The Greatest Funniest Place on Earth

If you haven't visited yet, ooooooh are you missing out.



in other words...

Newberry doesn't deserve to be mayor

cross-posted @ BGR:

Difference of opinion is one of the things we all have to come to terms with. Politicians, to a much greater degree than the average civilian blogger, are required to deal with these differences of opinion with grace and neutrality, even when they have already chosen a side. Jim Newberry is, however, making an ass of himself. Not only did he decide to send out these haughty, asinine and childish emails - he decided to call out a respected citizen, Alan Hawse.

In Newberry's third email this week, titled "Values to Guide Future Debates", the mayor called an editorial by Hawse, published in the Herald-Leader, "patently untrue" and "egregious". Again, you're allowed to disagree with someone, but you are never, never, never ever, never and not once allowed to say that someone should "stay out of the debate". I usually shy away from saying really mean things about public officials - but this statement, in itself, makes Jim Newberry this biggest ass in the city of Lexington. What's worse is that Newberry goes on to contradict himself in the later portions of this email and make even more comments aimed at stifling the debate over CentrePointe or any other future development in Lexington.

When you are the democratically-elected executive on any scale, you aren't allowed to tell a citizen that they can't participate in the public discourse around a project just because you don't agree with the person. Jim Newberry doesn't want there to be discourse around CentrePointe or the future of Lexington, because he knows that his discourse is on the level of a nine year-old who just screams and calls people names when they don't get their way. But what is Newberry complaining about? The dude got his way. In case he hasn't walked down Main St. to see it yet, the buildings are already being torn down! What in the world are you upset about Mr. Mayor? can't take criticism? The mayor says that:

Opposing views should be respected, and personal attacks should be eliminated.

What?! You just demeaned the character of a respected citizen five lines earlier by telling them to butt-out of the debate! What are you talking about, Mayor Newberry?

Whatever the rules may be when a development is proposed, fundamental fairness requires everyone to play by those rules. If those rules are inadequate to serve the community's interest, we need to change them and apply the new rules to the next project. We cannot change the rules in the middle of a sporting event, nor should we do so when a development proposal is on the table.

He got this one thing right - we do need new rules. We need rules that can prevent prodigal and unreliable developers like the Webbs to partner with a corrupt mayor to overrun the city's downtown because it can make them some money. We absolutely need new rules. Unfortunately for Newberry, he isn't going to profit from these new rules.

I'm done with this guy. Well, frankly, I was done with him a while ago. But now I'm ready for his career to be ruined - I'm not even sure how hard we'd have to work to do that. The guy has a pretty good headstart on this, already.

JIM GRAY FOR MAYOR 2010

What a wonderful world...

Fucking Canadians...

I blame hockey Celine Dion.

The Justice Department hates...

...anyone who is anti-war, pro-choice (or admires someone who may be), a Democrat (or married to one), gay or lesbian. Really, your name only has to show up in a LexisNexis search with terms related to those categories. In short, if you read this blog regularly, you probably won't be getting hired by the US Department of Justice until Bush is out of office...not that you were trying.

I don't know. I'll get back to you.

John McCain certainly doesn't seem to know much. I can't count how many times I've heard him say 'I don't know', 'I'll get back to you', 'I wish I knew' or 'I don't know that much about ______' - all of that in addition to how many times he just says things that don't make sense. Actually, lets give it a shot.

John McCain doesn't know whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist. Which means, coincidentally, that John McCain doesn't know what a socialist is. (link)

John McCain doesn't know much about insurance companies refusing to cover birth control in the same way they cover Viagra (link)

John McCain doesn't know much about the economy (link)

John McCain doesn't know that he said he doesn't know much about the economy, or that 'being there for the Reagan Revolution' isn't an economic credential for being President (link)

John McCain doesn't know that Czechoslovakia hasn't done much of anything since 1992, especially enter into a treaty with the United States (link)

John McCain doesn't know how he feels about federal emissions standards (link)

Unfortunately for John McCain, but fortunately enough for Democrats, John McCain doesn't seem to know much of anything. But apparently, if you give them enough time, his staff can answer any questions that you might have about McCain's supposedly ground-breaking, maverick policies. So, just in case you were still wondering, John McCain has a YouTube problem.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

I'm.... speechless.

Please tell me that someone is playing a practical joke on Jake, right?

On the Confederate Flag, Lincoln, and Emancipation (LONG)

UPDATE: I brought this back to front page because we've started quite a discussion, if a little bit of a one-sided one.

An fellow Kentucky blogger and I recently discussed a piece she wrote for publication on the Courier-Journal's online opinion blog entitled "Kentuckians, raise your Rebel Flag."

The piece, which is based largely on anecdotal evidence and the writer's own nebulous opinion on the subject, is an attempt at an argument in favor of flying the Confederate battle flag, arguing that it represents "American history and Southern heritage."

She writes:

"Social equality should not mean that blacks can take pride in any part of history they choose (even if their self-proclaimed leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X were murderers), whereas whites can only honor those parts of history which minorities and the Left deem politically correct."

Now perhaps our friend has a different conception of murder, or perhaps she has a different version of Google than I do, but I could find no credible evidence that Nelson Mandela, the man who peacefully led South Africa up to the 21st century and fought to end racial apartheid in South Africa, is a murderer.

Furthermore, I want to know one thing. How long will we let the right piss and moan about how they can only say what "the Left deem[s] politically correct" without calling them out? The above passage is not just wrong for its poorly masked racist implications, but is wrong because, well, it's factually wrong.

The burden of proof is on the writer, and to call such a respected leader as Mr. Mandela a murderer, which is quite a charge, is not something that should be taken lightly, and certainly is not something that should be thrown out without a shred of evidence.

Aside: Here we have a significant problem with the piece in general. The overarching argument is undermined by the author's unwillingness or refusal to check her facts before accusing a respected world leader of one of the worst crimes imaginable. But oh well.

You thought the fact problems would end there? Think again. She persists:

"However, racism towards the South continues to exist and does not appear to be going away anytime soon."

Discrimination toward a region is one thing, but "Southerner" is not a race. What race is being discriminated against that would impel our writer to refer to "racism towards the South?" But hey, who wants to let pesky semantics get in the way of a good, full-throated (albeit non-sensical and untimely) rant? Really, though, we all know what she's about to get at.

"They [the left] have succeeded in pulling the Rebel Flag from our State Houses, banning it from our schools, and removing its image from several State flags. We cannot allow the Left to outlaw this part of our American history and Southern heritage."

Here I am simply confounded. History is full of examples of fascinating stories, events, and people who should be admired and celebrated; it is, as in life, full of stories, events and people who should be understood in their context and, if necessary and appropriate, judged for their actions and implications. What Morgan is here suggesting is that any part of history which has even one person (or in this case, one region) that reveres it, it should be made not only a part of the socially accepted canon of expression, but furthermore should be officially sanctioned by the state (ie, the confederate flag should be flown at state capitol buildings).

The crux of the argument, then, begins to crumble before our eyes when we consider that nearly every part of American history has its celebrators and its detractors, even today, and even if these debates carry on only in the hallowed halls of our academic institutions.

The suggestion, made in both her article and in our later discussions about it, is that just because millions of black Americans (and here we get to the elephant in the room) see the confederate battle flag as a symbol of institutionalized racism (which, as a matter of fact, it is), that doesn't mean that people like Morgan and her ilk shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag as a matter of Southern pride (even thought Kentucky was neither a confederate nor a union state) or as a celebration of "states' rights", a buzzword that is well-known to refer to slavery and Jim Crow.

From this comes the necessary question, one I posed in person to the article's author: what right of the states other than the right to possess slaves was being infringed upon by the North leading up to the Civil War? Rather than answer the question, the author instead chose to point out to me that, and I paraphrase, "neither Lincoln nor the Union soldiers saw ending slavery as the cause of the war." This is a debate that has raged for over a century among scholars and partisans, but there is, as a matter of fact, significant evidence to suggest that Lincoln did wish to end slavery. From Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals:

"He [Lincoln] hoped to 'penetrate the human soul' until, as he said, 'all this quibbling about this man and the other man--this race and that race and the other race being inferior' could be discarded, until all Americans could 'unite as one people throughout this land,' providing true meaning to the phrase 'all men are created equal.'

Furthermore:

...armies of scholars...have failed to find a single act of racial bigotry on his [Lincoln's] part."

I challenge anyone to find evidence that Lincoln did not wish to free the slaves, and I challenge anyone to find an example of a state's right in the South (I specify this so that I don't get a bunch of the tired old "taxes are illegal" B.S. that I've come to expect) that was infringed upon other than the right to possess and sell and use human beings like animals.

Leaving aside for a moment the salient fact that the Confederate battle flag is no longer even a legally defined national flag and thus should probably not be flown at public buildings, the real problem here is the solipsism of the suggestion that simply because the flag means something positive to one group, it should override the fact that millions upon millions of people feel personal pain and anger at the mere sight of the flag. The confederate battle flag, despite Morgan and her cohorts' strident screeching to the contrary, is not whatever they wish it to be.

The flag is what it is: a symbol of slavery and, as a corollary, racism. In the end, simply saying, in effect "get over it" in that snide, dismissive tone, unfortunately for the arguer, does not an argument make.

END RANT

"Libertarianism makes you stupid"

This says it all right here. I really want to do a longer post on this sometime in the near future, if time allows because, well, it's true. Libertarians have Teh Crazy.

Does anyone like Chuck Schumer?

It appears that KY Lefties like me aren't the only nuts that have it in for Chuck "Lizzy" Schumer. Check out Ted "The Internet is not a Truck" Stevens (AK-Sen) completely flip his lid complaining about Schumer, coming about one inch away from calling him a dirty Jew.



We'll miss you Ted, you ole crazy bastard.

Wow.

You know, taking another look at that video, I'm 70% sure that it is actually an incredibly talented comedian doing this. There is no way that anyone is that crazy. No way.

Brilliant. Bravo.

Sick. Sick. Sick.

A rare moment of honesty, from a Fox News contributor.



This speaks to how batshit crazy the Washington Times is, that this was their NY Bureau Chief. W.T.F. Young?

Crazy Shark throws Crit under the bus

Crit Luallen can't be fully trusted as a progressive???

This has probably been the funniest 24 hours in the history of the KY Blogosphere. Should only get better in the next 2 weeks, stay tuned :)

And keep clapping!!!!!

The Chronicles of Crazy Shark

Why is she choosing to turn her back on Crit Luallen?

Obamarama invades Lexington!

Howdy folks.

First off all, what in the world are you doing inside on the computer? It's beautiful outside, go take a walk.

Oh, and the Obama event yesterday was great. Between 450-500 people braved Nicholasville Rd. rush hour traffic on a Monday to merely hear a bunch of local officials speak and gander at the Mammoth HQ. (it is HUGE, I've never seen a HQ that big in my life). The diagnosis for this strange behavior? Obama fever, baby.

(by the way, Alessi called it 400, but only because, as a member of the mainstream media, it is his sworn contractual duty to under report the attendance of the damned dirty hippies at protests and rallies)

I'm writing the cover story for ACE Weekly this week on the HQ opening and how Obama has been able eradicate youth apathy all over the country. Look for it on your local newsstands or businesses that people are trying to demolish near you. (I'll have it up here in a couple days... it's in my "serious" voice)

I suppose one of the big stories of the event is that career Clintonista Jonathan Miller was there sporting an Obama sticker and is a "big fan". He hasn't made any official statement, but I'll let you draw your own conclusion. The thought of more and more Clintonistas defecting the sinking ship fills my cold black heart with joy.

The speakers: Pothole Pam Miller was first up gave a rather hilarious attempt at getting people fired up and ready to go. I'm guessing she wasn't a cheerleader in high school. But that's OK, I give her an A for effort.

Ernesto gave the best speech of the day. This is the "beginning of something great", "we've had better times and better leadership", "we are demanding more, a leader that inspires", "it amuses me that people try to discount Obama's ability to inspire people and get them involved... real leaders get people together... that is an incredible political gift and he has it", with Obama "the torch is being passed to a new generation of leadership". Good stuff.

Ruth Ann Palumbo spoke. Kim Garmer, wife of Bill Garmer spoke, and they both are behind Barack. Deb Hensley stepped to mic and screeched for about 10 minutes.... I was a tad bit scared but recovered fairly quickly. She's good people.

Regional field director for Obama Anna Humphrey and Lexington for Obama ringmaster Hillary Bullock (both youngsters) both spoke and were probably the least nervous of anyone. Unfortunately, more time wasn't devoted to some younger folks who've been doing great work for Obama. But all in all, a great event and great turnout, as Obama got a bunch of names and volunteers, as well as excellent news coverage. Especially when you consider this:

Obama's rival in the primary, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, stumped in Kentucky on March 29 and former President Bill Clinton has been in the state on her behalf twice in as many weeks.

But that shows a difference in philosophy, Tandy said.

"We believe in bottom-up grassroots campaigning. We have to build the infrastructure first," she said. "It's one thing to have the big names and surrogates come in, but you have to have the infrastructure in place to get out the votes."

Obama's campaign is slated to open offices this week in Paducah and Bowling Green and
later this month in Covington, Pikeville and Frankfort, Tandy said.

Clinton's campaign hasn't yet established a Kentucky headquarters. It has 14 campaign offices in Indiana, which will hold its primary election two weeks before Kentucky on May 6.

Anyway, stay tuned for the Ace article coming out Thursday, I'll put it up here soon.

Oh, but my favorite moment that I must share with you happened after the event. My paranoid friend with some odd fixation with me accused me of not being a Democrat. "I looked through all the voter files at Fayette County party HQ and you're not on the list!" Fraud! You tell people to go to precinct elections, how dare you! (I don't really get the connection, really)

After the initial shock of someone actually taking time to hunt down my name in this manner, I calmly told her that I registered as a Democrat for the first time on March 3rd (always been an Independent... very me). I told her if she was that obsessed with my party affiliation, she was free to go to the County Clerk's office and verify it.

I really fear that my friend is headed towards the ramp where the Crazy Shark lives...

(Jim and Ben covered it, too)

Note to the Fischer campaign

Don't let crazy people who think that Bruce Lunsford is trying to assassinate her work for your campaign. It does not help.

Love,
-Joe

P.S. - Spend some of your own damn money or quit wasting KY activists' time.