Another parody of that ridiculous Dixie Chicks nude mag cover. (If it doesn't take you straight there, search for "Dixie Chicks".)
And re that: I've often wondered why celebs so often become liberal activists. Sure they're deluded, but are their actions genuine? That is, are some of them good, serious people who see the chance at making some meaningful impact? And is the nudity "statement" just an extreme form of that impulse?
Nup. I think even a "maybe" to that would be giving them way too much credit. They're just exhibitionists. They sing or dance or act to feed their giant egos. And they make political statements to feed their giant egos. They don't believe in anything except their own importance. And they don't think anything has any value unless it makes people look at them. Hence the activist nudity trend. It's the ultimate in exhibitionism.
Saturday, May 03, 2003
Here's another reason to think twice before lighting a joint. I've watched heaps of bong-sucklers over the years and have always thought the "dope is benign" argument was a steaming crock of twang. In fact, I think that myth is one of the dangers. We all know that alcohol can be damaging so most people who drink do it responsibly. But the cone-heads indulge much more heavily because there is a whole army of dopey dope-apologists determined to deny its dangers.
I mean, most people would consider someone who knocked back a beer or a toddy first thing in the morning to have a major problem. But in the smoky world of the alternative lifestyler, a regular bong for brekkie is considered just fine and dandy.
I mean, most people would consider someone who knocked back a beer or a toddy first thing in the morning to have a major problem. But in the smoky world of the alternative lifestyler, a regular bong for brekkie is considered just fine and dandy.
Knowing how pompous and annoying so many Hollywood stars are wouldn't the more appropriate title for this story be something like, "Sod off flashbulb addicts!"?
I found this story via Bernard Slattery's blog. It's fascinating. The William Morris agency has closed down a website dedicated to slagging off the posturing pinheads on their books. Of course, that odious army of pampered flashbulb addicts will continue to squawk that they are the ones being muzzled, while turning a blind eye to all the censorship (both overt and covert) that their fellow travellers continue to practise in their name.
Friday, May 02, 2003
Gawd. Now dopey Kev Costner joins the Hollywood appeasenik crowd. This article states that Kev believes that "Robbins and Sarandon shouldn't be viewed as targets by those supporting the war in Iraq".
I agree. They should be viewed as targets by those who fought the war in Iraq, then shot at with live ammo!
I agree. They should be viewed as targets by those who fought the war in Iraq, then shot at with live ammo!
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
During a speech to the Seppolian forces in Qatar, Rummy sticks it right up the squitterati.
Here's part of what he had to say: "You know, during World War II, Winston Churchill was talking about the Battle of Britain and he said, 'Never have so many owed so much to so few.' A humorist in Washington . . . sent me a note paraphrasing that [in which] he said, 'Never have so many been so wrong about so much.' "
That last line is a pearler. Funny thing is, they'll probably get even wronger as the weeks progress.
Here's part of what he had to say: "You know, during World War II, Winston Churchill was talking about the Battle of Britain and he said, 'Never have so many owed so much to so few.' A humorist in Washington . . . sent me a note paraphrasing that [in which] he said, 'Never have so many been so wrong about so much.' "
That last line is a pearler. Funny thing is, they'll probably get even wronger as the weeks progress.
Sunday, April 27, 2003
Tammy Bruce, ex-fluff, describes many in the "Elite Left" as malignant narcissists. A well-respected prof uses the same description for Saddam Hussein. That might go some way to explaining why they were so sympathetic to -- if not overtly supportive of -- his regime.
Fluffs have quacked on endlessly about there being no link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda. But recently discovered official files show otherwise.
Apparently a bin Laden envoy lobbed in Iraq for some tea, scones and a nice little chat a few years ago. Trying to keep the meeting secret, the Iraqis tried to erase evidence of the meeting. As the article states: "Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."
Says heaps about Saddam's workplace culture. These guys were highly accomplished at making people vanish without a trace, but not so good with ink. Yet fluffs will still look at a corrupt corporate culture incapable of the former and adept at the latter as the infinitely more evil one. Good to know they've got their priorities straight.
Apparently a bin Laden envoy lobbed in Iraq for some tea, scones and a nice little chat a few years ago. Trying to keep the meeting secret, the Iraqis tried to erase evidence of the meeting. As the article states: "Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."
Says heaps about Saddam's workplace culture. These guys were highly accomplished at making people vanish without a trace, but not so good with ink. Yet fluffs will still look at a corrupt corporate culture incapable of the former and adept at the latter as the infinitely more evil one. Good to know they've got their priorities straight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)