Posts Tagged ‘Carrie’

WTF, Olbermann?

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

Keith Olbermann tonight added a new feature to his Countdown show: WTF?

I mean, it’s called The WTF!?! Moment.

For the debut, he readdressed Carrie Prejean’s tragically famous emesis and her claim to “free speech.”

Some excerpts:

It’s no longer about her opinion, it’s about her.

God and Satan battling it out for the future of freedom of speech…

Where were God and Satan when you posed in your panties when you were a teenager?

Satan’s Wind!

You were not exercising freedom of speech during the pageant. You were an employee of usa inc, or donald trump inc, … the pageant people have the right to take that right away from you at any moment.

Cites First Amendment.

Clues Prejean in on the fact that employers don’t have to honor freedom of speech.

“I was punished for doing so.”

How exactly were you punished?

She assumed she didn’t win the pageant because of her answer.

Wah.

WTF!?!

The end.

Hope I captured the moment there. Prejean is definitely a good target for the WTF moment. As good as Ben Stein, but much better looking. Right? I mean, if you like viciously ambitious, Christian fundamentalist, artificially enhanced, mindless, hypocritical sellout walking vaginas. I think I’d rather screw one of those Japanese cans with lips things.

Carrie Prejean is Wet

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

Carrie Prejean really is Miss USA. She is a roving social microcosm of America – right down from her narrow mentality to her capped teeth and breast implants. She exemplifies what makes the USA so great.

Better yet, Carrie Prejean is a hypocrite, which makes her excessively American. She mindlessly espouses being a Christian without having any real clue about what it means to be a Christian. The Christian brand has become so muddled that the marketing of it is a bit tricky. You have to stick a wet finger in the air to see which way Jesus blows today. Speaking of wet fingers, Carrie, who was afraid she didn’t have the assets to become Miss USA and subsequently sought external funding to increase her asset base, wasn’t too ashamed of her pre-adulterated temple such that she had somebody take photos of her unadorned self. Still, there were improvements that could be made.

Maybe Carrie was following the adage of “God helps those who help themselves”. Her tributes to God were not of silver and gold resting at the steps of a local place of worship, but instead Carrie used silver and gold to adorn herself since every man’s (or woman’s) body is a temple. Why not carry around the tribute for the rest of her life instead of dumping it some place where no one can see it? That’s our Carrie!

Of course, hypocrisy knows no bounds. Even having many examples walk across the stage before her, Carrie threw caution to the wind and casually forgot that she had already exposed herself to the cameras before her appearance as Miss California USA. She decided to ask for help in building her tribute. Californians (or in this case at least a few), so ready and willing to help Carrie become the model California woman, cheerily gave up their gold and silver in order to help her build the tribute necessary to appease her god. After the revelations of nude photos, those few Californians who chipped in to increase Carrie’s assets have now decided that she didn’t properly represent the Miss California USA pageant and they may strip her of her title. Really now, can American hypocrisy get any better than this?

California has its panties in a twist right now. A majority of them voted to make it illegal for same-sex couples to marry, so Carrie’s wet-finger-in-the-air told her to state the popular conservative Christian response that gays can’t marry, but she didn’t realize that Jesus was blowing from different directions the day the nude photos were revealed. Ah, Carrie, when you wet your finger your mind is in another place, I know. It happens.

Carrie’s actions represent the best of hypocritical America, and her mind represents the worst of a marginalized America. So, I hereby proudly announce that Carrie Prejean is Miss USA 2009!

Protest to take Tamil Tigers off Terrorist List

Friday, February 20th, 2009

There was a marching protest today in front of the White House where activists shouted out for President Obama to “help us”; meaning to take the Tamil Tigers off the terrorist list.

The Tamil Tigers, according to Wikipedia:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, Tamil: தமிழழவிடுதலைப்புலிகள் ISO 15919: tamiḻ iiḻa viṭutalaip pulikaḷ), commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, is a militant terrorist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign since the 1970s to secede from the Sri Lankan state in order to create a separate Tamil state in the north and east of the island. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War, one of longest running armed conflicts in Asia. Due to the tactics employed by the Tamil Tigers, including the extensive use of suicide bombing and their recruitment of child soldiers, they are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries. The Tamil Tigers are headed by their founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

The Tamil Tigers are notorious for their well-developed militia cadre, atrocities against Muslim and Sinhalese civilians, and high profile attacks, such as the assassination of several high ranking Sri Lankan politicians, and the former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. They also have the distinction of introducing suicide bombings as a tactic, and have carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined. The LTTE have repeatedly been accused of recruiting child soldiers. The LTTE are the only rebel organization with aircraft.

In January 2009, Canada and the EU notably refused to take the group off its terrorist list, even while the EU agreed to remove the Mujahideen Organization of Iran. The U.S. has had the Tamil Tigers on its terrorist list since the 1990s.

European states agreed on Monday to remove exiled Iranian opposition group the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) from an EU list of banned terrorist groups, an EU official said.

The official confirmed that EU foreign ministers approved a decision to take it off a list that includes Palestinian Hamas and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers.

The PMOI is the group which exposed Iran’s covert nuclear program in 2002. It began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran and has bases in Iraq.1

Waving today in the march were the flags of the U.S. and Canada, among others.

(link to short video clips of part of the procession)
Tamil Tiger Protest

tamil2

tamil3

tamil4

(Thanks to sanhedrin and waxpoet at Reddit for corrections/suggestions)

  1. http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3661977,00.html [<]

The Huxtables … err The Obamas as First Family

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

We have finally arrived.

Heathcliff and Clair Huxtable have changed their address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Virtually. A generation of American youth, either in the first-runs or in re-runs, have become familiar and comfortable with The Huxtables. Americans grew to accept and appreciate the young, educated, professional, sharp, witty, smart, sassy, eloquent, thoughtful and persistently classy black couple who owned a home in Brooklyn filled with black children who were on their way to being much like their parents in class and character.

While there were many factors leading to the day that Barack and Michelle Obama entered the White House, Cliff and Clair certainly paved the way for mainstream America (white folk) to accept and appreciate a young, educated, professional, sharp, witty, smart, sassy, eloquent, thoughtful and persistently classy black couple to run main street for at least 4 years. The only real difference is that instead of a physician and a lawyer, they are both lawyers. Well, Barack and Michelle are also not virtual — they are real.

It is at this time, in particular, that I reflect on the days following September 11, 2001. For the terrorist attacks that were horrific and unthinkable to America on September 10, became a shared reality for the rest of the world soon afterward. The landscape had literally and figuratively changed. Something astonishing for me was to see that other nations that had no particular reason to share in our grief, did so openly. It was deeply moving to see other nations fly the American flag over their proud capitols and to blast our national anthem over the crowds on their streets and public squares. The citizens of many nations sang a song with words that they couldn’t understand. Whatever animosity, jealousy or disdain may have existed for America on September 10, all was forgiven and nearly erased on September 12. I often thought, would America fly the flag of another nation or blast another nation’s national anthem to show empathy and brotherhood with our fellow mankind? While we could (and have) shown all manner of support to another nation in distress, certain actions are off limits. They are unthinkable. We are the parent nation of the world, or at least we think we are. Parents command respect, but do they always deserve it?

Unfortunately, instead of capitalizing on the goodwill of the world and expanding it, the President of the day engaged in a series of hideous mistakes that not only erased all the goodwill that had been given in just one day, but spent, in advance, much of the goodwill that could be earned for many years to come. Some disjointed version of The Bunkers had taken up residence in the white-washed building across from Lafayette Square. The worst of the neo-cons were in parentage of the world. Respect was replaced with disdain, hate and fear.

So, here we are today replacing The Bunkers with The Huxtables. One virtual family that served as a lightning rod of American culture and counter-culture superseded by another family that has among the best of qualities deemed appropriate and appreciable by any respectable family in America. The virtual black family that once lived next to Archie has moved on up farther than the East Side — a real black family is moving into a house that once was operated by slaves.

On that late Tuesday evening in November, many nations around the world passed a collective sigh of relief that another newly minted neo-con lost to Cliff Huxtable. More importantly, some measure of respect and admiration was restored to America, if not for choosing a different political path but for also choosing a different social path. By some measure, the outpouring of grief and empathy of seven years ago was renewed and morphed into amazement and joy that a black man could be running the most important office in the world. Citizens of other nations, who would otherwise care not one wit about who is President, cheered in the final verdict given to their eager anticipation. In one sense, America redeemed itself.

John Blake on CNN.com state, this changes everything. But, does it really change everything? Will The Obamas live life much as any other First Family would? Inspriring oratory, glitzy gowns, vague promises … we’ve seen and heard it before. Is it really different this time? Perhaps for one segment of society it is. We are entering a period of nostalgia when Heathcliff and Clair will appear on our televisions every evening, though less likely to make us laugh and more likely to make us admire them. Of all the talk of reparation for blacks following slavery, I think we have made a rather large down payment on the future of Black America, or Hispanic America, or Asia America or even Arab America.

Today is not a day of protest. Today is a day for careful consideration that a man was not measured by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. As the black messiah, Barack Obama has some big shoes to fill and carries the weight of the world on his shoulders. While Michelle can be elegant and demure like Jackie Kennedy (as demure as it gets for a black woman in this age), can Barack can be smart and stately like President Kennedy? Will he expand upon the goodwill afforded America by other nations? Can he rise above the political din to achieve what is rational and reasonable for Americans? Time will tell, but I think he can.

Today is a new day.

Time Bomb Torture Test Revisited

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Considering events of late regarding accusations against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others, for the essential authorization of torture, I felt it was necessary to revisit a topic I touched on back in August — Whether in extreme circumstances, you would choose to torture someone in the hopes of saving the lives of others.

Here is the question I asked, abridged (please go read the full question if you need clarification):

You are leading an investigation regarding a potential terrorist plot to set off a bomb in the middle of Manhattan. You have good reason (accuracy of 90%) to believe that the bomb is set to go off in approximately 12 hours, and would kill about one million people. You lack the resources or time to successfully search for the bomb.

You have captured a person whom you have verified as being a member of the terrorist group in question. You have reason to believe that this person knows where the bomb will be planted and knows the location of the other members of the terrorist group. Assume for purposes of this question that you are immune from liability (you’ve been promised a presidential pardon). You have unrestricted access to the prisoner (who speaks English), and unrestricted access to any devices that may be acquired and used within a 12-hour period.

Assuming that the prisoner is adamant about trying not to reveal any information regarding the whereabouts of the bomb or the other members of the terrorist organization,
What do you do to try to extract the necessary information from the prisoner?

Here are the options I originally gave, and beneath each option is the (rounded) percentage of people who chose that option, out of those who chose anything (note: this is not a scientific test)

1: Use unrestricted torture devices and methods
[32%]

2: Use torture devices and methods, but limited in a certain way
[7%]

3: Use only methods authorized by the Human Rights Convention and other applicable humanitarian international and domestic law
[21%]

4: Only interrogate verbally (including any sort of psychological methods)
[18%]

5: Only interrogate verbally (without resorting to psychological manipulation)
[7%]

6: Something else
[14%]

Recently, top torture experts declared that torture is ineffective. Not only that, but it violates international law and human rights laws and doctrines.

Although the situation in Guantanamo, for instance, wasn’t a “24″-esque time bomb scenario, if a person in a superior position did find him or herself in such a situation, considering what’s at stake, would you accept torture as a necessary evil, perhaps as a last resort? And would you forgive those who authorized it and carried it out?

This really isn’t a question about Guantanamo’s conditions, about the lengthy and humiliating torture that those men endured that effectively accomplished nothing except maybe a get-out-of-jail-free card for the most brutally tortured of them (if not all). It’s more about the scenario that those opposing torture often refer to as being incredibly unlikely. But let’s say it did happen, and let’s say you were living in Manhattan at the time. Would you give the thumbs-up?

If not, what are your justifications for opposing it in certain scenarios? If it’s because it’s unreliable or ineffective (according to experts), are those experts basing their opinions on facts derived from only non-situational torture sessions, (i.e., no imminent threat)? And how often did that happen in order to give the experts enough data to make a fully informed opinion about torture in general?

So, in this time bomb test, torture or no?

State of Protest