The Truth Is Whatever Hollywood Says It Is

Valerie Plame may finally convince the world that her version of events is the truth if historians watch her movie.

"Fair Game," based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions - not to mention outright inventions. To start with the most sensational: The movie portrays Ms. Plame as having cultivated a group of Iraqi scientists and arranged for them to leave the country, and it suggests that once her cover was blown, the operation was aborted and the scientists were abandoned. This is simply false. In reality, as The Post's Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby reported, Ms. Plame did not work directly on the program, and it was not shut down because of her identification.

Sad to say, we've this revisionist crap before.

Why Is It That the Same People Angry Bristol Palin Is in the Finals of DWTS...

Are against Voter ID laws? Seems like picking your elected representatives is a bit more important than a television show.

Of Course Everybody's Excited About Prince William's Engagement

In miserable times, everybody likes a distraction.

It's 1977 all over again, folks.

Fan Base and Dancing With the Stars

I'm a fan of DWTS since Season 3. The show is trivial and meaningless and allows people to vote for people they like over people who can dance. Believe me, in all the seasons I've watched, the person who won wasn't necessarily the best dancer. As is often the case in these poll-based shows, fan base is more important than talent.

That brings us to Bristol Palin and her remarkable staying power. I've had this week's semifinal installment of DWTS spoiled by overanxious friends complaining that Brandy is out and Bristol is still there, but I've gotten used to that phenomenon (if you TiVO something, you can't have access to any media before you watch the show. Period.)

Now we hear that supporters are rigging the votes (or, rather, exploiting a flaw in ABC's system) in Bristol's favor. And that liberals are complaining about it and that conservatives, the little sneaks they are, are enjoying it.

My opinion is that after Jerry Rice came in third one season, it's hard to complain about someone else rigging the vote.

UPDATE: Thanks to Memeorandum for the link.

UPDATEx2: Apparently, some guy shot his TV because he didn't like Bristol's dancing. Must've been a teabagger. No, wait...

What Is It With Liberals and Violence?

Look, I know our textbooks don't like to teach kids the link between liberal ideology and violence, but you don't have to go back to the 19th Century to see it. Take this post at Echidne's site for just another example.

Andrew McCarthy bloviates on how everybody "knows" the Right is looking to assassinate Barack Obama, then goes on to praise the disgusting lunatic Ted Rall for calling for armed revolution. Such talk always amuses me because liberals will talk with fear about the Second Amendment and "rightwing violence" followed a heartbeat later with calls for armed revolution against the unfair work practices of the KFC down the street. Do these people even think about the dissonance of their thoughts?

What I love most about liberals is when they call for boycotts (as this article does at the end). It just makes me giggly when they act as if 4 people not watching The Simpsons is going to cause the demise of Fox Corporation. Seriously. I'm all for people supporting companies they like and not supporting companies they don't like. But if I decide not to watch Glee because I'm tired of its agenda, I don't expect the show to go off the air.

Do You Own Your Software or Just "License" It?

It's one of those insults to our intelligence: you go to a computer store, plunk down 30 or 40 or 200 bucks for a software package, take it home and use it for two years, and then take it to a used book store, trying to recoup a little of your expense when you're done with it, only to find out that said used book store won't resell the software. Why? Because, unbeknownst to you, you never owned the software. You just bought a license to use it. So rather than continuing a useful life as a secondary sale, your (now unwanted) software can either (a) go in the trash or (b) make new coasters for soft drinks.

This is the heart of a case before the Ninth Circuit: when do you own software and when do you merely license its use?

Most of us figure that buying software is no different from buying a book, but the software industry (successfully) argues there are big differences. For one thing, once you download software to your computer, it continues to be useable, even after the disks are long gone, unlike your copy of a book which does not. OTOH, most consumers use software much like they would use a book--until they are done with it.

There are several cases along this same line making their way through the courts, and I can't wait to hear how the Supreme Court will answer these questions, particularly as software and books merge in items like Kindles, or music and iPods.

Who Knew the Nazis Used Facebook?

Author Joe McGinniss is writing a book about Sarah Palin and moved in right next door to her, presumably to have some eyewitness info to add.

But now, McGinniss is complaining that the Palins haven't been "friendly" to him. I guess being bashed relentlessly by liberals for a couple of years will do that to a person, especially if you read McGinniss's previous essay on Palin. Palin's no milkshake murderer, nor is she Jeffrey MacDonald (both books by McGinniss I read and shivered through), but you don't have to be a killer to be a bit apprehensive when this guy decides to write about you.

I guess Palin's Facebook diary on McGinniss's appearance riled him a bit, so now he's taken to the Today Show to compare a writeup on Facebook with..."Nazi tactics."
Really, Joe? That's the best you can come up with? You're a fantastic writer with incredible skills and you compare a tongue-in-cheek recitation of facts and questioning of motive with Nazis? Which part of Nazi behavior is this like? Kristelnacht? Concentration camps? If McGinniss really wanted people to think his landing next door to Palin was just a coincidence and that he wanted a friendly relationship, he could start with not calling the Palins Nazis for being suspicious.

Iowahawk puts this in a much more humorous way.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin responds.

More Free Speech: The First Anti-Obama Movie

Oh, there may have been something done before, but this is the first I've seen of one.

A New Jersey judge-cum-filmmaker has chosen to step down from the bench rather than abide by a dictum from state judicial authorities that he not publicize his satirical movie painting President Obama as a modern-day Faust...

The film is about a cocaine-snorting college student who makes a deal to deliver millions of souls to Satan. The main character, played by Del Vecchio, goes on to attend Harvard Law School, work as a community organizer and win the White House. The title's initials stand for "Occidental Births a Monster," a reference to the college Obama attended for a short time.

Not quite as stirring as an assassination fantasy, but a good start to exposing Democrats to the ridicule they thought appropriate for Republicans.

It's All About Him

President Obama's speech on Afghanistan to pre-empt A Charlie Brown Christmas.

What is up with this guy? Has he no shame???

I am, of course, only half joking here. Certainly, the president's speech is important, but the timing couldn't be worse.

Joe Friday Talks to Barack Obama

Thanks to Chuck.

SNL Mocks Obama

Capitalist Pig's Capitalism Tanks

I'm a Christian, but sometimes, you have to believe in karma. To wit: Michael Moore's: Capitalism: A Love Story tanks at the box office.

Moore was last seen telling a reporter that "Capitalism did nothing for me," and with results like this, he might be right.

Letterman Blackmailed; Should We Feel Sorry for Him?

I read this morning that someone tried to blackmail David Letterman over his various sexual daliances with staffers. Allahpundit calls it "weird and awful." I just call it karma.

Perhaps I'd have more sympathy for Letterman had he not made a career of mocking others for doing this same thing. Letterman is a leftwing crank and Obama butt-licker to boot, so I just can't feel his pain too much. As Verum Serum notes,

What would Letterman be saying about this mess if it were happening to some politician instead of himself?

My bet is that he wouldn't pass up the opportunity to tell a few nasty jokes about it.

Hollywood Supports Pedophiles

It was a bit nausea-inducing to read about Hollywood creatures ginning up support for pedophile Roman Polanski, who might actually be forced to face trial for rapind and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl here in the States.

Well, why should they care about Polanski's private life, right? It's his "choice," isn't it? We really should keep the courts out of the bedroom, after all.

Or, better yet, Let's blame the mothers for Polanski's monstrous behavior. I mean, if a mother "thrusts" her child at him, why should Polanski show any restrait and recognize that 13 is way too young for a 44-year-old man to have sex with?

The Left, apparently, isn't bothered by child rape, but more concerned about the L.A. district attorney pursuing the case at a time of budget cuts. Because, you know, f*cking your 13-year-old was just consensual sex, I suppose.

UPDATE: Mollie at GetReligion adds this to the rape apologists:

There’s this odd clip from The View where Whoopi Goldberg tries to explain that Polanski merely raped the girl, not “raped-raped” her. Because apparently giving a 13-year-old alcohol and Quaaludes and repeatedly refusing to comply with her demands that you stop orally, vaginally and anally raping her isn’t “rape-rape.”

This reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton's "it wasn't sex" defenders.

UPDATE x2: Smitty at The Other McCain points out the similarities in defense of Polanski and Ted Kennedy.

UPDATE x3: Here is Patterico's post on Whoopi Goldberg's declaration that anally raping a 13-year-old child isn't "rape-rape," plus a transcript of the 13-year-old's testimony.

Another Argument Against Taxpayer Subsidized Art

White House uses National Endowment for the Arts to push partisan agenda (complete with audio).

Hard to argue that the NEA was not trying to get artists to shill for Obamacare, education and the environment, particularly when groups getting NEA grants released press releases praising health care "reform" just three days after the conference call.

The $64,000 question is: was it legal? As Ed Morrissey notes, it may be legal but certainly smells wrong.

We do not fund the NEA for it to produce Leni Riefenstahl-type art. If the NEA wants to go into policy activism, then it should become a private foundation with private funding, and Congress should cut it loose.
The NEA was bad enough when it was using tax dollars to fund such memorable art as placing a crucifix in a jar of urine. Congress should completely defund the NEA at this juncture and tell the Obama administration to end its attempts to build propaganda machines in the executive branch.

Republicans should begin arguing for the defunding of the NEA as a partisan political organization. I agree that it's fine for artists to do political work, but not at taxpayer expense.

LOL of the Day

Even Jon Stewart Gets It

Via Hot Air comes Jon Stewart's monologue ripping the MSM for ignoring the ACORN story for so long.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

As Advertisers Shun Glenn Beck...

Viewers flock to his show.

An advertising boycott against Fox News host Glenn Beck has succeeded in keeping most major sponsors from running commercials on his show even as the controversial commentator's viewership has grown.

Beck attracted 2.81 million viewers Monday, his third-largest audience since his show launched on Fox News in January, according to Nielsen Media Research data provided by the network.

If Fox News doesn't drop Beck, and hopefully, they won't, advertisers will come back.

Why Do Successful Female Stars Have to be Sluts?

This column on the sluttification of Miley Cyrus brought to mind that old joke by Bob Greene from the 1980s about women being genetically inclined to strip for cameras.

The joke was part of a column that came out after Vanessa Williams was decrowned Miss America for having posed nude for a photographer. Greene commented that it wasn't the first time a woman had fallen from grace for having nude pics, but that this was something that didn't happen to men. I'm reciting it from memory, but Greene said something like, "You'll never hear Ronald Reagan or Tip O'Neill have to say, 'I was young and impressionable.' Because men don't have a pathological need to strip off their clothes for the camera."

I was furious when Greene originally wrote that, with all the fury that a 20-year-old know-better can muster. But as I've aged, I've sadly grown to agree with Greene more and more. Do women have a pathological need to strip for the camera? And why do so many women do it willingly and for fame?

In Miley Cyrus's case, it's not like she's not making a gazillion bucks because of the pole dance. She was already a gazillionaire because of the Hannah Montana television show and her various merchandising endeavors.

I guess the explanation may be simpler: she's 16 and boy, nothing screams "I'm an adult!" more than showing off your sexuality.

Unlike Rebecca Hagelin, who seems indignant that yet another tween girl idol has gone the way of the tramp, I'm not surprised at all. As difficult as it is to keep one's daughters from glorifying TV and music stars, that's what responsible parents have to do. Because regardless of what the culture is telling your daughters, you still don't want them pole dancing..at 16 or 26, for that matter.

The Good Ol' Days: Walkmans and MP3 Players

A man gives his tech savvy son a Walkman for a week and the kid writes a column about it. Predictably, it is filled with "How did anyone ever tolerate this?!" kinds of lines.

Once you are of a certain age, you get lots of these sorts of comments, but it never ceases to amaze me the degree of superiority that can be expressed in so few words.

My disclaimer: I have an iPod shuffle, but I've never even listened to it. In a fit of timeliness (say, two years late), I asked for it for Christmas a couple of years ago. The thing sat in its case for about 18 months before my husband dusted it off and gave it to my son to use. I suppose I wanted the thing in theory more than practicality.

I still use a CD player in my car and swap out the CDs. That is, I do this when I listen to music at all. Mostly, I listen to talk radio over various stripes. This causes great consternation from the Hannah Montana set in the backseat, who constantly request that I put on Radio Disney or something of that sort. Usually, I comply, since I can see while dissecting the debt they will inherit from this abominable administration can be tiresome even to middle aged ears.

I also remember having a Walkman back in the 1980s, but, just as today, I couldn't understand the people who wanted to spend their lives with things stuck on (or in) their ears, listening to music as opposed to paying attention to what was going on around them. To me, real life--the life going on as you walk down the street, through the mall, in the library, at work--is interesting enough that I don't need my own soundtrack.

Nowadays, my husband has an iPhone and he constantly fiddles with it, finding new apps, cursing new apps, searching for old apps he can't find anymore, downloading Podcasts that he won't get around to listening to for another three months. Once again, I've thought about getting one. Downloading programs I'm interested in might be fun. But I'm still wondering if it wouldn't just end up like the DVR, filled with unwatched television shows that get deleted by newer unwatched programming. Maybe I'm just not young enough to want to escape that much.