way they're going about it as all bass ackwards and just plan idiotic.
When you use false statements and slander just to get a few votes you're abusing the system and the people of the country because you assume they're to dumb to figure it out, and unfortunately that is often the case. It is not that the people of this country, the average voter who cares very little for politics and hardly ever pays attention to it, are to dumb to figure out what is going on, it's just that they typically don't care. This is why campaign slogans and campaign signs work so well.
Yard signs have little effect in presidential campaign because the news covers it every night and, for the most part, everybody knows what is basically going on. But campaigns for congressmen and state and local officials use them much more. Why? Name recognition. Studies show that when a person gets into the voting booth and they don't know any of the candidates, they typically vote for the name they recognize.
This is terribly sad. I've said before (back at the Yankee Herald) that I want as many people to vote as possible in this country. However, if you're an uninformed voter and have no clue what is going on, then stay home, you're not helping anything.
In a democratic republic like the United States, we don't make the everyday decisions; we elect officials to make them for us. So, if we're going to give certain people the power they're after, let's make sure we give it to them knowingly and for the right reasons.
I expect everyone who comes by here to leave a comment to this post because your opinion is valuable.
What I am looking for are opinions on the use of the events of September 11 in fictional writing. Basically, would it, or would it not, be prudent to use a ficitonal eyewitness acount of the collapse of the World Trade Center as the main motivation behind a character and/or characters in a novel?
I ask, you answer.
Thank you.
I have, without the shadow of a doubt, uncovered the most insane, asshatted, idiotic, piece of fuckwitedness on the entire fucking planet!
I have, through a random Google search on an entirely different topic, stumbled upon the HQ of the Fucknozzle Brigades™!
I have, with all the awe and wonder in the world, found a corner of the web where people with fuckbutter for brains congregate!
In fact, what I have found contains so much material that rates a positive 456.78 on the Idiotarian Meter (which tops out at 100, mind you).
What am I talking about? Well, it's the Maoist International Movement web page. Give it a look, then come back.
Like I said, there is so much material here that I could spend years fisking it all to hell. As a matter of fact, I think I'll make it a weakly feature here at the VRWC, Inc. We'll call it the "Assault on the MIM."
This will be the fist edition to this new feature:
Amerikkkans: the Redcoats of the 21st Century
The Bush administration and its puppets CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox news, NBC, the New York Times and Washington Post have called Iraqis "terrorist" for attacking U.$. troops by suicide bombing and for not always fighting in uniform.
Here's what's is so incredibly insane about these people; they are so far to the left that they see the New York Times, CNN, ABC, ect. as Bush's cronies.
The last meaningful distinction to the word "terrorism" has been lost in a swirl of non-stop Pentagon propaganda: terrorism is supposed to be violence against civilians to pressure a government toward a change of direction. Fighting against troops is supposed to be called "war," even according to the bourgeois experts of yesteryear who misused the word "terrorism."
No, terrorism is using the weapon of fear through hit-and-run, spineless, faceless attacks on anyone to try and force a government or organization in a different direction. Although, I don't see the Yankees running from Iraq anytime soon.
While MIM also wants change from the days of 1776, we do not consider a return to British-style colonialism worth the dignity of considering; yet that is exactly what the Bush administration announces hour by hour and day by day. As of the end of March 2003, the Bush administration was still maintaining plans to administer Iraq as a colony--and pointing to the examples of post-war Japan and Germany as examples.
"British-style colonialism"? Is that all you got? Is this the sign of desperation, or too much Kool Aid? You have got to be absolutely insane to believe that Iraq will EVER be a US colony. And by the way, post-war Japan and Germany were NOT colonies you uneducated fuckbox!
Right now the plan is for Iraqi exiles recently assembled in Kuwait to advise 23 U.S. military officers who will run every ministry of the new U.$. administration in control of Iraq, if and when the united $tates wins the war.
If and when the US wins the war?
LMFAO!!!!!
For the love of GOD! Stop it! By sides hurt from laughing so damn hard!
That's right: the Bush administration is so far openly planning a colonial administration of Iraq. (We say so far, because we wonder if the Bush administration will use this position to negotiate for the UN, Japan and European Union to pay for the costs of the war and subsequent occupation in exchange for allowing Iraqis or the UN to run Iraq.)
Gigantic difference between reconstruction and colonization, buttnuggets!
The United $tates has gone so far backwards, especially since 911, that the Bush administration criticizing "terrorism" now sounds identical to the Redcoat officers criticizing the American revolutionaries. It's not just that the Redcoats also claimed that their opponents were uncivilized nationalist fighters. The Redcoats were also anti-French. Those claiming to be Americans and calling Iraq's patriotic guerrillas "terrorists," supporting Bush's colonial administration idea and ridiculing the French for their opposition to colonialism are traitors to the American Revolution.
Not really. The British were in America to make money, that it is it. Had the British come to the colonies because we were under a dictatorship similar to Saddam's and freed us only to help us set up our own government and leave, we'd be very, very grateful.
Thomas Paine wrote his famous quote: "These are the times that try men's souls" to refer to war in which American revolutionaries often in absolute poverty fought without uniforms, hiding behind trees and rocks, much to the disgust of the British Redcoats, who had bright red uniforms and fought out in the open, waiting for the enemy to come to fight with honor. The American revolutionaries learned their style of fighting from the indigenous people. The revolutionaries did not share the British idea of honorable fighting, because the American revolutionaries believed what they were doing was acceptable to save their nation.
Too bad the people blowing shit up in Iraq right now aren't even Iraqis! Where the fuck does this guy get his news from? Oh, that's right, Al Jazera. Anyway, pal, the revolutionaries did what they did because they wanted to be free of British rule. This sand scum in Iraq are people who came to Iraq just so they could kill Americans. After all, they have been taught that since birth, ya know.
The rest is for you to read and come up with your own obvious replies to this socialist drivel.
We'll have more from the MIM come next Friday!
Another personality test. But this one rates your sensitivity to The Force (thanks Greg).
I am Jedi Jolee Binda
Lord above, you're a man whose mates love him. As good guys go you're one of the best - now try doing something nasty for once and the ladies won't be able to stay from you.
The link is to FHM's UK site. The link to the actual test is at the bottom under "New In Win Stuff".
It's late and I've got class in the morning and then work so I won't be saying anything interesting today. Instead, here are a few articles by people who regularly say things WAY more interesting than anything I've said my whole life.
The first is by Ann Coulter (she still hasn't returned my calls, but I know for a FACT that we were destined to be together) and it tackles our favorite punching bag: Libs.
But liberals are indignant for every day that we haven't turned a barbaric land into Vermont. They were willing to give Stalin 36 years for the awkwardness of his revolution. We have essentially imposed a revolution on Iraq ? and liberals give us a month to work out the bugs. U.S. forces in Baghdad say that Iraq is well on its way to establishing American-style representative democracy and might even be holding its first free elections in less than a year. Within three years, the Iraqi people could be recalling their first governor.
And the second is by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for National Review Online and a syndicated columnist for Townhall and the Washington Times. Two years ago I wasn't into politics whatsoever. A friend of mine at work started bringing me copies of Jonah's articles and it was like taking that red pill in the Matrix -there was no turning back. Some days I get so damn pissed off at political shit I wish I could go back in time and tell that dude to take his damn red pill, turn it sideways, and cram it straight up his candy ass just so I can five minutes without these bloodlusts. Then I realize that the blood rages are just too much fun to go without, even for five minutes.
The anti-globalists use the World Wide Web and Japanese- or Finnish-made PDAs and cell phones to coordinate their protests with kids from Brazil, Japan, Germany and America. They listen to "world music," reggae and rap. They grew up on sushi; they love French films; and they get their news from the BBC and - perhaps - Al-Jazeera.
Okay, off to American Lit I am!
What I find totally and completely baffling, astonishing, humoring, and sickening is the debate pertaining to the War on Terrorism. A debate on how the war should be handled, what we should and should not do within that war would be expected. But to imagine that there people, supposed highly educated bipeds with degrees in all kids of nonsense, who walk around saying that the war is a farce, that we shouldn't be pursuing it, that it's making a few people upset and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Is it a requirement upon enrollment in the Liberal World Party to have your brains sucked out with a ShopVac™ and have cinnamon oatmeal poured in as filler?
Any ten year-old kid eating glue in the art room can tell you that when it comes down to a no holds barred match between two people, two factions, two countries, that you better play to win. And not just play to win, but play with total focus, intelligence, skill, and determination to win undisputedly.
That is where we are at now.
Suppose you live out on the frontier and there are no police or any type of high authority to resolve issues. Say someone came to your home at night and started shooting into your house and even killed a family member and then ran away. What would you do? For argument's sake, let's say it was a member of a band of despots who live on the other side of the hill who are mad at you because your farm is successful and theirs isn't and so they hate you for it.
The main liberal guide book entitled "How to be a Complete Waste of Space" tells us right there on page 1070 to ride on over under a flag of truce and start working their farm for them to make it successful so they won't be mad at you anymore. You get to be their happy little slave for the rest of your life just so nobody gets hurt. Sound enticing?
The main conservative guide book, entitled "Common Sense", tells you on page 2 (out of 6, mind you) to round up your boys and head on over with as much heat as you can carry. You're not so much looking for revenge, as you are to make sure that something like the other night never happens again. End the problem, NOW.
The problem is that we are living in a frontier home with both guidebooks and people are actually arguing over which one is the correct course.
"He?s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."
Americans are a different breed of people. Genetically our DNA is 99.9% identical to the Germans, Brazilians, Koreans, Arabs, Jews, and, dare I say, the French. But our culture has a profound effect on who we become. Granted, we have a great amount of control over that ourselves, but our culture instills a lot of values we carry with us forever. From the very seeds of this nation we were different. People came here who had enough of the bullshit and wanted something for themselves. We were (and are) hard workers who built a nation from scratch to become the biggest, most badass nation on God's green Earth in less than two hundred and thirty years. Even to this day the work-your-hands-to-the-bone-for-survival-and-success mentality is still very prevalent. That is why we continue to become better and better at everything we do while other nations, that used to be super-powers until we showed up on the block, continue to lag.
Jealousy is vile and dangerous, even though it can also be a major motivator. Yet some people don't see it that way. All they see is that you have something they don't so they grow in their hatred and disgust of you until it drives them insane.
Friends. We all have them. You grow your whole life learning how to handle friendship and learning about when just such relationships go bad and how to either reconcile the problem or just cut them loose. There are always some friends how are better than others; this is a rule of life. True friends will save you from the depths of hell and never ask for anything in return (except where I come from where a free round of beer is expected at that point). True friends guard each other and keep each other safe. True friends don't sell out.
What is little known about France's problem with the U.S. policy on Iraq is that they were really just power hungry. They knew what a threat Saddam was. They knew what he had and what he was doing with it. They knew. And yet they decided not to back us because we wanted to handle the military action part of the deal. If they were going to get in they wanted an equal share of everything. At a time when we wanted to protect our citizens and ensure the conservation of this great country and her people, France wanted to make a power grab.
France has been trying to sell itself as the alternative to America and has been doing its best to stand up tall next to us while always searching for a way to step on top of us to get taller. France, knowingly, and without any moral regard for what was at stake for us in regards to Iraq, put themselves as our opposition when we should be banded together. France even rounded up allies for their little game of "Stop America."
The arena was the UN, which, I might say, is led by a kook from the most impoverished continent in the world. What great bastion of leadership might this guy be? Of course the Security Council voted unanimously in favor of Resolution 1441. But once that was done they began to squabble with us over the meaning of the term "serious consequences" (I still think this would be a great name for new nuclear aircraft carrier). Sorta reminds me of Clinton's whole "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" thingy.
France, with Germany and Russia backing them up, tried their damndest to block our movements. It had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. It was all about stopping the United States from doing what it wants to do.
They lost.
We and the Iraqi people won.
See ya, dicks.
Fortunately, the vast majority of the people in this country supported President Bush and the war against Saddam. The left screamed foul as loud as they could for months but to no avail. They yacked blood in the streets. They defended Saddam. They even obstructed traffic on the busiest streets in the country and then threw things at police officers that arrested them.
More Kool-Aid, please. And make it the strong stuff this time.
And yet, even now, the "intellectual elite" continues to argue against going over that hill and whacking the sorry sons of bitches who want you and your whole family dead.
The problem, I think, is perception. To some, September 11th is history and we should forget about it and the people who did it. Or, if we do do anything about it, we better just be tending their fields for 'em so they don't get sore at us.
Sorry, kids, not a chance in hell.
For whatever reasons you believe these people hate us, the fact of the matter is that they do. They teach it in their schools, their clerics preach about hatred for the US, and their rich leaders offer money to the poverty riddled families of men who die in attempts to kill us and others who love liberty.
Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, we are at war. This is not a pretend war, it is not an undeclared war, it is a war, with everything bad that comes with it. Just because it is a different kind of war does not make any less of one.
They want us dead and will stop at nothing short of being thrown cold and dead into a shallow grave.
In every war there is a front line. WE have a choice to make. Should the front lines be on their turf, the ones who desire the mass killings of American citizens because we don't fit into their ideal worldview? Or should the front lines be here, in our streets and homes when more terrorists come to knock down our buildings and our way of life as free and independent people?
Should we back off now, they will come and they will continue to come until we go in and end the problem.
This is why I find the debate over the War on Terrorism so insane. To me, the bloodshed will either be here or there. We have the logistic and military capabilities to make the decision where they do not.
What will it be, my friends?
This redneck puts it plain: Let's ride over that hill and end the problem, NOW.
This is the type of complete and utter bullshit I would expect at a college (not that it makes it any better) but at a HIGH SCHOOL?
What amazes the hell out of me about it is that parents of the school district have complained that "the course was an exercise in political correctness." When in the HELL did it become PC to hate your own country? Am I being un-PC by saying "I love America"?
Even more infuriating is the way the superintendent of the school district, Robert Maxfield, defended to course: "You can never teach kids the facts about everything...What you can teach kids is how to recognize points of view, how to understand sources of conflict, how to understand that there are forces that have driven world affairs for hundreds of years."
So a Superintendent said "you can never teach kids the facts about everything." Hmmm...maybe that's your fucking job, pal. Besides, you don't teach kids about recognizing points of view, I'm pretty sure kids can figure that out on their own without your liberal brainwashing. What you need to be doing is teaching kids how to find facts and uncover stuff through research so they can develop their own opinions and views without Indymedia crammed down their thoughts.
And then they wonder why people are getting fed up with the publik schouls.
Since I still hate the Palestinians and have nothing truly profound to talk about with that issue, I think I'll stick to the Civil War stuff for today.
In the comments section of my last post, Susie mentioned that her great-grandfather fought under Brigadier General Richard Brooke Garnett of General George Pickett's Division of the Army of Northern Virginia. Pickett's three brigades (Garnett's, General James Kemper's, and General Lewis Armistead's) that made up three-fifths of the infamous Pickett's Charge that ended the Battle of Gettysburg and turned the tide of the Civil War.
I asked Susie (again, in the comments section) if she had heard the story about the relationship between Garnett and "Stonewall" Jackson. Annika asked for the story so I guess if I MUST, I will (thanks, Annika, you just gave me some writing material for the day!).
Before I get into the friction between Garnett and "Stonewall" (and why this led to Garnett's death two months after Jackson bought the farm), I'll have to tell another story first that is also very interesting.
In 1826, a sixteen year old Irish boy named James Shields immigrated to the United States. He did this because he had been a sailor since he was very young and ended up breaking both his legs in a rigging accident while docked in New York City. Sure that his sailing days were over, the boy decided to stay. He moved west to Illinois and studied law, making the Illinois bar at the age of twenty-one and quickly turned to politics. He soon found himself to be in the state legislature as an ardent Democrat. While in the legislature, Shields bumped heads with a young Whig, Abraham Lincoln.
The two became involved in a heavy fight of rhetoric and before long Shields challenged Lincoln to a duel. Lincoln agreed and one early morning the two met with moderators on a small island in the Mississippi River. Because Shields made the challenge, Lincoln was given the option of choosing weapons. Lincoln chose the broad sword (Shields barely stood five feet tall compared to Lincoln?s frame that easily stood over six feet). Lincoln sat himself down on a fallen tree while Shields and the moderators discussed the terms of the duel. Shields looked over at Lincoln and saw him nonchalantly reach up with broad sword and cut the branch off a nearby tree. Shields quickly decided that the rub between the two was nothing to fight about and the duel was canceled with a shake of the hand. The two became good friends.
Shields went on to fight gallantly in Mexico, being wounded twice and obtaining the rank of brevet major general. Shields resigned from the Army and became Governor of Oregon, an office he quickly left to be a representative in Washington for Illinois. Afterward he was the senator from Minnesota for two years until he moved to California in 1860.
When the war broke out, Shields quickly went to Washington to offer his services to President Abraham Lincoln. He was given a brigade but was commanding a division in the Shenandoah Valley by the time of "Stonewall" Jackson's famous "Valley Campaign." Shields found himself at Winchester when "Stonewall" received faulty intel that a Federal garrison was located there. Jackson moved his" foot cavalry" quickly north through the valley but was confronted by a substantial force of Federals at Kernstown. Although Shields was injured the night before the Battle of Kernstown in preliminary action, his division fought hard and pushed the Rebels back on their front.
So now we get into the Garnett part of the post.
The Battle of Kernstown was the only instance during the Civil War when "Stonewall" was fought to a stalemate by Yankee forces. Jackson was forced to retreat after his left flank pulled back, threatening the collapse of the rest of the Confederate line. The Rebel commander of Jackson's left flank was Richard Garnett. Jackson placed sole blame for the stalemate and retreat on Garnett and called him a "coward" in his official report of the battle. In all fairness to Garnett, he did nothing cowardly because he was to hold the left flank with a small force that quickly found itself overwhelmed and forced to pull back or face annihilation.
This was still a time when honor meant everything, especially to Southern men (hell, they started the damn war because they felt their honor had been soiled). Garnett was personally very hurt and his reputation was damaged even more so when Jackson had him transferred out of his corps to Longstreet's First Infantry Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. Garnett was determined to save his image, which, for the most part, could only be done so if Jackson retracted his statements and praised Garnett. However, Jackson was mortally wounded at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May of 1863 and died a few days later.
With Jackson gone the only way Garnett could rescue his reputation was to do something truly heroic and brave.
In early June of 1863, about a month after Jackson's death, Lee turned his army northward through the Blue Ridge, across the Potomac River, and into Southern Pennsylvania. The Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia locked horns at Gettysburg and for two days slugged away at each other. On the evening of the second day of battle, July 2, 1863, Pickett's Division, the last Rebel unit to reach the field, arrived at Gettysburg.
On the morning of July 3, Lee devised his assault plan for the day. Pickett's fresh division of three brigades would move forward along with two divisions from A.P. Hill's Corps and assault the center of the Union line. The attack would contain about 12,000 men (historians still argue over the exact number) that would be assembled in a line of battle roughly a mile long. The line would move across an open field and span the mile that separated the Confederate position on Seminary Ridge and the Union position on Cemetery Ridge.
Pickett had ordered all officers to walk, not ride, in the assault because an officer on horseback riding before his men on such on open field of fire would be a perfect target. However, a few days before, General Garnett had dismounted his horse and walked behind it. Something spooked the horse and it kicked wildly, hitting Garnett in the knee ("Doh!"). Walking was extremely laborious and painful for him and yet he refused to stay out of any fight, especially the one attack that many thought would end the war. So, he decided to ride.
For him, it was a win, win situation. If he survived, he would do so to great glory. If he died, well, no one could ever call him a coward again.
The assault stepped off and Garnett was on his horse at the front of his brigade as it moved forward. For anyone who knows about this attack, you'll know it was a complete disaster. The Union had control over the surrounding hills and was able to drop cannon fire into the side of the battle lines and the Union position ahead dropped shot into the ranks from the front. A quarter of the Rebels in the assault never made it halfway and less than a quarter of all 12,000 men reached the Union position. Garnett remained mounted until he led a wild charge against a section of the Union line marked by a low stone wall. A round of canister (essentially dozens of round lead balls the size of large grapes shot out of cannon all at once) took care of his search for glory and heroism; he died instantly.
So that's the story of Garnett and his desire to redeem his name. "Pickett's Charge" was a complete folly as almost half of the force sent in never saw the sunrise the next morning. Afterward, Lee retreated from Gettysburg with a quarter of his entire army (about 23,000 men) gone for good. The tide had turned.
Since I have nothing to say today other than "Fuck every last Palestinian," I'll take up Annika's little mention of the Civil War "movie" Gods and Generals.
To be blunt, the movie sucked hard, salty balls.
It's based upon the novel Gods and Generals by Jeff Sharaa who is a good writer, but doesn't come close to being the same caliber as his father, Michael Sharaa, who wrote the best CW novel ever, The Killer Angels. The book itself was decent, but I've long pondered whether the novel was good because of the writing, or because Jeff was the first to take moments I've spent years studying and use it as writing material. Basically, the book could have been good because of the great real life characters and situations Jeff had at his disposal.
The first thing director Ron Maxwell did when he took on this project was to write his own screen adaptation of the book, which, apparently, he did so with the same tools one would use to gut a fish. Granted some material has to be cut out from a book when it goes to the screen for time purposes, but Maxwell seemed to chop with less expertise than a blind, retarded butcher. This, in turn, made the storyline very choppy and uninteresting. There was no great level of character development (except for Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson, but more on that asshole later) as if Maxwell expected everyone who saw the film to already to know who the characters were.
The movie was real touch-and-go when it came to historical accuracy. At times everything was flawless and at others I'm sure it made a twelve year-old spit out his pop and say, "Yeah right! That never happened!" The uniforms, the weaponry and the general dialogue and depiction of army life were fairly well done. But there were other (bigger) things that lacked greatly.
I read a very longwinded article in Civil War Illustrated Magazine a month before the movie hit theaters about the production of the film. It yarned on and on about how much work went into finding locals to film the pictures that has no power lines, silos, or nearby traffic. Three letters for you, Ron, C-G-I. For anyone who has seen the movie Gettysburg, Maxwell's other Civil War flick based on The Killer Angels, Ron's "old fashioned" directing style shows up a few times in that film and is very obvious in Gods and Generals. And when I say "old fashioned" directing style, it is NOT meant as a term of endearment.
Towards the end of the Battle of Gettysburg was the infamous Pickett's Charge. This would have been an awe inspiring scene as almost 12,000 Rebels charged across a mile of open ground in a line of battle that stretched over a mile long toward the Yankee breastworks on Cemetery Ridge. This had true potential to be a great cinematic moment. However, Ron didn't have enough reenactors on hand to film the whole panorama so he just used about two thousand and shot at an angle so only part of the charge was shown.
I say all that because there were several moments in Gods and Generals where Ron did the same thing. The battles of Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville could all have been very wonderful had the director hired a nerdy computer guy to handle it. Instead Ron stuck with what he had (except he was able to allow a CGI dude to make renditions of the town of Fredericksburg from the time period and even then it wasn't very impressive.)
The movie The Patriot did a great job with CGI to make the battle scenes look as epic and as real as could be (despite THAT movie's terrible historical accuracy). Had Ron gone that route he could have made a lot of the scenes much, much better.
And now for historical inaccuracies.
The worst part of the whole film, and the center of the film, was the portrayal of "Stonewall" Jackson. Look, folks, I know you people down South think he was great and all but face it, the guy was a complete nut job. The movie makes a big deal about how religious he was. This was very true, but he was so religious that he was an all out Christian zealot. In the film he gives a little speech to James Ewell Brown Stuart ("Jeb") about how if the Confederacy was to win the war they should just kill every Yankee and take no prisoners because this would bring the cost of war up for them so much that they would quite. In reality, "Stonewall" honestly believed that the more Yankees he killed the happier God would be with him. So, he tried to slaughter them to secure a place in Heaven. Hello?! Osama of the 1860's?
Another part that probably no one noticed, but it bugged the hell out me, was the scene when Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Chamberlain is being trained as an officer by Colonel Albert Ames. Chamberlain is leading the 20th Maine Infantry Regiment through drill with Ames supervising. Mind you that when the 20th was mustered into service there was 976 men on the rolls, and yet Chamberlain is barely drilling a squad of like twelve Blue Bellies.
In short, the movie was written terribly, poorly directed. It lacked the great story that should have been a given considering the topic. The direction was awful in even the seemingly most obvious ways.
Nonetheless, I own the DVD. Why? I dunno, because it's CW I guess. I CAN guarantee you that I won't be watching it very often.
The word is out that Ron Maxwell is in the prep stage for his next CW film, The Last Full Measure, also baed on the book by Jeff Sharaa. I honestly hope he learns from his mistakes. After all, Ted Turner lost like $190 million through the whole Gods and Generals ordeal so maybe he'll call a few more shots this time around.
ONE bomb goes off at a United Nations building in Baghdad and now they're evacuating.
I guess the French really have seized control of the UN.
Imagine would have happened had we NOT told the UN to piss up a rope and instead let them handle all this.
I shudder at the thought.
As for the UN, is there any way we can get them to evacuate OUR country?
View image
So Tuesday Mr. FUBAR got up and gave a speech. He's a typical lib, which means everything is either America's fault or the right's fault. He used his fourth grade speaking skills to blame the Republicans for everything and then proceeded to put on sunglasses and dance the Macarena.
"This recall is bigger than California. What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort by Republicans to steal elections they cannot win..."
What, you think this is a coupe or something? It's called a re-election, as in people vote. Strange how that works, huh?
"There are many reasons to be against this recall..."
None that I can think of.
"...it is expensive,"
But not as expensive as it will be to KEEP you in office, sir.
"...undemocratic,"
You lefties don't even know what that word means, bunch socialist cluster-fuckers.
"...a bad precedent, and almost certainly will breed more recalls."
Only as they are required, which, I might add, is VERY democratic!
"The Republicans behind the recall say they want you to vote me out because of past mistakes. But they don't give a rip about past mistakes -- they want power for the future, and with so many candidates, they think they can get it with the support of a tiny fraction of California voters."
Hmmmmm, Kool Aid is goooood!
You're half right, we DO want power for the future to keep past mistakes likes YOURS from happening again!
"The Republicans say this recall is about the problems of the past. We're getting over them. California didn't go dark, we have a budget, our schools are getting better and our economy will come back."
This guy's on some kinda serious acid trip here, folks. Three things: 1. You DON'T have a budget. 2. Your schools are some of the worst in the nation. 3. The economy WILL come back as soon as you're gone and businessmen and women aren't afraid of Cali taxes anymore.
"But this right-wing power grab is something we won't get over. It would do lasting damage to our state, our environment, and the fabric of our democracy."
I know I'm the worst governor EVER, but that doesn't matter. Getting rid of me is the worst thing you could ever, ever do!
"I know that many of you feel that I was slow to act on the energy crisis. I got the message... That's a fair criticism. I played the hand that was dealt me the best I know how."
Which wasn't. Fucking. Good. Enough. Bitch.
You just admitted that you suck because you can't handle it. Why don't you do the best thing you can for the state you say you love so much and have a few drinks before you drive home?
"I'm not happy with the budget that I signed recently. No one is. I said it then and I'll repeat it now."
I suck so bad not even I can stand it!
"But as everyone considers how we got here, let's put our situation in perspective. The American economy has tanked, losing jobs and going from record surpluses to record deficits. Forty-six other states are in a similar situation..."
So please, please, please, please, let me stay in because everyone else sucks too!
"Yes, I could have been tougher in holding the line on spending when we had surpluses. But, let's be clear, most of the increases on my watch went to schools and health care. I make no apologies for that."
No, if you'll excuse me, I have some special interest cock to suck before I leave.
What about Australia, huh? Talk about the off-the-bench-guy how plays a hell of game when least expected. When The Buildup™ first began I didn't think the Australians would have our back so much when so called "friends" like France, Russia and Germany copped out over oil.
Seems kinda funny that America, Britain, and Australia stand firmly together over this terrorist shit. Like the Anglo-Alliance or something. I guess we had 9/11, the Aussies had the Bali Bombings, and the English (or at least Blair) are smart enough to know it could be them at any time.
UPDATE: Here's a great quote from an Aussie at the BBC "Have Your Say" Forum.
I am all for peace keeping, where that means helping people to help themselves. International peace keeping is like having a mediator in a workplace dispute; it provides a framework in which problems can be resolved. To suggest that problems abroad are not any of our business is rather ostrich-like; "Do not send for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee." As for the place of the UN in peace keeping, I am rather more ambivalent. Having the UN's approval does not make an immoral act right, and lacking such approval does not make a moral act wrong. The UN is simply a way to help nations to cooperate. To suggest that to act outside of the UN is illegitimate is to miss the point. The UN gains its legitimacy from the legitimacy of its constituent states; they do not gain their legitimacy from the UN.Bernard Jones, Hobart, Australia
The mother of one of the towel-headed fuck weasels held at Gitmo has sent her message loud and clear: "Keep the bastard!"
I sure am glad somebody in the world knows how to get these Islamofacist terrorists and set a date for execution BEFORE I turn 80.
So there's another sniper who ain't fuckin' around in the east. Of course, the police are baffled as to they're looking for. Is this more jihad crap? Or just a scumbag with a gun and no brain?
Check for that towel when you catch him. Not saying that's the case, but I wouldn't be surprised.
It appears as though Arnie is ready to debate. I think this will be the tell tale moment as to who will rally behind him.
Is he a true blue conservative?
Or just another Rhino- a liberal in con robbing.
The main problem us historians have with analyzing the past is mistakes some have made when documenting history as it happened.
Take, for example, William Tecumseh Sherman's famous quote of "War is Hell."
That is not what he said! I know this because I've spent a great deal of time studying the man, his career, and his personality.
What he really said was:
"War is all fucking hell breaking loose. And I'd give my left nut to do it again!"
And so, it is in the spirit of our great war heroes of the past that I now take up arms against the Funkypundit's strangle hold on the Blogosphere.
This is our time to make history! Our time to stand up and say we will not go quietly into the night! We will not give up without a fight! And we will bash the skull in of anyone who gets in our way! I ask that all of you blog-freedom loving people join the army and fight for your rights!
And afterward, it's whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses!
Ann Coulter's newest column is superb. I had been thinking the same thing but she put it better than I ever could have. The basis is that Cali has been the Democratic Party's little testing Guinea Pig and now the little rodent is dead of all things bad. Way too go, Davis (and the Dems), for such great economic and tax policies. Now just try and imagine the entire nation under this type of complete Dem governance.
During the deliberations at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, where the Founding Fathers penned the United States Constitution, a serious questions was raised: If each state got one vote in the national legislature, how can a state the size of Connecticut or Rhode Island have the exact same amount of power as a state the size of Virginia, Pennsylvania, or even the Carolinas?
Benjamin Franklin, who, although very aged, had been given aides to keep him out of the pubs and yucking it up with women thereby spilling the beans on everything going on at the convention, leaned forward and made a profound suggestion. He proposed that there be a two-house legislature whereby each state would get the equal amount of votes in one house and in the other voting power would be relative to the states population. Thus, the Senate and the House of Representatives were created as the make up for the US Congress.
What about the EU?
The EU does not have a two-house legislature despite the major differential in the size of the different countries that are its make up. The question of who gets what amount of power hasn't come up yet across the pond, but I imagine it eventually will, and when it does, look out.
The reason we have a two-house legislature is to guard from both a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of the minority. Things could heat up in the EU very soon and it could very easily draw another parallel between EU history and US history.
Take the Civil War (yes, I know, I brought up that war again on my blog), for example. When the United States was established it was done so with very strong state governments. The rub as to who had the say in what happened between the state governments and the national government happened from 1775 all the way to 1861 when the country tore itself apart and went to war. Although it was a military war, it was also a political war as to who would have the final mantle of power, the states or the feds. In the end the North won and national power increased as state power decreased. It was the only way the country could continue to survive as one cohesive unit.
Again, what about the EU?
This is problem that is far off on the horizon for the Euros, but it could easily hit warp speed at any time and fly into the faces of EU authorities.
During the years before the Civil War, whenever the national government tried to get a state to do something it didn't like the state could easily scream "sovereignty!" and be done with it. Suppose the central authority of the EU tries to tell France, Germany, or even Poland or Denmark to do something it doesn?t want to do? "SOVEREIGNTY!"
Believe me, it is very possible for the EU to eventually find itself in its own civil war as countries try to break away from the union once they find it no longer advantageous to them. The EU central authority will have to respond because if it allows countries to break away at will their relevance and authority will be null and void. This could take decades or even a century, but it is very, very possible and probable.
Think I'm nuts? I don't blame you. Hell, my dog has just recently started to ignore me because my wailings for "less taxes" to him perplexes his furry head to no end. But, seriously, look at history. As late as 1840 no one thought war was possible and that all was needed was greater attention to diplomacy. Twenty years later over 600,000 men were dead in American fields.
To the profound thinker (trust me, I'm not one of you), it becomes somewhat apparent that the US had to fight a war against it's own people to preserve the country and that that was the right thing to do and yet we can ponder whether it would be right for the EU central authority to wage war against an EU country should it attempt to secede. Many will say right off the bat that the South in 1861 had slavery and that countries in EU do not so there won't be the same problems. However, the war was not so much over slavery as much as it was over whether or not the national government had the right to tell the South what the South could and could not have. Suppose the EU begins to tell Italy, Portugal, or Denmark that it can't do this or it can't do that and the said country gets royally pissed and wants nothing to do with EU power any longer?
This begins to take us down a separate line of questioning and thinking. Should the said country be allowed to leave? Should the EU be allowed to try and stop it, possibly even militarily? Where will the US stand when the entire continent of Europe falls into a total state of war (Oh God, not again!)? And morally speaking, if it is decided that any country should be allowed to leave the EU whenever it desires, why, then, was it okay for the national government of the United States to pursue war to keep states from leaving the Union?
Although I've raised this question myself, all I can answer is this: I grew up in post-Civil War America and admire it greatly for what it has become. I've written briefly before about what could have happened to this land had the North lost the war and I can only speculate as to what could and what could not happen in Europe.
Either way, I see it to be a strong possibility that Europe could find itself damaged and in serious reconstruction in the future with the US left to pick up the pieces. Whether the EU wins my hypothetical war it will need reconstruction the same the US did after 1865. And should the EU break apart and completely dissolve I can't even begin to speculate what kind of major shift this will have in global politics forever.
A lot of people in the Blogoshpere have been very vocal in the belief that Fox News is acting silly by filing the suit against Al Franken for copyright infringement.
Personally, I think Fox is doing the right thing.
Critics of Fox's actions say that the suit is silly and that it only gives free publicity to Franken. Not so. Franken has plenty of media coverage since he is the darling of the liberal media machine. With or without Fox's suit, Franken will get all the support in the world regardless. Franken's last book of the sort, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, sold very, very well without a suit to pump up publicity.
I believe that Fox is right for taking the case against Franken because Al's motif is straight out slander. The liberal media (and liberals in general) have been slandering the right unfairly for years. This is a classic example.
Now, I'm not saying that Fox is part of the right because I truly believe that Fox truly is fair and balanced because you actually have shows like Hannity & Comes and several other programs that bring in both sides, not just guests who agree with the host. Even on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill brings in guests that disagree with him for debate almost as a matter of principle.
Anyways, here is a scenario where a left wing kook is slandering the trademark and name of the number one news organization in the country because it isn't a lefty orgy and people here on the right are way too quick to denounce Fox.
What gives?
Here is an organization that is standing up to this bullshit by taking it before the court and the right thinks it's all hogwash.
What the fuck?
Where does it end? Where do we draw the line against slander, from either side, but especially from the left to whom we have been whining "foul" to for years?
I hope Fox wins this lawsuit and scores a major case for copyright infringement and slander.
All right, so I just got this whole VRWC, Inc thingy up and going not too long ago but now I'm in a dilemma.
Very soon I am going to be the senior political editor at new newspaper that is being started in my town. I want to change my blog to bring in readers as well as keep the wonderful crew of friends I have here.
The deal is that the town I am in has been a very Democratically controlled neighborhood for years. The main problem is that the town is soaked in liberal ideology. Basically we have two newspapers in town; the first is very liberal and altogether worthless and the second one started up years back because it felt the first one wasn't liberal enough.
AAARRGGHHH!
So this new deal will start out small by being handed out in bars and shops and what not until a readership develops and we get a few advertisers on board. Our goal is to provide a balanced view and by balanced I mean that. One of the other writers is liberal and we are on very good terms with each other and have promised to be very fair and allow the people to decide.
My personal mission is to be conservative, but not a right-wing nut right off the bat. I want to use cool logic and a little bit of humor that is my writing style.
To get to the meat of this post, the point is that the VRWC motif has got to go.
Not that I am not a devoted member, it will just work out for the best. The reason is that if there are people out there who really don't understand politics but consider themselves liberal and believe the media that all cons are worthless kooks the chances of them getting to spend any time at a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy website will be tough and I'll just be shooting myself in the foot when it comes to brining people over (because this must happen slowly).
So I want to change my site to James Finch.com. My writing here will be the same, I'll just drop the in your face title and allow my writing to be the message, not the web address or a (super cool) banner.
Thus is my problem.
Stuff like FTP and IP addresses to me are like learning calculus in Greek, only backward. Misha was kind enough to set up this whole boat for me, for which I will be forever indebted to his Empire. But I won't ask him again to redo everything after he killed an entire day of his back in June to set this up. So I need help. I don't really need someone to do what Misha did. Instead I need someone to guide me through the process, even if it takes a while through a string of e-mails.
Web gurus act like such a task is as easy as cake, but to I'm powerless.
This is asking a lot for me, but maybe not to someone reading this. So, please, help me!!!
Also, if any one has any suggestions about how to attack the liberal crowd and create converts, I'm all ears. I know what I'm doing, but extra advice always helps.
*Gray Davis - I quit carring once it was official that a recall vote was happening and I after I posted my take on Ah-nold.
*Kobe - I find myself not caring.
*Al Franken - The guy's a left-wing kook. This isn't new.
*Heat waves.
*Smokey the Bears' career go up in smoke...literally.
What can I say, this is totally unimportant to me. *Sigh* Yes, I understand that it is important to things in some manner but I don't care.
So it is late and all the little people of the world have gone to bed for the night. I'm out here on the www for the first time it what seems like ages (when you're used to getting news via the internet before cable even mentions it, a few days from the CP can seem like years).
This whole Ah-nold thing has been the talk of the times though know, huh? I still haven't made my mind up on him yet. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's a Republican, yadda, yadda, yadda.
To me, being a Republican means jack-shit. I'm a conservative and I vote conservative. Mostly that means I vote Republican because that's where the cons are. But Arnold isn't as conservative as you'd think. He is a fiscal conservative, which is very, very good for Cali, but his agenda for social programs makes me wonder if he's going to tear off his skin to reveal Jimmy Carter saying, "Golly, guys, I'm back!"
In his speech when he went to pick up his papers he already went ahead and invoked the cause of "the children." He's been very active on lobbying for more gun restrictions, and he wants to help the "poor" by working in extra money.
Ah-nold proves that there really is no "compromise" when it comes to the left and right. The left sees it their way and refuse to budge and us on the right are the same. Essentially, to me, by compromising my position with a little bit of lefty policy is like allowing fungus and mildew to grow on my new stuff; why would you let that happen? There's is no doubt the left sees it the same way.
Not to mention the political game this can have on a middle-of-the-roader. Righties hate lefties, lefties hate righties, lefties and righties hate the middle. Just look at Joe Lieberman. I'm sure he's a great guy but he's still way to lefty for me and he's even despised by post of the left as well.
Getting back to Arnold (notice I've gone the whole post without bothering to type his last name), perhaps his fiscal conservatism will keep him from dumping money into social programs. Or maybe it'll only keep him from doing so until there's enough money in the Cali coffers.
Like I said, I haven't made up my mind yet.
BTW, if you haven't seen SWAT yet, do so! There's a great scene where an LAPD officer (played by LL Cool J) chases down a criminal and tackles him and then proceeds to cuff him and throw him in a car. A black lady standing across the street starts to yell at the cop, "Don't you have something better to do than throw more brothers in jail? You're just keeping the cycle going!" To which LL responded by saying, "Yeah, we'll see how liberal you are when he's breaking into your home!"
Sorry about the light posting lately, folks. They switched me to a different shift at work to handle a problem and it's taking some getting used to. Also, I've decided to give myself an iron ass and finish this book I've been writing.
This is not permanent, and I'm not taking a break or anything. Things will just be light for awhile. Annie, if you're reading you are more than free to post at your leisure when you have the opportunity.
For me blogging while be light, but existent, for a short while.
Sorry, kids.
So I moved into a two-story farm house on Friday. Nestled in the rolling hills of northern Illinois, it is everything you want in a country home; huge yard, stream through the back 40, plenty of large trees and a pit to make bon fires. The house itself is older than time it seems.
While cleaning out some junk that was left in the canning room I found a dusty and faded old flag that only had 48 stars. I wondered how long it had been down there since we moved from 48 states to 50 in 1959. Needless to say I dusted it and hung it out off the front porch (the new house doesn't have a flag pole and I'm going to wait to put my 50 star flag and my state flag up until I get that in next week).
I've commented on this before, but it amazes me how great an American flag can still look when it's old and faded like that. When I get my flags up, I plan on taking that old one and frame it to be hung right next to the painting of George Washington in the VRWC, Inc CENTCOM office.
This situation reminded me of another flag finding I was involved in two years ago. While helping an elderly lady who was a family friend clean out some old stuff in her basement another flag was found, this one much older. The house this lady was living in was built in the 1850's and had been passed down through the family over the years. In the corner of the basement underneath a pile of junk was an old solid oak chest. It looked as though it hadn't been opened in decades. There was an old rusted lock on it that I had to use a crowbar to break off. Inside was something truly amazing.
From just looking in the chest I could tell it was a large piece of cloth that, although very dusty, was almost a blood red with a blue strip running across it with white stars. I pulled it out and the unfolded it. It was humungous, taking up almost half the entire basement. There were a dozen or so bullet holes in it at random points.
It was a real Confederate flag.
I checked with the lady whose eyes lit up when I told her about it. She told me she thought that thing had been lost years ago when she was young. It was the battle flag of a Confederate unit that had been captured by a regiment of Union infantry from their home town of Freeport, Illinois, which is where this woman's farm house was. The flag had been pretty fresh when it was captured and was brought back home and packed up for safe keeping and had been in that chest ever since.
Most historians go their entire life hoping to make a find like that and I made mine at 21.
I took the flag outside and opened it up in the yard. It still amazes me how large that flag was and the wonderful shape it was in. We took some brooms and dusted the thing off and later that afternoon we folded it up and I took it down to the local memorial hall for donation.
It hangs there today in a large frame with a plaque:
Confederate States of America Regimental Battle Flag. Captured by the 11th Illinois Infantry Regiment. Shiloh - April 7, 1862.Posted by James at 02:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
BTW, my dish provider did me a wonderful favor today by hiring the biggest moron on the planet for me to have switch over my service to a new address. Thanks so much!
Associate: Hello and thank you for calling *company name withheld*, how may I help you today.
James: Yeah, I moved yesterday to a new address that already has a *company name withheld* dish installed and I have my receiver with me. Can you just switch over service and billing to my new place?
*pause*
Associate: Can you repeat that?
*James repeats everything*
Associate: Well for the low price of $29.95 we can send a technician out to your house to install a new dish, which we will ship to you tomorrow, and get you all set. Would you like to schedule an appointment right now?
James: Well, there's already a dish installed here.
Associate: Did you install it? Because you can just leave your dish at your old place and we'll install a brand new one for you.
James: I did; there's already a dish here.
Associate: How did it get there?
James: The people here before had your service.
Associate: Really?
James: Yeah, imagine that.
Associate: So you don't need a new dish?
James: No, I think I'll be okay. I just need the service switched over.
And on, and on, and on.....
Let them hate, as long as they fear.
PALMDALE - With a light show worthy of a rock concert, the latest star in the Air Force's arsenal was unveiled Friday with the rollout of the first production-model Global Hawk. The Northrop Grumman hangar at Air Force Plant 42 was filled with dignitaries and employees to cheer the bulbous, grey-and-white unmanned vehicle.
Like the Wright Flyer did 100 years ago, "Global Hawk will lead the way in another revolution in aviation - unmanned systems," said Scott Seymour, corporate vice president and president, Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems. The futuristic-looking aircraft is a high-altitude, long-endurance, unmanned aerial reconnaissance system designed to provide battlefield commanders with high-resolution, near-real-time imagery of large geographic areas. Operating autonomously, it is capable of flying to 65,000 feet with a range of 14,000 miles and a flight endurance of 40 hours.While the craft unveiled Friday is the first production model, the Global Hawk has already proven its worth in operations over Afghanistan and Iraq using the developmental versions. "It's the first production unit, and yet it's been in combat twice already," Seymour said.
Of the aircraft's 3,000 flight hours, half were logged during combat. "Our experience in Operation Iraqi Freedom really validates the Air Force's confidence in the Global Hawk system," said Col. G. Scott Coale, Global Hawk program director.
One demonstrator was used to fly 3% of the intelligence imagining missions over Iraq, accounting for 55% of the time-sensitive targets identified, he said.
"This experience in Iraq really demonstrates the potential of Global Hawk to transform the way we do fighting," he said. "It really is an impressive accomplishment."It is the first time a developmental aircraft has been used operationally, before the production version.This allowed for "lessons learned" in real-world use to be incorporated in the production version, before it came off the assembly line. "This is a tremendous opportunity," said Carl Johnson, Northrop Grumman vice president and Global Hawk program manager. "They (the Air Force) get to say what they want ahead of time." Some of those modifications will be incorporated in the production aircraft during its stay in the test fleet at Edwards Air Force Base.
"What is really exciting in this program is we haven't even fielded this hardware, but we already have experience that we are incorporating," Coale said. "We'll be having a better system when we field it." The aircraft will depart for Edwards later this month. After four to six months of testing, it will be delivered to the new operational squadron at Beale AFB, near Sacramento.
A second Global Hawk is expected to be delivered to the Air Force by the end of the year, with two more in late 2004 or early 2005. Eventually, 50 of the planes will be produced for the Air Force. While virtually identical to the concept demonstrators, the newest version is more robust than its predecessors with greater capabilities developed based on operational use. It also has the capability to support future changes to the sensors on board.
The production craft are also produced under more stringent oversight and with more standardized procedures than their developmental brethren, Johnson said.
Global Hawk is built by Northrop Grumman, with final assembly at its facility at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, and has conducted flight test activities at Edwards Air Force Base since 1997.Seven developmental Hawks were built and delivered to the test fleet at Edwards prior to the advent of the production model. Three of these concept demonstrators have been lost, one during a test flight out of Edwards and two over Afghanistan. The remaining four concept demonstrators will continue to be used for further developments to the system, as well as demonstrations for other uses. The next milestone of Global Hawk production will be the introduction of the B-model.
This next version will be able to carry 3,000 pounds of payload, as opposed to the 2,000-pound capability of the A-model, and have a larger airframe, with the wingspan increased from 116 to 131 feet. The first B-model - the 10th production craft overall - is expected to take its first flight sometime in late 2005. Northrop Grumman also has a contract to produce two Hawks for the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Coast Guard is also looking at Global Hawk for its maritime surveillance duties.
Allies, such as Australia and Germany, have also expressed interest in the planes for their uses. "This could potentially be a very major production program for the Antelope Valley," Johnson said.
Although the current Air Force contract calls for production of about seven aircraft a year, the manufacturing center is capable of producing up to 24 annually, he said.
FUCK FRANCE!!!!
No, just kidding. That's not the announcement (although it sure feels good to say it out loud. Go on, try it. Come on! Do it ya pussy! Say it!! See, there you go. Feel better?)
This is the actual announcement:
Travel Advisory: California
For those planning a trip to the People's Republic of Kalifornia within the near future, please adhere to the following notes and advice for your safety and that of your family and/or friends.
The United States of American began its life in 1775 on the east coast of the North American continent. Through the years the United States expanded westward. California, however, started on its west coast and expanded east. In an essence, it evolved bass ackward.
During the Gold Rush of the late 1840's, thousands of people who wanted money for nothing flooded the land and never left. Their ancestors are still there today and still want money for nothing. Hence, the popularity of socialist programs in the state.
During the 1960's a disease ravaged the state and left many a citizen clueless in the ways of government and economics. While those of us on the outside can easily clarify and categorize it as a disease, the people in the state do not see it that way and actually take great offense when pointed out as such. The disease is known in common medical circles as Liberalism.
California is the epicenter of the movie and television market. It is here that almost all of the world's movies and television shows are created. While visiting you may like to tour some of the studios, which can be truly remarkable to see the production up close. However, because this is where everything is made a good portion of the people in the entertainment business call the state their home. Remember, actors and actresses make a living memorizing and reading scripts while pretending that they care. Because of this, and because they too have the disease, they will try and perform scripts given to them by the Socialist World Party (a group who champions this disease) to you at every turn. Please, do not feed or argue with them; nothing good will come of it.
There are those within the state who are free of the illness and have developed a natural immunity to it. These are the only people we advise you discuss politics with. Yet, these people are few and far between so tread lightly.
Should you decide to visit, please remember that the illness in the state seems to be genetic and is passed down. However, this does not mean that it is not contagious to a visitor over a period of long exposure. Should a Kali-ite begin rambling socialist rants at you, please DO NOT cover your ears and yell, "Lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!" because this is the Cali mating call and the diseased will probably try and hump you instead. Rather, engage in stating facts while quickly looking for a fast exit route. Do not try to be a hero and attempt to convert anybody. The success rate of curing the diseased in Cali is 0.000012%. Do not attempt unless you are a highly trained professional. Otherwise you are putting yourself at risk.
With a careful handling of the diseased, a trip to California can be wonderful. Most people who visit Cali make good use of the secluded beaches because that is the only place one can truly unwind. So, in short, by being prepared and equipped with the proper knowledge, one cane easily venture through the state and enjoy what's left of the beautiful land before the state government collapses and the people ravage it in search of food and normal people to project their faults on.
So I didn't blog yesterday because me, the wife, and the little soldier moved into a wonderful two story farm house. We began packing a little over a week and ago and then stayed up until almost 4am Friday morning packing the last of the stuff up. We got some sleep and then got up around 9 to start moving.
We loaded the first truck and out it went at quarter to ten. The stream was constant of trips back forth until we left the old place with the last load at 1:30am this morning. Was in bed at 3 and got up at 7 to meet the old landlord and get the deposit back. Got home around 8 and worked on unpacking until around noon. With the gas not hooked up yet at the new place until tomorrow I had to drive to my in-laws to shower for work at 2. Half way there the car died.
Fuck.
Called the wife and called work to tell them I'll be late. Wife picked me up, got a shower at was at work by 2:30. I'm here now and will get off at 10 so I can go home and unpack more stuff.
I have. Too. Much. Shit.
My head hurts, my back hurts, I'm cranky as all hell and the FUCKING JANITOR IS VACUMING NEXT TO MY DESK!!!
Maybe another Starbucks frappuccino (11 today) and a Camel Red will help. I'm off to find out. I'll probably blog more today; it could be good since I'm in such a shitty mood. Ah well, we'll see.