For those who just can't wait to get to a computer for your pornography, the iTunes store now has an app to take care of your pornography needs.
From Euripides' Blog
The Snarky Files
. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.
What a banner week for snark! I wanted to take on so much but my editor made me cut down my post to the bare minimum. Such a shame. There was a lot of good stuff he made me take out.
Apple now allows the iTunes store to sell pornography apps (Wired
). Isn't this taking the accessibility and spread of porn a wee bit too far? Don't people spend too much time looking for the stuff online, that they need it on their iPhone too? Is the world too porn deprived that we need an iPhone app for it? Will drivers now watch porn while driving? Will executives now demand their companies supply iPhones so they can get their thrills during boring board meetings?
Update: Apple announced that it will not sell this app on iTunes. Thanks Apple for holding to standards of decency!
Affairs of the Media
Remember James McGreevey, Antonio Villaraigosa, Gavin Newsom, Kwame Kilpatrick, or Jim Gibbons? Me either. What about Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Eliot Spitzer? What do they have in common with Mark Sanford? They were all politicians who had affairs. (Well, all except Spitzer who insisted this week that meeting up with prostitutes does not constitute a "real" affair.) Somehow, when a politician has an affair, we all get a bit overly excited and the news media goes into a frenzy of activity. The real question is, are any of us all that surprised that politicians, who regularly abuse their power, also abuse their marital fidelity? Mark Sanford put it this way:
“I don’t know how this thing got blown out of proportion,” the governor told The State newspaper of Columbia, S.C., after he landed at the Atlanta airport Wednesday morning. (Politico)
If politicians can't keep their libidos under control, how can we expect them to act in the best interests of the people of the US?
One note of caution for all power-hungry, affair-starter politicians: Remember that anything you write on the internet will eventually surface and come back to haunt you. Read the juicy Sanford email conversation here
Warren Buffett doesn't think much of Obama's economic savvy:
While the economy is a "shambles" and likely to stay that way for some time, he remains optimistic there will eventually be a recovery over a period of years. (CNBC)
The key word is eventually. (Did we really need a trillion dollar deficit to "eventually" recover?)
I've noticed that with the economic "shambles" of the economy, Obama and Pelosi still insist on pushing through more legislation that would strain the economy under the best of conditions. Are the leaders of the free world really that blinded by their ideologies that they can't see economic reality?
Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.
Dodd and Dodder
Senator Chris Dodd is another politician who ignores principle for political expediency. Case in point: This week he gave up any shred of pretending to be a Catholic and weighed in on the side of same sex marriage.
[Dodd] declared he had changed his position on same-sex "marriage," and now calls law defining marriage between a man and a woman "archaic" and "unfair." (Lifesite News)
a sound basis for changing a fundamental social institution like marriage!
Here's a thought. I think Chris Dodd is archaic. He certainly looks like an old, hardcore, power-hungry liberal to me. And his views on marriage are patently unfair to the vast majority of Americans who don't agree with him.
Capped and Traded
Most Americans know that the US House of Representatives passed a bill to cap carbon dioxide emissions - the "climate change" bill or the "cap and trade" bill or the "Waxman-Markey" bill.
Is there anyone apart from the deluded Obama-Pelosi ticket that thinks this is a good idea? Does anyone really believe this bill is in the best interest of Americans? Does anyone doubt that energy costs will skyrocket and put us all in the poor house? Didn't the House push this thing through a bit too quickly, since no one had the opportunity to actually read the thing? What's in it for Waxman and Markey?
And why is government so interested in light bulbs
Even the Wall Street Journal
When Iranians took to the street in favor of democracy against a totalitarian government because they thought their election was rigged against them, Obama sat on the fence trying desperately not to meddle. He eventually came around to condemn the violence - too little, too late.
When the people of Honduras threw out their totalitarian dictator in favor of democracy, Obama immediately declared the coup illegal.
"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. (Reuters)
I don't get the warm fuzzies when Obama denies Iranian democracy over dictatorship then supports Honduran dictatorship over democracy. Just what is Obama's plan in all this?
Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.
Mad About Madoff
I don't know what to make of Bernard Madoff
's 150 year prison sentence for fraud. Compare his sentence with accused child molester, rapist and pimp Frank Lombard who faces a whopping 20 years for sexually abusing his five year old son. At least the sentencing of Madoff made a lot of liberals happy for sticking it to the rich guy.
Liberal hearts will mend and the economy can now heal knowing that Madoff is behind bars and a rich guy got what's coming to him.
Judge Sonya Sotomayor's judgment denying discrimination claims by New Haven firefighters got overturned in the Supreme Court. While Republicans are having a field day with the news, this does pose serious questions about how much Sotomayor could influence the high court if her appointment is confirmed. If Obama's intent in naming Sotomayor was to include a liberal voice on the court (which is precisely the reason Obama named her for the appointment), liberals may be in for a disappointing time. Time Magazine concludes:
Until Sotomayor settles in with her new colleagues, Souter's departure and her arrival may represent a net loss of liberal influence rather than a gain. (Time)
That's actually a bit of good news, just in case you missed it.
The last two stories are connected.
Minnesota finally declared Democrat Al Franken
the winner in the senatorial race. (Was there ever any doubt considering Democrat power?) This, of course, is just what the US Senate needed to consolidate power - another bad comedian turned politician.
In a related story, the Gallup Poll announced:
A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. (Gallup)
That's a huge percentage increase from last year. Maybe Americans are finally waking up to the mess we've created by electing the most liberal of liberals to the White House, the most liberal of liberals to the vice presidency, the most liberal of liberals as Speaker of the House and then filling in the ranks with Democrat ideologues?
Let's hope the change in Americans isn't too late.