Saturday, September 06, 2003
If you think Iraq is a misguided effort gone horribly wrong, and that the Iraqi people are rejecting the "occupation", you need to read this:
Seen on Instapundit
JOSH INGRAM, 20, a graduate of Arcata High School, is a machine gun squad leader in the 3rd Battalion of the United States Marines. Like thousands of American soldiers, he's spent much of the year in the Middle East, first in Kuwait -- the invasion point -- and then in Iraq, which fell in three weeks of fighting in late March and early April.North Coast Journal - Sept. 4, 2003: COVER STORY - 'People loved us' - Back in Humboldt after the Iraq War...
On July 31, Ingram returned to Humboldt County to help care for his father, who is battling cancer. While here, he is working with the local Marine recruiting office and speaking to local service groups about his experiences.
Ingram is the son of Ron and Nancy Ingram of Arcata. His daughter Hannah, 3, lives in Eureka with her mother. What follows are Ingram's own words, tape-recorded by Journal staff writer Hank Sims in a recent interview.
Seen on Instapundit
While we're on the topic of Old Europe dysfunction...
Long lauded for their Teutonic efficiency and hard work in rebuilding the country after World War II, Germans are now among the world's top slackers and politicians and industry leaders say that must change to kickstart the sagging economy.Whaddya think? Wanna follow these limpwrists into battle?
According to International Labour Organization statistics, the average German worked 1,444 hours in 2002, compared to 1,815 hours for the average U.S. worker and 1,707 for the average Briton. Only the Norwegians and Dutch worked fewer hours.
Germans also have more holidays than most other nations -- 30 days leave is standard plus about 12 public holidays.
The Cologne Institute of the German Economy (IW) estimates the average German takes off about another 12 days a year due to sickness, training, maternity and other leave entitlements, meaning most people work the equivalent of a four-day week.
Hot Damn!
Kim du Toit has up one of his essays, this one about the fall of the French Third Republic. It's worth a read, as all of his essays are, but this one is rather relevant after all the discussions we've had over the state of the country lately. Enjoy.
Friday, September 05, 2003
Must Read
David Warren has put together a piece regarding the mind of Radical Islam and the irresistable flypaper that is Iraq. To wit:
You can read the rest here.
David Warren has put together a piece regarding the mind of Radical Islam and the irresistable flypaper that is Iraq. To wit:
By Western standards, the Muslim 'holy warrior' is a coward, looking only for the sucker punch, and refusing to offer battle when his enemy is even slightly prepared. By his own, of course, he is not.Furthest from a true understanding of these people are those American Leftists who advocate that we vacate Iraq now. One might conclude that the two parties are acting in concert.
The terrorists will attack civilians, religious, and other innocents and bystanders, for the very reason they are unprotected. But the idea is not mere tactical surprise. He wins through fear, not force of arms.
He is not afraid of death, as we would more likely be. He is instead, by our standards, almost morbidly afraid of failure. He wishes all observers to believe he is invincible, and will avoid doing what might show he is not. Directly attacked himself, he melts away.
You can read the rest here.
With obstructionists like these................
France is throwing it's fat around again. They want us to do all the work and then hand them control so they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They really must be relieved of that permant seat on the U.N. Security Council. Don't get me wrong. I hold no hope that the organization that is unable to denounce dictatorships will ever be worth a spit. But it is time to address the bloviating of the left again and offer the "altruistic" U.N. the opportunity to "legitimize" the rebuilding of Iraq. In other words, it's time to show how hell bent the French and company are on preventing a conservative United States President from creating a free Iraq in the mid-east.........AGAIN.
France is throwing it's fat around again. They want us to do all the work and then hand them control so they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They really must be relieved of that permant seat on the U.N. Security Council. Don't get me wrong. I hold no hope that the organization that is unable to denounce dictatorships will ever be worth a spit. But it is time to address the bloviating of the left again and offer the "altruistic" U.N. the opportunity to "legitimize" the rebuilding of Iraq. In other words, it's time to show how hell bent the French and company are on preventing a conservative United States President from creating a free Iraq in the mid-east.........AGAIN.
Goldberg's "Bias"
I recently finished reading Bernard Goldberg's "Bias". His critics have tried to paint him as a right-wing activist, but calling Rush Limbaugh the "anti-Christ" doesn't do much to advance that perception. The book is full of examples of the liberal bias we constantly witness in the media as well as data that supports the observation, and for that it is well worth a read. Bernie observes that the television news media seems almost incapable of taking a position on the issues that deviates from the positions taken by the New York Times. He shows how consistently the conservatives are labeled conservatives as opposed to how a liberal is almost never labeled as liberal in order to enforce the perception that liberals views are simply mainstream. I do take issue with Goldberg's insistence that an anti-(R)/pro-(D) bias does not drive the media's liberal slant. Instead, he insists that it is due to where the news-people live and who they spend their time with (i.e. - liberal enclaves on the coasts where anyone who dares question abortion's use as an alternative to conception control is considered a lunatic extremist). I will not attempt to discredit the influence those factors may have on news-people, but I don't agree with separating those influences from the anti-(R)/pro-(D) bias of the media. Who does Bernie think champions the pro-abortion, anti-war, income-redistribution causes? It is very obviously the Democratic Party. The influences Goldberg claims that drive the bias are intensely partisan. Indeed his own liberal bias occasionally slips into the pages of this book. Every time I read it, I cringed, but I reminded myself how much credibility it gives Bernard Goldberg for shining light on the subject. He was inside, he was guilty as well.
I recently finished reading Bernard Goldberg's "Bias". His critics have tried to paint him as a right-wing activist, but calling Rush Limbaugh the "anti-Christ" doesn't do much to advance that perception. The book is full of examples of the liberal bias we constantly witness in the media as well as data that supports the observation, and for that it is well worth a read. Bernie observes that the television news media seems almost incapable of taking a position on the issues that deviates from the positions taken by the New York Times. He shows how consistently the conservatives are labeled conservatives as opposed to how a liberal is almost never labeled as liberal in order to enforce the perception that liberals views are simply mainstream. I do take issue with Goldberg's insistence that an anti-(R)/pro-(D) bias does not drive the media's liberal slant. Instead, he insists that it is due to where the news-people live and who they spend their time with (i.e. - liberal enclaves on the coasts where anyone who dares question abortion's use as an alternative to conception control is considered a lunatic extremist). I will not attempt to discredit the influence those factors may have on news-people, but I don't agree with separating those influences from the anti-(R)/pro-(D) bias of the media. Who does Bernie think champions the pro-abortion, anti-war, income-redistribution causes? It is very obviously the Democratic Party. The influences Goldberg claims that drive the bias are intensely partisan. Indeed his own liberal bias occasionally slips into the pages of this book. Every time I read it, I cringed, but I reminded myself how much credibility it gives Bernard Goldberg for shining light on the subject. He was inside, he was guilty as well.
Mark Steyn says:
Seen at Aaron's place.
Among the more comical moments of a grim week was the sight of the president of the Security Council expressing his condemnation of the terrorist attack on the UN. He was the representative of Syria. Syria is a terrorist state. Syrians have flooded across the border into Iraq to take up arms with their beleaguered Baathist brethren. It would not be surprising to discover a Syrian connection to one or both of Tuesday's terrorist strikes in Baghdad and Jerusalem. But Syria happens to hold the presidency of the Security Council, so a fellow who's usually the apologist for terrorists gets to go on TV to represent the international community's determination to stand up to terrorism.Peep it here: Iraq is battlefield for war vs. terror
Seen at Aaron's place.
The Council Has Spoken!
The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are California's Air by Alpha Patriot, and That Vision Thing by One Hand Clapping
Find the total results here.
The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are California's Air by Alpha Patriot, and That Vision Thing by One Hand Clapping
Find the total results here.
The Spoons feature a fella who says he won't be interested in voting for GOP candidates if the GOP keeps moving to the center on things like spending.
The intriguing thing is that the Left were saying these SAME EXACT THINGS on IndyMedia and DemocraticUnderground just eight months ago. Then Howie Dean popped up, and they feel welcomed as Democrats again.
As for Conservatives not voting Republican, that's what gave us Bill Clinton. Righties tried Perot or stayed away.
"That'll show those RINOs!," we said.
The next two GOP nominees? Bob Dole and Dubya.
The votes are in the middle, people. I like Pat Buchanan too but he'd lose 45 states to a shyster like Dean or Kerry.
The intriguing thing is that the Left were saying these SAME EXACT THINGS on IndyMedia and DemocraticUnderground just eight months ago. Then Howie Dean popped up, and they feel welcomed as Democrats again.
As for Conservatives not voting Republican, that's what gave us Bill Clinton. Righties tried Perot or stayed away.
"That'll show those RINOs!," we said.
The next two GOP nominees? Bob Dole and Dubya.
The votes are in the middle, people. I like Pat Buchanan too but he'd lose 45 states to a shyster like Dean or Kerry.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
War on terror update:
A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."Right-Thinking Comments - I'm Afraid of Americans
This is lovely.
But in February 1998, things finally came to a head. On a flight home to Houston, Jackson Lee became enraged when flight attendants failed to produce the seafood special she liked. "Don't you know who I am?" she reportedly thundered. "I'm Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Where is my seafood meal? I know it was ordered!"Sheila Jackson Lee, Limousine Liberal
BushNazi Redux
Follow this link around for more glorious liberal tolerance and respect for diversity.
Follow this link around for more glorious liberal tolerance and respect for diversity.
BUSHNAZI! Er... what?
For those of you who don't read National Review Online much, (and why the hell NOT?!?!) Jonah Goldberg has another good piece out, regarding those leftists who compare Bush to Hitler. Here's a little excerpt from it:
And that's how I think of all these people who e-mail me insistent that George Bush is a Nazi. They believe they are so important, so noble, their hatred and fear must be rooted things of Great Consequence. It's just so prosaic to hate Republicans. I am better than that. So, Republicans must be Nazis. They must be a threat to the whole world and to the sanctity of everything I hold dear because anything less would not be worth my time. George Bush can't simply be someone I disagree with. No, his popularity must be an indication of mass hysteria, of Nuremberg-style devotion to evil.
Why yes, that sound you hear IS a clue-by-four!
And that's how I think of all these people who e-mail me insistent that George Bush is a Nazi. They believe they are so important, so noble, their hatred and fear must be rooted things of Great Consequence. It's just so prosaic to hate Republicans. I am better than that. So, Republicans must be Nazis. They must be a threat to the whole world and to the sanctity of everything I hold dear because anything less would not be worth my time. George Bush can't simply be someone I disagree with. No, his popularity must be an indication of mass hysteria, of Nuremberg-style devotion to evil.
Why yes, that sound you hear IS a clue-by-four!
Addendum
Like Tim, I answered some questions by Mark, and my answers are a bit different from Tim's. But it took me quite a while and several pots of coffee.
1.Who was the greatest man in history, the one who's life had the greatest impact on the course of human events.
This was a tough one, because there are so many people with good reasons. But, in relatively modern history, I would have to say George Washington. When the colonies won the war with Britan, he was originally offered the crown of America. And he turned it down. His decision was the difference between the Kindom of America and the United States of America. However, if you want to just go with impact, regardless of good or evil, I would say Lenin. More people have died from the choices he made, either directly or indirectly, than anyone else on earth.
2.If you had it within your power to go back and rewrite history just once, what would you change? Would you still do it even if you could not know the outcome?
Without knowing the outcome, I wouldn't want to screw with history too much. I suppose I might pop a cap in Karl Marx, but that doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't come up with the same idea. So I suppose, since I can't know the outcome, I would have made sure that Amelia Erhardt didn't get lost.
3.If you could toss a pie in the face of anyone on earth and get away with it, who would you pick? And what would you put in the pie?
Oh, easy. Billy Clinton. And I'd fill it with the shit from all the boys in my old platoon. Sick and hatefull? Yes, but if you weren't in the service while he was CinC, you can't properly understand.
4.Do you believe or disbelieve the faces on Mars are real? Please explain your answer.
I believe that weather, or what passes for it on Mars, has pushed and pulled the terrain of Mars into formations that we like to call "faces". I do not believe that some native lifeform built faces into the surface of Mars millions of years ago.
5. Do you believe a person controls his own fate within the limits of events, or do you think we are all pawns in the hands of others?
A person controls themself and the situations that person enters. So yes, he controls his own fate. But that person can also give up that control if they so choose. Since giving up that control is their choice, yes, they control their own fate. Make sense? I need more coffee.
So, is anyone else open to answering any questions?
1.Who was the greatest man in history, the one who's life had the greatest impact on the course of human events.
This was a tough one, because there are so many people with good reasons. But, in relatively modern history, I would have to say George Washington. When the colonies won the war with Britan, he was originally offered the crown of America. And he turned it down. His decision was the difference between the Kindom of America and the United States of America. However, if you want to just go with impact, regardless of good or evil, I would say Lenin. More people have died from the choices he made, either directly or indirectly, than anyone else on earth.
2.If you had it within your power to go back and rewrite history just once, what would you change? Would you still do it even if you could not know the outcome?
Without knowing the outcome, I wouldn't want to screw with history too much. I suppose I might pop a cap in Karl Marx, but that doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't come up with the same idea. So I suppose, since I can't know the outcome, I would have made sure that Amelia Erhardt didn't get lost.
3.If you could toss a pie in the face of anyone on earth and get away with it, who would you pick? And what would you put in the pie?
Oh, easy. Billy Clinton. And I'd fill it with the shit from all the boys in my old platoon. Sick and hatefull? Yes, but if you weren't in the service while he was CinC, you can't properly understand.
4.Do you believe or disbelieve the faces on Mars are real? Please explain your answer.
I believe that weather, or what passes for it on Mars, has pushed and pulled the terrain of Mars into formations that we like to call "faces". I do not believe that some native lifeform built faces into the surface of Mars millions of years ago.
5. Do you believe a person controls his own fate within the limits of events, or do you think we are all pawns in the hands of others?
A person controls themself and the situations that person enters. So yes, he controls his own fate. But that person can also give up that control if they so choose. Since giving up that control is their choice, yes, they control their own fate. Make sense? I need more coffee.
So, is anyone else open to answering any questions?
Some say Iraq was no imminent threat.
What does all of this mean as far as the threat from Iraq is concerned? The Algerian operatives who planned to use ricin to attack the UK were trained by Ansar al-Islam. Among Ansar al-Islam's leadership, according to no less respectable a source than Time Magazine was one of Saddam Hussein's agents. According to the Kurdistan Observer and other sources, the real leader of Ansar al-Islam is Abu Wael, who is apparently one and the same as the Mukhabarat agent referenced in Time Magazine.Winds of Change.NET claims otherwise:
So what does this all mean to those unfamiliar with the murky world of international terrorism? Algerian terrorist aligned with al-Qaeda under the command of Abu Musab Zarqawi and Abu Khabab attempted to use chemical weapons to attack European (as well as Russian and US targets according to the State Department) targets between November 2002 and January 2003. Had any one of these attacks succeeded, it is likely that significant numbers of innocent people would have lost their lives. Most of these attacks were planned from northern Iraq by Ansar al-Islam. None of these facts are in dispute.
British Airways has hit Saudi Arabia in the pocketbook by suspending flight to the Kingdom. The Saudis appear to be fighting to secure their land of riches.
Security has been stepped up at Saudi Arabian airports after the reported seizure of missiles capable of bringing down aircraft, it was disclosed today.Guardian Unlimited
Saudi authorities told the BBC they had intercepted a lorryload of surface-to-air missiles on a desert road near Jeddah, which were said to be destined for an unnamed terrorist group.
Police say the weapons had been smuggled from Yemen.
This has to be seen to be believed.
Suspected Taliban set fire to an elementary school south of Kabul, scattering leaflets saying girls should not be allowed in the classroom, an official said Wednesday.Still confused about who we're warring with?
The blaze late Tuesday destroyed two rooms and two tents at the coed Moghul Khil school, said Amir Jhan, military spokesman for the region.
No one was arrested but Amir blamed supporters of the hardline Islamic militia, which ruled Afghanistan until it was ousted by U.S.-led troops in 2001.
Before the attackers fled, they scattered leaflets saying girls should not go to school, and threatening a "reaction" against teachers who teach them, he said.
SENATE REPUBLICANS WANT PEACE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NATION
This is an outrage and Senate Republicans should be aroused from sleep in the middle of the night to explain this. These pusillanimous brain-dead useless automatons did absolutely nothing to push this good man's nomination forward. All the Fedayeen Democrats did was wait him out. They knew that eventually he had to return to normal life. 28 friggin months he waited. Bush and all the the country club Republicans who are unwilling to break a sweat for the judiciary should be gravely ashamed. If it were not for the perfidy of the Left and the certain peril their leadership would cause, the lack of fight in these complacent pancake-faced jackasses is enought to cause me to not vote for them again.
WSJ.com - Estrada Bows Out: "'The time has come to return my full attention to the practice of law, and to regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family,' the Honduran immigrant will tell President Bush today, in a letter we obtained from a source other than the author."
Can someone name me a Senate Republican worth a dime? Please?
I like Lindsey Graham (for his stewardship during impeachment) and Mitch McConnell (for his fight against campaign finance reform). The rest of them are go-along to get-along wastes of political votes.
Fine, Republicans are winning because they are the only sane politicians in America at the moment. Otherwise, they are doing nothing to steer the country away from degenerate liberalism and toward a more reasonable republic. Nothing pisses me off more than their total unwillingness to take on the Left.
"In Mr. Estrada's case this is all the more outrageous because his only sin is being a smart Hispanic conservative. No fewer than four former Democrats who supervised his work in the Justice Department have vouched for his integrity and qualifications; if he were white he'd already be confirmed. But because he is a young Hispanic, liberals fear the appellate-court credential would make him that much harder to oppose if he were ever nominated to the Supreme Court."
This is an outrage and Senate Republicans should be aroused from sleep in the middle of the night to explain this. These pusillanimous brain-dead useless automatons did absolutely nothing to push this good man's nomination forward. All the Fedayeen Democrats did was wait him out. They knew that eventually he had to return to normal life. 28 friggin months he waited. Bush and all the the country club Republicans who are unwilling to break a sweat for the judiciary should be gravely ashamed. If it were not for the perfidy of the Left and the certain peril their leadership would cause, the lack of fight in these complacent pancake-faced jackasses is enought to cause me to not vote for them again.
WSJ.com - Estrada Bows Out: "'The time has come to return my full attention to the practice of law, and to regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family,' the Honduran immigrant will tell President Bush today, in a letter we obtained from a source other than the author."
Can someone name me a Senate Republican worth a dime? Please?
I like Lindsey Graham (for his stewardship during impeachment) and Mitch McConnell (for his fight against campaign finance reform). The rest of them are go-along to get-along wastes of political votes.
Fine, Republicans are winning because they are the only sane politicians in America at the moment. Otherwise, they are doing nothing to steer the country away from degenerate liberalism and toward a more reasonable republic. Nothing pisses me off more than their total unwillingness to take on the Left.
"In Mr. Estrada's case this is all the more outrageous because his only sin is being a smart Hispanic conservative. No fewer than four former Democrats who supervised his work in the Justice Department have vouched for his integrity and qualifications; if he were white he'd already be confirmed. But because he is a young Hispanic, liberals fear the appellate-court credential would make him that much harder to oppose if he were ever nominated to the Supreme Court."
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Random Nuclear Queries
Mark at Random Nuclear Strikes solicited answers to some heady questions.
I volunteered.
Here goes:
Mark: Who was the greatest man in history, the one who's life had the greatest impact on the course of human events?
Tim: I am tempted to name an inventor, but I cannot think of anything that would not have been invented or discovered by someone else given time. Were I to not believe that I'd hunt down the name of the guy who invented gunpowder and cite him. Or Benjamin Franklin. He was out there. And there's Plato. He left politics to travel and invent. If only Charles Schumer would follow suit. And then there's Sun Tzu.
But I guess for all time - all mankind - all influence, it's the Prophet Mohammed. Two billion people cannot be wrong.
Mark: If you had it within your power to go back and rewrite history just once, what would you change? Would you still do it even if you could not know the outcome?
Tim: If you impose upon me the caveat that I'd not know the outcome of my actions, I'd choose the simple thing and go back in time to tell my maternal grandfather: "I love you." I never did that, and I'll never get over having missed the chance.
If I get to change something with the benefit of knowing an outcome, I'd change the way the imperialist West carved up the Middle East during the middle of the 20th Century. Churchill et al screwed up the whole thing, and it just might be the death of civilization as we know it.
Mark: If you could toss a pie in the face of anyone on earth and get away with it, who would you pick? And what would you put in the pie?
Tim: I'd slap Alec Baldwin with a pie filled with foie gras.
Mark: Do you believe or disbelieve the faces on Mars are real? Please explain your answer.
Tim: What faces? On Mars? I know of no faces on Mars. Whadda-fuggya-talkin-bout?
Mark: Do you believe a person controls his own fate within the limits of events, or do you think we are all pawns in the hands of others?
Tim: Jeepers, I consumed my most recent cup of coffee fifteen hours ago and you come up with this. Firstly, we can't all be pawns.
Secondly, this is a self-fulfilling ideal, at least on the latter notion; if you think you are powerless flotsam floating on the river of time, you are.
Thirdly, control is an illusion.
It's like Mark Knoppfler said it all when he wrote: "Everything can change in the blink of an eye, so let the good times roll before we say goodbye."
Train dodge - dig it.
Are we in control or are we pawns? Both. And neither.
Thanks for asking.
Mark at Random Nuclear Strikes solicited answers to some heady questions.
I volunteered.
Here goes:
Mark: Who was the greatest man in history, the one who's life had the greatest impact on the course of human events?
Tim: I am tempted to name an inventor, but I cannot think of anything that would not have been invented or discovered by someone else given time. Were I to not believe that I'd hunt down the name of the guy who invented gunpowder and cite him. Or Benjamin Franklin. He was out there. And there's Plato. He left politics to travel and invent. If only Charles Schumer would follow suit. And then there's Sun Tzu.
But I guess for all time - all mankind - all influence, it's the Prophet Mohammed. Two billion people cannot be wrong.
Mark: If you had it within your power to go back and rewrite history just once, what would you change? Would you still do it even if you could not know the outcome?
Tim: If you impose upon me the caveat that I'd not know the outcome of my actions, I'd choose the simple thing and go back in time to tell my maternal grandfather: "I love you." I never did that, and I'll never get over having missed the chance.
If I get to change something with the benefit of knowing an outcome, I'd change the way the imperialist West carved up the Middle East during the middle of the 20th Century. Churchill et al screwed up the whole thing, and it just might be the death of civilization as we know it.
Mark: If you could toss a pie in the face of anyone on earth and get away with it, who would you pick? And what would you put in the pie?
Tim: I'd slap Alec Baldwin with a pie filled with foie gras.
Mark: Do you believe or disbelieve the faces on Mars are real? Please explain your answer.
Tim: What faces? On Mars? I know of no faces on Mars. Whadda-fuggya-talkin-bout?
Mark: Do you believe a person controls his own fate within the limits of events, or do you think we are all pawns in the hands of others?
Tim: Jeepers, I consumed my most recent cup of coffee fifteen hours ago and you come up with this. Firstly, we can't all be pawns.
Secondly, this is a self-fulfilling ideal, at least on the latter notion; if you think you are powerless flotsam floating on the river of time, you are.
Thirdly, control is an illusion.
It's like Mark Knoppfler said it all when he wrote: "Everything can change in the blink of an eye, so let the good times roll before we say goodbye."
Train dodge - dig it.
Are we in control or are we pawns? Both. And neither.
Thanks for asking.
WARNING: The media aren't reporting victories in Afghanistan. That's a shock I know. When you recover, you can read the commentary at uBlog.
As for The Other Quagmire, a guy who used to be a peace activist now writes:
Back in June, this fellow managed to find the kind of Iraqi whom no one seems to be able to track down these days. That is, the kind of Iraqi who is glad that America is in Iraq.
Seen on Instapundit
As for The Other Quagmire, a guy who used to be a peace activist now writes:
I have been shocked at the difference between the Baghdad I found on my return and all the bad news from the city.That's here.
Despite the recent bombings, Baghdad looks dramatically different. The stores are full of supplies. The streets are crowded with people and cars. The buses are working and police are on the streets, directing traffic.
Back in June, this fellow managed to find the kind of Iraqi whom no one seems to be able to track down these days. That is, the kind of Iraqi who is glad that America is in Iraq.
Seen on Instapundit
I reckon I should not pretend to be smarter than Generals - I'll leave that to Howard Dean. But this just seems to obvious to me.
June and July were very good months for US forces in Iraq. Over just six weeks of aggressive fighting the US detained thousands of suspected Iraqi militants in hundreds of military raids. The Sunni triangle was shrinking. At the height of the new offensive militant attacks against US forces had been cut in half. By early August several days in a row passed without the loss of single US soldier in combat -- a seemingly inconsequential but notable feat.It's a good read.
But in a repeat of early summer's bad conventional wisdom we're again mired in debates about troop strength and foreign control. How'd we get back there? Quite simply, somebody in the chain of command ignored the notable advice of Gen. George S. Patton -- "Always take the offensive. Never dig in."
Hot Damn!
The Grouchy Old Cripple is feeling a tad more grouchy today, I guess. But it puts a nice perspective on things.
One Hand Clapping features a nifty little piece that wonders aloud whether Wesley Clark has what it takes to lead a Great Nation:
In a Newsweek article about Clark's presidential potential, the general is quoted as saying of the Iraq campaign and aftermath: "You can't win without a vision, and that means working with allies."Peep the rest here, if you so desire.
Why? I would like to read Gen. Clark's explanation of why without allies, there is no vision.
History is replete with failed alliances as well as successful ones, and with successful unilateralists as well as failed ones. The Union in 1861-1865 had no allies. The United States entered World War I on 1917 with two principal allies, England and France, but from the first day it was America's unilateral vision that dominated the employment of American forces. The main task General John. J. Pershing faced in France was making sure that the Anglo-Francais 'vision' of four years of unmitigated trench warfare horror was never adopted by Americans. Both the English and French high command were adamant that American units be used as replacements for their own units that had been decimated by years of grinding combat. Some French generals even wanted American infantrymen to be assigned to French units as individual replacements, which would have been their death warrant. Pershing refused so steadfastly that he prevailed.
The World Socialist Web Site sez:
Except this is from 1998.
The US Congress has given overwhelming bipartisan support to the Pentagon’s plans for a massive and sustained bombing attack on the civilian population of Iraq.Not surprising, I know.
.
.
.
This sentiment—for the dispatch of American ground troops to “take Saddam Hussein out” and occupy Baghdad—has definite support on both sides of the congressional aisle. House Democrat John Murtha of Pennsylvania complained that saturation bombing was not sufficient. “You have to put people on the ground if you really want to solve the problem.”
.
.
.
The US media is bristling with predictions of “overwhelming force” and warnings that Americans must anticipate TV footage of dead and dying Iraqi men, women and children. Reporting from Baghdad, CNN’s Peter Arnett gave an indication of what the bombing of so-called presidential sites will mean. He explained that some of these sites cover huge areas, about the size of Washington DC.
.
.
.
Iraq announced its willingness to allow special teams of UN inspectors to examine for an entire month the eight presidential sites previously named by the UN. But Washington does not want a diplomatic solution. It has opted for war, and its entire policy is calculated to provide a pretext for military action.
That is why the US counters every concession from Iraq with more sweeping demands for unlimited and indefinite access to Iraqi territory. It is not even clear what the US is demanding and what the bombing is supposed to accomplish. At one moment American spokesmen say the aim is to destroy existing biological and chemical weapons. At the next they declare Iraq must prove it has dismantled the capacity to build such weapons.
The US has failed to produce a shred of evidence that such weapons actually exist. Ending Iraq’s capacity to build them, on the other hand, means destroying the country’s economic and social infrastructure, since even a rudimentary level of industrial development provides the capacity to produce such weapons. In either case Washington is demanding that Iraq prove the nonexistence of something—a demand which by its very nature cannot be met.
.
.
.
It is a fact that the world would not be standing on the brink of a major conflagration in the Middle East were it not for the machinations of the United States government. But America’s provocative posture in the gulf is by no means an aberration. It is indicative of a more general orientation. American capitalism has concluded that the chief lever for maintaining its economic dominance in the face of mounting challenges from international rivals is the supremacy of its military machine.
Except this is from 1998.
Poland is sending more forces to Iraq. Maybe it's the aid we give them. Maybe their leaders hold stock in Halliburton.
Maybe it's that they understand that the yoke of tyranny costs more than the struggle for freedom.
Maybe it's that they understand that the yoke of tyranny costs more than the struggle for freedom.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Seen on eBay
Don't ask me how I stumbled across this. Isn't it neat? Here's the description that accompanies it:
Don't miss out!
Be the first kid on your block to own a watch that advocates installing a total ass in the White House.
Do not delay! Place your bid now!
Don't ask me how I stumbled across this. Isn't it neat? Here's the description that accompanies it:
 |
Left wing activist, progressive, liberal...depending on one's point of view Alec Baldwin could qualify for any of those political titles. If you admire this very outspoken film star, believe in the causes he supports...declare yourself and wear this watch. Or if you know someone who supports him get it for them. |
Don't miss out!
Be the first kid on your block to own a watch that advocates installing a total ass in the White House.
Do not delay! Place your bid now!
Furious and Shaking
.... and seeing red. I have just been reminded in a big way why I hate the state of Washington so much. Let me give you a little back story first...
This spring, my father decided that it was time for a new vehicle. His old vehicle, a 1988 Nissan pickup, was getting up in miles, although it was still very servicable. Since my mom already had a truck, my dad decided that he would get a Jeep Wrangler, which he's wanted ever since they started making them. He then offered me his old truck. Which I bought, at the cost of $1. He would have just given it to me, since it didn't have any value to him. But, in order to make things simple (read: less paperwork) and still legal, we made a simple sales transaction. One truck sold for one dollar.
Fast forward to the present. The State of Washington has been refusing to send my Certificate of Ownership (a.k.a. title) for several months. I got a letter stating that I needed a Signed Statement of Gift from the vehicle's seller. I finally called up the licencing agency and said "Look, I bought this truck for a dollar! You have the bill of sale, what's the problem?" The nice gentleman on the other end of the phone (that's not sarcasm, he was actually very nice) told me that the Department of Revenue refused to accept the sale of vehicles for less than what they think the value is (going by Kelly Blue Book or other references). In short, I would have to fill out a buyer/seller agreement, and then the DoR would assess a value on that vehicle, then tax me on said value.
Do you see the problem here? Since when does the state have the right to assess value on private property? The government never owned this truck, it never held any right to it period! And yet, in this fucking nanny state that I live in, the state can step in and tell me what my vehicle is worth! This is private property changing hands between two private citizens, and yet the state can just step in and dictate terms to it's own liking! DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?!?!?!
Think about it, people! We have been surrendering so much of our autonomy, piece by piece, that the state now sees fit to intrude on private business! And many of the people I talk to see no problem with it! We're not just perched on a slippery slope, we're sliding down head first with very little chance of stopping! Look at what the state already does, for gods sake! Property taxes? What's the value on your property? Why should the government even bother with how much your property costs, people? The only people who should be concered with that are the buyer, seller, and anyone else involved with that purchace. Why is the government demanding money from you every year just because you own property? Think about that! How much more of our life are we going to lose control of before people realize what's going on?
I suppose I shouldn't be so suprised that Washington is damn near communist. I mean, one of our most influential congresscritters, Jim McDermott, happens to be an avowed, registered socialist, along with dozens more in the US government. Our governmental hellhole doesn't just need re-vamping, it needs to be blown up, torn down, destroyed, dismantled, beaten apart, and then rebuilt! And until people refuse to allow the government the power to interfere with our daily lives, it will only get worse.
But until that day comes, I have to grit my teeth, and pray that I can raise enough money to get the hell out of here before I lose it.
This spring, my father decided that it was time for a new vehicle. His old vehicle, a 1988 Nissan pickup, was getting up in miles, although it was still very servicable. Since my mom already had a truck, my dad decided that he would get a Jeep Wrangler, which he's wanted ever since they started making them. He then offered me his old truck. Which I bought, at the cost of $1. He would have just given it to me, since it didn't have any value to him. But, in order to make things simple (read: less paperwork) and still legal, we made a simple sales transaction. One truck sold for one dollar.
Fast forward to the present. The State of Washington has been refusing to send my Certificate of Ownership (a.k.a. title) for several months. I got a letter stating that I needed a Signed Statement of Gift from the vehicle's seller. I finally called up the licencing agency and said "Look, I bought this truck for a dollar! You have the bill of sale, what's the problem?" The nice gentleman on the other end of the phone (that's not sarcasm, he was actually very nice) told me that the Department of Revenue refused to accept the sale of vehicles for less than what they think the value is (going by Kelly Blue Book or other references). In short, I would have to fill out a buyer/seller agreement, and then the DoR would assess a value on that vehicle, then tax me on said value.
Do you see the problem here? Since when does the state have the right to assess value on private property? The government never owned this truck, it never held any right to it period! And yet, in this fucking nanny state that I live in, the state can step in and tell me what my vehicle is worth! This is private property changing hands between two private citizens, and yet the state can just step in and dictate terms to it's own liking! DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?!?!?!
Think about it, people! We have been surrendering so much of our autonomy, piece by piece, that the state now sees fit to intrude on private business! And many of the people I talk to see no problem with it! We're not just perched on a slippery slope, we're sliding down head first with very little chance of stopping! Look at what the state already does, for gods sake! Property taxes? What's the value on your property? Why should the government even bother with how much your property costs, people? The only people who should be concered with that are the buyer, seller, and anyone else involved with that purchace. Why is the government demanding money from you every year just because you own property? Think about that! How much more of our life are we going to lose control of before people realize what's going on?
I suppose I shouldn't be so suprised that Washington is damn near communist. I mean, one of our most influential congresscritters, Jim McDermott, happens to be an avowed, registered socialist, along with dozens more in the US government. Our governmental hellhole doesn't just need re-vamping, it needs to be blown up, torn down, destroyed, dismantled, beaten apart, and then rebuilt! And until people refuse to allow the government the power to interfere with our daily lives, it will only get worse.
But until that day comes, I have to grit my teeth, and pray that I can raise enough money to get the hell out of here before I lose it.
Uh....
Wow.....
Every now and then I like to think that I can actually write. And then I read pieces like the one above. And my illusions are shattered.
Found via Doc Russia
Every now and then I like to think that I can actually write. And then I read pieces like the one above. And my illusions are shattered.
Found via Doc Russia
If I were in a bar or some other such place and someone repeated the substance of this editorial in an effort to argue that we need to directly negotiate a settlement with North Korea, I would think the proponent of this argument quite naive.
What's stunning is that this argument is delivered by a former President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and someone who the cognoscenti consider to be a foreign policy guru.
USATODAY.com - U.S.-North Korea war seems 'strong possibility': "There must be verifiable assurances that prevent North Korea from becoming a threatening nuclear power, with a firm commitment that the U.S. will not attack a peaceful North Korea."
Carter does not posit how we get to this pleasurable result. Notice he says North Korea needs to be prevented from becoming a "threatening nuclear power." I assume he is ok with North Korea existing as a garden variety peaceful nuclear power. That explains much of his mindset. Despite the evidence, that even he acknowledges, that North Korea violated the 1994 Agreed Framework by producing nuclear weapons, Jimmy Carter has a dream of a day when North Korea can be armed with nuclear weapons, yet peaceful in disposition. It is this brand of wishful thinking that got us into the mess in the first place.
Here, Carter shows that he can read Kim Jong Il's mind:
"The situation is rapidly deteriorating again. North Korea feels increasingly threatened by being branded an "axis of evil" member; deployment of anti-ballistic missiles in Alaska; Washington voices expressing military threats; interception of North Korean ships; ad hominem attacks on President Kim Jong Il; condemnation of previous efforts by President Clinton and South Korean leaders to resolve issues peacefully; and U.S. refusal to negotiate directly with North Korea. America's newly declared policies of pre-emptive war and first use of nuclear weapons also concern North Koreans."
While reading this paragraph I kept thinking to myself, "Didn't North Korea violate their agreements before all of this by furtively developing nuclear weapons?"
Then I got to the next sentence:
"Even before these more recent threats, the North Koreans began a secret and illicit nuclear program."
So, essentially, Jimmy Carter believes another agreement wherein the US agrees to back down and never criticize the North Korean gulag will convince Jong Il to either stop developing nuclear weapons or maintain a peaceful disposition while arming to the teeth. And unlike the last time, Jong Il will abide by this agreement.
Outside of LaLa Land, the term for this is called, GULLIBLE. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only solution to this mess is through military means. I suppose it is possible that we can starve North Korea to such a point that famished soldiers decide to take the country for themselves and join the civilized world. Even if we have the will to starve the country, which I doubt we have, this outcome is not assured. Military victory is assured.
What's stunning is that this argument is delivered by a former President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and someone who the cognoscenti consider to be a foreign policy guru.
USATODAY.com - U.S.-North Korea war seems 'strong possibility': "There must be verifiable assurances that prevent North Korea from becoming a threatening nuclear power, with a firm commitment that the U.S. will not attack a peaceful North Korea."
Carter does not posit how we get to this pleasurable result. Notice he says North Korea needs to be prevented from becoming a "threatening nuclear power." I assume he is ok with North Korea existing as a garden variety peaceful nuclear power. That explains much of his mindset. Despite the evidence, that even he acknowledges, that North Korea violated the 1994 Agreed Framework by producing nuclear weapons, Jimmy Carter has a dream of a day when North Korea can be armed with nuclear weapons, yet peaceful in disposition. It is this brand of wishful thinking that got us into the mess in the first place.
Here, Carter shows that he can read Kim Jong Il's mind:
"The situation is rapidly deteriorating again. North Korea feels increasingly threatened by being branded an "axis of evil" member; deployment of anti-ballistic missiles in Alaska; Washington voices expressing military threats; interception of North Korean ships; ad hominem attacks on President Kim Jong Il; condemnation of previous efforts by President Clinton and South Korean leaders to resolve issues peacefully; and U.S. refusal to negotiate directly with North Korea. America's newly declared policies of pre-emptive war and first use of nuclear weapons also concern North Koreans."
While reading this paragraph I kept thinking to myself, "Didn't North Korea violate their agreements before all of this by furtively developing nuclear weapons?"
Then I got to the next sentence:
"Even before these more recent threats, the North Koreans began a secret and illicit nuclear program."
So, essentially, Jimmy Carter believes another agreement wherein the US agrees to back down and never criticize the North Korean gulag will convince Jong Il to either stop developing nuclear weapons or maintain a peaceful disposition while arming to the teeth. And unlike the last time, Jong Il will abide by this agreement.
Outside of LaLa Land, the term for this is called, GULLIBLE. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only solution to this mess is through military means. I suppose it is possible that we can starve North Korea to such a point that famished soldiers decide to take the country for themselves and join the civilized world. Even if we have the will to starve the country, which I doubt we have, this outcome is not assured. Military victory is assured.
Michael Moore has corrected one of the, errrrr, inaccuracies in his, errrrrrrr, award winning, errrrrrrrr, documentary.
John Ashcroft was in Norway yesterday to discuss how the United States and Norway can handle Mullah Krekar, former leader of the muslim extremist group Ansar al-Islam.
The American Prowler has a good article about nuclear capability being built by Iran and North Korea, and what the United States must do about them.
Facts are inconvenient things for presidents and prime ministers, as well as for Supreme Leaders. When you recognize a fact, it draws you to act on it or ignore it at your peril. The fact that two terrorist nations -- Iran and North Korea -- are building nuclear weapons is like two fuses. They were handed to us already lit, and we can either put them out or suffer the consequences when they burn to the end.The American Prowler
Monday, September 01, 2003
This is kind of odd and intriguing:
Back in 1992, a violent storm tossed 20 containers of rubber duckies off the back of a cargo ship halfway between China and Seattle, and they were quickly presumed lost at sea. Instead, it appears the castaways embarked on an epic 11-year swim across three oceans and half the globe. Somehow, they stayed afloat through all magnitude of wind and wave, weathering several winters likely frozen in an arctic ice floe and enduring so many days of exposure their once bright yellow skin has been bleached white as bone.Read all about it
And now their voyage may have brought them to the East Coast.
Remnants of the lost armada of bath toys, which also includes frogs, beavers and turtles — nearly 29,000 in all — are thought to be streaming down the New England seaboard right now. Although there are no confirmed sightings in the Atlantic yet, oceanographers who have documented the movement of flotsam and ice from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Arctic Ocean are confident some of the ducks ended up over here. A breakaway flotilla of ducks is expected to make landfall in Britain soon as well.
Go Get 'Em Jesse!
The Rev. Jesse Jackson and 13 people were arrested Monday after they blocked traffic on the Yale University campus in support of striking university service and clerical workers.CNN.com - Jesse Jackson arrested during Yale protest - Sep. 1, 2003
Jackson led over 1,000 people on a Labor Day march and rally in support of the striking workers before he was arrested.
"This is the site of national Labor Day outrage," Jackson said. "This is going to be for economic justice what Selma was for the right to vote."
Dave has crafted a fine essay regarding how self-proclaimed environmentalists have done untold damage to our forests. I am more than a little bit of a jackass for delaying the posting of this until Dave returned from watching the sucko Mariners get their asses handed to them by the Red Sox, and ergo this ain't real timely.
Still it is topical, as such material will be until the Federal Government musters up the cojones required to stand up to eco-tyrants.
So check it out, will you?
Still it is topical, as such material will be until the Federal Government musters up the cojones required to stand up to eco-tyrants.
So check it out, will you?
Why read the Council?
Because you might miss some kick ass articles, that's why! Here, let me demonstrate!
The Smarter Cop post a piece about a Kentucky Congressman who rips the "Bush caused the recession" argument to shreds. It's a damn good read.
AlphaPatriot has several great quick posts, the first of which is about a study done in California. It involves old oil rigs. Veeeeeeeeeeery interesting. The second post is a brief overview on what happens when Hillary gets mad. The truth comes out. My only response is "Bwaaa haa HAAAAAAAAAA!"
Don't worry, I'll get to the others in due time.
The Smarter Cop post a piece about a Kentucky Congressman who rips the "Bush caused the recession" argument to shreds. It's a damn good read.
AlphaPatriot has several great quick posts, the first of which is about a study done in California. It involves old oil rigs. Veeeeeeeeeeery interesting. The second post is a brief overview on what happens when Hillary gets mad. The truth comes out. My only response is "Bwaaa haa HAAAAAAAAAA!"
Don't worry, I'll get to the others in due time.
Monday Morning Laughts
Found over at Vodka Pundit:
50 Things al Qaeda Hates about America
1 - Freedom of speech
2- -Unhindered scientific inquiry
3 - Recent advances in airline security
4 - Your lewd women
5 - Illegal detentions of Muslims by John Ashcroft's Justice Department
6 - Worshipping false idols not punishable by death
7 - Most citizens uninformed about Allah's mercy and justice
8 - The 82nd Airborne Division
9 - McRibs actually contain small amount of real pork
10 - Cities full of clean-shaven pretty boys
11 - The seduction of youth by Demi Moore
12 - Louis Farrakhan's geeky little bowties make us look bad
13 - Trampy "Sex in the City" girls won't stick around for a seventh season
14 - On pilot school admission essay question, spelling counts
15 - Can no one make Al Franken shut up?
16 - Snooty Holiday Inn clerks can always tell when you ordered porn
17 - The Arabic dub of "Jakob the Liar" just didn't do it justice
18 - No international shipping for "Coed Naked Volleyball" t-shirts
19 - That "camel jockey" thing turns out to be an insult
20 - A lap dance is still 20 bucks, even when the song is short
21 - Unable to find decent falafel anywhere in Oklahoma
22 - "The Matrix Reloaded" just leaves you hanging
23 - Lambskin condoms not actually for lambs
24 - All those Wilfred Brimley ads on Fox News Channel
25 - Infidels who say "irregardless" when it's just "regardless," damnit
26 - There will be no forgiveness for the "Bobby dreamed it all" season of Dallas
27 - Reliable and affordable breast reduction surgery
28 - Still can't get the original Star Wars on DVD
29 - Miami chicks don't dig unibrows
30 - American convenience stores don't carry anything for burqa rash
31 - Your Brad Pitt makes us feel all funny inside
32 - You ever seen how many dials and doodads there are in a 737 cockpit?
33 - So-called "Sea Monkeys" really just brine shrimp
34 - Widely-held belief that Siegfried & Roy are gay
35 - Having to constantly explain to people that "Sha Na Na" isn't an Arab band
36 - Sneers for not always following the U-after-Q rule
37 - Loud rock'n'roll music intrudes on peaceful ululating
38 - Racism towards Arabs becomes obvious when caught giggling at the Holocaust Museum
39 - We thought a "B-52 strike" meant no more awful singing from Fred Schneider
40 - Not one Arab on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"
41 - Suspicious looks when loading a van full of manure and diesel oil
42 - American harlots never buy that "big beard" myth
43 - You people been real touchy the last couple years
44 - Have you seen the price of gas in New York?
45 - Brother Achmed found Florida ballot most confusing
46 - Couldn't get "The Producers" tickets in time to see Broderick & Lane
47 - That Ten Commandments judge in Alabama is some kind of religious nut
48 - Smartass web pundits with their useless lists
49 - Denise Richards hasn't returned any of our calls
50 - You bastards fight back
50 Things al Qaeda Hates about America
1 - Freedom of speech
2- -Unhindered scientific inquiry
3 - Recent advances in airline security
4 - Your lewd women
5 - Illegal detentions of Muslims by John Ashcroft's Justice Department
6 - Worshipping false idols not punishable by death
7 - Most citizens uninformed about Allah's mercy and justice
8 - The 82nd Airborne Division
9 - McRibs actually contain small amount of real pork
10 - Cities full of clean-shaven pretty boys
11 - The seduction of youth by Demi Moore
12 - Louis Farrakhan's geeky little bowties make us look bad
13 - Trampy "Sex in the City" girls won't stick around for a seventh season
14 - On pilot school admission essay question, spelling counts
15 - Can no one make Al Franken shut up?
16 - Snooty Holiday Inn clerks can always tell when you ordered porn
17 - The Arabic dub of "Jakob the Liar" just didn't do it justice
18 - No international shipping for "Coed Naked Volleyball" t-shirts
19 - That "camel jockey" thing turns out to be an insult
20 - A lap dance is still 20 bucks, even when the song is short
21 - Unable to find decent falafel anywhere in Oklahoma
22 - "The Matrix Reloaded" just leaves you hanging
23 - Lambskin condoms not actually for lambs
24 - All those Wilfred Brimley ads on Fox News Channel
25 - Infidels who say "irregardless" when it's just "regardless," damnit
26 - There will be no forgiveness for the "Bobby dreamed it all" season of Dallas
27 - Reliable and affordable breast reduction surgery
28 - Still can't get the original Star Wars on DVD
29 - Miami chicks don't dig unibrows
30 - American convenience stores don't carry anything for burqa rash
31 - Your Brad Pitt makes us feel all funny inside
32 - You ever seen how many dials and doodads there are in a 737 cockpit?
33 - So-called "Sea Monkeys" really just brine shrimp
34 - Widely-held belief that Siegfried & Roy are gay
35 - Having to constantly explain to people that "Sha Na Na" isn't an Arab band
36 - Sneers for not always following the U-after-Q rule
37 - Loud rock'n'roll music intrudes on peaceful ululating
38 - Racism towards Arabs becomes obvious when caught giggling at the Holocaust Museum
39 - We thought a "B-52 strike" meant no more awful singing from Fred Schneider
40 - Not one Arab on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"
41 - Suspicious looks when loading a van full of manure and diesel oil
42 - American harlots never buy that "big beard" myth
43 - You people been real touchy the last couple years
44 - Have you seen the price of gas in New York?
45 - Brother Achmed found Florida ballot most confusing
46 - Couldn't get "The Producers" tickets in time to see Broderick & Lane
47 - That Ten Commandments judge in Alabama is some kind of religious nut
48 - Smartass web pundits with their useless lists
49 - Denise Richards hasn't returned any of our calls
50 - You bastards fight back
Sunday, August 31, 2003
I'M BACK
Like Raging Dave, I have been on hiatus for a short while and now I am back to pick apart the leftist trash that litters America with its foolish ideology. Let the cleanup begin:
Since I am a California resident, for now at least, I have followed the California recall since its inception on local talk radio in San Francisco. Initially, I did not support the recall for several reasons.
1. Recalling Gray Davis does not fully address the real problem - the radical California legislature. Don't get me wrong; I have no affinity for Gray Davis. To any reasonable person, it is clear that Davis is a Clintonite twit who does nothing in the face of serious fiscal problems only to spend his energy blaming Enron, Bush, Republicans, the War in Iraq, just about anything for our problems here. The real problem in California and one that will not be addressed via the recall is that the citizens have elected a European style leftist state assembly and senate. Instead of putting the brakes on spending and figuring out ways to solve the state's problems, they are busy passing laws that give driver's licenses to illegal aliens and mandate that every employer must not discriminate against cross-dressers. It's nice to know that Harry can wear a dress to work in Utopia.
2. We voted for this lout and we should have to pay the consequences of our decision. If Californians are politically moronic enough to hand the state over to the radical left, then we should be accountable for our decisions.
3. I am not sure any governor can right the ship so long as the legislature is controlled by the radical left, therefore, as a partisan I would rather see a Democrat get the blame for their policies than a Republican who will invariably be blamed by the left and the press, as will fiscal conservatism, when he is unable to fix things. This is obviously a purely partisan reason and I can easily subordinate that to my desire that California have a strong economy.
So I did not sign the recall petition based on these objections. Now that the recall is a reality, I will certainly vote to oust Gray Davis. The recall will be viewed by the national media as a referendum on California liberalism, especially if Davis escapes recall, and I don't want to be silent when California decides whether to partially rebuke the radical political machine that has put us in such a fiscal cesspit.
What is emerging as more interesting to me, and certainly something that has been covered all over the blogosphere, is Democrat Cruz Bustamante's membership in Mecha - a radical left wing Mexican separatist group whose charter documents support a racial cleansing of the land they perceive to be rightly Mexican, Azteca.
While the behavior of the KKK clearly goes beyond what Mecha has accomplished, there are some striking similarities between the odious ideologies of both groups. One significant difference is that in today's left wing media a political candidate found within 50 feet of a confederate flag has some explaining to do to the race hustlers, while a Democrat candidate for governor of California can be a member of a racially hostile group, fail to renounce its extremist racially pure positions, and get a pass.
In an interview on Saturday with Tony Snow of Fox News, Bustamante had four opportunities to renounce the popular Mecha slogan "Por la Raza todo. Fuera de la Raza nada." Translated, this means: "For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." (Charming. Another shining example of leftist tolerance. There is much debate as to whether this phrase is actually the Mecha motto or not. I do not have the answer to that, but I can tell you that it is a slogan found in their foundational documents.) I watched this interview and rarely can I remember a politician so shamelessly ducking a point-blank question. At one point, Snow said something to the effect, "Look Mr. Lieutenant Governor, I think this is pretty much a softball question, I am asking you whether you renounce the motto of this organization to which you belonged that says 'For the race, everything; For those outside the race, nothing' and you are not addressing the question." He completely evaded the opportunity to renounce this racist statement. I would think that even Mexican-Americans would find this individual troubling.
Read the El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan. Two examples are here and here. If you peruse various university Mecha organizations' websites you might notice that many of them are giving 404 errors. It seems due to the attention, most of it negative, this is giving Bustamante, the incriminating sites are being pulled down. How's that for the courage of one's convictions?
Do yourself a favor and read the plan. I think you will be stunned that California could actually have a governor who can be attached to this agenda and not renounce it in the strongest terms. Any fair observer will also realize how biased the media is. Any Republican who at any point in their life belonged to a white separatist organization and does not renounce white separatism would be subject to a 24/7 media jihad, and rightly so, until they were beaten into politically conventional submission. This is a clear example of how the media frames the issues that are politically relevant and uses their leftwing bias to pick their crusades.
For some other links about this issue:
Mickey Kaus
SJSU Mecha
Tacitus sums up the past 10 days or so on this issue. Read through the comments at the end. It's a great example of how the ideologically corrupt liberals, even those who are ostensibly non-Mexican, will defend this group and Bustamante.
It's clearly too late for Bustamante to CYA and renounce Mecha. He had every opportunity to do so within easy forums and, stunningly, refused. One must wonder if this recall is not more about the degenerate left in California rather than the Democrat Governor who sends the state down the river.
Like Raging Dave, I have been on hiatus for a short while and now I am back to pick apart the leftist trash that litters America with its foolish ideology. Let the cleanup begin:
Since I am a California resident, for now at least, I have followed the California recall since its inception on local talk radio in San Francisco. Initially, I did not support the recall for several reasons.
1. Recalling Gray Davis does not fully address the real problem - the radical California legislature. Don't get me wrong; I have no affinity for Gray Davis. To any reasonable person, it is clear that Davis is a Clintonite twit who does nothing in the face of serious fiscal problems only to spend his energy blaming Enron, Bush, Republicans, the War in Iraq, just about anything for our problems here. The real problem in California and one that will not be addressed via the recall is that the citizens have elected a European style leftist state assembly and senate. Instead of putting the brakes on spending and figuring out ways to solve the state's problems, they are busy passing laws that give driver's licenses to illegal aliens and mandate that every employer must not discriminate against cross-dressers. It's nice to know that Harry can wear a dress to work in Utopia.
2. We voted for this lout and we should have to pay the consequences of our decision. If Californians are politically moronic enough to hand the state over to the radical left, then we should be accountable for our decisions.
3. I am not sure any governor can right the ship so long as the legislature is controlled by the radical left, therefore, as a partisan I would rather see a Democrat get the blame for their policies than a Republican who will invariably be blamed by the left and the press, as will fiscal conservatism, when he is unable to fix things. This is obviously a purely partisan reason and I can easily subordinate that to my desire that California have a strong economy.
So I did not sign the recall petition based on these objections. Now that the recall is a reality, I will certainly vote to oust Gray Davis. The recall will be viewed by the national media as a referendum on California liberalism, especially if Davis escapes recall, and I don't want to be silent when California decides whether to partially rebuke the radical political machine that has put us in such a fiscal cesspit.
What is emerging as more interesting to me, and certainly something that has been covered all over the blogosphere, is Democrat Cruz Bustamante's membership in Mecha - a radical left wing Mexican separatist group whose charter documents support a racial cleansing of the land they perceive to be rightly Mexican, Azteca.
While the behavior of the KKK clearly goes beyond what Mecha has accomplished, there are some striking similarities between the odious ideologies of both groups. One significant difference is that in today's left wing media a political candidate found within 50 feet of a confederate flag has some explaining to do to the race hustlers, while a Democrat candidate for governor of California can be a member of a racially hostile group, fail to renounce its extremist racially pure positions, and get a pass.
In an interview on Saturday with Tony Snow of Fox News, Bustamante had four opportunities to renounce the popular Mecha slogan "Por la Raza todo. Fuera de la Raza nada." Translated, this means: "For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." (Charming. Another shining example of leftist tolerance. There is much debate as to whether this phrase is actually the Mecha motto or not. I do not have the answer to that, but I can tell you that it is a slogan found in their foundational documents.) I watched this interview and rarely can I remember a politician so shamelessly ducking a point-blank question. At one point, Snow said something to the effect, "Look Mr. Lieutenant Governor, I think this is pretty much a softball question, I am asking you whether you renounce the motto of this organization to which you belonged that says 'For the race, everything; For those outside the race, nothing' and you are not addressing the question." He completely evaded the opportunity to renounce this racist statement. I would think that even Mexican-Americans would find this individual troubling.
Read the El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan. Two examples are here and here. If you peruse various university Mecha organizations' websites you might notice that many of them are giving 404 errors. It seems due to the attention, most of it negative, this is giving Bustamante, the incriminating sites are being pulled down. How's that for the courage of one's convictions?
Do yourself a favor and read the plan. I think you will be stunned that California could actually have a governor who can be attached to this agenda and not renounce it in the strongest terms. Any fair observer will also realize how biased the media is. Any Republican who at any point in their life belonged to a white separatist organization and does not renounce white separatism would be subject to a 24/7 media jihad, and rightly so, until they were beaten into politically conventional submission. This is a clear example of how the media frames the issues that are politically relevant and uses their leftwing bias to pick their crusades.
For some other links about this issue:
Mickey Kaus
SJSU Mecha
Tacitus sums up the past 10 days or so on this issue. Read through the comments at the end. It's a great example of how the ideologically corrupt liberals, even those who are ostensibly non-Mexican, will defend this group and Bustamante.
It's clearly too late for Bustamante to CYA and renounce Mecha. He had every opportunity to do so within easy forums and, stunningly, refused. One must wonder if this recall is not more about the degenerate left in California rather than the Democrat Governor who sends the state down the river.
Who Dem Dopey Dems?
Two-thirds of voters — including two-thirds of Democrats — were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president, said the CBS News poll out Sunday.Yahoo! News
They say there's no Liberal Media.
Well, at least that haughty dog Eric Alterman does.
As for the facts, ummmmmmmm, have you noticed that the media seem to be spinning EVERY event in Iraq as a Bush Administration failure?
Well, at least that haughty dog Eric Alterman does.
As for the facts, ummmmmmmm, have you noticed that the media seem to be spinning EVERY event in Iraq as a Bush Administration failure?
The leftwing media has hit upon the possible winning strategy of describing every event in the world as a setback for the Bush Administration. Both the attack by Hamas on a Jerusalem bus and the Israeli retaliatory execution of the perpetrator are portrayed as setbacks. The American acceptance of a United Nations refusal to guard its headquarters is a setback. The American attempt to improve cooperation with the UN to prevent further attacks is a humiliating admission of its indispensable legitimacy. The Afghan arrest of dozens of Taliban only proves that the threat has grown larger. Ten thousand wholly avoidable deaths due to a French heat wave illustrate the American culpability for Global Warming. Given this, it is hardly surprising that the Jews are about to be sued by the Egyptians (hat tip Across the Atlantic) for escaping during the Exodus. Yet despite the apparent inventiveness of the 'setbacks', the concept is wholly derivative. The Big Lie is a tactic as old as the Left itself. One in which they repose much confidence. In 1968 the press portrayed the disastrous North Vietnamese Tet offensive as a Communist victory and bluffed the real victors into retreating from the battlefield. Surely they can do it again?You may read the entire piece at Belmont Club.
This article in The Guardian describes how the BBC sexed up a story in order to continue to assert that Tony Blair, errr, sexed up a story.
BBC governors decided to turn the tussle with the government over the Iraq dossier story into a make-or-break trial of strength despite harbouring doubts over the original Today report.
Emails released by the Hutton inquiry show that a number of governors, including chairman Gavyn Davies, were determined not to buckle in the face of government pressure even though they thought the story might not stand up to scrutiny.
Happy Sunday everyone!
It's time for me to get back on my high horse and start checking the news. Went to Fox News (Yeah yeah yeah, save the "eeeeeeeeevil media empire" bullshit) and the first thing that caught my eye was this, regarding Emperor Clinton's last minute executive orders about public lands. Now, I don't know about you, but the last group of people I want in charge of land usage is a group who has shown their incompetance and complete lack of understanding about land usage. The US government and all their lackeys, in short. There are reams of papers that I could write about how horrible the Klintoon's Klown Brigade executive orders are, but the bottom line is this: The moment you stop the legal use of private land by said land's owner, you are no better than a communist police state. Bush is pissing off quite a few of the people who voted for him in 2000, and he's counting on the fact that the Donks aren't going to put up a viable alternative to keep him in office. And the sad fact is he's probably right. But Bush needs to re-learn who elected him in the first place.
Speaking of the Dimmy Donk Nine, from Fox we find a report on John Kerry's plan to help states with deficits. The short short version is that he just wants to give the states money.
"His new ideas include sending $25 billion to states struggling with budget deficits under Bush administration policies that put the interests of the president's "buddies and big shot campaign contributors ahead of the people he passes by in his motorcade," the Massachusetts senator said."
I have a better idea, you miserable, worthless, non-working, over-inflated twit: MAKE THE STATES BALANCE THEIR DAMN BUDGETS! I know it might be a novel idea for someone like you who's never done an honest day's work in your entire ill-begotten life, but it's what the rest of us normal people do! We don't spent more than we make, otherwise we go bankrupt, kind of like your political ideology! And since you decided to bring class warfare into your little speech, it's time I reminded you of the fact that you frigging Donks get your money from unions and other rich leftists, while the Republicans get their money in tiny little doses from individual voters. Only with the new campain finance laws put into place by the Donks, they can't get the big money they used to get from the uber-rich. The result, you ask? The Donks are screwed. Isn't it amazing that when the big-time soft money donations were outlawed, the so-called "party of the people" lost 70 GOD-DAMNED PERCENT of their disposable income? Do you still want to play your little class warfare games, Mr. I'm-rich-and-never-worked-a-real-jop-and-then-I-married-into-even-more-money-and-only-talk-to-the-little-people-when-I-need-to-bullshit-them-for-their-votes? I'll tell you one thing, if I had to vote for someone based on their non-political activites, I'm not going to vote for some over-primped bloviating sack of excretment who sits around sipping chardonnay and trying to schmooze his way into Martha's Vineyard. I'm going to vote for the man who spends the day in the hot sun trying to remove an invasive stand of non-native trees from his ranch.
Y'know, now that I think of it, ol' Dubya's plan seems rather feasable. Just do nothing and wait for your opponents to cover themselves in shit. By the way, Donks, when are you going to release the figures on your average donation size? The 'Pubs have already done so. It's an average of $57 per donation.
Remember that post about the congressional bill requiring congressional approval of SF operations? It seems that the report was a little selective in how it was leaked to the press. But I'm still not convinced. Bear with me for a bit, if you will.
"It's a terrible example … of politics being played with your safety and mine," said Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt. "This is a way people try to stop the momentum we need."
But others said presidential oversight of special operations will insure that the military and commander-in-chief are in sync on clandestine activities.
"That's basically a paper trail so the commander doesn’t get hung out to dry if he gets caught," said GlobalSecurity.org founder John Pike. "If the thing fouls up, the president can't say 'What idiot authorized this?'"
Look folks, it's simple Any mission that SF gets sent on came from somewhere up high. And that SF mission is part of a larger mission, which comes from up higher. Demanding that the president review and OK every single SF mission would result in nothing but stalled and failed missions. If you honestly think that the president is clueless about what is going on with his military, you're a bloody idiot. The government states that they don't want to restrict the SF. Fine. Great. But I still want to see whoever put that wording into the original bill, preferably strung up by their hoo-hoo dillies.
"All it takes is one person without the best of intentions somewhere in the political hierarchy to send them on a rogue mission and nobody knows about it," Haney said, pointing to the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s as a prime example of too many CIA rogue operations gone bad. Congress changed the oversight process for overseas covert operations after Iran-Contra blew up
We're not talking about the CIA, you overgrown wart on the military's anus. We're talking about the Special-by-god-Forces of the United States Army. They aren't meeting shady characters in some back ally of Bagdad, they're blowing shit up, rescuing people, and killing our enemies, all of which require that they be sent on a moment's notice, not when some professional politician decides to give it to the President for his "by-your-leave" authorization. Got it? Give the military a mission and then step the hell back while they complete it.
Where do they get these morons? Why the hell are they in power? I don't trust them for a second. And I'm not going to just sit back and think "Whew, we're OK, it's been denied." Because we're not OK, not by a long shot.
And last but not least, there's someone who visited the Holocaust Museum in D.C., and thinks that we need another museum for the lives lost to communism. It's an idea that I can agree with.
That's all for now. See ya later when I get ticked off yet again.
Speaking of the Dimmy Donk Nine, from Fox we find a report on John Kerry's plan to help states with deficits. The short short version is that he just wants to give the states money.
"His new ideas include sending $25 billion to states struggling with budget deficits under Bush administration policies that put the interests of the president's "buddies and big shot campaign contributors ahead of the people he passes by in his motorcade," the Massachusetts senator said."
I have a better idea, you miserable, worthless, non-working, over-inflated twit: MAKE THE STATES BALANCE THEIR DAMN BUDGETS! I know it might be a novel idea for someone like you who's never done an honest day's work in your entire ill-begotten life, but it's what the rest of us normal people do! We don't spent more than we make, otherwise we go bankrupt, kind of like your political ideology! And since you decided to bring class warfare into your little speech, it's time I reminded you of the fact that you frigging Donks get your money from unions and other rich leftists, while the Republicans get their money in tiny little doses from individual voters. Only with the new campain finance laws put into place by the Donks, they can't get the big money they used to get from the uber-rich. The result, you ask? The Donks are screwed. Isn't it amazing that when the big-time soft money donations were outlawed, the so-called "party of the people" lost 70 GOD-DAMNED PERCENT of their disposable income? Do you still want to play your little class warfare games, Mr. I'm-rich-and-never-worked-a-real-jop-and-then-I-married-into-even-more-money-and-only-talk-to-the-little-people-when-I-need-to-bullshit-them-for-their-votes? I'll tell you one thing, if I had to vote for someone based on their non-political activites, I'm not going to vote for some over-primped bloviating sack of excretment who sits around sipping chardonnay and trying to schmooze his way into Martha's Vineyard. I'm going to vote for the man who spends the day in the hot sun trying to remove an invasive stand of non-native trees from his ranch.
Y'know, now that I think of it, ol' Dubya's plan seems rather feasable. Just do nothing and wait for your opponents to cover themselves in shit. By the way, Donks, when are you going to release the figures on your average donation size? The 'Pubs have already done so. It's an average of $57 per donation.
Remember that post about the congressional bill requiring congressional approval of SF operations? It seems that the report was a little selective in how it was leaked to the press. But I'm still not convinced. Bear with me for a bit, if you will.
"It's a terrible example … of politics being played with your safety and mine," said Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt. "This is a way people try to stop the momentum we need."
But others said presidential oversight of special operations will insure that the military and commander-in-chief are in sync on clandestine activities.
"That's basically a paper trail so the commander doesn’t get hung out to dry if he gets caught," said GlobalSecurity.org founder John Pike. "If the thing fouls up, the president can't say 'What idiot authorized this?'"
Look folks, it's simple Any mission that SF gets sent on came from somewhere up high. And that SF mission is part of a larger mission, which comes from up higher. Demanding that the president review and OK every single SF mission would result in nothing but stalled and failed missions. If you honestly think that the president is clueless about what is going on with his military, you're a bloody idiot. The government states that they don't want to restrict the SF. Fine. Great. But I still want to see whoever put that wording into the original bill, preferably strung up by their hoo-hoo dillies.
"All it takes is one person without the best of intentions somewhere in the political hierarchy to send them on a rogue mission and nobody knows about it," Haney said, pointing to the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s as a prime example of too many CIA rogue operations gone bad. Congress changed the oversight process for overseas covert operations after Iran-Contra blew up
We're not talking about the CIA, you overgrown wart on the military's anus. We're talking about the Special-by-god-Forces of the United States Army. They aren't meeting shady characters in some back ally of Bagdad, they're blowing shit up, rescuing people, and killing our enemies, all of which require that they be sent on a moment's notice, not when some professional politician decides to give it to the President for his "by-your-leave" authorization. Got it? Give the military a mission and then step the hell back while they complete it.
Where do they get these morons? Why the hell are they in power? I don't trust them for a second. And I'm not going to just sit back and think "Whew, we're OK, it's been denied." Because we're not OK, not by a long shot.
And last but not least, there's someone who visited the Holocaust Museum in D.C., and thinks that we need another museum for the lives lost to communism. It's an idea that I can agree with.
That's all for now. See ya later when I get ticked off yet again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)