Bye-Bye, Van!

“Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House.”
~ Valerie B. Jarrett ~ Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President
for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement

Special Advisor for Green Jobs, and noted Leftist oddball, Van Jones is out. The Watermelon - Green on the outside, Red on the inside - dogged by the recent revelations of his rude, racist, impolitic remarks, has been eased out of the Obama Administration. The wheels on the Obama bus are getting redder and wetter.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide"

Jones was certainly a plus for Conservatives and Republicans. His past political activities - a radical Leftist - and recent pronoucements on Americans in general and Republicans in particular - were excellent fodder for those who have tried to display Obama's Leftist proclivities, in his actions and his appointments.

From Fox News:

WASHINGTON, DC - Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality resigned today. Below is the text of his resignation letter, sent to Chair Nancy Sutley:

"I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today.

On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

I have been inundated with calls - from across the political spectrum - urging me to "stay and fight."

But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.

It has been a great honor to serve my country and my President in this capacity. I thank everyone who has offered support and encouragement. I am proud to have been able to make a contribution to the clean energy future. I will continue to do so, in the months and years ahead."

Self-serve much, Van?

NBC noted, in its article regarding Jones' resignation:

Jones, Obama's green jobs "czar," was caught on tape in an expletive-packed rant, directly attacking Republicans in the Senate who he said abused their majority position in the past to push legislation through. He told Politico after the statements were released that the comments were "inappropriate" and "offensive."

Ahh, but he made them. And they weren't from 20 years past, either.

As the Chicago Daily Observer says:

World Net Daily's reporter Aaron Klein broke the story and relentlessly pursued it, revealing Jones who was identified as a self-described radical communist and "rowdy black nationalist" who said his environmental activism was actually a means to fight for racial and class "justice":

Jones previously served on the board of an environmental activist group at which a founder of the Weather Underground terrorist organization is a top director.

Jones was co-founder of a black activist organization that has led a campaign prompting major advertisers to withdraw from Glenn Beck's top-rated Fox News Channel program. The revelation followed Beck's reports on WND's story about Jones' communist background.

That Jones and other White House appointees may have been screened by an ACORN associate.

One day after the 9/11 attacks, Jones led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world.

Just days before his White House appointment, Jones used a forum at a major youth convention to push for a radical agenda that included spreading the wealth and "changing the whole system."

Jones' Maoist manifesto while leading the group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, was scrubbed from the Internet after being revealed by WND.

Jones was the main speaker at an anti-war rally that urged "resistance" against the U.S. government – a demonstration sponsored by an organization associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party.

In a 2005 conference, Jones characterized the U.S. as an "apartheid regime" that civil rights workers helped turn into a "struggling, fledgling democracy."

Jones signed a petition calling for nationwide "resistance" against police, accusing them of using the 9/11 attacks to carry out policies of torture.

Yeah, it's the evil Right-Wingers who have done this to Van Jones. Not the self-serving Commie who enjoys hurling racist epithets. Pffft!

In the end, no matter the political fallout from this, the country is better off without Van Jones in a government position of any kind.
The Weekly Standard gives you an excellent view of this man. In its article, "Van Jones Joins the Global Struggle Against America", The Standard notes:

"Who's the real terrorists? Uncle Sam." That according to a record put out by Freedom Fighter Music, a label created by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which Van Jones founded. There are a number of different voices on the record, including that of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal and Van Jones himself. One of the voices accuses the United States government of "Fighting terror with terror, bombing babies in the night." And then Van Jones appears for his cameo (at the 3:50 mark). Jones rants against the "Israeli occupation," calls for the right of return of the Palestinian people and then puts himself squarely on the side of America's enemies: "This is now a global struggle against a U.S.-led security apparatus and military agenda that impacts people here, it impacts people around the world, and I think that we need to see our problems as linked."

Read the article and watch the video.

In the meantime be happy that at least one Ecoweenie Leftist is gone from the White House. As Martha Stewart likes to say, "It's a good thing."

Despair not, Leftists. The "O" still has his acolytes. And his friends.


From Fox4KC.com

Meredith Jessup on the resignation.

Jonah Goldberg: "The Washington Post is on the case."

Mark Hemingway

Mark Steyn writes about ol' Van: "Both of the Above"

Victor Davis Hanson on Van Jones: "'Oooh. Van Jones, alright!'"

Michelle Malkin has stuff, too!

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

From Fox, this slice of life:

Pennsylvania Man Accidentally Fires Cannonball Into Neighbor's House

Friday, September 04, 2009


UNIONTOWN, Pa. — A Pennsylvania history buff who recreates firearms from old wars accidentally fired a 2-pound cannonball through the wall of his neighbor's home.

Fifty-four-year-old William Maser fired a cannonball Wednesday evening outside his home in Georges Township that ricocheted and hit a house 400 yards away.

The cannonball, about two inches in diameter, smashed through a window and a wall before landing in a closet. Authorities say nobody was hurt.

State police charged Maser with reckless endangerment, criminal mischief and disorderly conduct.

No one answered the phone Friday at Maser's home. He tells WPXI-TV recreating 19th century cannons is a longtime hobby. He says he is sorry and he will stop shooting them on his property, about 35 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

From a link at Gina Cobb!

I guess that's how the ball bounces, eh?

By the way: It's International Bacon Day! Whoo-Hoo!

Finally! A Pie Chart That Makes Sense!

So many politicians love Pie Charts. They're graphic illustrations of information. Sometimes the Pie Charts are easy to understand, sometimes ... not so much. But I finally found one that really speaks to me.

This came from a link on The Corner. I forgot to save the URL for that particular post, but you can always scroll down and look for the post with a list of links. That'd be the one!

But that's up to you.

Anyway, here's the Pie Chart that speaks to me:

The great thing is this works, not just on Pumpkin, but all sorts of other edibles. Is that great, or what?

Whoo-Hoo!

Hey! Whaddya know? I found that post! :) It's called "Friday Stuff" by Jonah Goldberg. Enjoy it!

Time Is Running Out! Help!

Project 2,996 needs your involvement! Please hurry over, sign up, and post a tribute to one of the victims of 9/11 whom you'll be assigned. (is it who? *shrug*) Since D.C.Roe moved to his wordpress site I think many former tribute posters either lost touch or simply forgot about this annual event.

And now, more than ever before, we can use the reminder that innocent people were slaughtered on the altar of Islmaism on that horrible day eight-years-ago. Why now more than ever?

The Obama administration, through its acolytes and myrmidons, is attempting to co-opt the memory of 9/11 to push its Leftist, and as usual, squirrely, agenda and continue the spiral down the Memory Hole of our history. Not to mention the history of Islamist butchery.

It isn't enough that nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens were killed in a co-ordinated terrorist assault for the sake of a Death Cult. No, eight years afterward the Leftists want to turn the memory of that event into a National Day of Service. What's wrong with that? I'd suggest that with 365 days in a year there are more choices for this kind of silliness to promote Service. Choosing 9/11 is a cynical, calculated attempt to erase the reality of the attack. Indeed, why not pick 9/12? Wouldn't that be more useful? More respectful?

A lot of nice, well-meaning folks will join in this Day of Service. That's all well-and-good. But the choice of 9/11 is not all well-and-good. It's a slap in the face to those who know precisely what kind of enemy of humanity the Islamists are. Changing the focus of 9/11 is wrong. Period.

From Syracuse.com:

The idea of establishing 9/11 as a National Day of Service was first conceived in 2001 by the founders of MyGoodDeed, a nonprofit started by friends and relatives of 9/11 victims. They are working with ServiceNation, the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, the Corporation for National and Community Service and New York Cares.

In April, Obama authorized the establishment of 9/11 as a National Day of Service when he signed into law the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.

Thursday's news conference was held just hours before the late senator's body left his Hyannisport, Mass., home for a series of memorial rites followed by his funeral Saturday. Kennedy, who died Tuesday of a brain tumor, had co-sponsored the bill.

Yeah, let's memorialize Teddy by diminishing the impact and meaning of the 9/11 memory.

Perhaps you don't think there's anything political in this maneuver? It's simply a positive way to move America onward? From Redstate.com:

What day? Our US Senators return to DC the Tues after Labor Day. That next FRIDAY, Sep 11, is Patriot Day, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the 9/11 attacks.

All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.

Nothing political in that, is there?

You can read the articles, do some searching yourself, for more about this. But if you can spare the time - please make the time! - signup with Project 2,996. It's worthy. And there is nothing political in this project. Pay tribute to the victims of 9/11 only.

Will you help us out?


Articles and blogs discussing this Project, or the 'Day of Service':

Always on Watch

Mike's America

The American Spectator

The Foundry

And So It Goes In Shreveport

Michelle Malkin

Moe Lane

Leftist Lion Roars No More

From Newsday:

"Edward M. Kennedy, the iconic “liberal lion” of the U.S. Senate and reigning patriarch of a legendary family political dynasty, whose advocacy of social issues left an indelible stamp on a half-century of American politics, died of brain cancer Tuesday night at his Cape Cod, Mass., home. He was 77.

Photos: Senator Ted Kennedy through the years

The youngest son in a family of wealth and privilege, Kennedy was a staunch liberal voice in his four decades in the Senate who often rallied his fellow Democrats, but he also built unlikely alliances with Republicans to pass milestone legislation on education, health care, voting rights and the minimum wage."

[...]

“Ted” Kennedy, as he was universally called, had his own unsuccessful run for the presidency, a position he seemed destined to hold. He was dogged by scandal after the 1969 drowning death of a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, a former aide to his brother Robert, in Kennedy’s car in an accident on Chappaquidick Island, Mass.

[...]

I'm sure many will rain praise upon the dead Senator. I will not, merely noting his passing.

Make of that what you wish.

Note: I expect Obama, and the rest of the Dems, to use this man's death to promote their Socialist Agenda. It won't surprise me at all to see them use his funeral (as they have used Democrat funerals in the past) as a form of political rally, rather than a dignified ceremony marking this person's death. The socialist programs proposed by the Obama administration, and the Dems, will be touted as a "Tribute" to the 'Great Man' the Leftists touted as the "conscience of the Senate".

Some conscience.

Expect the Leftist myrmidons of the MSM to fall into line. The encomiums of Ted Kennedy will be almost non-stop. This is the enshrinement of a Liberal Saint.

We'll be spoon-fed the 'historic accomplishments' of this man; the failures and abyssal weaknesses will be ignored or glossed over. Obama will see his poll ratings rise.

This is a boon to Obama and the rest of the Socialists in his administration. Not so much for America.

Thomas Lifson notes (emphasis mine):

Ted Kennedy was the poster boy for redemption by liberal politics -- the sense that many on the left have that no matter how badly they behave personally, they have a claim on virtue because they support liberal policies. By mobilizing the power of the state to take money away from some to cater to the needs of others, they suddenly become great humanitarians.


Even the liberals on MSNBC this morning are framing their eulogies in temrs of Teddy's battle with his dark side (and concluding that in the end light won because he got the government to spend a lot more money).

But Ted Kennedy faces a Judge far more powerful than any pundit, or indeed the electorate now. What any other mortal thinks of him now is irrelevant to his fate.

"Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment." - James Taranto

Update: From Michael Graham comes this commentary (read it all):

"[...] Ted Kennedy's family loved him. Many people will sincerely mourn Sen. Kennedy's passing.

All these things are true about Sen. Kennedy.

And so are these:

Sen. Kennedy was wrong about virtually every major public policy issue of his career.

[...]"

Confederate Yankee has a little to say:

"Ted Kennedy is dead. I will not miss him."

Bookworm Room has some links worth perusing. :)

Who Was That?

In the late 70s and early 80s I lived in Santa Ana, California - 45 minutes from L.A. - seeking Fame and Fortune as an actor. Mostly I was a janitor, taking acting classes, and so on. Money not being in abundance my Folks would send me a ticket home for Christmas, and friends would drive me to LAX to catch my flight.

I'm not sure what year it was but I remember being in the terminal, waiting for my flight, when a man came down the concourse, heading out of LAX. I recognized his face immediately. Why not? I'd seen him in many TV shows, and in Films, too. But, for the life of me, I could not remember his name!

That alone isn't unusual. I have trouble with names. Faces I remember, but when it comes to hearing a name I always seem to be paying little attention.

But I was wishing, at the time, that I did remember his name because I would have liked to step up to this Character Actor and thank him for entertaining me for so many years. It would take seeing a rerun of a Twilight episode to finally 'catch' his name. At that time I owned no computer, so I wasn't hooked up to the infant Internet.

I'll tell you who he was in a moment.

On the return trip my Mom took me to the Philly airport to catch the return flight. As I waited I saw two different men come down the concourse. One was a muscular, average-height man, surrounded by an entourage. He looked solemn, unapproachable. He I recognized immediately, too. Sylvester Stallone. I thought it funny that he needed to be protected by bigger men than he, and the one would be kind of foolish to even try to approach him. So I just watched him walk by.

A little while later another man ambled by, a big grin on his face, looking like he was enjoying the daylights out of being home. He wore a floor-length leather coat, and not a soul was with him. No entourage at all. I sure as heck recognized him. It was Joe Frazier, former Heavyweight Boxing Champ. And I thought about how he didn't need any bodyguards, and looked utterly at ease in a public setting.

Why didn't I wave to him or speak to him? I don't know. But I thought about that later and was a tad ashamed that I didn't. I had been a fan of Smokin' Joe for a long time. I should have said something, right?

Anyway, that was then. As I said in a recent post, there's a digital TV network that shows old TV shows. In nearly every episode I see faces of actors and actresses I recognize. Many I haven't seen in years. And most are unknown to me, as far as their names. Luckily RTV lets the closing credits scroll so you can read the characters' names (unlike the broadcasters today. Must they squish the credits to the side or to the bottom of the screen to tout another show or commercial? Gimme a break!)

So with access to the Internet I can chase down the names to go with the faces.

And who was that well-regarded character actor from LAX? The one I recognized but could not name?

Do you recognize him?



It's Edward Andrews.



What about these two well-regarded character actors? Both could play the Heavy very well. Both came off as tough.



From his turn in the movie Bullitt, you should easily recognize Simon Oakland. Always enjoyable to watch.



This fellow's face may be recognizable to you, but do you have an inkling of his name? I sure didn't. I had to chase it down through a TV series cast list at the IMDB.



It's Ramon Bieri. See? I bet even if the face is familiar you had no clue.

These three fine actors are gone, now, Andrews passing away in 1985 - not long after I saw him, I think. Bieri died in May of 2001. Simon Oakland passed from the stage in 1983.

Are there any great character actors today? A Walter Brennan? A Beulah Bondi? Are there? Would we know the names? Or just the faces?

Faces like Eddie Mayehoff?


"As an actor, the husky-voiced entertainer with the elastic face is probably best remembered for his film That's My Boy (1951), in which he played an ex-football star who aggressively prods his awkward, goofball son Junior (played by--who else?--Jerry Lewis) to follow in his athletic shoes. Dean Martin played Jerry's coach in the popular film."

Faces like Paul Ford?


"Paul Ford (1901 - 1976) was another one of those great character faces (and voices) in movies and on TV.

He specialized in bluster, bravado, befuddlement, bull-headedness, and undoubtedly something else beginning with the letter 'B'."

Do we still look at the image on the screen and ask ourselves, "Who was that?"

Obamacare: Illegal As Hell

One of the true barriers to so-called Obamacare is the most important and basic to American Government: The U.S. Constitution. While many Americans are busy protesting various aspects of the boondoggle known as Obamacare, a lot of us have wondered, now and then, just how this is supposed to work within the Constitutional boundaries our Public Servants are pledged to follow.

An op-ed in the Washington Post, by David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, nails the basic illegality of Obamacare. Read it, if you haven't already.

Bookworm, a lawyer by trade, posts on this, noting Ed Morrissey's dead-on comments regarding Obamacare:

"Most states now require drivers to have auto insurance before issuing drivers licenses, car registrations, or both. However, that doesn't apply here for three reasons. First, that power rests with the individual states, as they are the licensing authorities and not the federal government. Second, driving is not a right but a privilege, which gives access to state-owned roads in exchange for a demonstration of competence and appropriate safety and insurance preparation, so the state can and does set conditions on that privilege (too many, but that's an argument for another day). Third, because the insurance is conditioned on that privilege, it only affects a portion of the populace. The states could not demand universal auto insurance on every man, woman, and child in their state."

Morrissey goes on to dismantle the Constitutionality of the Obamacare proposals and possible end-arounds that Statists may also attempt.

Americans have become placid in their acceptance of un-Constitutional Federal hand-outs, from Social Security to the Department of Education. Despite the fact that the Constitution had two purposes - create a Federal Government and describe how it works, and sharply fence in that Federal Government's powers - almost from the beginning of this Republic our elected Representatives have striven to expand Federal power (and their own, of course) and buy votes through welfare-type legislation. Any transfer of wealth (except those which are allowed under the Constitution of The U.S. or its States), of any kind, from the person or persons who own that wealth, to another person or persons who have not earned it, is a form of welfare. It is also not legal under the Constitution for the Federal Government to enact such transfers. Not without the express consent of those whose wealth is being taken.

You can argue all you wish that things like Social Security provide a safety net for those Americans who need help. That is well and good. But the Feds have no moral or legal authority to force the American public to pay for such things. If government lawyers and accountants wish to provide free help in setting up private foundations, etc. which act in the manner of Social Security, Welfare, et al, then let them do so. That's their right as Free Americans. To allow the Federal Government to step in and mandate such things is illegal.

But, as I said, we've become accepting of such things. And that attitude leads inexorably to such un-Constitutional proposals as so-called Obamacare.

Remember the brouhaha over FEMA and the reaction to Hurricane Katrina's aftermath? FEMA, had it existed as solely a private concern, may have acted with the speed and efficiency of Wal-Mart. Remember how that private - and politically vilified, by the Left - company had water, ice, and foodstuffs, flowing into the area within hours? Our ponderous and inefficient government could not act as swiftly. Nor was it legally permitted to do so, within Constitutional boundaries, save for activating the National Guard to provide protection while rescue and rebuilding began.

Yes, the Federal Government has money to spare, and the manpower to act. But the money is taken from us, by force. If a billion dollars are wasted or corruptly misappropriated, the Feds may or may not respond. But we are the ones whose money is lost. The manpower is also not entirely Constitutional, save for the Armed Forces. All those bureaucrats, apparatchiks, and minor functionaries, are simply the bastard children of a bloated, un-Constitutional Federal Government.

Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional Scholar, former Lecturer, and all-around smart cookie. But his very public gaffes and faux understanding of things Biblical, Historical, and Social reveal none of these supposed smarts. And his proposals regarding a universal Health Care system are far outside the limits imposed by the Constitution. As he well knows. As do the Leftists who infest the Government at all levels.

“Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!”

Argue the merits, or lack thereof, of individual aspects of the Obamacare proposal boondoggle all you want (Dr. Rosenbloom has a very good article at American Thinker). But at the end of the day recognize that this is not simply unsustainable economically, but utterly illegal. Illegal as Hell!

Obamacare must not be allowed to pass in any way, shape, or form. And any elected Representative who votes for it, or its constituent parts, should be voted out of office at the earliest possible moment.

Project 2996: Join Us!

We're approaching the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on our Nation. Dale C. Roe, who inaugurated the tribute project to the victims of those attacks - Project 2996 - has moved to a new site at Wordpress, and has put out a call for folks to sign up again. Time is short, but this should be a labor of love to the innocent victims of Islamism on our home soil.

My original tribute blog remains up, alive, and waiting for visitors and comments. It's called simply, "2,996: Gary H. Lee". You'll find some images of Gary, and family, with some biographical information, tributes from friends and co-workers, and memories from family and friends.

If you have the time, please head over to Dale's new site, sign up, and get to creating a tribute to one of those lost to the hatred of the Islamists. We must not forget the victims of 9/11, we dare not. The media and our political class seem as eager as ever to forget them. So do your own part in ensuring we never forget the victims of 9/11.

Join me at Project 2996, won't you?

Update 8/20/09:

I've been assigned Paul James Battaglia. The blog is completed and will be opened on September 11, 2009. Paul was 22 when he was lost in World Trade Center Tower One.

Please sign up and join the project.

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!

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!

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.

Phishing Bait: Refund Email from the IRS?

Has this, or something like it, popped up in your email inbox?

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that
you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $749.80

Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in order to
process it.

A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons.
For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here


Note: For security reasons, we will record your ip-address, the date and time.
Deliberate wrong inputs are criminally pursued and indicted.


Regards,
Internal Revenue Service


© Copyright 2009 , Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Looks good, doesn't it? Heck, I could use $750 right about now. Being unemployed, that would pay the bills - rent, electricity, etc, for a month! So you can believe me when I say that this email looked very tempting to me.

Very!

But Mom didn't raise many fools. I went right to Snopes and checked this out. I figured somebody - or a lot of somebodys - would have looked into this for legitimacy before me. And guess what? They did!

In part, here's what Snopes says about this lovely email:

Phishing bait:   Notice from the IRS indicating the recipient is eligible for a tax refund or stimulus payment.


[...]

Origins:   Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good phishing bait for a number of reasons:[...]

The IRSs says about such e-mails that:

The IRS does not initiate taxpayer communications through e-mail. In addition, the IRS does not request detailed personal information through e-mail or ask taxpayers for the PIN numbers, passwords or similar secret access information for their credit card, bank or other financial accounts.



Do not open any attachments to questionable e-mails, which may contain malicious code that will infect your computer. Please be advised that the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers via e-mails.

Hey, don't listen to me, just head to the Snopes article, read it, then wait for that phishing email to arrive!

After that do what I did. Forward the email to the IRS. What it's about and how to handle it is explained at the IRS page here.

The IRS explains:

How to report phishing, e-mail scams and bogus IRS Web sites
If you receive an e-mail or find a Web site you think is pretending to be the IRS,

• Forward the e-mail or Web site URL to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov.


• You can forward the message as received or provide the Internet header of the e-mail. The Internet header has additional information to help us locate the sender.


• After you forward the e-mail or header information to us, delete the message.

TImes are hard, and this is just another scam that will suck in the gullible or the desperate. Don't fall for it, okay? Check it out at Snopes, then send it on to the IRS.

Phishing is a crime. Let's nail the phishers!