Day by Day

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Mars Rising

Slip on a jacket, it's chilly outside. And Mars is near--just 43 million miles away.

If you have ever been curious about the planets, go look. Nothing else in the night sky is nearly so bright. Even if you live under a street light, I am offering my personal money-back guarantee that you will find it.

Early in the evening, look east over Taurus. Later, Mars will arc high to the south, and Orion will come up under Taurus. This is the best show in the Autumn nights.

And remember, we still have two fully functional rovers buzzing around up there.


Guess who said it:

The hallmark of collectivists is their deep-rooted distrust of freedom and of the free-market process; but it is their advocacy of so-called ‘consumer protection’ that exposes the nature of their basic premises with particular clarity. By preferring force and fear to incentive and reward as a means of human motivation, they confess their view of man as a mindless brute functioning on the range of the moment, whose actual self-interest lies in ‘flying-by-night’ and making ‘quick kills’. They confess their ignorance in the production process, of the wide intellectual context and long-range vision required to maintain a modern industry. They confess their inability to grasp the crucial importance of the moral values which are the motive power of capitalism. Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtues, not of vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventive law, snooping bureaucrats and the chronic goad of fear.


Just read that one sentance a few times over. It is quite possibly one of the best rebuttles against liberal thinking that I have ever seen. Do you know who said it?

Well, if you read Random Nuclear Strikes every day, you would know.

Friday, October 28, 2005

RE: Plame @ Right Thinking

Don't read the whole thing, just read the first sentence, which sums it up quite nicely, though somewhat indelicately.

PLAME MEME BUSTIN'

FIRST - POOR POOR POOR POOR POOOOOOOR Li'l Plame just wants her privacy:

WRONG!

Here we see a picture of the very very very shy valerie in the July Issue of Vanity Fair!



The photo was taken at the magazine's annual dinner for the Tribeca Film Festival, and Plame's and Wilson's fellow guests included Robert deNiro, Nicole Kidman, Barry Diller, Willem Dafoe, John McEnroe, and many others. A "low key social life" indeed! Poor poor poor pooor poooooooooor li'l Plame!

SECOND - Pooor Poooooooor Poooooor li'l Plame was not "Outed"

Since "Straight Shootin'" Fitzgerald won't touch the issue, let's ask our friends in the Main Stream Media whether Plame was a secret agent at the time Robert Novak "outed" her:

"The nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups" filed a brief in federal court Wednesday arguing that "a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources," the Washington Post reports:

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003.


But don't take their word alone. Authors of the Law Say No Law Broken – Plame Doesn’t qualify



THIRD - Bush's 16 words were WELL FOUNDED:

The British government yesterday bolstered President Bush's assertion that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, casting further doubt on former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's claims to the contrary.
The conclusion was reached by Robin Butler, who once was Britain's top civil servant, in a major report on prewar intelligence that came five days after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached a similar conclusion in its report.
Taken together, the British and U.S. reports appear to undermine Mr. Wilson's criticism of Mr. Bush, which led to a criminal investigation of the White House and made the retired diplomat a media darling.
"It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999," the British report said. "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium.
"Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible," the report added.
That buttressed an assertion by Mr. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Yesterday, the British report called that assertion "well founded." The report was cited by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who told Parliament: "It expressly supports the intelligence on Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Niger in respect of Iraq's nuclear ambitions."
The State of the Union assertion rankled Mr. Wilson, who said he found no evidence of such an attempted purchase during a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger. Mr. Wilson arrived in the African nation in late February 2002.
"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," he wrote in the New York Times 18 months later. "Niger formally denied the charges."


FOURTH- Why are we even having this debate? Because Joe Wilson, attempting to bolster his credibility, claimed that Cheney was responsible for sending him to Niger. That's a lie. It was his wife:

Wilson was on CNN's "American Morning" the day after his column ran, spinning his straw into golden fabrications:

HEMMER: It's a wonderful day for us here at American Morning! You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not?

WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there — at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also found that Wilson lied about the role played by his wife, Valerie Plame, in his trip to Niger. Wilson wrote in his book, ironically titled The Politics of Truth, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, however, the Committee reported at p. 4:
[D]ocuments provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.


FIFTH - More Lies from Joe Liar Wilson (note: there are more than this even):

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report says about Wilson's trip to Niger - The following, at p. 8 of the report's "Niger" section:
The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002 ... The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki...said that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.
When Wilson talked to the Committee's staff, he related a version of events that was different from the official CIA report that summarized his oral debriefing, and it also contradicted the recollections of the relevant CIA employees. The committee wrote, at p. 9 of its report:
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and specifically, as refuting the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.
See also p. 38 of the report, where the Committee notes that most analysts understood Wilson's report from Niger as supporting the original CIA concerns about a possible uranium deal between Niger and Iraq.

And that's not all. The Senate committee also found that Wilson falsely leaked to the Washington Post the claim that certain documents purporting to show uranium sales between Niger and Iraq were forgeries because "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong," when in fact, he had never seen the documents and was not familiar with their contents. See p. 10 of the Committee's report:
Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He said he may have become confused about his own recollection....

To Sum up:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report shows that:
1) Wilson lied in the New York Times about what he told the CIA after he returned from Niger. In fact, far from debunking the concern that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium from Niger, Wilson reported that Niger's former Prime Minister told him that Iraq had made just such an overture in 1999.
2) Wilson lied when he leaked a report to the Washington Post about documents he had not even seen.
3) Wilson lied when he said that his wife Valerie "had nothing to do with" his being chosen to go to Niger.


More to come....

Ouch!

That sound you hear is a few Liberals being hoisted upon their own petard...

4. This prominent liberal says that conservatives are nasty, hateful people but once told a newspaper, “I dislike homosexuals. … I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed.”

a. Sean Penn
b. Ted Danson
c. Al Franken

Answer: C. Al Franken, Mr. Sensitivity, told the Harvard Crimson that very thing.

5. Who proclaims themself an environmentalist but is part-owner of a golf course that failed to comply with state environmental regulations to protect the California Tiger Salamander and the Western Pond Turtle?

a. Leonardo DiCaprio
b. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
c. Nancy Pelosi

Answer: C. Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and her husband are part owners of the CordeValle Golf Club in California. In 996 they were granted a permit to build the course if they created natural habitats for these endangered species. To date, these habitats still have not been built. The golf course has also been cited for polluting groundwater. They have hired lobbyists to fight the regulations.

6. Who says that Americans need to consume less to stave off ecological disaster, but spends $22,000 a year towater their lawn?

a. Hillary Clinton
b. Barbra Streisand
c. Rob Reiner

Answer: B. Barbra Streisand. The singer, who says that cutting back is the only way to protect the environment, lives alone with her husband on a compound with five homes and a 12,000 square foot air conditioned barn.


As usual, the "Do as I say, not as I do" crowd doesn't dissapoint with their hypocrisy.

Found via Drumwaster's Rants.

NEWS FLASH: The Fall of This Administration Has Been Postponed

Solid work by Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

30 December 2003: Fitzgerald begins looking for evidence of treasonous acts such as revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent, thereby endangering her and everyone she knows.

28 October 2005: Fitzgerald announces an indictment charging I. Lewis Libby with five counts of

Failing to Recall an Email



Way to go, Pat.

Why I Didn't Read the Letter

I'm sorry, but I don't feel the Rove. It's strange, after years of pleasant mind control rays making life easy. Now all of a sudden, I have to think on my own and it's not working.

I don't understand the end of the Harriet Meirs' story. I didn't understand the begging and middle of this story either. It's been like a bad movie. I want to get out of the theater and into a cocktail. Or sort my socks. I'm willing to take on my kitchen sink trap, if it will get me out of reading read her letter of withdrawal.

I like Meirs. She has way more experience than Roberts, and nobody claimed he was any smarter. I especially like the nature of her experience. The ruling class elite are already fully represented on the SCOTUS. It would be very useful to have someone who has been on the business end of so many gonzo rulings in the past, to have a supreme voice. But nobody made those points for her, and now she has given up the chance to make them for herself.

Am I supposed to be happy? Early on, Frum called this an "unforced error." Now he suggests we keep "the powder dry," because writers know that sports metaphors make them look smarter. Coulter says "it's morning in American" and time to pleasure herself in ecstatic prose, because ... that's what she does so well. We hear that Liberals are sad all over. If this is a Conservative victory, why do I feel victimized?

At this point, an MIB flashy thingy would be perfect. All I need to remember is how the nomination process started with an articulate Constitutional scholar sporting stelar Conservative creds, and proceeded through the Senate like railroad tracks in the Wyoming desert. Just a few glimpses of Joe Biden's french cuffs and Pat Leahy wiping up drool will be fine, thank you.

Research Needed

Can anyone find me a picture of Steve Gilliard?

Must Read, I dare say

The New York Times, caught again. This is effing nauseating.

Last night, I received a letter from Corporal Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the story--and the parts of Corporal Starr's letter that the Times failed to include...
Michelle Malkin

Oy!

The Democrat candidate for Governor of Virginia has pulled a BlogAd from the blog that posted this depiction of Maryland Lieutenant Governor Mike Steele:



Result: Keeepy Kos Kidz goin' hog wild.

My favorite part is the comments, inlcuding these:

"That picture crossed the line - plain and simple."

"Oh Pleez. No it didn't."

"That's a matter of opinion..."


And of course Screw 'Em kicked it all off with this:

The last thing any of us need are bloggers afraid to be themselves lest they lose out on ad money. And that's what this sort of shit creates. It's a chilling effect.
Brrrrrr!

Thursday, October 27, 2005

I don't know why...

...but this made me laugh my arz off:



Bob Durnan's AVIATION ART HANGAR

I hate to say "I told you so," but...

Today, President Bush said:
"It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during [Harriet Miers'] tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel."
And it is equally clear, at least to me, that Bush thought long and hard about this very issue before the Miers nomination was made in the first place. Two words: Poker. Player.
If I had to pick a third word it would be either "genius" or "Rovian," or better yet ... MISUNDERESTIMATED.

The Pleasure of Your Acquaintance

Hello, this is Helen.

After years of almost daily pestering, I was able to convince Tim that you deserve the right to experience my charm, wit, and extensive gardening experience. Finally, he relented. So here we go.

I am a Compassionate Conservationist, working to save the environment, and writing from the arctic rain forest of Northern Vermont. If you are curious, you can view a picturesque introduction that reveals far more than anyone could possibly want to know.

I mention gardening because it is the most interactive puzzle ever conceived. It occupies a lot of my little Summer and consumes huge quantities of my cash. It's my gymnasium, my pallet, and my classroom. Each plant variety comes with its own rules. Each micro-ecosystem is constantly changing and demanding attention.

Every pest imposes a unique threat. Some can be ignored for a while or thinned. Some need to be regularly weeded out. Others are best crushed on sight. Sorry for the abrupt change of topics--I'm talking about politics now.

For those of you who don't keep a garden, please consider it as great opportunity to better understand human society. Disinterest, wishful thinking, inaction lead directly to disaster. Each season produces new waves of weeds, and bugs, and Leftists. I know, it's not fair. However, the garden's truth is irrefutible. If we don't keep after them, there is no hope for growing the Cornucopia of America.

Thank you for your interest. I look forward to chatting with you on many issues. H

Dirty Filthy Chirac

"Read the whole thing, which is still more support, if any were needed, for the Den Beste Theory that France, et al., were opposed to invasion in part for fear that once Saddam was toppled we'd discover how much they'd been violating sanctions."

Live from Seattle

God, but you must miss the place, Dave. lgf: Seattle College Doctors Ward Churchill Photo

Celebrating the 2000th American Death in the Iraq War

Pictures from somber and respectful marches in California.

Kinda reminds me of the Wellstone Memorial.



Miers Has Withdrawn

BREITBART.COM

Time to move quickly now. Nominate someone dead-on-balls Conservative, and fight it out.

2000

I figure I'll add my two cents to whatever the rest of the world is saying about the 2000th death of a US servicemember in Iraq.

First of all, I think Drumwaster's Rants has a good lesson in perspective.

Now then, to get to the meat of the matter:

Those two-thousand people died fighting for a multitude of reasons, no matter what the mentally deranged Left wants to think. They died clearing out a nest of terrorists. Anyone who tries to say that Iraq didn't have ties with international terrorism is a fucking moron who needs to remove their head out from their ass. Google up Abu Nidal. For cripes sake, Iraq had the fuselage of a Boeing 747 set up in a training camp! Just what could they use that for, hmmmmmm?

They did removing a genocidal mass-murdering dictator who threatened world peace. Anyone who thinks Saddam wasn't a threat is also a fucking moron with their head up their ass. As we're finding out more every day, the UN "sanctions" didn't do a damn thing except provide a source of funds for corrupt UN beurocrats and world leaders who were in Saddam's hip pocket, as well as allowing Saddam to buy damn near anything he wanted. Isn't it funny how new palaces sprang up in Iraq every year? Do you want me to believe that he had billions of dollars to spend on new palaces but not one cent for weapons? If you do, then you're too fucking stupid to debate with. Go back to 3rd grade.

They died to protect America in the long term, not just the short term. Allowing that section of the world to continue to be nothing but dictator controlled shitholes looking to blame anyone and everyone for their problems would do nothing but hurt the world as a whole. Afghanistan and Iraq are now democratic countries, voting on their constitutions, electing officials to represent them, and despite what the media wants you to believe, growing more stable every day.

Of course, since the liberals swallow whatever the MSM put down before them unquestioningly, I don't expect anyone from the Left to understand that. The Left would never listen to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are IN those countries, making a difference. The Left would never listen to the boots on the ground who see the country day in and day out. The Left would never listen to the people who are actually THERE, because that would destroy their flimsy little make-believe world about how Iraq is actually a QUAGMIRE!!!!!! But that's why I call liberals the stupidest people on the face of the earth. Because their ignorance is forced upon them by themselves.

Those two thousand people died protecting a way of life that the Left only gives lip-service to. Those two thousand people died to make the world a better place. And those two thousand people died for ideals that have become sneer quote material for the Left. Freedom. Independence. Self-rule.

They died so that Iraqis wouldn't fear being dropped into industrial grade plastic shredders whenever they voiced their opinion.

So yes, I expect to see an orgy of self-congratulation from the Left. I expect to see the Left celebrate those two thousand deaths like it's New Year's Eve. Because when it all comes down to it, the Left isn't anti-war, it's on the other side. But I hope that we on the Right haven't allowed the screaming children of the Left to cloud the meaning of those two thousand deaths.

They died so that others would live.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Why we vote (R)

I interrupt the GOP bashing for something you may have missed (lifted directly from Curiouser and Curiouser, with permission):

On October 20, 2005, the US House of Representatives voted on HR 493.
The resolution passed by a vote of 283 yeas to 144 nays.

Here is the text of the resolution:

H. Res. 493

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 18, 2005.


Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

This resolution, if you can read through the legal phraseology, removes liability from manufacturers, and others who deal in firearms and ammunition based on someone who purchases their firearms or ammunition using them incorrectly or improperly.

Proponents of the Second Amendment are in support of this measure, as am I, for it will eliminate the frivolous law suits associated with this industry by victims of criminals and others who improperly use firearms. These lawsuits have always been both a "get rich" scheme for those who could not get compensation from the actual criminal because they are usually too poor to pay it and a mechanism for the anti-gun types such as most liberals and the ACLU to impose severe, unfair, and unnecessary costs on the industry as a means to harm or destroy it.

The bill will now go to the President who will eagerly sign it and it will become the law of the land. I applaud the congress and the President for removing this ridiculous liability from people who never deserved to have it hanging over their heads. It has put several companies out of business and has added huge costs to the price of owning a firearm - a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

But there is another lesson here especially for conservatives. Take a look at the voting breakdown in the House:

Republicans voting for: 223
Republicans voting against: 4
Percentage for: 98.2
Percentage against: 1.8

Democrats voting for: 59
Democrats voting against: 140
Percentage for: 29.6
Percentage against: 70.4

We are able to right these wrongs and strengthen our Constitutional rights because, as you can see from the numbers above, Republicans support them by an overwhelming margin while Democrats oppose them most vigorously.

Those of you out there that are attacking the President, the Republican party, and conservatives in general had better pay heed to things like this. These attacks, whether over the Miers nomination or complaints about spending do nothing but weaken the Republican party and its ability to make sure that it retains the numbers in both houses of congress and the White House to protect our rights.

This bill passed the Senate on July 29, 2005 with a vote of 65 yeas and 31 nays. In the senate, the breakdown was:

Republicans voting for: 50
Republicans voting against: 2
Percentage for: 96.2
Percentage against: 3.8

Democrats voting for: 14
Democrats voting against: 29
Percentage for: 32.6
Percentage against: 67.4

The percentages in the US Senate approximate those in the US House. The bottom line is that the Democrats, who stand to benefit by gaining seats in both houses based on silly partisan bickering going on in Republican ranks, will trample on our rights with great glee. If you think this bill would ever have passed with a Democrat majority in either house, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think for one second that a Democrat president would sign it if it did, here's a little reality smack. Here are some who voted against the bill in the senate:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)

Many of those above have had or still have designs on the White House. All voted to trample on our Second amendment rights. None of them would have signed this law as president.


I will only add the following to Scaramonga's very pertinent point:

This legislation wouldn't have seen the light of day with the donkeys in charge. Be assured that legislation which would have the exact opposite affect would have. Change doesn't happen overnight. And when it comes to who we elect to set the legislative agenda and sign it into law, the stakes absolutely can not be higher. Keep things in perspective and stay on target.

Shake 'em up and kick 'em out.

Folks, as much as it pains me, I think we finally have to come to grips with the truth.

The Republicans are finished as a conservative political party. End of story.

I've been reading stories and news articles all evening, and the best that I can figure is that the Republicans are running on their reputation and hoping that we don't notice how many of them have turned into Democrats in the past few years.

Take spending, for example.

Once Republicans were in power, they started spending money even faster than the Democrats did.

Big spender Ted Stevens responded to Coburn's good suggestion to kill a "Bridge to Nowhere" with a tantrum on the Senate floor: He threatened to resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher."


The only thing saving our economy is the fact that we've taken the Democrats fingers off of the tax button. When the only difference between your two parties is who does the taxing, you're shit out of luck. The next thing you know, you're going to have Republicans talking about how everybody deserves "free" healthcare.

Immigration? Both parties seem to be in favor of opening up our borders and allowing god knows who to walk into our country hassle-free. There may be exceptions to the rule, but the exception PROVES the rule as well.

The only noticable difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans still have some testicular fortitude when it comes to dealing with people who want to kill us, while Democrats either piss themselves and run away hiding, or openly collaborate with the enemy.

But c'mon, let's not kid ourselves here. Other than foriegn policy, there's not much difference between the two. In fact, I could say that foriegn policy is the ONLY noticable difference between the two right now.

Why the fuck do conservatives still vote Republican again?

Oh, that's right, because Democrats are a bunch of unhinged loons who are incapable of having any kind of coherant thought without going into spittle-flinging spasms while shrieking "BUSHITLER LIED" at ear-splitting volume. While poking at BDS monkeys might be fun in the short run, it's no way to protect this country from the liberals who want to turn us into emasculated EUnich clones. Right now, the only real argument I hear for Republicans is "Yeah, but the Democrats are worse...."

You're right, the Democrats ARE worse. The Democrats should be kept away from power for the rest of this country's existance, but just because they act like three year old brats who found their daddy's meth stash doesn't mean that the Republicans are anything to sing about! That's like saying "Yeah, I got leprosy, but ebola is worse!" So what, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO DIE!

I don't have any quick answers to give you, but recognising the problem is the first step to fixing it. So say it with me: Republicans are no longer conservative. Quite possibly, they haven't been truly conservative for years. And it's time they were kicked out of office.

The Democrats we can tar and feather as the back-stabbing, yellow bellied traitors they are.

Noticed anything odd about the Astros?

Astros roster has no black players

Joe Morgan worries about the face of baseball. Watching the World Series, the Hall of Famer is troubled by what he sees.

His old team, the Houston Astros, is down 3-0 to the Chicago White Sox, but it's not their lineup that concerns Morgan. It's their makeup.

The Astros are the first World Series team in more than a half-century with a roster that doesn't include a single black player.

"Of course I noticed it. How could you not?" Morgan said while the Astros took batting practice before the opener in Chicago.
.
.
.
Morgan said it's a predicament and a challenge for Major League Baseball. While more players from around the world are making it to the majors - Japan, Korea, for example - the number of blacks is declining.

"It's a daunting task to get African-American kids into baseball, and I don't see the trend changing," he said.
.
.
.
Black players accounted for just about 9 percent of big league rosters this season.

"We know that we have to work to do," Commissioner Bud Selig said Tuesday. "We'll continue to intensify our efforts. I'm very aware, I'm extremely sensitive about it, and I feel badly about it. But we need to get to work to change things."
Major League Baseball has work to do, eh?

What about the NBA?

Two years ago we blogged here about the diversity among opinions regarding diversity of skin color in sports. That post is here.

I recall posting that because i saw a feature on ESPN about the scarcity of white high school boys in basketball. The conclusion was clear -- that white kids were choosing to opt out of basketball because they felt they couldn't compete. They choose baseball and football instead. There was a complete absence in that ESPN piece about institutional racism in basketball at ALL levels - whereby a coach, faced choose between a white player or black player of equivalent skills, will keep the black player, because blacks become better basketball players.

It's all very strange how it works. "Underrepresentation" of blacks, in any arena of life, is bad, something to be sensitive to, something to work on, something to feel badly about.

Underrepresentation of whites? Well, who gives a shit?

Fifty bucks says we'll see no articles about the lack of whites on this year's NBA champion.

Some Europeans Aren't Fans of Halloween

Oy!
Although Halloween has become increasingly popular across Europe — complete with carved pumpkins, witches on broomsticks, makeshift houses of horror and costumed children rushing door to door for candy — it's begun to breed a backlash.

Critics see it as the epitome of crass, U.S.-style commercialism. Clerics and conservatives contend it clashes with the spirit of traditional Nov. 1 All Saints' Day remembrances.

And it's got purists in countries struggling to retain a sense of uniqueness in Europe's ever-enlarging melting pot grimacing like Jack o' Lanterns.

Halloween "undermines our cultural identity," complained the Rev. Giordano Frosini, a Roman Catholic theologian who serves as vicar-general in the Diocese of Pistoia near Florence, Italy.

Frosini denounced the holiday as a "manifestation of neo-paganism" and an expression of American cultural supremacy. "Pumpkins show their emptiness," he said.
"Pumpkins show their emptiness". LOL

Methinks Reverend Frosini is ten olives short of an antipasto.

Some Europeans Aren't Fans of Halloween

UPDATE: Ditto China

Doctoring Photos of the Secretary of State



USA Today is airburshing Condoleezza Rice. Be sure to follow the link "Katherine Harris vs. the Photo Doctors" and click around.

More.

The Raging Mrs. speaks

Every now and then, the Raging Mrs. will see a certain behavior that sets her off. She'll grit her teeth, mutter something under her breath, and I'll turn to her and say "Why don't you write that down? Get it off your chest."

She finally took my advice. And I'm going to post it. So get ready folks, because here is the unedited version of the Raging Mrs' essay.

The Anatomy of a Woman
From a woman’s point of view

A few years ago my best friend told me that a woman had bitten off his head because he “opened a door for her”. Before this point I had never understood just how ball-biting feminism is. Over the years I have discovered many more “truth’s” from this misunderstood ideal. There are some feminists that believe that any intercourse with a man is “rape”. Unfortunately as far as I can tell what feminism validates is women hating men because they want to conquer men. The sexes are different. If we are equal then, why are the rules changed as soon as we are allowed in? Why are men not allowed to have their own clubs, but god forbid a man wants into a woman only club. Hell breaks loose.

I should probably explain my viewpoint on this matter. I am a woman. I can and will do what I am capable of. This does not mean that I should not allow a man to be courteous and carry heavy things for me, or open a door. Is that not Chivalry. As I said, “I am a woman”, what I did not say is, that it is a damn good thing and men better take notice and appreciate.

I do come from a traditional background. I believe there is a reason that the traditional roles lasted as long as they did. It really utilized both sexes to their best. The woman is able to nurture, care for the house, bear and raise the children, and the man is the hunter-gatherer-provider and protector.

Who ever came up with the lie that "you can have everything" needs to be hung. Too many women believe that they can have the faithful husband, 2.5 children, the dog, the cat, keep up with the Jones’s, climb the corporate ladder and NOTHING will suffer.

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!


The only difference between the woman who says she “doesn’t need a man” and still thinks she can achieve all of the above and the woman above, is that the afore mentioned has her husbands balls in her purse, and might allow him to see them once in a while. Kim du Toit illustrates this very poignantly in his essay
"The Pussification of the Western Male"


The reality is that our youth is all the proof you should need to know that it doesn’t work. Children need a parent at home. If they do not have that stability, they become almost incapable of stability. What they learn is all of the bad! They learn that money is everything and to disrespect and talk back to their parents. They disrespect their parent because they are cared for, they are ornamentation for their parents convenience. If you do not feel that you matter, you will not give respect!

Despite the “ideal” that we should be able to do it all, who stays home when the kids are sick? Who goes to the Parent-Teacher conferences? Who cooks dinner? Who cleans the house? Who is sooooo stressed out that they snap when all their child wants is a little bit of quality time? Gee, it might just be the woman that can’t see straight, because she “wants it all”!


If she were willing to give up the corporate ladder the family could be a lot happier. A lot of people might ask why can’t the man stay home with the children? The answer is that men are made to endure in physical hardship. A lot of men have a hard time with emotional hardship. You can try to tell me this is because they were not taught to deal with it. I do not believe that to be the case. Have you seen men that were raised by women, with little or no male influence? They come into the world not quite knowing how to be a man, and highly confused about women. This confusion is more than with most men, it is a mix of hating, loving, wanting to conquer and feeling a need to submit. It torments them, they are constantly tortured by this confusion.

A woman can climb the corporate ladder if she is willing to make sacrifices in her personal life. If you want to climb the corporate ladder, the husband may be doable, but do not bring kids into this mix. Three months is not long enough to stay home with the baby! Who would raise them, the nanny? I think Fran Dresser is married and busy with her step children.

This leads me to a related topic, wages, equal pay for equal work. Many women would have you believe that they earn less then men for the exact same work. This is wrong, if you look at the quality of work, the time spent at work, productivity, etc…, you would usually find that women are getting paid equal money for equal work. I have no doubt that there are exceptions in both directions.

At this point you probably think I hate women. That is not the case. I hate the behaviors women have that destroy society. If women would understand how precious the ability to nurture and run a house is, instead of thinking it’s menial, I truly believe they would be much happier. It takes a special person to be a house wife.

I believe the acceptance and embracing of traditional values would make the divorce rate plummet!

I will preface these next statements with the knowledge that I am a very assertive, to the point, independent woman, who is incapable of backing down. Having said that….

I believe that we as women need to nurture our men, dress for them, cook for them, make them want to come home after they have been away for even a few minutes. We should spend every day seducing and enjoying our men in every way fathomable. Though, if they have crossed the line, we need to let them know, and not pass it off until we are ready to kill them.

Men need to be allowed to provide for us, protect us, care for us, and love is in their way. They also need to call us on it, as soon as we step out of line.

Does this work in reality? HELL YEAH!!!

My husband and I have been together for over 4 years, we just celebrated our 1st anniversary. We live by these rules every day. We are better for it, our relationship is better for it. Every day is like a honeymoon. Usually when I have tried to give him “guy time”, he has invited me along. My husband is no where near whipped. I did a “spine check” before we had dated a month. He is the only person capable of pulling me back, when I have gone over the edge.

The reality is that I believe that we should be allowed many places. I do not believe we should use the court system for it. I think we should earn it. As I look at all of the double standards enacted by women after they have forced their way into places, it makes me sick. Here is an example.

The US Army Physical fitness requirements

For someone 32-36
Men Exercise Women
36 push-ups 15
42 sit ups 42
17:42 2 mile run 21:42


These standards are not even close to each other. To further demonstrate the difference, usually men easily pass this test, while most women struggle to meet their lesser requirements. These are the people defending our country. Do you want someone next to you that you that can not fulfill their duties because of lesser standards.

I think the women should have the same standard as the men. I do not mean that we should drop the male standard, I mean we should do away with the female standard and have everyone go by the higher requirements. Yes, this would eliminate a lot of women. The important point is that if a woman is in the US Army, under the same standards, we would know they earned their position, as an equal.

Unfortunately women are notorious for having double standards. Women want into the men’s clubs, gyms, sports teams…. And when a man tries to fight back using the same tactics the same women who are screaming for equality show such venom about a man daring to invade their space.

These are the same women that wear tight fitting clothing, that shows every curve, and if you look at them, or compliment them, they file a sexual harassment suite, getting YOU fired!!!

Laugh if you will. A few years ago in Salem Oregon a state worker was sued for sexual harassment because he looked at a woman for a few seconds, on one occasion. This is how extreme and out of had it is.

Quite honestly another reason that I believe most feminism to be such a sham is that it has taught women to be vile back-stabbing politicking creatures that can not be trusted. Just look at how badly women behave in order to “get to the top”. I see too many of these women. I recognize them almost immediately. I want nothing to do with them. I only deal with them if absolutely necessary. I do not like having to ask what they see in it for them, and how I am going to get screwed this time. Women don’t just do that for work, they do it for men, for pleasure, the fun of it. Yes, a lot of women get off by seeing just how bad they can be. Unfortunately a lot of men let them get away with it.

Let me tell you guys…
Yes, I have known women like this that would take your used condom, out of the trash, and use it with a turkey baster, later, making you pay child support, for her greed. These are the same women that will stalk you, press false rape charges, cut up your belongings, destroy your car, kill your dog assuming you have one.

They really are vile. If you let a woman get away with bad behavior, even once, she knows it is acceptable and will therefore continue it until her dying day.

I will finish this concept with what I consider to be some honest thinking

Have you ever heard of Tom Leykis?
A lot of people hate him. I happen to think he is right in most of his opinions. Of course there are times when I think he needs a grip.

Tom Leykis official website

My second reference is Heinlein’s “To Sail Beyond the Sunset”. I consider this a fairly good military wives handbook. Get past the infidelity and other oddities and you have a lot of great suggestions for a happy relationship or marriageJ

Well this is a goodly part of my opinion about today’s women and feminist.
I hope my husband will request me to offer my opinion in the future.

Until then…


The Raging Mrs.


(Raging Dave comments) Let me add just a little bit of my own thoughts on the matter. Civilization didn't start because some caveman clubbed a wolly mammoth over the head and drug it home. Civilization started because there was a home for that caveman to come back to. Thanks to a woman.

The point is that being a mother is special. Taking care of the home is special. Guys don't have more than one woman as their wife (well, unless you're part of the very odd 1% in America). When a woman assumes the role of nurturer and mother, she's assuming a position of responsibility that no one else can fill. Being a homemaker doesn't degrade anybody, it makes you special.

But when you come out and declare your equality, and put yourself beside us every dayin the workplace? Well, there's plenty of people at work who are all the same as us. Women take themselves out of their special positions every day and join the ranks as just another worker. Only with boobs. You're no longer special. Pardon me for being crude, but just as many "fathers" today are in reality nothing more than sperm donors, a woman who removes what makes her special in the intrest of "equality" is just a sperm receptical. And I know that statement is going to piss people off, but so be it. The worst thing that feminism did was teach women that men weren't important, and teach men that sex is free.

Women, if all you have to offer a man is sex, then that's all you'll get in return. Think about it. Sex, while extremly fun, isn't that special. And that's all I'm going to say on this post.

Monday, October 24, 2005

And since I was at RNS already.....

Ulysses S. Grant
You scored 81 Wisdom, 58 Tactics, 65 Guts, and 48 Ruthlessness!

Like you, Grant went about the distasteful business of war
realistically and grimly. His courage as a commander of forces and his
powers of organization and administration made him the outstanding
Northern general. Grant, though, had no problem throwing away lives on
huge seiges of heavily defended positions. At times, Union casualties
under Grant were over double that of the Confederacy. However, Grant
was notably wise in supporting good commanders, especially Sheridan ,
William T. Sherman , and George H. Thomas. Made a full general in 1866,
he was the first U.S. citizen to hold that rank.



My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 96% on Unorthodox
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 25% on Tactics
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 83% on Guts
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 46% on Ruthlessness
Link: The Which Historic General Are You Test written by dasnyds on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test


It's OK, AK. You can still me my master of demolitions. Heh.

Got a tattoo gun?

Because this needs to be tattooed onto the forehead of EVERY CONGRESSCRITTER IN EXISTANCE!

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own efforts.

Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness – not the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that other must make him happy.

The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right to free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.


Go read the rest.

Ron de Barrilito, Round 2

So, I went out and bought a bottle of the Ron de Barrilito rum that I had at the Don Collins cigar store.

Ho-ly CRAP this stuff is good!

And I found out that I might be able to get a hand made oak barrel to keep my rum in. Happy Birthday to me!

Four Right Wing Wackos meets The Washington Post

Sort of, anyway.



The Abortion Debate No One Wants to Have


Spanish Judge to be busy

Remember those arrest warrants for the three US soldiers?

Rockets and car bombs hit the Palestine Hotel on Monday, wounding at least five people and causing considerable damage to the building that houses many foreign journalists, Iraqi police and journalists said.
Dude's indictment pen is gonna be mighty busy.

Go get 'em, Tiger!

Journalists' Hotel in Baghdad Attacked

Hey buddy, got a dragon?

OK, here's an official Bleg. Lemme give you some background:

My unit, which is still getting formed, needs a mascot or logo. Being as we're a chemical company, the official Chem "logo" is a dragon. Now, I have several talents, but drawing or painting isn't one of them. Hey, a guy has to know his limits, ya know?

So this is what I need, if there's anyone out there artistic who'd like to give it a shot. I need a dragon that the company can use for signs, letterhead, ect. I have a few ideas, but what I really want to see incorporated is la garita.

Las Garitas were the sentry towers built into the Old San Juan wall, as part of Castillo del Morro and Castillo de San Cristobal. They've become almost a logo for Puerto Rico itself.



The 65th RSC, which I belong to, has a garita as the unit patch.



So here's what I'm thinking. I need a dragon either perched or crawling on a garita, although it doesn't have to be used. The only real requirements I have is that I be able to shrink the image down and use it on letterhead (perhaps filled in as a silhouette). In any case, if there's anyone out there who would like to give it a try, I'll make sure your name is on it, copyright it, whatever I need to do so that everyone knows that YOU are the artist, not me.

So what say you? Any takers?

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Good thoughts on a bad week

What a week. I would like to say that it was fun, and a great time had by all, but it wasn't. I haven't had a day to myself in several weeks..

Ah well. That's life in the Army, I guess.

But I won't bitch about my job too much on the blog. I volunteered for this shit, and I deal with it. However, I will tell you about two things that made my week a bit nicer. The number one thing that put a smile on my face today was walking into this store in Old San Juan. Don Collins cigars. Hoooo, boy, did that put a smile on my face.

I had been to the store before, several months ago. The Raging Mrs. and I were enjoying a walk through the city when I saw a sign that simply said "Cigars". I bought a few, and they were excellent. Since my brother's birthday is coming up, I figured I'd buy him a couple and mail them off.

When we walked in today, the salesman immediately offered me a cigar to sample on the house. I was more than happy to accept. While I puffed away, looking at the humidor, he offered me a sample of rum from a local distillery.

That was the second big smile of the day. More on that later.

So, I have a damn good cigar in one hand, a small glass of rum in the other, and I'm feeling pretty damn good. So I start talking to the guy. Turns out he graduated from the high school here on Ft. Buchanan. He can tell I'm a gringo, and we start chatting about the military while I'm browsing. I grab four cigars for my brother, two cheroots for the wife and myself, and I head towards the counter. The guy grabs four more cigars, says "I'll double you up on the house as long as you pass one or two out to your co-workers."

Done deal!

So, my co-workers are getting a good cigar, my brother is getting his stogies, I had one fine cigar and a glass of rum that knocked my socks off, and the wife has one happy husband.

It's been a damn good day!

Anyways, if you like a good cigar, check out Don Collins. It's all grown and crafted in Puerto Rico, and they're some of the best I've had. The Cupido Knuckles were probably number one on my list, but since they were a limited production and I can't get any more......

The second smile? The rum. Ron de Barrilito. Most people think of Puerto Rican rum as Bacardi and nothing else, but this stuff was liquid gold. I don't know if you can get it in the states or not, but the actual distillery is about one mile from my Battalion.

Lucky Me!

So anyways, check out the cigars if you like them. They're excellent smokes, and at a decent price. I'll be headed back there once my supply runs out. And if you can get Ron de Barrilito rum where you are, grab it. It's gooooooooooooooooood stuff.

And there you go. Two things I can smile about, no matter what else happens.

I'm noticing a theme

Way back when, I wrote a little piece on John Stossle's Ten Myths entited Lies, Myths and Stupidity. It was an ABC piece about, well, you know. Anyways, Myth number 3 was "Guns are bad!"

It seems that John Stossle just expanded on that myth.

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.


(Emphasis mine)

There is so much evidence showing that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons actually lowers crime that the only excuse for people like Al Sharpton's ignorance is that they refuse to learn. They have their pre-conceived notions clutched tight to their chest and they refuse to let go.

Hell, that explains the entire Liberal ideology in a nutshell. It doesn't FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL good, so they refuse to believe it, facts and truth be damned to hell.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.


(Again, emphasis mine).

The gun grabbers have no ammunition left for their illegal bans and confiscations. Look for them now to simply try to railroad their dirty tricks through congress, because their arguments never stood up to logic and facts.

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."


I couldn't have said it better myself. And you can find Real Clear Politics (where I linked to anyways) link on our blogroll.