name is Deeya. She's naughty, and the muslims don't want her.
This entry is to be filed in the category called "Why We'll Win in the
End." We don't ordinarily pay much attention to muslim pop music, so we
have to thank Michelle
Malkin for acquainting us with Deeya. She's a Norwegian muslim who
apparently wants to be a girl, which is a sin in Islam. (That's why
they're going to lose in the end.) She got driven out of Norway, a
country which left all its balls behind on the last page of Viking
history, and everything she does to advance her pop singing career
seems to irritate the imams, well, a lot.
You can see her music video here and a short
documentary of her trials and tribulations here.
The bottom line, as our audio file suggests, is that she's spending a
lot of time in the U.S. now, and we couldn't help wondering what will
happen as the Muslim Madonna settles herself in for a good ol' American
celebrity career. So, without further ado, our predictions:
She'll have widely publicized affairs
with Brad Pitt, Jay-Zee, and then Fred Durst, who will post a video of
the two of them having sex on the Internet. Her first CD will go
She'll be offered a prime time reality show in which she'll make
millions pretending she doesn't know about anything American, like
McDonald's, major league baseball, paintball, and strip clubs. When she
learns about American lawyers, she'll sue her record company, her
agent, Fred Durst, and the producers of her show. After she loses all
her lawsuits, she'll have a very public nervous breakdown and go into
She'll launch her second career on a two-hour prime-time special with
Oprah Winfrey, where she'll introduce America to her new Lesbian
Margot will commit suicide on the front page of the National Equirer
when Deeya elopes with 300-pound ex-movie star Alec Baldwin. The pair
will become a fixture at concerts and telethons celebrating natural
disasters, left-wing politicians, and hopeless Third World causes.
In the Playboy interview attendant to her nude Playboy pictorial
(signed for a cool $5 million), Deeya will explain why American culture
is so deeply corrupt that she and Alec now spend most of their time on
either the Spanish Riviera or their 1,000 sq km ranch outside Buenos
Aires. But she'll still be keeping up with politics enough to know that
the new Republican presidential nominee is even more stupid and evil
After her divorce from Alec, she'll suddenly recommit herself to Islam
and build a $10 million, 50,000 sq ft, solar-powered personal mosque in
Malibu, where she'll live with 72 imams and issue fatwahs on a daily
basis about Republican politicians in California.
After his divorce, Antonio Banderas will convert to Islam and marry
Deeya in the most lavish wedding ceremony in Malibu history. The guest
list will include Madonna, JLo, Lil Kim, Rosie O'Donnell, Brian
Williams, Keith Olbermann, Johnny Depp, Sharon Stone, Oprah, and, of
Barbra Streisand, who will sing "Memories" at the reception.
She will be the keynote speaker at the 2012 Democratic National
Convention, where she will blame the Republican Party and the Zionist
state for America's humiliating defeat in Iraq and the subsequent
thousands of American civilian
casualties who perished in the tragic Chicago explosion. She will be
mentioned as a possible vice-presidential candidate.
But instead, she will go back to Malibu with Antonio because she is
about to have a baby. Whom she will name Latanya if it's a girl. And
Fidel if it's a boy.
A typical American success story. We can't wait.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Warming Thing
Sun spots show us what Earth will be
like if we reelect Republicans.
PLANET. I started writing this entry months ago but never finished
it because new alarmist stories are being propagated at a torrid pace
(pun intended), and it's difficult to keep up with all the flavors of
spin. Today I've decided to post what I have at the moment for two
reasons. First, Bill "The
Bully" Clinton has commandeered the
Gore Global Warming Bandwagon (GWB!?) for his own purposes, which makes
the whole issue even more blatantly political than it already was. And
second, Senator James Inhofe has just made a comprehensive speech about
the state of the science that everyone really should read. I'll direct
you to his remarks following the introduction I wrote when I started
this post back in April. Here's the original draft.
It's clear that a lot of supposedly smart people want us to go
into panic mode. In March, Time
Magazine offered us a cover story that could have have been ripped
right out of the script for The Day After Tomorrow:
Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than
More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are
Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The
Pretty breathless, eh? And that was just Time's idea of a headline.
Here's the lede:
No one can say exactly what it looks
like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.
Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion
emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and
unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us. It certainly looked that way last
week as the atmospheric bomb that was Cyclone Larry--a Category 4 storm
with wind bursts that reached 125 m.p.h.--exploded through northeastern
If your heart isn't strong enough to withstand Time's concept of
journalistic prose, you can get a slightly less frantic version of
their piece at CNN,
which summarizes the main argument thus:
Never mind what you've heard about
global warming as a slow-motion
emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and
unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.
From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts,
the global climate seems to be crashing around us.
The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is
that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and
feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental
decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just
what's happening now.
It's at the north and south poles -- where ice cover is crumbling to
slush -- that the crisis is being felt the most acutely.
Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian
and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not
only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles
draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles
As fast as global warming is changing the oceans and ice caps, it's
having an even more immediate effect on land. Droughts are increasingly
common as higher temperatures also bake moisture out of soil faster,
causing dry regions that live at the margins to tip into full-blown
Wildfires in such sensitive regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and
even inland Alaska have been occurring with increased frequency as
timberlands grow more parched. Those forests that don't succumb to fire
can simply die from thirst.
With habitats crashing, the animals that call them home are succumbing
too. In Alaska, salmon populations are faltering as melting permafrost
pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning.
Small animals such as bushy tailed rats, chipmunks and pinion mice are
being chased upslope by rising temperatures, until they at last have no
place to run.
And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears are starting to turn up
drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger,
president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that
path, the polar bear drops out."
So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world,
particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to
reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no
willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress
has not been much more encouraging.
Sheesh. Thank goodness we can blame it all on George
Bush. It's easier to accept the enormity of the catastrophe that
way for some reason, as Al
Gore has shown us so perceptively:
The former veep — President Bush's 2000
election opponent — keeps insisting that he has no intention of running
again for the White House.
But that hasn't stopped him from writing a gasket-blowing polemic
arguing that by refusing to face up to the threat of global warming,
Bush is just like the disgraced British prime minister who appeased the
Nazis before World War II.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish," Gore writes, quoting the
Bible to bash Bush.
Warning that Bush and the Republican Congress have displayed "a
blinding lack of awareness" about "the worst catastrophe in the history
of human civilization" — global warming — Gore also blames the
incumbent for ignoring the threat of 9/11.
Cute. Lumping Global Warming in with 9/11 almost invisibly asserts that
both cataclysms are accepted milestones of history. They're old news
that George Bush needs to be punished for. Notwithstanding the fact
that 9/11 was not nearly as much the fault of George
Bush as the administration
Gore served as Vice President, one might be forgiven for believing --
in the context of today's mainstream media -- that Global Warming is a
deadly reality that someone (or ones) need to be blamed for.
As if all that weren't bad enough, mass media god Tom Brokaw has now
confirmed the validity of Time's
panic attack with a two hour documentary on the Discovery Channel.
Bloomberg summarized it thus:
Tom Brokaw's special on global warming
claims to have ``no agenda,'' though some viewers will quickly suspect
he's out to make us sweat.
If mankind doesn't change its polluting ways, New Yorkers will soon be
snorkeling to work. That's the basic message of ``Global Warming: What
You Need to Know,'' which airs on July 16 at 9 p.m. New York time... [and repeatedly
since..Ed. Note 9/26/06.]
Despite all the purple prose and red-hot imagery. however, there are still two points at issue with
regard to Global Warming.
First is the question of whether it even exists. Regardless of the
current hysteria, there are scientists who remain unconvinced. Front
Page Magazine interviewed a dissenter less than year ago:
little balance, we called up Fred
Singer, aka "the godfather of global warming denial." An expert on
global climate change and a pioneer in the development of rocket and
satellite technology, he holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and
happens to be the guy who devised the basic instrument for measuring
stratospheric ozone. Now president of the Science & Environmental
Policy Project research group (sepp.org), his dozen books include "Hot
Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate"...
Q: Here’s a line from a recent Mother Jones article: "There is
overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by
human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise." Is
A: It’s completely unsupported by any observation, but it’s supported
by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would
indicate this. The observations do not.
Q: What’s the best argument or proof that global warming is not
A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by two
completely different methods. One is from instruments carried in
satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is from
instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the atmosphere and
take readings as they go up. These measurements show that the
atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely slight -- a great deal
less than any of the models predicts, and in conflict also with
observations of the surface.
It's crucial to note that the arrogance of scientists on all kinds of
subjects stems from their adherence to observation and measurement as
infinitely superior to personal experience and speculation. No amount
of technical jargon can conceal the fact that computer models
constitute speculation. They are not reality, however good a guess
about reality they might reflect. And they always embody assumptions
that might not be right. In the case of Global Warming, the biggest and
most undocumented assumption is that the temperature of the earth is
essentially stable and not continuously variable for reasons that have nothing to do with human behavior.
Conservative columnist George Will discussed this problem in an essay last
Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer
flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is
50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to
be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec.
10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science
Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are
agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian
Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even
Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to
advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting
shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an
ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975)
that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines
might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14,
1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21,
1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered
inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern
Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
In fact, the Earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling.
But George Will also noted this fact:
Eighty-five percent of Americans say
warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them
Such statistics are, obviously, a function of propaganda. Americans
tend to believe that science is a dispassionate profession and that
scientists are mostly trying to tell them the truth as they see it. But
truth in science is not about publicity or even consensus. Way back in
January 2004, we quoted Michael
Crichton on the subject of consensus science:
Consensus is invoked only in situations
where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of
scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun
is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that
The fact is, the facts are debatable in this case, which is precisely
the circumstance that usually brings hysteria and amateur fanatics into
the picture. Here's a sampling of some of the recent press on Global
Warming, including both pro's and con's. (Feel free to skip through
them quickly. They're all over the map and I include them because I
amassed them in the first place, and if you're inclined to dig, you can
follow the links and find much to pursue further. The emphases in text
are all mine.)
* * * * *
the U.K: In a grim warning on climate change, the British
government's chief scientist said the world must immediately put into
place measures to address global warming, even if they take decades to
Sir David King said that, even by the
most optimistic forecasts, carbon dioxide levels are set to rise to
double what they were at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the
That will lead to a three-degree centigrade rise in temperature, King
said, adding that if nothing is done to manage such change, few
eco-systems on Earth will be able to adapt.
Even worse, said King in an interview on BBC radio, up to 400 million people around the world
would find themselves at risk of hunger, because 20 million to
400 million tonnes of cereal production will be lost.
The notion that our atmosphere acts like a greenhouse – that is,
so-called atmospheric “greenhouse gases,” like water vapor and CO2,
“trap” incoming solar radiation to warm the atmosphere – is wrong. Not
only doesn’t the atmosphere work that way, greenhouses don’t either.
Greenhouses work by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection)
from inside to outside – the same effect that heats the inside of your
car when it’s parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and
windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate. But
neither the atmosphere nor “greenhouse gases” block convection, so there is no literal atmospheric “greenhouse
Climate Change. Simon Cox reports on how scientists are becoming worried by the
quality of research used to back up the most extreme climate
Every week we are assailed by scare stories about the climate. Malaria in Africa, hurricanes in Florida,
even the death of frogs in Latin America - all are being linked to
global warming. But does the science behind these claims really
stand up, or are the risks of climate change being oversold to win the
battle for influence?
Campaign Gore Can't Lose. Boring Al Gore has made a movie. It is on
the most boring of all subjects -- global warming. It is more than 80
minutes long and the first two or three go by slow enough so that you
can notice that Gore has gained weight and that his speech still seems
oddly out of sync. But a moment later, I promise, you will be captivated, and then riveted,
and then scared out of your wits. Our Earth is going to hell in
a hand basket.
You will see the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps melting. You will see
Greenland oozing into the sea. You will see the atmosphere polluted
with greenhouse gases that block heat from escaping. You will see
photos from space of what the ice caps looked like once and what they
look like now and, in animation, you will see how high the oceans might
rise. Shanghai and Calcutta swamped. Much of Florida, too. The water
takes a hunk of New York. The fuss
about what to do with Ground Zero will turn naught. It will be under
of Inconvenient Truth. Rather than focus on real threats, the
left must turn to rabid environmentalism as a point of difference. They
cannot betray their own egos and agree with the rest of us about the
nature of present-day evil- they need to carve out that one last spot
on the wrongway world of the leftwing ideology to plant their feet and
say, "You are a bad person for
ignoring humanity's horrors committed against Mother Earth." The
left clings to the ideology like a urine-stained teddy bear because
it's all they've got. (Well, except for movies about electric cars. I
would like an electric car. But I can't help but think that the
extension cords would get tangled up at intersections)
You can quote me: "An Inconvenient Truth: it's laugh out loud funny!"
Review of Tom Brokaw Documentary. Brokaw relies largely on a handful of experts
in the two-hour show, particularly NASA's James Hansen and Princeton
professor Michael Oppenheimer. Both support Brokaw's view of global
warming and consider the scientific debate closed.
Brokaw scoffs at the notion that there are ``any remaining doubts
humans are behind temperature rises,'' while Hansen says ``99.5 percent
of scientists say we know what's going on.''
You'll find more dissent at a North
Korean political rally than in this program, which would have
benefited from contrarian views, perhaps from MIT's Richard S. Lindzen
or William Gray, the world's foremost expert on hurricanes and a critic
of global- warming orthodoxy. Both are serious scientists, yet neither
appears to be in Brokaw's Rolodex.
Global Warming Hoax. On June 13, USA Today declared, "The Debate's
Over: Globe Is Warming." That's another headline you can ignore.
The world has been warming ever since the last Ice Age, but it is not
rapidly warming in ways that threaten our existence, nor warming in a
way that requires the industrialized nations to drastically cut back on
their use of energy to avoid the many scenarios of catastrophe the
Greens have been peddling since the 1980s.
Global warming is a classic scare
campaign initiated by the Greens after a previous effort in the 1970s
to influence public policy by declaring a coming Ice Age failed to
generate any response. What we are seeing now is yet another
worldwide coordinated campaign by the Greens to rescue the global
warming theory from the junk heap to which it should be consigned.
ended in 1998. For many years now, human-caused climate change has
been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the
biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific,
but a self-created political fiasco.
Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average
temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight
decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of
temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station
and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and
say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet
in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the
28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998
constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh.
Fear. Ambiguous scientific statements
about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm,
thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds
for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political
stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or
space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the
success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal
spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars
pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened
spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies,
as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism
have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and
themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or
worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when
they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
sues. California sued six of the world's largest automakers over
global warming on Wednesday, charging
that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have caused billions of
dollars in damages.
The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers
liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions, state
Attorney General Bill Lockyer said.
It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the
nation's first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas
human-caused. Global warming is happening, but humans are not
the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday
Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years,
spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global
warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the
Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said
human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and
scientists who are trying to get federal grants.
“I think we’re coming out of the
little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation
patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure
* * * * *
Skeptics and true believers on both sides have to admit, at a minimum,
that there is politics on both sides of the Global Warming issue. The
same people should also be prepared to admit that there are opposing
scientific views, scientifically based, which means that the advocates
who claim there's no room for debate of the facts are not being purely
scientific, no matter how arrogantly they declare that they are.
That's the context for Senator James Inhofe's speech on the science of
Global Warming, which is both coherent and comprehensive, whether you
agree with his position or not. Here
is the full text. I urge everyone to read all of it, especially since I
am only going to quote one brief excerpt:
My skeptical views on man-made
catastrophic global warming have only strengthened as new science comes
in. There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over
the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the
ice is growing and a new study in Geophysical Research Letters found
that the sun was responsible for 50% of 20th century warming. Recently,
many scientists, including a leading member of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due
to a projected decrease in the sun’s output.
The sun? Doesn't that seem like a remote and glacial influence? Not
necessarily. There are two kinds of argument to be made for the sun as
a cause of temperature and climate change on earth. There's a rational argument:
The sun provides all the energy that
drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness
and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the
peak of its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.
The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.
That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause
of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most
The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global
temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than
the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun. Using
ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last
10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.
They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend
significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells
should be feared more than global warming.
The sun has weather too. This is one
of those solar flare
covered up circle in the
middle is the sun
flares are not little. Neither are the sun spots
shown in the animated graphic at the top of the entry.
Does it seem to you that the sun might have just a little bit -- or a
whole lot -- to do with temperature variations on earth?
No, of course not. It's all the Hummers in your suburb. How do I know?
'Cause Al Gore tells me so.
Senator Inhofe's speech has now, predictably, been mugged by MSM twits
like CNN, and he has responded here,
in a statement that is as well worth reading as the speech that
precipitated the furor.
A Big Girl Strikes
girls sticking together
Men sound off all the time. It's time that girls started
answering back. That's why it's so cool that Hillary gave her cool
comeback to the Big Girl News Network. It doesn't matter that she
didn't give us lots of details. She said what needed to be said, nothing
more. Or maybe a little less than that, but you know. What matters is
that she's a big girl
and she said her little piece. Here it is.
Here's a question. You disgrace yourself in public because of
deep, personal failings. Then you get an opportunity to put on your
most winning face with the public. What's the best strategy for making
people like you again? You're right if you guessed, Attacking Somebody
Else Who Did Something You, In Your Infinite Wisdom, Don't Approve Of.
At least, that's the right answer according to Mel Gibson, Bill
Clinton, and George Michael. These are headlines (and links) from
today's Drudge Report:
So Mel Gibson the anti-semite, Bill Clinton the Oval Office adulterer,
and George Michael the drug-addled man's man of the restroom set all
believe we'll find them more charming if they deride, mock, or
intimidate other figures in the public eye.
Yes, it probably will work with most liberals, who have a
long-ingrained habit of believing that public moralizing on social
issues makes up for the kinds of personal weaknesses old-fashioned folk would
view in moral terms. If this were not so, Teddy Kennedy's career would
have ended with the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, and Robert Byrd would
have retired from the Senate either shortly before or shortly after he
resigned from the Ku Klux Klan. It's hardly a surprise that former
President Clinton has now convinced himself that his tryst with Monica
Lewinsky was a right-wing setup and Osama bin Laden was only a
convenient political football for his enemies in Washington.
It's called denial, a classic symptom of narcissists in trouble, and
that's why attacking others is a poor strategy for earning real redemption
even if the preening narcissists of the left eat it up and ask for
more. The path to personal happiness is not lubricated by the oily
flattery of a Keith Olbermann. It begins with finding that calm
where it's possible to gain some distance from the moment, perceive the
ephemeral but magical nature of life as we know it, and learn to laugh
at something as big as the universe and as small as ourselves.
That's why we'll close with only positive suggestions. Here are two
little doses of therapy we found on YouTube. The first might be
soothing and freeing to the frustrated creative energies of Mel and
The second is somewhat more accessible to those of lesser intellect,
which is why we specifically recommed it to George Michael.
Imagination, laughter, unexpected delight. Nothing better for blowing
away the cobwebs of anger and resentment. And not a bad way to begin a
new week no matter who you are.
. It's not looking
good. Last week, we noticed but overlooked the odd placement of
photographs about two entirely different Drudge items, one about anthropology
and one about the Boss
Bitch of the Bigtop.
by side. A coincidence?
Maybe an accident of layout, we thought. But maybe not, too, Then came
Who on earth cares if Barbra Streisand's tits are hanging out? (Of
course, Ann Althouse
might, but she's ultra-sensitive on the subject of women's breasts.
In fact, she should probably read Dr, Sanity and breathe into a
paper bag or something, but that's a different entry.)
You would think that by the age of 64,
most women would be self-conscious enough to ensure their choice of
evening wear does not expose parts of the body which have...well
dropped below standards.
But no one seems to have shared this with legendary entertainer Barbra
Streisand as she stepped out in this rather unflattering black dress at
the Clinton Global Initiative in New York.
Streisand seemed to forget what a photographer's flash can do to a
black dress as she unwittingly revealed she had left the black bra
tucked up in her drawer at home.
The thing is, do average Americans care about Barbra Streisand? No.
She's an illiterate multi-multi-millionaire limousine liberal with a
fan constituency consisting of little old ladies in track suits who go
to see her in Las Vegas in between bouts with the slot machines. So why
does Matt Drudge insist on afflicting us with stories about her?
Perhaps the answer lies in the skull
he would no doubt like to have presented to us this way (if he weren't such a
hard-nosed, objective journalist):
You see, the new skull is supposed to be a relative of Lucy, the
three-foot-tall female ape scientists like to claim is the
Mother-of-us-all. Because she walked on two legs, even though she had
the IQ of a turtle. Hmmmm. The resemblance is starting to seem
significant. Barbra also walks on two legs. Cool.
The Mother of us All? Is that what has Matt Drudge so distracted? The
thought of a primordial female of extremely rudimentary brain power who
is nevertheless our common ancestor? Is this what primes the pump for a
journalist of his standing?
Just to be sure, we went back and looked up the original
Lucy. Here's what we found:
"Lucy," was a skeleton of
"Australopithecus" &Hominid from 3.5 million or 4 million years
ago, which was discovered in Ethiopia. This skeleton belonged to a
young woman, and now she is the most famous woman in the world of
paleoanthropology. Although the transition from ape to human being
remains a great mystery, a series of discoveries of fossils are
revealing the secret to us little by little.
The skeleton AL 288-1 was nicknamed Lucy, after the Beatles song "Lucy
in the Sky with Diamonds", which was played as the find was celebrated.
Lucy was only 1.1 m (3 feet 8 inches) tall, weighed 29 kilograms (65
lb) and looked somewhat like a Common Chimpanzee, but the observations
of her pelvis proved that she had walked upright and more in the manner
Johanson placed Australopithecus afarensis as the last ancestor common
to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago.
Okay. It IS exciting to think that Barbra might be the "ancestor common to
humans and chimpanzees." It would certainly explain her political
acumen -- and her spelling. However, it entirely fails to explain
why Matt Drudge would find her sexually attractive. Anthropoligical
significance is intellectually stimulating but hardly an aphrodisiac.
Unless you've never had a girlfirend
Oh. You're right. We didn't think of that.
We also found a picture of Matt Drudge. No wonder he went
thermo-nuclear on the Lewinsky story...
We hope Matt and Barbra will be very
happy together. We also hope what's-his-name the husband doesn't kick
Matt's ass for his lowdown dirty thoughts about the
Mother-of-us-all. You know. Marcus Welby wouldn't like it. Look
It's been a week of the macabre, the nonsensical, and the just
plain gross. With Hallowe'en but a few weeks away, the fun-loving U.N.
invited two of the world's most comical monsters to dance across their
New York stage. First there was the pint-sized Hitler wannabe Ahmud
Ahdumjihad, who had everyone in stitches with his claim that a country
practically made of oil needs nuclear power for fuel, not weaponry.
Then came the prize piglet of Venezuela, Hugo "Stalino" Chavez, who
jeeringly characterized the President of the United States as "el
Diablo" and repeated the slur to a standing ovation in Harlem a day
More fright masks were on display when a couple of Dem leaders decided
it was necessary to tap-dance around the fact that Yugo Chavez sounded
more like a liberal member of the U.S. Congress than a big-time oil
executive. Therewith Charlie
Rangel and Nancy
Pelosi waxed eloquent about how unthinkable it was for someone
other than a Democrat to describe george W. Bush as the ultimate
incarnation of evil. It was all very convincing until Rangel attempted
to sell President Ahdumjihad the Brooklyn Bridge, discounted to the
wholesale Jewish price. (Thankfully, Tom
Harkin was more reasonable and faithful to the liberal ideal.)
Pelosi was shocked, shocked to hear
the Hallowe'en season, you can count on Christians being in the news.
The Pope decided to be frank with muslims, then thought better of it
when his characterization of Islam as violent caused immediate
worldwide violence. As a German, he has the neo-teutonic flavor of
courage, which is basically French but less adroit. For example, the
Germans -- also this week -- at first thought they were going to object to Madonna staging a
crucifixion of herself as part of her zillion dollar European tour.
BERLIN - Prosecutors plan to keep an
eye on Madonna’s weekend concert in Duesseldorf to see if the pop diva
repeats the mock
crucifixion scene that has drawn fire from religious
Mocken, a spokesman for prosecutors in Duesseldorf, said Tuesday that a
repeat of that scene during Sunday’s concert could be construed as
insulting religious beliefs...
authorities would rely on media reports rather than sending
observers to the concert and that the show might be covered by laws
protecting artistic freedoms.
After all, what's the big deal? It's not as if
Christians are going to start burning cities and beheading people just
because some old trollop commits blasphemy on a worldwide media
hook-up. That's why the Pope swallowed his words and the German
authorities swallowed Madonna's line
about artistic expression.
Yes, if you're a post-modern westerner, it's
time to recognize that crucifixion is all about fun. The
oh-so-civilized Brits know that better than anybody. That's why the
4 (of Bush assassination
fame) decided it would be great to do a
show about crucifying a corpse, courtesy of "plastination" (see graphic
above) star Gunther von Hagens:
Channel 4 is to broadcast a documentary
showing a human corpse being hung on a cross to depict Christ's
Anatomist Gunther von Hagens will use a
real body to show how people died when crucified in the 90-minute film.
The programme, Crucifixion, is already
causing controversy, with
Christians condemning it as blasphemous and one group threatening
Although Channel 4 insists the body will
not represent Christ
specifically, a memo leaked to the Evening Standard states that it
would indeed portray Jesus.
Von Hagens, who created the Body Worlds
exhibits using his
preservation technique of plastination, has been widely criticised for
his work, which included an autopsy on TV in 2002. This is the first
time he has touched on religion.
Somehow, we doubt Gunther will be plastinating a Muhammed stand-in
anytime soon. But everyone knows it's far more important to revere an
enemy religion like Islam than the faith that has made total
irreverence into a cultural ideal for half the world's most educated
And speaking of education, it's altogether fitting and proper
should conclude the Friday Follies with a dance item from one of
America's leading states in secondar education. The article
speaks for itself:
A furor over what Concord High School
administrators call an "overtly sexual" style of dancing at school
dances has split the school community: There are those who defend the
students'right to dance however they want and those who believe the
moves are just plain inappropriate.
Principal Gene Connolly is with the
latter group. He said the school will cancel all remaining dances,
including the upcoming homecoming dance, unless students step forward
to help halt the "grinding."
"This style of dancing is wrong,"
Connolly told parents at a Parent-Teacher-Student Organization meeting
Tuesday night. "If you were to see it, you would be equally offended."
Asked by parents to describe the dance,
Connolly offered this: The girl leans forward and the boy puts his
pelvis against her backside. Then, he thrusts.
"It's feigning a sex act," Connolly said..
.But some students and parents
don't see it that way. They say that like the jitterbug and disco
before it, grinding is just a sign of the times.
"We were raised to dance like that,"
senior Kayla Bisson said.
Raised to do that? Raised
by whom? Oh, yeah. By MTV, the outfit that's raising all the kids
these days while parents pretend that kids just happen and don't
require any guidance rules, discipline, or punishment. Who couldn't see
that simulating doggy-style sex on the dance floor is just another
variation on old-fashioned teen rebellion? They're kids, not monsters. Jeez.
If you're one of the the old fogeys who don't know what grinding is,
here's a brief look.