Day by Day
Saturday, July 28, 2007
I've heard quite a few criticisms about the whole Harry Potter series from some people. Now, aside from the few folks out there who scream "HARRY POTTER IS THE DEVIL AND HE PROMOTES WITCHCRAFT!", which is rather loony to begin with, the biggest complaint I've heard is that the series is too simple. Too many plot holes. It doesn't explain this or that well enough. I've actually seen some people get into a discussion about the economics of magic, and how the HP series is lacking in that.
Um..... I don't know how to break it to some people, but it's a series of books written for children. I don't expect J.K. Rowling to be the next Tolkien. But if she can get kids to ignore the damn idiot box for a while and actually pick up a book, then great. I don't care if there are a few plot holes. To me, they books are a quick read, a nice distraction from the day.
But there's also a few themes that keep popping up in the books. Self-reliance. A quest for knowledge. (I recall the antagonist in Book 5, Delores Umbridge, talking about how knowledge for knowledge's sake wouldn't be allowed.)
The theme that the government is not your friend, and too much government control is NOT a good thing.
And lastly, the theme that evil MUST be confronted, because the consequences of not confronting evil are too high to pay.
So the books can get a bit simple. That's fine. I'm not looking for a philosophical discussion on the existential struggle between good and evil, as presented in an exhibit regarding a post-modernist Leftist and a Born-again Christian. And you know what? Kids aren't looking for that either. Yes, you can get a huge amount of knowledge from books, but you have to make kids want to read in the first damn place, and you don't do that with a lot of the pap coming out as kid's literature these days.
So, let me run down my list of why I think people are over-reacting in their negative opinions of the HP books.
1) Teaching self-reliance? Check.
2) Themes of "too much government provides bad results"? Check.
3) Teaching that evil has to be confronted, and that it doesn't go away on it's own? Check.
4) All of the above packaged in a format that is not only digestible by kids, but makes them want to read it?
If you want a deconstruction of post modernist theory, go buy a book on that subject. Me, I'll enjoy reading Harry Potter because it gives me a break from everything else I have to read for my job. It's a book I read because I want to read it.
Now, if''n you'll excuse me, I'm off to go spend some more time with my wife.
Friday, July 27, 2007
The biggest proponents of Man-made Global Warming either already know it's bullshit, or have turned it into their religion. To the first group, any proof you offer doesn't matter because they already know it's crap. They're just using the myth to gain power, either political or economic. The second group refuses to listen to any proof, because that would destroy their worldview and thus cannot be accepted. Their actions are driven very little by science, and almost completely on their belief that Man-made Global Warming is real.
That's why we need to get the truth out to the next generation - to proof them against the indoctrination that the eco-freaks are trying to push.
Sorry 'bout the lack of posting today, but I've been so damn busy I haven't even had a chance to sit down at a computer. That's life. I may have a big fat blog post up tomorrow.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
But it also pisses me off.
Each of those links is chock full of links themselves. You could spend all damn day researching this. So far as I can tell, Scott Beauchamp got his job writing lies about the military in Iraq because he was A) a fucktard Leftist (redundancy alert) and B) Dating one of the people at The New Republic, who has since been fired. So not only is he a worthless fucking liar, but his dear darling got fired because if it?
Dear lord, where does it end? Tomorrow, on "As The Biased Media Turns"!
Anyone want to bet that his CO and First Sergeant have destroyed their respective offices yet? I think that maybe the CO just tossed a few things out the window, while the First Sergeant has reduced his desk into little splinters of wood and metal.
Using nothing but his hands and teeth.
I feel sorry for his unit - they're now going to have to deal with the fact that Scott Beauchamp has tarnished their every action with his lies, even if they did nothing wrong. His lies have been seized by every anti-military Leftist as proof that the US military is nothing but a bunch of brainless killbots who revel in destruction and mayhem. Meanwhile, good men and women put their lives on the line every day trying to ensure that Iraq can stand up on it's own, and they've been slandered by a Leftist shithead (redundancy alert) with his own personal agenda.
Over at Hot Air, someone made the statement "He's over there, putting his life on the line, and I hope he comes back safe." Let me just say right now - that commenter is a better man than I am. I, for one, hope that this fucktard gets to experience every amount of pain that he's caused his unit, his service and his country. And I wouldn't weep one fucking tear if he didn't come back.
You lie about the troops, you deserve whatever the fuck you get. Somebody else said it better than I can - either Scott Beauchamp was party to serious offenses that are punishable under the UCMJ and failed to report it, or he's a backstabbing, buddy fucking, slimy shitstain who's used his lies to attempt to grab fame and a girlfriend back home at some anti-military rally.
Either way, he deserves to spend years in Ft. Leavenworth breaking big rocks into small rocks. Fuck him. I'm so pissed off about this right now that I can barely see straight.
Reading through some of his "writing" it's clear that he doesn't like the military despite being a member, and I'm still standing by my judgment that his diary is a bunch of bullshit. But there's one thing I do know for certain - This little assweasel is about to get fact-checked so damn hard he won't know what the hell hit him. And you can be certain that his Company Commander, First Sergeant and Platoon Sergeant are going to get grilled because of his fiction. And in the military, shit rolls downhill. So, PFC Beauchamp of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, prepare for the worst grilling of your life. Once your lies are laid out in plain view, you're going to spend lots of time breaking big rocks into little rocks at Ft. Leavenworth.
Oh, and for those who are wondering, The New Republic still falls under Option #3 in the post below.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Now, I won't claim to be an "expert". After all, I was only awarded a Driver's Badge for my skill in a Humvee, and I only carry an MOS that puts me in motorpools, and I only spent three damn weeks in Egypt repairing Humvees and other vehicles side by side with mechanics. So I'm not an... "Expert". But I think I'm pretty damn close.
Tires from Humvees and Strykers have run-flat rings in them. For those who are scratching their heads and thinking "Uhhhh?" it simply means that there's a ring inside the tire that will hold it in shape even if the tire goes flat. You can go for miles. That's kinda necessary in combat, see..... they don't want their troops out there getting shot at trying to take a lug-nut off. So a flat tire means...
You maybe slow down and then drive to the nearest post, FOB, checkpoint, or any other military controlled area, and then you call for a wrecker or whoever has one of your spare tires. You do NOT stop in the middle of "reeking fluids" and go for a hike.
Now, for any braindead fucktard who actually thinks that "Scott Thomas" is a real soldier reporting real events, wake the hell up. I can see three options:
1) Scott Thomas is a real soldier in Baghdad, writing a bunch of bullshit. The least likeliest of the bunch, given the fact that Scott Thomas doesn't seem to know jack shit about the military.
2) Scott Thomas has some sort of military experience, but he's not a soldier in Baghdad, and he's writing bullshit. Quite possible. He does seem to have some of the lingo down, but he just doesn't know enough about the military to make me thing that he's actually involved in it right now. And he's writing bullshit.
3) The closest Scott Thomas has come to being in the military is playing with his G.I. Joes, and he's writing bullshit. In my opinion? **DING DING DING DING DING** WE HAVE A WINNAH! While I won't discount the possibility that Scott Thomas may be a Soldier, my gut instinct tells me that he's a maggot-faced pussy who hates the military, acts like a mall ninja, has those sooper seekrit skillz that only he can describe....
.... and he isn't fit to lick the dust of off a real man's boots.
And as for The New Republic, well, we have some choices there, don't we?
1) They actually think that Scott Thomas is a real Soldier, in which case they got suckered, and they've allowed themselves to get fooled by an anti-war narrative that could have been blown apart with a minimal amount of fact checking.
2)They don't have a clue what Scott Thomas really is, and they allowed themselves to get suckered by an anti-war narrative that could have been blown apart with a minimal amount of fact checking.
3) They don't give a shit who or what Scott Thomas actually is, and they're so anti-military that they don't care if "Scott's" narrative is a joke that can't stand up on it's own, they're not going to fact check it because it just goes along with their belief that the military is full of killbots who enjoy wearing the skulls of dead kids. And in my opinion, ***DING DING DING DING*** WE HAVE A WINNAH!
Scott Thomas' story has been ripped to shreds. The New Republic has no credibility left, and even if they were able to provide proof that Scott Thomas is a real soldier, there is no way they could provide proof of his stories. Scott Thomas, whether a Soldier or a civilian, is an out and out liar. But The New Republic doesn't care - they love these particular lies, because it confirms what they already think about the military.
Now, before any braindead fucktards come over here and snivel about how that doesn't prove that Saddam helped Bin Laden hit us on September 11th, well, that's right. But what it does prove is that Saddam was supportive of Bin Laden, and openly supported terrorism. So when you try to claim that there were no terrorists in Iraq until we arrived?
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Suck it. Beeyotches.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
On The Big Story Sunday, Julie Banderas and James Rosen discussed the case of accused child rapist Mahamu Kanneh, released because the court couldn’t find a translator to interpret for him in his obscure language. Never mind that Liberia was founded by Americans and English is the official language of that country. Never mind the man completed high school and college in the US, in English.
A Fox producer reached Mr. Kanneh by phone and surprise! he does in fact speak English.
And more twisted:
This backs up what State’s Attorney John McCarthy said earlier today–that a translator was available and ready for the trial. What McCarthy didn’t say was that the judge evidently dismissed the case due to lack of an interpreter when one was right there in the courtroom translating the proceedings.
And more twisted:
Records from a case-worker report dated Oct. 31, 2006, show that the case worker visited Kanneh’s residence to check on him and instead found another sex offender, Sehkou Massaquoi, at the home along with two male children who shared the last name of the defendant.
Now here's where I really start to boil - it seems like everybody screwed up in this case, and the people who are hurt the most are the kids who this bastard raped. Now, when the government fails in it's job - i.e. to put child raping assholes behind bars for the rest of their lives, what options do we the people have?
Because right now, tar and feathers seems like a rather good idea. I can't figure out if this was corruption at it's finest or stupidity at it's worst.
Note to the "Editors" at The New Republic - when you make up a bunch of crap to insult the military, try to get your facts straight. Troops can smell bullshit from a mile away. But then, if TNR actually cared about facts they wouldn't put out a hit piece like this without fact-checking it to hell and back.
Ah well. More proof that the MSM isn't worth the paper it puts out.
And to tell you the truth, a debate means nothing. You want to know what a person is going to do once they're in the Oval Office? Look at what they've done in the past. It's easy as hell to say "Oh well, I would do X, Y, and Z if I'm elected." But the simple fact is that most politicians can't be trusted. Period. They lie, lie some more, and then lie even more to cover up their previous lies. That's especially true for these "debates", which from what I can see was more of an "I'm not George Bush!" festival than any kind of a real debate.
I look at a candidate's history. Are they pro-gun or anti-gun? Their actions from their past will tell me that more than any amount of blathering on TV. Are they a tax-hungry money-grubbing prick? Or do they actually practice a slight modicum of moderation when it comes to our tax dollars? Well, let's look at the voting record!
I know that election season seems to start earlier and earlier every year. But I'm not going to be bothered with any candidate until around a year away from the elections. Until then it's all blathering and hot air emanating from people who excel at talking about nothing.
To be honest, that's why I'm leaning more and more towards Fred Thompson. Oh, I know that people are getting impatient with him. "Why hasn't he announced yet? What's he waiting for? He needs to jump into the race!" In all honesty, no he doesn't. The only think I know about everyone who's already announced that they're running is that I'm sick to death of hearing them or hearing about them. And there's only one or two people who I would vote for in the current crop of Presidential hopefuls anyway; I looked at their voting records, what they did, what they supported and what they opposed. You think I'd vote for McCain? Not a chance. McCain-Feingold, the Shamnesty debacle, I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only choice. Gulliani? Great for NYf'inC, but not so great for the country. Romney is a maybe. Hunter and Tancredo would be the only two currently running that I would say yes to at this point. But I'm already sick of hearing them talk. Meanwhile, Fred is just hanging back, and while that might piss some people off and raise all sorts of questions from people I don't give a shit about, I like it.
The election is OVER A YEAR AWAY. If the current crop of candidates actually want to make me sit up and take notice, why don't they get back to doing their damn jobs, ensure that the troops are funded, work on making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and the other various things that they haven't been doing. You know, stop talking about all the great stuff you would do, and actually try to DO some of it! What a novel concept! But all I see is blather blather blather, yada yada yada, bullshit bullshit bullshit from a bunch of idiots who are long on talk and short on action. "I'm the bestest!" "Nuh-uh, I'M the bestest!" "Nah, you two aren't, because I'M the bestest!" What a crock. The only thing this extended election season has proven to me is that I really don't like most of them, and don't want to see them elected ever again.
The sad fact is that most of the current candidates aren't even fit to do the job they were elected to in the first place. Why the hell would I want to elect them to a higher office? I don't. So when Fred tosses his hat into the ring, that's who I'll be supporting. But if he's smart, he'll keep holding off until a year out. Let everyone else spend their money and blather on. Sometimes exposure isn't a good thing, and for the Congresscritters howing into a TV camera right now, well, they would do well to talk less and act more.
However, I saw something today via Instapundit that I might expound on later if I have the time. A piece by Ron Coleman, that addresses the big lie of the 20th Century.
Indeed, as the official position of the left, including its handmaiden the mainstream press, becomes “we would not have agreed to fight in Iraq if Bush had not lied to us about weapons of mass destruction” — however absurd a lie that is; and this is combined with the turning away from events in Darfur, and elsewhere; and it is combined, too, with the essential silence of the “world community” in the face of genocide and mass murder, especially of the despised — the niggers of the world, whether black and Jew or even, if the politics of it is right, Arab — the horrible truth becomes ever more clear:
“We” simply do not care.
And he's right. Think about it - Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th Century, and yet the Left howled when we took him out. Despite the Left's insistance that Afghanistan is the war we should be fighting, they were STILL protesting our troops getting sent over there. We toppled the Taliban, and a big chunk of the Left was against it.
In short, they're against America sending it's military anywhere, for any reason. I believe that it's because the Left hates the military, and so far I've seen nothing to prove me wrong. Has anyone advocated sending the military to Darfur? I've seen all those ads lately that show some pore, starvin' kid with the words "President Bush, stop the genocide in Darfur!"
But should the President drop the 82nd Airborne into Darfur with orders to kill anyone who attempts to rape or murder the refugees, you could guarantee that the Left would be up in arms about "imperialism", "hegimony", yada yada yada. All the same slurs and bullshit that they've been slinging for the past six years. To paraphrase Mark Styne - "everyone wants a Free Tibet, but but nobody actually wants America to go and free Tibet."
They just don't really care.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Great imagery to match the fall of Saigon, right? But look closely at the silhouette of the chopper. It's a Soviet-era Mi-24 "Hind" gunship!!!!!!! It was no doubt stock clip art dropped in by some person in their art department who wouldn't know an M-16 from an F-16, but nice Freudian touch, TIME!!!!
Well, the way I see it, they're just paying homage to their ideological heroes, the communist Soviet Union.
Just as an aside, one of the tasks that you're supposed to do as a private is study and be able to identify both enemy and friendly vehicle silhouette. This is so that you don't shoot at the wrong helicopter. Perhaps if anyone at TIME magazine would have checked in with an Army private, they would have been able to not embarrass themselves.
The problem is, once it attracted the attention of troops who have been in Iraq, the story starts to fall apart. Gateway Pundit has a whole list of links to blogs who are just shredding this story. Just a few of the concerns:
"Scott Thomas" refers to a horribly burned woman eating at a chow hall, and claims that the troops were making rude remarks right in front of her. He states that he couldn't tell if the woman was a Soldier or a civilian because she was wearing a nondescript brown uniform.
1) As many people have pointed out, Soldiers do not call it the "Chow Hall". It's the DFAC, pronounced "DEE-fak". This is more significant than many civilians will realize. "Well, SOME people call it a chow hall!" Yeah, well some people call the bathroom a "water closet". But how many Americans do you know of who call it that? See my point?
2) Soldiers wear their uniforms at all times. They have to, under the Geneva Convention. Solders also carry their weapons at all times. It's a war zone. Even if you're walking around in PT's, you have your weapon with you. Civilians are not allowed to wear any military uniforms. Again, Geneva Conventions. So the fact that "Scott Thomas" claims that he couldn't tell if the woman was a civilian or military seems outlandish on it's face, and speaks of a mindset that either hasn't been in Iraq at all, or one that couldn't see the facts right in front of him. Either way, not someone you want as a reporter, eh?
3) Why would a horribly burned woman be in a DFAC in a FOB in Iraq when they should be back in a hospital being treated for burns? According to "Scott Thomas", half the woman's face was melted off. That person would be in a burn unit or a hospital getting treated for her injuries, not returned to duty.
"Scott Thomas" also relates of two tales where a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle "swerves" to the right to run over a dog. In one tale, the dog was caught under the vehicle and drug for a while, and in the second story the dog is cut in half.
1) Bradley's are tracked vehicles. The tracks are rather wide, in fact. Should a dog in fact be run over, it wouldn't be cut in half, it would be crushed. Flat. Road pizza. So the claim that the dog was cut in half is laughable on it's face. There's no doubt from Thomas' description that the dog was cut neatly in half, and that cannot happen with a Bradley.
2) The Bradley, as an all terrain fighting vehicle, does not have too many things hanging from the undercarriage. That's not to say that something couldn't possibly get stuck underneath and drug, but that it's highly unlikely that anything as small as a dog would get hung up. Also, the claim that the dog was "run over" and then drug down the road is even less likely, as the portion of the track touching the road is not in fact moving. To put it rather simply, the track moves along several wheels, gets placed on the ground, then stays set on the ground while the vehicle rolls over the top of it, then gets picked up and moved back along the top of the wheels. So, should a dog get run over by a track, it would stay right where it was until the track was picked up and moved by the wheel system.
3) If you swerved sharply in any direction in a Bradley, one of two things would happen - You could throw the track off the wheels, in which case your vehicle commander is going to whip you like a rented mule, or - even should the track stay on the wheels, your vehicle commander is STILL going to whip you like a rented mule for even trying that stunt just for kicks. You do not risk throwing a track in the middle of an urban hostile area. Period.
4) Bradleys, like all tracked vehicles, do not just "swerve". They're not cars. In order for a tracked vehicle to turn, one track has to slow down or stop while the other track stays at full speed, causing the vehicle to pivot in place. So you can't just jerk the wheel and swerve. It's more like straight - pivot - straight - pivot - straight - pivot - straight. The mechanics are completely different than trying the same move in a wheeled vehicle.
5) If you're trying to sneak up on a sleeping dog, the last thing you would do it in is a tracked vehicle. You can hear them before you see them. And you can feel them coming from a hundred yards away on concrete or roadway. So unless the dog was dead, or knocking on death's door, you could not "sneak" up on the dog in a Bradley.
"Scott Thomas" relates a tale where Soldiers find a mass grave, and one young troops wears the top of a child's skull for a day, even putting it under his helmet.
1) Should any NCO or Officer find out about that desecration, they'd put a stop to it right quick. I cannot fathom any situation where the leadership of the unit would allow that to continue at all. Yes, Soldier's can have a very dark sense of humor, but besides the basic heath issues that would stem from wearing a portion of a child's skull, the fact is that Saddam's mass graves are inspected, catalogued, itemized, and guarded once they are found. This isn't just some nicety that the US does for the hell of it, either. Attempts are made to find relatives, evidence is collected against the remaining members of Saddam's regime, and the proof of what Saddam was doing for decades is shown for the world to see. Allowing troops to mess with all of that just to satisfy a dark sense of humor just isn't done.
2) There is no record what so ever of a mass grave being discovered in the described location at the given time. Hell, there's no evidence of a mass grave at that location period. And it's in America's best interest to expose the mass graves, so if there had in fact been such a discovery, that information would have been put out.
So in short, the entire story has holes in it large enough to drive a Mack Truck through. It doesn't hold up. Once people started shredding this story, TNR put out this statement:
NOTE TO READERS:Wow, so you've spoken with the author and he's corroborated his own story! Well, I saw Hillary Clinton butchering baby chickens to Chuthulu, and if you don't believe me, ask me! I'll corroborate my own story!
Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist "Shock Troops," written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we're in the process of investigating them. I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.
Until soldiers and units are named, and accounts are corroborated by separate entities, I'm going to have to say that this entire story is a bunch of made up horsecrap. Period. And let's be blunt, shall we? The Has-Been Media has been attacking the US military every chance that they get, and the conservative blogs have been forced to defend and debunk every story the Lame-Stream Media has put forth.
Jessie McBeth, anyone? Talking about all the horrible things he'd done as a Ranger, when the truth was that he never made it out of basic training.
Jimmy Massey, anyone? Another anti-war "hero" of the left, claiming to have committed atrocities in the Marines, proven to be a worthless liar. In the MSM's defense, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was one of the newspapers who exposed Massey as a worthless lying moonbat.
Micah Wright, anyone? Mr. "How dare you question my anti-war beliefs I was a Ranger what have you done you chickenhawk" Wright, who wrote anti-war propaganda and insulted anyone who supported removing Saddam. Only, uh..... OOPS! Never a Ranger. Of course, until the REAL Rangers exposed him as a lying cockweasel, he was spouting off crap like this:
But Micah Wright was never a Ranger. He was never in combat. He actually was never on active duty at all. He did a little stint in ROTC in college.
Another West Point Butterbar who can't read my bio page and figure out that while he was playing Mario on his Super Nintendo, I was shooting people for George Herbert Walker Bush the 3rd. Been there, done that, newbie. Lecture me after you've seen piles of dead people who stood in the way of a Bush President.
For the last time, I'm a (expletive deleted) veteran. None of these posters mock the men and women in uniform. How is it that people are so stupid that they can't look beyond the image and understand the message?
But until the REAL Rangers exposed him, the MSM loved him. Because here was an anti-war asshole that nobody could question! Until the questions proved that he was just another Leftist shithead who lied to advance his agenda.
Amorita Randall, anyone? Just another liar that the New York Slimes put on their front page with horror stories of their military service, Yet another liar. A fraud.
Jamil Hussein, anyone? The horror stories put forth, eagerly printed by the MSM, especially the Associated (with terrorists) Press. But under scrutiny, it seems that Jamil Hussein didn't even exist! Yet he was creating stories about beheadings and bombings and violence for months. If I remember correctly, the AP put out over sixty different horror stories from Jamil Hussein, and yet once people started looking into who Jamil Hussein was, he simply "disappeared". Gone. Poof. Reports of mosque bombings were proven false when current photos of the mosques were taken. Kinda hard to say a mosque was bombed and burned to the ground when someone goes and takes a photo of that same mosque, still standing and not on fire. To this day, the Associated (with terrorists) Press cannot produce any proof what so ever that Jamil Hussein even existed. But so long as they could peddle the lies that Iraq what going up in flames, they used Jamil Hussein for all his empty name was worth. In short, they either flat out lied, or they swallowed the lies of some anonymous asshat because it jibed with their agenda.
Remember the Marines involved in Haditha? Those murdering thugs? Except, you know, for the fact that at least one of them has had all charges dropped. The legal process is still ongoing for others. But in the MSM, they were branded as murderers and rapists over a year ago.
So pardon me if I don't swallow the crap being put forth by The New Republic. Their story has been destroyed by actual military personnel, and unless they can back up what "Scott Thomas" has written, they deserve all the scorn that's currently heading their way. I don't expect anything to come forth. Much like Jamil Hussein, I'm certain that "Scott Thomas" will disappear as the MSM hopes that everyone will forget the medias complicity in putting for slander and lies as "news".
And the MSM's bias against the military, their hatred of the military, is once again exposed for everyone to see. For the umpteenth-million time.
Now, should TNR be able to actually put forth real proof that Scott Thomas is a real soldier, and there are independent eye-witness accounts, then perhaps I'll be forced to eat crow. But this is following a pattern that has been repeated far too often in the Lame-Stream media.
So in short, I'm not holding my breath.