You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. - Robert A. Heinlein -
Saturday, July 05, 2003
"There are very few things I love as much as I love America. I thank the fates every day that this country is my home land. Nowhere else on this planet is it possible for the individual to express himself in the way he or she desires. In many other nations, lip service is given to the freedom of expression but when it comes down to it the state has the final say. "
Thursday, July 03, 2003
"Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications."
"Only 30 percent support making it generally available, down from 34 percent in 2001, the survey found."
You won't see this in the mainstream liberal press.
As technology advances and we become more intimate with the fetal experience inside the womb, it is inevitable that public support for abortion will decline. No matter how callous we have become to violence and death, we are still compassionate enough of a society to understand that the gratuitous sucking of human life down a sink is deeply disturbing. As more people rely on the internet to obtain their news the information embargo that the mainstream press puts on any information that threatens the pro-abortion status quo will become more and more irrelevant.
It is my hope that science can do what the Supreme Court has failed to do: allow the people to determine the content of a state's abortion laws through the democratic process rather than an unprecedented fiat by unelected judges. Some day, Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the abortion issue will return to the states. While I am against unlimited abortion rights, I can live with a system where the states determine their own position based on elected legislatures.
With all the near misses on finding WMD in Iraq, this AP article hardly constitutes much news. I am certainly not one of those growing increasingly skeptical that Saddam ever had these weapons. As Raging Dave pointed out earlier this week anyone whose head is at least 6 inches from their ass knows Saddam had WMD and had done nothing to prove he was clean. Moreover, during the 21 day advance on Baghdad, Coalition troops found stashes of Atropine (antidote for nerve agent) along with chemical weapons protection suits. The Iraqi troops had no reason to suspect that the Coalition would use nerve agents during the war, so what do you think all this protection was for? The argument that there were no WMD in Iraq is simply the avatar of blind fatuousness. Without engaging in the extensive reasoning why this argument is delusional, let me point you to one telling fact:
The only people who claim that Saddam did not have WMD are:
1. Saddam and his cronies before the war. AND
2. The far-left after the war.
I think the more salient question is why does the far-left continually parrot the arguments of America's enemies?
......But back to that AP article. What I find most interesting about the article is not the substantive content, but the subtle bias. Reporter Libby Quaid writes:
He also defended President Bush's warning on Wednesday that he would find and punish "anybody who wants to harm American troops."
Why does that contention need to be "defended?" Am I being too sensitive to bias here? It seems moronically profound that an AP reporter would assert that the notion that the Coalition will 'find and punish' anybody who wants to do harm to our troops needs any defense at all. I am sure if some demented individual wanted to do harm to Ms. Quaid she would not feel a need to defend her desire to find and punish that person if he took steps to perform on his desire.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
From Random Nuclear Strikes comes a few interesting articles. First up is a Kuwaiti official critisizing the Arab parliments for failing to condem the mass graves found in Iraq. It's an interesting article, and one that highlights one of the many reasons that the Arab world is looked upon as a medevil culture. Another post, an add on to my post from Monday, is an article about the Anti-GM lobby in Europe, and it goes into greater detail as to how Europe is allowing Africa to starve. The more I read about this, the sicker I get. Europe seems to be falling farther and farther to the Left, and consequently, farther and farther into irrelevancy. Note to any Britans who may read this: There is still time for you to tell the EU to piss off. Don't allow the EU to drag you down with it.
Also from RNS is this piece about the Canadian Navy. Folks, this isn't funny anymore. I used to make jokes about the current size of the Canadian Armed Forces, but this is far past any jokes. When a nation's military is unable to continue it's mission because it's understaff and underfunded, it's a serious problem It's sad to see that one of the worlds most feared forces in WWII is now a shell of it's former self. A shell that is unable to continue operating without much help.
Following up on yesterday's post, the US is sending troops to Liberia (Posted on Foxnews.com, but no article as of yet). As I stated before, I think this is a good thing. Nuff said.
And last but not least, something that got my blood boiling over. When I went to ABCnews.com, one of the articles listed is an ad for ABC's World News Tonight. The tagline?
Should the government have the power to take away your right to read?
The fact that this is even a debatable issue shows just how far to the left ABC has gone. And it makes me sick.
See ya later.
"During a question-and-answer session following his speech, German socialist lawmaker Martin Schulz referred to Berlusconi's use of an Italian immunity law to sidestep bribery charges in a Milan court.
'In Italy, they are making a movie on Nazi concentration camps,' Berlusconi snapped back. 'I will propose you for the role of capo,' or chief.
That prompted a rebuke from the president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, who suspended the session after Berlusconi refused to withdraw his comment, saying it was meant as an 'ironic joke.'
Schulz said the remark showed Berlusconi was unfit to represent Europe.
Berlusconi's words 'debase the presidency of the (EU) council and offend Europe,' said Graham Watson, leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the European Parliament. "
The Folly that is the Eurpoean Union
|Lookee!!! The Phillies are within 4 1/2 games of the old lazy tired yellowed drudging and generally despicable Atlanta Braves.
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
But on to todays news! From Random Nuclear Strikes comes a wonderfull article explaining the "Palestinian Right of Return", and why such a thing is unmitigated bullshit. I'm sorry for the harsh language, but I'm still shocked every time I hear some ignorant idiot spout off about how the Jews "stole the land". As Analogkid says, take some time to read it. Bookmark it. And whenever some barking moonbat starts screaming, print it out and beat the moonbat over the head with it.
Both the Washington Post and Fox News have this story about Liberia. It seems that the USA has now been asked to send a peacekeeping force to that country, which is embroiled in a nasty civil war. Personally, if we have the troops available, I think we should go. But the Army's Fun Meter is pegged right now, and I honestly don't know if we have the troops to spare. With all the spending going on in DC, you think the goobers in Congress would get off their duff and slide some cash towards the military. Either that, or finally pull our boys out of Germany and put them to good use. They way some of the EUropean countries have acted towards us, pulling our troops out and letting the EU take care of their own defense is making more and more sense to me.
North Korea is barking again. They say that if we don't kowtow to their demands, they will take "merciless retaliatory measures" against us. I say let 'em. And let me explain why:
If North Korea pulled the trigger, I have no delusions about the damage that would be done. There would be nothing but scorched earth for thirty miles north and south of the Korean DMZ. But there is no chance in hell that North Korea would win a war. Their Army is starving. Their equimpent is out of date. And their military structure follows the old Soviet structure. And the Soviet structured army gets it's ass handed to it time and time again when it faces a Western army. So it's not a matter of losing this war, it's a question of how much damage are we willing to accept from winning it?
Once we have that question, we can compare it to "How much damage will occur if North Korea remains unchecked? How much damage will occur if we kowtow to little Kim?" And the answer there is much, much more than a short war. Keep in mind that this is a country who sells missiles to just about anyone. This is a country where the farmers are living on boiled grass, while fat Kim eats his way to another 50 pounds. This is a country who would collapse if not for the money and food coming in from other countries (All of which is labled "Tribute to our Dear Leader" once it hits the Nork's warehouses). This country is a parasite on the modern world. Let it die. The damage inflicted will be much less than if we allow this country to continue on it's current path. My disgust with those who would willingly accept a vile, treacherous, lying, communist dictator as an alternative to war knows no bounds. Does anyone in their right mind think that Kim Jong Il won't sell off a nuke once he builds it? This is a man who has violated every treaty or international rule he has signed. (The Korean War Armstice was signed by his father, I believe, and he's willing to violate that as well). Only idiots would take this man at his word. (Yeah, I'm talkin' about you, Jimmah!)
I personally don't believe it will come to war. China knows that if Kim Jong Il starts a war, it won't be two months before US troops are in Pyongyang and stationed on the Chinese border. And that worries them very, very much. So let the little Kim blow and bluster. But do NOT, under any circumstances, give him what he wants.
And last but not least, the Donks have finally come out and said it. They're at war with the Republicans. It's nice to finally have this out in the open, since they've been at war with the Republicans for years. It's time the 'pubs woke up and realised that fact.
More later. Go read that article now!
Monday, June 30, 2003
Stop screaming, already!
From Lee, over at Right Thinking from the Left Coast, we find out that the Amazon Rainforest is being destroyed at a record pace. The reason? Soy! It seems that since the loony left of EUrope has violently rejected any Geneticly Modified foods, such as the disease-resistant soybeans the USA produces (and has been eating for years), Brazil has filled the EUro-peon soybean nitch with their unmodified soy. But in order to do this, they've had to clear-cut massive amounts of land. Soy doesn't grow in the woods, donchano.
Of course, this is the same group of people that would rather let Africa starve to death, rather than eat the GM foods that the USA produces.
"Yes, I know you're hungry! Yes, I know you're starving to death. But that GM food is POISON! EVIL, I tell ya!"
Washington, DC, home of the Republican takeover? No, This is life in California, on the brink of a fiscal disaster.
It is a pretty rare thing in life when you take a look around and everything adds up. Yet 'roundabout Cape Cod way these days, guess what? It all adds up:
|Old Liberal Wealth
+ the New Liberal Fight Against Global Warming
+ the Old Leftist Contempt for New Business
+ the New Liberal God of Regulation
+ the Timeless Liberal Fight to Preserve Nature
a very Instructive NIMBY Battle Amongst Massachusetts' Wealthiest
It reads like a summer novel. The location is one of the nation's prized resort areas, comprising Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket -- playgrounds for the wealthy and powerful.
Jim Gordon has an idea that's shaking things up in these New England communities. He's a developer who wants to use wind power to replace electric power plants and the pollution they cause.
"Wind mills are an icon on the Cape and islands," he says. "So, what we're doing is kind of going back to the future and addressing the present day problems that we have now, such as global warming and climate change, by building a clean, green, renewable energy project."
But the idea has raised a storm among some residents, because Gordon wants to build his windmills in the middle of Nantucket sound.
It really is classic. Some want more regulation, zoning the water, in effect. Some want to harvest wind to save the Earth. Some want to preserve the "treasure" of their oceanside views. Some think it will hurt fish. Some object to the fact that the developer might make money. One guy says if we don't stop global
warming, we'll lose the Cape to rising waters anyway.
My favorite parts are where the politicos and Leftist icon heavyweights chime in:
State Sen. Rob O'Leary represents the Cape Cod region. He points to a 200-foot weather tower that Gordon built in the middle of the proposed wind farm. It's half as tall as the wind turbines. O'Leary says he support wind power in principle, just not at that location.
The campaign to stop the wind farms was started by Cape Cod merchants and wealthy landowners. It's also opposed by almost every town government. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha's Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite.
"Our natural treasures should be off limits to industrialization, and Nantucket is one of those treasures," says Cronkite.
Read all about it: CBS News
Read as much as you want: Google: "Cape Wind"