Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:35 PM
 Bad diagnosis... The doctors for United States Senator Ted Kennedy are stating that he is victim to a malignant brain tumor. This is never a good thing. Today, conservative - even church going - Christians across America (including the President) will pray for Kennedy's health and outcome. A stark contrast indeed to what liberals would do if this same diagnosis was given to President Bush, where no doubt shouts of glee would be uttered at the dramatic worsening of an "opponent's" outlook.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
3:12 PM
 Mother's Milk? The Lovely Bride and I have had this conversation more times than we can count. Is it appropriate to take your tiny kids out to eat? Especially if the rugrats won't be controlled by the parents? So in New Jersey (figures) this debate has actually made news. I generally agree with the idea - Friday's, Chili's, Diners - these are acceptable noisy places to take noisy socially unacceptable kids for eat treats. The more foofy, atmospheric Manhattan eateries are OFF LIMITS PEOPLE! But ONLY in New Jersey would they actually even need to discuss the propriety of taking BABIES to BARS!!!*snarf*
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
1:40 PM
 Ch-ch-ch-changing! "The United States is discriminating against blind people!" According to an appeals court. Discuss this over lunch today - should we overhaul the entire paper money system to "no longer discriminate" against the blind? Way in - on the comments below...
Monday, May 19, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
2:11 PM
 "I see no-ching, I hear no-ching, I know no-ching!" It's hard to imagine just how strangely bizarre this experience must have been...
Monday, May 19, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
2:10 PM
Monday, May 19, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
2:09 PM
 You talkin' to me? WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld criminal penalties Monday for promoting child pornography. The court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren. The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the court struck down as unconstitutional. The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child porn. It does not require that someone actually possess child pornography. Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex. But Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law does not cover movie sex. there is no "possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term 'simulated sexual intercourse."' Scalia said. Likewise, Scalia said, First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography."
Monday, May 19, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
2:08 PM
 Not so much! Word comes today that the campaign of John McCain is distancing itself from former rival Mike Huckabee. Certainly not surprising. I think Huck has irritated McCain from the beginning. But Huck made nice and helped McCain outlast all the other also-rans in the primary process (except Ron Paul who evidently is still IN the race). A certain degree of loyalty followed and McCain has allowed Huck out albeit on a fairly sort leash to do some campaigning on his behalf. Then came last week's dreadful joke at the NRA. And that's the problem... Democrats are driven by the agenda of the far left and are advancing the issues forcefully - even against the will of the people. Republicans are in two camps. One is sticking their head in the sand - like the nominee on the California marriage issue. Or the bumbling buffanoory of moments like Huck's at the NRA last week. That little throw away line gets picked up, manipulated, and saturated through the electorate in a way that neither McCain nor Huck can control. We the people - are much more aligned with the Republicans on the issues across the board, but we are watching the opportunity to make this a meaningful election be washed away by a parade of badness... Sad, really sad!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
2:07 PM
 and the yentas mourned... So I'm laying in bed just checking a couple of things before I call it a night, when the Lovely Bride starts getting superiorly indignant. She did so at what had to be one of the dumbest things that MSNBC has ever posted... Just check some of the quotes... First from the elderly: "It would hurt my feelings a lot because I think she should be No. 1, she should be president," Heintzman said of Clinton's likely loss to Barack Obama. "Give a woman a chance to do something good."
From the not quite lucid: "For us, getting a woman elected is major," said Laurine Glynn, 72, of New York City. "We've waited, fought a lot for this. I do worry that my generation won't see a female president."
From the delusional: "Women are feeling a lot of sadness, disappointment and some anger as they look back at what happened in this race," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.
From those whose Geritol needs to be doubled: Paula Horwitz, 84, of Pittsburgh, said some younger women "just don't understand. They'll elect a man, and the men will keep on telling the women what to do."
The School of the slightly obvious: "What Hillary has done — win, lose or draw — has permanently changed the picture," says Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, which trains women to run for office. "Next time, we're not going to have to prove that the public will vote for a woman. We won't have to prove competency. She has succeeded at that level."
From the school of tough luck: "It will still be rough for women to come after her," she says. "They'll have to walk that balance of being strong and tough, compassionate and soft. When you're tough, you're called shrill, and the B-word. When you mist over, they say you're weeping."From the... oh who the heck cares... "It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That's a pretty scary thing," says Hirshman. "She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable."
So a few questions... Should a president be elected so as to not hurt some South Dakotan 81 year olds feelings? Is the greatest thing this next generation has to worry about is not seeing a female president? (Where does terrorism, economy, and social standards rank?) Was this race really that bad in the Democratic Primary? Seems to me there is a bit of history of bad blood in Democratic Primaries. And actually this seemed tame to me... Where are these men that get to tell women what to do? Let's just say I need to find them, I've got a former boss or two I wouldn't mind turning them loose on. What did that one quote above mean that the next female candidate won't have to prove competency? (Are they planning on tricking us and nominating morons?) And shouldn't ALL candidates, head into candidate believing that voters will divide normally way..? Bonus parting question: Does two "x" chromosome guarantee some mysterious part of the electorate?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:09 PM
"DONE!"
(UPDATE: Read the comment section on this post - which has been bumped from yesterday... This type of anger is exactly WHY this book HAD to be written...)
The editors, typesetters are now hard at work but my publisher is pleased because I only missed the May 12 deadline by about 36 hours.
I have not spoken of this book publicly yet for a variety of reasons, but let me just say liberals, feminists, and those that stand opposed to the traditional ideas of family are going to HATE this book.
Much of it biographical, I aim to take on the modern feminism that seeks to shut men up, make them stand in the corner, and speak only when spoken too.
For my critics who frequently crticize me - even if they do lack any imagination whatsoever - of only writing frequently about homosexual issues because I must be a closeted gay personally, will finally have the curtain drawn back on why I do.
And ladies... I can't tell you how many women have begged me to reserve them a copy when this is finally in stores. If you care about finding the kind of man you've always dreamed of - but didn't exactly know what he should be made of... YOU will not only read this book - but pass it around to all your friends...
Anyway... thanks for all the notes while the blog and column were on hiatus. I'm back, I'm grateful, and I'm more fired up than I've been in a good long while...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
10:55 PM
If you missed the season finale of The Office... man did you miss a good one: If you don't make NewsBusted a regular part of your surf menu... then enjoy tonight's with our compliments...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
10:25 PM
 fired for free speech as private citizen...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
10:23 PM
Personally I find it stunning that they never learn.
Whenever Bush makes a speech, even if he doesn't refer to them, name their names, say anything about them... they jump up and say, "I am NOT they way you describe me to be!!!!!!"
Have you ever noticed?
Like when the President uttered the words in the State of the Union referring to the fact that Iraq had sought uranium in AFRICA? Immediately that weekend Joe Wilson the mint julep queen goes on Andrea Mitchell, and starts talking about how the President was referring to his trip to NIGER. (Last I checked Africa is a wee bit bigger than Niger.)
Yesterday the President makes a comment that could have included most of Western Europe, ALL of Eastern Europe, and God only knows who else across the spectrum. He could have been referring to the Arab nations even neighboring Israel - the nation to whom he was speaking. He NEVER mentioned Barack Obama, The United States, or the Democratic Party... so what do American liberals do?
They blow their lids. Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, and Obama's nasty-faced campaign staffers ALL run out like spoiled brats screaming at television cameras, "HOW DARE HE TALK ABOUT US THAT WAY?"
They were indignant, insufferable, indiscreet, and very unintelligent in their presentations. Even television liberals - who sometimes (not often) still actually check the text of speeches - had drank the kool-aid, and then tried to say Bush HAD referred to Obama by citing his Press Secretary DENYING that he had referred to Obama. How the heck does that even work?
"Bush referred to Obama..."
"Where in his text did he refer to Obama?"
"No where he just was..."
"Sorry but the language of his speech doesn't refer to any person specifically..."
"Yeah but he was referring to Obama."
"No I don't believe he referred to anyone specifically."
"SEE YOU JUST DENIED IT - that PROVES he was referring to Obama..."
Then you add to that the Pelosi presser, the Clinton presser, and the nasty-face Obama campaign staffers all out there snarling - telling everyone how "beneath the dignity of the office" it was for Bush to attack Obama - on foreign soil. (To which he did not...)
And the foreign soil thing comes up... See - when the Dixie Chicks stand on stage somewhere and they actually NAME the President, and the United States, and actually, specifically refer to our foreign policy as being an embarrassment - that is the textbook definition of being unpatriotic. Now they all wanna say Bush did the same thing, but with no references to the United States, Barack Obama, the US' foreign policy - or anything even remotely resembling an attack on another U.S. Citizen, elected official, or even candidate.
Can SOMEONE PLEASE explain to me what the heck the liberals' problem is?
If you've got John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Obama's nasty-face campaign staffers all out there gettin' all uppity about President Bush saying something - HE NEVER SAID - doesn't that bode poorly for their potential to handle an actual crisis someday?
I was on the road between DC and NYC last night listening to the debate on many of the news outlets... Mark Steyn actually said it best on Hannity and Colmes - but I have not yet been able to find the footage. But a close second had to be Newt's opening round with kool-aid drinker Alan Colmes... watch and learn people. Watch and learn... liberals are just thick-headed less than genius types and running circles around them gets really easy - when they make such bone-headed blunders...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
10:22 PM
 "Because I Could!" In one of his faux-faith appearances following his Presidency do you remember when Bill Clinton was asked WHY he felt like what he had done with Monica Lewinsky was morally objectionable? He didn't sight Biblical standards of marital fidelity, anything to honor God, church teaching, doctrine, or moral instruction from his folks... Why was what he had done wrong, "Because he could!" (Take advantage of an inferior employee...) Well now liberals on the other end of the spectrum are making the exact opposite point... And per usual - liberals' thinking is so skewed - BOTH extremes are 100% wrong... I'm so glad my parents were principled conservatives. Even if everyone disagrees with me, I've at least been given the advantage of knowing how to think... CLEARLY!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
5:02 PM
"Paging Barry Lind!" I wonder if "Rev. Lind" will be visiting the church where this pictured event took place...
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:09 PM
|