Day by Day

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Five minutes of CNN is all I can take

I don't know why the tv channel was on CNN but it was. I watched it for maybe five minutes while ironing a shirt a few minutes ago. Cafferty was on and he had some guy named Dean Baker, an "economic policy expert" from, according to Cafferty, a Washington DC "thinktank." The point of the report was how awful our healthcare system is, how we're paying too much, etc. So this Baker guy blasts the revamped Medicare program and calls for a health care "overhaul." Basically, this "expert" was on CNN to promote socialized healthcare; he kept saying how much better things are in other countries. Baker said that people in other countries, like Canada (his example), countries with socialized medicine, "live longer than we do" here in the US. He repeated this "fact" at least five times in the short segment before I'd had enough, found the remote and changed the channel. You see, this guy was lying his ass off as anyone who bothers to check can plainly see.

And I can't stand being lied to. The fact is, people in countries with socialized medicine are not living longer than those in the U.S. Period. CNN put Dean Baker on so he would say what they wanted him to say. The question I have is, can CNN not afford better propaganda?

Friday, February 24, 2006

al-Gore TV....

...is off to a rip-roaring start.

Car Bombers Foiled at Saudi Oil Site

This is Iran's target.

The world's Achilles Heel is in Saudi Arabia, and it is called Abqaiq. All Iran need do is point a nuke at it and the world economy goes into a tailspin.

More here.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Got Parodies?

Send 'em to me!



SlimyBill@hotmail.com

I roared with laughter....

...when I saw this...



...at the .:DANEgerus Weblog:.

Tremendous. Follow the links to see other illustrations. It's kinda cool that the Democrats are squirrels and the Republicans (apparently) are rich people, except when they are huge elephants about to trample homeless men. And the rich Republican smokes a cigar.

Also, check out the graduate's robe above.

Picking sides

Officials in Iraq are trying their best to not have a civil war on their hands following the bombing of the 1,200-year-old Askariya shrine.

I might get flamed for this, but at this point in history, I'm wondering if it would be so horrible for people to pick up guns and choose their sides.

The Shiites, while not exactly a happy-go-lucky bunch, seem to be the reasonable group in this whole operation. The Sunnis on the other hand seem to be the group that wants to blow up children and anything considered valuable by their enemies. And let's face it, with Iranian backing the Sunnis have managed to do more damage to Iraqis than anyone else.

So what would be wrong with the Shiites finally saying "enough"? If the Sunnis blew up the church in my hometown, you could be damn sure that there would be a whole lot of people going hunting without a permit, if you catch my drift. What's wrong with one side, who has suffered more under the Sunnis than anyone can possibly imagine, finally saying "That's it, you're done." and picking up their guns? Could anyone blame them?

More to the point, perhaps a civil war is what's needed if there's going to be peace in the Middle East. It's a shitty thing to say, but I happen to think it's true. You can't have peace when one side of the conflict refuses to stop killing people. You can't have peace when one group of people is willing to detonate bombs in holy sites. You can't have peace when one group of people attacks innocent children, police stations, targets civilians for death, destroys infrastructure, and refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of co-existance.

Given that situation, telling people not to fight back seems a bit rediculous to me. When someone is shooting at you, do you cry out "Hey, let's just be friends!" or do you pick up your gun and return fire? I don't know about you, but I'd be putting some high velocity diplomacy into whoever was shooting at me. I think that there might be more good that comes of of a civil war than the conditions in Iraq right now. And when the Sunnis are well and truly defeated, maybe the country can finally get fully on their feet.

As much as the world says they want peace, it's only OUR side that really wants it. That's not the way peace happens. You don't have peace by just refusing to fight. You have peace when the people who want to kill you are either dead, or unable to do anything to you. This is a battle that has been brewing for years. I say we let the two side settle their differences, and give support to our guys.

Call me heartless if you want, but I'd like to think that I'm also realistic.

I've been kinda quiet

About the whole Port Management Deal. I guess this was an issue that I didn't want to go off half-cocked on. But my understanding of the whole thing is this:

A company that handles loading and unloading of the ports has been sold to another company, who just happens to be owned by the UAE. Now, from what I understand it's only the cargo handling that this company oversees, correct?

So here's what I'm thinking; what's the big deal?

This company has no say on what comes into the port. This company has no say on what's allowed or not allowed on a ship. This company isn't going to bring people from overseas to work in our ports. This company still has to operate under US rules and regulations. This company does not have a single thing to do with security in the six ports it would operate in.

Given the above facts, I really can't see what all the hullabaloo is about. Now, if people want to hold off for a while to make sure that the above facts are true, be my guest. But the hysterical shouts from both sides of how Bush and Co. are selling out our national security seem to be a bit over the top.

However on the other hand, Jimmah "Peanut" Carter is in favor of the deal, which makes me want to run away from it as fast as possible. So I'm in a bit of a quandry here.......

Michelle Malkin has a huge post about the entire deal, and brings up the fact that since this company would be operating in our ports, they would have sensitive information about how we run them. This is indeed a concern, and one that needs to be addressed before we allow any company to come into our ports. However, given the unreliability of many countries that we're supposedly allies with, (and the complete reliability of our own CIA to be unreliable) if we place the condition that only countries friendly to us and able to keep secrets about our port security plans are allowed to run the ports, that narrows the countries down to Great Britain, Australia, Poland, and ourselves.

Seriously, do you want fwance, Russia, or Germany running our ports? Canada has turned a corner, but I still remember the sheer amount of anti-Americanism that came from up North before their last election. Other than the countries I've named, who's left?

Honestly, I don't understand why an American company can't be found to run American ports, but since none of them seem to be stepping up and saying "Hey, we'll do it!" then we're stuck with the people we have. Now if you want to change the rules to say that only the security forces and US Customs are allowed to know our emergency and security plans, I'd be all for it. But until someone can come up with a viable alternative to port management, let's all keep our tones down. The things I've seen said over the past week about this deal have me scratching my head.

Anyways, go read Mrs. Malkin's post, since she's got opinions from just about everywhere. But come back and tell me if you think I'm wrong in wondering what the big deal is about.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

al Reuters stikes again

Check out this "news" item:
ZURICH (Reuters) - Employers are having difficulty finding the right people to fill jobs despite high unemployment in Europe and the United States...
I thought unemployment in the U.S. was at a five-year low? It's at 4.7% last I heard. Is 4.7% now considered "high unemployment"?

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

I may have to eat some crow

You may remember my recent post about the University of Washington, who rejected a proposal to build a memorial to Pappy Boyington, the WWII Medal of Honor winner. I had some pretty harsh words for the student body of UW.

Now, IU believe that most of what I said was right on cue, but Analog Kid brought this to my attention.

A Resolution in Support of the Right of Military Recruiters to be Present on Campus

WHEREAS the military provides meaningful career opportunities for many students; and,

WHEREAS the military is also the defender of our freedoms and way of life; and,

WHEREAS at the Seattle Central Community College campus military recruiters were attacked by protesters last year; and,

WHEREAS we want to make sure this kind of intolerance does not happen on our campus, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:

THAT we support military recruiters’ right to be on our campus, and

THAT we support ROTC’s continued right to be present on campus, and

THAT we further support and respect the fine men and women who serve our country.


As far as I'm concerned, the majority of students at the UW are a bunch of wet-diaper commie pinko asscannons, but the student senator who wrote that has balls of solid brass. One, anyone who supports our troops is good in my book. Two, doing this at the UW takes guts. Serious guts. Three, even if this resolution doesn't pass, the sheer "Take your Leftism and shove it up your ass" attitude on display needs to be applauded far and wide.

There might be hope for the UW yet. A small, almost non-existant sliver, but a sliver nonetheless.

Controversy, Crap, & Confusion!



Mwuhahahaaaa.

Captain's Quarters

Voiding the port deal

Republicans are blowing their majority in many ways, but I still like the fact that they'll go head to head when warranted. It looks like infighting and it looks like it weakens the "bloc", but it sure beats the echo chamber that is the Democrats these days.

White House done wrong? GET ON 'EM!

Get it right, then move on.

Ehrlich seeks to delay Arab deal on port

Also, it opposition to an Arab company "racial profiling"? Is Hillary profiling?

Monday, February 20, 2006

Be still my heart.....

I've found a blog of Heinlein quotes!

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.


HA! I love it!

Also, a blog devoted to Robern Heinlein. Yes, I realize that by posting this I'll confirm my existance as a SciFi geek, but I don't care. At least I go for the classic stuff and don't babble on about whatever latest SciFi TV show is on.

Come to think about it, that might be because I don't watch much TV. Hmmmmmm.....

In case you're missing it

DANEgerus has been on a roll.

Russia possibly helped Saddam move WMD's?

May take? They're in Syria. But I wouldn't put anything past anyone who was on Saddam's "Oil for Food" bribery list, and the CIA ain't worth spit in the wind right now.

Cartoon Stupidfatah continues. Yep, it's still continuing. This has gone far past any relation to protecting free speech in my opinion. It's now about radical mooselimbs forcing their religion on the free countries of the West. And what confuses me is how many of those free countries are simply capitulating. Were I the editor of a newspaper, I would republish all twelve pictures on a daily basis until the riots stopped. Hell, I'd have a contest to see what my readers actually thought about the riots. C'mon people, send me your pictures! Any artists out there?

Hamas upset because Israel won't pay for it's own genocide. As I said before, when the paleswinians elected a group of camel-fucking terrorist sand fleas to represent them, they removed our obligation to treat them seriously. We can now recognize them as the terrorists they are.

Bonfire of the Inanities. With Bush-hating Leftists in full on frothing moonbat mode, their attack on Dick Cheney comes crashing down when Cheney's friend strolls out of the hospital wearing a three piece suit and gives a press conference. You think the HasBeen Media will actually report on news around the world now?

Nah. Not while it might help President Bush.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Numbskull Files

Alec Baldwin

For me, but not for Thee

OK, so you're a Leftist, and you have a problem: In the marketplace of ideas, your ideas are losing. Even worse, your political opponents are coming out with TV ads that are about to shatter many of your carefully crafted propaganda items to dust. So what do you do?

Well, if you're a Leftist, then you do what comes naturally to the Left. You prevent your opponents from speaking. Lie, smear, and attack.

The real surprise here is not that the Left wants to prevent free speech, the surprise is that anyone is surprised by their actions.

Nobody prevents free speech like a Leftist. Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro, and Chavez are the perfect examples of the Leftist ideology allowed to run amok.