Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Shelling Northern Gaza

In chapter 3,486,329 of the Palestinain/Israel battle, we see that nothing has changed.

You may recall a few episodes ago, Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip in a huge gamble on goodwill that they probably knew they would lose, but hoped they wouldn't.

Palestinians have responded by destroying a thriving network of valuable greenhouses that Israel left to them, and firing rockets into Israel.

Israel now wants a buffer zone in Northern Gaza. Palestinians complain that a buffer zone is tantamount to "re-occupation". Well, perhaps they should have thought about that before they fired rockets at Israeli citizens from that area.

When will it end?

It will end after the people of Palestine start holding their brethren even partially responsible for perpetuating their plight and stand between them and their targets.


The Emporer of Anti-Idiots relates his own satori:

[I was once] "young, dumb and full of nothing but “how I wish the world would be more like [insert utopian daydream here]…” he was pulled in by a combination of knowing zilch about how the real world actually works and a deep, abiding desire for a world in which nobody wanted for anything and everybody lived in peace. Naive as all heck, but certainly something that we’d all like to see, no? We’d like to see it, but we also know that it’s just not human nature and we’ve seen the horrible results whenever regimes have tried to make humans fit their mold rather than working with reality.

So I grew up, learned about history and the world in general and realized that no, Virginia, it doesn’t really work the way you’d like it to work. I may rail, rant and rave against the laws of gravity, but I can’t make stuff fall upwards no matter how hard I wish for it and no matter how many rules and regulations I pass. Not only would any such attempt be guaranteed to fail, it would most likely lead to the exact opposite of what I was aiming for, as even the most casual of studies of socialist regimes will prove.

Human beings have free will and coercion will only lead to rebellion. It doesn’t matter where you believe Free Will came from, it just is, in much the same way that water is and a successful socialist economy isn’t.

Once you realize this fundamental fact, that the world is the way it is and that the forces governing it and human actions cannot and will not be denied, you start wondering how to work with the system rather than wasting your time railing against the darkness and digging mass graves for dissenters.

That’s when you realize that you’re not a leftist anymore."

Saturday, December 24, 2005

America was nestled all snug in their beds

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men are willing to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell.

Many of us remember this on Christmas Eve. Thanks to all of you over there.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Clinton Spied, the Times shied

Thanks to the infamous Rottie via his Lieutenant Colonel "Cheapshot" for this tip off --

Clinton Administration Counterterrorism Initiative

Amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968 to constitutionally enhance use of electronic surveillance to fight terrorism. This proposal would: permit any federal felony to be used as a basis for an electronic surveillance order; ease restrictions on the use, in American court proceedings, of information from electronic surveillance conducted by foreign governments; forbid suppression of electronic evidence unless law enforcement acted in bad faith in obtaining the evidence; authorize emergency electronic surveillance in situations involving threats by domestic terrorist organizations, authorize roving wiretaps where it is not practical to specify the number of the phone to be tapped, such as where a target uses multiple pay phones; allow the FBI to obtain records of local telephone calls, without the need for a court order, as they can own obtain records of long-diastase calls; and require telephone companies and/or service providers to preserve evidence until a court order could be obtained. None of these changes would alter the requirement for probable cause prior to engaging in electronic surveillance.

Mighty selective "whistle-blowing" the Times does. How noble.

Bad Americans

Patrick, over at Clarity and Resolve, distilled what many of us think down to a few well-worded lines:

See, here's the thing: I don't really care if people disagree with the policies of this administration—that's healthy for a democracy, and I don't like any number of positions taken by Dubya. But way too many people have taken it far beyond this natural, healthy spirit of political divergence. Too many spiteful ideologues are working hard against the President's obligation and ability to defend our nation from a ruthless medieval enemy whose rulebook is backward and barbaric. (emphasis mine)

It doesn't matter what your intent is and how noble you feel your actions are in the new normal of post-9/11 America; when you sacrifice objectivity—and yes, principles—to shortsighted, vindictive partisanship you are being a bad American. It's disgraceful.

The rest of the post is a good read, too.

John Schmidt (former Clinton Associate Attorney General), who wrote the Chicago Tribune article Patrick quotes, sums his article up thus:

...we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

DHMO Alert -- This should be required reading.

Look out for Dihydrogen Monoxide in the environment WWW.DHMO.ORG (I fixed the link)

By the way, it IS a greenhouse gas, too.

This should be required reading for middle-school to jr-high school students in courses on how clever propagandists can be and how they distort and obfuscate to frame the facts to fit their agenda.

Unfortunately, a lot of propagandists probably don't take care to avoid saying anything that's technically untrue the way it looks like these folks did. Still, it's a beautiful example of how one can create a lie in your mind by speaking nothing but truth.

As entertainment for me this is top notch.

Me, I'm addicted to the stuff. [sip]

Not as simple as it was put

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had a hard time believing that the FISA approval process was as simple and cut and dried as the annointed "expert" on NPR the other morning was saying.

And now I'm reading some stuff that bears that skepticism out in Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps.

The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.

"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."

Well, if something's broke, let's fix it -- but let's keep in mind that it's real hard to stop terrorists with a blindfold on.

Clinton said surveylance without a warrant was OK, too

How do you like these apples?

Where were the howls of protest from the Left then?

Methinks their real agenda is showing. This is not about Civil Liberties. This is about hating Bush.

Mind you, I think these kinds of civil liberties are a serious issue. But like I said... where were the howls?

Tuesday, December 20, 2005


I find it odd that we have courts telling us what teachers can and can't mention in the classroom.

Do I think Public Schools should teach Intelligent Design as fact?


Do I think teachers should be able to mention it as a theory? Well, it IS a theory. All we can say scientifically is that we have lots of evidence that evolution happens. Who is to say what the actual cause is behind genetic mutations. Random chance? Could be. Intelligent tinkering? Well, you can't prove otherwise, that's for sure.

So while I don't think it should be taught as "fact", people can and probably should mention it as a theory that a lot of people hold. I mean, it is possible. But to put a gag order on the subject? Aren't these the same people who are the first to howl about first amendment -- specifically free speech -- rights? Aren't these the same people who talk about the marketplace of ideas? Some people think this. Some people think that. Separate what we know for sure from what we don't. Life mutates. Fact. What causes it? Chemistry? Maybe. Does something direct the chemistry? I don't know. You don't either.

Do I believe in the Intelligent Design Theory? Not really. But I won't rule it out. Why the gag order?

I doubt the ACLU will be defending any teacher's right to say "and some people believe that the mutations are guided by an intelligent being."

Oops. Sorry Mr. Smith. You're fired.

Love your enemies, don't kill them?

Saw a bumpersticker over lunch today. It said
"When Jesus said love your enemies, I'm pretty sure he meant don't kill them."

How beautifully simplistic and naive. In my book, the rules change when your enemy is trying to kill you and/or yours.

Let's give another, more balanced quote:

EcclesiastesChapter 3
  1. There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.
  2. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.
  3. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.
  4. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
  5. A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them; a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
  6. A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away.
  7. A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to be silent, and a time to speak.
  8. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. .
The Byrds put it quite beautifully to music.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays - speech police

I think it would be safe to say that what a lot of us object to is not "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas" -- it's not allowing people to say "Merry Christmas", or people being offended by what is essentially a cultural wish of goodwill toward another.

Tell me Happy Holidays. Tell me Merry Christmas. Tell my Happy Haunaka, Kwanza, Solstice, or keep your mouth shut and don't say anything. Just let people, who mean the OPPOSITE of harm, wish you well, and who cares what the reason is?

Diamond Joe Lieberman

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." -- Joe Lieberman, D-CT

See, not all democrats are treasonous. Some of them get it. What is untrue about what he said?

If you go look at the daily Kos or a dirth of other "progressive" blogs, the moonbat component of the Democratic party is highly upset about this. By the way, it's really clear from reading the KOS that these people are mentally unstable and intellectually extremely shallow.

  • There are calls for Leiberman to march in step or leave the party (maybe option #2?)
  • There is the drumbeat language of "failed policy", "failed war", and "lies, lies, lies" -- even though we've already had this debate and won it. Remember the election last year? Bush didn't win on his Social Security Reform package. But there seems to be this feeling that incessantly repeating the charges makes them true.
  • There is an eerily persistent almost religiously irrational undertone that shows a deeply held belief that Bush and Cheney are evil, evil people on par with Saruman
  • They equate support for winning the war in Iraq with agreeing with the policy that got us there
  • One gets the idea that if you ate the same brand of potato chips that Rush Limbaugh eats, you are evil by association
  • They are generally short on facts and long on opinion and emotion

I mean, you'd think that there was no general election in Iraq a few days ago.

Do Not Wiretap List

Mmm-heh! Pretty funny spoof.

More on the apparently non-FISA spying

I'm going to take one step back on this.

If what the annointed "experts" on NPR this morning said is true, that the FISA act allows instant eavesdropping and retroactive court approval, and that they've only turned down 10 or so out of 1,500 requests since 1978 then perhaps a valid point has been made.

On the other hand, if it is that easy to do and the retro-active provision erases the need to bypass the procedure for expediency, it begs the following question:

What does the administration have to gain by bypassing it? What does it have to lose by using it? It makes me wonder if I'm not hearing the whole story. And perhaps there's a very good reason I'm not hearing the whole story. There is, for instance, the possibility that we know there is an agent with access to the FISA courts -- you know, one who might leak information -- but we don't know who it is. Now that's just a for instance.

I just find it amazingly difficult to believe that if it were as cut and dried as I heard in the NPR report this morning that intentionally bypassing it makes any sense in any context. I can't find a motive.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Right conclusion, wrong arguments

Happens a lot. I, for some stupid reason, flipped on Hannity and Colmes this evening and saw the typical "talk-over-each-other" fest going on... actually, this time it wasn't as bad as some. But one of the guys defending Bush and the intercepts of international calls and emails just couldn't seem to close the deal.

He kept going back to "We are at war" -- which is a good start, but the point he should have been making instead of "that means we have to give up some civil liberties" was this:

We are at war, but not with a country. There is a guerilla war being waged against us, and the enemy has agents in our midst.

The intercepts going on were between people here (not even necessarily citizens) to known terrorist operatives outside of the country. They weren't wiretapping aunt Mae talking to cousin Lou-Lou.

The president authorized spying on people who were talking to our enemies. Dude, I got no problem with that. And the same screeching moonbats that blame Bush for not stopping 9/11 are up in arms about this. How in the holy hell do you expect us to stop people who are infiltrating our own culture, our own towns, and learning to blend in so that one day they can strap on a bomb or an airplane and kill a bunch of us because God wants 'em to? I mean, how do you think intelligence is gathered?

"Get a warrant!"

That can take up to 72 hours, and more people know about it. The bigger the number of people who know, the harder it is to keep them from finding out we're on to them. I don't want Al-Salim's sister-in law who works for the CIA or FBI and types up Agent Smith's paperwork to know that we're listening in on his cousin's plot to nuke Los Angeles. I want us to figure out how he plans on doing it, who else is involved, and how we can nab his ass before he pulls the trigger.

In short, what our supposed supporter said was "we are at war" but went no farther into the circumstances describing this war and how radically different it is from WWII, Vietnam, Korea, WWI or any other war we've fought. The enemy has embedded himself within us, and is using our constitutional protections against us. They are exploiting a flaw in our system. I don't want to hear anybody howling about the minor steps we've taken to shrink that flaw a little bit when Muhammed "Eddie" Assad calls up his buddy Zawahiri in Pakistan. I'm going to assume they might be talking about something besides the aroma of roast lamb.

The press fleetingly acknowledges, usually in soundbyte quotes from the president himself, that these are international intercepts, not QUITE the same as domestic spying, but you never hear the reporter repeat it. The headlines and the overall impression the stories leave is that Big Bad BusHilter is spying on us all.

And I agree with many that the timing of the report is highly suspect. After practically denying that the December 15 vote in Iraq had any real significance, they publish this the very next day after having known about it for a year. Why Dec 16? Because they desparately want to deflect the conversation away from Bush's success and keep the attention on the fact that they think he's a big bad meanie for not pulling out of Iraq on 9/12/01 (yes, we were there, and it was a big part of the reason we were attacked here).

They, the Left, are scared. It appears that Bush has been right about a lot of things, and he's not taking it lying down anymore. With undeniable success of the Iraq mission screaming over their hand-covered microphones, the New York Slimes panicked.

Or... just go read what Michelle has to say about it. She has more time to research this stuff, and she does a great job. Besides, she's much better looking than I am.

The Best Quote from the President's latest speech

"My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them."

- President George W. Bush 12/18/2005

That's about as bluntly as you can put it.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Daniel on Iraqi Voting Day

Go check out Daniel's election day post.

Some cool pictures. I find the one with the line particularly impressive.

A post closer to what I wanted to do, but I didn't have the pictures.

More on Iraqi House Inspectionss (file under "Things Kerry hasn't read")

There is an Iraqi girl in Mosul who blogs, and her mother has a separate blog.

They have been subject to house inspections on more than one occasion, apparently. In these two posts, each talks about the inspection from their poiint of view. Neither sounds terrorized. But read it in their own words.

So this is one of those children (and kids!) and one of those women our troops are "terrorizing". Check out what they have to say about the troops and inspections. Then ask yourself which story jives with Americans (our soldiers are Americans like my good and honorable step-son Brian) that you know. Theirs? Or Kerry's?

Here's the young teenaged girl's:
Days of My Life
Talk about daily life of a teenage girl in Iraq, and days of
suffer and success. My nick name will be sunshine..

and her mother's:

talk about my life as a young mother hoping to do the best
for her children in spite of the life difficulties.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Iraqi Woman Speaks Out to the Anti-War Crowd

Oh, this is too much fun not to publish:

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”
– Iraqi Citizen, voter Betty Dawisha

Obvious (from the screenshot) it was aired on Fox. Doubt you'll see that on CNN, eh? Think she'll be quoted in the Times?

The Death Peanalty

Every time the death peanalty is invoked, the press parades out the usual stream of the outraged.

The common theme seems to be that the murderer (because that's the only offense we dole it out for anymore) is still a human being and the death peanalty is an affront to their human dignity.

Another one comes from people who are "opposed to violence in any form."

To those last people I say - "not in my society." Any society opposed to violence in any form is doomed. Period. If I have to explain to you why that is so, no amount of explaining will do it for you.

To the first point, I believe that a human being can do things to give up his/her human dignity. I believe a human being can forfiet that respect. And I believe everyone should be raised to understand just what those things are, and what will definitely happen to them should they do any of them. Fuzzy rules encourage rule-breakers.

Mind you, I am for keeping the standard of proof high, and the bar for such a crime pretty high as well.

And definitely, anybody guilty of a pattern of such behavior would far surpass that bar. And anyone who "had converted" should walk into the gas chamber voluntarily just to show the world how seriously it should take these things.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

BBC Headline: CIA abduction claims 'credible'

Don't you love these things?

This guy named "Dick Marty", presumably some sort of expert privy to the kind of information it would take to verify something like this, came up with a report in which he says that claims of US/CIA torture are "credible".

The story doesn't question anything he has to say, really, only that he said them and the implication is that he's ... ahem ... credible.

Well, who is this Dick Marty? ah, apparently here's his web page: Dick Marty

Mmm-hmmm... a Swiss senator. What's that party name again? Radical-libéral , you say?

Hey, at least they don't try to hide behind some euphemistic term like "progressive".

A European Radical libéral. Make mine a triple, please.

Is he wrong? I don't know. Is he right? The press doesn't know. But they hope he is. Absent that, they can just spatter his allegations all over the place and weave them in to the BushitlerliedBlooldforOilHaliburton theory.

30,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead? MSM Gets it Wrong Again.

I suspect it's intentional.

The question was:

"Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators?"
The answer was:
"How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq. "

At no point did the President say that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Yet that's what the headlines read. Including NPR's and a zillion others.

Eleventy-jillion meticulous fact-checkers, eh?

Murtha: Our Troops have now become the primary targets of the insurgents

Gomer Pyle: "Well sur-prise, sur-PRISE, sur-prise!"

Imagine this in WWII:

"Our troops have become the primary targets of the Germans, so we should pull out now."

If we're the ones kicking their a**es, one would expect us to become their primary targets. As if this is some new development. At what point in this war were we not their primary targets, Mr. Murtha? But I can't even buy the bit of "duh" Murtha is spewing in the face of all of the civilian deaths the "insurgents" have inflicted and continue to inflict.

Oh, sure, they'll take the odd easy pot shot at our troops. But it's much easier to take out people waiting in line to become policemen and other security forces. They're not interested in military victory.

They're interested in useful idiots like Murtha acting as their mouthpieces.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Echo Chambers

Chris Muir's cartoon for today (Dec 12, 2005) really got me laughing. I'd been talking to a friend recently about the "echo chambers" -- yes, we used that word -- that liberals seem to hang out in and how that leads to their continual babbling of the party mantras even in the face of -- perhaps especially in the face of -- evidence to the contrary.

You know, BushHiltlerLiedHalliburtonAbuGhraibBloodForOilQuagmire ...... that sort of thing.

I guess the Times thinks Liberal blogs are shining examples of open, healthy gardens of diverse opinion.

Of course, when you've pre-defined which opinions are "diverse" and which are not, it makes it all the easier.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Air Marshall Shoots Passenger

I saw this headline last night, and the first thing that ran through my head was -- Left-Wing Press stories on why it shouldn't have happened in



1 ...

And here they are. "He was mentally unstable." "He didn't have his medication." "One passenger claims he didn't hear the man say anything." "No explosives were found."

Look. A guy on a plane says he has a bomb. He does not cooperate when a marshall tells him to put the bag down. Then he runs.

In the comfort zone of not being on the plane and having the bit of knowledge that we do now, that being that there was no bomb and the guy was unstable.... it's easy to say but... but...

But nothin'.

"I have a bomb."

"Put it down."



I have no problem with that.

I'm sorry the man was mentally unstable. I'm sorry he didn't have his medication. But to my mind, there is no question the situation was handled the way it should have been.

Not that it would have been any different if it were otherwise. If it were a man of middle-eastern decent, there would have been questions about racial prejudice.

There is an unfortunately very large group of people who wish that we could just all hold hands and violence would go away.

Killing another human being isn't pretty, and it should never be lightly undertaken. On the other hand, allowing someone to kill a bunch of innocent people is even uglier. We didn't see what the bomb would have done had there been one. All the marshall knew was this guy said he had a bomb. He had to decide then and there -- do I risk the lives of all these people by sitting him down and playing 20 questions with him?
"Do you really have a bomb?"
"What kind is it?"
"What's bothering you today?"
"Are you mentally ill?"
"How is your medication holding out?"

This ain't the movies. This is real life. Nobody with superhuman powers can instantly see where the bomb is and know how to disable it in a flash. There's no telepathic "Counselor Troy" sidekick who can instantly know if the person is lying.

"But the wife was saying 'he`s sick, he`s sick'".

I really do feel badly for her. I can't imagine. That would be awful.

In Al-Queda's training materials, they talk of our Western hesitation as a weakness. And it is. It's a noble weakness to have, but it's still a weakness. Our enemy knows this weakness and utilizes it. Our enemy doesn't have it. Our enemy doesn't stop and think "could this be an innocent civilian I am about to kill?" No Westerners are by definition guilty, and if by chance he kills good Muslims, why they will go straight to heaven. He's doing them a favor. So it doesn't matter.

Now imagine a suicide bomber duo working together to buy that little bit of extra hesitation. "But he's sick!"

KA-BOOM! 140 people dead.

Why didn't they stop it??????

It must be Bush's fault.

Monday, December 05, 2005

Christmas and the Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation

the Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman says...

"We face a better-financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before. [..] Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us."

The chief villains, Foxman said, were the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family; the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund; the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association; and the Family Research Council, based in Washington. "This issue is serious enough for us to develop a strategy, and, clearly, our first task is to win the support of the American public," Mr. Foxman said. "We also need to come together with other Jewish organizations ... and to find allies beyond our community."

On Nov. 19, Mr. Yoffie compared the religious right to Nazis.
"We understand those who believe that the Bible opposes gay marriage, even though we read that text in a very different way," the rabbi said. "We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations."

Lord knows, you couldn't gain an iron grip on power until you banned those pesky gay organizations. Why from there it was an easy skip and a jump to conquest of the European continent.

"Foxman loves to whine about the religious right and how they're destroying religious liberty in America," said Don Feder, president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation. "Is wanting to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance Christianizing America? Is opposition to gay marriage Christianizing America? Is efforts to keep public displays of the Ten Commandments Christianizing America? If so, Moses was a Christianizer."
Or go look what another founding member of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation Jackie Mason has to say about it.

I'd be negligent, of course, if I didn't point out that we should not forget that Hitler ate potato salad. Christians often have potato salad at their church picnics and such. Therefore, any attempt to market potato palad or any of its ingredients is an attempt to Christianize America. Because Christians are Nazis.

Just look at their side-dishes.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Iraqi Campaigns

This from "Iraq the Model"

Aside from what parties put on their posters or say in the speeches they make, the people themselves are also using a portion of the walls to write whatever they like with or against this or that list; one funny line I saw yesterday said something that translates like this:

Vote for Allawi and your wife will buy malawi (heavy bracelets of gold) and vote for the I’tilaf (the united alliance) and you’ll go back to the tlath-talaf (3,000 in reference to the old poor salaries that Saddam paid us).

Nope, no progress in Iraq there. Before, Iraq was a united country. Everybody voted for Saddam Hussein. And I mean everybody. Now look at the mess they're in. They've got competing political parties, campaigns -- I mean ... man. And optimism about economic opportunity? What's that all about?

Oh, that's right. The goal was Communism. My bad.

Welcome Daniel in Brookline

(and IraqTheGoodStuff).

I don't put a lot of links on my "blogroll". There's a reason for that. I think too many are overwhelming, for one thing. A few good links and links to like minds and you can branch out from there.

However -- I think I have adopted Daniel as my blog buddy. Kind of like a "Sister City", only he's not a woman. (not that there's anything wrong with women -- I happen to be a big fan of them.)

Why? Well, it seems to me that his outlook on life is very much like mine. This realization struck home when I read his post-Thanksgiving post . Now that's a well-centered, decent guy.

Besides, he's patted me on the head a couple of times and it gives me the warm-fuzzies. A little small-time blogger like me. Gorsh!

We dig Thanksgiving in our household. Hopefully it will never be replaced with "National Gratitude Day" and have the main course suggestion changed to "Tofu Tofurkey". Not in our house it won't.

The other link I have added to the left (hmmm... maybe I should switch which side I put those links on... ;-) ) is... Iraq, The Good Stuff.

It is actually a new blog of mine. It was inspired by correspondences with my step-son who is in Iraq right now with the 6th CAG unit of the USMC. I'd been thinking about it, and then I read an editorial by Mona Charen. That did it. This stuff has simply got to be shared.

I don't expect it to be an overly active blog, as it isn't supposed to be a political discussion blog -- more of a "hey, looky here!". I welcome suggestions for links to stories of goodwill and progress in Iraq. That is all that will make it onto that blog. Maybe if I get enough it WILL be an active blog. True stories, with a preference to first and second hand stories. I will try my best to keep too many snide comments about what opinions I'm countering to a minimum. But you know... a few slip through. Sorry about that.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

We Shall Never Surrender

I know there are a great many people affected by the orders which we have made who are people affected by the orders which we have made who are passionate enemies of Nazi Germany. I am very sorry from them, but we cannot, under the present circumstances, draw all the distinctions we should like to do. If parachute landings were attempted and fierce nights followed, those unfortunate people would be far better out of the way for their own sake as well as ours.

There is, however, another class for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us powers to put down fifth column activities with the strongest hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correcting of the House without hesitation until we are satisfied and more than satisfied that this malignancy in our midst has been effectually stamped out.

Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940

Them's powerful words. Them's compassionate, yet determined, powerful "Look out, enemies, 'cause we're comin' for ya and we're not gonna stop" words.

I know there are a great many people affected by the orders which we have made who are people affected by the orders which we have made who are passionate enemies of Nazi Germany. I am very sorry from them, but we cannot, under the present circumstances, draw all the distinctions we should like to do.

Replace "Nazi Germany" with "Saddam Hussein", "Al Zarqawi", "Osama Bin Laden" ... and you have a perfectly succinct way of putting it the way any good "Hawk" feels it.

There is, however, another class for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us powers to put down fifth column activities with the strongest hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correcting of the House without hesitation until we are satisfied and more than satisfied that this malignancy in our midst has been effectually stamped out.

Amen, again. Sheenhan. Moore. Soros. ... Pelopsi ....

Imagine the howls of protest if that were in Bush's speech.

Against this adversary there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old.

Ok, so Winston was a bit more eloquent than George. Same idea, though. And he does have to try get it in the attention span of the MTV generation. Which is about long enough for "Bush Lied, thousands died" or "No Blood For Oil".

Provoking vs Encouraging

Suppose you have to take your child to the grocery store to do some shopping. The child wants to go home and watch TV. He throws a tantrum.

The tantrum is an attempt to control your behavior. You have two choices -- you can give the child what he wants, or you can stand firm and refuse until you are finished. If you refuse, the child continues to whine and pout and scream. But you must do your shopping if you want to feed yourself and your child.

If you take the child home immediately, the child has learned an important lesson. Persistence will wear you down and tantrums work!

Standing firm definitely provokes the child, giving in encourages further use of his tactics.

Withdrawal proponents are right when they say that our presence in Iraq provokes the terrorist element. What they don't seem to know, or else they willfully ignore, is the glaring fact that withdrawal before Iraq is stable encourages their tactics. If it works, they will use it, their friends will use it, and others will use it. People tend to use what works. If they can purposely kill civilians -- often in gruesome and shocking ways -- and get what they want, then guess what we can expect more of?

Sure, our presence provokes them. Our retreat would do far worse.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005


Turnabout's fair play. One of the worst ephitaphs that can be bestowed upon you these days is to be an "Islamophobe".

I wonder what reaction you'd elicit if you started bandying "Christophobe" around.

Great article in the okipunk blog on it. Here's a quote from it. Go read it. It raises some very good points.
"There is a vast gulf of difference between showing our heritage as a Christian nation and demanding that everyone participate in a theoretical 'Church of the Americas'. "

I've been on that kick for a while now. This country was founded by Christians on Christian values. We go out of our way to be inclusive (because of those values), but that doesn't mean we should deny this country's heritage.

As I've said before. The logical end of the kind of multiculturalism being pushed by these groups is "no culturalism" -- that is, nothing cohesive to tie us together. Divided we fall. Think about it.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Zarqawi: "But we didn't MEAN to"

A recording supposedly from Zarqawi on a jihad website says:

[they] meant to target a meeting of US and Israeli intelligence officials.

He said the deaths of wedding party guests in one of the hotels was due to a roof collapsing.

"We ask God to have mercy on the Muslims, who we did not intend to target, even if they were in hotels which are centres of immorality"

Saijida al-Rishawi, the would-be bomber who couldn't get her bomb to go off, and wife of another one of the bombers says:

"We took a car, and we went on November 9 to a hotel. There was a wedding ceremony in the hotel. There were women, men and children. My husband took a corner and I took another one. My husband detonated his bomb, and I tried to detonate mine but failed."

Hmmmm... well, I can see if you walk into a hotel and note a wedding ceremony with men, women, and children, and walk to a corner and detonate your ball-bearing-laden suicide bomb, you might not expect to call those people "targets". After all, you didn't actaully aim specifically at any of them. Well, I suppose that's understandable then.

It appears that he is also saying that even though he is sorry about the mistake and he hopes that Allah will have mercy on them, it served them right for holding their wedding at a center of immorality.

"Sorry we killed you. We didn't mean to. But you deserved it anyway."

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Tired Rhetoric

Let's see, Cheney and others are calling certain Democrats out on their constant, tired drumbeat of "Bush Lied", "Illegal, Immoral", "No WMD", "Manipulated Intelligence" (a variation on "Bush Lied") and saying "wait a minute -- we didn't make this shit up. You all believed it after seeing the same intelligence we did." Clinton & Albright were talking about regime change long before we took over the cubicles.

And Kerry retorts in his usual fact-bereft manner that it was hard to name a Bush official with "less credibility on Iraq".

"Secret-Session" Reid calls it "tired rhetoric" and says "Political attacks do nothing to get the job done in Iraq."

Can I get an "I KNOW" from the peanut gallery? Just what, exactly, have the Democrats been doing since the start of the last election season if not making political attacks? Republicans are simply responding to the "tired rhetoric" the Dems keep spewing. If their responses sound tired, it just might be because the charges they are responding to are tired.

Want some rhetoric? How about these gems:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during he interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3385

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and others Oct. 9, 1998


"The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal…One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country "
Vice-President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

(and then he condtradicts himself in the same speech...)

Military action to dislodge Saddam Hussein will "severely damage" the overall war on terrorism and "weaken" U.S. leadership in the world.
Vice-President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone...And if entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waver."

Vice-President Al Gore, May 23, 2000


"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."-EX-President William Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"If you remember in 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded another country, he plagued it, he set fire to it, and he decided that he could control the region. Before that, he had gassed his own people. Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."- Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

SOURCE: http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/99nov22/vp2.html

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. If we fail to respond, Saddam and all those who follow will believe that they can threaten the security of a vital region with impunity. But if we act now as one, we will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what it takes to protect our security and our freedom."- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?" - Sen. Tom Daschle (D, ND), Feb. 11, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.timeswrsw.com/V030803.HTM

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."- Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

SOURCE: http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.hnn.us/comments/13437.html

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

SOURCE: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

SOURCE: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Ok, then. In the face of all this, the drumbeat repetitions of many of these same people -- "Bush Lied", "Irresponsible", "Illegal, immoral", "Manipulated intelligence", refutation of these tired charges using the words of people who are making them is not tired .... it reveals the character of those who made them.

If you look, you'll find that many of these same people claim that Bush "ignored" much less substantial and much, much more sparse and shaky intelligence and actually blame him for not preventing 9/11. "He knew about it and did nothing." -- Well, apparently everybody "knew" about Saddam and his WMD and after 9/11, Bush decided it was too costly to do nothing.

The ONLY reason we now think Saddam probably didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion is that -- well, we had an invasion. Otherwise the same questions would beleager us today. Saddam wanted them. He wanted the world to guess whether or not, or how much or many he had.

Saddam decieved. The World believed. And he has been relieved ... of his post.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Plan for ending the Iraq War

Again from today's Washington Times

The Senate is expected to vote today to demand that the Bush administration "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

Um, ok .... constitution approved and ratified, new government fully elected and in place, Iraqi Security Forces up to the task at hand.



From the Washington Times

Liberals said yesterday that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s 1985 claim that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" proves that he would try to outlaw the practice"
Really... to me it just shows that 1) Alito has actually read the Constitution, and 2) Liberals have no idea what "proof" means.

I already knew 2) and I find 1) a re-assuring quality in a Supreme Court Justice.

The Constitution talks about Liberty and Freedom, but it also talks about Life and the Persuit of Happiness. I'm pretty darned sure it doesn't mention "reproduction" anywhere in there. But Liberals quake in their boots at the thought of an open, rational discussion that includes the idea that perhaps someone's rights are being violated at some point with on-demand abortion throughout 9 months of pregnancy. In their marketplace of ideas, some are not even welcomed.

In Alito's "troubling" memo, the "troubling" part apparently says this:

"I personally believe very strongly" that no right to an abortion can be found in the Constitution."

Ed "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, no stranger to deaths of convenience, says that this statement is extreme.

[the] "extreme statements ... are deeply troubling."
Open intellectual discourse cannot take place when stating a simple fact is dismissed as "extreme" because one happens to wish to ignore it. I challenge anyone to show me anything in the constitution that mentions reproduction. Can't find anything? Then tell me why the statement is extreme.

On top of that, the party of nuance takes no note of the fact that the statement starts out "I personally believe...", and I doubt that he ever said that all abortions, everywhere, any time, are unconstitutional and should be illegal. Which is pretty much what the Left wants you to believe about him.

This is because even if abortion laws were changed to say that only abortions threatening the life of the mother can occur after the 37th week, it would be considered heresy to the religion of the Left.

Nope, don't club a baby seal or transport chickens in little cages on a truck, but it's perfectly ok to pull a fully formed baby's head out of the womb and stick a needle in it and suck it's brains out. Don't you dare question that. Blaspheme! Blaspheme!

I want a judge who knows, understands, and reveres the Constitution. That is the job of the Supreme Court. Alito seems to be that kind of judge. Personally, I believe even if Roe-Wade were overturned, what replaced it would be something a very long way from outlawing abortions. Ain't gonna happen.

Friday, November 11, 2005

This is a good sign

Jordanians Revile Zarqawi

Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities, shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab Zarqawi" a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 persons.

This apparently left Zarqawi fumbling to explain to Muslims why it was proper for him to Arab Muslims in fighting "the infidels". This is excactly the kind of stuff Zawahiri was concerned about in his letter to Zarqawi (which Zarqawi denies was authentic... but methinks it likely was). Not that I have any respect for Zawahiri -- but I guess everything, and I do mean everything... is relative.

Astute Observation on France's Current War (as opposed to the one 60 years ago)

From my favorite Canadian blogger, Girl on the Right.

The Jihadis are waging a holy war against France, because it is an easy target, and because there are enough of them to make it very violent and very successful.I don't know what will become of Paris's treasures once this ugliness calms. I do not know if the churches and museums will remain.

What I do know is that when the Germans invaded France in WWII, Hitler was adamant about leaving Paris intact. He was a student of art, and was unwilling to see Europe's jewel destroyed. I doubt the Jihadis have the same view of art and culture. And I, for one, am saddened by the thought that one of the most evil men ever to walk the face of this earth had more class than our current enemies.

Community Tradition

Read this on an open thread on LGF.... very good point:

[a few complainers] run to the ACLU and BOOM, years of community tradition is gone at the threat of a multi-million dollar law suit. White, Black, purple it doesn't matter, if the majority of the community wants a certain display or words spoken in school then it should be. That's the way things are supposed to work.

This, of course, ties in to the whole Multi-Cultural thing. "Multi" applies only to non-white, non-Judao Christian culture.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Clarification on Activism

From the Washington Post:

It is activist to import something into the Constitution that is not written there, based on one’s own policy preferences. It is not activist to apply and enforce the Constitution as it is written. That, on the contrary, is the duty of every state and federal judge.
-- John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff





TOULOUSE, France, Nov. 8 — On the broad concrete slab that is the main plaza in Reynerie, a neighborhood of Arab and black African heritage in this high-tech city, teenage boys with fibrous muscles debated housewives Tuesday afternoon about the riots that have swept the neighborhood and much of France.

“You’re scaring the children,” said one stocky woman, pushing her wide-eyed 3-year-old girl out front as an exhibit. “We also have to live here, and we can’t go on like this.”

“I am not a terrorist, I’m a victim,” responded one of the young men.

Alrighty then. Here is where multiculturalism and a enshrined "victimhood" leads us. I'm a victim, so it's ok that I kill, steal, & destroy. If only you understood my culture. It is my right. And basically, the Press and most of the Left blithely agree if you read their stories and comments. There is this avoidance of a moral judgement that there are just certain things you don't do, regardless of your circumstances. Because morality is ultimately a property of culture.

What multi-culturalism as adopted by the West (and to my knowledge nobody else has adopted it) really amounts to is "everybody's-but-ours" culturalism, which, in the end, amounts to "No-Culturalism".

The Multi-Cultural purist might look at this and think "Hey, but that's perfect. No culture held above another. If that means no common denominator, is that such a bad thing?"

Well, my position is "Yes."

Is one culture necessarily "better" than another? No. Are some cultures better than others? You bet. But most multi-culturalists would be loath to admit it and in fact would avoid an open discussion debating the merits and demerits of cultures that wouldn't make the cut as "acceptable". They, of course, would dismiss an invitation to such a discussion as "culture-phobic" (while openly deriding our own culture -- talk about hypocrisy) or some other equally dismissive but intellectual-sounding label. But, just as an example, does anyone truly think that a culture that incorporates, for instance, canabalism -- is on par with any major Western, Eastern, or Middle-Eastern eastern culture we have today?

But back to the main point, every culture that we value for its richness developed as a glue that held a people together and gave them a group identity. This group identity typically consists of a shared language and shared rituals that bond neighbor to neighbor, promoting an atmosphere where people value each other as something other than potential economic resources.

The logical end of multi-culturalism is, as I've postited, "No-Culturalism", where people share very little if anything in the way of common rituals, perspectives, and values. It doesn't take a Social "Rocket" Scientist to see that this will lead to a divisive society, in as much as someone could still call "it" a "society", where people do not communicate on a social level and have very little in common. In the end, it could very easily lead to Civil War.

Take a look at what is going on in France for a second. France has minority communities, but it doesn't officially recognize that it has them, because institutionally the very language would be "divisive". And in their multi-cultural zeal, they have a large and rapidly growing population that really don't consider themselves "French". Couple that with the fact that the population of actual French people, and by this I mean the culture the world recognizes as "French" will be outstripped by this foriegn population within a couple of generations, and you have the death of French Culture. What's so multi-cultural about that?

Do we really think a culture born of thuggery and lawlessness is going to turn into a shining example of cultural tolerance? Western civilization developed over many painful centuries where we made mistakes and learned from them. Multi-Culturalism is an idea born of Western Culture. It is not a value shared by Eastern or Middle-Eastern cultures (except as a tool to use against the West in its constant introspective self-doubt -- in that Al Queda is right. It is a weakness.) For those who consider Multi-Culturalism progressive, I ask you -- where will it be once the most assertive culture is Muslim-based culture? (With the Western Intellectual elite loathing Western Culture itself, it should be an easy takeover.)

We are therefore talking about a step BACKWARD even by Multi-Culturalist standards.

I love different cultures, but I love mine as well. The fact that many cultures are equal does not mean we should get rid of our own. I happen to love Christmas and Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July. And I'm happy to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with people who love it as well. I love ethnic food and music. But lets get real. What will American culture be once we decide that having one official language is racist, that celebrating Christmas is something to be done behind closed doors? Where will we be when celebrating Independence Day is off limits as well because it might offend native Americans (pre-America) and perhaps the British (after all, it was a military victory over them that won us our independence).

Right now, Multi-Culturalism says "Everbody else is cool. We suck."

And we'll "suck" ourselves right into our grave.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

More on French Rioting

Interesting article in the New York Sun...

...the fact remains that only ethnic youths are rioting, that most of them explicitly pledge allegiance to Islam and such Muslim heroes as Osama bin Laden, that the Islamic motto - Allahu Akbar - is usually their war cry, and that they submit only to archconservative or radical imams. The fact also remains, according to many witnesses, that the rioters torch only "white" cars, meaning white owned cars, and spare "Islamic" or "black" ones. One way to discriminate between them is to look for ethnic signs like a sticker with Koranic verses or a picture of the Kaaba in Mekka or a stylized map of Africa. Further evidence of the animating influence in the riots lies with the French rap music to which the perpetrators listen. Such music obsessively describes White France as a sexual prey.

But it's all about poverty and unemployment. Don't forget.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Two takes on French Rioting....

From BBC's John Simpson
No matter that events have thoroughly borne out his criticisms of the US and British invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Muslim teenagers who briefly applauded him then have long since forgotten all that - though of course if he had supported President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair then, he would be in even greater trouble now.

From Chicago Sun Times columnist Mark Steyn:
The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.

For the most part it appears the press is still going out of its way to NOT mention that the "youth" are largely Muslims and are likely being directed and encouraged (and perhaps soon to be aided) by local and foriegn Muslim leadership. Oddly, even Simpson mentions it, but of course downplays it -- saying only that it's a good thing Chirac opposed the toppling of Saddam Hussein, (and how "right" he was about it) or it would've been worse!

If you read the Al Queda manifestos, it's pretty darned clear which view is the correct one.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

A History of Selective Misquoting in the Times

I've been too busy to write long posts lately -- but when I want to steer people that visit here to things, I'll drop a blurb.

Good example of media bias "for the cause". Because most journalists don't become journalists to report the facts. They become journalists to make a difference.

Got the link from Michelle Malkin's blog and followed it:
Lying Times
Michelle's post is good as usual and provides a bit more on the story.
Special (Democrat, mind you) Patrick Fitzgerald on the "Plamegate" indictment.

"This indictment is not about the war... This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are -- have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel"

Got that, Dems?

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The lies that led us to War, or the lies that led us to Anti-War?

Very, very interesting stuff in the L.A. Times.....

Remember how CIA covert agent domestic employee Valerie Plame's husband Joe Wilson's trip to Niger "proved" that Saddam Hussein was not trying to buy uranium?

Well, it turns out that our little left-wing investigator twisted his own findings when he wrote that op ed piece in the famously left-wing New York Times. According tothe Senate Intelligence comittee, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation.

Ok, then, he didn't show a smoking gun, but nothing he found disproved the intelligence that said Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Niger, as Wilson basically claimed it did. It even found some supporting evidence for the uranium claim.

Bush lied? I think perhaps it was Mr. Wilson that was stretching the truth in order to further his anti-war agenda.

Go read the whole thing. It's pretty interesting. And there are several other interesting details I left out.

The left is reaching, more and more. Hopefully it really is imploding.

Can you FEEL the hypocricy?

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.


So it's ok to be "racist" if you don't like a person's politics? Well, doesn't THAT open up the door!?

The Left's ideological bankruptcy gets more and more obvious. Dudes -- this is ONE big reason why you aren't winning elections.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Casualties in Iraq

... and the disingenuous "concern" & use thereof by those on the Left.

(hat tip to Misha)

Exploiting the Dead (or if you don't want to sign up for the New York Post: here)

Very good, must read. Some very telling points in the article... At the rate of American soldiers killed we've had in Iraq over the last two and a half years, we would have to stay there another

  • 76 years to equal the American dead in Vietnam (Quagmire!!!!!)
  • 532 years to equal the number of American dead in WWII (in 4 years!)
  • 470 years to equal the number of Union soldiers dead in the Civil War
  • 729 years to equal the number of North and South soldiers dead in the Civil War
Every death, of course, is a tragic loss. However, I recently read this analogy for 20th century deaths due to wars, and 20th century deaths inflicted on populations by totalitarian regimes.

It said:

Fill a football stadium with fans and players.

The players on the field would represent the number of people lost due to wars in the 20th century. The stands full of fans would represent the number killed by totalitarian regimes.

Think of that the next time someone talks to you about the "illegal, imoral war."

Sunday, October 23, 2005

The Press - Making the News

The teaser for Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC for monday speaks volumes about the way at least a lot of the media see their role....

We're being told that Joe is going to "make sure" that the same "mistakes made by the fedaral government with Katrina" are not made with Huricane Wilma.

'Cause, you know, Joe -- it's a foregone conclusion, still, that it was the Fed's fault. And of course, the Press are the true leaders and heroes of our country.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

A little more about war

So let me get this straight.

We're fighting a war against people whose religion alleges that we are unclean, worse than dogs, our women can be raped at will, and they feel free to blow us up eating dinner at a restaurant. Their religion is what drove them to war with us. It is a religious war, and they started it.

Now there wouldn't be this flap if we just shot them on the battlefield. So it's apparently ok to shoot them.

But insult them? Burn their bodies? (remember, they'd strap napalm to themselves if they could and blow up a movie theater, THAT'S OK.) They don't think twice about burning our bodies and hanging them from utility poles.

Now lest you think I'm talking about all of Islam, I'm not -- though I do have some serious questions about the Quran. Even more serious are my questions about the lack of vehement condemnation of acts committed in the name of "Allah most merciful."

No, I'm talking about the beliefs and actions of the people we are fighting. Frankly, f*ck them! I don't give a damn about insulting someone who would just as quickly burn my family and rape my daughters before killing them.

If the U.S. actually felt this way about all Muslims or Islam, we wouldn't be working so hard all over the world to help Muslims out.

If I can insult a low life that wants a society that holds public executions and amputations in football stadiums and get him to come out to where I can get a good bead on him, let me do it. I don't care what your religion -- or mine -- is.

Somethin's Burnin'

A deeper dig into the "Burning Taliban Bodies" story reveals that they were burned for sanitary reasons. They were starting to decay, they were near our soldiers position. The Taliban wasn't about to come and get them, and we weren't about to stand out in the open and bury them.

PsyOps came by and decided to use the burning as a tool to rile up other hiding Taliban -- you remember, the ENEMY, the ones who harbored Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda Leadership as they planned and carried out 9/11 ... the ones who kill civllians because the Koran tells them it's all good in the eyes of Allah? (Unless they were devout Muslims, but even then it's still ok if it furthers the cause.)

Them. Yeah. We WANT to offend them. We want to piss them off so they'll make mistakes. That's what PsyOps DOES!

Those who want us to treat people who are out there with guns trying to re-establish a brutal totalitarian regime that harbors mass murderers of non-Muslims and not-good-enough-Muslims like they were Joe in the next cube in their Chicago Office building have a gigantic reality-disconnect.

I've noticed a definite pattern here. Take ANYTHING the United States does and twist it to come up with the WORST POSSIBLE CONCLUSION, while treating anything the enemy does with compassion, sympathy, and understanding.

That is not how to win a war. And make no mistake about it, the people doing it want us to LOSE.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Big Bad Bush - Elections & Saddam

Well, Iraqis voted on a new constitution last weekend. Saddam Hussein went on trial for his first Crime Against Humanity trial this morning. Al Queda fears democracy in Iraq. They're financially broken, and their leadership is pinned down and afraid the Pakistanis are getting a little too close.

Amazing how quiet the press was about the election. The coverage was pretty subdued compared to Katrina or Abu Graib or the alleged Koran flushing.

Saddam Hussein is on trial. They're showing quite a bit more interest in that -- although I imagine they'll go out of their way to avoid giving any credit to Bush.

Because Bush is a big, bad world terrorist who took us to an illegal, imoral war, humiliating and torturing Iraqis with a cold, evil heart. Anybody who buys the moral equivalency argument is delusional.

Stack of naked criminals in a prison. Live, innocent human beings put into chippers.

You make the call.

The Left is already howling that Saddam won't get a fair trial. And in the end, they will say he didn't as long as he is convicted. The only evidence they will accept that he got a fair trial would be his acquittal -- and somehow they would manage to find a way to blame Bush for that as well. Which just goes to show that their agenda has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with blindly partisan politics.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Get the Lead Out

911 Mix-Up Keeps Victim Waiting

of course if she'd had a gun strapped to her thigh .... he probably wouldn't have knocked her down in the first place.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Nice Speech, Mr. President

Very well put.

It's very telling that today, the day after the speech, one is very hard pressed to find anything about it on CNN's website. What's up with that? I found the audio on the BBC site. I eventually found it on CNN under a heading of "10 Foiled Plots". I noted the name of the video clip is "BushCutLosses" -- WTF?

I read a couple of bloviations by Kennedy and Kerry I'll respond to:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said it was "foolish for the president to brag openly about disrupting al Qaeda plots to attack us. His 'bring it on' attitude hasn't worked, and such statements can only goad al Qaeda into trying harder."

Um, I think we know the president well enough to know he wasn't bragging. This man is not a braggart. Could it be, perhaps, that he was responding to the daily denunciation of his performance by trying to tell the American People that dispite what they hear daily from the leftists -- "hey, look, we are doing something"? Is responding to the constant barage of criticism bragging? Or is that a clever transparent way of continuing the barage, by spinning his rebuttal into something negative in and of itself, so we can dismiss it?

And our dear almost-but-not-quite president Kerry (thank God) put up this strawman:

"There's nothing pessimistic about demanding that our government do better by our troops," Mr. Kerry said. "And there's nothing more pessimistic than an administration refusing to provide candor and leadership equal to our troops' sacrifice."

I think the president would agree. However, he was probably talking about all of the "pull out now", "illegal immoral", "Bush=Hitler", "Imperialism" crap, and you know it. The pessimism is embedded in your unwillingness to address those issues because they suit your political purposes, Mr.'s Kerry & Kennedy.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

That Does It. This is officially NOT FUNNY anymore.

I'm not kidding. This is it. Western Culture and those who value it need to draw a line in the sand.

Unfortunately, Liberal Western thought, an offshoot of Western Culture, is getting in the way. They need to choose which side of the line they will stand on.

In the name of "Tolerence", all pig-like items -- such as and including Piglet from Winnie the Pooh, have been banned from Dudley Council, West Midlands -- a government office in Great Britian.

Councillor Mahbubur Rahman, a practising Muslim, backed the ban. He said: “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs.”

No, it's not. It's a deference. There is a very, very big difference.

Liberalism has become so ensconced in far to much of the incestuous cycle of the self-appointed Western Intellectual Elite if any of them can say “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs” or agree with it with a perfectly serious tone and a straight face.

Tolerence would be for Muslims to tolerate my belief that Piglet is anything other than a lovable character in a childhood story that is very much a part of my culture. Tolerence would mean letting me display a figurine or image of Piglet in my office. This has nothing to to with tolerence, it has everything to do with intolerence and a not so sublte hatred of Western Culture by Islam and the Western Intellectual Elite.

Hey, dogs are impure, too. Even more impure than pigs. Are they next? If I have a picture of my dog in the office and it offends some Muslim, am I to remove it, too?

Muslims all over the world have to be laughing. This is insanity. If tolerence means we must bow to everything a particular religion is intolerent of, then we are intellectually bankrupt. We have lost it. There is no turning back if we accept this.

If Muslims by the thousands don't stand up right now and agree, then there is no place for Islam in Western Society. Period.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Democratic Rule - Gimme Your Stuff

"I vote you gimme the hard-won fruits of your labor and freedom."

China, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Switzerland, and Russia would like to see the United States relinquish its historic control of the Internet.

Yes, and there's a house out in the country I'd like to live in. I wish the owners would relinquish control of it.

Freedom, free-enterprise, and a lot of American tax dollars developed the infrastructure behind what we now know as the Internet. We allow, maybe even sell the services we developed to the rest of the world. But they want to tell us how to use our resource. You know, we could have just said "sorry, Americans only". But we didn't.

You want something that you control? Develop it yourself!

"M-om, Johnny down the street lets me ride his bike, but he won't let me tell him what he can do with it."

"This situation is very undemocratic, unfair and unreasonable," said Sha Zukang,
the ambassador from China, which this week imposed new rules that allow only
"healthy and civilized" news to be read by the mainland's 100 million Web users.

It's always fun to be lectured on democracy by a totalitarian regime.

"We want your stuff. I vote we take it."

Monday, October 03, 2005


Hmmm... this looks like a website to check out more frequently.

In the mean time, you should check out this article about just how subtle media bias can be -- there's pictures, and it is worth looking at. It speaks volumes.


Friday, September 30, 2005

One Canuk's point of view


Are we getting confused on terms yet?

The BBC calls this woman an Islamist.

She sounds like anything but...

Islamic, yes. But I don't think she's a poster girl for Al-Queda.

Thursday, September 29, 2005


One such Lunatic Fringe theory -- only they ususally talk of such things as fact -- is that the US and Russia and maybe several other countries already have technology capapble of affecting the weather.

Once again, this is a subject near and dear to my heart.

People have no idea how big the atmosphere is. People have no idea what the scale of energy involved in a single summer afternoon with a light breeze in a city park would be. But people are afraid of what they don't know, and sometimes the thirst to "know" (so they can fear it less) is so great that they can be fed any logical sounding explanation. With no frame of reference to fit it into, the story stands alone and can't be rationally questioned by the listener. It "becomes" fact to that person.

The latest lunacy out is that --- Hurricane Katrina was "caused" by this technology. Some say it was the Russians. Some say it was some Japanese gang that leases "the device" from the Japanese Government for $1 billion a year (gangs come up with that kind of money annually all the time, right? Plus, as everyone knows it's always in a government's best interest to lease out extremely powerful and destructive equipment to unpredictible anti-social parties on its own soil). Some say that Bush caused it to help his oil buddies. Others say that "they used theirs, but then we used ours to try to steer it away from New Orleans".

These people are pur-a-dee nuts.

They have no clue. 1 single afternoon thunderstorm takes approximately the energy produced in a 1 megaton atom bomb. The energy released in a hurricane is about that much per second. Where in the hell do they think we can come up with enough energy to alter, let alone create something like that?

The device they point to is HAARP. Well, HAARP exists, for sure. People don't understand what it is or its purpose, so it becomes a perfect candidate for a conspiracy theorist detail. People don't know. They want to know. I will tell them. They will feel enlightened. And I will weave it into my story of international intrigue and deciet.

HAARP, since the department of the Navy is involved (fact), is a secret weapon (speculation). It emits energy and manipulates particles in the atmosphere (fact) and therefore it is meant to control the atmosphere (speculation) and since the weather is "what happens in the atmosphere" (fact), its purpose is to control the weather (speculation). Therefore, the US has or is developing a weapon to control the weather (wild-ass, off-the-charts speculation).

What is the scale of the energy we're talking about here? First, for those of you who didn't go read what HAARP is, it's basically a big radio transmitter antenna array made up of 180 antennas. This, in effect, makes one, big honkin' transmitter. When it's done, it will be able to transmit 3 microwatts (millionths of a watt) per cm2. Tens of thousands of times less than the average we get from the sun at any given moment, and hundreds of times less than the random fluctuations in what we get from the sun at any given moment. In atmospheric science classes, we call that "negligible". On top of that, the stuff that will be negligibly altered over a very small portion of the earth's ionosphere's surface, doesn't affect the weather anyway.

Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is subject to negligible absorption in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere.

The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun's radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth's atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don't affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.

--- HAARP Website

The antenna array covers 33 acres. Even if all the transmitted power from the IRI was absorbed by the ionosphere it would take more than 33,000 HAARP-scale IRIs, transmitting simultaneously to account for just 1 percent of the auroral ionosphere's energy budget. If anyone can build and power a mobile device 33,000 times the size of this device and manage to keep it hidden from the world -- they would have a really weak instrument that would still be incapable of intentionally altering the weather in any perceptible way.

Katrina wasn't caused or altered by HAARP, folks. It was a big hurricane. They've happened for millions of years, and they will continue to happen for millions more.

The Lunatic Fringe

A relative of mine has completely embraced the Lunatic Fringe. Since he believes computers are evil, he won't access them directly -- preferring to let other get what he wants from them and send the information to him.

Instead, he gets his information largely from shortwave broadcasts.

I love radio. I grew up on Radio. The whole idea is pretty fascinating for me. However, there's little that AM, FM, or Shortwave have to offer anymore. Lots of homogenized, pasteurized, compartmentalized "music" formats and some news. Sports and some news is about the only thing radio has to offer anymore.

I lost any meaningful interest in sports years ago, and I get most of my news from various places on the internet, including, but not limited to, the BBC and Washington Times.

At any rate, this relative buys into various conspiracy theories and then spends vast amounts of energy trying to get others to buy in to them, ultimately in the hope of "proving" he's right so we'll all see how smart he is and it will satisfy his hunger for self-worth.

The Lunatic Fringe (and I'd love to have that old Macintosh Screen Saver/Game written for Windows) consists of the hardest core of the various counter-culture groups on the Left and the Right -- neither side has a monopoly on this anymore.

The conspiracy theories they buy into are the big brothers of the urban legend. Much more elaborate and far more well developed, they have bankers running world politics, our own government purposely staging 9/11, even an elaborate scenario under which the United States of America dissolved itself in 1861 and was replaced by an Evil , money-making corporation for the benefit of the Evil Bankers (who, if you press most of the theorists hard enough will turn out to be the filthy Jooooooooos.)

The stories get really wild and even the best of them get pretty self-contradictory. This is because they are bourne out of wild speculation with little regard to anything like fact-checking and common sense. The construction of the basic Urban Legends is to point to a few relatively obscure but ultimately verifiable facts, mix in a bit of comfortable common knowledge, and then turn the "What If..." dial up as high as it will go -- and state it all as fact.

Throw in a source, like "a friend of a friend", or "someone my cousin knows" to personalize it -- some way to show that the idea didn't actually form in YOUR brain but it did come from a source that YOU, the TELLER of the tale, could hop in a car and go visit if you wanted. Tell a story of intrigue, and you'll have people at the edges of their seats, eating out of your hand.

These conspiracy theories use the same elements - they're just far more elaborate. If a person should choose to check the story out, they'll generally go look for the well-recited and placed facts that the story is peppered with, and find that those facts jive -- and assume that your story is true.

The cleverness is to throw the right frame around certain details of the big picture, and spend most of your time on constructing and detailing the frame, and present the whole package as a complete explanation for What's Really Going On™.

People love intrigue. It's easy to sell. Today's Conspiracy Theories are presenting people with completely alternate realities, though, and some choose to imerse themselves in them so completely that they pretty much spend their lives there.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Michael Brown defends himself, FEMA

Former FEMA director Michael Brown, in an investigative hearing before members of Congress said:

I didn't have a problem with the evacuations in Mississippi or Alabama. They were doing it. (Florida Governor) Jeb Bush had already ordered evacuations through the (Florida) Keys as Katrina was making its way through that area.

My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday (two days before the storm hit) that Louisiana was dysfunctional.

FEMA doesn't evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications...

Many may be surprised to learn that, guess what, FEMA doesn't own fire trucks. We don't own ambulances. We don't own search and rescue equipment

The people of FEMA are being tired of being beat up, and they don't deserve it.

But William Jefferson, (D) La, says:

"I find it absolutely stunning that this hearing would start out with you, Mr. Brown, laying the blame for FEMA's failings at the feet of the governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans"
Then you're not paying attention. He's saying these things are not FEMA's failings. He's telling you what FEMA is for, and what it's not for. Now -- you point out where it was FEMA that failed and not the Governor or the Mayor, and maybe he'll talk about that. The idea that FEMA failed seems to be a foregone conclusion here -- I thought this was an investigation into what failed and why, not a search for apologies and plans to expand FEMA's role.

As he pointed out, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi didn't seem to have a problem with FEMA.