Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts

Monday, August 9, 2010

Cool Investment Opportunity in New York: An Islamic Gay Bar


Greg Gutfeld, the libertarian hero of Big Hollywood and Fox's Red Eye, is looking for investors for an interesting project a propos of the new mosque at Ground Zero: an islamic gay bar.

Why? In spite of the protests of the 9/11 victims' relatives, and in spite that it was thought this decision was in extremely bad taste, it was approved by a New York City community board the building of a mosque near the site where the Twin Towers collapsed and +3.000 people died right before the eyes of the entire world. Well, Mr. Gutfeld thinks this is a game we can play, too.
First of all, Dr. sipmac would like to know what GLAAD and NOW think about this. Will they be supportive? If they are afraid of the fatwa (as Dr. sipmac is), will they support Gutfeld (and the LGBT and straight potential customers of the bar), at least under the table? BTW, should women wear burqa-style clothes in the new bar? Could we draw the prophet everytime we drop there if we want it? Could sip watch the Super Best Friends, 200 and 201 episodes from South Park in there? Could Dr. sipmac watch those episodes without censorship? In a nutshell, will sharia law still apply in a muslim gay bar?

Could the Islam culture and religion be reinvented in the meanwhile?


Anyway, count me in.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Mr. Weisberg, don’t be such a cry baby

Note from Dr. sipmac: Dear Readers, it seems Paul Maršić is acting quite mean lately. Not ballistic yet, but decidedly mean. sip suspects there is some medication issue but he won’t elaborate further. That said, he lets now Paul rant—


Note from Paul Maršić: Knock it off, Dr. Doom! What’s the name of this blog? sipmacrants! I’ll rant if I want it, you—


Note from Dr. sipmac: Without further ado, here’s Paul Maršić with


Mr. Weisberg, don’t be such a cry baby


Last Saturday, Slate’s Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Mr. Jacob Weisberg showed all the contempt he has for the people he allegedly is trying to save: his piece, called Down with the People, calls the hope-and-change resistant people “childish and ignorant” and holds them responsible for the current political and economic crisis. What a difference between this outright rant and the preface of the US Constitution! Talking about talking down to people!

And why is that, Mr. Weisberg? Because the people are inconsistent with the type of government they desire? Come on, everybody wants a busy government, but nobody wants to be taxed to death, nobody wants the government increasing the debt of the country, turning the situation unsustainable and the nation unviable. Slate’s owners would be nervous long before you could incur in so much debt that you turned your company bankrupt.

But I’m surely being unfair with you. I was misled by the titles Chairman and Editor-in-Chief the Slate Group bestowed on you. I thought you knew a thing or two about running a business. Maybe you’re busy only with the creative and editorial issues of your company. And yet you try to pin again the health care fiasco on the Republicans! Hello! The Dems have enough votes to pass anything the Obama administration wants. They don’t really need the Republicans at all. If Obama wants to play the bipartisanship card, is because he wants to calm down his own nervous Democrats in both houses. Don’t tell me you don’t know that or you’re risking to be charged with intellectual dishonesty.


And for the people? Did it not occur to you this time they could be right? I won’t fall in that “people are always right” trap, just the same I’m not falling in the “Chairman and Editor-in-Chief is always right” trap. But just consider what the people said after you posted your piece:


“Beautifully put, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I am glad you compared the country with California, where the "successful only in blocking tax increases" Republicans have been deadlocked with the "successful only in increasing spending" Democrats for years. That state is headed for bankruptcy and so is the country of people don't face up to the hard choices.”


So, the hard choice for California is, to be taxed to death, again. Not to trim humongous bureaucracy or public employees privileges projected for the next 75 years. And don’t come to me threatening with massive firings in the police, education system, all the usual suspects. I think a lot of us would be happy if the state senate trims all their benefits in half. They won’t be starving, either. Talk about redistribution!


See? But, wait, there’s more!


“ Boring MIddle Aged Guy
I loved this article. I have been saying that we get the government that we deserve and that government is now a reflection of 'us' in general. Spending money we don't have. Wanting everything but not wanting to pay for it. Wow, that's my neighbors, my brother. On top of that, we complain about every single little inconvenience. Cripes”


That’s more I like it, I meant. That could be a more balanced view of “we the people”, more balanced than your view, I think… in the meanwhile, you can think of me like “that cranky, deluded Maršić guy”, but do you really know what I think of you? Well, I think your pride was deeply hurt recently, and this piece you wrote was your way to get even with the American public, calling them names. How mature of you, by the way.


You think I’m kidding? On November 28 you paid your respects to president Obama with a glowing review titled “Obama’s brilliant first year”, counting that if health care reform was passed in Congress, he would have achieved more than any first – year president since FDR. And in a way, that would have been entirely accurate, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, it would have made a lasting impression in America, to succeed where Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton failed. Once an entitlement program starts, like taxes, it is very difficult to stop.


Well you even dare to say that with health care reform passed, Obama could spend the remaining three years of his first term without doing anything and he still would be considered a great president.


“No, the results do not yet merit his Nobel Peace Prize. But not since Reagan has a new president so swiftly and determinedly remodeled America's global role”,


you added regarding Obama’s foreign policy, Copenhagen notwithstanding. Oh, that’s not fair! Copenhagen ended on December 19th. You wrote your article on November 28th, when Climategate was already the theme of the day. Oh, but not in your website, that’s true.


And then, it happened. Scott Brown happened. Now the cat is out of the bag, but is a childish and ignorant cat, according to you. The people are wrong, you’re right. How can’t they see that? You know what’s best for them.

Even now I cannot imagine your grim despair that January 19th in the evening, and maybe you commit the mistake of watching the fray of your article and read comments like:


“I came back to comment on this (now-oh-so-outdated) article because of the enormous hilarity of its claim. It has been a year now and since most universally acknowledge, even many democrats, that Obama has not only been an unmitigated disaster for his party but for the nation as well, I felt obligated to come here and gloat. Stupid liberals, politics are for adults. Never before in American history has such a small class of ideologues, stinking with hubris, so convinced themselves to believe is so much bull crap. Jacob Weisberg may just be, as his article objectively proves, the dumbest political analyst in the nation. Surely he will lose his job, right? Don't count on it. Liberals take great comfort in numbers even if it's only 6 people blogging from their basement. Keep up the good work Washington Post. You think you were blindsided by Brown's win in Mass just wait until November. BTW, last Wednesday the Washington Post's metro edition (given to those riding the trains) had nothing about Brown's win on its cover. lmao”
Or what about this? It was pretty insolent and offensive, I concede:

“Seriously - Take the President's c**k out of your mouth.
by Bobarian
12/01/2009, 10:39 AM #
+2/-2 Reply
The best part of Obama's presidency so far has been the fact that he hasn't been able to enact very few of the hair-brained, poorly thought out, and vacuous policies that he ran his campaign on.”
That last comment wasn’t even à propos Brown victory, but that was surely to express disagreement with all the flaws in your review. The people in the fray came to hit you, and hard. I would have been angry, too. But I’m not the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of the Slate Group, that should count for something. Mr. Weisberg, don’t be such a cry baby. And don't mess with your potential customers.

Paul Maršić has ranted

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Did America waste $5 billion in Colombia?


By Dr. sipmac

"See you at the cities", said "Mono" Jojoy, number 3 at the farc at the very heyday of the failed peace talks in the Pastrana administration. Politicians, bankers and clergymen from all over the world, NYSE's chairman included, visited San Vicente del Caguan or received Raul Reyes (number two in the organization) in a trip with colombian government officials to Europe. Just everybody wanted to be in the history books. ¿And what was what the farc had to offer? Just to extend the war from the jungle to the colombian cities, where the most part of the population live. And in the late nineties, they were in pretty good shape to do that (they've got a lot of help btw, even from outside Colombia).

That was between 1999 and 2002, and then the tide turns against the farc: Reyes is killed, the organization is in disarray, Jojoy is on the run and Tirofijo, the legendary leader died without being nearer to his final goal: to size absolute power in Colombia.

Now, today Dr. sipmac read an article written by Mr. Ray Fisman about 5 billion dollars wasted in the war against drugs in Colombia. The article is based in a Center for Global Development report. Sip won't go into the legalization debate, not for now. But Mr. Fisman surely does not mention how was the situation in the late nineties: it was more than possible that the guerrilla could win the war. Because it wasn't only a guerrilla war but pure terrorism used against innocent civilians, too. Anybody who cared to travel by car or by bus outside the big cities risked dear life by being caught by guerrilleros, and spent years kidnapped, for starters.

In a nutshell, this situation changed thanks to the U.S. aid, those 5 billion dollars reported in Mr. Fisman's article and allegedly to have no positive outcome after being spent. It is interesting how it is mentioned both in the CGD report and the article the truly evil (and very condemnable) deeds of the paramilitary forces but not all the damage caused by the guerrilla all these years. Not to mention that in Wikipedia's entry on CGD it is mentioned the Foreign Policy Magazine, the one that works very closely with Slate, all with the same political orientation.

All of this is to say, the U.S. aid to Colombia may have not been 100% succesful, but it has done a lot of good to the majority of colombians that want to live in peace, and they are thankful for this. Dr. sipmac remembers about one or two years ago an american cartoonist horrified by the colombian paramilitary and asked not to drink colombian coffee. I'd rather been suggesting him not to blow any coke.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 11, 2010

The incredible and sad story of the candid Elizabeth and the monster John


"Game Change" is the name of the game. A payload of dirt for McCain, Palin, the Clintons, the Edwardeses, and yes, the Obamas. It's coming down fast! The first victims of this avalanche of filth, are, for sure, the children of a lesser god: John and Elizabeth Edwards. For the first time in history, we can watch, word for word, page by page, how a big political campaign imploded, thanks to the hubris and the stupidity of their leading emptyheads. Hey, don't take my word for it! Read it from here, or buy the book.

And the monster? Just read it and weep:
As for Elizabeth Edwards, she is reportedly now urging John to accede to Hunter’s demands and take responsibility for his paternity of Frances Quinn—a dramatic and no doubt painful turnabout from her position eighteen months ago. Confronted then with the Enquirer photo of her husband cuddling Hunter’s baby, she insisted to Palmieri that she still believed he was not the father. “I have to believe it,” Elizabeth said. “Because if I don’t, it means I’m married to a monster."