Wednesday, November 30, 2005
And for those of you who would say "Of course there are so many attacks it's all because we're in Iraq. So it's all about Iraq."
Here's their answer:
"Yep, It's All About Iraq and...
India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Britain and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Sri Lanka and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and the Netherlands and Scotland and...
...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:
"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5
Here's a little snipet from their official statement:
"We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people. Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) has worked for the rights of Iraqi prisoners who have been illegally detained and abused by the U.S. government. We were the first people to publicly denounce the torture of Iraqi people at the hands of U.S. forces, long before the western media admitted what was happening at Abu Ghraib. We are some of the few internationals left in Iraq who are telling the truth about what is happening to the Iraqi people We hope that we can continue to do this work and we pray for the speedy release of our beloved teammates."
So it seems to me that the terrorists should love the CPT people and yet it appears they don't. Hmmm...go figure.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
I assume that the only reason not to bomb Al-Jazeera's operations into the nether world is to put their offices and people under surveillance! Another thing that ticks me off... the MSM (and of course the AP piece I link above) feels compelled to put total U.S. military deaths in each new story of this type...why? What's the point other than to editorialize within a news story. And for Christ sake why don't they also give the total number of innocent fellow Muslims the terrorists and insurgents kill in each of these incidents? Why? Isn't that also a very telling statistic? But of course they won't because that doesn't serve their agenda and bias.
Monday, November 28, 2005
ABC calls it a modest start
CBS quotes economist who says a lot of hype but luke warm
NBC says spending modest, AP says the same thing
Reuters (go figure) says Robust!
Mixed, admit the postive but temper it!
USA Today, some crazy, some keep it simple
NPR audio clip "so far, no drop in Holiday Shopping
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
How you define "More than a dozen"? Gee, is that 13, 14, oh maybe as many as 15!...what a joke and what a non-story that some idiots are at the roadside near Bush's ranch again!
Bush ranch update: and now they're arrested. Funny that Vietnam era loon Daniel Ellsberg boasts that this is his 70th arrest in various protests since Vietnam. He surely believes in every case his side was bolstered by his sign holding, sitting and arrest. It doesn't take a genius to know that these protesters have an adverse affect on the side of the argument they sit on. Most don't identify with people who do this, most think they're fringe hippy wannabees. Most wonder why they don't do something more concrete for their cause (run for office, get signatures for a ballet initiative, etc.) instead just mugging for a photo opp.
And yet another Liberal gets schooled by a Conservative!
The presidential pardoning of a Turkey each year is idiotic...we should change this tradition to the president goes on a turkey hunt using a high end 12 gauge over-under shotgun that would then be auctioned off for charity after the pres bagged his bird. Some would have us eat tofu!
The anti-business climate continues in Santa Cruz where a group is trying to make the minimum wage for any worker within the city limits $9.25 an hour. By comparison the kid at the Baskin Robbin's ice cream parlor is San Jose would make the state minimum of $6.75. So in S.Cruz a kid scooping ice cream could make just under $20k a year. This is of course not a good move since you pay too much for zero skilled jobs making them attractive for grown ups! The jobs that high school kids can do well shouldn't be attractive for people who should be trying to move upstream!
It's about time and can we do this at all our borders!
Tom Cruise not only knows the history of psychiatry but apparently is also an expert in obstetrics!
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
- Direct shares of ORCL held 1,300,00,000 shares...that's billion! At today's price that's $16B
- Cash from sales of ORCL stock for just 2004, $1.1B
- Extremely large Bay Area home (that looks something like the Royal Palace in Tokyo) with lakes and traditional Japanese wood boats), approx. $50M
- Various large and small business jets, fighter jets, misc. planes $300M
- Various sail and motor yachts, and frequent participant in trying to own the worlds largest private yacht (or really ship)....approx. $500M
You get the idea...this is like a parking ticket!
Happily for Mr Zarqawi, no matter how desperate the head-hackers get, the Western defeatists can always top them. A Democrat Congressman, Jack Murtha, has called for immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. He's a Vietnam veteran, so naturally the media are insisting that his views warrant special deference, military experience in a war America lost being the only military experience the Democrats and the press value these days. Hence, the demand for the President to come up with an "exit strategy".
In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter's easier. Just say, whoa, we're the world's pre-eminent power but we can't handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don't mind we'd just as soon get off at the next stop.
Demonstrating the will to lose as clearly as America did in Vietnam wasn't such a smart move, but since the media can't seem to get beyond this ancient jungle war it may be worth underlining the principal difference: Osama is not Ho Chi Minh, and al-Qa'eda are not the Viet Cong. If you exit, they'll follow. And Americans will die - in foreign embassies, barracks, warships, as they did through the Nineties, and eventually on the streets of US cities, too.
For example, your doctor tells you the dark spot on your skin is nothing to worry about. The conclusion here is that the dark spot is in fact not a problem. Is that reasonable? NO, it's not! While this example might seem like it moves from general to specific it is in fact induction and flawed. In induction the premises of a conclusion (or argument) if true make the truth of the conclusion probable. In this case the premise is the person that said the spot is not a problem is a doctor so it is probable his opinion is correct. But, since this dark spot could be a serious health issue (the conclusion matters) deduction should be applied. In deduction the truth of the premises are thought to guarantee the conclusion. Applying deduction you would want to know things like: Is your doctor an oncologist or dermatologist? Has the spot changed color over time? Has the spot grown or changed shape over time? At this point I would still call this case inductive, but what would flip it to deductive, all on it's own, would be lab results from a biopsy of the spot.
So, why do most people just take the word of their doctor, auto mechanic, building contractor, or a politician? Of course the ramifications of being wrong must be considered and when the stakes aren't high induction is perfectly suited. However, the stakes are not always obvious when the topic is political and the source is a politician.
Let's look at another example. The Democrats come up with their own Small Business Index and this month they use it to say that the small business outlook is the worst it has been in 8 yrs. Many will read this and assume it is so. The result could be hundreds or thousands who read it decide to not buy that franchise they were considering, or not to start their dream to open a restaurant. Others may think this is systemic to the entire economy so they will pass on that new car or tv purchase. It could, in fact, have a tremendous effect by paralyzing individuals whose participation in the economy is in fact what makes it bad or good. So if we do a little homework, we can try to achieve a deductive conclusion on the state of the small business outlook. My attempt at that started with a good blogger source on the topic The Entrepreneurial Mind. But, you should do your own homework until induction supports a conclusion, or better yet deduction makes it a guarantee. As an aside...why does a political party need their own business index? Purely to slant the conclusion since its out of their field of expertise!
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Then moron John Murtha opens his stupid mouth to suggest we cut and run from Iraq...even with some set time frame or the "as soon as possible" phrase this is idiotic. Please one of you brain damaged liberals explain to me the logic behind Bush wanting to keep troops there any longer than necessary!
The stupid suggestion by Murtha was pounced on by the GOP leadership who forced an immediate vote in the House on the idea. The big mouth Democrats were made to put up or shut up and they largely shut up with a vote of 403 to 3. Three Democrats, Jose Serrano of New York, Robert Wexler of Florida and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, voted for withdrawal. Was this political? Of course it was....you leftist fools just got schooled!
Note the AP story called the vote "hastily arranged by the GOP", no bias there....guess the AP doesn't think an immediate pull-out of Iraq would be hasty!!!!
Friday, November 18, 2005
The former spymaster claims President Bush is not telling the truth when he says that torture is not a method used by the US. Speaking of Bush's claims that the US does not use torture, Admiral Turner, who ran the CIA from 1977 to 1981, said: "I do not believe him".
On Dick Cheney he said "I'm embarrassed the United States has a vice president for torture. "He condones torture, what else is he?".
Gee, so I guess having run the CIA 24 years ago gives you the ability to read minds (a common skill among the no-facts liberals) since the suggestion is that this is in fact true based on our geriatric Admiral's belief? Ya, nice vetting of this story! Grandpa also apparently is up to speed on the other leak of the day of supposed "black sites"...I suppose the Admiral knew back in the 1970's that someday we would need these in Afghanistan and Pakistan so he setup them up. How else would he know and speak about these unless it's true?
Ok, I don't know if sailer boy is senile (and sorry to my dad for all the old guy jokes) but I'm pretty sure that since Turner has been no friend of the Bush Whitehouse he has no inside track. And if there is someone still alive in the CIA he knows and they're leaking evidence of Bush and Cheney condoning anything that is really considered torture of prisoners that communication would be a crime. So should some prosecutor have a talk with the Admiral?
The same phenomenon is surely happening with the subject of Iraq. And like abortion frankly most with extreme views on both sides are hypocrites, wrong and damaging our country all for their stubborn ideology. Today's WSJ piece Why We Went to War makes my point with the larger view of both why going was still correct ("To believe that an untouched Saddam five years hence wouldn't have been back in the WMD game is fatuous beyond description.") and why we must finish the job ('The theory that democracies don't attack other democracies is as strong as such notions get, and what the world most needs now is a new, large Islamic democracy. A democracy, however "imperfect," is less likely than an authoritarian state to detonate a nuclear device in someone else's territory.")
Those who now call for a timeline for withdrawal, or more idiotic an immediate pull-out, are clearly suffering from this affliction. The worst part is they are playing partisan politics with our national security and our military who are in harms way. This is in my opinion tantamount to treasonous behavior.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
By JOHN McCAIN
IRAQ is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas.
At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.
Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."
These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them. Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.
If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.
Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.
But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress' mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory. A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.
And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment's supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win.
The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate's words: a front page Washington Post story titled "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq."
Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?
Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving? The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.
Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail. Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.
Sen. McCain (R, Az.) is one of only 19 U.S. senators — including just 13 Republicans — to have voted against a Senate resolution Tuesday pushing for an eventual draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Here's the headline from an article that appeared in yesterday's Chicago Tribune:
IRAQ IN TRANSITION IN JORDAN
Alleged bomber cites war for role in attacks
Excuse me, Iraq is now in transition in Jordan? How did that work out?
Well the real crux of the story is that the four suicide bombers wanted revenge for their family members who were killed in the battle of Fallujah.
So in this we see how twisted, evil, and mostly illogical our enemy is. These idiots want revenge against the US for it's role in Iraq so they travel to Jordan to blow up a bunch of innocent wedding attendee's who just happen to Palestinian Muslims. Nice. They also killed four Palestinian Authority officials, notably Bashir Nafeh, head of military intelligence on the West Bank.
So who takes the credit for this bombing? None other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who is himself, a Jordanian. Who sites as one of the reasons for his terrorist actions the treatment of Palestinians in Isreal.
Well now it all makes perfect sense to me.
Monday, November 14, 2005
A few quotes from some of our Founding Fathers:
“The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men.” Benjamin Franklin, To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.” Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781
“But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain...let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.” Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
So, fast forward to today…and we have this misguided God-hater Michael Newdow who led the effort to ban reciting the pledge of allegiance in public schools at it again. This time it’s the words “In God We Trust” on our currency. Where would it end? The cleansing of the reference to a God, to a creator, would be an acid wash over the very spirit that makes us great and attracts those that come to partake in that greatness.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Terror hits home, Muslim's start to denounce it!
Hugh rips one of the celebrity pundits I love to hate, Rob Reiner
Insane professors will corrupt our college students
Saturday, November 12, 2005
I suspect most cream puff liberals are you willing to sacrifice their family, their town or yours by insisting we employ a soft approach to interrogation. To them the notion of being righteous is more important than the discomfort of a bad guy here and there. Sorry, not me, break out the cattle prod.
Friday, November 11, 2005
I’m not the smartest kid on the block but I do know enough to study history, as does my good friend Michael Medved and he put together this extremely important comparison of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars:
With all the misguided attempts to compare our current struggle in Iraq with America's most disastrous prior war, it's crucial for informed citizens to understand the profound contrasts and distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq - and to simultaneously come to terms with the one great and essential similarity.
Herewith, a quick list of the nine essential differences between the two wars - along with the single crucial resemblance.
1.THE ENEMY-In Vietnam, we faced more than a rag-tag guerilla band: we confronted one of the world's most formidable military machines in the nation of North Vietnam, with more than a million men under arms. What's more, these troops and their officers had been hardened by some thirty years of fighting-first against the Japanese, then against the French, and finally against the South Vietnamese and the Americans. Ho Che Minh, dictator of North Vietnam, provided a potent symbol with a clearly articulated Communist agenda. In Iraq, on the other hand, we fight no nation, no organized army, no visible or unifying leader, but a collection of shadowy terrorist bands. These gangs occupy no territory, have announced no coherent program for the future, and command no economic or territorial base to replenish their cadres. They can certainly do damage to Americans and to the troops of democratic Iraq, but they can in no sense suggest a credible alternative-hence their very limited popular support.
2.THE ENEMY'S ALLIES-During the Vietnam struggle, the North Vietnamese and their guerilla allies in the south, the Viet Cong, received virtually unlimited support from two of the three most powerful nations on earth: the Soviet Union and Communist China. The two Communist superpowers disagreed on many issues, but they united in support of their Vietnamese colleagues - providing anti-aircraft surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries, MIG jet fighters, artillery, ordnance, military vehicles, small arms, cash, food, encouragement and diplomatic support. The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, receive support from no government on earth. It's true that radical segments of Arab public opinion may wish for the insurgents to bloody the U.S., but none of the Islamic governments have in any way backed the insurgency; even Syria, which definitely could do more to stop the flow of men and weapons across its border, delivers ritualistic and official condemnation of the bloody, murderous terrorists (many of them non-Iraqis) who slaughter women and children, along with American fighting men.
3.OUR ARMY--Easily the most controversial aspect of the Vietnam war - and the main spur to the anti-war movement - involved the draft of literally millions of young Americans during the '60's and '70's. While a small majority of those who actually fought "in country" in Indochina turned out to be volunteers, the involuntary nature of the draft gave rise to the "Hell No, We Won't Go Slogan," to burned draft cards, flights to Canada, and numberless fantasies of martyrdom. In our current struggle, our highly-professional and expertly trained military includes no draftees whatever. Everyone fighting in Iraq - including National Guardsmen and reservists- at one time or another enlisted voluntarily in the military. Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, all those who sign up for the U.S. military are clever enough to understand the very real possibility that at one point you might be required to use your expensive training in actual combat.
4.CASUALTY RATES - The human cost of the war in Iraq is genuinely horrifying, with more than 1,800 of our finest young people making the ultimate sacrifice. This carnage can hardly compare, however, to Vietnam - in which 58,000 Americans gave their lives for their country. The Iraq War has been going on for two and a half years - with a killed-in-action rate of approximately 800 per year. In Vietnam, the years of principal American I involvement (1965-72) saw deaths that averaged nearly 8,000 per year - in other words, a casualty rate some 10 TIMES as high. In fact, the differential is even greater in terms of the impact on the nation: in 1970, the census showed the U.S. population at 203 million; today, it stands above 290 million. In terms of a percentage of our total population, the death rate in Vietnam exceeded the death rate in Iraq by a ratio of 14 to 1. Even if the U.S. continued to struggle in Iraq for four more years with the current rate of killing (a worst case scenario our policy makers will move heaven and earth to avoid), the deaths will total some 5,000-less than a single year of Vietnam, and less than 10% of the total losses in that war. To keep casualty figures in perspective, it's important to remember that the combined human cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, after nearly three years of overall struggle, still involves fewer deaths than on a single dark day of recent history: September 11, 2001.
5.THE MEDIA - On the surface, the mainstream media (TV networks, newsmagazines, prestige newspapers) seem to offer the same perspective on two very different wars: emphasizing bad news, and downplaying every sing of progress. The difference in media coverage remains profound, however, since the emergence of new media (talk radio, Fox News, the Internet and the blogosphere) have changed the media landscape completely. When Walter Cronkite of CBS announced his disillusionment with the war in a special broadcast in 1968, no prominent media voices rose to contradict him: the public had to choose between believing "Uncle Walter" (the Most Trusted Man in America, according to polls) or Lyndon Johnson. Today, we enjoy far more diverse sources of information, and persuasive (sometimes raucous) voices on the right arise immediately to contradict all the TV network distortions and to provide perspective and balance.
6.POLITICS - Despite recent polls suggesting an Iraq-related decline in the President's popularity, the balance of power in Washington bears no resemblance to the situation in the Vietnam era. In the '60's and '70?s, the Democrats remained the dominant party in the nation, enjoying uninterrupted control of both houses of Congress during both decades, despite two terms of the Nixon presidency. By 1970, that dominant party, the Democrats, had turned radically, overwhelmingly against the war, with "peace candidate" George McGovern nominated for president in 1972. Today, by contrast, the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress (and the majority of state governorships) and Republicans remain almost unanimously behind Bush. In the most recent Gallup poll, the President's "approval rating" among self-described Republicans reached a reassuring 88%. It's Democrats - not Republicans - who show their divisions, with the "Move On"-Michael Moore-Howard Dean wing of the party favoring immediate withdrawal, while the Joe Lieberman-Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton mainstream seems to understand the importance of finishing our work in Iraq. During Vietnam, a long series of majority Congressional votes (including the infamous McGovern-Hatfield Senate resolution cutting off our military) served to undermine the U.S. war effort. In Iraq, no comparable "surrender" resolution has drawn even 20% of either house of Congress.
7.SCANDAL - In the last analysis, it wasn't public opinion turning against the war that doomed our Vietnam policy: it was, rather, the self-destruction of the Nixon administration in the most devastating scandal in U.S. political history. After a triumphant re-election in 1972, both Vice President Agnew and President Nixon resigned their offices leaving a fatally weak chief executive (Gerald Ford) who had never even run for national office. In the Watergate-stained election of 1974, the Democrats added crushing weight to their already lop-sided majorities (gaining 49 seats in the House, 5 in the Senate) and preventing President Ford from re-supplying our South Vietnamese allies when the North broke its agreements under the Paris Accords and launched a massive invasion. Without the Watergate scandal, driving Nixon from office and temporarily emasculating the Republican Party, our government almost surely would have maintained the commitments made to resist Northern aggression. However seriously one takes the currently hysterical Democratic efforts to magnify the controversy surrounding the public identification of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame, no sane observer believes that the scandal will follow the Watergate example and lead to the resignation or impeachment of President Bush.
8.THE PAST -For millions of Vietnamese, the war against the United States represented the culmination of several centuries of struggle against colonialism and foreign domination, and followed by a mere twenty years their successful efforts to throw off the yoke of bumbling French imperialism. Iraq has experienced no comparable history of colonialism: for nearly 400 years (1533-1916) it functioned as part of the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. The period of British "protectorate" lasted a mere sixteen years (from World War I occupation in 1916 to independence under Prime Minister Nuri-el Said in 1932), with only a brief English re-occupation (1941-45) during the height of World War II. Under thirty years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraq drew some support from the west but functioned for the most part as a military and economic client of the Soviet Union. Unlike Vietnam, where Communists could claim that they represented a nationalist reaction to French (and then American) colonialism, the population of Iraq maintains clear memories of the rabidly anti-American Hussein regime which brought about the nation's economic and cultural ruin.
9.THE STAKE - The best argument of the peace movement during the Vietnam war involved its insistence that even American defeat would bring little pain to most Americans. The anti-war forces argued (with considerable persuasiveness) that the Vietnamese only wanted to control Vietnam: they would never send their minions to invade California or Florida. America might lose prestige, might sacrifice credibility, to give up ground to the Soviets in the titanic and fateful Cold War struggle, but no one expected that our citizens here at home would sleep less soundly in their beds if the U.S. cleared out of Vietnam, on the other side of the world from our homeland. Today, however, we don't have to tax our imaginations to visualize Middle Eastern enemies invading our shores and massacring American civilians: we already experienced that nightmare on September 11, with Islamic fanatics killing more of us in that one day than the Iraqi insurgents have managed to kill in two and a half years. America's stake in defeating a ruthless enemy in Iraq isn't abstract or nebulous: it's real, immediate, urgent and palpable. Anti-war extremists may downplay the every day dangers of Islamic terrorism, but most Americans understand that it still represents a significant menace to both our lives and our way of life.
And this recognition brings me to the one great SIMILARITY in the two wars. In both conflicts, the American people understand the horrific dangers of unilateral, precipitous, unconditional withdrawal. By 1972, most voters had developed deep doubts about the struggle in Vietnam and yet when George McGovern gave them the chance to vote for immediate withdrawal (under the campaign slogan, "Come Home, America!"), a received an unprecedented shellacking. McGovern, the "Peace Candidate," lost 49 of 50 states, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, carrying a feeble 38% of the popular vote and trailing Richard Nixon by an astonishing 23%. The general public might not like the Vietnam war, with its truly appalling casualty figures, but they liked the option of ignominious surrender even less.
Today, a very similar mood prevails throughout most of the United States. Our citizens worry about the war, and long for our troops to come home, but only a very small percentage (about 20%, according to most polls) want us to run up the white flag, abandon our Iraqi allies, and strangle an infant democracy in its cradle. It took nearly ten bitter years (from the major U.S. escalation in the summer of '65 to the final North Vietnamese victory of April, 1975) of devastating sacrifice and nearly ceaseless protest before our exhausted nation felt ready to abandon the cause to which we had committed ourselves in Vietnam. With that time table in mind, even with the vastly lower casualty rates from Iraq, it would take us till 2013 before we betrayed our current efforts to establish democratic values in the heart of the Middle East. Long before that grim eventuality, we will see a constitutional republic (imperfect, like virtually all nation states) operating in place of the kleptocratic, genocidal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and contributing significantly to the safety and security of all Americans.
Update: Monday, Nov. 14.....I guess the WSJ liked Norman Podhoretz's piece that I linked to above as they put it in today journal!
Thank God for the courage, passion and love of country by those who have served our country. And for those who serve today, a special thank you in a time where some who think they're enlightened are truly blind to how we protect our families, our way of life and our country.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Side note....the F'ing press takes illegals involved in burning cars and buildings and potentially put people in danger who have been arrested and call them "detained" people! They take an adult who is on the street, in the middle of the riot, probably resisting or throwing something at the police who is taken into custody by force....and call is "the beating of a young man". And note how the press says the "unrest eases"! Are you kidding me....482 cars burned compared to 617 the previous night is an easing? If this was happening in the US there's is zero chances that would be given a label that sounded like progress.
This feels to me like Spain's acquiescence to the terrorist train bombings!
Update: My daily driver gets (not kidding) 9 mpg on average so I feel the price of gas in a big way. Do we live in a socialist economy? What the hell are those two faced hypocrite senators (namely Boxer) asking oil company execs about "huge" profits and bonuses for? Are they not businesses? Did they break any law (like price gouging)? If not, shut the hell up...roughly a 10% profit isn't HUGE or WINDFALL for a well run company and their bonuses are set by the board you morons. I think it was Boxer who put up display showing the executive bonuses next to something like the average US household income. WHAT? Ok, lets look at all the income of every f'ing senator and house member and ask why they don't give it all back to help those only making $23k a year pay their heating oil bill this winter?
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
The rest of the bizarre story: In giving my version of what Scientology is I'm not attempting to be accurate on dates, timeline, or being blow by blow accurate. Those details are not important as evidence that the entire existence of Scientology is one man's creation with no proof for what it purports to be true. Sure, you could make a similar claim about many religions but I think the actual history of any religion can make its own case and Scientology's case is non-existent!
I did all of my homework online, and got a lot out of the comprehensive site on the topic called Operation Clambake, Undressing the Church of Scientology since 1996. The site also gives links to those who don't agree which is refreshing. I'm going to be brief in making my case since. Like I said, the gory details of when L. Ron Hubbard did this or that, or his actual words, or how much it costs to get something from the church don't matter...the overall story is what is truly shocking to me...shocking that people would be so gullible, so easily conned!
In the 1950's L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) talked about creating a church as a better way to make millions as opposed to writing for a living. LRH creates a method of regression therapy from other existing psychotherapy methods that exist. Why regress someone? That's coming. He writes about this regression therapy method in a book called Dianetics. LRH, wanting to of course make more dough takes his own advice and creates the tax loophole religion called the Church of Scientology (COS). Again being brief, and only focusing on the bizarre.
Ok, a brief side editorial. Frankly one really bizarre, bad, or evil characteristic about a person, an organization, a group is enough to completely right them off. Not every time, but lets take an example. Lets say there is a religion that is clean cut, promotes doing good and having what are obviously to most high moral standards, they try to spread there message to others. Then lets say you find out that they absolutely disallow members to celebrate someone's birthday! To the point where you could be ostracized or removed for participating in a cake and candles willingly. They believe God dislikes birthdays! Why, well they believe if the bible doesn't mention something God dislikes it. They believe if the bible has a story about evil doers doing something common (like say celebrating something) that's God's way of saying he dislikes that something even though by itself that something isn't inherently evil. This religion is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, I'm being general here...don't go correcting me on this...the fact is the point I'm making is on track! But I digress!
Back to COS, the church has a story of how we got here on earth and why some of us are bad, or evil, or not at peace and so on. The church claims you need to go thru auditing (what they call the psychotherapy they employ). They are trying to help you reach some spiritual truth, to cleanse your being all of which is done over a period of time thru "levels" members progress through...largely triggered by your paying for this progression! And fees have been reported from thousands to hundreds of thousands per level. Paying is required while the church claims it isn't, plenty who have left the church have provided evidence and experience that you must pay to play....doesn't sound like a friendly, we-just-want-to-help-people religion does it?
Ok, now for the good part. After you have reached an "advanced" level and at this point your for the most part brainwashed into thinking this church and the people in it are so enlightened. You are told the big secret! That man got to earth millions of years ago because an alien named Xenu gathered up criminal and over populated beings of this galaxy and dropped them on earth. He put them next to volcanoes and then detonated hydrogen bombs (as if a alien millions of years ago would use an explosive technique we use today!). The COS believes in reincarnation and since some of these beings would survive the bombs Xenu employed psychiatrists of his time to re-program the minds of the living and dead so as to not know their origin. According to COS they programmed the notion of the historic religions (Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) practiced on earth and thus they are false. These psychiatrists and Xenu were evil! COS says that the souls of all these murdered beings infest the body of everyone today. They call these souls "body thetans" and at advanced levels in COS a member of the church "audits out" the body thetans telepathically. The COS and its members believe all our bad thoughts, our miss-steps, unhappiness, etc. is due to these body thetans. Given the COS believes we are all descendents from murdered beings brainwashed by evil psychiatrists is why Tom Cruise thinks he knows the history of psychiatry!
The COS easily fits the definition of a cult. It is very telling that the COS has gone to great efforts to try and stop those spreading these details about the church. It is also telling that they do not tell their members about Xenu, and these basic premises of the church, until they have spent a long period of time and money with the church. Having this element of secrecy and a lack of trust to all members of the COS says it all. There are lots of other details about the COS, but I think this bizarre central tenet on how we got on this planet is all I need to label this a wack job cult religion.
How ethnic is the present violence in France? Liberal commentators, both in France and abroad, tend to say that poverty and unemployment, rather than race or religion, are the driving force behind the riots. Mr. Villepin himself tends to share this view, at least in part. He said yesterday on TV that he is earmarking enormous credits for housing rehabilitation, education, and state-supported jobs in the areas where the unrest has developed. But the fact remains that only ethnic youths are rioting, that most of them explicitly pledge allegiance to Islam and such Muslim heroes as Osama bin Laden, that the Islamic motto - Allahu Akbar - is usually their war cry, and that they submit only to archconservative or radical imams.
The fact also remains, according to many witnesses, that the rioters torch only "white" cars, meaning white owned cars, and spare "Islamic" or "black" ones. One way to discriminate between them is to look for ethnic signs like a sticker with Koranic verses or a picture of the Kaaba in Mekka or a stylized map of Africa. Further evidence of the animating influence in the riots lies with the French rap music to which the perpetrators listen. Such music obsessively describes White France as a sexual prey.
Update: To contrast another viewpoint check out this Blogger in France. I disagree with his hypothesis of this being similar to both the racial and Viet Nam riots and protests of the 60's and 70's. The participants in those examples were not galvanized by a hateful religious doctrine. We also didn't have examples of protests in other parts of the world with a tie in like religion. And of course there is the glaring difference in the hatred, violence and pure evil of today's examples that have the Islamic link that didn't exist even on a small scale in the 60's and 70's.
Update: And yet another viewpoint more to my thinking again that my dad shot my way via the Washington Times.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Kerry began by highlighting the strong points of the presidential election in 2004 and stated a strong confidence in winning the Senate elections in 2006. "I won 10 million more votes than any Democratic presidential nominee ever," he said in regards to the 2004 presidential election versus current President George W. Bush.And it was sad to read this next bit from the article:
He was met with applause when he mentioned, "It's a sad time for our country," in reference to President Bush's policies.Applause? Proof that being on a university campus has nothing to do with your intellect and also an example one of the most disgusting characteristics of liberals....they rejoice in the idea that something under the watch of a republican may (may since I'm not sure why this time is universally sad for our country) not be going well. Was this applause for American's killed in Iraq? For a Whitehouse staffer being indicted? For Cindy Sheehan's hair style? For rent-a-mob socialist and communist protesters in South America?
Kerry hopes a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate will help the country to "make sense of the despair and frustration" the nation now has.What? Gee, how about one of you no-life-experience-as-of-yet all knowing students ask Mr. Kerry exactly what despair and frustration he's talking about? I think he's talking about the Democrat base who still can't accept that Bush won! The Democrats can't win people over with their ideas or an actual platform that's different...so they will keep telling you that you have despair (not me), that it's a sad time for our country (why?), that our economy isn't strong (lie), that deadly and costly anomalous weather is Republican caused global warming (hahaha), that just like Bush knew Iraq had no more WMD's he also alone knew New Orleans was below sea level (since apparently the locals don't)!
The French, while constantly stepping up the number of police involved have: had meetings! used rubber bullets, not used military, having more meetings, thought about curfews, making insignificant arrests. We have only heard of 1 death, but there are numerous injured in critical condition including a 12 month old girl who was just ridding on a bus that was destroyed by these insurgent terrorists in a rock throwing attack. This is a war, and one that would be dealt with here very differently. This is also why personal gun ownership is useful!
Now I know why France (aside from its participation in oil-for-food kick back money to Saddam) didn't want us to go to Iraq. To them, dealing with combatants, terrorists, hateful wild mobs is not possible...they cannot see how you can actually win. The evidence of their ineptitude to deal with an enemy combatant is playing out for all to see. France and other EU countries had better stop the kid glove descriptions and more importantly the treatment of these criminals else they could see what even the MSM will call a war. The Muslim religion, by its history and modern day example, is not a religion of peace and an Islamic cancer plays a role in what's happening in France. Taranto of the WSJ has a good piece in his blog today called The French Conflagration making that case.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
The US press, I'm sure, will use many of the images from Argentina in countless stories where the story will also include words like "at a time when Bush's poll numbers are at an all time low....". And they will call it anti-free trade and globalization protests and they will show an abundance of anti-Bush visuals. Unlikely they will show Guevara, Castro or bin Laden supporters were in force!
We are use to hearing vitriolic fatuity from the man-women of the Senate (and you know who they are), and now the women (or so they claim to be) of the House are joining the Borg of the Senate. From today's WSJ blog by Taranto we see a collection of white man hating skirts shows us their brilliance with their reasoning behind their lack of support for Alito's nomination as a justice on the SCOTUS. Ok, put on your thinking cap...listen real carefully...you know like when your listening to a scientist or something you have to really concentrate to understand them.
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) said she was disappointed that President Bush nominated a white male to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "The president has failed to nominate a woman or a Latino," Solis said, a decision that constituted "a betrayal of the legacy of the trailblazing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Alito would not represent all Americans.
"Who will Judge Alito represent? He will represent white males who can afford to keep their wives at home while they work," Woolsey charged.
YES! Don't you love it...I'm not sure if Solis is insulting Sandra Day O'Connor or Latino's! Sandra is Latino? Or Latino men understand women better than other men? Or Latino men are in fact just like women? Hahahahaha
And Woosley apparently doesn't represent all Americans since as Taranto points out she's a white divorced women so she leaves a lot of her disctrict in divorce happy CA unrepresented...not to mention that apparently stay at home moms/wives are appropriately represented by even those she cares little for.
This kills me!
Update: Joe Biden apparently agrees with me that many Dems are less than patriotic. A few days ago, along with other meanderings, he told a small heavily Democratic crowd that Democrats have become elitist. He noted that some Democrats have questioned why he wears an American flag on his lapel. “We’ve become disconnected from where we grew up,” Biden said. “The Republicans, because of our distance, they have convinced a lot of people we ain’t one of them.”
Bush's Approval Rating: Who cares? How does it matter? If I was polled I would say I'm not satisfied with the job he's doing too...doesn't mean I'm suddenly a Democrat or would vote that way in any election!
Ex-FEMA Chief's Emails: Give me a break!..this guy maybe (maybe since I don't know) shouldn't have had that job but are you going to tell me that everyone on the planet who uses email daily won't have joking and sarcastic emails during a crisis? And are you also going to tell me that every single member of the press or Dem politicians who appear on TV doesn't worry about or spend time on how they look...WHO CARES!!!!!
Google Founders Buy A Jet!: Good for them...Why is this a story deserving WSJ or Drudgereport front and center status? If me and my pal were worth $20B combined we would own an F'ing fleet of aircraft, the story should be why don't these guys buy more stuff!
Andy Rooney says nothing wrong with the word negro this morning on the Imus radio show. He also said he had a problem using African American and that there was nothing wrong with the word negro. Well I have to agree. The United Negro College Fund still uses it. Some don't like my use of the word black. Well I will refrain from both words when the United Negro College Fund and the Congressional Black Caucus stop using them. What we call people who are black is made even more a joke by how many blacks use every supposed racial slur and stereotype when they address each other...sorry, ok for us but not for you doesn't fly. Further bringing down the black position of what's right and wrong is the "sambo", "uncle tom" and Oreo cookie pelting of the black Maryland Lt. Gov Micheal Steele who is running for Senate. This hypocritical behaivor by other blacks which is again hardly covered by the MSM and not emphatically denounced by the Democratic party's is telling.
Royals Visit to the US: Yawn...have you listened to Charles? The dude is wack!
Valerie Plame: At least the story focus is wrong..should be her, her husband and the inappropriate use of her husband by the CIA to do anything remotely like intelligence work and then his talking about it.
CIA secret jails: Again wrong focus...if they exist we should applaud it then the story should be to nail the asses who leaked it.
Riots in Paris: Hardly covered for the first week of nightly riots...gee not really much of a story eh? Sounds like a few thousands cars have been torched...don't know how many buildings or how many people hurt....but look thru the coverage and see how hard it is to find that those being bad are MUSLIM!!!!!!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Update: Just like most who claim Bush lied they supported the idea before they were against it! "Saddam's Probably Got WMDs and Bush is Lying if He Agrees With Me"
Update: speaking of Cindy Sheehan, don't you just love the reporters and news outlets who report that some think Sheehan should run against Hillary....of course the "some" is the few dozen people that have no life and show up to her staged events here and there...please, please, let her run for ANYTHING..that would be entertaining!