You would think that the liberal constituents of Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrat disciples would be ticked off with all the time this crowd spends crying about how the party in power has the advantage instead of doing their job. I love the rhetoric she spews:
Republicans on the Rules Committee have intentionally "used emergency meeting procedures and late-night meetings . . . to discourage Members and the press from participating in the legislative process."
wa-wa-wa....so use the rules to fight back you idiots! Work late! And we didn't vote the press into a legislative position, we voted you all in...the press isn't suppose to be participating, only reporting!!!!!!!!!
And how about the hype in this statement, I'm sure the report will have some evidence rising to the level of the language Pelosi used when she says the report will document:
"devastating details of the profound abuse of power that characterizes House Republicans after 10 years in the majority."
REALLY? Devastating? Profound abuse of power? Give me a break!
Of course the liberal pseudo intellectuals probably think trying to discredit, disrupt and constantly work at displacing conservatives is the job of their liberal legislators. It's a shame since it's clear that partisanship is taking a front seat to good legislation, good presidential appointment approval and just coming to the table for the good of the country. Both sides need to compromise but the party not in the power position has to acquiesce more...that's just the nature of things....if the Dems don't get this and spend as much energy as it appears they might on being disruptive instead of getting anything done they will lose 50% of their base in '06 (I hope :))
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Stupidio!
First, I have been super busy with work and a remodel...but I have plenty of pent up bitterness about the events of the world since my last post.
Italy you disappoint me! I love all things Italian, the place, the food, the culture, design, cars and my wife and family who are Sicilian and Northern Italian....HOWEVER...what the hell are they thinking paying ransoms for hostages in Iraq? Nothing like fanning a fire! I guess now they're rethinking this idiotic strategy! Interesting how the press omits that the former Italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena is a communist journalist sympathetic to anyone against the US efforts in Iraq. She put herself in harms way socializing with insurgents and after cash was paid for her release her Italian government agent driver got himself killed and her injured with his driving.....an investigation is appropriate but conspiracy theories are a joke.
Update: My dad pointed me to today's WSJ and a piece by it's editorial board who agrees with me..it's a subscription only view so I have put it here:
Italy's Ransom
Rome adopts a policy of deliberately aiding terrorism.
Americans join Italians in mourning the death of Italian secret service officer Nicola Calipari, whose funeral was held in Rome on Monday. Agent Calipari died a hero last Friday, reportedly using his body to shield freed journalist/hostage Giuliana Sgrena from gunfire as their car approached American troops near Baghdad Airport. So perhaps Ms. Sgrena will also shed a tear for the Americans and Iraqis who will die because of the ransom that was paid for her release.
So far, all the world's moral anger has focused on the claim that U.S. soldiers were reckless, or even tried to "assassinate" her, as Ms. Sgrena's newspaper, the communist Il Manifesto, put it. But her claims in some interviews that her car was moving slowly and cautiously are contradicted by, well, Ms. Sgrena.
Her own account of the fateful journey, published Sunday, has them traveling so fast they were "losing control" and laughing about what an irony it would be if they had an accident after all that had happened. In other words, they probably looked like a suicide car bomber to a scared American solider who had to make a split-second decision at night. (The military declines to give figures on car bombs specifically for operational security reasons. But "explosive devices" of various kinds are by far the leading killers in Iraq, accounting for close to half of all deaths from hostile fire, and nearly twice as many as gunshot wounds.)
Arguably far more reckless was Italy's decision to pay ransom--reportedly of $6 million or more--to secure her release. Italy is also believed to have paid ransom for the release of two aid workers taken captive last year. The Italians know the U.S. opposes the policy, which may be why Ms. Sgrena's transfer to the airport was not sufficiently coordinated with U.S. forces.
Not only does paying ransom encourage more kidnapping--of Italians especially--it also puts money in the hands of the enemy in a country where $40 buys an automatic rifle and $200 an attack on U.S. forces. The shooting of a speeding car at a military checkpoint in a war zone is an unintentional tragedy, but the paying of ransom amounts to a policy of deliberately aiding terrorists.
Italy you disappoint me! I love all things Italian, the place, the food, the culture, design, cars and my wife and family who are Sicilian and Northern Italian....HOWEVER...what the hell are they thinking paying ransoms for hostages in Iraq? Nothing like fanning a fire! I guess now they're rethinking this idiotic strategy! Interesting how the press omits that the former Italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena is a communist journalist sympathetic to anyone against the US efforts in Iraq. She put herself in harms way socializing with insurgents and after cash was paid for her release her Italian government agent driver got himself killed and her injured with his driving.....an investigation is appropriate but conspiracy theories are a joke.
Update: My dad pointed me to today's WSJ and a piece by it's editorial board who agrees with me..it's a subscription only view so I have put it here:
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Italy's Ransom
Rome adopts a policy of deliberately aiding terrorism.
Americans join Italians in mourning the death of Italian secret service officer Nicola Calipari, whose funeral was held in Rome on Monday. Agent Calipari died a hero last Friday, reportedly using his body to shield freed journalist/hostage Giuliana Sgrena from gunfire as their car approached American troops near Baghdad Airport. So perhaps Ms. Sgrena will also shed a tear for the Americans and Iraqis who will die because of the ransom that was paid for her release.
So far, all the world's moral anger has focused on the claim that U.S. soldiers were reckless, or even tried to "assassinate" her, as Ms. Sgrena's newspaper, the communist Il Manifesto, put it. But her claims in some interviews that her car was moving slowly and cautiously are contradicted by, well, Ms. Sgrena.
Her own account of the fateful journey, published Sunday, has them traveling so fast they were "losing control" and laughing about what an irony it would be if they had an accident after all that had happened. In other words, they probably looked like a suicide car bomber to a scared American solider who had to make a split-second decision at night. (The military declines to give figures on car bombs specifically for operational security reasons. But "explosive devices" of various kinds are by far the leading killers in Iraq, accounting for close to half of all deaths from hostile fire, and nearly twice as many as gunshot wounds.)
Arguably far more reckless was Italy's decision to pay ransom--reportedly of $6 million or more--to secure her release. Italy is also believed to have paid ransom for the release of two aid workers taken captive last year. The Italians know the U.S. opposes the policy, which may be why Ms. Sgrena's transfer to the airport was not sufficiently coordinated with U.S. forces.
Not only does paying ransom encourage more kidnapping--of Italians especially--it also puts money in the hands of the enemy in a country where $40 buys an automatic rifle and $200 an attack on U.S. forces. The shooting of a speeding car at a military checkpoint in a war zone is an unintentional tragedy, but the paying of ransom amounts to a policy of deliberately aiding terrorists.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Dean's skin already paper thin!
What a joke....Dean having been the head of the DNC for just days calls on the head of NY's Republican Party because he said "the Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean." So he does a word association and Dean wants his head? Gee, lets review.....how many of the highest ranking Dems called Bush a liar? Stupid? etc. How many Dems link or associate, in some statement, Nazi's with Republicans? You can find plenty of derogatory, negative and false direct statements and associations on both sides. A double standard as usual for the Dems who don't like it when it hits too close to home. So why is the conviction of Lynne Stewart for conspiracy, providing material support terrorists, and defrauding the United States government close to home? Well, just look at the media slant on Google news for "lynne stewart" along with the orgainzations and people who cry foul over her conviction.
Gee, on the other hand I guess Dean (and anyone else who think this was bad) is saying they think Ms. Stewart was a traitor and is guilty!
Gee, on the other hand I guess Dean (and anyone else who think this was bad) is saying they think Ms. Stewart was a traitor and is guilty!
SS Reform or Socialism?
Nice piece by Pete Du Pont on Social Security Reform and the sentiment behind those that oppose a privatized and individual controlled portion! Du Pont's position is summed up by this statement; "Social Security argument is an old and familiar one: government decisions versus individual ones, government control of assets versus individual ownership. In short, socialism versus individualism". Those opposed to changing SS offer no alternative other than to raise taxes of one type or another to pay for the system down the line. Fact of the matter is I know of nobody in their 40's who is relying on their down the road SS check to mean squat. We all invest pre and post tax dollars. I don't think I know anybody that hasn't contributed to their employers 401k plan or does IRA's every year. All of the companies I have worked for have had 100% employee participation in their 401k programs. So why on earth would someone oppose a change like this? Because they think the government can make better investments? That's a joke, so can't be that. Is it a reduced benefits argument? Shouldn't be.....of course if we put in less we will get less out...but the same amount invested even in conservative investments will yield me more so I have a net gain. I got one of those letters from the SSA recently...shows my SS earnings from the first year I had them. They show you the SS payment you would get if you were to retire today (pretending your at retirement age). Then using the life expectancy for white male in the US (75 yrs, man that's low) and total what they would pay me, its peanuts compared to what even an Index 500 investment would yield me divided by that number of payments.
So, I really can't see any logical reason for people to oppose SS reform unless its purely political at our expense, or they believe what Du Pont (and I) postulates which is that this puts more wealth into the individuals hands and so he says:
When you increase an individual's wealth, he becomes less dependent on government, and his attitude towards government changes. Socialists can't allow that, for it erodes their fundamental principle that social justice can only be achieved when important segments of the economy are under government control.
And that is why today's very liberal Democratic Party is so vehemently arguing against personal ownership of Social Security market accounts. The government's Social Security system is socialism's last redoubt, and must be preserved at all costs.
So, I really can't see any logical reason for people to oppose SS reform unless its purely political at our expense, or they believe what Du Pont (and I) postulates which is that this puts more wealth into the individuals hands and so he says:
When you increase an individual's wealth, he becomes less dependent on government, and his attitude towards government changes. Socialists can't allow that, for it erodes their fundamental principle that social justice can only be achieved when important segments of the economy are under government control.
And that is why today's very liberal Democratic Party is so vehemently arguing against personal ownership of Social Security market accounts. The government's Social Security system is socialism's last redoubt, and must be preserved at all costs.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Chris Rock, is he bad for black America?
My previous post got me thinking about the word "cracker". Chris Rock who uses it often, although not as often as the F bomb, and his recent pathetic opinions he unfortunately decided to share got my blood boiling. First the word cracker which I learned about on the English department of Virginia Tech's website. While its historic roots are interesting its the more recent use of the word that ticked me off. Apparently this is a term blacks use to describe whites who are thought to be racist. So Rock considers pretty much all whites racist? Then you add his comments about abortion as if he is making a statement about freedoms in general being a wonderful thing in this country. Dude, don't you know young and impressionable blacks hear what you spew? Lastly, he talks about the Oscar's like its a joke, an uncool event that no cool, black or straight male watches. Maybe this is all an attempt at humor but I think as with most humor there's usually a connection with the material and the joke teller. This is exactly the kind of role model black America (or America in general) doesn't need....and whether you think a popular performer or athlete should be role models or not doesn't matter...they are and especially for young blacks since too many don't have a male authority figure at home.
If a white performer had spouted off with this sort of thing the outrage, the public cry for his removal from the Oscars and also shunnig in general they would be subject to would be career changing. So liberal press, liberal actors, and black leaders where is your spine???????
Update 1: ok, I decided to change the title of this post to a question instead of a statement....maybe Drudge is manufacturing the picture to make a story, we'll see...and while I think Rock is funny I still pose the question. Who sets a good example for young black men in particular?
Update 2: I don't know if Drudge took bits from Rock's act to build contraversy around Rock's statements about the Oscar's directly. But, this will I'm sure boost ratings of the show. I do think its a bit duplicite that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) issued a statement in defense of of Rock. "Chris Rock isn't making fun of gays -- he's poking fun at the Oscars," "It's shtick" said their executive director. If Jeff Foxworthy was to be the host and made the gay comment what would GLAAD say?
Update 3: I have seen nothing knew to make me change my mind about Rock...in fact when I look at what he says (either to press or from his acts) I get more bothered. Rock acts as if he is the result of a black ghetto upbringing as evidenced by the undertone of nearly everything he says. He of course isn't from that poor or harsh a childhood but yet he talks like a bitter black man who becomes racist towards whites. Its all over his act and everything that comes out of his mouth. Rock said of the Oscars "you don't see a lot of black people nominated, so why should I watch it?'' Is that funny? Is that humorous banter or a racist statement. I know he's an F-ing comic, but it bothers me when someone belongs to a group that constantly claims racism but yet they say and act in a racist way towards the very group they bemoan. It's also ridiculous that its ok for a black person to make black steorotype jokes or use the n-word and its not ok for me...now who doesn't have a sense of humor?
If a white performer had spouted off with this sort of thing the outrage, the public cry for his removal from the Oscars and also shunnig in general they would be subject to would be career changing. So liberal press, liberal actors, and black leaders where is your spine???????
Update 1: ok, I decided to change the title of this post to a question instead of a statement....maybe Drudge is manufacturing the picture to make a story, we'll see...and while I think Rock is funny I still pose the question. Who sets a good example for young black men in particular?
Update 2: I don't know if Drudge took bits from Rock's act to build contraversy around Rock's statements about the Oscar's directly. But, this will I'm sure boost ratings of the show. I do think its a bit duplicite that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) issued a statement in defense of of Rock. "Chris Rock isn't making fun of gays -- he's poking fun at the Oscars," "It's shtick" said their executive director. If Jeff Foxworthy was to be the host and made the gay comment what would GLAAD say?
Update 3: I have seen nothing knew to make me change my mind about Rock...in fact when I look at what he says (either to press or from his acts) I get more bothered. Rock acts as if he is the result of a black ghetto upbringing as evidenced by the undertone of nearly everything he says. He of course isn't from that poor or harsh a childhood but yet he talks like a bitter black man who becomes racist towards whites. Its all over his act and everything that comes out of his mouth. Rock said of the Oscars "you don't see a lot of black people nominated, so why should I watch it?'' Is that funny? Is that humorous banter or a racist statement. I know he's an F-ing comic, but it bothers me when someone belongs to a group that constantly claims racism but yet they say and act in a racist way towards the very group they bemoan. It's also ridiculous that its ok for a black person to make black steorotype jokes or use the n-word and its not ok for me...now who doesn't have a sense of humor?
Free Speech My A$$
Or as Chris Rock might say "F-- Y--, its free speech you cracker"! I use to like Chris Rock, thought he was funny even though he drops the F bomb way too much. Then I see the stuff The Drudge Report quotes Rock as saying about the Oscars (which he is/was to host) and other topics he clearly has informed opinions on. I've lost all respect and interest in him and anything he's associated with. I'm sure if the Academy fires him he will be throwing the "free speech" F bomb left and right...probably even say its related to race! Many liberals don't understand how the reaction to their opinion has nothing to do with free speech. Case in point the Berkeley couple who like to hang stuffed soldier uniforms from their Sacramento rental property with anti-American slogans along with various flags that also garner harsh reaction. They think all the press, the people in the community calling them names, etc. is somehow an attempt to stifle their freedom of speech! WHAT, are you idiots?...nobody (at least no sane people) are saying you can't put up your effigy, or flags, or promote your hatred of Bush or his politics! In fact the people who now hate you, are calling you names and so on are probably more concerned about that freedom than you are. You're confusing bad public reaction to your idiotic behavior with the government showing up and telling you to stop. Your ok with your stupid and obviously unpopular opinion hanging on the front of your rental house (but not the one you live in..chicken sh*t) but you're not ok with the reaction it fosters! What has that to do with free speech?
Academy...fire Rock's A$$
Academy...fire Rock's A$$
Global Left......history isn't on their side
Not exactly the theme of this nice piece by Hanson of the NRO titled "The Global Throng", but it's one take away for me. Not that every American effort that is owned by a conservative is successful but Hanson does a nice job highlighting many examples that the angry global left denounced at every turn. You'll note that as the doom and gloom always predicted by the left didn't materialize they would just shift their next negative prediction to the next phase of success. I think there is a lot more to this "teeth gnashing" in the form of pure jealousy than Hanson suggests. The American left can be explained a number of ways, but I think the global left is jealous of America's power and wealth. The jealousy becomes blind (and then illogical) for the global left because of a intellectual superiority delusion they have. It's makes them crazy that Bush and those who voted for him are stupid because of the caricature they have of those voters. They believe that Americans are sheep, easily led by Bush into anything. They think beer, chili, Nascar, Baseball, BBQ, Country Music and religion all represent mindless followers. It drives them nuts that America is led by and full of bumbling morons. How can these dolts be the core of most powerful, inventive and successful country on earth?
It's also interesting how the local American left has (or attempted to make) the rest of the world thinking a bunch of bible thumpers make up the Republican party. Its also amazing that during the 2004 campaign the left manage to create a position that believing in god, worshiping and having it be an important part of your life was somehow weird, scary and so on. Give me a break....faith was bad. This exposes the lefts political leaders for the charlatans they are. You'll see Hillary Clinton along with the entire DNC crowd making an effort to embrace religion and those who base their core values on their faith as we move towards the next elections. The left not understanding that those who love American culture and embrace it can see thru the charade will be the undoing of this strategy as well.
Kudos to the anonymous commenter on my Questions For Leftist Wackos..... post who pointed out this piece on NRO.
It's also interesting how the local American left has (or attempted to make) the rest of the world thinking a bunch of bible thumpers make up the Republican party. Its also amazing that during the 2004 campaign the left manage to create a position that believing in god, worshiping and having it be an important part of your life was somehow weird, scary and so on. Give me a break....faith was bad. This exposes the lefts political leaders for the charlatans they are. You'll see Hillary Clinton along with the entire DNC crowd making an effort to embrace religion and those who base their core values on their faith as we move towards the next elections. The left not understanding that those who love American culture and embrace it can see thru the charade will be the undoing of this strategy as well.
Kudos to the anonymous commenter on my Questions For Leftist Wackos..... post who pointed out this piece on NRO.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Happy B-Day Abraham!
Today is the birthday of our 16th president Abraham Lincoln....he spoke and wrote inspiring words on many occasions that still today can make you swell with pride to be an American...Powerline has a great piece on Lincoln and a particularly good speech Lincoln made in 1858. It's worth a read! I think its important for us to remember the founding principles of our country and the interpretations of those principles by great men such as Lincoln as we contemplate the geopolitical issues facing us today.
Natural Selection
If you watch the press releases and news conferences of researches and medical organizations that work on AIDS and HIV you will see a common theme....to make it sound like some new discovery or statistic is something the general public should be concerned about! The demographic of those responsible for spreading the vast majority these killer conditions is made clear by the very people who continually try to sound the alarm for all of us. Somehow those of us who don't engage in unprotected sex, promiscuous behavior that is still not all that unusual in the gay community and/or needle drug use should be concerned about this? Why? I'll give those who have spent years trying to make the high risk communities aware of the dangers and how to protect yourself a lot of credit...but you know what...I'm sick and tired of seeing this issue portrait as a major health concern. IT ISN'T. The majority of population has an ethical or moral core that takes them completely out of the picture. This is preventable for every person who wants to avoid it. In the end this is just natural selection at work...that may be a cruel way to look at it but I'm not interested in spending brain cycles or tax money on those who don't want to be saved.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Questions for Leftist Wack Jobs like Jim Bliss
Should anybody be bothered by the Sacramento (and Berkeley) home owner with the US soldier uniform stuffed with an American flag hung from a noose on his house? Should he be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by General Mattis' "fun to shoot some people" comment? Should he be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by what fake-American-Indian -who-doesn't-know-jack-about-Ethics prof Churchill said about 9/11 victims?
Do you think your employer would put you on a warning if were lecturing people in the lunch room about how 9/11 victims were in fact not victims and akin to Nazi's?
Should anybody be bothered by the bigoted and racist cartoons made by widely published liberal cartoonist of Condi Rice? Should they be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by gay marriage? Should anybody be bothered by group marriage? How about marriage to a goat?
Should anybody be bothered by Anheuser Busch Super Bowl commercial titled "Thank You"?
Should anybody be bothered if we target men of middle eastern descent for the most thorough airport searches?
Should anybody be bothered if those who don't legally live in the US, or pay taxes in the US, receive any benefit paid for by US taxes?
Should anybody be bothered by General Mattis' "fun to shoot some people" comment? Should he be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by what fake-American-Indian -who-doesn't-know-jack-about-Ethics prof Churchill said about 9/11 victims?
Do you think your employer would put you on a warning if were lecturing people in the lunch room about how 9/11 victims were in fact not victims and akin to Nazi's?
Should anybody be bothered by the bigoted and racist cartoons made by widely published liberal cartoonist of Condi Rice? Should they be forced to do anything?
Should anybody be bothered by gay marriage? Should anybody be bothered by group marriage? How about marriage to a goat?
Should anybody be bothered by Anheuser Busch Super Bowl commercial titled "Thank You"?
Should anybody be bothered if we target men of middle eastern descent for the most thorough airport searches?
Should anybody be bothered if those who don't legally live in the US, or pay taxes in the US, receive any benefit paid for by US taxes?
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Islamic Americans Against Terrorism?
I'm not a regular fan of the Fox show "24" but I happen to be surfing last night and watched just a few minutes when I thought it was going to a commercial...instead it was a public service announcement by the shows star Kiefer Sutherland and it went like this:
"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."
My reaction was immediate...WHAT??????....first I knew this must have come from a lobby group, and sure enough apparently pressure came from the apparent author of the spot...CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). So I went to the CAIR website and looked for evidence this "denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism". Go ahead, see if you can find much or ANYTHING that you can call "firmly" condemning terrorism against Americans by Muslims or done in the name of Islam!
I have heard many ask for this condemnation from Muslim Americans since 9/11...but have seen very very little. You would think they would be taking an anti-terror stance to the point where the majority of their website and public communication would have this focus...NOPE. Look at their site....its predominately cry baby stuff about ID checking, civil rights, concern over torture by our troops, etc......
Then ask yourself where was the outrage when "24" had a whitebread blond girl become a suicide bomber? Where was the outrage when a Latino was a drug dealer/terrorist? And so on. When the truth hits home the homies come out bitching and crying. Problem is I (and I'm sure many others) don't listen when its not backed up by actions. It's logical to see why CAIR would/should take a strong stance against terror...so why don't they? Is it because those in this organization don't uniformly agree on this? Do they fear being the victim of terror from within their own ranks if they take that stance?
Postscript....I have no idea if CAIR speaks for 5, 1000 or all Muslim Americans.....if they don't speak for a majority or significant group then my point still stands....get some leaders who will say this front and center on main stream media!
"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."
My reaction was immediate...WHAT??????....first I knew this must have come from a lobby group, and sure enough apparently pressure came from the apparent author of the spot...CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). So I went to the CAIR website and looked for evidence this "denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism". Go ahead, see if you can find much or ANYTHING that you can call "firmly" condemning terrorism against Americans by Muslims or done in the name of Islam!
I have heard many ask for this condemnation from Muslim Americans since 9/11...but have seen very very little. You would think they would be taking an anti-terror stance to the point where the majority of their website and public communication would have this focus...NOPE. Look at their site....its predominately cry baby stuff about ID checking, civil rights, concern over torture by our troops, etc......
Then ask yourself where was the outrage when "24" had a whitebread blond girl become a suicide bomber? Where was the outrage when a Latino was a drug dealer/terrorist? And so on. When the truth hits home the homies come out bitching and crying. Problem is I (and I'm sure many others) don't listen when its not backed up by actions. It's logical to see why CAIR would/should take a strong stance against terror...so why don't they? Is it because those in this organization don't uniformly agree on this? Do they fear being the victim of terror from within their own ranks if they take that stance?
Postscript....I have no idea if CAIR speaks for 5, 1000 or all Muslim Americans.....if they don't speak for a majority or significant group then my point still stands....get some leaders who will say this front and center on main stream media!
Monday, February 07, 2005
One way America can be stronger!
It's interesting how some people see things in polar opposite ways. Those who are completely dismayed by Bush's reelection are "supposedly" going to move to Canada. Why? Well as one put it "America is turning into a country very different from the one I grew up believing in". While I'm only 43 I would agree with part of this statement. Growing up in the 60's it was simpler, safer and more idealistic. But here's where I'm confused by these wanna-be-Canadians who also say "tolerance, compassion and peaceful idealism they felt once defined the nation". Really? So you think that the country as a whole and/or the government was more tolerant? Compassionate? Of whom and what? This seems like it's micro-focused statement on Gays or some other group like Muslims! As a whole there is no question that people are more tolerant of what I just label alternative lifestyles. That doesn't mean the accept or approve. However, in an effort to make it safer here at home in the wake of 9/11 law enforcement should be more busy in looking at what people are doing and have the right to do so. If the FBI wants to be alerted when someone buys certain bulk items, or rents a group of trucks, etc...I'm just fine if they know and even if they then get a judge to agree to more invasive surveillance. You can argue that's overstepping some freedom, but I say bulls***.
This is where I pick apart this idea of "peaceful idealism". Liberals have their heads in the sand to think that everyone who either wants to kill us because we are not like them, or because we pissed off in some way in the past can all be pacified by "peaceful idealism". Global peace and co-existence while ideal isn't rooted in reality...at least not for a while. I'm not willing to have a bunch of peacenik borderline communists put my families life in jeopardy because we might embarrass a person of middle-eastern decent by prying into their life a bit....or because they think airport lines and searches are inconvenient.
So look, you don't like the way something works then use our system to invoke change....or you can go to Canada or some other place where the system isn't as comprehensive as our in terms of citizen participation and effect....but just don't threaten to go...get the hell out of here now, and we WILL be stronger upon your departure!
This is where I pick apart this idea of "peaceful idealism". Liberals have their heads in the sand to think that everyone who either wants to kill us because we are not like them, or because we pissed off in some way in the past can all be pacified by "peaceful idealism". Global peace and co-existence while ideal isn't rooted in reality...at least not for a while. I'm not willing to have a bunch of peacenik borderline communists put my families life in jeopardy because we might embarrass a person of middle-eastern decent by prying into their life a bit....or because they think airport lines and searches are inconvenient.
So look, you don't like the way something works then use our system to invoke change....or you can go to Canada or some other place where the system isn't as comprehensive as our in terms of citizen participation and effect....but just don't threaten to go...get the hell out of here now, and we WILL be stronger upon your departure!
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Should 3 year olds be learning about gay parents?
Hell No! But apparently the folks over at PBS think so. Why, I have no clue. The vehicle they chose was a show my 3 yr old daughter watches on occasion called Arthur. An entire series of Arthur episodes coined the "postcard" series has one of Arthur's friends named Buster (who is a bunny) meet Muslims, Christians, Jews, Mormons, African-Americans, Norwegian-Americans, Latinos and cloggers...and a lesbian couple and their children. The U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings tried to stop that episode from airing although it supposedly did today on KQED in SF. I don't know that Spellings should have stopped that episode, but I do know I don't want PBS (who some of my tax dollars support) putting out any childrens programming that deals with gay or human sexuality AT ALL.
This of course is done under the label of "teaching tolerance" but that's BS. This is an effort to promote to 3-5 yr olds (the audience of this show) that kids having parents that are of the same sex is normal. The other episodes that show ethnic and religiously diverse families is fine. But 3-5 yr olds have no business even trying to understand the existence of homosexuals! Kids aren't born being intolerant of anyone and its not for anybody but the parents to educate them on these matters. If a child happens to even become aware that a friend has 2 parents of the same sex and it comes up, the parents are the ones to deal with this. And if a parent believes gay relations are in fact a sin, not normal, strange, etc...that's their business. I know some of you can't believe you can teach a child that and at the same time be good decent people who also can be tolerant...but that's because you are in fact not tolerant of those very people!
Tolerance is something all good people (liberal, conservative, god fearing, atheist, fat, thin, black, white, etc.) practice...but acceptance and approval of a lifestyle is not the same thing as tolerance. I don't hate someone because they're gay. They have every right and privilege I do....we need no special laws for them....equal treatment under the law already exists. To extend beyond that is without question to fall off the slippery slope. I can think of no argument for why its not ok for a man to have 6 wives, or 3 men to all be married to each other if its ok for just 2 of the same sex! Why only 2?
The gay lobby (I hear there is one) has this all wrong...they think that a 5 yr old on the play ground picks on the kid who has 2 mommies and no daddy because nobody gave him tolerance training? Wrong, they do it because either they don't understand it or because a parent told them it was strange, wrong, a sin or whatever. BUT IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM. I have a child in Kindergarten and have plenty of nieces and nephews all spread from k-8 in Bay Area schools. I haven't heard of any epidemic of kids even being aware of any fellow students who have gay parents let alone an issue with teasing those kids. I can't speak for what goes on in high schools, but it doesn't matter. So why do gays want material to be hitting this age group? Why? Show me some data that there is a problem with kids anywhere close to this age! It is very clear that they want to spread the idea with kids that this is normal. They have a right to do whatever they want but his isn't something the schools or government owns or that most will tolerate in main stream media...the parent owns it. I know I can turn off PBS, but my tax dollars also support it. If my tax dollars can't support my childs private catholic school then they damn well better not support any gay lifestyle material period! If you mess with the kids of someone who doesn't like you or your agenda, boy watch out....you will be in the crosshairs for sure if you weren't already!
This of course is done under the label of "teaching tolerance" but that's BS. This is an effort to promote to 3-5 yr olds (the audience of this show) that kids having parents that are of the same sex is normal. The other episodes that show ethnic and religiously diverse families is fine. But 3-5 yr olds have no business even trying to understand the existence of homosexuals! Kids aren't born being intolerant of anyone and its not for anybody but the parents to educate them on these matters. If a child happens to even become aware that a friend has 2 parents of the same sex and it comes up, the parents are the ones to deal with this. And if a parent believes gay relations are in fact a sin, not normal, strange, etc...that's their business. I know some of you can't believe you can teach a child that and at the same time be good decent people who also can be tolerant...but that's because you are in fact not tolerant of those very people!
Tolerance is something all good people (liberal, conservative, god fearing, atheist, fat, thin, black, white, etc.) practice...but acceptance and approval of a lifestyle is not the same thing as tolerance. I don't hate someone because they're gay. They have every right and privilege I do....we need no special laws for them....equal treatment under the law already exists. To extend beyond that is without question to fall off the slippery slope. I can think of no argument for why its not ok for a man to have 6 wives, or 3 men to all be married to each other if its ok for just 2 of the same sex! Why only 2?
The gay lobby (I hear there is one) has this all wrong...they think that a 5 yr old on the play ground picks on the kid who has 2 mommies and no daddy because nobody gave him tolerance training? Wrong, they do it because either they don't understand it or because a parent told them it was strange, wrong, a sin or whatever. BUT IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM. I have a child in Kindergarten and have plenty of nieces and nephews all spread from k-8 in Bay Area schools. I haven't heard of any epidemic of kids even being aware of any fellow students who have gay parents let alone an issue with teasing those kids. I can't speak for what goes on in high schools, but it doesn't matter. So why do gays want material to be hitting this age group? Why? Show me some data that there is a problem with kids anywhere close to this age! It is very clear that they want to spread the idea with kids that this is normal. They have a right to do whatever they want but his isn't something the schools or government owns or that most will tolerate in main stream media...the parent owns it. I know I can turn off PBS, but my tax dollars also support it. If my tax dollars can't support my childs private catholic school then they damn well better not support any gay lifestyle material period! If you mess with the kids of someone who doesn't like you or your agenda, boy watch out....you will be in the crosshairs for sure if you weren't already!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Pro-life, Pro-abortion Babble!
I didn't really plan on posting twice today, but Taranto's re-print of a part of the discussion between Tim Russert and John Kerry on Meet the Press Sunday is just too humorous. I should point out this is the kind of nonsense and illogical babble that the media would have gone nuts over if it was Bush and not Kerry who spewed this crap....for you Kerry voters....really read this and tell me if the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world should be a F'ing fence sitter on ANYTHING!!!!! Dialog from Meet the Press:
Russert: Why and how do you believe the Democrats can broaden the base with pro-life Democrats when the party seems to require down-the-line voting in terms of abortion rights?
Kerry: We have pro-life Democrats today. Harry Reid is a leader. He is pro-life. We have others who are pro-life. I think what I was saying, Tim, is that, you know, you can't be doctrinarian [sic in transcript] negative against somebody simply because they have that position. There's more to it. Now, does that change the position of the Democratic Party in defending the right to choose? No, absolutely not. Not in the least.
But you can't be--I mean, let me put it this way. Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.
So you have to have room to be able to talk about these things in a rational way. We also need--I mean, I thought Hillary gave a good speech the other way in which she talked about the need--and many of us have talked about this for a long period of time. The discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice. Valuing life is the exception for the life of a mother or rape or incest. I mean, there are all kinds of values here.
Russert: Why and how do you believe the Democrats can broaden the base with pro-life Democrats when the party seems to require down-the-line voting in terms of abortion rights?
Kerry: We have pro-life Democrats today. Harry Reid is a leader. He is pro-life. We have others who are pro-life. I think what I was saying, Tim, is that, you know, you can't be doctrinarian [sic in transcript] negative against somebody simply because they have that position. There's more to it. Now, does that change the position of the Democratic Party in defending the right to choose? No, absolutely not. Not in the least.
But you can't be--I mean, let me put it this way. Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.
So you have to have room to be able to talk about these things in a rational way. We also need--I mean, I thought Hillary gave a good speech the other way in which she talked about the need--and many of us have talked about this for a long period of time. The discussion is not about being pro-abortion. The discussion is about how you truly value life. Valuing life is also valuing choice. Valuing life is the exception for the life of a mother or rape or incest. I mean, there are all kinds of values here.
Dean=defeat in 2008?
Many conservatives relish the idea of primal screamer Howard Dean becoming the new Chairman of the DNC since they assume he's a liability and will turn off centrist or right leaning Dems...I'm not sure, except that if Dean keeps going the way he is they may be right. Over the weekend at some lefty gathering Dean apparently said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." A common theme running thru many of my posts, especially prior to the elections, is the vitriolic nature of Democrats....while they don't have a monopoly on this they, in my observation, have this problem far more than Republicans. I've been conservative ever since I could vote (which I did for the first time 25 years ago) and don't recall a more widespread and nasty hatred of a candidate by a party until the 2004 campaign. I have been a political junky only for about 10 years and many of my friends and family are conservative like me....I recall no such "hatred" among us towards Clinton for example. If this sick obsessive hatred toward the right continues the left is doomed.
Taranto's WSJ best of the web today points to blogger Steve Merryman who observed:
Bush-Hatred is like porn for Liberals.
Like porn of the flesh, it's the thrill of political extremes that titlllates the Left. In this political peep show, our president is not merely misguided; he's "deranged." He's not simply striving for an unattainable goal; he's a "boy in a bubble" acting with "callow hubris."
Just as porn appeals to the desire to flaunt societal convention, those on the left must feel great excitement in spewing their sweaty conspiracies, the wackier the better. Nothing is too sinister for this president to attempt. There is no taboo of political discourse the Left is not willing to trample in their need to satisfy their desire. This is the tawdry atmosphere in which it is acceptable, even encouraged, to write such things as "Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray . . ." and "The only meaning 'freedom' can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation . . ." Addiction to porn can render one incapable of engaging in real relationships. One wonders if the left can put such sordid obsessions aside and enter into a real conversation with the American people ever again.
Taranto's WSJ best of the web today points to blogger Steve Merryman who observed:
Bush-Hatred is like porn for Liberals.
Like porn of the flesh, it's the thrill of political extremes that titlllates the Left. In this political peep show, our president is not merely misguided; he's "deranged." He's not simply striving for an unattainable goal; he's a "boy in a bubble" acting with "callow hubris."
Just as porn appeals to the desire to flaunt societal convention, those on the left must feel great excitement in spewing their sweaty conspiracies, the wackier the better. Nothing is too sinister for this president to attempt. There is no taboo of political discourse the Left is not willing to trample in their need to satisfy their desire. This is the tawdry atmosphere in which it is acceptable, even encouraged, to write such things as "Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray . . ." and "The only meaning 'freedom' can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation . . ." Addiction to porn can render one incapable of engaging in real relationships. One wonders if the left can put such sordid obsessions aside and enter into a real conversation with the American people ever again.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Half Empty SOB's
You know, what the hell is wrong with people! The Iraqi vote is a perfect situation to see bias, inappropriate mean spirited hoping for failure bias, in action. Just look at the various media and news sources...some talk about the positive step this is for a nation, the great quotes from Iraqis coming out of the voting booth, the positive feelings they now have along with different attitude towards the insurgents and those who think democracy has no place in this part of the world. AND THEN, there are those who just have to spin it negative. Oh sure this is great, but blah, blah, blah. Who is the biggest offender today? None other than John Kerry.
Un-f'ing believable! Gee, way to spread the spirit of democracy John! People having a voice in their own future when previous they mostly just feared for the lives and expected no future is huge! It's contagious, it can make others in the region believe that dramatic change can also happen for them. Most of all if people believe they have a future, one that can be prosperous and safe for generations to come...they will in fact die to get it and protect it...that's the real trick and that's what will also result in US and the brits pulling out.
So, when Kerry's says this is "significant" and "important" but said they should not be "overhyped" that is just flat out wrong and I believe an unforgivable political stance and nothing more. It is clear to me that in fact what the region, the world, needs is for us to HPYE the hell out of this. The hype should be: Do you live under an evil dictator, under a murdering regime? You to can destroy and remove the evil and employ a system of choice and free will! It's called democracy, give it try!
More evidence of success haters for political gain....of course Pelosi is in this camp....but the Bush haters will now do what Dem Senator Harry Reid did....he doesn't acknowledge the tremendous step that just took place in Iraq for what it really is and then says the president must give timelines, dates and such. It will be easy to say "see, we didn't reduce troop levels to 50k by June of 06' like Bush said". Whatever...you jackass! How about this quote from Reid: "It's time that America stood tall again as the real superpower that we are; time that we led the world on dealing with these terrible threats and building a durable peace instead of just hanging back and letting others show the way." Ah, excuse me Harry, ah can you point me to another leader who has helped spread democracy more than Bush in the last 2 years? Or another world leader who has shown they're dedicated to destroying those who would destroy us more than Bush? Who is leading, showing the way while Bush has been hanging back?
Like I said in a previous post...we are going to stir up the trouble makers to act because their existence requires that we tolerate their existence. Bush has his faults and isn't the most eloquent (although Peloci's ABC's comment is incredibly disrespectful) but he won't tolerate their existence and scares the crap out of our enemies. Those who would kill us have no choice but to try and appeal to the Kerry's, Reid's and Peloci's and those who agree with them in America by stepping up their terror...because if the majority feel like Bush and me they're toast!
Un-f'ing believable! Gee, way to spread the spirit of democracy John! People having a voice in their own future when previous they mostly just feared for the lives and expected no future is huge! It's contagious, it can make others in the region believe that dramatic change can also happen for them. Most of all if people believe they have a future, one that can be prosperous and safe for generations to come...they will in fact die to get it and protect it...that's the real trick and that's what will also result in US and the brits pulling out.
So, when Kerry's says this is "significant" and "important" but said they should not be "overhyped" that is just flat out wrong and I believe an unforgivable political stance and nothing more. It is clear to me that in fact what the region, the world, needs is for us to HPYE the hell out of this. The hype should be: Do you live under an evil dictator, under a murdering regime? You to can destroy and remove the evil and employ a system of choice and free will! It's called democracy, give it try!
More evidence of success haters for political gain....of course Pelosi is in this camp....but the Bush haters will now do what Dem Senator Harry Reid did....he doesn't acknowledge the tremendous step that just took place in Iraq for what it really is and then says the president must give timelines, dates and such. It will be easy to say "see, we didn't reduce troop levels to 50k by June of 06' like Bush said". Whatever...you jackass! How about this quote from Reid: "It's time that America stood tall again as the real superpower that we are; time that we led the world on dealing with these terrible threats and building a durable peace instead of just hanging back and letting others show the way." Ah, excuse me Harry, ah can you point me to another leader who has helped spread democracy more than Bush in the last 2 years? Or another world leader who has shown they're dedicated to destroying those who would destroy us more than Bush? Who is leading, showing the way while Bush has been hanging back?
Like I said in a previous post...we are going to stir up the trouble makers to act because their existence requires that we tolerate their existence. Bush has his faults and isn't the most eloquent (although Peloci's ABC's comment is incredibly disrespectful) but he won't tolerate their existence and scares the crap out of our enemies. Those who would kill us have no choice but to try and appeal to the Kerry's, Reid's and Peloci's and those who agree with them in America by stepping up their terror...because if the majority feel like Bush and me they're toast!
You can't fight the will of a people!
For those of you who think this vote in Iraq is of little importance, I actually believe this could be a turning point for the entire region and the world. It's clear from the stories you here about Iraq's facing death by voting and so putting their lives on the line for a chance at a free system just as Americans have done thru our history and in Iraq. The NYTimes has one such story in their International addition today which goes:
For an instant, Ms. Musawi, a 22-year-old physical therapist, thought it might be too dangerous to go to the polls. "And then, hearing those explosions, it occurred to me - the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing," Ms. Musawi said, standing in the Marjayoon Primary School, her polling place. "So I got my husband, and I got my parents and we all came out and voted together."
The Times quotes 80-year-old Rashid Majid: "We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy. We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system. If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will kill them."
And a 33 yr old election worker: "Do you hear that, do you hear the bombs?" said Hassan Jawad, a 33-year-old election worker at Lebanon High School, calling over the thud of an exploding shell. "We don't care. Do you understand? We don't care." "We all have to die," Mr. Jawad said. "To die for this, well, at least I will be dying for something."
I found this NYTimes piece on WSJ best of the web by Taranto, and I found his introduction to his commentary on this election appropriate in lumping together a few evil men with some not so obviously evil to some, his intro goes like this:
Yesterday was a great day to be an American, and an even better day to be an Iraqi. Notwithstanding the best efforts of Osama bin Laden, Barbara Boxer, Jacques Chirac, Ted Kennedy, Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, millions of Iraqis cast their first free ballots. The scenes of joyous Iraqis embracing freedom were as moving as watching Germans dance on the Berlin Wall 15 years ago--and all the more impressive given that Iraqi voters faced real physical danger from terrorists seeking a return to tyranny.
For an instant, Ms. Musawi, a 22-year-old physical therapist, thought it might be too dangerous to go to the polls. "And then, hearing those explosions, it occurred to me - the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing," Ms. Musawi said, standing in the Marjayoon Primary School, her polling place. "So I got my husband, and I got my parents and we all came out and voted together."
The Times quotes 80-year-old Rashid Majid: "We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy. We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system. If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will kill them."
And a 33 yr old election worker: "Do you hear that, do you hear the bombs?" said Hassan Jawad, a 33-year-old election worker at Lebanon High School, calling over the thud of an exploding shell. "We don't care. Do you understand? We don't care." "We all have to die," Mr. Jawad said. "To die for this, well, at least I will be dying for something."
I found this NYTimes piece on WSJ best of the web by Taranto, and I found his introduction to his commentary on this election appropriate in lumping together a few evil men with some not so obviously evil to some, his intro goes like this:
Yesterday was a great day to be an American, and an even better day to be an Iraqi. Notwithstanding the best efforts of Osama bin Laden, Barbara Boxer, Jacques Chirac, Ted Kennedy, Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, millions of Iraqis cast their first free ballots. The scenes of joyous Iraqis embracing freedom were as moving as watching Germans dance on the Berlin Wall 15 years ago--and all the more impressive given that Iraqi voters faced real physical danger from terrorists seeking a return to tyranny.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Treasonous Kennedy!
Apparently many found Kennedy's words the other day approaching treason as I do. There's plenty of examples but thanks to my dad for sending me the blog post of the managing editor of the Washington Times from Thursday...
None dare call it treason
For many Americans Sen. Ted Kennedy has long been a caricature of liberal elitism, the bloated shell of what once was the youthful beauty of change. He has long lost the ability to shock with his antics, whether it's his questionable private behavior, returning the outreach of the Bush family with cheap shots galore or playing so loose with the facts in his public pronouncements that Jane Fonda looks like an intellectual heavyweight by comparison.
But wait, there's fire in the old warhorse yet. In a speech in Washington today, Mr. Kennedy became the first senator to call for the early withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Drawing a parallel with the Vietnam war (why is it that liberals are so hot to champion U.S. failure?), he declared that "the U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces."
In other words, let's ignore the sacrifice of those who have died to defeat a brutal dictator and to establish a fledgling democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and get the hell out as quickly as we can. Now that's statesmanship. Three days before courageous Iraqis risk their lives to vote in their first-ever democratic election. Now that's timing. To appease the Saddam holdovers who are brutally killing and maiming their own women and children to return to power. Now that's the American way.
And this is the man regarded by many as the senior statesman of the Democratic Party.
-- Fran Coombs, Managing Editor
More...from WSJ's Taranto Best of the Web on Friday...just a small piece:
A successful election in Iraq will be a triumph for the Bush doctrine and the strongest rebuke yet to those Democrats who learned from Vietnam that America is a force for ill in the world. Ted Kennedy is, as The Wall Street Journal puts it today, "cheerleading for America to fail" because his ideology leaves him unfit to cope with American success. If he has his way, democracy in Iraq will suffer the same fate as Mary Jo Kopechne.
None dare call it treason
For many Americans Sen. Ted Kennedy has long been a caricature of liberal elitism, the bloated shell of what once was the youthful beauty of change. He has long lost the ability to shock with his antics, whether it's his questionable private behavior, returning the outreach of the Bush family with cheap shots galore or playing so loose with the facts in his public pronouncements that Jane Fonda looks like an intellectual heavyweight by comparison.
But wait, there's fire in the old warhorse yet. In a speech in Washington today, Mr. Kennedy became the first senator to call for the early withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Drawing a parallel with the Vietnam war (why is it that liberals are so hot to champion U.S. failure?), he declared that "the U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces."
In other words, let's ignore the sacrifice of those who have died to defeat a brutal dictator and to establish a fledgling democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and get the hell out as quickly as we can. Now that's statesmanship. Three days before courageous Iraqis risk their lives to vote in their first-ever democratic election. Now that's timing. To appease the Saddam holdovers who are brutally killing and maiming their own women and children to return to power. Now that's the American way.
And this is the man regarded by many as the senior statesman of the Democratic Party.
-- Fran Coombs, Managing Editor
More...from WSJ's Taranto Best of the Web on Friday...just a small piece:
A successful election in Iraq will be a triumph for the Bush doctrine and the strongest rebuke yet to those Democrats who learned from Vietnam that America is a force for ill in the world. Ted Kennedy is, as The Wall Street Journal puts it today, "cheerleading for America to fail" because his ideology leaves him unfit to cope with American success. If he has his way, democracy in Iraq will suffer the same fate as Mary Jo Kopechne.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Friday Roundup!
Cheney's attire at an Auschwitz ceremony questioned! What a total F'ing non story..give me a break!
Love of Beer Free's Avalanche Victim! This was pretty funny and you have to give the guy credit for figuring out a way to get rid of the snow..clearly his love of beer and the given in his mind that it wouldn't go anywhere other than down his throat prevented him from considering just pooring the beer on the snow. Instead he had to wait for the trip thru his GI track! :)
Insurgents warn Iraqis not to vote. It's very important that no matter what the turnout, no matter what technical problems are encountered, no matter how imperfect this vote is, that it happen. People seem to ignore the success of Afghanistan and how truly universal the thirst for freedom and to be represented by those of your choosing in a government structure is. It's also worth noting that prior to voting Iraqis are required to show an id.....it's time we did the same. The number of things infinitely less important than voting require you to prove your identity with a drivers license (or other id) and nobody complains about it! So ask yourself...who opposes having people prove their identity (well, ok this is not a great proof but as least its something) at the polling place? Anybody, anybody know? The DEMOCRATS!!! Why? People show their ids for all kinds of things so the claim that it's intimidating is insane. So what possible argument makes sense? It's pretty obvious why the lefties don't want this simple check to be done...they believe that those who actually shouldn't be voting are likely to vote Democrat. I also completely believe that they also like how easy it is to commit voter fraud today.
Democrats would have everything in Iraq and around the world fail if it hurts Bush! Well, that's at least the headline I create after reading the speech by Edward (let her drown) Kennedy. Just days before another historic (Afghanistan being the first) election in the middle east Kennedy sure knows how to give some encouragement doesn't he. And I love this in his speech; "The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation." Oh really? Apparently a nation being "independent" in his definition has no relation to the plight of the citizens who live in that nation. And as the WSJ's Taranto points out Kennedy doesn't seem to know his century boundaries very well since the 21st century began more than four years ago, when Iraq was under Baathist occupation. If some republican made a blunder like that it would be big time fodder for our biased media.
Love of Beer Free's Avalanche Victim! This was pretty funny and you have to give the guy credit for figuring out a way to get rid of the snow..clearly his love of beer and the given in his mind that it wouldn't go anywhere other than down his throat prevented him from considering just pooring the beer on the snow. Instead he had to wait for the trip thru his GI track! :)
Insurgents warn Iraqis not to vote. It's very important that no matter what the turnout, no matter what technical problems are encountered, no matter how imperfect this vote is, that it happen. People seem to ignore the success of Afghanistan and how truly universal the thirst for freedom and to be represented by those of your choosing in a government structure is. It's also worth noting that prior to voting Iraqis are required to show an id.....it's time we did the same. The number of things infinitely less important than voting require you to prove your identity with a drivers license (or other id) and nobody complains about it! So ask yourself...who opposes having people prove their identity (well, ok this is not a great proof but as least its something) at the polling place? Anybody, anybody know? The DEMOCRATS!!! Why? People show their ids for all kinds of things so the claim that it's intimidating is insane. So what possible argument makes sense? It's pretty obvious why the lefties don't want this simple check to be done...they believe that those who actually shouldn't be voting are likely to vote Democrat. I also completely believe that they also like how easy it is to commit voter fraud today.
Democrats would have everything in Iraq and around the world fail if it hurts Bush! Well, that's at least the headline I create after reading the speech by Edward (let her drown) Kennedy. Just days before another historic (Afghanistan being the first) election in the middle east Kennedy sure knows how to give some encouragement doesn't he. And I love this in his speech; "The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation." Oh really? Apparently a nation being "independent" in his definition has no relation to the plight of the citizens who live in that nation. And as the WSJ's Taranto points out Kennedy doesn't seem to know his century boundaries very well since the 21st century began more than four years ago, when Iraq was under Baathist occupation. If some republican made a blunder like that it would be big time fodder for our biased media.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Academic Cancer Continues
A Colorado University prof says those who died in the 9/11 attacks were not innocents, and calls those who directed the planes that day were "combat teams" and not terrorists. This is exactly what's wrong with academia and overly left liberals. Those with no real American spirit and patriotism would say this is good diversity of thought and belongs in our education system. Bullshit! This guy spouts complete lies about our having thrown the first stone, but worse is that this is an attitude of sympathy towards a terrorist who has no clue about history (accurate or otherwise) and has a completely brainwashed and naive understanding of the world. These terrorists have the idea that Americans are evil drilled into their heads. We are not a perfect democracy, we make mistakes, but their has been no American Hitler who has orchestrated the purposeful killing of 100 let alone 500,000 children in the middle east. However, might that be justified under some scenario? You bet, I don't think anyone involved in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt good about civilians who were about to be vaporized, but in the end that act saved countless lives far beyond the cost. You just have to decide if you want to be on the side who gets to make that choice or not. If you're not with us, you're with them!
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Please, please don't hurt us!!!!!
Oh my, have you heard? A sharp warning from Iran! They will respond to any "unwise measure". "With reliance on enormous popular support, diplomatic capacity and full military capability, the Islamic Republic of Iran will firmly respond to any unwise measure or plan," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement responding to "recent comments by US officials". Really? You have enormous popular support from whom? And, I'm sorry maybe you can explain the specter of fear we should have from your "diplomatic capacity". And lastly, you even coming within an inch of having a "full military capability" is exactly the reason there is saber rattling going on!
Kerry & Boxer, WHAT A JOKE!
Could you imagine, regardless of the Iraq war, if a senator from Mass and Cal had been the only NO votes on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to endorse a black women DEMOCRAT for Sec State? It would be the biggest race scandal in decades! You really must read the transcripts of the exchanges between these two and Condi Rice. It was just old partisan foley, a retread of the same old anti-Bush mantra...they only took this stance with Rice and voted NO in order to show their base that they oppose everything Bush! Their exchanges looked childish and bitter to me and would to anybody being honest about it. Boxer in particular was also prone to falsehoods that James Taranto of the WSJ weblog points out in his piece today. During one exchange where Boxer just has to say one more time that Bush lied about WMD's in order to use force in Iraq, Rice very calmly explains to the senator that it wasn't just WMD's providing some detail. To which Boxer replies:
Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.
Well, Boxer is either stupid, or didn't read the authorization to use force in Iraq, or didn't understand it, or is just ignoring the facts to support her weak position...or all the above. Directly from the authorization to use force (which by the way is about 3 pages max):
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; . . .
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Actual reality and facts don't matter to Boxer....she just wants to be on record, and in the media, as opposing anything Bush to make her base (primarily leftist wackos and gays) happy. Of course her base will laud her for it as they are blind to the childish and bitter display the actual video of the exchanges between Boxer and Rice show. Boxer is at best unknowing or ignorant, at worst a liar with none of a virtue that Rice has in spades....integrity.
UPDATE
And apparently more comi a-hole wacko Dems want to get their mug and vile words out to the media so that their anti-american a-hole constituents see them combating everything Bush!
CONFIRMATION...Boxer is an illiterate bee-atch!
A friend informed me of a petition Boxer has on her website about the Rice hearings.....still asking the old, dead, conspiracy theory questions. I can only conclude Boxer can't actually read since the 911 commission report along with plenty of other senate and non-White House produced material on Iraq, the intelligence leading up to the war and everything that has gone on answer these questions fully! Oh, and look how many "Americans" have signed her petition, just over 60k...that's about the number of gay couples in SF who applied for marriage licenses (I made that last part up!).
Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.
Well, Boxer is either stupid, or didn't read the authorization to use force in Iraq, or didn't understand it, or is just ignoring the facts to support her weak position...or all the above. Directly from the authorization to use force (which by the way is about 3 pages max):
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; . . .
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Actual reality and facts don't matter to Boxer....she just wants to be on record, and in the media, as opposing anything Bush to make her base (primarily leftist wackos and gays) happy. Of course her base will laud her for it as they are blind to the childish and bitter display the actual video of the exchanges between Boxer and Rice show. Boxer is at best unknowing or ignorant, at worst a liar with none of a virtue that Rice has in spades....integrity.
UPDATE
And apparently more comi a-hole wacko Dems want to get their mug and vile words out to the media so that their anti-american a-hole constituents see them combating everything Bush!
CONFIRMATION...Boxer is an illiterate bee-atch!
A friend informed me of a petition Boxer has on her website about the Rice hearings.....still asking the old, dead, conspiracy theory questions. I can only conclude Boxer can't actually read since the 911 commission report along with plenty of other senate and non-White House produced material on Iraq, the intelligence leading up to the war and everything that has gone on answer these questions fully! Oh, and look how many "Americans" have signed her petition, just over 60k...that's about the number of gay couples in SF who applied for marriage licenses (I made that last part up!).
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Ashamed to be American? LEAVE!!!!!
I find it interesting all the leftist who are so ashamed for someone here or abroad to think they may have either voted for Bush or agree with anything he does. Do you recall all the Clinton scandals and how strongly those on the right felt he had no morals, no ethics, and couldn't be trusted? Did you see these right wingers wearing bracelets or shirts to make sure their feelings on this were thrust into your face or to make sure you knew they didn't vote for him? Did they organize to try and influence the entire country to not spend a single dollar, on anything, on inauguration day as a protest? Of course not! But that's what's going on with the left! They want you to know as they pass you by on the street that Bush is not their president with a bracelet.....others are asking you not to spend a red cent on that day! Great idea, hurting the economy is really going to galvanize people to your cause. This is like the idiots who mess up traffic on SF streets or bridges...all this form of "civil disobedience" does is move people further from your view and ensures they detest whomever the group is that organized the stunt. Fortunately the no-spend group called NoOneDamnDime.com have, at best, about 1/10th the number of people who visit just one of the 20 super malls here in the Bay Area participating in their protest...and that's for the entire US!!! Hahahaha...IDIOTS!!!!
But really what I would like to encourage is self exile for these fools. There is no logical argument for being unsupportive of a president across the board, or for being embarrassed to be an American. If you no longer feel proud to be an American, or you're not an American first above all else, regardless of our missteps or mistakes, then you're not a patriot and you should give away all your US based possessions to UNICEF (another joke of a charity by the way) and get the hell out. If you contact me I will personally pay for your airfare....I have form you must fill out denouncing your citizenship, but that shouldn't be hard for you to do!
But really what I would like to encourage is self exile for these fools. There is no logical argument for being unsupportive of a president across the board, or for being embarrassed to be an American. If you no longer feel proud to be an American, or you're not an American first above all else, regardless of our missteps or mistakes, then you're not a patriot and you should give away all your US based possessions to UNICEF (another joke of a charity by the way) and get the hell out. If you contact me I will personally pay for your airfare....I have form you must fill out denouncing your citizenship, but that shouldn't be hard for you to do!
Friday, January 07, 2005
Dems Continue Enemy Aid & Comfort
You won't see anything in the press about how well Alberto Gonzales is handling the grilling mostly by Democrap senators. The press also want give you any of flavor of the questioning that clearly is rooted in concern for our enemies over our citizens. The tone in this hearing is that torture is condoned by the administration and by Gonzales.....you'll note that much of the press got it wrong saying that Gonzales wrote a memo to the president that terrorist prisoners were not protected by the Geneva convention. The fact is that Gonzales received the memo from the Justice Department and then gave his opinion (which is correct) of the memo to the president. Of course the press seems to ignore when people are doing their jobs and not trying to figure out how to torture people with impunity. The president's statement on this memo was;
"I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, Al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
Of course, our values as a Nation...call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment...As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
Of course this is interpreted by the left as an edict to torture terrorist and suspected terrorist prisoners. IDIOTS!....powerlineblog.com has a nice piece on this and points out one of Gonzales' responses to the idiocy he is being subjected to, in this case from Senator Lindsay Graham:
"Senator, there is a lot to respond to in your statement. I would respectfully disagree with your statement that we're becoming more like our enemy. We are nothing like our enemy, Senator. While we are struggling, mightily, trying to find out what happened at Abu Ghraib, they are beheading people like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. We are nothing like our enemies, Senator."
"I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, Al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
Of course, our values as a Nation...call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment...As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
Of course this is interpreted by the left as an edict to torture terrorist and suspected terrorist prisoners. IDIOTS!....powerlineblog.com has a nice piece on this and points out one of Gonzales' responses to the idiocy he is being subjected to, in this case from Senator Lindsay Graham:
"Senator, there is a lot to respond to in your statement. I would respectfully disagree with your statement that we're becoming more like our enemy. We are nothing like our enemy, Senator. While we are struggling, mightily, trying to find out what happened at Abu Ghraib, they are beheading people like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. We are nothing like our enemies, Senator."
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Jew Hating Duke!
First.....hahahaha...did you think I was serious with that last post? No forking way I'm going to do a bunch of mushy raw raw happy posts...we got some f'd up people and situations and we need to start kicking some ass! A good place to start is Duke University....this falls under the category of "you have to be f'ing kidding me"! Check this op/ed by a two Duke PHD candidates in the WSJ. I can't imagine, even for a second, how the president of Duke can with a straight face defend this obvious duplicity. I don't care about free speech....when you run an organization that can choose to help, or not, a group who is stupid, hateful, evil and dangerous grow some BALLS and tell them to go F themselves. When you defend your support for their using university facilities as demonstrating "the importance of the principle of free expression" you either have no boys hanging down there or you sympathize with those in question!
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
What to do?
After some time off from plunking my thoughts on political topics in this blog, along with the new year and the obligatory resolutions I always say I'm not going to make, I'm trying to decide what to do! Getting all fired up about the obvious media bias, the whining dems, the politically correct strangle hold on the country, et al is just too exhausting. I'm thinking of mixing up my rants and throwing in a few raves....we could use more positive thinking. Sh*t, there I go again, now I have yet another resolution....post more positive material. So let's see..no drinking M-Th, don't eat 5k calories for lunch, work out more regularly (get my bench press back into the 400lbs range--that's right Mike!), be in a better mood after work (which really means be the happy joking tickling dad and husband my family loves), and post upbeat material to my blog. Great I now know what to do.....hmmm....its going to be hard to switch gears.....don't expect miracles from my next post, but it will be different.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Marriage is biologically defined
Today a judge heard arguments by lawyers representing the City of San Francisco and gay advocacy group who seek to have California's one-man, one-woman matrimony law declared unconstitutional. Well this is complete folly and if I lived in SF I would be pretty ticked off that the city was spending money on this. Make no mistake, I'm completely against changing the definition of marriage, which by the way has its roots in religious doctrine pre-dating our laws by thousands of years. Personally I don't even care what our federal or state laws are based on, I don't want the definition of marriage to be changed from one-man and one-women on the grounds that biology doesn't work in a same sex definition.
But before I go into biology this is of course also rooted in religion and the bible. What bible you ask....well I use Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary which is available online on numerous websites. The online database provides definitions from the most comprehensive source of biblical data. Just a brief sample; Authorized, King James, Darby, Martin Luther 1545, Louis Segond, Riveduta Luzzi, Alexandrian, etc., and so on and...... So, the common thread from these is that this is a union between a man and a women, and there is also the element that procreation was something that was to only happen within the marriage.
Ok, now to biology...so while I'm not a bible thumper I like the existing definition because of a combination of the religious definition and how it relates to procreation of the human species. You can call me what you like, but I believe to be homosexual is to not be normal. I don't care if someone is born that way. I don't hate you if you are. You don't scare me. You don't have a better or less of a chance of being my friend. However, members of a species that either can't procreate, or won't, are not normal. So its a defect to the species. If defective members of species do procreate the question is do they increase the defect in the population. At some point either the species dies out or procreation becomes purely a survival exercise. And one could argue if it's the later it may also die since without the absolute bond of the family unit taking the offspring from birth to procreating the lineage is weakened. Ok, I'm waxing like we are talking about and ampeba but I believe this relates to human existence.
I could go on and on...digging a hole in some areas and a bridge in others...but just for a minute convert the idea of same sex relations to a non human species and what would it mean to the survival of that species.
Back to these legal action...I always love when someone uses completely illogical jumps to argue their case....take for example: "The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry," Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a packed courtroom. That's almost funny considering how many judgments by a jurisdiction right here in my backyard, the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is the most reversed court in the nation. Ms. Minter also thinks her argument was strengthened by mentioning that guy marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium and South Africa. Oh, gee...enough said!
It's interesting that the plaintiffs admit that same sex unions are getting the same rights (for the most part) as those of a married couple...but they want the label as well! WHY? You might ask...because they want to slowly but surely be considered normal and not a defect. They don't use these words but that's the end goal.
But before I go into biology this is of course also rooted in religion and the bible. What bible you ask....well I use Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary which is available online on numerous websites. The online database provides definitions from the most comprehensive source of biblical data. Just a brief sample; Authorized, King James, Darby, Martin Luther 1545, Louis Segond, Riveduta Luzzi, Alexandrian, etc., and so on and...... So, the common thread from these is that this is a union between a man and a women, and there is also the element that procreation was something that was to only happen within the marriage.
Ok, now to biology...so while I'm not a bible thumper I like the existing definition because of a combination of the religious definition and how it relates to procreation of the human species. You can call me what you like, but I believe to be homosexual is to not be normal. I don't care if someone is born that way. I don't hate you if you are. You don't scare me. You don't have a better or less of a chance of being my friend. However, members of a species that either can't procreate, or won't, are not normal. So its a defect to the species. If defective members of species do procreate the question is do they increase the defect in the population. At some point either the species dies out or procreation becomes purely a survival exercise. And one could argue if it's the later it may also die since without the absolute bond of the family unit taking the offspring from birth to procreating the lineage is weakened. Ok, I'm waxing like we are talking about and ampeba but I believe this relates to human existence.
I could go on and on...digging a hole in some areas and a bridge in others...but just for a minute convert the idea of same sex relations to a non human species and what would it mean to the survival of that species.
Back to these legal action...I always love when someone uses completely illogical jumps to argue their case....take for example: "The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry," Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a packed courtroom. That's almost funny considering how many judgments by a jurisdiction right here in my backyard, the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is the most reversed court in the nation. Ms. Minter also thinks her argument was strengthened by mentioning that guy marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium and South Africa. Oh, gee...enough said!
It's interesting that the plaintiffs admit that same sex unions are getting the same rights (for the most part) as those of a married couple...but they want the label as well! WHY? You might ask...because they want to slowly but surely be considered normal and not a defect. They don't use these words but that's the end goal.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Signatures be damned
Hindrocket of PowerlineBlog has a post with a great letter from the father of a marine serving in Iraq and it puts the recent SecDef "autopen" controversy in perspective. I reprinted the letter on Powerline in it's entirety and of special note is yet another example of Dubya's compassion that goes unreported by the media.
"If [our son] had been killed, we would have been first informed by a visit - in dress blues - from a condolence team typically consisting of two Marines and one Navy Chaplain. We know many families who've received that knock on the door. No letter is required. No words are required. A simple peek thru the view hole in the door and the sight of dress blue blouses, white covers and white gloves tells you all you ever need to know. A letter of condolence from the SecDef is, honestly, not even worth opening. Families are much more interested in hearing from the men who served with their son and from their families. We share the constant knowledge and fear that it could be our door bell being rung. Sec. Rumsfeld doesn't know our son. He's a Lance Corporal. He directs a machine gun team. He is a vital link in the line that protects our way of life. He doesn't fight for his country, he doesn't fight for the SecDef, he doesn't even fight for his mom and dad. He fights for the guys on either side of him and for his team. He fights to secure his objective of the moment, which he may or may not understand or agree with. Sec Rumsfeld doesn't need to take time from his day to sign a form letter of condolence and he certainly doesn't need to take time to figure out what the LCpl was doing when he was killed or what kind of a man he was. His job is to make sure the LCpl didn't die in vain and that only as few LCpl's as possible will have to die to end this war in a successful manner.
Don't get me wrong, we would appreciate the condolence letter from the SecDef, as well as one from the White House and from our Senator and Representative, from the Mayor and Governor. But none would bring back our son. And they are all form letters, signatures be damned. A letter from his 1stSgt, from the men we know in his unit would be a treasure and a comfort.
I don't know what happens in other branches, or even other units. But in 2/4, I know the 1stSgt's personally contact the surviving family with letters, emails and phone calls of condolence.
By the way, we know families of fallen Marines who've been flown to sites where President Bush was speaking. He met with them privately after his event, never any press coverage, and the families have said that - after being given an agenda for their time with the President and being told that he's on a very tight schedule - Mr. Bush talked to every family member as long as they wanted to talk, never hurried anyone, cried with family, hugged everyone and they all felt like he had nothing else to do for the rest of the day but bring comfort to them. For that, George W. Bush has my eternal respect and gratitude. And there was NEVER one word of publicity surrounding any of these meetings with families. (I have pictures to dissuade doubters.)
Bottom line, we support Sec Rumsfeld. The people who are making a big deal about this have their heads up their collective a****. They need to have a serious priority check on what people in positions of responsibility should be doing with their time. They should also chat with some military families if they could figure out how to contact them."
"If [our son] had been killed, we would have been first informed by a visit - in dress blues - from a condolence team typically consisting of two Marines and one Navy Chaplain. We know many families who've received that knock on the door. No letter is required. No words are required. A simple peek thru the view hole in the door and the sight of dress blue blouses, white covers and white gloves tells you all you ever need to know. A letter of condolence from the SecDef is, honestly, not even worth opening. Families are much more interested in hearing from the men who served with their son and from their families. We share the constant knowledge and fear that it could be our door bell being rung. Sec. Rumsfeld doesn't know our son. He's a Lance Corporal. He directs a machine gun team. He is a vital link in the line that protects our way of life. He doesn't fight for his country, he doesn't fight for the SecDef, he doesn't even fight for his mom and dad. He fights for the guys on either side of him and for his team. He fights to secure his objective of the moment, which he may or may not understand or agree with. Sec Rumsfeld doesn't need to take time from his day to sign a form letter of condolence and he certainly doesn't need to take time to figure out what the LCpl was doing when he was killed or what kind of a man he was. His job is to make sure the LCpl didn't die in vain and that only as few LCpl's as possible will have to die to end this war in a successful manner.
Don't get me wrong, we would appreciate the condolence letter from the SecDef, as well as one from the White House and from our Senator and Representative, from the Mayor and Governor. But none would bring back our son. And they are all form letters, signatures be damned. A letter from his 1stSgt, from the men we know in his unit would be a treasure and a comfort.
I don't know what happens in other branches, or even other units. But in 2/4, I know the 1stSgt's personally contact the surviving family with letters, emails and phone calls of condolence.
By the way, we know families of fallen Marines who've been flown to sites where President Bush was speaking. He met with them privately after his event, never any press coverage, and the families have said that - after being given an agenda for their time with the President and being told that he's on a very tight schedule - Mr. Bush talked to every family member as long as they wanted to talk, never hurried anyone, cried with family, hugged everyone and they all felt like he had nothing else to do for the rest of the day but bring comfort to them. For that, George W. Bush has my eternal respect and gratitude. And there was NEVER one word of publicity surrounding any of these meetings with families. (I have pictures to dissuade doubters.)
Bottom line, we support Sec Rumsfeld. The people who are making a big deal about this have their heads up their collective a****. They need to have a serious priority check on what people in positions of responsibility should be doing with their time. They should also chat with some military families if they could figure out how to contact them."
Monday, December 20, 2004
Another BAD message for minorities
The Washington Post has been running a series on "the changes in the middle of the U.S. workforce" with the latest installment called A Tenuous Hold on the Middle Class. This dribble is a travesty! The minorities in this country who continue to listen to a message of "whatever your situation is it isn't your fault" is going to keep them in that situation. This article is full of glass half empty attitude and includes statistics that show economic progress for blacks (used in this article along with the african american label for you PC a-holes) but the article dismisses these each time. It takes an example of one black family where their combined income of $60k (and with her being a college grad) has them barely making it. They live in a dangerous neighborhood that the author calls a "concrete complex", as if the "man" makes the poor folks apartment buildings out of concrete and the rich white folks apartment buildings out of nice squishy stuff. The author points out all things that are so tough for this family without questioning whether any of the choices this couple made contribute. They have $80k in debt that includes a student loan, auto loan and credit cards. The student loan is noble enough, but did they buy more car than they should have? Is a struggling family making a wise choice to run up credit card debt? The author points out the husband has no degree and the couple has two kids. Well, did they have kids prior to making their education and a job a first priority? Did they think about how they would support a family before having a family? Does someone have them chained to these particular jobs and apartment in Florida? I could list 100 questions that might expose a poor choice that leads to their situation.
I could find a family of any race that has a similar or more unfair sounding story. A couple both with english lit Phd's with 4 kids and low paying hourly jobs...gosh shouldn't a Phd guarantee a middle or upper middle class lifestyle? This is the problem....this is not a hand out country...you earn your way and the better choices you make the better off you will be. Until the black, and other minority groups, start thinking like Bill Cosby they will forever be stuck in a barely getting by state. Personal responsibility and knowing that your future is yours to make and not provided for you is the key to economic success...and the same values extend to family and social choices, and structure, that make for a happy and healthy home which is key for raising kids that will propagate the same success.
I could find a family of any race that has a similar or more unfair sounding story. A couple both with english lit Phd's with 4 kids and low paying hourly jobs...gosh shouldn't a Phd guarantee a middle or upper middle class lifestyle? This is the problem....this is not a hand out country...you earn your way and the better choices you make the better off you will be. Until the black, and other minority groups, start thinking like Bill Cosby they will forever be stuck in a barely getting by state. Personal responsibility and knowing that your future is yours to make and not provided for you is the key to economic success...and the same values extend to family and social choices, and structure, that make for a happy and healthy home which is key for raising kids that will propagate the same success.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Celebrity Pundit Intellect, an Oxymoron!
Chevy Chase, Woopy Goldberg, Sean Penn, Bono, Barbara Streisand........all so well spoken, so enlightened, so above the common man and all so completely F'ING stupid. It's interesting how fame and money is, for some, like smoking pot. Right about the time the munchies kick in you also start blathering about atomic structure, or a wireless battery, or some other great product idea all of which is of course total nonsense. (Pop, I only know this from reading about it in my youth!). It's interesting that the fame part seems to be the final ingredient that sends these Celundits (my new word) into the delusional state of suddenly believing that you're not only an expert on numerous subjects you know nothing about, but also that people need to know what you think you know. It must be the fame part since I have plenty of business associates far wealthier than all but the richest celebrities and they don't suffer this affliction. You also won't see many wealthy company executives holding press conferences or turning their latest speech into a political lecture. This affliction, while extending to the music world and a lesser extent to the professional athlete maybe has another component. I will speculate that many (NOT ALL, so don't get in a hissy) actors really don't struggle or work all that hard at what they do. When they do finally make it to the double digit millions per film lets face it the several months spent making a movie is an experience many would pay money for. So maybe its also coupled to a subconscious guilt that you know your being paid an insane amount of money for really a silly endeavor.
Chevy Chase is the latest to go off the deep end....although his celebrity and net worth these days is probably on the extreme low end of this affliction....maybe he thinks he is still a super star and wealthy so one delusion feeds the other. On Tuesday Chase gave an F bomb tirade about our president at an awards ceremony staged by People for the American Way. Apparently many in attendance were taken aback by this and thought it inappropriate. That's interesting since the "People for the American Way" should really be called "People for changing the American Way to Something Not American" You only need to know that during the event Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin were given Defender of Democracy awards. Ah, are you people smoking crack? Anyway a way funny parody interview with Chevy Chase inspired by his very intellectual tirade.
Chevy Chase is the latest to go off the deep end....although his celebrity and net worth these days is probably on the extreme low end of this affliction....maybe he thinks he is still a super star and wealthy so one delusion feeds the other. On Tuesday Chase gave an F bomb tirade about our president at an awards ceremony staged by People for the American Way. Apparently many in attendance were taken aback by this and thought it inappropriate. That's interesting since the "People for the American Way" should really be called "People for changing the American Way to Something Not American" You only need to know that during the event Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin were given Defender of Democracy awards. Ah, are you people smoking crack? Anyway a way funny parody interview with Chevy Chase inspired by his very intellectual tirade.
SF Communist City Council
As a local radio host calls them the SF Board of Stupidvisors is trying to put a city law in place that would ban ownership of handguns in city limits. The logic behind this is so completed flawed that if you can't see it you obviously believe government should more control to the point of being able to hold the citizenry hostage. The 2nd Amendment's intent is to prevent that and also to have a citizen militia always at the ready. Now you could argue that the later is a dated concept but the communist tendencies of so many politicians makes the former a real concern. You can call me a nut but better than half the country I KNOW agree with me..and maybe more. Gun ownership is also a part of history and those who completely abhor it for any reason don't believe in personal responsibility. They believe we shouldn't have a choice...they believe we can't deter or fix those who would do wrong and instead must remove every burr that might catch your shirt sleeve as you walk by, every curb, stair and door must accommodate any imaginable handicap, and so on. It won't end there you know....once you buy into the gun and not the person kills, then you better take my kitchen knives, my chain saw, my hammer, my baseball bat and for sure my vehicle. Because if I have no deterrent (or I'm just insane) I don't need a gun to kill you or 30 people standing in a movie line...my F-150 could take out plenty.
These idiots in SF think this will make SF safer...The reality is it will attract criminals to SF. It's a well know fact in criminology that criminals are mortified of robbing a home or person who they think could be armed. Yes there are the crazies who have no regard for danger, but that's not the norm. SF has made it easy to be gay in their city so guess what the gay population is like? SF has made it easy to be homeless, pan handle and be a street bum so guess what that population is like there? And now they will advertise that every law abiding citizen who lives in the city limits will turn in and their guns. With no fear for criminals and no protection for the homeowner guess what population will increase in SF?
These idiots in SF think this will make SF safer...The reality is it will attract criminals to SF. It's a well know fact in criminology that criminals are mortified of robbing a home or person who they think could be armed. Yes there are the crazies who have no regard for danger, but that's not the norm. SF has made it easy to be gay in their city so guess what the gay population is like? SF has made it easy to be homeless, pan handle and be a street bum so guess what that population is like there? And now they will advertise that every law abiding citizen who lives in the city limits will turn in and their guns. With no fear for criminals and no protection for the homeowner guess what population will increase in SF?
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Where's that armor!
I occasionally read the weblog Lance in Iraq by Lance Frizzell, a 2nd Lt Medical Platoon Leader with the Tennessee National Guard 287th Regimental Combat Team, currently serving in Northern Iraq. Today I linked to a piece he wrote on the hypocrisy of liberals and, as he puts it, the lefty media with respect to criticism of Rumsfeld. The treatment is certainly partisan but then again the biggest example of this was the number of media types that gave Clinton a pass on his many transgressions that a GOP pres would have been crucified for. Lance also has several other good posts today as well.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
YOU STILL don't get it!
People just don't get it......the separation of church and state that the founding fathers had in mind didn't mean that as part of the states business you can't, or shouldn't, mention or acknowledge the existence of a god! If that was the case they wouldn't have mentioned the big guy so much in our framing documents. The pledge of allegiance while not a creation of the founding fathers (and in fact was modified to include "under god" in 1954 by Congress) was understood to be a patriotic oath and a public prayer. It is a part of our history, our tradition and it has been a ritual at the start of so many grade school classes and meetings at all levels of government without controversy over "god" for 50 years . And so today we see an example of snubbing the pledge with the old over used and nearly never correctly applied separation of church and state BS!
So why now? Because we have so many F'ing idiot politically correct liberal morons who are willing to throw American traditions out the window while they will embrace traditions not originating here. You will note that every time we have a story like this the F'ing idiot will say to the reporter they consider themselves a patriot....ya well you're not...usually when you meet someone who tells you they're a good golfer you can be sure they can't break 100....same for leftists who feel they need to say they're patriots!
So why now? Because we have so many F'ing idiot politically correct liberal morons who are willing to throw American traditions out the window while they will embrace traditions not originating here. You will note that every time we have a story like this the F'ing idiot will say to the reporter they consider themselves a patriot....ya well you're not...usually when you meet someone who tells you they're a good golfer you can be sure they can't break 100....same for leftists who feel they need to say they're patriots!
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Let's stir it up a bit!
I came to the conclusion long ago that the supposed black (yes black, since the Congressional Black Caucus still uses that label so I will too) leaders don't work for equality but in fact promote separatism. Many of these leaders cry racism in cases where it doesn't exist, they lobby for special treatment based on skin color and create groups, events and holidays that promote nose thumbing and not acceptance and extort large corporations in the name equal rights. Minorities who seek acceptance and equal treatment from whomever the majority is must insist on a level playing field and not one stacked in their favor. Quotas, affirmative action and the like are misguided deck stacking that makes most people still see color. These leaders don't want a colorblind society since their power and celebrity comes from the opposite.
The Christmas season brings out an example of what I'm sure many blacks consider a celebration of their culture, but Kwanzza and the "black nativity" are shams. A puff piece in the SFGate misses the sad separatist attitude of those in the story (and for those of you who deplore that I use the word "black", note it's use in the SFGate story). Rewriting history to change skin color isn't celebrating diversity....it promotes it. Children, I believe, are born color blind...their parents and environment form their colored view of the world. Black children don't have an identity problem because they see a white Santa or Jesus.
As for Kwanzza....it's amazing that so many blacks embrace this as their holiday (and reject others) especially considering its origin. I found an interesting website of black writers and artists with a Less Than Complimentary View of Kwanzza and its inventor!
The Christmas season brings out an example of what I'm sure many blacks consider a celebration of their culture, but Kwanzza and the "black nativity" are shams. A puff piece in the SFGate misses the sad separatist attitude of those in the story (and for those of you who deplore that I use the word "black", note it's use in the SFGate story). Rewriting history to change skin color isn't celebrating diversity....it promotes it. Children, I believe, are born color blind...their parents and environment form their colored view of the world. Black children don't have an identity problem because they see a white Santa or Jesus.
As for Kwanzza....it's amazing that so many blacks embrace this as their holiday (and reject others) especially considering its origin. I found an interesting website of black writers and artists with a Less Than Complimentary View of Kwanzza and its inventor!
Monday, December 13, 2004
Where's the media frenzy?
Clinton pardon recipient and democratic money man Marc Rich appears to be a central figure in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal....so where is the media frenzy? If a Bush had pardoned Rich this would be page one, story one everywhere....this story is going to get more and more interesting as more participants are identified.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Internet Causes Media Retirements!
The latest dinosaur media talking head to retire is Bill Moyers.....his recent remarks show his obvious bias and that he like most in the media think they report facts without spin or leaning. I could write a thousand words on examples of spin reporting by any of the big and old guard media elite. Moyers and others use sound bites like "the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee" as if some giant conservative media machine was suddenly planted on the planet by the RNC...there is just Foxnews and half a dozen syndicated talk radio hosts along with many local talk radio right wingers that make up the conservative media. They all started not so many years ago with no noise or fanfare and slowly got discovered by those o f us disgusted by the crap big media flung at us. Aside from how absurd this conspiratorial BS about being a propaganda arm is, did the RNC also force all the millions across the country to tune in? Of course not you bozos! The message, the topics and how they were talked about appealed to millions and the ratings started moving to Fox and the conservative talk radio stations. But Moyers and those like him won't acknowledge that their message lines up with a big audience. Instead they imply that if you listen and are influenced your stupid since a propaganda label implies illegitimate content.
But besides a conservative message that resonates with better than half the country diminishing the power of the old guard media elites was the impact of the Internet. The blogsphere plays a huge role for sure...but the ability to research a topic and find endless information on even the most obscure topics in seconds was huge. Everyone with a connection to the web can do their own fact checking of a story they hear on the news. The result? You look up the facts yourself...often finding not just both sides but in many cases a source with no axe to grind and little to no bias....and as you compare the real story to big media's version you realize just how misleading and biased they are.
Call it want you want Billy, but your glory days are over, good riddance.
But besides a conservative message that resonates with better than half the country diminishing the power of the old guard media elites was the impact of the Internet. The blogsphere plays a huge role for sure...but the ability to research a topic and find endless information on even the most obscure topics in seconds was huge. Everyone with a connection to the web can do their own fact checking of a story they hear on the news. The result? You look up the facts yourself...often finding not just both sides but in many cases a source with no axe to grind and little to no bias....and as you compare the real story to big media's version you realize just how misleading and biased they are.
Call it want you want Billy, but your glory days are over, good riddance.
Academia's Xerox Club
It's interesting that the country is roughly split down the middle on the major issues that really separate liberals and conservatives given our educational institutions from kindergarten thru graduate schools are dominated by left of center liberals. This is encouraging in that as our young people exit The People's Republic of and experience the real world roughly half make their way to a conservative stance. Sure some kids may start conservative and manage to stay that way, but looking at level of worldly understanding of your average high school graduate I would say most are easily brainwashed by their carbon copy (Xerox) prof's during their 4 or more years at commi-U. I suspect as these neophyte adults get a job and start to take on responsibilities (financial and otherwise) and also see for the first time how fellow workers may abuse the workplace system (coast on the job, fake a workers comp claim, bad mouth the company, etc.) their perspective changes. Surely many make a transition once they buy their first home and have their first child....that changes everything.
This topic comes to mind because of two recent stories, first about liberal turncoat (god love him) Zell Miller who upon retiring was going to move to his home town of Young Harris, Georgia where he also had previously taught at the local college. Miller apparently had a teaching position waiting for him there but he declined it after a history prof there (whose wife is academic dean) wrote him a vitriolic letter which then got published in local papers. The duplicity displayed by so many academics is amazing. Diversity of thought and debate is hardly alive and well at most of our educational institutions.
A similar situation at Harvard has occurred with another Bush supporter. Thank god most of the staff at Harvard says the attitude towards new Prof Jack Goldsmith (former Assistant Attorney General) is wrong. But some of the faculty think a memo Goldsmith wrote arguing that CIA officials could transfer Iraqi detainees out of their native country for interrogation without violating the Geneva Convention in fact condoned torture (nice leap) and so he shouldn't be on the staff. I love how the anti-war (and for many anti-war-ever) left want kid glove treatment of captured enemy solders and then in a second breath will say more troops, guns and ammo are needed to fight. You guys are screwing up not having more fire power to kill the enemy, but if you happen to capture him don't scratch his head, don't even hurt his feelings. Ah yes duplicity once again.
This topic comes to mind because of two recent stories, first about liberal turncoat (god love him) Zell Miller who upon retiring was going to move to his home town of Young Harris, Georgia where he also had previously taught at the local college. Miller apparently had a teaching position waiting for him there but he declined it after a history prof there (whose wife is academic dean) wrote him a vitriolic letter which then got published in local papers. The duplicity displayed by so many academics is amazing. Diversity of thought and debate is hardly alive and well at most of our educational institutions.
A similar situation at Harvard has occurred with another Bush supporter. Thank god most of the staff at Harvard says the attitude towards new Prof Jack Goldsmith (former Assistant Attorney General) is wrong. But some of the faculty think a memo Goldsmith wrote arguing that CIA officials could transfer Iraqi detainees out of their native country for interrogation without violating the Geneva Convention in fact condoned torture (nice leap) and so he shouldn't be on the staff. I love how the anti-war (and for many anti-war-ever) left want kid glove treatment of captured enemy solders and then in a second breath will say more troops, guns and ammo are needed to fight. You guys are screwing up not having more fire power to kill the enemy, but if you happen to capture him don't scratch his head, don't even hurt his feelings. Ah yes duplicity once again.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Groups against success and wealth
It seems to me that there are more communists living among us than anyone would suspect. I'm not talking about the card carrying kind, I'm talking about the kind who dont' go by that monicker and are bothered by the success and wealth of others . They constantly promote wealth re-distribution and think someone who makes $10m a year somehow uses more of our countries infrastructure than someone making $50k. Today this money hating crowd comes to mind with the CEO (Jamie Court) of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights complaining that our Governor (the Terminator) isn't releasing the details of his income and instead only how much he paid in taxes and charitable contributions. Both numbers suggest he made a lot and gave a lot.
So what's Court's concern? That "If you don't know how much he makes, you don't know what loopholes he's benefiting from, and you don't know what tax policies he adopts that are good for him or bad for him." What a f'ing moron. Unless Arnold gets the entire state legislature to either pass a tax break specifically for a) someone named Arnold Schwarzenegger or b) whomever is the governor of California any tax policies he pushes that benefit him will also benefit me! But people like this don't believe in trickle down. They think when we buy expensive things (cars, homes, planes, etc) or invest in start-ups, or a REIT, or a hedge fund, or play the options market, or buy income properties, blah, blah, blah....that somehow all of these transactions only see money going into the hands of other rich folks. Somehow all this spending, investing and putting money to work magically bypasses everyone at the lowest income levels entirely...pretty neat trick isn't it?
We have been surrounded by these nouveau communists for a long time....in fact I think most are indoctrinated by being in a profession that requires they join a union. The union mentality is akin to the Borg of Star Trek. There is no reason for individuality in philosophy or excelling at ones job since it isn't appreciated or rewarded. And the "entitlement" attitude also runs rampant in this group. Over 7 years ago I wrote a letter to a local paper in response to similar dribble they published...my response (Economic success is up to individuals) was also published and still appears on their site.
So what's Court's concern? That "If you don't know how much he makes, you don't know what loopholes he's benefiting from, and you don't know what tax policies he adopts that are good for him or bad for him." What a f'ing moron. Unless Arnold gets the entire state legislature to either pass a tax break specifically for a) someone named Arnold Schwarzenegger or b) whomever is the governor of California any tax policies he pushes that benefit him will also benefit me! But people like this don't believe in trickle down. They think when we buy expensive things (cars, homes, planes, etc) or invest in start-ups, or a REIT, or a hedge fund, or play the options market, or buy income properties, blah, blah, blah....that somehow all of these transactions only see money going into the hands of other rich folks. Somehow all this spending, investing and putting money to work magically bypasses everyone at the lowest income levels entirely...pretty neat trick isn't it?
We have been surrounded by these nouveau communists for a long time....in fact I think most are indoctrinated by being in a profession that requires they join a union. The union mentality is akin to the Borg of Star Trek. There is no reason for individuality in philosophy or excelling at ones job since it isn't appreciated or rewarded. And the "entitlement" attitude also runs rampant in this group. Over 7 years ago I wrote a letter to a local paper in response to similar dribble they published...my response (Economic success is up to individuals) was also published and still appears on their site.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
You Don't Get It
Some accused me of lumping all gays together in a previous post, but I defend using generalizations when the majority of the group fits the position. Media liberal elites still don't get it! Check out The Nascar Nightly News: Anchorman Get Your Gun by Frank Rich in the NYTimes. I believe people like Rich are actually promoting a bigger divide than we already have. I may joke and pick on liberals but I only believe a problem lies in the politicians and those in, or with access to, the media who are hard left. Most of my employees are liberal and they line up with me on some positions and aren't far off on others. I believe that's probably the case for the majority of the country. But people like Rich think they are making some scary point by suggesting there is something wrong with people who like guns, fishing and Nascar. This guy (and I think many like him) really want, believe and promote that those with polar opposite views to his must be socially, economically, intellectually different from himself. I think that this shows a lack of confidence in your positions. If you were supremely confident in your positions you wouldn't be so eager to suggest that those in opposition of them have some kind of defect or are stupid. For Rich he says they like things he thinks are dumb, therefore they are themselves dumb, and that explains it. That's really the definition of elitism to me.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Wonderful Gays!
Thanks to the gay activists and the no spine management at Target the Salvation Army will have a mighty big shortfall this Christmas season. The hypocrisy of groups that claim to only want equal treatment is laughable. Way to go Sitzplinkers!
Thanks Pop for pointing this out to me.
Thanks Pop for pointing this out to me.
Natural Selection
Being a man of science I believe in natural selection even as it relates to the survival of man (well at least some men). Apparently some liberals have invented a mental disorder (I know that wild man Michael Savage calls liberalism a brain disorder, I guess this is a sub-species) called Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST). This is just too funny.....while Taranto of the WSJ called this the The Gift That Keeps on Giving, I like to call it another example of natural selection. Some choice excerpts from the story:
"It's no joke. People with PEST were traumatized by the election. If you even mention religion, their faces turn blister-red as they shout at Bush."
"I'm scared," said one man. "Democracy is at stake and nobody is rising to protest this president."
"The media outlets, especially Rush Limbaugh and his ilk on talk radio, scare our patients to death," said Gordon, facilitator for the meetings. "More than anything else, people with PEST tremble physically.”"
"It's no joke. People with PEST were traumatized by the election. If you even mention religion, their faces turn blister-red as they shout at Bush."
"I'm scared," said one man. "Democracy is at stake and nobody is rising to protest this president."
"The media outlets, especially Rush Limbaugh and his ilk on talk radio, scare our patients to death," said Gordon, facilitator for the meetings. "More than anything else, people with PEST tremble physically.”"
Brain disorders continue in wake of Bush re-election
I guess some people think war is never justified, even while your enemy fires a bullet into your skull. I guess some people think Bush alone knew the WMD stockpiles wouldn't be found in spite of pre-war intelligence of our own and from numerous allies. I guess some people think a president should never rally the troops and citizenry when we are at war. I guess some people think Bush is the anti-christ (oh wait, that would presume they're somewhat religious, never mind). But I don't guess, I know, that some are still bitter and continue to put out completely skewed and illogical vitriolic crap because they are blinded by their hatred of Bush.
Take for example this conspiracy theory evil Bush piece by Mark Morford in SFGate (ok, well maybe this being a San Fran based operation explains it..but).
I looked at those pics....sure some are nasty, sad and awful....ok, so I suppose you think if you could even walk around with a camera pre-Saddam removal you would find smiling faces, flowers, a thriving economy, excellent education and healthcare and so on? I suppose you think the military allowing basically anybody who wants to show up in Iraq (press, celebs, etc.) and all the embedded reporters is masterfully run is like the fake landing on the moon? This is the most open and information heavy military action ever in history.....if the military wanted to (and I would be for it) they could have never allowed a single press person into Iraq.
Give me a break...if you assembled pics of the murders, assaults and generally crime of one individual causing harm every day in the US and just for one day it would look just as bad. So what! To say that anybody thinks this war, or any war, is a well oil and executed operation is pretending there is someone out there to disagree with. The republican base and those who voted for Bush don't think that....they don't all even like that we did it...but we did, so first do it right and finish the job...second find the positives that can come from it.
My buddy Mike shot this article to me and found some quotes that Morford made in various interviews....I think this one shows his colors....the standard elite leftist mantra that to disagree with his views and have supported Bush you must be a knuckle dragging dolt homophobe racist.
Take for example this conspiracy theory evil Bush piece by Mark Morford in SFGate (ok, well maybe this being a San Fran based operation explains it..but).
I looked at those pics....sure some are nasty, sad and awful....ok, so I suppose you think if you could even walk around with a camera pre-Saddam removal you would find smiling faces, flowers, a thriving economy, excellent education and healthcare and so on? I suppose you think the military allowing basically anybody who wants to show up in Iraq (press, celebs, etc.) and all the embedded reporters is masterfully run is like the fake landing on the moon? This is the most open and information heavy military action ever in history.....if the military wanted to (and I would be for it) they could have never allowed a single press person into Iraq.
Give me a break...if you assembled pics of the murders, assaults and generally crime of one individual causing harm every day in the US and just for one day it would look just as bad. So what! To say that anybody thinks this war, or any war, is a well oil and executed operation is pretending there is someone out there to disagree with. The republican base and those who voted for Bush don't think that....they don't all even like that we did it...but we did, so first do it right and finish the job...second find the positives that can come from it.
My buddy Mike shot this article to me and found some quotes that Morford made in various interviews....I think this one shows his colors....the standard elite leftist mantra that to disagree with his views and have supported Bush you must be a knuckle dragging dolt homophobe racist.
A particularly pointed anti-Bush anti-war column will get me gobs of sneering hate mail, mostly from the delirious, hardcore psychopatriots at freerepublic.com or lucianne.com or andrewsullivan.com, et al, where they post chunks of my column in their discussion forums, along with my e-mail address, and encourage each other to flame me, usually in the cutest sort of monosyllabic, ragingly homophobic, horribly syntaxed, misspelled sort of way. Makes me proud to be an American. My girlfriend loves the anti-SF gay-bashing they aim my way, I might add
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Tiny's Readers, Help me understand!
I did my first post yesterday that included AIDS and gays in the topic...wow, a flood of comments? So what's up with that? Clearly I have some readers that are to the left of me on some topics and yet nobody felt strongly about "And Yet More Insanity"? Those of you who worry about home land security efforts and how it could affect civil liberties, our treatment of prisoners of war, or profiling in law enforcement, blah, blah....but are you fine with our education system rewriting or suppressing our very own history? What the &*#$ gives?
Negotiations or Military Action in Iran?
Iran is heating up....supposedly working on delivery mechanisms that could reach EU.....Suicide commando units forming that pledge suicide bomb attacks on Americans and Israelis. It will be interesting to see what response we see from our UN Oil For Food conspirators in Europe on this! If this goes military we HAVE to have a coalition that isn't so US heavy as we are already stretched thin.....lets hope this fizzles.
CNN's allegiance lies where?
You may have seen the story yesterday that originated in the LA Times about how the military purposely gave false information to a reporter about when the action in Falujja started. The supposed purpose was to gauge and understand the reaction on the ground by the enemy and CNN was happy to use its signal to inform the terrorist insurgents that they should run and hide, or load their weapons for American troops were on there way. Interesting that CNN (or anyone) seems to think that essentially warning the enemy was ok, but if that warning was false their having been duped by the US Military in an effort against an enemy is questioned. You have to wonder how things would be in America if the US media didn't participate in the disinformation broadcast during WWII?
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Gays Get AIDS On Purpose
The title of this post might get me some flaming, but I don't care. A federal study released today shows AIDS cases rising among gay and bisexual men. It also says that these men account for the majority of the approximately 900,000 Americans with reported cases of AIDS. But the main point I want to make here is the rise in cases among this group. I thought the gay community wanted us to believe they are just like me...caring, loving people with family values and in monogamous relationships...just with the same sex. Well Bullshit! Its clear that the gay sex orgies, bath houses and just plain promiscuous lifestyle of the gay community that they claim is an invalid stereotype is alive and well. These people know the risks, but clearly they choose to ignore it...for all I know there's a unspoken badge of honor in the gay community when your infected. The total disregard for many things good, decent and normal is appalling.
It's also interesting that the study found that since 1990 blacks who only represent 13% of the population for this period make up 51.3% of all HIV and AIDS cases diagnosed in the same period. I'm not sure what that tells us....would be curious to see what people suggest is the reason for this BIG TIME anomaly!
UDPATE 1: My buddy Kurt just shot me a link to a Rolling Stone article that validates my hunch on the badge of honor. Get ready to learn about Bug Chasers....sick bastards!
UPDATE 2: Kurt comes thru again with a story that may be one of the reasons for the numbers in the black community.
It's also interesting that the study found that since 1990 blacks who only represent 13% of the population for this period make up 51.3% of all HIV and AIDS cases diagnosed in the same period. I'm not sure what that tells us....would be curious to see what people suggest is the reason for this BIG TIME anomaly!
UDPATE 1: My buddy Kurt just shot me a link to a Rolling Stone article that validates my hunch on the badge of honor. Get ready to learn about Bug Chasers....sick bastards!
UPDATE 2: Kurt comes thru again with a story that may be one of the reasons for the numbers in the black community.
And yet more insanity!
First, its common knowledge that the California public school system is dominated by leftist and there are few if any arguments that those in the media are not of the same color. Case in point, the Cupertino California 5th grade school teacher who has been barred from using all of, or portions of, our very own Declaration of Independence because the word (you guessed it) "god" appears in the document. Now, I could go off for a thousand words at the complete lunacy behind this.....but my head hurts so lets just ask a few questions. So how do you teach US history without looking at, reading and talking about this document? How can you possibly justify not? Why would a historical document and HISTORY ITSELF somehow offend anyone or cross a church and state line? When you were in grade or high school do you even remember the context of the word "god" in early American historical documents or writings of the time? Of course not, they didn't preach or sway...they just reflected the beliefs of those involved in creating our history.
Then there is the lack of media coverage of this insanity. The number of Google hits on this story is paltry. It should be huge news and cause at a minimum every Bush voter outrage. I think it also proves (at least to me) that those who are terrified of the word "god" especially in this context and agree with the action taken against the teacher are just down right America hatters and something akin to communists. I also lump in the media...look at the San Jose Mercury News story title from the link above....wouldn't YOU write the headline as "Public School Bars Use of Declaration of Independence in class" Isn't that the story? But while all of these MF'rs are in fact America hatters they think they are patriots in supposedly not offending anyone and in their sick minds acting as the protectors of the church and state boundary the original framers had in mind.....these folks need to not be teaching or infecting our youth!
Then there is the lack of media coverage of this insanity. The number of Google hits on this story is paltry. It should be huge news and cause at a minimum every Bush voter outrage. I think it also proves (at least to me) that those who are terrified of the word "god" especially in this context and agree with the action taken against the teacher are just down right America hatters and something akin to communists. I also lump in the media...look at the San Jose Mercury News story title from the link above....wouldn't YOU write the headline as "Public School Bars Use of Declaration of Independence in class" Isn't that the story? But while all of these MF'rs are in fact America hatters they think they are patriots in supposedly not offending anyone and in their sick minds acting as the protectors of the church and state boundary the original framers had in mind.....these folks need to not be teaching or infecting our youth!
More Christmas without the word!
While watching the news this morning before heading to work I saw a Jack In The Box commercial which is set in what I guess is suppose to be their headquarters. People are all walking around the office with hats that all have to do with Christmas (santa hats, hats with antlers, etc.) as each person greets another they all say "hey Good Holiday Spirit"...you see Jack on some hat and then the commercial ends with the usual take out bag dropping onto a table and its what they call a reindeer ball on the bag instead of their logo. No balls in corporate America anymore...but really, do those who don't believe Jesus was the son of God automatically feel like their being given a religious message if you use the word Christmas but they don't even with all the decorations that are synonymous with Christmas but you avoid the word? I don't think so...IDIOTS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)