I like John McCain, mostly. And while I respect his Vietnam experience it doesn't make him the definitive oracle on whether various interrogation techniques work or not. McCain's proposed amendment to ban "stressful" interrogation techniques will in the end (as the WSJ editorial board said) make capture by the US not such an intimidating event. I have no doubt if you got a list of interrogation techniques that McCain approved of, then told them to Kennedy, Durbin, Boxer, etc. as techniques that Karl Rove suggests, they would unanimously call them torture. This is a case where people have already made up there mind...with no real research or a thoughtful analysis. It's clear to me that if we capture a bad guy, give him tea and crumpets and ask him to give up his compadres our success rate will be close to zero. However, if we make things uncomfortable, and break them down mentally there's no question the success rate will be better than the twinkie approach.
I suspect most cream puff liberals are you willing to sacrifice their family, their town or yours by insisting we employ a soft approach to interrogation. To them the notion of being righteous is more important than the discomfort of a bad guy here and there. Sorry, not me, break out the cattle prod.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Friday, November 11, 2005
Iraq is not Vietnam
Pretty much since the war in Iraq started the Liberal Left has wallowed joyously in the idea that this new war is somehow tied to the Vietnam War. They still believe that the protests of the 60’s somehow ended the Vietnam War, despite the fact that the war ended long after the protesters had gone home. In fact, the protests basically ended when the threat of the draft ended (go figure). The one thing the people on the left conveniently forget is the millions of people who were killed as a direct result of America pulling out of that war. God forbid we make that mistake again. If we were to instigate an immediate pullout of Iraq like the lunatic left would like us to do, there is no doubt that the result would be the same.
I’m not the smartest kid on the block but I do know enough to study history, as does my good friend Michael Medved and he put together this extremely important comparison of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars:
With all the misguided attempts to compare our current struggle in Iraq with America's most disastrous prior war, it's crucial for informed citizens to understand the profound contrasts and distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq - and to simultaneously come to terms with the one great and essential similarity.
Herewith, a quick list of the nine essential differences between the two wars - along with the single crucial resemblance.
DIFFERENCES
1.THE ENEMY-In Vietnam, we faced more than a rag-tag guerilla band: we confronted one of the world's most formidable military machines in the nation of North Vietnam, with more than a million men under arms. What's more, these troops and their officers had been hardened by some thirty years of fighting-first against the Japanese, then against the French, and finally against the South Vietnamese and the Americans. Ho Che Minh, dictator of North Vietnam, provided a potent symbol with a clearly articulated Communist agenda. In Iraq, on the other hand, we fight no nation, no organized army, no visible or unifying leader, but a collection of shadowy terrorist bands. These gangs occupy no territory, have announced no coherent program for the future, and command no economic or territorial base to replenish their cadres. They can certainly do damage to Americans and to the troops of democratic Iraq, but they can in no sense suggest a credible alternative-hence their very limited popular support.
2.THE ENEMY'S ALLIES-During the Vietnam struggle, the North Vietnamese and their guerilla allies in the south, the Viet Cong, received virtually unlimited support from two of the three most powerful nations on earth: the Soviet Union and Communist China. The two Communist superpowers disagreed on many issues, but they united in support of their Vietnamese colleagues - providing anti-aircraft surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries, MIG jet fighters, artillery, ordnance, military vehicles, small arms, cash, food, encouragement and diplomatic support. The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, receive support from no government on earth. It's true that radical segments of Arab public opinion may wish for the insurgents to bloody the U.S., but none of the Islamic governments have in any way backed the insurgency; even Syria, which definitely could do more to stop the flow of men and weapons across its border, delivers ritualistic and official condemnation of the bloody, murderous terrorists (many of them non-Iraqis) who slaughter women and children, along with American fighting men.
3.OUR ARMY--Easily the most controversial aspect of the Vietnam war - and the main spur to the anti-war movement - involved the draft of literally millions of young Americans during the '60's and '70's. While a small majority of those who actually fought "in country" in Indochina turned out to be volunteers, the involuntary nature of the draft gave rise to the "Hell No, We Won't Go Slogan," to burned draft cards, flights to Canada, and numberless fantasies of martyrdom. In our current struggle, our highly-professional and expertly trained military includes no draftees whatever. Everyone fighting in Iraq - including National Guardsmen and reservists- at one time or another enlisted voluntarily in the military. Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, all those who sign up for the U.S. military are clever enough to understand the very real possibility that at one point you might be required to use your expensive training in actual combat.
4.CASUALTY RATES - The human cost of the war in Iraq is genuinely horrifying, with more than 1,800 of our finest young people making the ultimate sacrifice. This carnage can hardly compare, however, to Vietnam - in which 58,000 Americans gave their lives for their country. The Iraq War has been going on for two and a half years - with a killed-in-action rate of approximately 800 per year. In Vietnam, the years of principal American I involvement (1965-72) saw deaths that averaged nearly 8,000 per year - in other words, a casualty rate some 10 TIMES as high. In fact, the differential is even greater in terms of the impact on the nation: in 1970, the census showed the U.S. population at 203 million; today, it stands above 290 million. In terms of a percentage of our total population, the death rate in Vietnam exceeded the death rate in Iraq by a ratio of 14 to 1. Even if the U.S. continued to struggle in Iraq for four more years with the current rate of killing (a worst case scenario our policy makers will move heaven and earth to avoid), the deaths will total some 5,000-less than a single year of Vietnam, and less than 10% of the total losses in that war. To keep casualty figures in perspective, it's important to remember that the combined human cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, after nearly three years of overall struggle, still involves fewer deaths than on a single dark day of recent history: September 11, 2001.
5.THE MEDIA - On the surface, the mainstream media (TV networks, newsmagazines, prestige newspapers) seem to offer the same perspective on two very different wars: emphasizing bad news, and downplaying every sing of progress. The difference in media coverage remains profound, however, since the emergence of new media (talk radio, Fox News, the Internet and the blogosphere) have changed the media landscape completely. When Walter Cronkite of CBS announced his disillusionment with the war in a special broadcast in 1968, no prominent media voices rose to contradict him: the public had to choose between believing "Uncle Walter" (the Most Trusted Man in America, according to polls) or Lyndon Johnson. Today, we enjoy far more diverse sources of information, and persuasive (sometimes raucous) voices on the right arise immediately to contradict all the TV network distortions and to provide perspective and balance.
6.POLITICS - Despite recent polls suggesting an Iraq-related decline in the President's popularity, the balance of power in Washington bears no resemblance to the situation in the Vietnam era. In the '60's and '70?s, the Democrats remained the dominant party in the nation, enjoying uninterrupted control of both houses of Congress during both decades, despite two terms of the Nixon presidency. By 1970, that dominant party, the Democrats, had turned radically, overwhelmingly against the war, with "peace candidate" George McGovern nominated for president in 1972. Today, by contrast, the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress (and the majority of state governorships) and Republicans remain almost unanimously behind Bush. In the most recent Gallup poll, the President's "approval rating" among self-described Republicans reached a reassuring 88%. It's Democrats - not Republicans - who show their divisions, with the "Move On"-Michael Moore-Howard Dean wing of the party favoring immediate withdrawal, while the Joe Lieberman-Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton mainstream seems to understand the importance of finishing our work in Iraq. During Vietnam, a long series of majority Congressional votes (including the infamous McGovern-Hatfield Senate resolution cutting off our military) served to undermine the U.S. war effort. In Iraq, no comparable "surrender" resolution has drawn even 20% of either house of Congress.
7.SCANDAL - In the last analysis, it wasn't public opinion turning against the war that doomed our Vietnam policy: it was, rather, the self-destruction of the Nixon administration in the most devastating scandal in U.S. political history. After a triumphant re-election in 1972, both Vice President Agnew and President Nixon resigned their offices leaving a fatally weak chief executive (Gerald Ford) who had never even run for national office. In the Watergate-stained election of 1974, the Democrats added crushing weight to their already lop-sided majorities (gaining 49 seats in the House, 5 in the Senate) and preventing President Ford from re-supplying our South Vietnamese allies when the North broke its agreements under the Paris Accords and launched a massive invasion. Without the Watergate scandal, driving Nixon from office and temporarily emasculating the Republican Party, our government almost surely would have maintained the commitments made to resist Northern aggression. However seriously one takes the currently hysterical Democratic efforts to magnify the controversy surrounding the public identification of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame, no sane observer believes that the scandal will follow the Watergate example and lead to the resignation or impeachment of President Bush.
8.THE PAST -For millions of Vietnamese, the war against the United States represented the culmination of several centuries of struggle against colonialism and foreign domination, and followed by a mere twenty years their successful efforts to throw off the yoke of bumbling French imperialism. Iraq has experienced no comparable history of colonialism: for nearly 400 years (1533-1916) it functioned as part of the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. The period of British "protectorate" lasted a mere sixteen years (from World War I occupation in 1916 to independence under Prime Minister Nuri-el Said in 1932), with only a brief English re-occupation (1941-45) during the height of World War II. Under thirty years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraq drew some support from the west but functioned for the most part as a military and economic client of the Soviet Union. Unlike Vietnam, where Communists could claim that they represented a nationalist reaction to French (and then American) colonialism, the population of Iraq maintains clear memories of the rabidly anti-American Hussein regime which brought about the nation's economic and cultural ruin.
9.THE STAKE - The best argument of the peace movement during the Vietnam war involved its insistence that even American defeat would bring little pain to most Americans. The anti-war forces argued (with considerable persuasiveness) that the Vietnamese only wanted to control Vietnam: they would never send their minions to invade California or Florida. America might lose prestige, might sacrifice credibility, to give up ground to the Soviets in the titanic and fateful Cold War struggle, but no one expected that our citizens here at home would sleep less soundly in their beds if the U.S. cleared out of Vietnam, on the other side of the world from our homeland. Today, however, we don't have to tax our imaginations to visualize Middle Eastern enemies invading our shores and massacring American civilians: we already experienced that nightmare on September 11, with Islamic fanatics killing more of us in that one day than the Iraqi insurgents have managed to kill in two and a half years. America's stake in defeating a ruthless enemy in Iraq isn't abstract or nebulous: it's real, immediate, urgent and palpable. Anti-war extremists may downplay the every day dangers of Islamic terrorism, but most Americans understand that it still represents a significant menace to both our lives and our way of life.
And this recognition brings me to the one great SIMILARITY in the two wars. In both conflicts, the American people understand the horrific dangers of unilateral, precipitous, unconditional withdrawal. By 1972, most voters had developed deep doubts about the struggle in Vietnam and yet when George McGovern gave them the chance to vote for immediate withdrawal (under the campaign slogan, "Come Home, America!"), a received an unprecedented shellacking. McGovern, the "Peace Candidate," lost 49 of 50 states, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, carrying a feeble 38% of the popular vote and trailing Richard Nixon by an astonishing 23%. The general public might not like the Vietnam war, with its truly appalling casualty figures, but they liked the option of ignominious surrender even less.
Today, a very similar mood prevails throughout most of the United States. Our citizens worry about the war, and long for our troops to come home, but only a very small percentage (about 20%, according to most polls) want us to run up the white flag, abandon our Iraqi allies, and strangle an infant democracy in its cradle. It took nearly ten bitter years (from the major U.S. escalation in the summer of '65 to the final North Vietnamese victory of April, 1975) of devastating sacrifice and nearly ceaseless protest before our exhausted nation felt ready to abandon the cause to which we had committed ourselves in Vietnam. With that time table in mind, even with the vastly lower casualty rates from Iraq, it would take us till 2013 before we betrayed our current efforts to establish democratic values in the heart of the Middle East. Long before that grim eventuality, we will see a constitutional republic (imperfect, like virtually all nation states) operating in place of the kleptocratic, genocidal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and contributing significantly to the safety and security of all Americans.
I’m not the smartest kid on the block but I do know enough to study history, as does my good friend Michael Medved and he put together this extremely important comparison of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars:
With all the misguided attempts to compare our current struggle in Iraq with America's most disastrous prior war, it's crucial for informed citizens to understand the profound contrasts and distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq - and to simultaneously come to terms with the one great and essential similarity.
Herewith, a quick list of the nine essential differences between the two wars - along with the single crucial resemblance.
DIFFERENCES
1.THE ENEMY-In Vietnam, we faced more than a rag-tag guerilla band: we confronted one of the world's most formidable military machines in the nation of North Vietnam, with more than a million men under arms. What's more, these troops and their officers had been hardened by some thirty years of fighting-first against the Japanese, then against the French, and finally against the South Vietnamese and the Americans. Ho Che Minh, dictator of North Vietnam, provided a potent symbol with a clearly articulated Communist agenda. In Iraq, on the other hand, we fight no nation, no organized army, no visible or unifying leader, but a collection of shadowy terrorist bands. These gangs occupy no territory, have announced no coherent program for the future, and command no economic or territorial base to replenish their cadres. They can certainly do damage to Americans and to the troops of democratic Iraq, but they can in no sense suggest a credible alternative-hence their very limited popular support.
2.THE ENEMY'S ALLIES-During the Vietnam struggle, the North Vietnamese and their guerilla allies in the south, the Viet Cong, received virtually unlimited support from two of the three most powerful nations on earth: the Soviet Union and Communist China. The two Communist superpowers disagreed on many issues, but they united in support of their Vietnamese colleagues - providing anti-aircraft surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries, MIG jet fighters, artillery, ordnance, military vehicles, small arms, cash, food, encouragement and diplomatic support. The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, receive support from no government on earth. It's true that radical segments of Arab public opinion may wish for the insurgents to bloody the U.S., but none of the Islamic governments have in any way backed the insurgency; even Syria, which definitely could do more to stop the flow of men and weapons across its border, delivers ritualistic and official condemnation of the bloody, murderous terrorists (many of them non-Iraqis) who slaughter women and children, along with American fighting men.
3.OUR ARMY--Easily the most controversial aspect of the Vietnam war - and the main spur to the anti-war movement - involved the draft of literally millions of young Americans during the '60's and '70's. While a small majority of those who actually fought "in country" in Indochina turned out to be volunteers, the involuntary nature of the draft gave rise to the "Hell No, We Won't Go Slogan," to burned draft cards, flights to Canada, and numberless fantasies of martyrdom. In our current struggle, our highly-professional and expertly trained military includes no draftees whatever. Everyone fighting in Iraq - including National Guardsmen and reservists- at one time or another enlisted voluntarily in the military. Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, all those who sign up for the U.S. military are clever enough to understand the very real possibility that at one point you might be required to use your expensive training in actual combat.
4.CASUALTY RATES - The human cost of the war in Iraq is genuinely horrifying, with more than 1,800 of our finest young people making the ultimate sacrifice. This carnage can hardly compare, however, to Vietnam - in which 58,000 Americans gave their lives for their country. The Iraq War has been going on for two and a half years - with a killed-in-action rate of approximately 800 per year. In Vietnam, the years of principal American I involvement (1965-72) saw deaths that averaged nearly 8,000 per year - in other words, a casualty rate some 10 TIMES as high. In fact, the differential is even greater in terms of the impact on the nation: in 1970, the census showed the U.S. population at 203 million; today, it stands above 290 million. In terms of a percentage of our total population, the death rate in Vietnam exceeded the death rate in Iraq by a ratio of 14 to 1. Even if the U.S. continued to struggle in Iraq for four more years with the current rate of killing (a worst case scenario our policy makers will move heaven and earth to avoid), the deaths will total some 5,000-less than a single year of Vietnam, and less than 10% of the total losses in that war. To keep casualty figures in perspective, it's important to remember that the combined human cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, after nearly three years of overall struggle, still involves fewer deaths than on a single dark day of recent history: September 11, 2001.
5.THE MEDIA - On the surface, the mainstream media (TV networks, newsmagazines, prestige newspapers) seem to offer the same perspective on two very different wars: emphasizing bad news, and downplaying every sing of progress. The difference in media coverage remains profound, however, since the emergence of new media (talk radio, Fox News, the Internet and the blogosphere) have changed the media landscape completely. When Walter Cronkite of CBS announced his disillusionment with the war in a special broadcast in 1968, no prominent media voices rose to contradict him: the public had to choose between believing "Uncle Walter" (the Most Trusted Man in America, according to polls) or Lyndon Johnson. Today, we enjoy far more diverse sources of information, and persuasive (sometimes raucous) voices on the right arise immediately to contradict all the TV network distortions and to provide perspective and balance.
6.POLITICS - Despite recent polls suggesting an Iraq-related decline in the President's popularity, the balance of power in Washington bears no resemblance to the situation in the Vietnam era. In the '60's and '70?s, the Democrats remained the dominant party in the nation, enjoying uninterrupted control of both houses of Congress during both decades, despite two terms of the Nixon presidency. By 1970, that dominant party, the Democrats, had turned radically, overwhelmingly against the war, with "peace candidate" George McGovern nominated for president in 1972. Today, by contrast, the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress (and the majority of state governorships) and Republicans remain almost unanimously behind Bush. In the most recent Gallup poll, the President's "approval rating" among self-described Republicans reached a reassuring 88%. It's Democrats - not Republicans - who show their divisions, with the "Move On"-Michael Moore-Howard Dean wing of the party favoring immediate withdrawal, while the Joe Lieberman-Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton mainstream seems to understand the importance of finishing our work in Iraq. During Vietnam, a long series of majority Congressional votes (including the infamous McGovern-Hatfield Senate resolution cutting off our military) served to undermine the U.S. war effort. In Iraq, no comparable "surrender" resolution has drawn even 20% of either house of Congress.
7.SCANDAL - In the last analysis, it wasn't public opinion turning against the war that doomed our Vietnam policy: it was, rather, the self-destruction of the Nixon administration in the most devastating scandal in U.S. political history. After a triumphant re-election in 1972, both Vice President Agnew and President Nixon resigned their offices leaving a fatally weak chief executive (Gerald Ford) who had never even run for national office. In the Watergate-stained election of 1974, the Democrats added crushing weight to their already lop-sided majorities (gaining 49 seats in the House, 5 in the Senate) and preventing President Ford from re-supplying our South Vietnamese allies when the North broke its agreements under the Paris Accords and launched a massive invasion. Without the Watergate scandal, driving Nixon from office and temporarily emasculating the Republican Party, our government almost surely would have maintained the commitments made to resist Northern aggression. However seriously one takes the currently hysterical Democratic efforts to magnify the controversy surrounding the public identification of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame, no sane observer believes that the scandal will follow the Watergate example and lead to the resignation or impeachment of President Bush.
8.THE PAST -For millions of Vietnamese, the war against the United States represented the culmination of several centuries of struggle against colonialism and foreign domination, and followed by a mere twenty years their successful efforts to throw off the yoke of bumbling French imperialism. Iraq has experienced no comparable history of colonialism: for nearly 400 years (1533-1916) it functioned as part of the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. The period of British "protectorate" lasted a mere sixteen years (from World War I occupation in 1916 to independence under Prime Minister Nuri-el Said in 1932), with only a brief English re-occupation (1941-45) during the height of World War II. Under thirty years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraq drew some support from the west but functioned for the most part as a military and economic client of the Soviet Union. Unlike Vietnam, where Communists could claim that they represented a nationalist reaction to French (and then American) colonialism, the population of Iraq maintains clear memories of the rabidly anti-American Hussein regime which brought about the nation's economic and cultural ruin.
9.THE STAKE - The best argument of the peace movement during the Vietnam war involved its insistence that even American defeat would bring little pain to most Americans. The anti-war forces argued (with considerable persuasiveness) that the Vietnamese only wanted to control Vietnam: they would never send their minions to invade California or Florida. America might lose prestige, might sacrifice credibility, to give up ground to the Soviets in the titanic and fateful Cold War struggle, but no one expected that our citizens here at home would sleep less soundly in their beds if the U.S. cleared out of Vietnam, on the other side of the world from our homeland. Today, however, we don't have to tax our imaginations to visualize Middle Eastern enemies invading our shores and massacring American civilians: we already experienced that nightmare on September 11, with Islamic fanatics killing more of us in that one day than the Iraqi insurgents have managed to kill in two and a half years. America's stake in defeating a ruthless enemy in Iraq isn't abstract or nebulous: it's real, immediate, urgent and palpable. Anti-war extremists may downplay the every day dangers of Islamic terrorism, but most Americans understand that it still represents a significant menace to both our lives and our way of life.
And this recognition brings me to the one great SIMILARITY in the two wars. In both conflicts, the American people understand the horrific dangers of unilateral, precipitous, unconditional withdrawal. By 1972, most voters had developed deep doubts about the struggle in Vietnam and yet when George McGovern gave them the chance to vote for immediate withdrawal (under the campaign slogan, "Come Home, America!"), a received an unprecedented shellacking. McGovern, the "Peace Candidate," lost 49 of 50 states, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, carrying a feeble 38% of the popular vote and trailing Richard Nixon by an astonishing 23%. The general public might not like the Vietnam war, with its truly appalling casualty figures, but they liked the option of ignominious surrender even less.
Today, a very similar mood prevails throughout most of the United States. Our citizens worry about the war, and long for our troops to come home, but only a very small percentage (about 20%, according to most polls) want us to run up the white flag, abandon our Iraqi allies, and strangle an infant democracy in its cradle. It took nearly ten bitter years (from the major U.S. escalation in the summer of '65 to the final North Vietnamese victory of April, 1975) of devastating sacrifice and nearly ceaseless protest before our exhausted nation felt ready to abandon the cause to which we had committed ourselves in Vietnam. With that time table in mind, even with the vastly lower casualty rates from Iraq, it would take us till 2013 before we betrayed our current efforts to establish democratic values in the heart of the Middle East. Long before that grim eventuality, we will see a constitutional republic (imperfect, like virtually all nation states) operating in place of the kleptocratic, genocidal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and contributing significantly to the safety and security of all Americans.
Who is the liar?
Edward "don't let him drive you home" Kennedy and his moonbat wacko friends that's who! Bush finally comes out swinging on the constant charge that the administration manipulated intelligence to make the go to war case. Kennedy wasted no time saying yet again in response to Bush's speech today. If you, or someone you know, doesn't have the facts showing who the real liars are on this issue here's the best summary you'll find on the topic! Who is lying about Iraq?
Update: Monday, Nov. 14.....I guess the WSJ liked Norman Podhoretz's piece that I linked to above as they put it in today journal!
Update: Monday, Nov. 14.....I guess the WSJ liked Norman Podhoretz's piece that I linked to above as they put it in today journal!
Now hold on just a darn minute!
I thought global warming was man made? I thought the idea of cyclic warming or weather patterns that produce extreme weather was just a myth promoted by the planet hating oil companies, and money grubbing land developers who have no respect for the spotted owl or the Karner blue caterpillar! Or is this University of Florida study just another scheme by Karl Rove?
We honor all who have, and do, serve!
Thursday, November 10, 2005
And yet more French bashing
Well, aside from the French this is also continued bashing of the media. Apparently media types who ignore "we report, you decide" and believe "we decide for you" is a global cancer. You gotta love the cojones of this French TV boss who just comes out and says he trying to control the political landscape. The examples of liberals (domestic and foreign) who attempt to subvert the people from deciding on appropriate political change at the expense of life, liberty and economy is endless.
Take that you Bâtards français
To snub our noses at the French, who have been so critical of us in recent years, Chicago proposes an ordinance to ban foie gras! Take that you snobby elitist lovers of cream, butter, cheese and goose livers! Oh, wait....my mistake....this is the work of folks like Farm Sanctuary who are ok with us cutting the head off of the goose to get its liver, they just want us to treat the fowl with a country club lifestyle before doing so...IDIOTS!
French acquiescence
While I was encouraged when I heard France was going to immediately deport what the press calls "detained" people involved in the violence and destruction. But, that all changed when France suspended eight officers for what is very likely just tough and proper on the street, in the middle of a riot, police handling of thugs participating...oh, oops...I mean the beating of a "young man" in Paris.
Side note....the F'ing press takes illegals involved in burning cars and buildings and potentially put people in danger who have been arrested and call them "detained" people! They take an adult who is on the street, in the middle of the riot, probably resisting or throwing something at the police who is taken into custody by force....and call is "the beating of a young man". And note how the press says the "unrest eases"! Are you kidding me....482 cars burned compared to 617 the previous night is an easing? If this was happening in the US there's is zero chances that would be given a label that sounded like progress.
This feels to me like Spain's acquiescence to the terrorist train bombings!
Side note....the F'ing press takes illegals involved in burning cars and buildings and potentially put people in danger who have been arrested and call them "detained" people! They take an adult who is on the street, in the middle of the riot, probably resisting or throwing something at the police who is taken into custody by force....and call is "the beating of a young man". And note how the press says the "unrest eases"! Are you kidding me....482 cars burned compared to 617 the previous night is an easing? If this was happening in the US there's is zero chances that would be given a label that sounded like progress.
This feels to me like Spain's acquiescence to the terrorist train bombings!
It's Time For A Third Party!
Bush has been a disappointment with, quite frankly, most of his actions not being those we would associate with the traditional notion of what being a Republican is suppose to be. And now the GOP leadership has completed their transition, with their caving on arctic drilling, to redefining the current day Republican party for what it is...Democrat! At this point what we have are Democrats who call themselves Republicans and leftist radicals who call themselves Democrats. It's time we had a third party who is ACTUALLY conservative and puts a stop to the namby-pamby politics as usual and kid glove treatment to every environmental, socialist, miss guided wacko!
Update: My daily driver gets (not kidding) 9 mpg on average so I feel the price of gas in a big way. Do we live in a socialist economy? What the hell are those two faced hypocrite senators (namely Boxer) asking oil company execs about "huge" profits and bonuses for? Are they not businesses? Did they break any law (like price gouging)? If not, shut the hell up...roughly a 10% profit isn't HUGE or WINDFALL for a well run company and their bonuses are set by the board you morons. I think it was Boxer who put up display showing the executive bonuses next to something like the average US household income. WHAT? Ok, lets look at all the income of every f'ing senator and house member and ask why they don't give it all back to help those only making $23k a year pay their heating oil bill this winter?
Update: My daily driver gets (not kidding) 9 mpg on average so I feel the price of gas in a big way. Do we live in a socialist economy? What the hell are those two faced hypocrite senators (namely Boxer) asking oil company execs about "huge" profits and bonuses for? Are they not businesses? Did they break any law (like price gouging)? If not, shut the hell up...roughly a 10% profit isn't HUGE or WINDFALL for a well run company and their bonuses are set by the board you morons. I think it was Boxer who put up display showing the executive bonuses next to something like the average US household income. WHAT? Ok, lets look at all the income of every f'ing senator and house member and ask why they don't give it all back to help those only making $23k a year pay their heating oil bill this winter?
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
John Howard is the MAN!
Hat tip to my dad who got an email with this story from a friend about Australia's tough and appropriate stance with Muslims who aren't going to fly right! The government is saying that Australia is a secular state and that “If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you,”...see the story here on of all places the Daily Times in Pakistan back in August! Did you ever hear about this? A search on Google for this story using (australia, muslim, sharia, canberra) had ZERO hits...found it via Yahoo though....how did this get ignored? Why the hell can't we send the exact same message? BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WITH LIBERALS, THE ACLU, BERKELEY, BARBARA BOXER, blah, blah, blah...ARGH!!!!!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Scientology, a wack job cult religion!
I admit I pay a little attention to popular culture. Tom Cruise or someone with a few degrees of separation seems to be in the news constantly and therefore constantly reminds me of Scientology. What is surprising is how few people seem to know what a complete wack job cult religion Scientology is. I suppose it might speak to the power if its well known star power members and the medias fear of pissing them off. You might have seen, or heard about, Tom Cruise's appearance on NBC's today show where he went off on Matt Lauer..."you don't know the history of Psychiatry, I know the history of Psychiatry". Cruise contends the use of any drugs in Psychiatry is quackery and that any mental affliction being a chemical imbalance you can fix with drugs utterly false. Frankly there is no measured proof of that, true enough...however the use of medication has worked for millions even if as a placebo. But that's not my topic...why Tom thinks he knows the history of Psychiatry and the bizarre story that the members of Scientology believe is. More tomorrow when I complete the story.
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.
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
I can't believe that I agree with one of the NBA's most hoodlum looking tattoo ladened player Allen Iverson. I agree with his response to the NBA's commissioner's (Stern) new dress code that tries to help with the image (a mostly accurate one I might add) which is that the players are largely aloof, rebellious, prone to violence or criminal behavior. The do-rags, baggy pants, bling, etc. are sending a message my son won't be allowed to admire or follow. Iverson's response to Stern's new dress code which amounts to wearing sport coat attire (no hats or sun glasses) when representing the team or league was "You can put a murderer in a suit and he's still a murderer." Well I agree....while I don't blame Stern for this business decision a sport coat won't change what's in the hears and minds of these players who while making millions pretend they're still just like the homey's they left behind. There's more to values, your moral code, your respect for others and the law then what you wear....but I guess it's a start.
A real CIA leak
I noted in my post last Friday of non-stories that we might have secrete prisons somewhere wasn't the story but that finding and punishing the leakers was....well it looks like that is in fact what will happen...this should be interesting. A nice round up on this on PowerLine...check it out.
Islamic Scourge
For quite some time now many conservatives have called for profiling Muslim followers of Islam (Muhammad). Aside from the words in the Koran (Quran or Alcoran) themselves the world wide evidence of evil, hatred and desire to target the innocent that has played out over the past several years is undeniable. And while the socialist and weak immigration situation along with hypocritical treatment of immigrants have setup the situation in France the fact remains that Islam is at the root of this as well. To that point Michel Gurfinkiel, the editor of the Paris based journal Valeurs Actuelles via the New York Sun asks:
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.
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?
In Taranto's WSJ blog he used a quote from a speech he made at Tufts University to point out his obvious elitism, Kerry said "All politics is a reaction to felt needs. You need to get people to feel the need. Our job is to make sure the right felt need is taken into consideration." The Daily Collegian quotes Kerry several times in their story (linked above) and while I don't think Bush has done a great job its scary to think Kerry could have become president. Kerry relieves his almost presidency like a 40 yr old who still re-lives that game winning touchdown pass he dropped in high school.
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
CNN and many others of the MSM will tell you that the war (yep, I think that's an accurate description) spreading throughout France for nearly 2 weeks is just "youths" who are disaffected, wanting respect and jobs and so have become angry. This is the biggest kid glove treatment I have ever seen. Firstly what a joke France is. Let's look at the facts. Since Oct. 27 a large number of African immigrants (likely 2nd generation immigrants) who are Muslim have been at war with France (France meaning those who aren't African immigrants who are Muslim and their property). 4700, and counting, cars have been burned. 274 towns and now possibly neighboring countries are effected.
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.
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
Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, has a great summary of the Plame issue in this weekend WSJ. I agree with her assessment that "The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which." It's short, to the point and sounds right to me.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Fake Summit Protest
Just watch how much coverage the protestors in Argentina get as Bush visits the Summit of the America's. It's apparently well known that many protest organizers parachute in from all over the world to make sure they have a nice turnout and have good photo opps. Not only does the outside renta-mob organizers make this fake but you see no real message, no gripe or coherent call for action related to Bush, or the US anyway. Take for example Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who led thousands of protestors saying Bush a "fascist" and a "terrorist." Also leading protests was Evo Morales, the Socialist, and Indian, front-runner in the Bolivian presidential election set for next month. And Argentina's Adolfo Perez Esquivel, a human rights activist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1980. The leftist crowd wore t-shirts saying "Stop Bush," or had portraits of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Examples of great freedom loving men. A few sporting the portrait of Osama bin Laden were also spotted. This was reported by Agencia EFE.
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!
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
In today's WSJ Review & Outlook section the Terror's Mouthpiece gives an example of what I think is a systemic issue in the Democratic party, namely aiding and abetting the enemy! You see, Rumsfeld (who of course is hated by the press and Dems to the point of foaming at the mouth) is looking to have Dorrance Smith confirmed as the new assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. But this is opposed by Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) because Levin claims Smith was unfair in asking tough questions about the US media and the government of Qatar (the money sponsor) and their relationship with terrorist friendly al-Jazeera in a piece he wrote for the WSJ in April. The questions Smith raises and the kind of action one who raises them would likely take as part of the defense department is exactly the kind of people we want in these jobs. As far as I'm concerned to criticize these questions, to not join in wanting the answers, to not want to stop the networks from being al-Jazeera's and the terrorist pawn, is treasonous. Those on the left however want you to see our chopper shot down and its wounded pilot shot in the head. They believe it will help you hate Bush. Making this about Bush is treasonous as you help our enemy in their cause. This is not about one man! Bush didn't create radical Muslim Islamic inhuman blood thirsty sick fu**'s who cut the heads off of little catholic school girls (ya, how much of that story did you here in the MSM?). You're either with us or you're with them!
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.”
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
Pretty Much Any Story On Alito's Rulings as a judge! Go check them for yourself on FindLaw, I did! The fact of the matter is you'll be hard pressed to find any personal bias in his rulings. He applies the law fairly even when it might not align with his own feelings and has done a great job keeping States rights as opposed to Federal control in check...and he has done so even when higher courts including SCOTUS have not. Most stories on Alito will say he voted for against some polarizing topic (like abortion), but in fact he voted for or against the right of a state to legislate something or the validity of a law they already put in place. You will also see stories that he was overturned on this or that ruling by a higher court or SCOTUS. Yep, and guess what all the judges on those courts who were in the minority on those decisions voted wtih Alito.
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!!!!!!
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
Zell Miller has a great column today in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson monkeyshine! Read it!
Black Leaders Not Acting Too White!
I have never been a fan of the supposed black leaders of our generation (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Kweisi Mfume, Julian Bond, the entire Congressional Black Caucus, etc.) as I believe they promote separatism and an entitlement attitude among their followers. Their power and continued relevance relies on their keeping blacks brainwashed and not taking responsibility for their lot in life. The sad thing is that there are signs their efforts continue to work. Case in point, North Carolina black high school students who may purposely do poorly in school so as to not be labeled acting "too white". In this case a local from the African-American Research Institute at UNC-Chapel Hill named William Darity continues the it's-not-your-fault approach by saying that while the "too white" stigma plays a roll the real problem is "due to the school context and because of a pattern of exclusion of vast numbers of black kids from the most challenging curriculum,”. Hey Willie...I got news for you....if a kid acts dumb in school he won't get into the challening classes.....as long as blacks listen to this kind of idiocy they will think of themselves as separate from the broader American population (Taranto).
The Clare Luce Democrats
A must read on the frothing at the mouth Democrats doing their best to rewrite history in the WSJ today titled "The Clare Luce Democrats". I'm surprised so many on the left are willing to increase their exposure to the ill-fated Kerry strategy of "I voted for it before I voted against it". According to dimwits like Harry Reid an alien ship has provided him with a mind reading device which he used on Dubya and thus learned that of all who saw the intelligence on Iraq Dubya alone knew it to be false....ok I made the alien part of up, but apparently he has read the younger Bush's mind! Also see the comments section of my post below titled Significant in his own mind where reader Splash Two (aka Marty) has compiled a nice list of the Bush is a liar club members who before the war said Saddam had WMD but now say Bush knew he didn't.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
French inaction!
You gotta love the French...after six nights of riots in largely Muslim north African immigrant communities in the north-east suburbs of Paris the government officials are having a meeting (French Hold Crisis Talks On Riots)! And there is no report of details coming out of the meeting! Could you imagine this going on for 6 nights in even the most screwed up city in the US? Not much in the way of criticism for the lack of action or resolution to this on the part of the French though. Well, except this little bit "Unemployment and social problems are rife in many of France's poorer suburban areas. "...oh my, you mean everyone in France isn't eating foie gras washed down with a nice burgandy?
Significant in his own mind!
I know many label Jimmy Carter as one of the worst presidents in recent history but I'm just glad no globally significant challenges came up during his term to screw up. I have also seen some claim he was very intelligent but his actions and words since leaving office clearly make that a complete falsehood! Of course the MSM takes every opportunity to put him on the air or quote his soft southern farm boy delivery of very serious claims based on no facts whatsoever. So today Carter is hitting the usual MSM fluff shows to both hock is latest waste of paper (see the WSJ's Bret Stephens review) and to throw out unchallenged claims about Bush and Whitehouse wrong doing. I caught Carter's interview by NBC's Katy Clueless Couric this morning where he states that claims of WMD were "manipulated, at least" and that the attack on Iraq was a long-term plan starting with Bush senior. Amazing...he apparently has wire taps and bugs that have captured evidence of the conspiracy plotted by the two Bush's. NOT! You won't find Carter going on a show where a REAL reporter could ask him any of a hundred challenging questions that would illustrate his politically motivated fabrications!
Update: Just like most who claim Bush lied they supported the idea before they were against it! "Saddam's Probably Got WMDs and Bush is Lying if He Agrees With Me"
Update: 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
I have not blogged in a long time. Why, I'm not totally sure...but I decided to start again for probably one of the reasons that I stopped...I'm just really pissed off. I get so in infuriated with political correctness run amuck, the MSM and the lefts delusional obsession with trying to take down the Bush administration at the expense of our way of life, our military and our security. It's not uncommon for me and several of my fellow conservative cohorts to speculate that a civil war may come our way again some day....as you can see my last post which was back in June posed the question! The good news is that my side does own, and will use, guns and lots of them. We also believe in real torture of our prisoners as opposed to the fake underwear on the head kind. Its a forgone conclusion most of the military would fall on our side and pretty much 100% of the private companies involved in the military machine and heavy industry in general would supply us. Hey, this form of therapy is working after all....sheesh..this war will be as easy for us as it is to fit an entire Cindy Sheehan support vigil into a Toyota Prius!
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!
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
The international view of America is arguably not so great these days...ungreatful lot they are given without America most countries on this planet would either be under a less friendly rule or have no economy (including aide). And there is no shortage of examples of the hypocrisy in the standards the international community holds Americans too...but this recent story on the idea of giving women the right to drive in Saudi Arabia that Yahoo linked (when most don't) caught my attention. You would think this backward treatment of women, albeit supposedly rooted in religious belief, would elicit MUCH more reaction from the international community and press....but I guess "misshandling" of a book by an American is a far bigger world story...we are so bad!!!!!
Friday, May 27, 2005
Muslims; their own worst enemy
Its interesting the blame game that goes on in the Muslim world...somehow the perpetual infighting that goes on, the senseless killing of innocents via soleless misguided suicide bombers, the hatred for tribes and sects they share the area is all somehow the fault of America. While I assume there are a huge number of Muslims who hold all life precious, as any normal caring human being would, the actions of many Muslim groups speaks to one F'd up religion. Ok, maybe I can't blame it on the religion itself. But the Muslim faith seems to have an extremely disproportionate share of truly bad, or to be kinder, seriously confused to the point of evil, members.
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.
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
Maybe you have heard of America's most heinous government facility feared by all foreigners for truly barbaric things happen there to completely innocent loving people!!!!!
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
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
I have been busy with a house remodel and work so haven't posted in a while but seeing today that Major League Baseball's players union rejected the commissioners increased penalties got my blood boiling. This is analogous to a teachers union not wanting to have teacher testing to monitor the competency of teachers or to be judged on a merit system. In general most of us in society have to suffer the consequences of our poor choices and in many cases those consequences can be dire. A different set of rules for a given group along with the general poor moral standing of professional athletes as role models (whether they like it or not) is a sad state of affairs for something that is truly unique to America. I have largely stopped watching professional sports and throw none of my money their direction...I only wish more people would put their desire to live thru their athletic endeavors on hold in order to save their integrity.
Friday, April 22, 2005
AND YET more liberal hypocrisy
My buddy MT got me going with two recent examples of democrat liberal hypocrisy. This is so common place among the liberasl that it is, I'm sure, unrecognizable to them just how blatent their hypocrisy is. Tom DeLay's ethics committee approved trips that are now supposedly of concern is more than likely a pandora's box....if we examine the trips and favors of every senator (both sides of the isle) plenty will appear inappropriately gifted. Pelosi is quick to judge others but not be judged herself. Then there is PBS where the Repulican administration is putting in friendly's as executives as contracts expire....just like the Dems would....and yet "It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated." says an FCC official. It's ok when the entire management of a group is clearly liberal but its not ok when some conservatives get inserted. When anything is fully liberal everything is just fine, when you move that needle even a bit and suddenly it's a conspiracy, an orchestrated coup, and so on...what a joke.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
A real "die in" invite to Ohio U. Students
No surprise that our naive and easily brainwashed youth of our Universities partake in moronic and often socialistic protests and events which are undoubtedly advocated by some faculty stuck in the academic philosophical time warp. And so it's nice to see examples of young people who even without the experience of life (work, marriage, kids, mortgages, taxes, voting, business ventures, philanthropy, illness, death, pain, joy, etc.) who have a more seasoned perspective. Today's example is Marc Fencil who is a senior at Ohio University that has yet to finish as he is serving in Iraq. Marc wrote a letter to the editor of the Ohio University paper in response to his misguided fellow students "die in" done in protest of Iraq or maybe any old place we send our military...Great job Marc!
It's Cat Hunting Time!
I'm not an animal lover, in fact I guess I pretty much find all house pets dirty and a pain the ass. I have animal lovers all around me. Family and neighbors who put their pets comfort ahead of their own and mine too! I'll admit I'm a selfish person...I think my comfort should come before the dog, cat or other non-human! So when you add my anti-pet attitude to the fact that my corner lot is a popular toilet for local cats and dogs being walked by their owners and you have one pissed off man with weapons. I'm amazed at the overly liberal silicon valley neighbors I have who walk their dogs without bags to pick up those stinky logs they deposit....and even for those who do take care of the solid waste why the hell do they think its ok for their dog to urinate in my ivy? I have thought about just sitting out front and each time I see either offense against my very nice yard to demand the dog owner give me their address so I can go relieve myself on their lawn. Could you imagine the outrage? Even likely police action if I was to go squat and do my business on someone's front lawn! So why is ok for your animals??????? Don't bother answering, there is no good answer except to start allowing me to shoot your cat or dog should it enter my property let alone secrete waste of any kind in my yard!
Remember What You Have!
Reading a story this morning in the WSJ written by a National Guard staff sergant who has returned from Iraq I got choked up. I don't know if it's because it made me think of my kids and how much they mean to me, or if it's the immense pride and respect I have for our men and women who serve our country....but it's a good reminder to remember and be thankful for what we have.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Illegal Aliens to take drivers ed and buy auto insurance!
Don't hold your breath on that ever happening...of course that's what Cal Sen. Gil Cedillo (dem) wants you to believe as he has re-introduced SB 60 to once again try and get California drivers licenses for Illegal Aliens. Gil, and supporters of illegal immigration, want you to think that if we give an illegal a license they will take the time, and pay for, drivers education and will also pay for auto insurance....crack smoking abounds! What I also understand, but admit I didn't read the entire bill just the summary, is that it would provide for a free get out of jail card (effectively) for an illegal who was in an accident but didn't have 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?
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
Come on! Lets say the House Minority Leader is an outspoken Republican who often throws harsh and non-cooperative barbs at the Democrats in the House. No Imagine it comes out that this Republican is apparently horse trading government funding for campaign donations and favors of one type or another for friends! HUGE headlines, every paper and media outlet jumps on the story....tough questions are asked on each news broadcast, the political talking heads at all the networks have on guests to talk about the impropriety of the House Minority Leader's actions. Calls come out from the other side for resignation, investigations by the House ethics committee, blah, blah.
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!!!!!
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
I have been pleasantly surprised by the coverage and praise for the Pope's life and accomplishments. John Paul was an amazing man and had a Reagan like ability to communicate with anybody or group, even if there was an ideological divide. While I know the Pope is clearly the spiritual figure head of the Catholic church I have wondered if others in the Vatican pull the strings. It's clear the Pope isn't really the chief executive of the church's business affairs so its easy to imagine secrete societies and powerful figures in the church that the public isn't aware of. If speculation and conspiracy theories draws attention to the church and the positive aspects of it's ideology than that's great. It surely makes for great books and entertaining movie material. I think the choice for the next Pope could be pivotal to the churches survival.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
So, exactly which is the party of tolerance?
Just an interesting comparison of university hosted speeches by someone on the right (Ann Coulter) and someone on the left (Ward Churchill) that took place the other day. If you're not from the SF Bay Area (and so don't know why we call Berkeley the Peoples Republic Berkeley) you must read this article on Churchill's visit there....amazing! Churchills unchallenged by the left ideas and their being echoed by other academia brethran on the panel are scarey. I love how the title of these articles reflect the bias towards or against the speaker. Also amazing is that I saw no press on the fact that apparently the 20 yr old women who questioned the event being labeled as a "forum" since the panel and crowd was homogenous was herself heckled by the liberal nazi's (to steal a Churchill reference) in attendance. Got a love those free speech loving open minded liberals!
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!
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
I'm amazed by these cases where government or institutions are willing to spare no expense to protect those afflicted with suicide by jumping from high places. How reasonable people can sit around and think that they in fact are preventing a suicide or helping those with that intent is beyond me. I know, I know...you can find someone who will say that the barrier on that bridge stopped me and they didn't look for another way...ya well good for them. This is more than likely just a way for those who own the high place (bridge, building, etc.) to try and remove any chance of litigation had someone had what we consider COMPLETELY NORMAL access to said high place and jumped. Lets spend all of our money and inconvenience the entire population to protect the infinitesimally small number among us who no longer wants to be among us! So, we have two f'd up problems here...those who don't want to hold individuals personally reasonable for their idiotic or suicidal actions and a tort happy society. If we can just get the right folks to off themselves we could probably solve both!
Anti-Technology Global Warming Crowd Cries Wolf
So once again we have very detailed claims on a measured effect of humans on the environment from alarmist scientists. The thing I hate about this is the general public thinks that if a "scientist" studies something and draws conclusions it must be so. Not only are scientists just like everyone else (often wrong) the group behind this report (and the writer of this article) clearly have a bias. As an engineer I consider myself a man of science....any observer with a modicum of reason and healthy skepticism could challenge the statements made by this report. Firstly, two thirds of our resources are used up? This is ridiculous...that assumes one has a definitive known maximum quantity of our resources. Of course nobody actually knows how much coal, oil, gas and even water is available. This also assumes the types of resources are static, which is idiotic as invention increases at a staggering rate using the last 2 decades as a baseline. Hybrid vehicles are selling well and hydrogen vehicles are in prototype phase.....as an example. I'm not arguing that trees, fish and animals aren't being harvested at too fast a rate.....or displaced into extinction. However the theorized impact of air producing tree loss, or supposed food chain impact of everything from insects to elephants is complete speculation. Same for climate change. In fact global warming is the real joke. The scientists who claim that humans are the cause of what they call "global warming" is a claim that doesn't stand up to the facts. The human cause is based on gases and particulates we put into the air primarily because of industry and transportation (vehicles). The problem is that natural occurring sources of these same elements dwarfs the human generated total in a big way. The natural sources, primarily volcanic, have been doing there thing for millions of years...in fact as we go back in time the geological evidence says volcanic activity was much greater in the past and so we can assume was the amount of these bad elements in the atmosphere....yet there was, is, no catastrophic climate change associated with that theory!
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!
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
That's my headline as compared to Reuters who of course went searching for supposed "reformist" Arabs to speculate, guess and invent US and Israeli conspiracy theories based on an interview Rice did with the Washington Post last week. Reuters' headline was Rice Alarms Reformist Arabs with Stability Remarks....after reading the Reuters story then read the actual transcript of the interview....I think those who don't want change in this f'd up region of the world look to discredit Rice at every turn. Note the words of these yokels use that make their interpretive leap to suit their needs obvious; "suggesting a new US approach", "They seem to be supporting chaos and instability", "the great risks that Dr Rice suggests", "We see an emphasis on destruction and we see that Israel is willing to push Arab societies to the abyss without caring for stability. We suspect these ideas came from Israel,"
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.
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!
It's pretty strange that Jesse Jackson seems to be inserting himself into two hot issues, Terry Schiavo and Michael Jackson (not that both should be hot!). Suddenly he is Michael Jackson's spiritual leader? And he shows up with Terry's parents with all the press quoting Terry's mother, Mary Schindler, as saying "I wanted the Reverend Jackson here for moral support"! What a crock...I don't believe for a second they invited him, I'll wager he lobbied (offered) his support (in the way of a visit and press conference). Can you point me to even one high profile case/issue involving a white person that Jackson was inserted into and did a press conference with those involved? This smells of publicity hounding after Jackson became nearly insignificant with the younger guard of the black community gaining ground (eg. Barack Obama). Jackson is a fraud as a reverend and is a racist who extorts money from corporations with his race bating threats. He, of course, has already socialized the race issue in the Michael (hide your grade school boys) Jackson's case. I suppose the Schindler's figure any publicity is good publicity but I wish they had turned him down.
DUH!!!!!!
Did anybody think we needed a study to know that college faculties are overwhelmingly liberal? Of course not, why don't we do a study to see if the Carl's Jr double $6 burger is high in calories and fat (1360 cals, 96g fat in case you were wondering). Ok, but since we have the study published we can only hope that its gets some publicity and can be a catalyst for change. It's amazing to me that the intellectual college academics think they, and their schools, are part of an intellectually and culturally diverse environment that enrich the students! This couldn't be farther from the truth....those on the left side of the liberal pendulum are the most closed minded group in this country. One interesting stat, that was news to me, in this study was that there is a SERIOUS gender bias for full time faculty....72% men, 28% women...where is the uproar???????? Hahaha....don't practice what you preach you book worm jackasses!
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Hump Day Roundup
This Terri Schiavo thing is a total circus....I frankly don't know what to believe....the save a life at all costs side has you believing Michael Schiavo has tried to choke and drug Terri, that he tried to make money of this situation, that his seeking companionship with a women while still married to Terri in her vegetative state is evil and so on. On the other side Michael Schiavo claims Terri stated she wouldn't want to live this way. Then the other side says it was only said in conversation while watching a movie. Terri's side also claims Terri is more aware than Michael or any doctor for that matter believe her to be. The whole thing is a sad mess.
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.
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
Note that I say "may", but the meaningless "no confidence" vote put on by a collection of Harvard profs directed at the University President Lawrence H. Summers surely makes the duplicity of the socialist liberal faculty obvious. They can dish it out but can't take it! I can see why Summers' comments a while back would raise some ire but so do most of the passionate causes of hard core liberals with conservatives...so what? What a bunch of fake free speech loving traitors.....and the sooner we destroy the notion of tenure the better...it completely destroys the effectiveness, commitment and passion for dispensing knowledge. Taranto of the WSJ blog has a great round-up on this Harvard folly. Even Harvard's own paper (Crimson) ripped these idiots with "The two non-binding motions, unique in Harvard's history, are largely symbolic gestures--only the Harvard Corporation, the University's top governing body, can force Summers to step down." In short, it was a show trial, both in procedure and in effect (that is, in the lack thereof). Fittingly, the venue for this vain display was the Loeb Drama Center.
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.
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
While I'm not a bible thumper (just ask my friends, some of them can post a comment to confirm this fact) the outrage I feel at the release of a watered down and modernized bible is enormous! This is disturbing and sad. These idiots (The International Bible Society) think you and everyone else is too dumb to understand a more literate translation of several thousand year old text. Why don't people realize that when you lower the bar, particularly for kids and young adults, they're more than happy to just make it over....however they're just as willing to embrace great challenge and the end result is life long (teach a man to fish!). What a joke that these pseudo intellectuals believe that the number of readers who would be confused by the true meaning of such words as "stoned" and "aliens" outweighs truth, original intent and a higher bar! After all wouldn't the poor sap not so bright as I think that a women "with child" means a women and a child already born to this world and not one who is pregnant? Oh, and least you think that the context of these words would make there actual meaning clear you must also assume the context is lost on these not so fortunate small yellow bus riding bible readers!
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?
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!
Update 3/15/05:
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.
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)
A complete copy of a piece of Taranto's Best of the Web WSJ column today I love it!
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.
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!
The Drudgereport puts a ridiculous headline (English linked to promiscuity in Hispanic teens) on a story of a study just released today that speaks to something called immigrant paradox, that Hispanics coming to the United States are healthier than second- and third-generation U.S. residents from the same countries. The study didn't in fact link speaking English to promiscuity! It did show that the students in the study who primarily speak English had sex at twice the rate of those who spoke primarily Spanish. So in idiotic fashion Drudge, and I'm sure others, will make either a headline or commentary about this study as if it's an indictment of our culture. As if this suggests to remain closer to their Hispanic culture would keep them more pure! Of course it never cross the minds of the academics who did this study that maybe the fact that speaking the local language better and frequently dramatically increased their social circle and thus the chances of a sexual encounter. Or, any number of other factors having better English skills would enable (getting a job, going to school, the knowledge that there is a better life outside of their community which could make them bitter, blah, blah)...but again all would increase their exposure to more people, and maybe more people with similar interests and thus hormones win out. Personal responsibility of both parents the kids themselves is the issue!
And the crying continues......
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 :))
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)