Harry Reid, champion of freedom of speech.

Check this out!
If you don’t do what the Democrats say, they will take away your freedom of speech!
Even if the docudrama is inaccurate (reportedly, they use an invented scene to make Clinton look less feckless than he really was), you can’t threaten a company’s broadcast license over it! This is pure fascism on the part of Democrats!
AMERICAN FASCISM! FOR REAL THIS TIME!
Seriously, I was leaning towards ABC shouldn’t air something this controversial miniseries with made up events (which are supposed to be almalgamations of multiple events), but this is response is unprecedented.
Hey, Democrats maybe if you put some this energy to stopping terrorism instead of miniseries, you wouldn’t look like such of bunch of worthless little enuchs that you are.
More from Allahpundit here.
But he says we should all link here.
I’m going to go punch something.
UPDATE:
Here’s my further introspection on this issue.
UPDATE 2:
To reiterate for the trolls: The Democrats are threatening to take away ABC’s broadcast license, which never happened with the Reagan miniseries. Instead of just putting pressure on a network and its advertisers through normal means, they’re using threats of government retaliation. That’s textbook fascism right there.
If only the Democrats could get as angry about terrorists murdering people…
Also, for the record, I don’t think ABC should run a fictionalized account of what led to 9/11… but that’s not the concern of the government.

Who is now his way to being Lt. Joe foo’ the Marine having just been accepted into OCS! He’s a bit old for becoming an officer, but that’s because his application got delayed because he was deployed to Iraq. Anyway, my brother has really been wanting this for some time, and I’m just so happy to hear he got accepted that I have to tell everyone.
That reminds me: My brother had some interesting things to say about the military and Iraq, and I should put what he said up soon as it will be illegal for him to express such opinions when he becomes an officer.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was all over the news and talk shows yesterday (both Rush and Beck talked about him, O’Reilly talked about him, and I think Beck was having him on today) because of the stance he’s taking on that nutjob former president of Iran Khatami coming to speak about tolerance at Harvard on September 10 and 11. Bravo, Harvard, y’all really are a bastian of civilization, you insert expletive of choice here, I just can’t pick my favorite, and I know Jesus would rather I didn’t use one. Anyway, Romney has refused to use state funds to provide security and has asked Harvard to disinvite. Of course Harvard is full of “intellectuals” (yeah, I can think of more accurate words) who just have to hear his feelings on being tolerant. And Boston has lovingly stepped in to provide security. They’re so sweet there in Boston.
I need to add that to my to do list: Write letter to State Department asking why they issued this lunatic a propaganda visa. I hear they gave one to Ahmadinejad too for an upcoming U.N. meeting. In fact, I hear we still let the U.N. meet here, in NYC, which is in the United States, for that matter. So I guess I have a really long letter to the State Department that needs writin’. I mean, who hands out the State Department visas?
Wanna come here as a “diplomat”? All’s ya gotta do is be tolerant. All you have to do is threaten that if the free world doesn’t convert to Islam, they will meet harm. You think America is the great Satan? Here! Have a Visa! You want to come be on a “Security Council” where you can vote for everything that stands against American values and vote for everything that moves toward world destruction, and do it on our soil? Here! Have a Visa! Who wants a Visa so they can take billions of our dollars and never vote for our interests and only against our interests while letting us prop up their teeny countries while they spit in our faces?? 5 for a peso!
Wait, this was a post about how much I like Mitt Romney, and somehow I ended up screeching about how the U.N. is worthless and does nothing but steal our money to funnel it to countries that evilly plot against us, when they’re not using it to deploy “peacekeepers”, some of whom murder and rape women and children for fun while vacationing in Sudan. And how we keep giving diplomatic visas to their “leaders” so they can come over here on propaganda tours, when they are terrorists and terror sponsors and should not even be allowed inside our borders. The second they get over here, they should be strung up by their toes and beaten like pinatas. Or something.
Anyway, I like Mitt Romney. He has a great presence about him, too. I would like to know where he got his first name, though. I know he’s a governor and potential future president, but at the same time I feel like I should use him to catch a baseball or take a pie out of the oven. I’m conflicted.

As I said, many people are upset that the upcoming ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 may use made up events based on reality to make Bill Clinton look feckless instead of using better documented instances of his fecklessness. So how much “fake but accurate” scenes is a docudrama allowed? Obviously, ever single line can’t be taken straight from a transcript, so some artistic liberty is needed. Also, it’s common to make minor changes to history for the sake of drama (in Apollo 13, the famous line was changed from “Houston, we had a problem.” to “Houston, we have a problem.”).
For a thought exercise, let’s take an actual line Clinton is known to have uttered and see what changes can be made while stilling being ethical in the representation of Bill Clinton:

Continue reading ‘The Ethics of a Docudrama’ »

I’ve looked through the suggestions for a new name for our enemies that wouldn’t offend CAIR like “Islamic fascists” does, and I’ve picked what I think is the winner:

Continue reading ‘The New Name for Our Enemies’ »

I’ve seen a number of blogs post about Keith Olbermann, and he really does sound like a tool. Places like DailyKos and DU seem to be worshipping him as their new god for his – their words – “speaking truth to power” (can people actually type that with a straight face?), but all he has said is the regular nitwit commentary you’ll find on left-wing blogs… the only difference being he’s on MSNBC. Now, as far as viewership goes, being a commentator on MSNBC is just a step up from being a crazy standing on a city sidewalk shouting at people (which is just a step up from being a poster on DU), and thus I haven’t bothered to pay him much attention. Still, I ask you, my readers, whether you think he’s worth my attention and mockery. Say what you think in the comments (if you haven’t heard of him, say so and I’ll take that as a “no” on this question).

I was curious who was it that lost to Dr. Bob Bowman for the Democratic nomination to run for Congress in Florida district 15 (my district) in the 2006 election. He’s another 71-year-old retired Air Force veteran who seem to be only normal Democrat crazy according to his site (the Orlando Sentinel endorsed him over Dr. Bob pretty much just because Dr. Bob is too crazy) and whose strongest aspect is that his name is John Kennedy. I guess normal crazy just isn’t enough to win a Democratic primary these days; the base wants super crazy!
Oh, and to give you an idea of Wikipedians priorities, look at the size of the entry for Dr. Bob (which does need updating since, last I checked, it only refer to him collect signatures for this election) compared to that of his opponent, six-term Republican Dave Weldon (Weldon has made national news on a number of other things than Schiavo).
Incidentally, having lived in Florida since 2001, I’ve voted for Weldon twice now. Whether he’ll get a third vote from me will be decided as this campaign unfolds. I know Dr. Bob’s stance on keeping violent videogames from brainwashing our troops, but what’s Weldon’s. He is my Congressman, so maybe I should start asking questions.

Apparently the nutroots have found something to obsess over other than eating one of their own as shown by the number of front page posts on DailyKos about the upcoming ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11. Now, instead of spending countless energy trying to swap one liberal Democrat for another, they’re spending all their time trying to stop a movie from airing that they think might defame the even less liberal Bill Clinton who was last running for something in 1996.
I dunno when the nutroots is going to focus on defeating Republicans running now, but I hope it’s soon since we could really use the boost.
Anyway, The Path to 9/11 is a docudrama based entirely on documents found in Sandy Berger’s pants. The most controversial scene is where Clinton’s ninjas have surrounded Osama bin Laden and our waiting for the go-ahead smoke signal from Sandy Berger, but Berger won’t give it since Clinton is afraid about how the conflict will affect his chances with chubby women. Apparently, many people are disputing the factual accuracy of this scene, but, you have to admit, it sounds true.
Still, it seems suspicious that hard-core moderates like Rush Limbaugh have gotten a preview of the movie while the same courtesy has not been afforded to those it depicts, such as Berger and Clinton, but this can be explained by the worry that Berger would shove the film down his pants while Clinton would do the same with any chubby women at the screening.
Man, those Clinton years were fun.