Lyons admitted to the Associated Press Friday that the ad, which NARAL pulled, is "confusing, but not false."All Roberts' brief said was, "You're applying the wrong law!" That's it. He wasn't condoning violence in any way and he couldn't have defended Lyon's abortion clinic bomber unless he had a time machine. Hmmm.... "Confusing but not false" ... kinda has a nice ring to it. Sort of academic sounding, and we haven't had a humorous cliche in a while. It has the same connotation as "fake but accurate" - i.e., "we lied our asses off but what we said was true" - but more nuance. What a charming little alternative universe these people live in. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
...Lyons appears in the ad and tells viewers about the bombing that injured her, even though it occurred seven years after the brief Roberts filed. The ad never mentions the reasons for Roberts' brief...
Saturday, August 13, 2005
"Confusing But Not False"
Not as cute as "fake but accurate" of course but shows promise, don't you think? NARAL pulled its anti-Roberts ad because it was a lie, and their star, bombing victim Emily Lyons, has coined a new phrase to describe and defend NARAL's blatant dishonesty:
What's the phrase?
A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.
Well, here's a liberal who was mugged by reality, although I don't know if it'll make him think any harder.
What kind of liberal asshat do you have to be to buy property in Cuba right now? Just how indoctrinated and mindless do you have to be in order to think you have any rights in Cuba right now? Just how fucking dumb do you have to be in order to think you can just go about life in Cuba as you would at home? These people have learned NOTHING! FUCKING NOTHING! Every communist cockgoblin who worships Castro (which includes a majority of the Democrat Party) has learned NOTHING IN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS!
I can't shed a single tear for this guy.
Found via RNS.
Well, here's a liberal who was mugged by reality, although I don't know if it'll make him think any harder.
A Canadian naivo, someone who probably fancied himself a little too smart to be taken in by a thief, kind of ignored his tingling antennae in the case of castro. So, he obtained a house in Cuba and all the permits to repair it, probably happily thinking to himself that while those gringos have their trade embargo, he had no such problem. Silly gringos, didn't they understand that Cuba is a normal place, just like Canada? A place where you get permits and those permits mean what they say? Maybe it was better that they didn't. With the absence of a gringo buying market to drive up real estate prices, he had it made. What never occurred to him is that the embargo was enacted to protect Americans, not to punish castro. The naive Canadian had no idea he had no such protections.
So, he got TOOK for $100,000 in repairs he made to the house he "bought" in Cuba. It was something he intended to live in, and he vaguely says it was all legal, but the fact remains it was possibly obtained at the expense of some Cuban family castro confiscated it from earlier. If it wasn't, trust me, there were houses in that area that were. And in his naivete, the Canadian somehow thought it couldn't happen to him.
castro took one look at the Canadian's sumptious restoration and lovingly done repairs, and promptly ... confiscated it .... without compensation and without explanation. He handed it to some crony Cuban colonel.
Who's now turning his unearned spoil of socialist redistribution back into a hovel.
What kind of liberal asshat do you have to be to buy property in Cuba right now? Just how indoctrinated and mindless do you have to be in order to think you have any rights in Cuba right now? Just how fucking dumb do you have to be in order to think you can just go about life in Cuba as you would at home? These people have learned NOTHING! FUCKING NOTHING! Every communist cockgoblin who worships Castro (which includes a majority of the Democrat Party) has learned NOTHING IN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS!
I can't shed a single tear for this guy.
Found via RNS.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Hang the Traitors
Wasn’t it Kissinger who recused himself from the 9/11 Commission early on due to supposition that he had a conflict of interest because he was a prior secretary of state – thirty years ago? But Jamie GoreLick was ok though she was the #2 person in Clinton’s Department of Justice rather than Nixon’s National Security Advisor or Ford’s Secretary of State. Makes sense to me. Not! To any rational mind, Jamie GoreLick had a much, much bigger conflict of interest than did Henry Kissinger. Seems to me, Jamie GoreLick was put on the 9/11 Commission for a very specific reason – to deflect blame from the Clinton administration. Well, mission accomplished Jamie! Well done! Except for one thing – despite your rush to publish your best-selling novel and cement the history books in a tightly wrapped package, it ain’t over.
Apparently the 9/11 Commission decided early on to blame our failure as a nation to stop 9/11 from happening on the intelligence community rather than the Clinton administration which stripped both the intelligence community and law enforcement community of their ability to act. Why you ask? Just look to see who stood to lose if the Department of Justice and the “Wall” that separated international from domestic intelligence was implicated. Jamie S. GoreLick, creator of the “Wall,” 9/11 Commissioner, and #2 person in Clinton’s Department of Justice.
GoreLick never had to take the witness stand and explain why her "Wall" was enacted in the first place. That is the most relevant question the 9/11 Commission could have asked, and it is the one that it could not ask thanks to the fact that the one person who had had more to do with enacting the wall than anyone else was on the Commission itself.
The worst part about all of this is that the 9/11 Commission staff is going into the National Archive, tomorrow(!), to cover their tracks and make sure there is no remaining evidence that could implicate the Commission itself, and they are doing it right under our noses and going “Nyah! Nyah!” as they’re doing it. What’s their official reason for camping out at the National Archives tomorrow? Are they planning on revising their report? The 9/11 Commission is investigating itself now? Investigating their own cover-up? Isn’t that like sending an accused murderer to investigate the crime scene? No way! They just graduated from investigators to suspects. Their credibility is shot! We’ve got the motive (to save their careers, and a sweet book deal), the murder weapon (socks, a la Sandy Bergler), the body (the truth, as mangled as it may be), and they’ve been caught red-handed (by Congressman Curt Weldon). The 9/11 Commission must be really desperate at this point. Wouldn’t you be? If they’re going to raid the National Archives, again, then there’d better be cavity searches before they’re allowed to leave. I’m not joking! If it’s good enough for Martha Stewart, it’s good enough for the 9/11 Commission. They already had their chance when Sandy Bergler raided our tippity-top-secret archives in October 2003, just after the 9/11 Commission was alerted to Able Danger the first time – you know, that time they conveniently forgot about when writing up their report/novel but just now suddenly remembered when someone publicly rubbed their nose in it. The second time they were alerted to Able Danger, which they also said they forgot about, was ten days before their report was released (July 2004), too late to do anything about (yeah right) though it blows a hole in their report so big you could fly a Boeing 747 through it.
UPDATE (Tim): DANEgerus pulls a lot of stuff together here.
UPDATE 2: Poof! Down the memory hole it goes, and with the collaboration of the NY Times to boot. They've already hit the National Archives. According to Dr. Sanity's website:
Apparently the 9/11 Commission decided early on to blame our failure as a nation to stop 9/11 from happening on the intelligence community rather than the Clinton administration which stripped both the intelligence community and law enforcement community of their ability to act. Why you ask? Just look to see who stood to lose if the Department of Justice and the “Wall” that separated international from domestic intelligence was implicated. Jamie S. GoreLick, creator of the “Wall,” 9/11 Commissioner, and #2 person in Clinton’s Department of Justice.
GoreLick never had to take the witness stand and explain why her "Wall" was enacted in the first place. That is the most relevant question the 9/11 Commission could have asked, and it is the one that it could not ask thanks to the fact that the one person who had had more to do with enacting the wall than anyone else was on the Commission itself.
The worst part about all of this is that the 9/11 Commission staff is going into the National Archive, tomorrow(!), to cover their tracks and make sure there is no remaining evidence that could implicate the Commission itself, and they are doing it right under our noses and going “Nyah! Nyah!” as they’re doing it. What’s their official reason for camping out at the National Archives tomorrow? Are they planning on revising their report? The 9/11 Commission is investigating itself now? Investigating their own cover-up? Isn’t that like sending an accused murderer to investigate the crime scene? No way! They just graduated from investigators to suspects. Their credibility is shot! We’ve got the motive (to save their careers, and a sweet book deal), the murder weapon (socks, a la Sandy Bergler), the body (the truth, as mangled as it may be), and they’ve been caught red-handed (by Congressman Curt Weldon). The 9/11 Commission must be really desperate at this point. Wouldn’t you be? If they’re going to raid the National Archives, again, then there’d better be cavity searches before they’re allowed to leave. I’m not joking! If it’s good enough for Martha Stewart, it’s good enough for the 9/11 Commission. They already had their chance when Sandy Bergler raided our tippity-top-secret archives in October 2003, just after the 9/11 Commission was alerted to Able Danger the first time – you know, that time they conveniently forgot about when writing up their report/novel but just now suddenly remembered when someone publicly rubbed their nose in it. The second time they were alerted to Able Danger, which they also said they forgot about, was ten days before their report was released (July 2004), too late to do anything about (yeah right) though it blows a hole in their report so big you could fly a Boeing 747 through it.
UPDATE (Tim): DANEgerus pulls a lot of stuff together here.
UPDATE 2: Poof! Down the memory hole it goes, and with the collaboration of the NY Times to boot. They've already hit the National Archives. According to Dr. Sanity's website:
Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, [9/11 Commission spokesman] Felzenberg said.That is a direct quote from a NY Times article that no longer exists, because the article has disappeared - what is left in its place is this article which has the same URL but a different title than the earlier one and makes no reference to the National Archives. The new article says:
''He could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification,'' the [9/11 Commission's] statement said of the military [intelligence] official.Like I said before, the 9/11 Commission's credibility is shot. I hate to be the first to say it, but we're gonna have to start all over again with a new 9/11 Commission. Most of the data is already there except for the stuff they and Sandy Bergler destroyed - much of it needs to be looked at again and reevaluated, starting with the Prague Connection. You see, the reason that the 9/11 Commission discounted the Able Danger report on Mohammed Atta being in the U.S. prior to June, 2000 was because they needed to discount the Prague connection for political reasons.
...
The relevant data discussed by the officer showed Atta to be a member of an al-Qaida cell in New York City from February to April 2000, the [9/11 Commission's] statement said.
"There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn't give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report," Mr. Felzenberg said. "This information was not meshing with the other information that we had."This is what happens when you have politicians acting as investigators. So if one data point doesn't jive with the data coming from the immigration office, you just toss it? If Atta was not in the country then how could Able Danger, in 2000 more than a year prior to 9/11, identify him as an al Qaeda terrorist in the "Brooklyn cell" and ask to share information with the FBI?
Quote of the Day
Maybe even Quote of the Decade.
From TerrellOwens.com:
Terrell Owens News
From TerrellOwens.com:
"Terrell only asks what every other worker in America asks for, respect and dignity."Terrific!
Terrell Owens News
But there's more!
Over at The Huffington Post, the columnists are positively tripping all over each other to see who can fawn over Cindy Sheehan with the most zeal.
Here's my favorite excerpt:
Here's my favorite excerpt:
There are simple actions that can change the world. In Tiananmen square on June 4, 1989, as the tanks rolled in the quell the protests that had united students and workers, everyone scattered. Except one man who came out of the crowd and stood, calmly in front of the tanks. On CNN you couldn’t tell if he was purposeful , or dazed, but he did not move. The tanks did not roll over him. That moment was the signal for all the changes that followed.Classic, classic stuff.
And in case you weren't upset enough
....then check this out.
But gosh, where would Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi get chemical weapons from?
Now, I know that most liberals are about as dumb as a wet bag of hammers, but I'll allow you to cheat on this answer and use a map.
Guess what country borders Syria? Guess what country had convoys of trucks moving towards the Syrian border right before we went in and took down it's genocidal maniac of a leader? Guess what country had the same political party as Syria right before we smacked it down?
Go ahead, look at that map. I know you need to.
The largest terrorist WMD trial in history is opening in Jordan. 13 Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi loyalists are being tried for an attempted and nearly succcessful catastrophic chemical weapons attack on Jordan.
But gosh, where would Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi get chemical weapons from?
Ten of the captured Al-Qaida terrorists on trial in Jordan for attempting to explode roughly 20 tons of chemical weapons with explosives. Authorities captured the weapons coming into Jordan through Syria.
Now, I know that most liberals are about as dumb as a wet bag of hammers, but I'll allow you to cheat on this answer and use a map.
Guess what country borders Syria? Guess what country had convoys of trucks moving towards the Syrian border right before we went in and took down it's genocidal maniac of a leader? Guess what country had the same political party as Syria right before we smacked it down?
Go ahead, look at that map. I know you need to.
Ready to be pissed off?
I hope so. That's a nice neat little summary of why Hillary Clinton, or anyone associated with the Clintons, should never get her greedy claws on governmental power ever again.
It's rare that such a small group of people can cause so much damage, but when that small group of people have no morals, no standards, no dignity, and no integrity, nothing is too low for them to do.
Remove anything throwable from your desk before clicking on the FrontPage Magazine link. The inmates were running the asylum during the Clinton years, and the inmates were corrupt, rotten, filthy, slimy, diseased little maggots who would whore out their own grandmother to make a dollar.
It's rare that such a small group of people can cause so much damage, but when that small group of people have no morals, no standards, no dignity, and no integrity, nothing is too low for them to do.
Remove anything throwable from your desk before clicking on the FrontPage Magazine link. The inmates were running the asylum during the Clinton years, and the inmates were corrupt, rotten, filthy, slimy, diseased little maggots who would whore out their own grandmother to make a dollar.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Able Danger
What was in Sandy Berger's Pants? Inquiring minds want to know.
It is an undisputed fact that former President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger removed documents with the highest possible security classification from the National Archives, hid those documents in his clothing, took them home with him, and destroyed some of those documents. It will never be known exactly what information was destroyed, but we can be sure it was something that Sandy Berger did not want the 9/11 Commission to include in its report. What do you suppose was in those papers that could have been worth risking a jail sentence and sacrificing his career? Who was Berger protecting? Bill Clinton? Richard Clarke? As Dr. Sanity notes, it sure would be interesting to know what Berger knew about Able Danger and if he wrote a memo, or signed off on one, that specifically related to Able Danger, and whether he and Clark wrote notes that ultimately prevented the distribution of information that would have led to the arrest of the 9/11 hijackers in 2000. Hmmmm.... turns out we could've arrested Mohammed Atta and three of the other 9/11 hijakers back in 2000 and possibly stopped 9/11 from happening. Well that kinda changes everything, don't it? I wonder what was scribbled in the margins that had to be burned - something like, "What? Me worry?"
Adding insult to injury, it turns out that the "bi-partisan" 9/11 Commission was briefed by military intelligence about the Able Danger project, twice, but chose to ignore it - like Able Danger didn't exist. It certainly disn't exist in their report. As Ed Morrissey notes:
It is an undisputed fact that former President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger removed documents with the highest possible security classification from the National Archives, hid those documents in his clothing, took them home with him, and destroyed some of those documents. It will never be known exactly what information was destroyed, but we can be sure it was something that Sandy Berger did not want the 9/11 Commission to include in its report. What do you suppose was in those papers that could have been worth risking a jail sentence and sacrificing his career? Who was Berger protecting? Bill Clinton? Richard Clarke? As Dr. Sanity notes, it sure would be interesting to know what Berger knew about Able Danger and if he wrote a memo, or signed off on one, that specifically related to Able Danger, and whether he and Clark wrote notes that ultimately prevented the distribution of information that would have led to the arrest of the 9/11 hijackers in 2000. Hmmmm.... turns out we could've arrested Mohammed Atta and three of the other 9/11 hijakers back in 2000 and possibly stopped 9/11 from happening. Well that kinda changes everything, don't it? I wonder what was scribbled in the margins that had to be burned - something like, "What? Me worry?"
Adding insult to injury, it turns out that the "bi-partisan" 9/11 Commission was briefed by military intelligence about the Able Danger project, twice, but chose to ignore it - like Able Danger didn't exist. It certainly disn't exist in their report. As Ed Morrissey notes:
After over 24 hours of denying that anyone had told the Commission about the secret project, their spokesman now says that commission officials met with a uniformed officer who told them about the identification of Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers in 2000, over a year prior to the attacks....[Wall? What wall?]...
...
What does that mean for the Commission's findings? It meant that the cornerstone of their conclusions no longer fit the facts. Able Danger showed that the US had enough intelligence to take action -- if the government had allowed law enforcement and intelligence operations to cooperate with each other.
So what did the Commission do? It ignored those facts which did not fit within its predetermined conclusions.The 9/11 Commission has some 'splainin' to do. And why the hell isn't Sandy Berger in jail yet?
More Dangerous Without MAD
Via, Michael Totten at InstaPundit, this from Donklephant:
There's more to it than that, of course, but part of the point is that we at least seemed safer during the days of Mutually Assured Destruction, and in many ways we were safer.
An interesting argument, to be sure, and a complex one. I post it here because it makes me wonder:
Isn't this what Tom Tancredo was talking about when he said the "extremist" things he said?
The rules of M.A.D. — all or nothing — gave us a false sense of safety during the Cold War. In an all-or-nothing world mired in a vast global political struggle, each side could attain relative normalcy. Normal life was disproportionate to the high stakes of the nuclear standoff — and we got used to it. All those layers of morality we built over that blinding apocalyptic core of immaculate annihilation could work a lot of miracles, providing that the promise of destruction was mutual, and total.
.
.
.
Weapons of mass destruction in the 9/11 era no longer represent the end of everything. The threshold to this brave new terror-nuke world is far lower than the threshold to M.A.D. Parity is no longer apparent. That makes catastrophe with a small ‘c’ far more likely to happen.
There's more to it than that, of course, but part of the point is that we at least seemed safer during the days of Mutually Assured Destruction, and in many ways we were safer.
An interesting argument, to be sure, and a complex one. I post it here because it makes me wonder:
Isn't this what Tom Tancredo was talking about when he said the "extremist" things he said?
Hollywood at War
The War is about to get very, very ugly right here at home according to Hollywood filmmaker Jason Apuzzo:
Apuzzo goes on to describe ten revolting movie plots already in production. Here’s a sample:
Excuse me while I go short-sell some stock.
”…with box-office numbers trending down, studio executives are suddenly greenlighting movies they can describe to shareholders as 'controversial' or 'timely.' Whether the films are anti-American or otherwise demoralizing to the war effort is apparently immaterial. Its appetite whetted by "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s $222 million worldwide gross, Hollywood thinks it's found a formula for both financial security and critical plaudits: noxious anti-American storylines, bathed in the warm glow of star power.”Nevermind that “The Passion of the Christ” made twice as much as "Fahrenheit 9/11." There is no way that money is the motivating factor here.
Apuzzo goes on to describe ten revolting movie plots already in production. Here’s a sample:
"No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles. Based on the book of the same name by Bing West.Hollywood has shifted strategies, says Apuzzo. Instead of Michael Moore, this time around it’ll be George Clooney, Jamie Foxx, Hugh Grant, Harrison Ford, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kirsten Dunst, and they’ll all be entertaining as hell. Their attacks will be subtle, but the subtext and purpose should be obvious to anyone paying attention – they do not want America to win. In the WOT, Hollywood is on the wrong side. We need to fight back by working together to produce movies like “The Passion,” “The Incredibles,” and “Serenity,” or just something that portrays our military as it is. Or, I suppose we could start prosecuting people for treason. Would Congress have to declare war first? What would it take to make that happen?
Excuse me while I go short-sell some stock.
Michael Schiavo Named Guardian Of The Year
I've become numb. The irony and almost limitless depravity is making me sick. Go ahead. Read the article. The money quote:
Sick, sick, twisted, subhuman scum. I am so glad I don't live in Florida. Excuse me while I puke.
Most guardianship association members are appointed by judges ...Got that? He didn't walk away! Didn't move in and have an adulterous relationship (and two kids) with another woman or anything like that. No! Presumably, Michelle Kenney said this with a straight face! Michael Schiavo "stuck by" his wife, Terri. He "didn't walk away" like other families do. Like Terri's real family did? The ones who wanted to take care of her? The ones who didn't want to kill her by starvation? By slow torture? Her family who BEGGED Michael and his accomplice, Judge Greer, to let them care for Terri?
"We see a lot of situations where family steps away," said association President-elect Michelle Kenney. "He stuck by. He didn't walk away."
Sick, sick, twisted, subhuman scum. I am so glad I don't live in Florida. Excuse me while I puke.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Hooooooooo-boy!
Go read Dok Russia's piece and then come back and tell me if you have any way of rebutting it.
Because I don't.
Two years ago, I would have told him that there are moderate muslims who just want to live their lives much like we do. But in that time, I have also been waiting to see the muslim faith cleanse itself out. And that hasn't happened.
Even the Catholic faith, while not exactly a poster-boy for cleaning one's own house, has been kicking priests out for their crimes. And it's happening because John and Jane Doe are not willing to go to church while they know that a kiddy-diddler is saying mass. And they're telling the church exactly that. "Kick the bums out!" I see no such reformation in the muslim communities. And with every terrorist attack, every bombing of innocent people, every iman shrieking hatred and murder in a mosque that the muslim community accepted, I stepped closer to the line that Dok Russia just walked over without glancing back. And I'm close enough to that line right now that I have no problem with looking at Dok Russia's position and saying "Fine, let's work out the logistics."
Any thoughts?
Because I don't.
Two years ago, I would have told him that there are moderate muslims who just want to live their lives much like we do. But in that time, I have also been waiting to see the muslim faith cleanse itself out. And that hasn't happened.
Even the Catholic faith, while not exactly a poster-boy for cleaning one's own house, has been kicking priests out for their crimes. And it's happening because John and Jane Doe are not willing to go to church while they know that a kiddy-diddler is saying mass. And they're telling the church exactly that. "Kick the bums out!" I see no such reformation in the muslim communities. And with every terrorist attack, every bombing of innocent people, every iman shrieking hatred and murder in a mosque that the muslim community accepted, I stepped closer to the line that Dok Russia just walked over without glancing back. And I'm close enough to that line right now that I have no problem with looking at Dok Russia's position and saying "Fine, let's work out the logistics."
Any thoughts?
The War on Drugs
There has been a lot of talk lately about the War on Drugs. Most of the people I read are against it, for one reason or another. Libertarians oppose it because it restricts people's freedoms (I know that's rather broad, but I don't want to get into every little detail of the argument) and liberals that I've been around hate it because, well, they want to do the drugs. Maybe it was just the Seattle people who's attitude I've seen, I dunno. But Ann Althouse, guest-blogging at Instapundit, links to an NYT article and states "...if you really believe in individual moral responsibility, you should let people make their own decisions about drugs."
As a basic premise, that statement is true. Giving people the go-ahead to do whatever they want to their own body really is about individual moral responsibility. However, having dealt with drug addicts both on the Law Enforcement side of things as well as the medical angle, I can say that allowing people to do whatever drugs they want infringes on everyone else's freedoms and rights, as well as adding to the decline of public safety and the rise of crime rates in whatever area the addicts are in.
One phrase that I have heard time and time again when it comes to being in a leadership position is that 10% of the people under you take up 90% of your time and resources. It's the 10-10-80 rule. In any average unit, be it in the military or the corporate world, 80% of your people do their job, meet the standard, don't cause any trouble, and make sure things run smoothly. 10% of your people exceed the standard, busting their butts and leading the way for everyone else. And the last 10% are the ones who are the trouble makers. They are the time consuming people who make leaders gnash their teeth and pull out their hair.
The same holds true for populations at large for the most part. People who work in law enforcement, the medical field, emergency response, ect spend the greater part of their time and resources dealing with a very small percentage of the population. And when it comes to law enforcement and medical, that small percentage of the population are mostly the criminals and drug addicts.
Ten drug addicts in Seattle cost the Harborview Hospital over one million dollars in 2003. That's money that isn't paid back to the hospital. Over one million dollars in treatment to people who choose to put various drugs into their body. And that's only for the ten addicts who stumble into the hospital more than any others. That doesn't count the others who come in to the hospital two or three times a year, using up hundreds of thousands of dollars each in treatment. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that the hospital doesn't get back.
In the hospital I worked at, we had one heroin addict that used up three hundred thousand dollars in one treatment. We've had others who, due to their use of drugs, had a hospital stay of four months and well over half a million dollars in treatment, all of it unreimbursed. Where else could that money go to? Millions of dollars are used up by drug addicts who are in the hospital because they made the choice to do drugs. How many people who needed medical treatment to due accidents could those millions of dollars treat? The Left howls about people in this country being uninsured, but I'm telling you now that there is enough money to treat common medical problems for most the uninsured people that are out there. However, it's being used up by the afore mentioned 10%.
Why not let people make their own decision about drugs? Because that small percentage again effects more than just themselves. Crime rates go up anywhere there is a large addict population, be it vandalism, burglery and theft, or assault. If people just got high and stayed at home, it wouldn't be an issue, but only the most naive or willfully ignorant people think that addicts do that. Many addicts steal to get the money for their next high. Some assault people to get cash, or because their drug-hazed brain can't determine whether that person walking by is just going home or coming to beat them up.
The Ave in the U District in Seattle is the perfect example of what happens to an area that allows people to "make their own moral decisions regarding drugs". Once a thriving business district as well as a cultural center of the university, the Ave is now a strip of concrete increasingly devoid of businesses, sporting a high crime rate, sidewalks filled with addicts and their refuse, and a source of much of the crime in the areas that surround it. Businesses lose customers when those customers have to step over an addict covered in his own feces in order to get to your door. People don't want to walk down the street and be hassled for handouts by aggressive panhandlers who haven't showered in two months, or deal with the stench of urine and feces that the addicts have left on the sidewalks. And it's hard to have a cultural event such as an art show when the people who want to see your art are getting stabbed, robbed, and driven off by the addicts who only care about getting high again.
If the people who took drugs only affected themselves, I would have no problem with letting people take whatever the hell they want in order to get high. But an addicts drug use has an effect on a much larger percentage of the population.
The NYT article talks about meth labs, and states "Shutting down every meth lab in America wouldn't eliminate meth because most of it is imported, but the police and prosecutors have escalated their efforts anyway and inflicted more collateral damage."
First of all, I have seen no evidence to state the premise that most meth is imported. If any reader cares to update me, drop me a line. Secondly, the simple fact is that meth labs are toxic in nature, to the point that some discovered labs that have been operating for months have to be declared a Superfund Site due to the toxiscty of the area. The fires caused by meth labs put police, firefighters, and rescue personel in more danger than if they were going to gas station fire. Iodine, ammonia, sulfer, psudoefedrine and all the other chemicals used can kill someone who accidentally inhales the smoke from a meth lab fire, or disable them to the point that they can never go back to their job again. Ever.
People on both the Left and the Right continually miss the point that the small percentage of the population who are addicts affect not only themselves, but a much larger percentage of the population around them. Until that problem can be dealt with, there must be a large effort to curb drug use in some form or another. The current War on Drugs can be scrapped, but only if we continue to fight drug use in other fashions.
In my opinion, the War on Drugs has been a collossal failure, but not because of the notion that we should allow people to do whatever drugs they want. It's a failure because it attempts to deal with the symptoms of drug use without ever deterring the drug use itself. If I were put in charge of the War on Drugs, I would make a very simple announcement:
Should someone need social or medical services due to their drug use, that person will be denied those services.
If you have an MRSA infection due to sticking yourself with a dirty needle when you did heroin, you don't get taxpayer funded medical treatment. If that means you die, so be it. You did it to yourself. It was your choice. Your "moral judgement about drugs". If you get into an accident because you were drunk, we leave you in your car and tell you to have a nice night. What happens to you is no concern of ours, as you made the choice to drive drunk, not us. Your meth lab caught on fire? We'll stop the fire from spreading to the area around it, but we won't lift a finger to save your place. And if you're burned from the fire, you are denied any public funds to treat your injuries. I hope you made enough money selling meth to cover the costs of the hospital burn center.
And at the very end, the addicts will use the one taxpayer funded service they'll ever use again: The morgue, and the public cemetary.
Now THAT will help keep people off drugs.
As a basic premise, that statement is true. Giving people the go-ahead to do whatever they want to their own body really is about individual moral responsibility. However, having dealt with drug addicts both on the Law Enforcement side of things as well as the medical angle, I can say that allowing people to do whatever drugs they want infringes on everyone else's freedoms and rights, as well as adding to the decline of public safety and the rise of crime rates in whatever area the addicts are in.
One phrase that I have heard time and time again when it comes to being in a leadership position is that 10% of the people under you take up 90% of your time and resources. It's the 10-10-80 rule. In any average unit, be it in the military or the corporate world, 80% of your people do their job, meet the standard, don't cause any trouble, and make sure things run smoothly. 10% of your people exceed the standard, busting their butts and leading the way for everyone else. And the last 10% are the ones who are the trouble makers. They are the time consuming people who make leaders gnash their teeth and pull out their hair.
The same holds true for populations at large for the most part. People who work in law enforcement, the medical field, emergency response, ect spend the greater part of their time and resources dealing with a very small percentage of the population. And when it comes to law enforcement and medical, that small percentage of the population are mostly the criminals and drug addicts.
Ten drug addicts in Seattle cost the Harborview Hospital over one million dollars in 2003. That's money that isn't paid back to the hospital. Over one million dollars in treatment to people who choose to put various drugs into their body. And that's only for the ten addicts who stumble into the hospital more than any others. That doesn't count the others who come in to the hospital two or three times a year, using up hundreds of thousands of dollars each in treatment. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that the hospital doesn't get back.
In the hospital I worked at, we had one heroin addict that used up three hundred thousand dollars in one treatment. We've had others who, due to their use of drugs, had a hospital stay of four months and well over half a million dollars in treatment, all of it unreimbursed. Where else could that money go to? Millions of dollars are used up by drug addicts who are in the hospital because they made the choice to do drugs. How many people who needed medical treatment to due accidents could those millions of dollars treat? The Left howls about people in this country being uninsured, but I'm telling you now that there is enough money to treat common medical problems for most the uninsured people that are out there. However, it's being used up by the afore mentioned 10%.
Why not let people make their own decision about drugs? Because that small percentage again effects more than just themselves. Crime rates go up anywhere there is a large addict population, be it vandalism, burglery and theft, or assault. If people just got high and stayed at home, it wouldn't be an issue, but only the most naive or willfully ignorant people think that addicts do that. Many addicts steal to get the money for their next high. Some assault people to get cash, or because their drug-hazed brain can't determine whether that person walking by is just going home or coming to beat them up.
The Ave in the U District in Seattle is the perfect example of what happens to an area that allows people to "make their own moral decisions regarding drugs". Once a thriving business district as well as a cultural center of the university, the Ave is now a strip of concrete increasingly devoid of businesses, sporting a high crime rate, sidewalks filled with addicts and their refuse, and a source of much of the crime in the areas that surround it. Businesses lose customers when those customers have to step over an addict covered in his own feces in order to get to your door. People don't want to walk down the street and be hassled for handouts by aggressive panhandlers who haven't showered in two months, or deal with the stench of urine and feces that the addicts have left on the sidewalks. And it's hard to have a cultural event such as an art show when the people who want to see your art are getting stabbed, robbed, and driven off by the addicts who only care about getting high again.
If the people who took drugs only affected themselves, I would have no problem with letting people take whatever the hell they want in order to get high. But an addicts drug use has an effect on a much larger percentage of the population.
The NYT article talks about meth labs, and states "Shutting down every meth lab in America wouldn't eliminate meth because most of it is imported, but the police and prosecutors have escalated their efforts anyway and inflicted more collateral damage."
First of all, I have seen no evidence to state the premise that most meth is imported. If any reader cares to update me, drop me a line. Secondly, the simple fact is that meth labs are toxic in nature, to the point that some discovered labs that have been operating for months have to be declared a Superfund Site due to the toxiscty of the area. The fires caused by meth labs put police, firefighters, and rescue personel in more danger than if they were going to gas station fire. Iodine, ammonia, sulfer, psudoefedrine and all the other chemicals used can kill someone who accidentally inhales the smoke from a meth lab fire, or disable them to the point that they can never go back to their job again. Ever.
People on both the Left and the Right continually miss the point that the small percentage of the population who are addicts affect not only themselves, but a much larger percentage of the population around them. Until that problem can be dealt with, there must be a large effort to curb drug use in some form or another. The current War on Drugs can be scrapped, but only if we continue to fight drug use in other fashions.
In my opinion, the War on Drugs has been a collossal failure, but not because of the notion that we should allow people to do whatever drugs they want. It's a failure because it attempts to deal with the symptoms of drug use without ever deterring the drug use itself. If I were put in charge of the War on Drugs, I would make a very simple announcement:
Should someone need social or medical services due to their drug use, that person will be denied those services.
If you have an MRSA infection due to sticking yourself with a dirty needle when you did heroin, you don't get taxpayer funded medical treatment. If that means you die, so be it. You did it to yourself. It was your choice. Your "moral judgement about drugs". If you get into an accident because you were drunk, we leave you in your car and tell you to have a nice night. What happens to you is no concern of ours, as you made the choice to drive drunk, not us. Your meth lab caught on fire? We'll stop the fire from spreading to the area around it, but we won't lift a finger to save your place. And if you're burned from the fire, you are denied any public funds to treat your injuries. I hope you made enough money selling meth to cover the costs of the hospital burn center.
And at the very end, the addicts will use the one taxpayer funded service they'll ever use again: The morgue, and the public cemetary.
Now THAT will help keep people off drugs.
Making Margaret Sanger Proud
Scratch a leftist, find a dictator. What is a desperate, virulent, hate-filled, baby-killing leftist to do when their message fails to resonate with the public? Make a cartoon that shows them how radical violent and filled with hate you are! That'll draw them in:
I love the following exchange. First the leftist "rebuts":
By listing methods of preventing STDs and pregnancy that aren't "sure". And what leftist fantasy wouldn't be complete without misrepresenting the opposition as nothing more than religious zealots:
Because we know that there is no way the guy would have simply said, "The risk is minimized considerably, but it is not eliminated."
What's a leftist to do when faced with verbal opposition to their barbaric ways? Snuff dissent of course:
By killing your opposition so you can keep on killing babies! Aren't leftists great?! In the tradition of Captain Planet style brainwashing:
But this murder machine isn't done yet! No.
Your free speech rights are insignifcant when they conflict with Planned Parenthood's bottom line! Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, would indeed be proud!
Hat tip to The Mad Zionist.
Update: DANEgerus has an excellent analysis of the Cartoon.
UPDATE: Since this story first was posted, the video has disappeared from the front page of the Planned Parenthood website. What's the matter, leftist scum? I thought Howlin' Mad told you all to be proud of your "verison of the facts". :)
An online animated video sponsored by Planned Parenthood's San Francisco-area branch features a superhero character drowning an abstinence promoter in a trash can and blasting into oblivion several pro-life picketers protesting in front of one of the organization's facilities.
The eight-minute "A Superhero for Choice," posted on the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website, has a bespectacled black woman in San Francisco morphing into a red-suited flying enforcer.......
Viewers see three teenagers talking with an ugly green-faced man sporting a top hat and bow tie who tries to tell the kids abstinence is the only sure way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.
I love the following exchange. First the leftist "rebuts":
The teen girl rebuts the man, naming several birth-control methods.
By listing methods of preventing STDs and pregnancy that aren't "sure". And what leftist fantasy wouldn't be complete without misrepresenting the opposition as nothing more than religious zealots:
Retorts the little green man: "Those are instruments from the devil's toolbox!"
Because we know that there is no way the guy would have simply said, "The risk is minimized considerably, but it is not eliminated."
What's a leftist to do when faced with verbal opposition to their barbaric ways? Snuff dissent of course:
The superhero arrives in time to fill a trash can with water and dump the pro-abstinence character into it, slamming the cover down. After the man's muffled voice eventually dies off
By killing your opposition so you can keep on killing babies! Aren't leftists great?! In the tradition of Captain Planet style brainwashing:
the superhero tosses the teens a "safe sex kit," reminding the kids: "Safe is sexy!"
But this murder machine isn't done yet! No.
The "Superhero for Choice," dubbed Dianisis, next confronts a group of protesters in front of a Planned Parenthood facility. They, too, are ugly and have green faces, carrying signs that say, "Pray for thy sins."
The superhero character uses a "condom gun" that catches each protester in a prophylactic bubble, which subsequently explodes. Though she admits the protesters have a First Amendment right to picket, she glories in the fact that people can now visit the Planned Parenthood facility unimpeded.
Your free speech rights are insignifcant when they conflict with Planned Parenthood's bottom line! Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, would indeed be proud!
Hat tip to The Mad Zionist.
Update: DANEgerus has an excellent analysis of the Cartoon.
UPDATE: Since this story first was posted, the video has disappeared from the front page of the Planned Parenthood website. What's the matter, leftist scum? I thought Howlin' Mad told you all to be proud of your "verison of the facts". :)
"Uber-Lefty"
DANEgerus, obviously a misogynist and Jesus Shouter, comments on Hillary's triangulation follies.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Yeah
Those of you (no doubt VERY few of you) who were here at the outset of 4rwws know that one of my favorite sites is the immense and stupendous JetPhotos.Net.
It's just plain great.
Sample:
You're gonna need some rudder, fellas.
That's from the set of pictures from Hong Kong's now closed Kai Tak International. Search using China / Hong Kong Kai Tak as the airport and sort by Most Popular. Then lean back and imagine yourself in coach, with your seatback straight and your tray table locked in the upright position, prepared for arrival. For those of you with no time to poke around, here is another nice sample.
I was reminded of Kai Tak by the following video (not safe for work due to surrounding ads): bad landing.
It's just plain great.
Sample:
You're gonna need some rudder, fellas.
That's from the set of pictures from Hong Kong's now closed Kai Tak International. Search using China / Hong Kong Kai Tak as the airport and sort by Most Popular. Then lean back and imagine yourself in coach, with your seatback straight and your tray table locked in the upright position, prepared for arrival. For those of you with no time to poke around, here is another nice sample.
I was reminded of Kai Tak by the following video (not safe for work due to surrounding ads): bad landing.
Bin Laden and Saddam (and China)
DANEgerus enumerates more connections. Excerpts:
As I said, instructive.
UPDATE: This is a redux from a couple weeks back; the Lebanese Political Journal wonders the same thing, and they add pork and alcohol to the mix.
Disturbingly, new evidence of Sudanese involvement in planned attacks on American soil continued to accumulate. In April 1996, for example, according to the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, a diplomat at the "Sudanese U.N. Mission" was expelled for having ties to a bomb plot against the U.N. building and other targets in New York in 1993. Two Sudanese diplomats even planned on using the U.N. building to coordinate attacks on the city.And:
Even after bin Laden departed Sudan in 1996, however, both al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence remained active in the country. According to IIS documents first discovered by Mitch Potter of the Toronto Star and Inigo Gilmore of the Sunday Telegraph after the beginning of the Iraq war, the Iraqi intelligence station in Khartoum was still actively facilitating the relationship with al Qaeda in 1998. A "trusted confidant" of bin Laden's traveled, with the help of Iraqi intelligence, from Sudan to Baghdad in March 1998. He stayed in Baghdad for more that two weeks.What is most instructive about this, in my opinion, is that the Radical Islamists have yet to issue any Fatwa against China, who are HEAVILY entrenched in Sudan:
Almost unnoticed by the outside world, China has become the key player in Sudan's oil industry.So there is China, godless China, exploiting Muslim lands for profit, and, I bet you didn't know, engaged in a "crushing campaign of religious repression" against Muslim Uighurs in the Xinjiang region (in the name of anti-separatism and counterterrorism, sayeth the linked piece), yet no Holy War declared against China.
Beijing has invested £8 billion in Sudanese oil through the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), a state-owned monolith. The cost of Khartoum's new refinery alone was about £350 million.
Freshly painted billboards in Khartoum carry pictures of smiling Chinese oil workers and the slogan: "CNPC - Your close friend and faithful partner". But this faithful friend is secretive about its stake in Africa's largest country. China's embassy in Khartoum and its commercial office declined to talk about oil.
As I said, instructive.
UPDATE: This is a redux from a couple weeks back; the Lebanese Political Journal wonders the same thing, and they add pork and alcohol to the mix.
Bloggus Interuptus
I'll be on a three week field training excersise next month, from the middle of September to early October. And since I won't have any internet connection in the field, don't expect too much from me after the middle of next month.
I'll take pictures for you so you can see what I did. But I'm not leaving yet, so I'll be around for a little while longer.
I'll take pictures for you so you can see what I did. But I'm not leaving yet, so I'll be around for a little while longer.
News updates
Peter Jennings, dead at 67. Rest in Peace. Since I don't speak ill of the recently departed, if you can't say anything nice about him in the comments, then don't comment.
Shuttle landing delayed due to weather. That's actually rather normal for the shuttle program. The weather has to be perfect before they touch down.
Lawmakers discuss steriods in baseball. My question is this: WHY????? Why the hell are our elected officials wasting their time discussing the effects of steriods on a damn game? This is a matter for baseball to deal with, not the damn government! And the fact that these congresscritters feel the need to stick their noses into a damn sport matter shows just how overbearing our government is. If they have so little to do that they have to try to mess with Major League Baseball in order to say they've "done something" then they obviously are getting paid way too much to do too little work. Kick the bums out of town that much earlier and pay them less.
Blah. More later when I find crap to be upset about. It shouldn't take long.
Shuttle landing delayed due to weather. That's actually rather normal for the shuttle program. The weather has to be perfect before they touch down.
Lawmakers discuss steriods in baseball. My question is this: WHY????? Why the hell are our elected officials wasting their time discussing the effects of steriods on a damn game? This is a matter for baseball to deal with, not the damn government! And the fact that these congresscritters feel the need to stick their noses into a damn sport matter shows just how overbearing our government is. If they have so little to do that they have to try to mess with Major League Baseball in order to say they've "done something" then they obviously are getting paid way too much to do too little work. Kick the bums out of town that much earlier and pay them less.
Blah. More later when I find crap to be upset about. It shouldn't take long.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
The time has come to say goodbye to tyranny
...world-wide. And that includes Africa. Even orphans without shoes in Djibouti get it:
"These kids aren't stupid, and they aren't hopeless. They share the natural optimism of youth with every other kid born anywhere else in the world. Their optimism and ambition aren't misplaced, but they require a few basic preconditions to be realistic--a normal government, and a normal free-market economy. Given those fundamental realities, and with an occasional helping hand ... there is no reason why these girls' hopes should be futile. The world--the African world especially, but with far too much support from Western enablers, including, sometimes, the U.S.--has tolerated corrupt, tyrannical and cruel governments in sub-Saharan Africa for far too long."They say that one sure sign of insanity is when one does the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. It keeps failing but they keep doing it over again. Other ideas might seem unlikely to work, but have worked nicely elsewhere nonetheless (i.e., free market capitalism and open competition), but no matter how much success such methods have had, those in power refuse to try them for fear of losing control.
The Stories They Chose Not to Tell
What about the heroes? Yes, many of us have heard of Sgt. First Class Paul R. Smith, Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester and Sgt. Rafael Peralta and many other modern American heroes, but too many have not because the mainstream press has chosen instead to focus on names like Scott Peterson, Lyndie Englund, and Natalie Halloway. And now they blame us, the public for a lack of interest and 'zeal.' What a crock. When will the Times realize that they are the problem?
UPDATE: Jason over at IraqNow writes a letter to the NYT that is just too good to miss. A taste:
UPDATE: Jason over at IraqNow writes a letter to the NYT that is just too good to miss. A taste:
You raised the specific instance of SFC Paul Ray Smith, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for an action in which he lost his life -- and of course, blame the President for your failure to get the story.
But the record shows that in February 2004, just about everyone on the planet had the story. Except the New York Times. Hell, even the Australian media picked it up.
Now, granted, your staff is operating at a significant handicap: Apparently, you have entire editorial units, entire copy desks, and fact checkers who don't even know what a Congressional Medal of Honor is.
This, in and of itself, is symptomatic of the yawning chasm between the class of people from which you draw your editorial staff and the class of people you serve.
This is an example of the immense deficit you're running in your collective fund of information when it comes to covering military affairs.
This, in and of itself, is dysfunction.
Bill Keller, your paper is stumbling around like a drunken fool, and it's gotten to the point where you're ruining your reputation. Military men have already all but washed their hands of your crap coverage in exasperation. We already know you are too wrapped up in your own neurosis to cover our fighting men and women with any degree of accuracy.
Yes, some people like Blackfive, Greyhawk, Cori Dauber, and myself, have already tried, on numerous occasions, to stage an intervention. But your illness has already caused a lot of people to give up on you.
Nope - No Bias Here
Check out this "news" article from USA Today - specifically the last paragraph:
Truman will be remembered as the president who brought us both victory and peace in a war that was justified and necessary. By contrast, self-proclaimed "War President" George Bush has brought us neither victory nor peace in the Iraq war, which former president Jimmy Carter this week called "unnecessary and unjust."What a crock of shit. If Jimmy Carter had done his damn job when Iran was kidnapping American diplomats for 444 days, the twin towers would still be standing today. Besides, the article happens to be about Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the A-bomb; what does this paragraph have to do with the rest of the article? Not a damn thing. I can't believe that Mr. Neuharth is actually getting paid for writing such trash.
Wake up!
This post nails it. Don't worry, I won't post pictures of the beheadings, the bombing victims, the acid baths, the cutting off of limbs, ears and tongues, the chipper shredders, etc. (though the pictures and videos are out there and easy to access), but I do believe that we need to see or at least be aware of what it is we're fighting against. The MSM only tell us when American troops do something bad. They spent three months obsessing over "abuses" by a couple reservists at Abu Graib, but they don't spend more than one day covering the insurgents' targeting and massacre of Iraqi children. People like Galloway have crossed all the way over the line, but at least he understands that we are in a war - he's just on the wrong side of it. George Galloway is a traitor, fighting against his own country. More people would support this war if they knew about the atrocities, the sheer evil committed by those we're fighting against.
From Iran with Love
There's no way this could happen without the involvement of the Iranian government:
'American soldiers intercepted a large shipment of high explosives, smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran only last week.Right through an M1-A1 tank. Got that Wolf? MSM moron.
The officials say the shipment contained dozens of "shaped charges" manufactured recently. Shaped charges are especially lethal because they’re designed to concentrate and direct a more powerful blast into a small area.
“They’ll go right through a very heavily armored vehicle like an M1-A1 tank from one side right out the other side,” says retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey.'