Space Ramblings

Category Archives: Zen

Indie Hipster Racism Movie Edition

Red Dawn Dawning – Can North Korea Invade America?

First actual trailer for Red Dawn and it does have that old Wolverines vibe.

The most obvious problem is the superweapon gimmick. Probably some kind of pulse weapon. If you’re going to have an invasion of the United States you have to go pulse. But turning it into a portable weapon just detracts from whatever realism can be sustained.

The second most obvious problem. North Korea. But more suspension of disbelief is required. Here’s how Homefront, a cousin of sorts to Red Dawn, supposedly written by John Millius, though maybe not, handled that same problem.

Could North Korea invade the United States? Homefront’s opening tries to make a case for it with a North Korean takeover of South Korea and Japan while the US implodes in a massive financial crisis and pulls troops out of Asia. Then bird flu hits America followed by a pulse weapon attack that destroys America’s power grid.

I doubt Red Dawn has spent as much time working out a semi-plausible scenario for all this to take place. Homefront wasn’t that great of a game but it seemed to put more thought into this than Red Dawn is likely to have done.

The only way this can work is if America is falling apart while North Korea is getting its Reich on.

Stop Bashing Bloomberg’s Micro-Apartment Idea

Yes Bloomberg is an out-of-touch billionaire. Yes he wouldn’t showed in a bathroom the size of the apartments he’s proposing. Yes he’s a really easy target for proposing that people live in tiny apartments. But… he’s also right.

Here’s a reality. Manhattan apartments haven’t been affordable in a while. Residents are paying huge amounts of rent for one room Mayor Bloombergthat may be twice the size of the micro-apartments that Bloomberg is proposing.

Bloomberg can either try to regulate housing prices or deregulate minimum apartment sizes. Putting a price cap on the amount of monthly rent that can be charged for an apartment in Manhattan might be legal, but it would also be stupid in a bad economy with a troubled housing market. A lot of developments are already frozen and scrambling for funds.

Capping Manhattan rents at 750 per room would be a proposal that the Village Voice would love, but would leave hundreds of unfinished buildings standing around the city, it would bankrupt a lot of companies who have taken out loans based on projected returns and it would hit people who bought apartments to rent out and are suddenly dealing with a mortgage that they can never pay back.

The rents are outrageous, but trying to artificially cap them would be a serious blow to the economy, would put thousands out of work and would kill a lot of future development in Manhattan. So there would be some affordable apartments, but the only new apartments after that would be in housing projects.

So Bloomberg deregged apartment sizes. No one is being forced to live in these small apartments, but they will make it possible for people who can’t afford to live in Manhattan, but need to, to live in Manhattan. And that’s a good thing.

Mini-apartments cuts through the insane price situation by creating apartments that people can afford to live in. And I know people who would love a shot at a tiny but affordable place in Manhattan. A place that isn’t an illegal tiny apartment in Chinatown that puts residents at risk, but is completely legal, safe and inspected.

Laws limiting how small an apartment could be were there to prevent tenement crowding, but the people who want small places for less in Manhattan are mostly young and single. This won’t be a case of eight people crammed into 300 square feet. Though there will have to be oversight to make sure this doesn’t take off in Chinatown.

No one is supposed to live in these places for 30 years. They’re places you move into in your twenties while trying to make it in advertising, publishing or on Broadway.

Bloomberg boasted in a news conference that his first New York City flat was roughly 600 sq ft and cost between $120 and $140 each month. “I would have taken a smaller one, if I could possibly have found it,” he said.

Lots of others would too.

The question is will the rents actually be affordable?

New Yorker Agrees With Me On Newsroom

And I didn’t even see it yet.

In “The Newsroom,” clever people take turns admiring one another. They sing arias of facts. They aim to remake

sorkin

Sorkin with his favorite person in the world

television news: “This is a new show, and there are new rules,” a maverick executive producer announces, several times, in several ways. Their outrage is so inflamed that it amounts to a form of moral eczema—only it makes the viewer itch.

Emily Nussbaum at the New Yorker likes and dislikes The Newsroom for all the usual reasons, because it is a Sorkin show. And that’s how I called it

The whole premise of his HBO series The Newsroom is “Why don’t more people in the news say the things that we know are right.” And that’s going to be it. Episode after episode of clever dialogues that make people feel clever about what they really believe.

Oh and The Newsroom kind of sounds exactly like Studio 60, right down to the opening premise.

When the moderator needles him into answering a question about why America is the greatest country on earth, he goes volcanic, ticking off the ways in which America is no such thing, then closing with a statement of hope, about the way things used to be. This speech goes viral, and his boss (Sam Waterston) and his producer, MacKenzie McHale (Emily Mortimer), who’s also his ex-girlfriend, encourage him to create a purer news program, purged of any obsession with ratings and buzz.

Jeff Daniels by the way is 57. Emily Mortimer is pushing 40. Nothing more to say about that.

Whenever McAvoy delivers a speech or slices up a right-winger, the ensemble beams at him, their eyes glowing as if they were cultists.

But they’re really admiring Aaron Sorkin’s words. McAvoy is standing in for Sorkin. Sorkin might as well just step in and play the part. He even kind of looks like Daniels.

Sorkin is often presented as one of the auteurs of modern television, an innovator and an original voice. But he’s more logically placed in a school of showrunners who favor patterspeak, point-counterpoint, and dialogue-driven tributes to the era of screwball romance. Some of this banter is intelligent; just as often, however, it’s artificial intelligence, predicated on the notion that more words equals smarter.

Besides Sorkin, these creators include Shonda Rhimes (whose Washington melodrama, “Scandal,” employs cast members from “The West Wing”); Amy Sherman-Palladino, of “The Gilmore Girls” (and the appealing new “Bunheads”); and David E. Kelley, who created “Ally McBeal” and “Boston Legal.”

Nussbaum is very right here. There’s a whole school of these people and what they do best is copy some of the energy of the theater by incorporating wordplay and rapid responses, but there’s nothing behind it. Sorkin admitted as much in his New York Magazine interview.

Sorkin isn’t really any different than Diablo Cody. They’re both doing the same thing. Pumping out tons of fake clever dialogue that’s fast, topical and senseless.

Sorkin’s shows are the type that people who never watch TV are always claiming are better than anything else on TV. The shows’ air of defiant intellectual superiority is rarely backed up by what’s inside—all those Wagnerian rants, fingers poked in chests, palms slammed on desks, and so on.

And that’s similar to what I wrote

There’s no surprises when you’re dealing with Aaron Sorkin. All the flashy caffeinated dialogue hides the hollowness of the material. It’s the razzle-dazzle behind which there’s nothing except cliches. All the energy and character is there only to give the audience the cliche that they want and to make them feel smart for hearing their own ideas spat back to them in the crackling dialogue that they wish they could do on their own.

The New York Public Library’s War on Books

Walk into any public library and you are confronted with stacks of begging letters to send out to Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council asking them to keep funding intact for libraries. What you aren’t confronted with… are that antiquated technology known as books.

library books

Pictured, not a library priority

Trying to find books in a New York Public Library has become a challenge. The library is daring you to go ahead and actually find a book and walk out with it.

The first thing you see when you walk into a library are flyers for a dozen events, none of them having anything to do with books. You can find everything from economic literacy classes to cartoon drawing to a film series on the plight of Group X in period Y. No books though. The events are mostly geared to teens and a lot of them are even more useless than I made them sound.

Next up are the computers. Row after row of computers with patrons using them to play games and mess around with Facebook. Many libraries also have laptops that can be borrowed by patrons, so they can also play games and chat online. The computers can, in theory, be used for research, but most of the time they’re arcades.

After that you reach the counter. There are a few books at the counter, but they’re current bestsellers on a 1 Week loan. Even on the rare occasion when there’s something to read in that pile, there is no actual time to read them.

Past the counter are the reserve shelves, where books that patrons have reserved ahead of time, sit waiting for them. Why put reserve books in a priority space near the exit? I don’t know, but I’ve seen it in enough libraries to assume it’s policy. Instead of walking into a library and seeing books, there are shelves filled with wrapping paper books that no one but their designated borrower can take out.

the modern library

Pictured... a library priority. One guy watching porn, one guy playing a Zynga game. One guy watching a FOX News video. Who needs books anyway?

Now you might think that you’re about to find some books. Good luck. Next stop are the DVD’s. Blockbuster may be out of business, but the New York Public Library, funded by tax dollars, is still in the DVD rental business. Want to see Adam Sandler or Eddie Murphy’s latest movie? Go to the library. Don’t worry, you won’t be distracted by any of those books. The New York Public Library has made sure you won’t be offended by encountering any printed matter on your quest to use your taxpayer subsidized version of Blockbuster Video.

In the corner there might be some audio books to slowly adjust patrons to the idea that there might be actual books in the library. But actual books for adults who can read English? Good luck.

There will be a few bestsellers in the New Fiction and New Non-Fiction shelves somewhere near the front or in the middle of the library. Hope you like James Patterson, Bill O’Reilly, Dean Koontz, diet books, Oprah, Richard North Patterson, Jimmy Fallon, Dan Rather and Jackie Collins.

Most libraries now prioritize foreign language books for immigrants or books for teens. I have seen libraries where you have to go all the way to the back just to find the fiction section. Other libraries where the fiction section is on a high floor. I visited a library where not only was the first floor reserved for teen and foreign language books, but normal patrons were barred from sitting on chairs on the first floor because they were reserved for teens. (It would probably have been illegal to also reserve them for foreign speakers.)

Actually getting to the Fiction section has become a challenge. There was a time, not so long ago, where you could walk into a library and quickly encounter books. Now you have to walk around the library, hoping to one day run into the Fiction section. You have to take elevators and escalators. All to get to the meat and potatoes section of the library. The Fiction section. (Not to mention History, which is often just as hard to get to.)

new york public library

Sure there aren't many books... but look how shiny it is. It's just like the Apple store

Science Fiction books take the worst of it. In one library the Science Fiction section has been moved around so many times that it’s approaching light speed. In another the entire Science Fiction section was disintegrated, and combined together with Romance and a few other genres in a mess of books, sorted only by alphabet, that hardly anyone touches. Who benefits from this besides lazy librarians?

Science Fiction isn’t the only section that suffers, but it’s the whipping boy, the one that every library thinks is disposable. Mysteries and Romance have a higher status. They’re more likely to get placement somewhere accessible. They’re better stocked and better positioned.

But the New York Public Library has decided that its core is being a teen hangout and an immigrant reading room. A library should have teen books and foreign language books, but those should not be its main activity. There’s a difference between a social center and a library, and the difference is literacy.

The New York Public Library, like actual businesses, is so desperately catering to people who can’t read or don’t want to read, that it is alienating people who do read and do want to use its services. Who aren’t there to play Facebook games or take out a DVD. The NYPL is alienating readers.

New York Public Library waste

Wi-Fi Reading Room. The words, they make no sense

This time around I won’t be signing the begging letters. I want the New York Public Library to stick around, but not in its current state. I don’t believe that in a tough economy where vital services are being cut, that money should be spent on an organization that has slashed its stock of older books to the point that many important volumes aren’t available anymore, even as in-library reading, but has lots of money to spend on laptops for all and DVD’s for people too cheap to get Netflix.

The purpose of a library is to make reading material available to the masses. Its purpose is not to be a teen hangout. There’s plenty of money going to afterschool activities already. Its purpose is not to let people play Mafia Wars, while books are shelved so far out of sight that you need a telescope to find them.

I will support the New York Public Library when it ends its war on books and becomes a reader-friendly environment again.

Ray Bradbury, Conservative?

I saw this linked on a blog somewhere and while I never had the privilege of meeting Bradbury, and don’t know much about his politics, there’s not much to it.

On the contrary. Bradbury stood with the Tea Party in his final years.

“I think our country is in need of a revolution,” Bradbury told the Los Angeles Times in 2010. “There is too much government today. We’ve got to remember the government should be by the people, of the people, and for the people.”

Or he stood with anyone who wanted a revolution. A group that covers a lot of territory. It’s a libertarian view loosely, but there’s also no context for it. The only source for it is a brief sketch in the LA Times that looks like they took a few of Bradbury’s most controversial statements and pieced them together.

Bradbury had positive things to say about Reagan and Bush and negative things to say about Carter and Clinton, but that doesn’t make him a conservative. Maybe open minded. Maybe just not very political. There’s not enough context to draw any conclusions about his politics.

Salon asked him what he thought of Bush in August 2001. This was before September 11 or Iraq. So Bradbury’s comments weren’t about war patriotism.

What do you think of President Bush?

He’s wonderful. We needed him. Clinton is a shithead and we’re glad to be rid of him. And I’m not talking about his sexual exploits. I think we have a chance to do something about education, very important. We should have done it years ago. It doesn’t matter who does it — Democrats or Republicans — but it’s long overdue. Our education system is a monstrosity. We need to go back and rebuild kindergarten and first grade and teach reading and writing to everybody, all colors, and then the whole structure of our education will change because people will know how to read and write.

This gives us some context. This is pre-war so Bradbury isn’t referring to September 11 as I assumed after first reading the quote. So what is Bradbury talking about? My best guess is No Child Left Behind.

It’s hard to remember now, but Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. No Child Left Behind was a big topic in the summer of 2001 because it was being debated in Congress. It seems as if Bradbury was praising Bush for No Child Left Behind.

Bradbury was conservative in some ways and liberal in other ways. He distrusted the government and that comes out in a lot of statements. He praised Reagan for cutting taxes and giving money back to the people. He advocated space exploration. He disliked the police. He was skeptical about most things, except the power of reading.

That’s a profile of most people in Science Fiction. Bradbury was touchy about being associated with the field, but his political  views were typical of American Science Fiction writers.

So what about that Tea Party thing? Maybe.

I don’t believe in government. I hate politics. I’m against it. And I hope that sometime this fall, we can destroy part of our government, and next year destroy even more of it. The less government, the happier I will be.

Bradbury really did believe in cutting government. That put him to the right and the left of contemporary politics. Bradbury wasn’t a joiner and while he might have supported any group that wanted to cut the government, I’m not too sure he would have wanted to be a member.

David Frum. Someone Stop Me Before I Eat Again

So today is going to be all soda, all Bloomberg all the time. Weighing in on this national issue, which is more important than wars, diseases and E3, is someone from the right to balance out Baldwin. This guy. And he’s in favor of banning sodas.

Some object that the mayor’s proposal to restrict serving sizes will restrict liberty. But the liberty restricted is not the liberty of the soda-drinker. If they wish, soda drinkers can buy a 2-liter bottle of soda at the grocery for about $1.70 and pour as much of it down their throats as they wish. The liberty that is being restricted is the liberty of the soda seller to manipulate known human weaknesses to the seller’s advantage and the buyer’s detriment.

We’re not taking away people’s freedom. We’re taking away their freedom to buy soda. Selectively. Also we’re taking away the freedom of companies to sell sodas to people. Because sodas are evil. Not so evil that we can legislate an actual ban on them based on clear scientific evidence, but because the sodas have a mindwarping effect on people.

Should we let the buyer decide if he wants a larger soda or a small soda? Pshaw. Take a look at Dave Frum here? Does he look like a man who is physically or mentally capable of putting down a soda? Or a cheeseburger? Or a 16 oz steak?

But then why are we letting him buy those things?

If we’re going to have a crazy society, where we don’t just outlaw things for the sake of the children, but we’re also outlawing them for the sake of the fatties, why not just ban the fatties from doing things, the way that we ban children.

Let’s say a movie has frank depictions of large sodas and fries. It would be rated NFF as in Not For Frums or Not For Fatties. Frum would not be allowed to enter a restaurant that serves more than 800 calories per meal. For his own protection to prevent the restaurants from manipulating his weak mind.

But let’s look at what we’re saying here. We’re saying that adults are incapable of deciding what size of soda to buy? Why are we letting them decide elections?

We’re not talking nicotine or crack here. If we’re saying that the average American adult is incapable of not buying a too large soda, then why have a Bill of Rights? Seriously. Toss out that puppy. We can’t trust people who can’t put down a soda with freedom of speech or the press or any of the rest of them.

Human beings are not reasoning machines. We are animals who have inherited certain propensities not always well-adapted to modern urban life. We evolved in conditions of food scarcity. Our bodies have adapted to store food energy against famine;

There you go. We’re animals. Crawling through the mud. We can’t have elections or freedom of speech. We’re not evolved enough for it.

We’re animals who are programmed to eat sugar, rape our mates and kill our rivals. We all need to be locked up in a cage by robots who are smarter than us.

The beverage industry works on Americans before they have learned to read; even before they have learned to speak.

It works on them in the womb. It works on previous generations who have filled their cells with sugars and are predisposed to pass on their cravings to their offspring.

It’s like nicotine, like crack, except it’s not remotely like them.

The beverage industry is correct that a soda crackdown alone will not on its own address the obesity problem. Americans spend twice as much time in cars as in the 1970s and average more than 26 hours per week of sedentary entertainment.

The car industry works on Americans before they have learned to read, even before they have learned to speak.

The television industry works on Americans before they have learned to read, even before they have learned to speak.

See we can do this for anything. And we can ban everything. For the unborn soda, car and sedentary entertainment loving babies.

But if a restraint on soda serving size will not do everything, it may still do something. Or possibly not. The idea may fail. The idea is an experiment, and most experiments fail. We learn from failure how to design a better effort next time. And when we do at least succeed in this difficult struggle for public health, we will all owe New York’s visionary mayor our thanks for leading the way.

This may fail. It may accomplish nothing at all. It probably won’t. But when it does nothing, we will all owe Bloomberg our thanks for wasting our time and taking our sodas.

Mayor Baldwin Weighs in on Soda Gulag

Some people think it would be funny to make Alec Baldwin into the Mayor of New York City. Probably because they hate it or because it Coca Colawould be funny. And it would be. Like the way Snakes on a Plane was funny, in concept, but not so much in reality. Also actual snakes on a plane would be better than Alec Baldwin trying to run a city. Less people would get killed on a plane full of snakes, than in a Baldwin administration.

Alec Baldwin, from his years of expertise of hitting his mark on camera, weighs in on the soda issue, at the home of enlightened civic discourse run by that crazy Greek lady who used to be right-wing before she was left-wing before she was running AOL into the ground. No wait, after.

Okay, so you’re Alec Baldwin. You have a brain the size of a small walnut. Your brain is constantly wondering why the sky is blue. It can just about handle memorizing dialogue for credit card commercials that run 30 seconds. This is too much. You have to make an argument for banning soda. What do you do? What do you do?

Start talking like an executive who has just found out that his line of baby products is actually made of Plutonium.

 The need to understand and then decisively act upon the latest findings regarding sugar consumption, diabetes, overall nutritional guidelines and policies, and the public health crisis created by the U.S. obesity epidemic is urgent. This is true for both children and adults.

Okay Baldwin’s brain is now panicking. It doesn’t know much about soda. Wait, I’ve got it. Start ranting about gay marriage and Iraq.

At first, my response to Bloomberg’s critics was more visceral. Some libertarian types don’t mind government intervention in the matrimonial decisions of gay men and women. They look the other way at wars fought in our name in places they can’t find on a map.

You lousy libertarian hypocrites. You want to be able to drink Diet Coke, while slurping down a cheese burger, but you don’t want to see Alec Baldwin gay-marry Saddam Hussein. And what about slavery? And the right of women to vote? Pants, these people are probably against them too. The Irish Hunger memorial? No wait, Capital One! It’s what’s in your wallet. No, that’s next Tuesday. Pull yourself together!

Talk about the good old days before everyone was drinking Coca Cola all the time.

Food is a drug. At least in the way it is marketed today, which is significantly different from when I grew up. As a child, sweets were referred to as “treats,” and were dispensed far more judiciously than they are today.

And I had to walk eight miles through the snow to shoot my commercials. When I guest-starred on Spin City, I rode a mule for three days into the city and ate its corpse on the last day.

Come on, Alec. You’re a major celebrity. Do what celebrities do. Talk about your diet.

I recently lost over 30 pounds by giving up the lion’s share of refined sugar in my diet and reducing my intake of pasta, rice and bread. I switched to almond milk and have reduced my dairy consumption significantly.

And my granola push-ups and rose petal brunches have never been better. I have so much energy, I can ask my people to put together this article out of bits of text messages I typed up while screaming up at a stewardess.

No, no. Talk about something relevant. A show you saw. What was it called? Empathize with the sheep. Emphasize and act! You were on six episodes of Will and Grace. You can do this!

 I watched the HBO documentary The Weight of a Nation and many of the overweight people interviewed there spoke of being not only demoralized, but confused by a chronic weight gain that they struggled with and were ultimately powerless to overcome. I can relate.

Okay this is good stuff. Now just talk about yourself for a few paragraphs. You’re famous. People want to know all about you.

Gone were the days when I could eat a peanut butter cookie the size of a hubcap with my 5pm coffee as a “snack.” With age, my body had changed. My health had changed. My ability to process significant amounts of sugar was gone. I was sick. And I wanted to get well.

Now denounce them! Denounce them all!  Make them all realize that they’re just like you, except dumber and more clueless. Victims hooked on their sugar crack. This is an intervention, damn it! An intervention for everyone who isn’t drinking almond milk and sunshine.

Many of those who cry loudest about measures like the one Bloomberg has proposed are probably sick, too: hooked on high fat, high sodium and high sugar diets who don’t want their “drug” taken away.

Now promote something on TV, because it’s what you do.

Watch The Weight of a Nation on HBO to learn just how on target Bloomberg is.

There we go. No one can disagree with any of this. Not if they work for Baldwin or Bloomberg. I can see the campaign slogan shaping up.

“Why let an elitist out of touch billionaire tell you do what to do, when you can let an elitist out of touch millionaire tell you what to do.”

The Freedom to be Fat

If Jonathan Swift were alive today, he would be writing about Mayor Bloomberg and it wouldn’t be complimentary. But give people an insane proposal and watch them defend it doggedly because they believe that the ends justify the means. If the end is a society where somehow no one is fat, then any means justify it. The rest is just a matter of crying, “What about the children” and letting loose the sodas of war.

“Do we have the right to be fat” asks Megan Rosker.

I have heard her argument echoed over the Internet and by friends repeatedly since this story broke yesterday — Americans have the right to be fat. The government shouldn’t regulate our personal choices. We are free citizens.

Really? We are free of influence over what we eat, what we wear, what music we listen to? Last time I checked companies hired and paid millions to ad agencies that would manipulate our thinking, taking away our freedom of choice and leaving us with the feeling that using their product was the only thing that would make us feel happy, safe, relaxed, energized, etc. The point of a good ad campaign is to eliminate this feeling of choice.

I don’t recall corporate advertising outlawing things and that’s the essence of freedom. I could argue that Megan Rosker makes a persuasive argument for a totalitarian state which eliminates our feeling of choice that we have a right to be free. Therefore we already live in a totalitarian state because her persuasive arguments have robbed us of our feeling of choice.

“Feeling” based arguments are always revealing. They don’t deal with laws, but with emotions. Emotions make it easy to create this domino theory of Coca Cola ad oppression leading to the government saving us from not having any choice but to drink Coca Cola. If we have no choice anyway, we need to be protected from making the choices that we have no choice about making anyway.

To advocate that a culture of children has a right to be fat is inhumane. Ask any neuroscientist and they will tell you that children and teens don’t have the reasoning capabilities of adults. In fact this is exactly why teens often do really stupid things that we shake our heads at, like sneaking out at 3:00 a.m. or riding their skateboard down the middle of a busy road

Or writing articles arguing that we should have a soda tyranny. How old is Megan?

Coca ColaPart 2 of every “We should have a totalitarian state that runs the way I like it” argument always comes down to the children. “Won’t someone think of the children.”

But why stop there?

Would you let a child drive a car? No. Why should adults be allowed to do it. Would you allow children full access to the internet? Why would you allow adults to have it then. Would you give a child freedom? No. Why give it to adults then.

Children are stupid. Adults are just like children. Even when the adults aren’t stupid, we have to outlaw it to protect the children from being influenced by it.

If we go along with the logic of Café Mom, our kids also have a right to get cirrhosis of the liver, drive on the Audobon at age nine and smoke a pack day and die of lung cancer at the ripe old age of 16.

See there you go. If you don’t outlaw sodas, you might as well turn your kid into a drunk driving alcohol who has cancer at 16.

But we have outlawed these behaviors and products because, as parents and as a society, we know they aren’t safe for our kids.

Wait, but aren’t parents supposed to be making these decisions. When did Bloomberg become the parent of the entire city and when did parents stop being parents? And what exactly makes Bloomberg qualified to be the parent of the city?

This law is a gesture to give our children a chance at freedom, the freedom to move their bodies run, play and jump instead of being jailed in a body inhibited by obesity.

And we can only give them this freedom by taking away their freedom and taking away everyone else’s freedom. Because only when all children are skinny will we all be free.

McCain Libya Twitter Fail

On a week when millions of Americans watched in disgust as the Lockerbie bombing terrorist was released by the UK (can you smell the BNP Libyan oil contracts? I bet you can) and greeted with celebrations as if he had just won the World Cup instead of getting wrongfully released from jail for his part in the mass murder of innocent airline passengers, McCain had to go and tweet, “Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his “ranch” in Libya – interesting meeting with an interesting man.” Now this happened a few days before the final decision on the case of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was made, but the process had already begin, quietly coordinated with Libya to time Abdel Basset al-Megrahi’s release for the celebration of the Libyan revolution. McCain might have been ignorant of the details and on the 20th he did tweet, “I strongly oppose the decision to release Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.” But when McCain met with Qadhafi, he certainly wasn’t ignorant of his involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. It’s not out of line for McCain to meet with Qadhafi, but treating the meeting with the kind of Tweet that Kerry might have given after meeting with Castro, the sort of thing liberals are justly condemned for, is still disgusting.

Post Navigation

 
Custom Avatars For Comments
UA-32485431-1
%d bloggers like this: