Scarlett Johansson Hacked: 2011

Friday, September 16, 2011

Scarlett Johansson Images

http://scarlettjohanssonhacked.blogspot.com/

Formspring Question #255--Ten Percent II Edition

Is that 10% as a flat rate for all income brackets?

Yes.

You do not like the unfairness of it, huh? I am big on eliminating the income tax in favor of a national sales tax myself and skipping all this haggling over who makes too much money versus their tax burden.

Friday Night Babe

Tonight's FNB* is Amber Heard!

(*a.k.a. Rule Five Friday)

Formspring Question #254--Ten Percent Edition

Taxes today are lower than they have been since the 50's (both for the super-rich and for the middle class) but most conservatives still want them lower. What is TOO LOW a tax rate?

God only requires ten percent, so the government has to make an airtight case why it needs more. Not only that, but since God asks for the first and best ten percent, government needs to wait its turn, as well.

Star Trek: Voyager--"Thirty Days"

The character studies certainly have been kicked up a notch this season. “Thiry days” is a Tom-centric episode. It is the best one yet for the character, as it does not involve him being accused of murder, turning into a salamander, or being obsessed with restoring an old Camero. It also brings back the old Tom--the screw up who cannot please his father no matter what he does, and fills the void by engaging in stupid, idealistic adventures. Tom has been “fixed’ a little too well by his time on Voyager. He is a crack pilot, a field medic, an engineer who can design an ubershuttlecraft from scratch, and an author Why did this guy ever have any troubles with screwing up in the past?

Voyager encounters what appears to be an ocean in space. Upon investigation, they are attacked by the Moneans. It is a misunderstanding that gets cleared up quickly. In fact, the Moneans have a problem they would like the crew to tackle for them. The containment field holding the ocean in place is degrading. They do not have any submarines capable of diving deep enough to investigate the center of the ocean, but the Delta flyer can get there easily. Tom, who always wanted to be a sailor, but was forced into Starfleet by his overbearing father, jumps at the chance.

The expedition discovers, after a brief encounter with a very cool looking giant, CGI eel, the Moneans own technology is causing the degradation. If they do not change their ways, the ocean will disappear in five years. Their chief diplomat promises some committee on science within their government will look into the matter. Tom knows nothing is going to come of that. It will be tied up in bureaucracy until it is too late. He decides to take matters into his own hands after a brief pep talk from Torres.

Tom and a sympathetic Monean named Rigar steal the Delta Flyer and plan to destroy the underwater oxygen generators. By doing so, they will have to be rebuilt, and the likelihood is they will be rebuilt with preserving the ocean in mind. Voyager is forced to stop the act of ecoterrorism. Tom is brought back to the ship, demoted to ensign, and sentenced to thirty days solitary confinement in the brig.

I am as shocked as you are there is no preachy environmental lesson to be found. Doubly so because of the running theme of environmental damage the Malon are causing that will play out for the rest of the season. The fact is, the Moneans are willfully killing themselves because they do not feel like spending the resources to prevent further damage, but Janeway--surprise, surprise--invokes the Prime Directive and says if they want to kill themselves, it is their choice. Just to make things a little grayer, the Moneans are revealed to be nomadic squatters. they found this ocean in space centuries ago and moved in. they do not know who built it or why, but it is assumed it was intended to preserve some planet’s ocean from an ecological disaster. But all that is cast aside for a character study.

A character study with some oddities. For one, tom has never expressed any connection to the nautical life before, nor has he ever been an environmentalist. Sure, he has been looking for anything with which to feel emotionally connected, but his newfound concern for the ocean is out of the blue. For another, Janeway is back to her crazy self. She has violated the prime directive a heck of a lot worse than Tom does here, and while I understand she cannot let the matter go without a response, what a response! She dresses tom down, rips a pip off his collar when demoting him, and sentences him to solitary all after she tells him she would have blown up the Delta flyer to stop him. The episode, told in flashback, reveals Janeway forbade torres from visiting at all, while allowing only Neelix to drop off bread and water and medical visits in an emergency. Compare this to when Tuvok violated the prime directive in “Prime Factors” and received a slap on the wrist. Janeway got up on the wrong side of the bad this morning, no? The biggest flaw is Tom is motivated to action by his poor relationship with his father, yet whatever happened between them is still not revealed. A little clarification might have elevated “Thirty Days” beyond pleasantly intriguing. No such luck.

“Thirty Days” is a good episode, however. One cannot help but notice untapped potential in exploring exactly why tom and his father are estranged. Whatever the case, it is enough to compel tom to do some incredibly dumb things in order to give his life meaning. Some elaboration on just how damaged he is is in order. But I will be a lot more forgiving about the omission than usual because I did not have to sit through a hour’s worth of moralizing over how we are destroying the oceans with our careless ways. That is a relief.

Rating: *** (out of 5)

I have to earn my Parrot Head stripes:

Ford's Provocative Bailout Commercial

Crossposted at the Left Coast Rebel

The following Ford bailout commercial/ad campaign has been out for a while but due to my busy schedule, I hadn't see it yet.

Delicious:

I think this is really going to strike a nerve with the American public and just may increase Ford's sales.

Why?

Though it has been beaten out of us for decades, our independent rugged-individualist nature draws us to hate cronyism, crony capitalists and the corporate-welfare, "too big to fail" system that caters to them.

Are you listening, GM, Chrysler et al.? Next time it just may be good business to say NO to Uncle Sam.

Updates

First: Unfortunately Ford's own Alan Mulally is an Obamanation ally, so a crony capitalist in his own right.

And: via Memeorandum, read this story to catch a glimpse of the slippery slope of corporate welfarism and the spectre of big-government/business collusion. The bigger picture missed by the Puff-Ho writer is this: who knew that there were still billions in fed auto "loans" floating around out there?

Also: Inspired by a Palin Facebook post on the topic, Another Black Conservative checks in on the crony-capitalism debate:

In the speech Palin, points out something we should all have noticed, (had we not had our Red and Blue colored glasses firmly in place) that both the right and the left are correct as to what is kill our nation. On the right, we see Big Government as the killer or liberty and freedom. On the left, they see Big Business as the threat to the little guy. The truth is that it is the collusion of the Big Government and Big Business that is messing things up for this nation.

Well said, Clifton! And, good to see you clawing back from the blogger abyss.

Scarlett Johansson, Hacked Photos, the FBI, and...Gillian Anderson?

Every connoisseur of the female form is going to post photos of Scarlett Johansson in order to capitalize on nude photos from her hacked cellphone earlier. I will not post those here, since I like to keep the Eye family friendly, even though I do descend into dysfunction family friendly quite often. For the record, I have seen the photos, they are real, and they are spectacular. Bottticelli buttocks on that girl, folks. But the whole situation leads me to ask two important questions.

One, why is Scarlett Johansson taking naked photos of herself if she does not want people to see them? Granted, they might have been meant for her latest fellow, whoever he may be. I lost track after Sean Penn. But is it really wise to take the risk of losing your cell phone or getting hacked, particularly for a celebrity constantly under the threat of being stalked by paparazzi and crazed fans alike? This strikes me as either an incredibly dumb mistake on Johansson’s part, or the most prurient publicity stunt since Paris Hilton made a sex tape. I want to give Johansson the benefit of the doubt and say she is dumb here--the kindest thing I can say--and hope she has not stooped to Hilton’s level of attention whoring.

Two, why is the FBI involved? Hacking is a federal crime that is supposed to be reported to one’s local FBI office, but does it not feel like they ought to have better things to do right now than hunt done the pervert who stole naked photos of Scarlett Johansson? Are there no terrorists ought there any longer? We are running the risk of being overwhelmed by terrorists when you consider the dedication FBI field agents must have when assigned to find nude photos of Johansson.

Speaking of FBI agents:

I have to throw something else in here to separate this post from every other Johansson write up out there, if only marginally relevant. Gillian Anderson is still hot long after her days as Dana Scully.

In all seriousness, Johansson is threatening legal action to sites hosting the photos, and those threats are working. The photos are quickly disappearing from all but the underbelly of the internet. I am also a free spirited , whatever floats your boat kind of guy. If Johansson gets her jollies posing naked for cellphone photos, more power to her. But this needs to be a lesson to anyone who thinks what they do in private is always going to stay that way. Sometimes, it is going to blow up in your face instead. Always be careful, even when other people are not watching.

(Part of The Other McCain's Rule 5 Sunday.)

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Quote du jour

"As far as Ron Paul, we prefer Rand Paul. He's the sane one."

-Mark Levin, on his radio show

Formspring Question #253--Morality by the Numbers Edition

In your review for "Nothing Human” you are implying committing immoral acts for the greater good is bad, but you have frequently said dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was morally acceptable because the resulting deaths would be fewer than in an invasion. Please explain the contradiction.

The two scenarios are more complicated than saying the number of dead is smaller than the number saved, therefore the action is moral. Krell Mercet took hundreds of people prisoner and experimented on them in agonizing ways in order to find a cure for a plague that was killing thousands. There is no moral justification for it because it is a deliberate criminal act. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a matter of their being no good options. Japan refused to surrender, but the war had to end before casualties piled up exponentially in an invasion. Dropping the bomb was the lesser of two evils, and therefore moral.

We are just wired as humans to understand that deciding what is moral comes down to more than weighing the numbers against each other. As a Christian, I think it is the natural law, but if you want to call it being wired for such decisions, be my guest. Let me illustrate how it works regardless of its origins.

Take two scenarios:

One: There is a train with five passengers racing towards a section of the track between two cliffs which has been destroyed. The train is going to fall off the edge of the cliff once it gets there. There is no way the passengers can stop the train. Their only hope is you, because you can flip a lever which will switch the train to a new track which will save them. However, there is a man on the new track who cannot be warned in time the train is coming. If you pull the lever to switch tracks, you will kill him, but you will save five people in the process.

Two: There are five patients in a hospital ward. They each need a different organ transplant to live. A man walks into the ward, and you suddenly get the inspiration that you could kill him and harvest his organs for transplant. (Assume the organs would be compatible.) Again, you would be killing one person in order to save five.

the numbers are the same--sacrifice one to save five--but the circumstances make the morality of the decision different. In the first scenario, not pulling the lever would cause five people to die. While pulling the lever will cause the death of another, you automatically think it is the most moral choice of a no win situation in which you have been forced. But the second scenario has an air of sinister conspiracy. You are not really in a no win situation, but you have decided to initiate a deliberate evil because you have calculated the results are worth it. But they are not.

It is difficult to establish a general principle in regards to how moral decisions are more than adding up the numbers to make the better choice. I am a fallible person with a sinful nature. But there does appear to be a natural pull towards the right answer if you honestly look for it. The pull tells me that experimenting on people against their will to save thousands is evil, but dropping a bomb killing thousands to save far more lives is moral. You may draw your own conclusions, of course, but I would like to see your reasoning first.

Brandon Wright, Rescued Utah Motorcyclist, Gives Interview

LCR posted the video of Brandon Wright's amazing rescue yesterday. Here, he talks about the experience:

Cross posted at LCR.

Vintage Babe of the Week

Tonight's Vintage Babe* is Mae West!
(*a.k.a. Rule Five Thursday)

Like fine wines, the ladies improve with age!

Pat Robertson is Wrong Yet Again

Just to keep you all from breaking Formspring by overloading it with queries, yes, I know Pat Robertson said divorcing spouses afflicted with Alzheimer's is acceptable because it is a 'kind of death." As usual, he is being bigoted and un-Biblical. I am certain his behavior comes as much of a shock to you as it does to me. By tomorrow, we will probably learn his wife has Alzheimer's.

Yes, I went to law school at his Regent University. Yes, I went in spite of robertson, not because of him. Yes, I regret attending. No, there is nothing i can do about it now. No, i am not responsible for what Robertson says. No, I am not responsible for what he says because my diploma has his signature on it. No, he is not representative of Christian belief. no, the words or action of one Christian are not enough to condemn the entire religion.

Have I covered everything? I have had to run through this routine like a fire drill many times since setting foot on the Regent university campus ten years ago. I am confident I have it down pat--no pun intended--but things have a way of sneaking up on you and gouging your eyes out, which I cannot afford. I only have one left, and it sucks.

Republican Writes "The American Jobs Act"

Last Saturday, we noted the President's bad case of premature espeechulation:

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Makes the Most Irrelevant Speech in the History of the Republic ,

where he repeatedly asked Congress to pass a bill that hadn't been written yet. It appears that all of the Democrats, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, failed to file the bill which Obama specifically called in his speech "The American Jobs Act".

But, since there wasn't actually a bill by that name that had been filed, a Republican lawmaker has stepped into the breach!

President Obama repeatedly asked members of Congress to pass the American Jobs Act last week. But when no Democrat filed Obama’s bill after he presented it to Congress, a conservative congressman swiped the name for his own legislation.

The American Jobs Act introduced in the House of Representatives looks quite different from the version President Obama outlined in his speech to Congress. Instead of hiking taxes on working Americans to pay for another stimulus, Rep. Louie Gohmert’s (R-TX) legislation offers a tax cut.

UPDATE: Gohmert’s bill now has a number. It’s HR 2911.

Brilliant! Simply brilliant! Maybe next time, Obama will actually have a bill for Congress to pass when he repeats ad nauseum, "Pass this bill"?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

Medal of Honor Being Awarded Today

Sgt. (then Corporal) Dakota L. Meyer

Citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the repeated risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as a member of Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, on 8 September 2009. When the forward element of his combat team began to be hit by intense fire from roughly 50 Taliban insurgents dug-in and concealed on the slopes above Ganjgal village, Corporal Meyer mounted a gun-truck, enlisted a fellow Marine to drive, and raced to attack the ambushers and aid the trapped Marines and Afghan soldiers. During a six hour fire fight, Corporal Meyer single-handedly turned the tide of the battle, saved 36 Marines and soldiers and recovered the bodies of his fallen brothers. Four separate times he fought the kilometer up into the heart of a deadly U-shaped ambush. During the fight he killed at least eight Taliban, personally evacuated 12 friendly wounded, and provided cover for another 24 Marines and soldiers to escape likely death at the hands of a numerically superior and determined foe. On his first foray his lone vehicle drew machine gun, mortar, rocket grenade and small arms fire while he rescued five wounded soldiers. His second attack disrupted the enemy’s ambush and he evacuated four more wounded Marines. Switching to another gun-truck because his was too damaged they again sped in for a third time, and as turret gunner killed several Taliban attackers at point blank range and suppressed enemy fire so 24 Marines and soldiers could break-out. Despite being wounded, he made a fourth attack with three others to search for missing team members. Nearly surrounded and under heavy fire he dismounted the vehicle and searched house to house to recover the bodies of his fallen team members. By his extraordinary heroism, presence of mind amidst chaos and death, and unselfish devotion to his comrades in the face of great danger, Corporal Meyer reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

Sgt. Meyer: We humbly salute you and thank you for your service.

Editor's note: Some of the news coverage is erroneously reporting Meyer as an "ex-Marine". Whether or not he is actively serving, he will always be a Marine.

Hat tip Home of Heroes

There are fewer than a hundred living MoH recipients today. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice. In the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

“A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces, but also by the men it honors; the men it remembers.”

Cross posted at Say Anything.

Scarlett Johannson Nude Photos Stolen -FBI

Now that I've got your attention. Yes, apparently someone hacked her phone and my, oh, my, found something more than the number for her dry cleaner! And since you know you would keep Googling 'til you found them, here are the alleged photos, suitable sliced , diced and pixelated for a PG-13 blog:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into a series of possible digital thefts involving notable people, including actress Scarlett Johansson. According to a number of reports, Johansson allegedly had nude pictures of herself hacked off her cellphone and asked the FBI to check into the matter.

A spokesperson for the FBI said “The FBI in Los Angeles is investigating the person or group responsible for a series of computer intrusions involving high-profile figures.” Johansson is one of the victims of the alleged thefts.

Remember how your Mama always used to tell you about wearing clean underwear in case you got hit by a bus? Her Mama should have told her always to wear underwear when storing pictures on her phone!