.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Undercover Hippie

Thursday, February 24, 2005

The facts of life

The beautiful SarahK (now) of IMAO posted this about the Terry Shiavo case. One of the commenters pushed my buttons and I responded. I figured I'd requote it here for posterity:

Original post:

All the links I've seen about this Schiavo case have seemed like normal advocacy-group stuff(aka, rediculously biased). Now, it's certainly possible that the case actually is that clear-cut, but given that that doesn't happen often(and that if it did, I'd probably hear more about it), I'm going to ask if anyone has a link that talks about this from an unbiased(or even oppositely-biased perspective). I don't care how sick you find the perspective, I'm just interested in seeing something with a different line so I can figure out what the actual facts of the case are for myself.

Not to disbelieve the best-looking IMAO blogger, of course, but it just seems to me like there has to be something else to it that the advocacy groups aren't saying.

Posted by: Alsadius on February 22, 2005 11:43 PM

My response:

Fact: Terry Shiavo is alive.
Fact: Her husband does not want her to stay that way.
Fact: Her parents do.

Alsadius, are you for life or death? What other facts would you allow to pollute your thinking on this? Life. Death. Those are the FACTS.

Posted by: Undercover Hippie on February 24, 2005 07:41 AM

Monday, February 21, 2005

Hollyweird wooing Republican's?

MSNBC - Lights! Cameras! Lobbying!

They don't get it. Michael Medved nailed it yesterday on Fox News. He said, "The industry is run by a bunch of dope-smoking hippies from the 60's. And they are still hippies. They don't understand the 'real' America."

They don't like it and they don't WANT to understand it. They've been fighting the American culture their whole lives. Do we think just because they find themselves in the political and cultural minority that they're going to give up?

Look at the last quote by Glickman in this article:

Glickman generally tries to avoid plunging into the culture wars, but admits that last year's Bush-bashing by Hollywood celebs made him "cringe." At the same time, he dismisses the conservative backlash against movies like "Million Dollar Baby." "An awful lot of people of people need to lighten up a bit," Glickman says. That's the kind of evenhanded Kansas style that could some day win him rave reviews.

So people need to lighten up a bit? Hey, Mr. Glickman, a large portion of this country (nay, a majority!) think that euthenasia is murder! You want them to "lighten up" about murder? I don't care if you agree or disagree. I don't want anyone to "lighten up" about something that is murder.

Did your side "lighten up" over The Passion? No.

Why don't liberal sacred cows ever get skewered by Hollywood Elites? Why don't we have movies showing these self-absorbed, self-loving, self-actualized liberal nut-jobs jumping from Crytal's to New Ageism, to Karbala, to whatever the next wacko cult thing is as the shallow, self-righteous, narcisists that they are?

And if you're offended by that, Mr. Glickman, then all I have to say is: "Hey, lighten up!"

Thursday, February 17, 2005

My favorite columnist

Ann Coulter is a real-live genius!

I told my wife that if I wasn't married to her, then I'd be stalking Ann. She laughed. After she was sure I was kidding. But this is an unambiguous reason why:

To grasp the current state of higher education in America, consider that if Churchill is at any risk at all of being fired, it is only because he smokes.

- Ann Coulter on Ward Churchill

Her whole modus operandi is to goad liberals by being as outrageous against them and they are against us. She draws them out, and they can't help but take the bait every time.

Right after 9/11 (on 9/12 I believe) she wrote about the Islamo-terrorists "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Of course that's what a lot of us thought, but only she said it! God bless her.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Getting better at losing

I know its been a few days since the debacle that was Superbowl XXXIX, but I must opine.

I don't want this to sound like the mad ravings of a typical Philly fan, but I think it will, even though I'm not a typical Philly fan. I don't give a cr*p about this city's inferiority complex. Heck, I live in New Jersey.

Anyway, an argument can be made that the Eagles are the second best team at losing in the history of losing (Buffalo Bills hold the title). I mean seriously, anybody can go 0-16 (although few have). Its not that hard, really. You have to just not try at all.

But to go 12-4 or better three years in a row, win your Division four years in a row, get to the Conference Championship game four years in a row, have the coach with the highest career win percentage in all of the NFL (active AND inactive coaches!), sporting the best record in the NFL over the last five years .... and STILL LOSE is something special. They've taken losing to a whole new level.