Sunday, July 19, 2009

Those Evil, Bloodthirsty Jooos Do It Again!

Hah! Got you with the title, didn't I?

I found an amazing post at Gina Cobb, this morning. And here's the money quote:
"[...]The tests showed that injecting the medication between 24 hours before the exposure to 72 hours following the exposure achieves similar results.

Another test on humans, who were given the drug without being exposed to radiation, showed that the medication does not have side-effects and is safe. [...]"

Did you see that? And who discovered, then produced, that amazing medication - still in experiment - designed to protect people against Radiation Sickness? A bloodthirsty Joooo. Hah!

If this pans out, and it does look good right now, can we expect to see yet another Jew awarded the Nobel Prize?

Not a long list of adherents to Islam in the pantheon of Nobel Prize winners, is there? But, dang! there're a lot of Jews on that list, from many countries. Seems like Jews do good things for humanity. The Muslims? Not so much.

The article is here. Go read it and smile.
A Jewish American working with Israelis to develop this medical breakthrough. Exclusive: Dramatic discovery by Jewish-American scientists could change world; anti-radiation medication proves effective, safe in tests. Further experiments to be fast tracked, FDA approval possible within 1-2 years

Ronen Bergman Published: 07.17.09, 00:18 / Israel News

Medication that can protect humans against nuclear radiation has been developed by Jewish-American scientists in cooperation with a researcher and investors from Israel. The full story behind the dramatic discovery will be published in Yedioth Ahronoth's weekend edition.

The ground-breaking medication, developed by Professor Andrei Gudkov – Chief Scientific Officer at Cleveland BioLabs - may have far-reaching implications on the balance of power in the world, as states capable of providing their citizens with protection against radiation will enjoy a significant strategic advantage vis-à-vis their rivals.

For Israel, the discovery marks a particularly dramatic development that could deeply affect the main issue on the defense establishment's agenda: Protection against a nuclear attack by Iran or against "dirty bomb" attacks by terror groups.

I'm smiling. How 'bout you?

By the way: When you go to the article, read the comments, too. A few have the PETA mind-set. 'But you killed animals to do this? Ohhh, why? Boo-hoo!" Suicidal idjits. And so typical. REad 'em! And laugh!

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

A Smooth Delivery?

Leftists love to extol the virtues of their abilities to speak well. The non-stop sniggering about G.W. Bush's inability to speak with a smooth, easy cadence was trumpeted as evidence that Republicans in general, and Conservatives in particular, are unable to speak. This is because all such people are deemed by the Leftists, and the MSM, to be idiots.

I will grant you that Bush has never been an entrancing public speaker. His breathy quality of speech seemed to exhibit a style of speaking akin to a smart ass, snickering, yahoo. The fact that many public speakers are ill-equipped to speak off-the-cuff made no difference. And Bush's inability to recite every speech without mistakes was always pointed to with derision. Never mind the fact that he could most certainly speak comfortably with people, and answer questions on-the-fly. He was a dullard.

Gotcha questions are never easy for a politician. There is always at least a moment of pause while the respondent tries to understand the question and formulate a response. In a Republican this is evidence of stupidity, sneakiness, or cunning. In a Democrat this is merely evidence of great thought and care.

So what are we to make of the ponderous, inarticulate speaking-style of Judge Sonia Sotomayor? This woman has had weeks to memorize her answers to a questions everybody knew was to be raised. Weeks to memorize her opening remarks. Weeks! And this is the way she responds?

Does she sound smart? Wise? Granted, a fine speaking style is not a necessary component for a trial judge, though you would expect practice to perfect said style. And this judge has had much practice. This is best she can do?

Does everybody recall the weird vocal stylings of Al Gore? The wooden delivery? The pedandtic, ponderous, intonation of Leftist Holy Writ? How many times can you listen to Al Gore speak as if he's lecturing a very dull child before you have to shake your head and wonder why the MSM thinks he's a fine speaker? And a true genius. Sheesh!

Remember his 1992 campaign phrase: "Everything that should be up ... is down! And everything that should be down ... is up!" Wonderful stuff, as it whipped the campaign crowds into a chanting frenzy. But delivered, as always, in that wooden puppet mode for which Gore is famous.

WND remarked, in part:
On the '92 campaign trail, Gore demonstrated that "message discipline" by trashing the "Republican economy." Over and over, he revised history by calling it the "worst economy since the great Depression."
Towards the end of the race, he even got somewhat animated, raising and lowering his arms like a hydraulic lift, as he shouted: "Everything that should be up ... is down! And everything that should be down ... is up!"
Even though it wasn't true, voters got the message and fired Bush.

No, George Bush was never a smooth speaker, but we don't need smooth speakers, do we? We need leaders, honest interpreters of the Constitution, representatives who fully understand that they work for us, not we them.

So, Sonia Sotomayor is a clunky speaker. Ill at ease, despite weeks to memorize and polish her remarks. Does this mean she is unfit to sit on the Supreme Court? No. Her published decisions, speeches, and membership in a racist organization - La Raza - should be enough to disqualify her. But it probably won't. The fact that she's a woman of Hispanic extraction, a judicial activist, and a Leftist will be enough for the Democrats to vote for her.

But don't let the Leftists, or the MSM, tell you she speaks well. She doesn't!

Friday, July 10, 2009

Some Thoughts On Writing Dialogue

One thing some of my writing friends, and my readers, tell me is that they enjoy my dialogue. That’s nice to hear. I work hard at creating dialogue that reveals my characters and moves the story along. I know I’m not always successful, but I do try.

One of the things I work hard to improve is the use of dialogue tags. Not sure what they are? Tags are things like ‘he said,’ “she inferred,” and so on. The standard rule, when writing dialogue, is to make the tags you use as simple as possible. So it’s frowned on to dip into such tags as, “he mumbled, morosely,” “she snapped,” “Antoine growled fiercely.”

Writers should make the dialogue do the work of the tags. Tags are easy to slap onto a bit of dialogue. Making the dialogue do that hard work is more satisfying - to writer and reader alike. Your characters’ dialogue should be distinctive enough so that the use of tags is minimized. If you think that’s not important, remember how annoying it is to read a piece of dialogue and not quite know which character is speaking. If you need tags to ‘tell’ who is speaking, maybe you need to work on that dialogue a bit more.

Another thing dialogue needs to do is provide insight into your characters. This is where ‘show versus tell’ comes into play in a very interesting way. Rather than use the infamous ‘information dump’, dialogue can provide the reader with a lot of clues to a character’s thoughts and feelings. Also his/her background, education, personality.

Why ‘tell’ the reader that the character is from French Canada when you can add a little dialect to his speech? Tidewater Virginian? Add a taste of the dialect to the dialogue. Yes, you can overdo the dialect and lose your readers. I slip into dialect writing so deeply that my editors will tell me to pull it back! But if you read my novel, “Benning’s War”, you know that I did put a lot of time into the characters’ patterns of speech and how their voices sounded.

I edited as much out as I felt comfortable with, but refused to go beyond a certain point. My characters had to maintain their dialects up to that point. Dialects are fine, but you have to be careful with them. Don’t overwhelm your readers. Use dialect to reveal not hide.

So how do I write that dialogue? I say it. Out loud. If the dialogue I’m speaking - out loud - sounds crude to my ears, or unbelievable, then I change it. It has to be real if the reader is going to follow and believe it. It’s where I nail down where to use contractions and where to use the full words, too.

No, this isn’t the easiest way to write dialogue, I’m sure, but it can be fun. I recited my in-progress dialogue at work, making co-workers and customers nervous, I’m sure. Once they realized what I was doing, and why, they might shake their heads, but they stopped thinking I was demented (little do they know, eh?).

Anyway, for me, dialogue can move a story along quickly, provide information necessary to the plot, and make your characters memorable to your readers. So try working on your story’s dialogue by speaking it, out loud. Listen to how it sounds, pay attention to making it not be an information dump, and let your characters speak through you.