OK, so for those who've been away from the news today, Mount St. Helens let off some steam. Literally. Steam and ash up to about 16,000 feet in the air, with some flights from Portland canceled and many more diverted. It was a half-hour eruption, with more predicted to come. However, it was nothing like 1980, and there aren't any more eruptions that powerful predicted at all. It helps that there isn't a mountaintop sitting on top of the volcano anymore. 1980 kinda took care of that.
Also, Ichiro has broken George Sisler's eighty-four year old record of 257 hits in a single season. The Mariner's star got his 258th hit earlier tonight (Friday).
And yet the Mariners are still in last place in the AL West. Somehow I think Ichiro would be happier if the Mariners were in first and he didn't have the record. But, with this season in the shitter, it was nice to have a reason to watch my M's.
I'm probably heading to the range tomorrow morning (or this morning, depending on when you're reading this) so I'll be back Sunday evening or Monday.
Toodles!
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Friday, October 01, 2004
The Candidates Debate Iran
President Bush says:
Bush doesn't want Iran to maintain their nuclear programs. He is currently approaching the matter by consulting our allies, involving them in a process that could eventually lead to a conflict not unlike what transpired in Iraq. We acted before Iraq became an imminent threat.
Senator Kerry:
You read that right! Kerry would have given Iran nuclear fuel to test them and see if they would play nice with the rest of the world. That is absolutely insane. This individual is running for a position of great influence in matters of national security for this country and the world, and he says he would have handed Iran the ability to make a nuke.....to TEST them! Iran knows about tests! They took American hostages and held them for 444 days when Democrat Jimmy Carter was President and gave them back when we elected Reagan. We've got the oppotunity to skip this Carter by re-electing George W. Bush on November 2nd.
God help us.
"On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs. The IAEA is involved. There's a special protocol recently been passed that allows for inspections. I hope we can do it. And we've got a good strategy."
Bush doesn't want Iran to maintain their nuclear programs. He is currently approaching the matter by consulting our allies, involving them in a process that could eventually lead to a conflict not unlike what transpired in Iraq. We acted before Iraq became an imminent threat.
Senator Kerry:
"With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together.
You read that right! Kerry would have given Iran nuclear fuel to test them and see if they would play nice with the rest of the world. That is absolutely insane. This individual is running for a position of great influence in matters of national security for this country and the world, and he says he would have handed Iran the ability to make a nuke.....to TEST them! Iran knows about tests! They took American hostages and held them for 444 days when Democrat Jimmy Carter was President and gave them back when we elected Reagan. We've got the oppotunity to skip this Carter by re-electing George W. Bush on November 2nd.
God help us.
Denigrating Our Soldiers
Quick lesson, Flipper. Americans don't appreciate it when you spit on the sacrafices and belittle the accomplishments of the men and women of our armed forces!
Kerry:
Sent in to Hugh Hewitt:
Hasn't the left been sreaming that we should have used this very tactic to take out Saddam Hussein?
When one is gracious enough to do something to help their fellow man, one would think they deserved a great degree of respect and understanding. Because the great minds of America's military didn't do it perfectly, John "I don't fall down. That son of a bitch pushed me down." Kerry says they were "wrong". Ya know what? Kerry is wrong! Flush him!
Update: MORE!
Update again: Powell - We didn't botch Tora Bora
Kerry:
"Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong."
Sent in to Hugh Hewitt:
Kerry’s comment stating that President Bush “outsourced” the fighting in Tora Bora was a direct slap in the face of all Special Operations soldiers. The whole Afghan campaign is a classic “Unconventional Warfare” scenario. A UW mission is one where teams of Green Berets enter a denied area (Afghanistan) and train a rebel force to overthrow a rogue government. Our Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan accomplished in weeks, what Alexander the Great and the Soviet Union could not accomplish in years. John Kerry is an idiot.
______
Former SOTA Team Leader
10th Special Forces Group (Airborne
Hasn't the left been sreaming that we should have used this very tactic to take out Saddam Hussein?
When one is gracious enough to do something to help their fellow man, one would think they deserved a great degree of respect and understanding. Because the great minds of America's military didn't do it perfectly, John "I don't fall down. That son of a bitch pushed me down." Kerry says they were "wrong". Ya know what? Kerry is wrong! Flush him!
Update: MORE!
As to the Tora Bora issue, Kerry said that we "outsourced" the job and therefore missed an opportunity to kill UBL. Tell that to the SF A-Teams that had infiltrated Afghanistan, trained and led the Northern Alliance into battle within a month of 9/11. The Unconventional Warfare operation conducted by the Army in Afghanistan will serve as a textbook example of how to conduct UW ops into perpetuity. Tell that to the CCT guys that were dumping air on Tora Bora, stacking up CAS 10 layers deep. Tell that to the SEALs who spent 9 days searching the caves for signs of UBL and finding only fingernails and tooth chips left from the bombing. Wrong answer, bitch! The invasion of Afghanistan by SOF affiliated with local fighters will go down in history as a marvel of military strategy and execution. What was Kerry thinking, that Bush was orbiting Tora Bora in an AC-130 making radio calls and personally directing troops in the field? Those comments were a slap in the face to the SOF community and to General Tommy Franks. He should definitely be called on this because this is more conclusive proof of his utter disdain for our military.
Update again: Powell - We didn't botch Tora Bora
IWIWT
Or I Wish I Wrote That. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: There's a reason this man gets paid to write.
(emphasis mine)
Damn, Lileks is good.
And I love this line: Beer will not be mandatory. We’re not the sort of people who impose beer on the unwilling. But you know, on 9/111 we recognized the downside of coexisting with societies that want to hang people for having a Pabst after a hot day.
At this point mooning over France is like being that sophomore loser dorm pal who spent his dateless weekends telling his loser roommate about a high school sweetheart who stood him up for the prom. Give it up. Move on. I understand; they are wise and nuanced, we are young and dumb. We’re the cowboy leaning with his back against the bar, elbows on the rail, watching the door; we need our European betters to teach us how to ape the subtle forms of Nijinsky, limbs arrayed in the exquisite form of the Dying Swan. Understood. But I don’t want to be the Dying Swan. And I don’t want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks. Don’t you think I know about France’s relations with Saddam? Surely the advocates of the French Touch must know, and don’t care. Or they don’t know – in which case their advice is useless.
Germany? Whatever.
And it took lots of dead Americans to be able to say that.
(emphasis mine)
Damn, Lileks is good.
And I love this line: Beer will not be mandatory. We’re not the sort of people who impose beer on the unwilling. But you know, on 9/111 we recognized the downside of coexisting with societies that want to hang people for having a Pabst after a hot day.
The Council Has Spoken!
This weeks winners in the Watcher of Weasels council are Sometimes Ya Gotta Speak Up by e-Claire and Update 11 - The Sep. 12 Attack by Citizen Frank. You can find all the results here.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Scoring Points
Here are a few scores for the Pres:
Kerry: "Secondly, he said -- my opponent said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran -- we've already sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on Iran.:
Bush: "It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before I arrived in Washington, D.C."
TVE: Ouch!
Bush: "So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"
TVE: Nice impression of Kerry "building allies", Mr. President!
Kerry: "Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam."
Bush: "BUSH: My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves.
Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide.
I decided the right action was in Iraq. "
TVE: And at the time, SO DID FLIPPER!
Kerry vs Kerry:
Kerry: "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."
Kerry: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
TVE: "global test" is different from "UN security council veto" HOW exactly, Flipper? :)
More to come......
Kerry: "Secondly, he said -- my opponent said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran -- we've already sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on Iran.:
Bush: "It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before I arrived in Washington, D.C."
TVE: Ouch!
Bush: "So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"
TVE: Nice impression of Kerry "building allies", Mr. President!
Kerry: "Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam."
Bush: "BUSH: My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves.
Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide.
I decided the right action was in Iraq. "
TVE: And at the time, SO DID FLIPPER!
Kerry vs Kerry:
Kerry: "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."
Kerry: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
TVE: "global test" is different from "UN security council veto" HOW exactly, Flipper? :)
More to come......
Taking Terry McAwful's Advice
Terry McAuliffe sent a chain letter style email to the Flipper faithful. I changed the links to RNC sources where applicable and dropped the brain washing, and now it's a resource for our side as well! Terry says we should:
Vote
National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:
* ABC News: ABC
* CBS News: SeeBS
* CNN: CNN
* Fox News: FOX
* MSNBC: MSNBC
* USA USA Today
Write
Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper.
Call
RNC Listing
From the donks:
(All times are Eastern.)
* Air America (all day): 646-274-2346
* Alan Colmes (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.): 212-301-5900
* Ed Shultz (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.): 701-232-1525
* Bev Smith (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.): 412-325-4197
* Doug Stephen (5 a.m. 10 a.m.): 1-800-510-8255
Thanks Terry!
Vote
National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:
* ABC News: ABC
* CBS News: SeeBS
* CNN: CNN
* Fox News: FOX
* MSNBC: MSNBC
* USA USA Today
Write
Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper.
Call
RNC Listing
From the donks:
(All times are Eastern.)
* Air America (all day): 646-274-2346
* Alan Colmes (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.): 212-301-5900
* Ed Shultz (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.): 701-232-1525
* Bev Smith (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.): 412-325-4197
* Doug Stephen (5 a.m. 10 a.m.): 1-800-510-8255
Thanks Terry!
Three Questions
Eugene Volokh has posed three questions to anyone who either supports or did support the invasion of Iraq.
I'm always up for a challenge.
***First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?***
Yes, the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, for several reasons. One, we removed a brutal dictator that we should have removed over a decade ago. If the USA had done what we needed to do in 1991 this entire question would be moot. As it is, G.H.W. Bush gave in to "multilateralism" and left Saddam in power. The end result was thousands of people slaughtered, murdered, raped, terrorized, and held under his thumb for twelve years. His defiance of international law, his refusal to disclose his weapons programs, the ecological destruction committed by his government, and the hundreds of mass graves that we've uncovered are all examples of why we did the right thing.
Furthermore, the rift exposed between the USA and some EU countries has opened the eyes of many Americans about just who our friends are, and who our enemies are. The connection between France, Russia and the UN in regards to the UN "Oil-for-Food" scandal cannot be ignored, although many people on the Left wish it could be
And last, the strategic importance of where we are in the Middle East cannot be ignored. There are few who doubt that Iran is the major sponsor of international terrorism, and we're going to have to deal with them sooner or later. The hate and bloodmoney pouring out of Iran must be dealt with in order to curb terrorism. We now have American military troops stationed on both sides of Iran.
Let me restate that: WE NOW HAVE AMERICAN MILITARY TROOPS STATIONED ON BOTH SIDES OF IRAN. When (not if) we deal with Iran, we have several divisions of troops a stone's throw away from the Iranian border. This could not have been accomplished without the invasion of Iraq. It was not the primary goal or focus, but I'm sure it was a consideration of the administration when looking at how to deal with terrorist enabling dictators in the Middle East.
***Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?***
I think that the Mainstream Media is doing anything and everything they can in order to get John Kerry elected. Were this not an election year, I don't think we'd hear half as many horror stories, and we'd be seeing much more positive news coming out of Iraq. As it is, the US troops who have access to the news wonder if those journalists are even living in the same world as the rest of us. The stories that make it back to the USA do not tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq.
All one has to do is read the words of the Iraqis who now have their own blogs to see the discrepancy between the Mainstream Media and reality. Reading what our own military members have to say vs. what the Mainstream Media puts out just widens that gulf. As evidenced by CBS's memo scandal, mainstream journalism is no longer interested in facts or truth. They only care about ideology and John Kerry in the White House.
***Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?***
The coming months? The continued rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure in the form of schools, water treatment plants, hospitals, roads, bridges, oil pipelines, and the like. The fact that there are more hospitals open, with more types of treatment than when Saddam was in power shows that we are already successful in part. Over the long term, a free, democratic Iraq would be the indicator of success. I don't think that Iraq as an American protectorate (much like the American Samoas or Guam) would be a success. Iraq must be free and democratic, perhaps in several partnerships with the USA, or with American military bases (like Germany, Japan and South Korea). One of the goals of this war was to make Iraq free. Anything less, and we've failed in that goal.
However, this may take years. It took over a decade for Germany and Japan, and it may take close to that long in Iraq. I myself predict that it will happen in five years, but that's a quick guess. I'm probably wrong.
If any other blogger wants to answer Mr. Volokh, answer the questions in a single post and email the link to orinkerr at yahoo.com. If anyone wants to leave their quick answers in the comments, I'll do my best to update this post and put your answers up.
UPDATE: A few people have given their answers, so here they are:
From a commenter calling themselves "That said" -
Jason Kallini answers #2 and #3 -
And Bullshark answers all three -
First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?
Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?
Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?
I'm always up for a challenge.
***First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?***
Yes, the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, for several reasons. One, we removed a brutal dictator that we should have removed over a decade ago. If the USA had done what we needed to do in 1991 this entire question would be moot. As it is, G.H.W. Bush gave in to "multilateralism" and left Saddam in power. The end result was thousands of people slaughtered, murdered, raped, terrorized, and held under his thumb for twelve years. His defiance of international law, his refusal to disclose his weapons programs, the ecological destruction committed by his government, and the hundreds of mass graves that we've uncovered are all examples of why we did the right thing.
Furthermore, the rift exposed between the USA and some EU countries has opened the eyes of many Americans about just who our friends are, and who our enemies are. The connection between France, Russia and the UN in regards to the UN "Oil-for-Food" scandal cannot be ignored, although many people on the Left wish it could be
And last, the strategic importance of where we are in the Middle East cannot be ignored. There are few who doubt that Iran is the major sponsor of international terrorism, and we're going to have to deal with them sooner or later. The hate and bloodmoney pouring out of Iran must be dealt with in order to curb terrorism. We now have American military troops stationed on both sides of Iran.
Let me restate that: WE NOW HAVE AMERICAN MILITARY TROOPS STATIONED ON BOTH SIDES OF IRAN. When (not if) we deal with Iran, we have several divisions of troops a stone's throw away from the Iranian border. This could not have been accomplished without the invasion of Iraq. It was not the primary goal or focus, but I'm sure it was a consideration of the administration when looking at how to deal with terrorist enabling dictators in the Middle East.
***Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?***
I think that the Mainstream Media is doing anything and everything they can in order to get John Kerry elected. Were this not an election year, I don't think we'd hear half as many horror stories, and we'd be seeing much more positive news coming out of Iraq. As it is, the US troops who have access to the news wonder if those journalists are even living in the same world as the rest of us. The stories that make it back to the USA do not tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq.
All one has to do is read the words of the Iraqis who now have their own blogs to see the discrepancy between the Mainstream Media and reality. Reading what our own military members have to say vs. what the Mainstream Media puts out just widens that gulf. As evidenced by CBS's memo scandal, mainstream journalism is no longer interested in facts or truth. They only care about ideology and John Kerry in the White House.
***Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?***
The coming months? The continued rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure in the form of schools, water treatment plants, hospitals, roads, bridges, oil pipelines, and the like. The fact that there are more hospitals open, with more types of treatment than when Saddam was in power shows that we are already successful in part. Over the long term, a free, democratic Iraq would be the indicator of success. I don't think that Iraq as an American protectorate (much like the American Samoas or Guam) would be a success. Iraq must be free and democratic, perhaps in several partnerships with the USA, or with American military bases (like Germany, Japan and South Korea). One of the goals of this war was to make Iraq free. Anything less, and we've failed in that goal.
However, this may take years. It took over a decade for Germany and Japan, and it may take close to that long in Iraq. I myself predict that it will happen in five years, but that's a quick guess. I'm probably wrong.
If any other blogger wants to answer Mr. Volokh, answer the questions in a single post and email the link to orinkerr at yahoo.com. If anyone wants to leave their quick answers in the comments, I'll do my best to update this post and put your answers up.
UPDATE: A few people have given their answers, so here they are:
From a commenter calling themselves "That said" -
This is my answer. It is how I feel. (In two parts) 1) There is, or there should be, a nobility in helping the oppressed. Not nobility in a regal sense but nobility as it relates to honor. For me our intervention serves to validate the principles our country was founded on. With apologies to Burke, good men are doing something and evil should not prevail for it. It gives me pride that we intervened. That pride has been tempered somewhat by sadness I feel for the families who have lost loved ones in the conflict.
2) We hear the question, “Is it worth it?” being asked of late. I believe that the real question, hidden between the lines no-one really wanting to ask openly is not, “Is it worth it?” but rather, “Are they worth it?” Who are “they”? They in the question are the Iraqis in particular and Muslims in general.
Criteria for success, in my opinion, is whether or not “They” can prove that they are indeed worth it, with all of the implications, nuanced or not, that that implies.
That said; failure in the end will not detract from the nobility of the attempt. It will however, bode ill for all of our futures.
Jason Kallini answers #2 and #3 -
2)Despite the increase in frequency in terrorist attacks in Iraq, there has been no evidence of an increase in sophistication or deviousness.
The terrorists seem to be attacking anyone, anywhere.
Successful insurgencies throughout history involved the insurgents targeting military targets, and then forcing the occupying power into retaliating against the civilian population. Doing such a thing inspires more civilians to join the insurgency, or at least aid them, until you have a fullblown rebellion on your hands.
No insurgency can work without the support of the general populace, and that the terrorists do not have. They are busy alienating and scaring the civilian population, which will only drive the people closer to Coalition forces.
3)As the Iraqi National Guard grows and secures the border, the supplies of terrorists will dwindle. Simultaneously, 3 other things will happen.
1. The US will crush the major pockets of resistance--Fallujah--before the upcoming election, destroying the major safe havens and power bases of the terrorists.
2. Iraqi police will grow in number, securing the cities themselves from local, small time criminals, and their intelligence networks will build until they can bust safe houses and other undergound networks.
3. Elections will happen in January, solidifying Iraqi loyalty behind their own government, and every future attack will prove that there is no patriotism behind terrorist acts. This will be even more apparent if the elected President is not a big fan of the US.
If you throw in the potential Iranian rebellion that my brother blogged on today, the terrorists' support may be pulled even more quickly.
And Bullshark answers all three -
1) We do what is right because it is right. In 1991 we gave in to the "allies" and look what it caused. I was on the tip of the spear at that time. 3Bde, 82nd ABN.
2) When the dog bites man it is not news. So every story from Iraq is man biting dog.
3) We are currently talking about pulling out of Germany, after 59 years. So success will come but I may not live to see it. The measurement will be not if they love us but if they never again attack their neighbors or harbor those who attack us.
Draft Dodger Monument update
City Blocks Memorial to Draft Dodgers
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A Canadian community has blocked plans for a controversial memorial to Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War and U.S. military draft, officials said on Wednesday.
Peace activists wanted to build the memorial as part of a reunion celebration scheduled for 2006 in Nelson, a small city in the mountains of southeastern British Columbia, where many of the Vietnam-era draft dodgers eventually settled.
The proposal was denounced by the U.S. Veterans of Foreign Wars, and came as the issue of service in the military during Vietnam has become an emotional flashpoint in the U.S. presidential campaign.
Nelson's council passed a special resolution on Wednesday that would requires any memorial using public funds or being built on public lands to have "widespread community support."
"The Our Way Home monument does not meet this standard," the council said in a press release.
The veterans group and other U.S. critics of the plan had asked the White House to intervene, and threatened to organize an economic boycott of the Nelson area in the Kootenay Region, which has a significant tourism industry.
The Our Way Home group had already told city officials it was willing to locate the bronze sculpture somewhere else, but still planned to hold the peace gathering in July 2006.
The group said it wanted to honor both the U.S. citizens who moved to Canada, rather than serve in a war they politically opposed, and the Canadians who helped them build lives in a new country.
It has been estimated that 125,000 Americans fled to Canada to avoid Vietnam and prosecution under U.S. law, although about half returned home after President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty in 1997.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A Canadian community has blocked plans for a controversial memorial to Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War and U.S. military draft, officials said on Wednesday.
Peace activists wanted to build the memorial as part of a reunion celebration scheduled for 2006 in Nelson, a small city in the mountains of southeastern British Columbia, where many of the Vietnam-era draft dodgers eventually settled.
The proposal was denounced by the U.S. Veterans of Foreign Wars, and came as the issue of service in the military during Vietnam has become an emotional flashpoint in the U.S. presidential campaign.
Nelson's council passed a special resolution on Wednesday that would requires any memorial using public funds or being built on public lands to have "widespread community support."
"The Our Way Home monument does not meet this standard," the council said in a press release.
The veterans group and other U.S. critics of the plan had asked the White House to intervene, and threatened to organize an economic boycott of the Nelson area in the Kootenay Region, which has a significant tourism industry.
The Our Way Home group had already told city officials it was willing to locate the bronze sculpture somewhere else, but still planned to hold the peace gathering in July 2006.
The group said it wanted to honor both the U.S. citizens who moved to Canada, rather than serve in a war they politically opposed, and the Canadians who helped them build lives in a new country.
It has been estimated that 125,000 Americans fled to Canada to avoid Vietnam and prosecution under U.S. law, although about half returned home after President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty in 1997.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Linknasium
The Kallini Brothers note a particularly ludicrous comment at Democratic Underpants.
"Particularly ludicrous comment at Democratic Underpants," I say. That's like a particularly watery lake.
Topical to Raging Dave's posts this week:
Oy! Cox & Forkum. Go see 'em.
How widespread is violence in Iraq? Not very.
Lastly, Jim at Smoke on the Water notes how far the profession of taxidermy has come. Oy deux.
"Particularly ludicrous comment at Democratic Underpants," I say. That's like a particularly watery lake.
Topical to Raging Dave's posts this week:
Oy! Cox & Forkum. Go see 'em.
How widespread is violence in Iraq? Not very.
Lastly, Jim at Smoke on the Water notes how far the profession of taxidermy has come. Oy deux.
Are you getting the story?
Probably not, eh? It's hard, in the wake of CBS and AP fabrications, to know who to trust. From Iraq:
Iraq missions that work out are missing from mainstream media
Seen on Instapundit
Rose verified a message I received from another Marine officer in Iraq. He provided perspective missing in the media: ''Those achievements, more than anything else … account for the surge in violence in recent days — especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra, ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again.''That's a rhetorical question.
Rose asked: ''Why isn't the media covering Samarra?''
Iraq missions that work out are missing from mainstream media
Seen on Instapundit
How's the Site Look?
Not much going on right now on the commentary side of things. Been as busy as all get out over the past two weeks and in reality i am just about posted out. So the best I can offer are two things:
That's a Cooper's Hawk on the right there. Caught it first on my deck and then in a tree next to my deck last week at about 1100 hours. Picture's not great; he was outside and I was in - so that was shot through a screen door. Neat, nonetheless.
Secondly, I have been looking at the site and would like to change it maybe a bit. As I said I have little commentary in me right now but i'd like to add something during my pundicratic hiatus.
Got any suggestions? How ya like the colors? The fonts? The layout? Does the title need changin'? Dave sent me a graphic back a couple weeks, now I recall. Need to look at that again. Is the site easy to read? Difficult?
Talk to me.
Time to pull out
What do you say about the US occupying a territory that is radically devided amongst itself?
What do you say about the US occupying a piece of land, when many residents of that land loath the USA and all it stands for?
What do you say about the USA occupying a piece of land where 2,496 citizens are killed EVERY YEAR?
Well, if you're a Democrat, you'd howl for the USA to leave that territory, wouldn't you? Yep, that would be the Democrat Party answer. "We're losing too many lives! They don't want us there! It's imperialistic!" And this time, I'd agree with them.
Let's get the hell out of California.
Hat tip to RNS.
What do you say about the US occupying a piece of land, when many residents of that land loath the USA and all it stands for?
What do you say about the USA occupying a piece of land where 2,496 citizens are killed EVERY YEAR?
Well, if you're a Democrat, you'd howl for the USA to leave that territory, wouldn't you? Yep, that would be the Democrat Party answer. "We're losing too many lives! They don't want us there! It's imperialistic!" And this time, I'd agree with them.
Let's get the hell out of California.
Hat tip to RNS.
Fox News now officially destroying the competition
Fox News beats all rivals
Television - Variety
Fox News beats all rivals
Tue Sep 28, 6:23 PM ET Television - Variety
Pamela McClintock, STAFF
NEW YORK -- For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, with major headlines of the summer including the national political conventions and a brutal string of hurricanes.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Sunday.
CNN came in a distant second, averaging 882,000 viewers, while MSNBC drew 421,000. Headline News averaged 226,000 in primetime, and CNBC attracted a paltry 133,000.
Most of the cable news nets were up significantly vs. Q3 2003 thanks to a busy news cycle. The one exception was CNBC, which was down 13%.
Buoyed by the Olympics and convention coverage, MSNBC saw the most growth in its primetime aud, up a hefty 55%. Fox News came in second in terms of growth, up 39%. CNN was up 19% and Headline News 17%.
In the key news demo, Fox News averaged 405,000 viewers in 25-54, a 44% improvement on the same period in 2003. CNN averaged 195,000 viewers in the demo, up 17%. At 115,000, MSNBC was up 34%.
Headline News averaged 75,000 viewers in the demo, up only 6% from the same frame last year. CNBC improved its performance in the demo, averaging 53,000 viewers, a 36% jump.
Fox News' third-quarter performance further solidified its dominance in the field of cable news, as well as its increasing strength against even the broadcast nets. During the Republican National Convention in late August, Fox News won out over ABC News, CBS News and NBC News, also a first for a cable news net.
Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush (news - web sites) on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" drew a whopping 4.6 million viewers.
Fox News had nine of the 10 top programs during the third quarter, with O'Reilly remaining at No. 1, averaging 2.4 million viewers. The one exception was CNN's "Larry King Live," which was No. 6, averaging 1.3 million viewers.
Television - Variety
Fox News beats all rivals
Tue Sep 28, 6:23 PM ET Television - Variety
Pamela McClintock, STAFF
NEW YORK -- For the first time in its history, Fox News Channel beat the combined competition in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, with major headlines of the summer including the national political conventions and a brutal string of hurricanes.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 1.8 million viewers, while CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News averaged a combined total of 1.7 million. The quarter ended Sunday.
CNN came in a distant second, averaging 882,000 viewers, while MSNBC drew 421,000. Headline News averaged 226,000 in primetime, and CNBC attracted a paltry 133,000.
Most of the cable news nets were up significantly vs. Q3 2003 thanks to a busy news cycle. The one exception was CNBC, which was down 13%.
Buoyed by the Olympics and convention coverage, MSNBC saw the most growth in its primetime aud, up a hefty 55%. Fox News came in second in terms of growth, up 39%. CNN was up 19% and Headline News 17%.
In the key news demo, Fox News averaged 405,000 viewers in 25-54, a 44% improvement on the same period in 2003. CNN averaged 195,000 viewers in the demo, up 17%. At 115,000, MSNBC was up 34%.
Headline News averaged 75,000 viewers in the demo, up only 6% from the same frame last year. CNBC improved its performance in the demo, averaging 53,000 viewers, a 36% jump.
Fox News' third-quarter performance further solidified its dominance in the field of cable news, as well as its increasing strength against even the broadcast nets. During the Republican National Convention in late August, Fox News won out over ABC News, CBS News and NBC News, also a first for a cable news net.
Earlier this week, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush (news - web sites) on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" drew a whopping 4.6 million viewers.
Fox News had nine of the 10 top programs during the third quarter, with O'Reilly remaining at No. 1, averaging 2.4 million viewers. The one exception was CNN's "Larry King Live," which was No. 6, averaging 1.3 million viewers.
Can CBS really be that stupid?
Yes, yes they can. From Ratherbiased.com via LGF.
And as I pointed out yesterday, it's the cheating lying worthless DEMOCRATS who have been pushing legislation trying to bring back the draft, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH OR THE REPUBLICANS!
CBS - All the forged, biased, over-spun horseshit that they can cram on national TV. Dan Rather and all the CBS executives should be drawn and quartered for their lies, distortions and smear jobs.
UPDATE: Analog Kid has a link to the Alpaca Burger Forum, where the supposed law firm that the email originated from were contacted. The law firm itself says "It's a hoax."
In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare elderly “Evening” viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft.
At the center of Schlesinger’s piece was a woman named Beverly Cocco, a Philadelphia woman who is “sick to my stomach” that her two sons might be drafted. In his report, Schlesinger claimed that Cocco was a Republican and portrayed her as an apolitical (even Republican) mom worried about the future.
Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal proscription, seeks to establish a “peaceful, rational foreign policy” by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Like Schlesinger’s Cocco, the group portrays itself as “nonpartisan” although its leadership seems to be entirely bereft of any Republicans.
The group’s domain is registered to a man named Jacob Levich, a left-wing activist who in a 2001 essay compared the Bush Administration to the totalitarian government portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984.
And as I pointed out yesterday, it's the cheating lying worthless DEMOCRATS who have been pushing legislation trying to bring back the draft, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH OR THE REPUBLICANS!
CBS - All the forged, biased, over-spun horseshit that they can cram on national TV. Dan Rather and all the CBS executives should be drawn and quartered for their lies, distortions and smear jobs.
UPDATE: Analog Kid has a link to the Alpaca Burger Forum, where the supposed law firm that the email originated from were contacted. The law firm itself says "It's a hoax."
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Time for the Tar and Feathers!
So lets see here - John Fonda Kerry gives a speech in which he claims that the draft will be brought back if Bush gets re-elected.
Powerline recieves an email from "Rock the Vote" which raises the possiblility of a draft.
However, President Bush has stated several times that he does not want to re-instate the draft. So where are these Democrats getting this "the draft is coming back" idea from?
How about fellow Democrats Charles Rangel and Jim "Baghdad" McDermott.
Just to be clear - while accusing the Republicans of wanting/attempting to reinstate the draft, the Democrats have been putting forward legislation that attempts to reinstate the draft.
And people wonder why I call today's modern Democrats a bunch of whiny, lying, cheating, shit sucking, worthless, gutless, cowardly fucking parasites who's only inherant value is as moving targets?
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.
Powerline recieves an email from "Rock the Vote" which raises the possiblility of a draft.
YOU HAVE BEEN DRAFTED!
http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476
This is not a real draft, but a real one may happen soon if the current situation doesn't improve.
However, President Bush has stated several times that he does not want to re-instate the draft. So where are these Democrats getting this "the draft is coming back" idea from?
How about fellow Democrats Charles Rangel and Jim "Baghdad" McDermott.
Just to be clear - while accusing the Republicans of wanting/attempting to reinstate the draft, the Democrats have been putting forward legislation that attempts to reinstate the draft.
And people wonder why I call today's modern Democrats a bunch of whiny, lying, cheating, shit sucking, worthless, gutless, cowardly fucking parasites who's only inherant value is as moving targets?
Scroll down a bit....
Four paragraphs, to be exact. And then settle down and read.
The Mainstream Media has been American's enemy for over three decades. Hell, the LEFT has been America's enemy for over three decades. Those same failed idols are the ones harping and shrieking now, using the same failing words, touting the same failed ideas.
They're failures.
Hue city. The NVA took it. So, we flattened them, and the whole damned city. The embassy? they breached the courtyard, and were gunned down there, never having actually gotten indoors. At every turn, we slaughtered them. They sent regiments out on mission, and they never returned. Our troops were performing every bit as admirably as their American ideals expected of them, and because of their intrepidness, we were winning.
but we didn't know it. Thanks to the media, and assholes like John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and their ilk, the American public was told that their children were turning into babykillers in an unwinnable war.
The Mainstream Media has been American's enemy for over three decades. Hell, the LEFT has been America's enemy for over three decades. Those same failed idols are the ones harping and shrieking now, using the same failing words, touting the same failed ideas.
They're failures.
Check out this...
...USGS drum (seismograph) recording at San Juan Grade, California, today.
Errrrrr.........Mommy!!??
Errrrrr.........Mommy!!??
Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease!
Geek with a .45 is reporting that the M-16 rifle may be seeing it's last days.
Oh Frabjus day! Oh radient light from heaven! Oh cleansing firepower!
Now, just to clear things up a bit, it's not that I don't like the M-16. No, I loath that rifle.
I've been polite around people who like it. I mean hey, it can be fun to shoot, it's a great varmint rifle, low arc, decent velocity, yada yada yada. But as a battle rifle? I'd rather have a slingshot. The 5.56 round is pathetic when it comes to any decent kind of damage on a man-sized target. Time and time again, reports would come back about enemy combatants who had been shot with an M-16 AND KEPT ON COMING! BAD JUJU! BAD! BAD! Why in g-d's name would you give your troops a round with the same diameter as a freakin' .22? I enjoy plinking as much as the next guy, but not when my life depends on it! If the round doesn't knock a guy flat on his ass when he's hit with it, then it damn well better do enough damage so that he doesn't want to keep fighting! In this regard, the 5.56 FAILS!
And then lets look at the chamber of the gun... have any of you ever seen the chamber of an M-16? It's a mess, with eight different lugs that have to be manuvered around just to clean the damn thing. And it's tempermental, man. One speck of dirt in the wrong place and the gun will jam, or the round won't seat, or the bolt will slow down and double-feed rounds. It flat out sucks. Tempermental battle rifles ARE NOT GOOD THINGS!
And to top it all off, the gun is designed in such a way that it gets dirty quick. It's gas-operated, meaning the gas from a fired round is forced back into the bolt to push the bolt back and cycle another round into the chamber. You can't clean the damn gas tube out with anything other than string and CLP, because if you try to clean it with a Q-Tip the swab breaks off and gets stuck, and pipe cleaners do the same thing if they don't just clog it up, so you pretty much have to soak the damn tube to get all the crap out of it. And all the carbon and CRAP that is contained in the gasses are shot RIGHT BACK INTO THE CHAMBER OF THE GUN! THIS GUN SHITS WHERE IT EATS, AND IT'S A TEMPERMENTAL BITCH TO BEGIN WITH! DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?
When my unit at Ft. Riley handed me a S.A.W. instead of the M-16, I was tapdancing for a week. I handed the 16 back to the armorer and said "Here, you can keep this for the rest of my life!" with a frigging SMILE! Whoever decided that the M-16 should be adopted needs a good swift kick in the nads. Why not just send your troops out with big pointy sticks? They're just about as effective and look scarier!
So while there is no confirmation yet, if word comes down that the Geek has the right news, it's going to be happy days at the Raging Dave household. I'll burn an M-16 effigy. I'll bar-be-que up some burgers, pound a few beers, and celebrate!
Good-bye, M-16. I knew you too well.
Oh Frabjus day! Oh radient light from heaven! Oh cleansing firepower!
Now, just to clear things up a bit, it's not that I don't like the M-16. No, I loath that rifle.
I've been polite around people who like it. I mean hey, it can be fun to shoot, it's a great varmint rifle, low arc, decent velocity, yada yada yada. But as a battle rifle? I'd rather have a slingshot. The 5.56 round is pathetic when it comes to any decent kind of damage on a man-sized target. Time and time again, reports would come back about enemy combatants who had been shot with an M-16 AND KEPT ON COMING! BAD JUJU! BAD! BAD! Why in g-d's name would you give your troops a round with the same diameter as a freakin' .22? I enjoy plinking as much as the next guy, but not when my life depends on it! If the round doesn't knock a guy flat on his ass when he's hit with it, then it damn well better do enough damage so that he doesn't want to keep fighting! In this regard, the 5.56 FAILS!
And then lets look at the chamber of the gun... have any of you ever seen the chamber of an M-16? It's a mess, with eight different lugs that have to be manuvered around just to clean the damn thing. And it's tempermental, man. One speck of dirt in the wrong place and the gun will jam, or the round won't seat, or the bolt will slow down and double-feed rounds. It flat out sucks. Tempermental battle rifles ARE NOT GOOD THINGS!
And to top it all off, the gun is designed in such a way that it gets dirty quick. It's gas-operated, meaning the gas from a fired round is forced back into the bolt to push the bolt back and cycle another round into the chamber. You can't clean the damn gas tube out with anything other than string and CLP, because if you try to clean it with a Q-Tip the swab breaks off and gets stuck, and pipe cleaners do the same thing if they don't just clog it up, so you pretty much have to soak the damn tube to get all the crap out of it. And all the carbon and CRAP that is contained in the gasses are shot RIGHT BACK INTO THE CHAMBER OF THE GUN! THIS GUN SHITS WHERE IT EATS, AND IT'S A TEMPERMENTAL BITCH TO BEGIN WITH! DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?
When my unit at Ft. Riley handed me a S.A.W. instead of the M-16, I was tapdancing for a week. I handed the 16 back to the armorer and said "Here, you can keep this for the rest of my life!" with a frigging SMILE! Whoever decided that the M-16 should be adopted needs a good swift kick in the nads. Why not just send your troops out with big pointy sticks? They're just about as effective and look scarier!
So while there is no confirmation yet, if word comes down that the Geek has the right news, it's going to be happy days at the Raging Dave household. I'll burn an M-16 effigy. I'll bar-be-que up some burgers, pound a few beers, and celebrate!
Good-bye, M-16. I knew you too well.
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Bruce Springsteen, currently touring the country playing Tunes for Kerry, has found enormous sustenance from Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. This interview is pure DNC Playbook stuff, but worth a read if you have forgotten how vapid, vacuous, and, well, whiney the American Left have become.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Hmmmmmm....
Snack foods don't fatten kids.
That's interesting, but not quite news to people who don't subscribe to the latest hue and cry about heath in this country. While the government and nanny-statists shriek about how horrible it is to have fat people, and how we should just DO something, people like my parents have been shaking their heads and sighing.
Here's an equasion for you folks out there. If calorie intake is greater than calorie usage, you will gain weight. If your calorie intake is LESS than your calorie usage, you will lose weight.
Now granted, that's pretty simplified, and there are always exceptions to the rule. But the exceptions PROVE the rule. Want to lose weight? Either eat fewer calories or raise the level of calorie use (i.e. get off your ass and excersise).
Please notice that I never said "EAT LESS", I said "EAT FEWER CALORIES". Five ounces of carrot sticks carry fewer calories than five ounces of potato chips or french fries. Me, I eat like a damn whale. Seriously, I'm always eating. But it's WHAT I eat that I care about, not how much. Lots of fruit. Apples, pears, bananas, bring 'em on. Salads. Lean meat. I pull the skin off my chicken before I cook it, that takes away 80% of the fat content right there. You want fried chicken without the fat? Try this:
Skinless chicken.
Two eggs.
breadcrumbs (seasoned or not, whatever you prefer)
Beat the eggs in a bowl. Coat the chicken with egg, and then roll it in breadcrumbs. Bake in the oven at 350 until done (about 30-45 minutes). You can tell it's done when you stick it with a fork and no blood comes out. Clear liquid is fine.
There ya go. It has a crunchy "skin" just like fried chicken, but without the fat from the skin or the grease from the cooking. Less fat means less calories, since fat is rather calorie heavy.
Look at your starch intake. Starches are transformed into sugar in your body. People who run a lot will be familiar with carbo-loading, eating lots of carbohydrates the night before a big event. If you don't use that sugar, your body turns it into fat for storage. When I was running five miles a day, I was eating tons of pasta and rice. When I got out of active duty, I cut down on my starches. I'm eating more fruits and veggies in place of those carbs.
I still eat the same amount, but I don't eat the same things.
If you really want to be healthy, don't listen to all the hysteria that crops up on a weekly basis. Eat healthy (more veggies!), and excersise (even if it's just walking around the block a few times). That's it. It really is that simple.
That's interesting, but not quite news to people who don't subscribe to the latest hue and cry about heath in this country. While the government and nanny-statists shriek about how horrible it is to have fat people, and how we should just DO something, people like my parents have been shaking their heads and sighing.
Here's an equasion for you folks out there. If calorie intake is greater than calorie usage, you will gain weight. If your calorie intake is LESS than your calorie usage, you will lose weight.
Now granted, that's pretty simplified, and there are always exceptions to the rule. But the exceptions PROVE the rule. Want to lose weight? Either eat fewer calories or raise the level of calorie use (i.e. get off your ass and excersise).
Please notice that I never said "EAT LESS", I said "EAT FEWER CALORIES". Five ounces of carrot sticks carry fewer calories than five ounces of potato chips or french fries. Me, I eat like a damn whale. Seriously, I'm always eating. But it's WHAT I eat that I care about, not how much. Lots of fruit. Apples, pears, bananas, bring 'em on. Salads. Lean meat. I pull the skin off my chicken before I cook it, that takes away 80% of the fat content right there. You want fried chicken without the fat? Try this:
Skinless chicken.
Two eggs.
breadcrumbs (seasoned or not, whatever you prefer)
Beat the eggs in a bowl. Coat the chicken with egg, and then roll it in breadcrumbs. Bake in the oven at 350 until done (about 30-45 minutes). You can tell it's done when you stick it with a fork and no blood comes out. Clear liquid is fine.
There ya go. It has a crunchy "skin" just like fried chicken, but without the fat from the skin or the grease from the cooking. Less fat means less calories, since fat is rather calorie heavy.
Look at your starch intake. Starches are transformed into sugar in your body. People who run a lot will be familiar with carbo-loading, eating lots of carbohydrates the night before a big event. If you don't use that sugar, your body turns it into fat for storage. When I was running five miles a day, I was eating tons of pasta and rice. When I got out of active duty, I cut down on my starches. I'm eating more fruits and veggies in place of those carbs.
I still eat the same amount, but I don't eat the same things.
If you really want to be healthy, don't listen to all the hysteria that crops up on a weekly basis. Eat healthy (more veggies!), and excersise (even if it's just walking around the block a few times). That's it. It really is that simple.
The Work Gap.
There's an interesting article on Fox News about the Wage Gap in America.
Or as I'm calling it, the Work Gap.
Gender feminists will ALWAYS scream that discrimination is increasing. It's what they do. But let's look at a few causes for this so called wage gap.
Lets look at a few other things, shall we? Maternaty leave, for one. How many men take four months off to go have a baby? Not that many, obviously. Look at the jobs that men take vs. women. How many women do you see working on skyscrapers? Unless they're the architect, not too damn many. But a job that involves walking on steel I-beams thirty stories up is going to pay more than a job involving officework and paper-filing. It's harder work, involving more danger, and the pay reflects that.
How many women do you see draining septic tanks? Not too damn many.
How man women do you see tossing trash? Not too damn many.
How many women work the graveyard shifts? Not too damn many.
How many women do you see taking the dirty, nasty, hard work that comes with a larger paycheck?
Not too damn many!
When a man and a woman work the same hours at the same job, the wage gap dissappears. But the modern feminists don't want you to know that. The so-called wage gap is a fiction, made up by people who want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
The wage gap doesn't exist.
Or as I'm calling it, the Work Gap.
An Aug. 26 report from the U.S. Census Bureau stated that the median female full-time wage for women was 75.5 cents for every dollar similarly earned by men; that's down .6 percent from 2002.
Gender feminists quickly cried "discrimination is increasing!"
Is that charge true, and how is it being used?
Gender feminists will ALWAYS scream that discrimination is increasing. It's what they do. But let's look at a few causes for this so called wage gap.
"Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men."
"some experts said that some women trade off career advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities."
"Surveys do not usually account for factors such as "shift premiums." That is, shifts that are dangerous or otherwise undesirable are more highly paid and more likely to be filled by men."
Lets look at a few other things, shall we? Maternaty leave, for one. How many men take four months off to go have a baby? Not that many, obviously. Look at the jobs that men take vs. women. How many women do you see working on skyscrapers? Unless they're the architect, not too damn many. But a job that involves walking on steel I-beams thirty stories up is going to pay more than a job involving officework and paper-filing. It's harder work, involving more danger, and the pay reflects that.
How many women do you see draining septic tanks? Not too damn many.
How man women do you see tossing trash? Not too damn many.
How many women work the graveyard shifts? Not too damn many.
How many women do you see taking the dirty, nasty, hard work that comes with a larger paycheck?
Not too damn many!
For the same reasons women would seek flexible hours, they also are likely to work fewer hours in a full-time job. Raises, bonuses, and promotions more naturally flow toward employees who work longer hours.
Indeed, when you factor out variables like having children, the wage gap virtually disappears.
In their book "Women's Figures" (1999), economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba meticulously compared data on the earnings of childless men and women aged 27 to 33. They found that the wage gap shrank to 98 cents.
When a man and a woman work the same hours at the same job, the wage gap dissappears. But the modern feminists don't want you to know that. The so-called wage gap is a fiction, made up by people who want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
The wage gap doesn't exist.
Lovely Linkies
Lee over at Right Thinking from the Left Coast wonders aloud why we have to understand them while they make little effort to understand us. It's a good question.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports the suggestion that waiting in line at airport security checkpoints makes one a compelling target. I catch the drift, for sure.
Speaking of "getting to know them":
See? Sometimes people can reach out to each other if they would only try. Why, i'd wager that if Raging Dave and Analog Kid were to just dab a little patchouli from time to time, they'd be volunteering to aide for Senator Cantwell post haste.
LASTLY ==>, it has been one month since Steven den Beste announced his sabbatical from the USS Clueless. Suggestion: read his farewell (if you have not already), and consider clicking the Contact link and sending him a quick note. I suspect most of what was directed his way after his announcement he wound up trashing, as the incessant influx of emails into his inbox were one of the things that drove him mad, or nearly mad. I'm going to drop him a quick one that will read something simple and sincere, like: "SDB: I hope this note finds you well. One of your readers, Tim."
Anyway, if you read and appreciated den Beste the way I did, it is hereby suggested that you just say hello. Ignore it as you see fit.
Evening.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports the suggestion that waiting in line at airport security checkpoints makes one a compelling target. I catch the drift, for sure.
Speaking of "getting to know them":
James M. Ault Jr. is a self-described '60s radical who embraced the anti-war movement, feminism and other left-leaning enthusiasms of the day. He has also taught sociology at Harvard University and Smith College and produced an award-winning documentary called Born Again: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church, broadcast on PBS and abroad.He goes in prepared to be critical of the believers, but comes out with a different feeling. Interesting.
See? Sometimes people can reach out to each other if they would only try. Why, i'd wager that if Raging Dave and Analog Kid were to just dab a little patchouli from time to time, they'd be volunteering to aide for Senator Cantwell post haste.
LASTLY ==>, it has been one month since Steven den Beste announced his sabbatical from the USS Clueless. Suggestion: read his farewell (if you have not already), and consider clicking the Contact link and sending him a quick note. I suspect most of what was directed his way after his announcement he wound up trashing, as the incessant influx of emails into his inbox were one of the things that drove him mad, or nearly mad. I'm going to drop him a quick one that will read something simple and sincere, like: "SDB: I hope this note finds you well. One of your readers, Tim."
Anyway, if you read and appreciated den Beste the way I did, it is hereby suggested that you just say hello. Ignore it as you see fit.
Evening.
Smackdown
This is as thorough a depiction of your garden variety self-absorbed and uber-haughty urban leftist intellectual wannabe as this writer has ever seen. Witnesseth:
Gotta read it, ladies and gents.
The Sunday Times is the weekly sermon: let us reinforce your world view, your sense of belonging to the Thinking Class, the Special Ones. Let the Red Staters spend Sunday morning in itchy church clothes at Perkins, dumping syrup all over their pancakes and yelling at little Lurleen not to pour salt down her baby brother’s jumper; you’re in your elegant spare little apartment with a cup of coffee (frothed on top; sprinkle of nutmeg) and a pastry from that wonderful place around the corner (okay, it’s an Au Bon Pain – hell, they’re all Bon Pain now) and there’s some light jazz on the radio. Morning jazz, if you had to give the genre a name. Anyway, it’s a sunny fall morning – well, noonish. Now comes the capstone moment when you lay the slab of the Times in your lap and begin the autoposy of the week. Scan the A section headlines - yes, yes, yes, appalling.Oof!
Gotta read it, ladies and gents.
I work with a couple guys who are retired servicemen...
...and I overheard them having a conversation last week. One fellow, Marine Corps 1981-1985, had sent a link to this CNN article regarding the death of photographer Eddie Adams to the other (retired Army, veteran of the Vietnam War). Adams' most famous photograph accompanies this post.
These two guys were mentioning that this was the first time they had seen the photograph accompanied in mainstream press by an explanation of why the prisoner was shot. Most of the press the picture got, they said, seemed designed to simply potray our allies in Vietnam as being vicious and evil, and sought to portray America's policies as being similarly evil, since we had created an environment in Vietnam where street executions like this one occured.
The fellow who had served in Vietnam was genuinely grateful for the link. He said he was treated poorly upon his return, and "that photograph was a big part of it". He said his return flight plan was from Asia to San Francisco to New York, but it almost wound up being Asia to San Francisco to jail, because some guy sitting next to him on the flight from California to New York spent an hour explaining to him how soldiers had been abused and brainwashed and corrupted and used to spread the evil of America into Vietnam. The photo here was cited in the conversation.
Anyway, my colleague said it was the thought of arriving at home ASAP that saved this fellow sitting next to him two or three bouts of oral surgery.
You've seen this picture. Do you know why the "victim" was shot?
Back from the Road
Been a slow coupla weeks for me and blogging. Maybe that's just as well as I'd have spent most of my time waxing pajamic about CBS & their colleagues at the Kerry campaign, and that's getting boring. For some, it's been boring from the get-go, I reckon, as for some, the "news" of corruption in Big Media ain't really news.
Will blog all day. Will blog all week. I start today with the picture at right. It is a picture of accumulated sap on the trunk of a Montmorency Cherry tree, backlit by late day sun. It's about the size of a golf ball.
Is there a horticulturalist's technical term for "body of accumulated sap on the trunk of a mature tree"?
While we're here, there's a guy in Japan who claims that he has composed a ring tone for your cellie that will spur enlargement of the breasts for anyone who uses it. Word is that Michael Moore is having it reversed engineered.
Good day, all.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Happy Happy Joy Joy!
Ah-HEM!
SEAHAWKS ROUT THE 49ERS! 34 TO FRIGGING 0! GO HAWKS! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Now back to your regular commenting.
SEAHAWKS ROUT THE 49ERS! 34 TO FRIGGING 0! GO HAWKS! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Now back to your regular commenting.
Ooooo, pretty!
Mollbot's been accessorizing and stuff!
Although I think I'll keep the original stock on my SKS.... the girlfriend gets all hot and bothered over the fact that it has a massive bayonett on it.
Heh. Baby likes them sharp pokey things. We've got enough steel hanging in our living room to scare the hell out of most libs.
Although I think I'll keep the original stock on my SKS.... the girlfriend gets all hot and bothered over the fact that it has a massive bayonett on it.
Heh. Baby likes them sharp pokey things. We've got enough steel hanging in our living room to scare the hell out of most libs.
Random Thoughts
In the liberal mind today, "unilateral" equals bad, evil, right-wing, conservative, ect. You've heard all the smears and lies. "Multilateral" equals the Left's wet dream, the embodiment of all that is good and holy. For the left, "unilateral" bad, "multilateral" good.
Now, keep in mind that the above is a liberal's viewpoint. Got it? Good. Knowing what and how the liberals think, how can you explain the fact that the invasion of Iraq, decried as "unilateral" by the Left (despite the actual truth of over 40 other countries by our side) managed to remove Saddam and the Taliban, yet our total and completely multilateral approach to Sudan has resulted in a total lack of action and several hundreds of thousands of murdered civilians?
They sneer at our efforts in the Middle East as unilateral and call it bad. Yet when we do what the liberals want in regards to Sudan, nothing happens. Thousands of people get murdered while the rest of the world sits on it's hands.
What do liberals really want? Obviously, they prefer mass murder to positive action by the US military.
Any comments?
Now, keep in mind that the above is a liberal's viewpoint. Got it? Good. Knowing what and how the liberals think, how can you explain the fact that the invasion of Iraq, decried as "unilateral" by the Left (despite the actual truth of over 40 other countries by our side) managed to remove Saddam and the Taliban, yet our total and completely multilateral approach to Sudan has resulted in a total lack of action and several hundreds of thousands of murdered civilians?
They sneer at our efforts in the Middle East as unilateral and call it bad. Yet when we do what the liberals want in regards to Sudan, nothing happens. Thousands of people get murdered while the rest of the world sits on it's hands.
What do liberals really want? Obviously, they prefer mass murder to positive action by the US military.
Any comments?
Ahem
Beldar has a challenge for the Left.
For all the talk being slung around by the Left about the Swift Vet's charges being "debunked", I haven't seen one shred of evidence to support the Left's claim. In fact, the Swift Vets didn't have to change their charges one bit, it's been John Kerry who's had to change his story, or retract a statement, or "clarify" things over and over.
So how about it, Lefties? Whatcha got?
Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?
Some ground rules for this challenge that I think are not unreasonable:
By "specific," I mean to exclude sweeping conclusions like "John Kerry wasn't as big a hero as he's made out." By material, I mean to exclude trivia like "the VC soldier John Kerry shot was in a uniform instead of in a loincloth." And I ask that if you're to make an honest effort to meet my challenge, you provide quotes and links, both to the SwiftVets' allegations and to the evidence that you offer to show debunking or lack of substantiation.
(.....)
I of course reserve the right to offer a rebuttal, as will, I'm sure, my like-minded readers. But I'm genuinely curious about this, and will try to summarize the results of this challenge fairly in a new post sometime early next week.
For all the talk being slung around by the Left about the Swift Vet's charges being "debunked", I haven't seen one shred of evidence to support the Left's claim. In fact, the Swift Vets didn't have to change their charges one bit, it's been John Kerry who's had to change his story, or retract a statement, or "clarify" things over and over.
So how about it, Lefties? Whatcha got?