Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Scientology, a wack job cult religion!
The rest of the bizarre story: In giving my version of what Scientology is I'm not attempting to be accurate on dates, timeline, or being blow by blow accurate. Those details are not important as evidence that the entire existence of Scientology is one man's creation with no proof for what it purports to be true. Sure, you could make a similar claim about many religions but I think the actual history of any religion can make its own case and Scientology's case is non-existent!
I did all of my homework online, and got a lot out of the comprehensive site on the topic called Operation Clambake, Undressing the Church of Scientology since 1996. The site also gives links to those who don't agree which is refreshing. I'm going to be brief in making my case since. Like I said, the gory details of when L. Ron Hubbard did this or that, or his actual words, or how much it costs to get something from the church don't matter...the overall story is what is truly shocking to me...shocking that people would be so gullible, so easily conned!
In the 1950's L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) talked about creating a church as a better way to make millions as opposed to writing for a living. LRH creates a method of regression therapy from other existing psychotherapy methods that exist. Why regress someone? That's coming. He writes about this regression therapy method in a book called Dianetics. LRH, wanting to of course make more dough takes his own advice and creates the tax loophole religion called the Church of Scientology (COS). Again being brief, and only focusing on the bizarre.
Ok, a brief side editorial. Frankly one really bizarre, bad, or evil characteristic about a person, an organization, a group is enough to completely right them off. Not every time, but lets take an example. Lets say there is a religion that is clean cut, promotes doing good and having what are obviously to most high moral standards, they try to spread there message to others. Then lets say you find out that they absolutely disallow members to celebrate someone's birthday! To the point where you could be ostracized or removed for participating in a cake and candles willingly. They believe God dislikes birthdays! Why, well they believe if the bible doesn't mention something God dislikes it. They believe if the bible has a story about evil doers doing something common (like say celebrating something) that's God's way of saying he dislikes that something even though by itself that something isn't inherently evil. This religion is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, I'm being general here...don't go correcting me on this...the fact is the point I'm making is on track! But I digress!
Back to COS, the church has a story of how we got here on earth and why some of us are bad, or evil, or not at peace and so on. The church claims you need to go thru auditing (what they call the psychotherapy they employ). They are trying to help you reach some spiritual truth, to cleanse your being all of which is done over a period of time thru "levels" members progress through...largely triggered by your paying for this progression! And fees have been reported from thousands to hundreds of thousands per level. Paying is required while the church claims it isn't, plenty who have left the church have provided evidence and experience that you must pay to play....doesn't sound like a friendly, we-just-want-to-help-people religion does it?
Ok, now for the good part. After you have reached an "advanced" level and at this point your for the most part brainwashed into thinking this church and the people in it are so enlightened. You are told the big secret! That man got to earth millions of years ago because an alien named Xenu gathered up criminal and over populated beings of this galaxy and dropped them on earth. He put them next to volcanoes and then detonated hydrogen bombs (as if a alien millions of years ago would use an explosive technique we use today!). The COS believes in reincarnation and since some of these beings would survive the bombs Xenu employed psychiatrists of his time to re-program the minds of the living and dead so as to not know their origin. According to COS they programmed the notion of the historic religions (Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) practiced on earth and thus they are false. These psychiatrists and Xenu were evil! COS says that the souls of all these murdered beings infest the body of everyone today. They call these souls "body thetans" and at advanced levels in COS a member of the church "audits out" the body thetans telepathically. The COS and its members believe all our bad thoughts, our miss-steps, unhappiness, etc. is due to these body thetans. Given the COS believes we are all descendents from murdered beings brainwashed by evil psychiatrists is why Tom Cruise thinks he knows the history of psychiatry!
The COS easily fits the definition of a cult. It is very telling that the COS has gone to great efforts to try and stop those spreading these details about the church. It is also telling that they do not tell their members about Xenu, and these basic premises of the church, until they have spent a long period of time and money with the church. Having this element of secrecy and a lack of trust to all members of the COS says it all. There are lots of other details about the COS, but I think this bizarre central tenet on how we got on this planet is all I need to label this a wack job cult religion.
Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover
A real CIA leak
Islamic Scourge
How ethnic is the present violence in France? Liberal commentators, both in France and abroad, tend to say that poverty and unemployment, rather than race or religion, are the driving force behind the riots. Mr. Villepin himself tends to share this view, at least in part. He said yesterday on TV that he is earmarking enormous credits for housing rehabilitation, education, and state-supported jobs in the areas where the unrest has developed. But the fact remains that only ethnic youths are rioting, that most of them explicitly pledge allegiance to Islam and such Muslim heroes as Osama bin Laden, that the Islamic motto - Allahu Akbar - is usually their war cry, and that they submit only to archconservative or radical imams.
The fact also remains, according to many witnesses, that the rioters torch only "white" cars, meaning white owned cars, and spare "Islamic" or "black" ones. One way to discriminate between them is to look for ethnic signs like a sticker with Koranic verses or a picture of the Kaaba in Mekka or a stylized map of Africa. Further evidence of the animating influence in the riots lies with the French rap music to which the perpetrators listen. Such music obsessively describes White France as a sexual prey.
Update: To contrast another viewpoint check out this Blogger in France. I disagree with his hypothesis of this being similar to both the racial and Viet Nam riots and protests of the 60's and 70's. The participants in those examples were not galvanized by a hateful religious doctrine. We also didn't have examples of protests in other parts of the world with a tie in like religion. And of course there is the glaring difference in the hatred, violence and pure evil of today's examples that have the Islamic link that didn't exist even on a small scale in the 60's and 70's.
Update: And yet another viewpoint more to my thinking again that my dad shot my way via the Washington Times.
Monday, November 07, 2005
President Kerry?
Kerry began by highlighting the strong points of the presidential election in 2004 and stated a strong confidence in winning the Senate elections in 2006. "I won 10 million more votes than any Democratic presidential nominee ever," he said in regards to the 2004 presidential election versus current President George W. Bush.And it was sad to read this next bit from the article:
He was met with applause when he mentioned, "It's a sad time for our country," in reference to President Bush's policies.Applause? Proof that being on a university campus has nothing to do with your intellect and also an example one of the most disgusting characteristics of liberals....they rejoice in the idea that something under the watch of a republican may (may since I'm not sure why this time is universally sad for our country) not be going well. Was this applause for American's killed in Iraq? For a Whitehouse staffer being indicted? For Cindy Sheehan's hair style? For rent-a-mob socialist and communist protesters in South America?
Kerry hopes a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate will help the country to "make sense of the despair and frustration" the nation now has.What? Gee, how about one of you no-life-experience-as-of-yet all knowing students ask Mr. Kerry exactly what despair and frustration he's talking about? I think he's talking about the Democrat base who still can't accept that Bush won! The Democrats can't win people over with their ideas or an actual platform that's different...so they will keep telling you that you have despair (not me), that it's a sad time for our country (why?), that our economy isn't strong (lie), that deadly and costly anomalous weather is Republican caused global warming (hahaha), that just like Bush knew Iraq had no more WMD's he also alone knew New Orleans was below sea level (since apparently the locals don't)!
Angry, Disaffected, Wanting Respect and Jobs? WRONG
The French, while constantly stepping up the number of police involved have: had meetings! used rubber bullets, not used military, having more meetings, thought about curfews, making insignificant arrests. We have only heard of 1 death, but there are numerous injured in critical condition including a 12 month old girl who was just ridding on a bus that was destroyed by these insurgent terrorists in a rock throwing attack. This is a war, and one that would be dealt with here very differently. This is also why personal gun ownership is useful!
Now I know why France (aside from its participation in oil-for-food kick back money to Saddam) didn't want us to go to Iraq. To them, dealing with combatants, terrorists, hateful wild mobs is not possible...they cannot see how you can actually win. The evidence of their ineptitude to deal with an enemy combatant is playing out for all to see. France and other EU countries had better stop the kid glove descriptions and more importantly the treatment of these criminals else they could see what even the MSM will call a war. The Muslim religion, by its history and modern day example, is not a religion of peace and an Islamic cancer plays a role in what's happening in France. Taranto of the WSJ has a good piece in his blog today called The French Conflagration making that case.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
CI?A
Friday, November 04, 2005
Fake Summit Protest
The US press, I'm sure, will use many of the images from Argentina in countless stories where the story will also include words like "at a time when Bush's poll numbers are at an all time low....". And they will call it anti-free trade and globalization protests and they will show an abundance of anti-Bush visuals. Unlikely they will show Guevara, Castro or bin Laden supporters were in force!
Who let these women out of the house?
We are use to hearing vitriolic fatuity from the man-women of the Senate (and you know who they are), and now the women (or so they claim to be) of the House are joining the Borg of the Senate. From today's WSJ blog by Taranto we see a collection of white man hating skirts shows us their brilliance with their reasoning behind their lack of support for Alito's nomination as a justice on the SCOTUS. Ok, put on your thinking cap...listen real carefully...you know like when your listening to a scientist or something you have to really concentrate to understand them.
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) said she was disappointed that President Bush nominated a white male to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "The president has failed to nominate a woman or a Latino," Solis said, a decision that constituted "a betrayal of the legacy of the trailblazing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Alito would not represent all Americans.
"Who will Judge Alito represent? He will represent white males who can afford to keep their wives at home while they work," Woolsey charged.
YES! Don't you love it...I'm not sure if Solis is insulting Sandra Day O'Connor or Latino's! Sandra is Latino? Or Latino men understand women better than other men? Or Latino men are in fact just like women? Hahahahaha
And Woosley apparently doesn't represent all Americans since as Taranto points out she's a white divorced women so she leaves a lot of her disctrict in divorce happy CA unrepresented...not to mention that apparently stay at home moms/wives are appropriately represented by even those she cares little for.
This kills me!
The Right Stuff
Update: Joe Biden apparently agrees with me that many Dems are less than patriotic. A few days ago, along with other meanderings, he told a small heavily Democratic crowd that Democrats have become elitist. He noted that some Democrats have questioned why he wears an American flag on his lapel. “We’ve become disconnected from where we grew up,” Biden said. “The Republicans, because of our distance, they have convinced a lot of people we ain’t one of them.”
Non-Stories, Wrong Focus
Bush's Approval Rating: Who cares? How does it matter? If I was polled I would say I'm not satisfied with the job he's doing too...doesn't mean I'm suddenly a Democrat or would vote that way in any election!
Ex-FEMA Chief's Emails: Give me a break!..this guy maybe (maybe since I don't know) shouldn't have had that job but are you going to tell me that everyone on the planet who uses email daily won't have joking and sarcastic emails during a crisis? And are you also going to tell me that every single member of the press or Dem politicians who appear on TV doesn't worry about or spend time on how they look...WHO CARES!!!!!
Google Founders Buy A Jet!: Good for them...Why is this a story deserving WSJ or Drudgereport front and center status? If me and my pal were worth $20B combined we would own an F'ing fleet of aircraft, the story should be why don't these guys buy more stuff!
Andy Rooney says nothing wrong with the word negro this morning on the Imus radio show. He also said he had a problem using African American and that there was nothing wrong with the word negro. Well I have to agree. The United Negro College Fund still uses it. Some don't like my use of the word black. Well I will refrain from both words when the United Negro College Fund and the Congressional Black Caucus stop using them. What we call people who are black is made even more a joke by how many blacks use every supposed racial slur and stereotype when they address each other...sorry, ok for us but not for you doesn't fly. Further bringing down the black position of what's right and wrong is the "sambo", "uncle tom" and Oreo cookie pelting of the black Maryland Lt. Gov Micheal Steele who is running for Senate. This hypocritical behaivor by other blacks which is again hardly covered by the MSM and not emphatically denounced by the Democratic party's is telling.
Royals Visit to the US: Yawn...have you listened to Charles? The dude is wack!
Valerie Plame: At least the story focus is wrong..should be her, her husband and the inappropriate use of her husband by the CIA to do anything remotely like intelligence work and then his talking about it.
CIA secret jails: Again wrong focus...if they exist we should applaud it then the story should be to nail the asses who leaked it.
Riots in Paris: Hardly covered for the first week of nightly riots...gee not really much of a story eh? Sounds like a few thousands cars have been torched...don't know how many buildings or how many people hurt....but look thru the coverage and see how hard it is to find that those being bad are MUSLIM!!!!!!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
My favorite Democrat
Black Leaders Not Acting Too White!
The Clare Luce Democrats
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
French inaction!
Significant in his own mind!
Update: Just like most who claim Bush lied they supported the idea before they were against it! "Saddam's Probably Got WMDs and Bush is Lying if He Agrees With Me"
A Return To Therapy
Update: speaking of Cindy Sheehan, don't you just love the reporters and news outlets who report that some think Sheehan should run against Hillary....of course the "some" is the few dozen people that have no life and show up to her staged events here and there...please, please, let her run for ANYTHING..that would be entertaining!
Friday, June 17, 2005
Thursday, June 02, 2005
International Hypocrisy
Friday, May 27, 2005
Muslims; their own worst enemy
Until the majority of citizens in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. clean their own house of this cancer they're not going to end the violence they live with. We see this sad evil play itself out mostly (9/11 aside) on our plasma tv's in our million dollar homes. That way of life and preserving it for our children gives most of us relentless resolve to not allow that evil to invade our daily reality. Maybe that's why it thrives in places where there is so much poverty and so little to loose...a very tough problem.
The Evil Empire
You may ask what sort of torture, cruelty, maiming, and slow death goes on at this facility...we let me list a few of the most egregious examples:
- mishandling (dropping, bumping, touching) of a book considered by some to relate to a diety
- humiliation of suspected terrorist detainees thru lack of clothing and playing Twister (also practiced at some evil empire satellite facilities)
Can you stand hearing anymore? Even to read about this inhuman behaivor is disturbing. If you're bothered about this like me please contact your congressional representative and demand that these tactics stop immediately and instead this facility should adopt the more globally accepted methods such as:
- suicide bombing or any explosive method to kill and maim innocents
- decapitation, especially by a not so sharp or modern sword
- dragging, hanging and burning a decapitated corpse
This is only a small list.....many other examples of techniques that are not denounced by the Evil Empire hating world or media can be found.
Help initiate this change in a place were America's evil empire thrives.....Guantanamo
Monday, May 02, 2005
MLB's final straw for me
Friday, April 22, 2005
AND YET more liberal hypocrisy
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
A real "die in" invite to Ohio U. Students
It's Cat Hunting Time!
Remember What You Have!
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Illegal Aliens to take drivers ed and buy auto insurance!
All of this legislation aimed at giving special treatment to illegals at the state and federal levels (social security) completely undermines enforcement of our immigration laws not to mention being truly insulting to the law abiding legal immigrants and citizens. A young say 18 to 20 year old citizen could have his life turned upside down if they were in an accident and had no insurance, and infinitely worse if someone was injured....but an illegal (if these illegal lovers get their way) would end up wiping their hands of the situation.
We need to support LEGAL immigration and equal treatment for all here legally....if your here illegally you should be held accountable just the same AND then deported.
Why is it that all these illegal friendly politicians and groups don't lobby for ways to make these illegals legal? Instead they like keeping them that way and giving them special privileges and treatment...WHY IS THAT?
Hypocrisy Defined
Ok, now say this is in fact all true except that the House Minority Leader is in fact Nancy Pelosi who seems to have had some dubious dealings with a PAC! So where is outrage? Amazing!!!!!
John Paul II
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
So, exactly which is the party of tolerance?
A favor: a friend who lives in the east bay who doesn't want to be lumped in with Berkeley suggested I change Peoples Republic of the East Bay to Peoples Republic of Berkeley, fair enough!
Big Brother Run Amuck
Anti-Technology Global Warming Crowd Cries Wolf
The bottom line is that this type of report (and articles on them) should be full of disclaimers similar to those you see in a company IPO. But instead you see only a few numbers and claims labeled with words like "estimated", most are tossed out as absolutes...that's dishonest and to me completely discredits a scientist who either participated in the report or simply signed their name in support of it.
The articles and reports put out by this anti-technology global warming crowd are nearly always accompanied by a not so stealth statement making their disdain for progress clear...in this case it is: "A growing proportion of the world lives in cities, exploiting advanced technology. But nature, the scientists warn, is not something to be enjoyed at the weekend. Conservation of natural spaces is not just a luxury". And what is the motivation by talking about a team of scientists who in 1997 tried to put a value resources or benefits we get from nature for free (as they put it)? So what? What if that number was $33 million-trillion? Ya, we know we need more that just the human organism on this planet to survive. Or are you suggesting we can either take care of nature or replace it by spending that amount? It serves no scientific purpose, it's all about an agenda, an opinion, a political viewpoint since we cannot just replace one with the other. IDIOTS!
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Rice Alarms Status Quo Arabs
I think what Rice said makes sense....and much of it is not even in our control, she talked about what may happen all on its own just because people witness change elsewhere...and technology accelerates the ability to witness that change. These are comments from people who like the status quo. It's much like most US state public school systems.....gradual change towards how a private school or company is run will never happen...you need to completely blow up a "system" in some cases in order to catalyze measurable positive change.
Jesse battles against his insignifcance!
DUH!!!!!!
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Hump Day Roundup
Barry Bonds is the biggest baby on the planet....adding to his woes as the steroid in pro sports scandal continues the IRS is investigating him....his knee is messed up and his playing future is in question....it comes out (because of the steroid thing) that he has had a mistress for years and he bought her a house.....he has always been an uncharismatic ass to the press....and he has a press conference to tell the press he is tired, has "jumped from the bridge", and it's all the press' fault. I'm sure the sympathy for him is universal...what an ass!
This countries pathetic political correctness enabled Brian Nichols to kill 4 when he easily took the gun from the court deputy during his rape trial. The fact that a 230 lbs menacing figure like Nichols wasn't cuffed and shackled and was guarded by a lone 5ft tall 51 year old grandmother says it all. Gee, such restraints on the prisoner might send the wrong message to the jury! And of course women can perform any job as well as a man. Wrong and wrong. If my house is on fire and my kids are upstairs I want burly men fire fighters....if my family is in danger from a some criminal element I want strong male police responding....when we executing special military ops, or have front line combat troops in harms way, or have para-rescue operations I want strong young men doing it....and not women because we all have to pretend we are equal and all able to perform any task at the same level...bullshit and it just cost more lives! Also interesting that nearly all media stories on this Brian Nichols mess fail to inform you that the overpowered officer was female or that the women who finally alerted police that Nichols was in her apartment had read the bible to him for hours which seem to have a calming effect on him.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
There may yet be hope for Academia
I only hope exposure of the continued idiocy we see by our universities academics will start a wave of change. The college years are a pivotal time for most and its sad how many in a position to influence these young minds do so with hypocritical single mindedness.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Evil Revisionist History
Another sad and pathetic attempt at revision is to replace some (or all, who knows) occurrences of the word "man" with something akin to "people", "human", "us", "the chosen", "them" and so on....we wouldn't anybody to think God actually made an distinction between men and women would we?
Monday, March 14, 2005
Gay Marriage isn't really the agenda!
I found it interesting that "gays" called the action by the superior court judge who clearly over stepped his powers a step towards equality and also a "stance behind all American's civil rights". WHAT? Show me what civil right is being violated if the majority say we have already reserved the word "marriage" for heterosexual relationships...get your own damn word for your we-can't-advance-the-species-normally freak of nature relationships. I love how this article must also quote a black women who says "I know what discrimination is firsthand," said Pearson, 65, who is African American and grew up in the segregated South. "I'm so happy for them." Ah, but see she refers to "them"...they must be labeled as some group separate from all others? They want to be equal but separate! Just like the supposed "minorities" who want special treatment and equal treatment at the same time...you're either equal or your something else. Until all of those who seek special treatment stop seeking it the majority (as proven by passed ballet measures across the country) will see you as whining parasites whose lot in life is somehow my fault and requires more out of our system than the average "normal" citizen!
Posted 3/14/05:
Today's moronic decision by the California Superior Court puts the gay marriage topic front and center again. We have a law, and it's one the majority of Californians like and even voted to amend in 2000 to make it clear that marriage in the state was to be between one man and one women. Why is this court in a position to tell the people this law is not enforceable as opposed to just interpreting the law we put in place? Judges should be interpreting the law not making or changing it. Anyway, I'm sure someone out there will have a great reason why one guy should be able to override the majority of Californians!
Frankly, the origins of marriage are religious and I don't think the historic definitions can be interpreted to include unions of two individuals sharing the same reproductive organs...if they can then you can argue they include unions between any two (or more) organisms. So, why does the gay community, lobby or any such group feel the word marriage must include them? It's not for equal rights or treatment under the law! That's BS!...civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like cover them just fine. It's all about trying to appear normal, to have the exact same labels as a heterosexual couple. It's clear to me the agenda is to have no stigma, no difference from anybody else in the social order of things. Its ironic that this group who so desperately wants to be "equal" works for hard at standing out and at separation. On one hand they want their union to be the same as mine, but they don't want me in their bar. They want special laws saying you can't discriminate based on sexual preference and yet they don't recognize the more broad equal treatment and discrimination laws already in place cover them. They wanted laws for crimes committed against gays to have different or stiffer penalties that crimes committed against others. Even medical research is special for gays...the money spent on AIDS far exceeds other illnesses and disease that kill and affect of order of magnitude more people than AIDS.
I'm sorry, I live down the road from SF and most of the country or world for that matter doesn't really see what a good portion of the gay community is like. Before you decide that a) as a group to be gay is normal or that b) they are so "special" that our laws need to treat them differently from me...go see the gay pride parade in SF....then tell me what you think.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Soderberg: I Was Only Kidding! (reprint from WSJ)
Well, it seems we started something with our item Wednesday about erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg's interview on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." As you'll recall, Soderberg was appearing to promote her anti-Bush book "The Superpower Myth," but instead she and Stewart spent most of the interview talking about how amazingly well the president's Mideast policy is working out and how troubling this success is to Democrats.
The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh (in a subscription-only page on his site, alas) all picked it up. Now there's a backlash from some on the left, including bloggers Eric Alterman and Mark Francis, both of whom say Soderberg is only joking.
Alterman: "Not only are the denizens of the conservative media too dumb to get the joke, they embarked on an immediate media jihad to burn They [sic] now have their proof that Nancy, indeed, all liberals, hate America." Francis: "Taranto, who, having admitted that he saw the show, must have known the truth, and wrote a slanderous piece anyway."
So we're getting lectured on humor by Eric Alterman, the male equivalent of Nancy Hopkins? And somehow it's "slanderous" to provide an accurate transcript of something someone said? (Actually, we did make one mistake: We thought we heard Stewart say "Baathists" when in fact he said "bad-asses.") Well, whatever. We assumed our readers were smart enough to figure out that there is a jocose element to the programming on Comedy Central. In any case, anyone who wants to evaluate all this for himself can watch the video here.
Soderberg herself showed up on C-Span Thursday, and a caller who'd read our item asked about her comments. Soderberg said the whole thing was no more than a bit of tomfoolery:
This is a comedy show. We were joking about the dilemma of Jon Stewart having criticized the Bush administration over the last four years--what does he do now? And we were joking back and forth. I think anyone who follows the Democratic Party knows that they want America to succeed and President Bush to succeed. It's completely a missed context that the article from The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Of course, [I] welcome the opportunity to rebut that. There's nothing better that Democrats would like than to see peace in the Middle East, nonproliferation. What I argue in the book is the last four years of the Bush administration have failed to advance those agendas, and I welcome what appears to be a shift in the administration right now to take those issues on with more realistic policies. And of course, I want them to succeed, so thank you for that question.
Let it be known, then, that Soderberg wants America to succeed. Actually, she said as much in the Comedy Central interview, and we quoted it: "As a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen."
To our ear, this was a candid admission of ambivalence. As a patriotic American she wants her country to succeed. But as a partisan Democrat, she doesn't like to see Republicans do well--and, although she didn't make this point explicitly, she is invested in an ideological worldview that is under challenge from reality. In our opinion, she's not a bad person but a good person struggling to overcome bad ideas.
The it-was-only-a-joke line we're hearing from Alterman, Francis and Soderberg herself, though, is just too simplistic to take seriously. Why would it be funny to suggest that Democrats are hoping for America to fail--as Soderberg did four times--unless there's an element of truth to it?
Update: Taranto hits this topic again today. In particular I like an email he got from Eric Axelson that I think rings true and sadly for both sides of the isle:
As a Democratic elected official in the 1980s I had a similar response to any of Ronald Reagan's initiatives. I can recall a sinking feeling as the stock market took off in late 1982, worrying that Reagan would get credit. Or being peeved that the Grenada invasion was so successful. Or that Reagan engineered the tax reform that Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had staked out. And conversely, when the Iran-contra scandal blew up I was delighted that Reagan would be brought down a peg (although Oliver North pretty much cleaned the clocks of the lawyers and congressional inquisitors in his testimony). The bottom line for us partisan Democrats back then (as now) was that if it was good for Reagan (even if also good for the country) we opposed, belittled, quibbled, nattered and otherwise sought to diminish.
It was only well after Reagan had left office that I began to see how successful and far-reaching his policies actually were. In the 1990s I began to annoy my leftist friends by stating the obvious, that Reagan was the most successful U.S. president since FDR. And it was only a relatively short ideological journey (helped along by Clinton's feckless policies and corruption) to embrace the policies of President Bush that are engendering freedom in places that have known only tyranny.
English is a bad language!
And the crying continues......
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 :))
Stupidio!
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.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Dean's skin already paper thin!
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?
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?
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$$
Academy...fire Rock's A$$
Global Left......history isn't on their side
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!
Natural Selection
Friday, February 11, 2005
Questions for Leftist Wack Jobs like Jim Bliss
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?
"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!
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?
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!
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?
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.