"Fear and Looting in Biloxi"

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction, it is enraging to watch looters break into stores and homes, making the situation even worse for victims of the storm. At this time, the nation, in fact the world, should be working together to help--setting aside politics and greed. Should be, but....

You've seen the images...cities flooded, homes and buildings destroyed, hundreds dead. Yet, looters make it worse and do their deeds without guilt and with contrived justification. Consider this statement by one observer: "To be honest with you, people who are oppressed all their lives, man, it's an opportunity to get back at society." The news has shown people breaking down doors of stores spared by the storm just to steal. I watched a mother taking her three kids in tow as she took what didn't belong to her. Families are being threatened by mobs and fear leaving their homes. What is wrong with these looters, and what kind of citizens will their children become? How do you handle this? It's my opinion that society hasn't failed them, but that they have failed society.

On the issue of providing assistance, I was hoping for a flow of goodwill and aid from other nations. After all, they criticized the level of U.S. aid for tsunami victims, just as we were beginning the process to give billions in aid through government and private donations. So, such help for natural disasters must be important to our critics. But, I may have missed something. It sounds eerily quiet from the rest of the world. Well, I take that back. You may have seen the reaction of German papers. Apparently, according to one German government official, President Bush is to blame as hurricanes are caused by global warming that he ignores. Sad. Well, history shows that the U.S. is the most generous nation in the world when other nations have disasters. Why is it too much to expect for them to be there for us?

But, similar reactions can be found within our own nation. One blogger felt that the best contribution to be made was to lampoon "cracker governors" who didn't know how to conduct an evacuation. Thanks. That really helps a lot now. But, what about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who also said that the hurricane resulted from global warming, caused by the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, which was opposed by Mississippi's Governor in his “eco-extremism" memo? Kennedy means that the Governor brought this on his own state. Former Clinton advisor, Sidney Blumenthal, offered that "the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war." It may just be my opinion, but isn't helping people and rebuilding the cities more important than petty politics? Apparently not to some.

I'm not completely disappointed in the reaction of many, though. This country is starting to respond and I hope that other nations step up the pace to offer assistance. This will end up being the most costly natural disaster in our nation's history, but many crumbling lives can be saved. Individuals can make a difference. Businesses can help. If you're interested, contributions to the disaster relief fund can be made through various charities, but be sure that you designate your contribution to Hurricane Katrina so that your money doesn't end up in a general fund. This Red Cross chapter provides an easy site to make and designate your contribution.

Don't wait. Do it now. It's important, and this long process is just beginning.

National & International Economics

There has been entirely too much carping over who has what, should wealth be tranferred between individuals/states, taxation schemes, etc. In the interests of bipartisan cooperation, I have, at great expense and time gathered the best and the brightest to help put together a primer on economics, both national and international. Read carefully, there will be a test next week.

DEMOCRAT BUSINESS MODEL
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN BUSINESS MODEL
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk
the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are
surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the
analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow
and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give
excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year

ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find
alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks she's French, other times she's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the better looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one
better accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tells you which one you
think is the better-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

Lies OK If It Is "For The Children."

Not many things in life really get my dander up. Oh, sure, there are a few things, radical liberals, radical righties, Pat Robertson, Sy Hersch, a few others, but in general, I'm fairly well laid back most of the time. Until the other day that is. I came across one of the most grotesque, cruel, and yes, heartless hoaxes that I've ever seen.

Kodee Kennings has, for the last two years told her story in the pages of the Daily Egyptian at Southern Illinois University - Carbondale. An exerpt from one of the first articles:

Dan Kennings was trying to calm his daughter down, but he had trouble making her feel at ease because he was crying himself.

Kennings was about to leave Kodee, his only daughter, to fight the war in Iraq. He was trying to board a plane at Fort Campbell, Ky., which would eventually take him to the Kuwaiti desert.

But his daughter had other ideas.

In an attempt to delay his departure, Kodee swiped his helmet and refused to let go, saying he could not leave without his helmet.

Still in tears, Kennings took his helmet back from his 8-year-old daughter, but he still could not convince her he had to go. She refused to let go of his arms, and pleaded with her father.

That doubtlessly paints a pretty sad picture of a Soldier leaving his child with a guardian (the mother having died some time ago), tears, pathos, pulling at your heart strings.

For two years, readers who naturally fell in love with this child and her father, who followed his experiences in the war, the hurt and heartbreak when he came home on leave, and had to leave again. The trials and tribulations, for all to see. TV interviews, the child, the guardian, the father, all there, all human, all heartbreak. Then, word came back from Iraq that Sgt. Kennings, Kodee's father had been killed in combat.

And now the fraud becomes apparant. The Chicago Tribune wanted to cover the story, it called to find out when and where funeral services were to be held, to let Kodee Kennings know that she was well loved, not only by her dad and her guardian, but figuratively by the readers of the Daily Egyptian.

When the Trib called, if found out that there was no Sgt. Kennnings killed in Iraq, there was no Sgt. Kennings at all. From The Trib:

The Tribune went to southern Illinois to learn about the bond between Kodee and Dan Kennings, and the life Kodee would face without her hero.

Instead, eight days of reporting revealed elaborate fabrications and intricate lies. There is no soldier named Dan Kennings. The charming girl people came to know as Kodee Kennings is someone else entirely, a child from an out-of-state family led to believe that she was playing a part in a documentary about a soldier.

Using role players who say they were duped--including an employee of a local Christian radio station--the woman at the center of the hoax spun a remarkable wartime tale so compelling it grabbed the hearts of young journalists, university faculty members and readers, leaving them blind to the possibility it could be a ruse.

The reasons behind the lies remain unclear. There appears to have been no monetary motive, but the scope of the deception is staggering.

To say the least!

The story continues:

On Saturday morning, cars began pulling into the gravel parking lot of a one-story American Legion hall in Orient, Ill., about 30 miles northeast of Carbondale, for a memorial service. Hastings and Kodee got out of a red Pontiac Grand Am, the little girl wearing an Army uniform shirt that hung down to her knees.

People inside the memorial service said both Hastings and Kodee were in tears. A video showed Kennings in his fatigues speaking with a group of children at a church, and there was a scrapbook filled with pictures of Kennings straddling a tank cannon or huddling with other soldiers.

Tribune reporters continued asking questions, and some students and a faculty member were growing increasingly hostile because of suggestions that Kennings did not exist. By Tuesday night, however, Brenner was pacing nervously outside a Dairy Queen in Carterville, Ill., talking to Hastings on his cell phone. He handed the phone to a Tribune reporter, and Hastings said she would come to the Dairy Queen and listen to questions.

Brenner, 25, said he was still convinced of Kennings' existence and defended Hastings for trying to protect a little girl.

Hastings pulled into the parking lot in the same red car she'd driven to the memorial service. She was told that the military denied Kennings' existence and that the name Colleen Hastings appeared in no public-records databases in Illinois. She was asked for a driver's license and for a death certificate for Kennings. With each question, Hastings shook her head no.

After Brenner spoke to her for a minute alone, she drove off.

State records show that the car is registered to a woman living in Marion, and on Wednesday a reporter was there looking for the woman's granddaughter, Jaimie Reynolds.

When she came out of the house, Reynolds was the same woman who had been at the Dairy Queen as Colleen Hastings.

Sitting on the back porch and wearing a long-sleeved Southern Illinois University shirt, her face flush from crying, Reynolds admitted that she had pretended to be Hastings. She said that Kennings was an invention, and later explained that those who met him actually had met Trovillion, the acquaintance who believed he was acting in a film.

She said, and the Tribune confirmed, that she had been a radio and television production student at the university. She graduated in 2004, putting her there alongside the very people she was deceiving.

Reynolds acknowledged the little girl is the daughter of friends and said she persuaded the parents to let her bring the child to Carbondale regularly by saying she was filming a documentary about a soldier killed in Iraq.

"We told her it was for a movie," Reynolds said.

Reynolds alleged that the scheme was Brenner's idea. She also said she fell in love with Brenner, making it that much harder for her to stop the lie.

The staff at the Chicago Tribune did a great job and we are in their debt. But what of the perpetrators, why go to such lengths? To express anti-war sentiment? To garner another "Pulitzer?" Why?

I'm ticked, and I hope you are too.

Oldest Woman Dies - Can Press Bash U.S. in Report?

In June, we covered the 115th birthday of the world's oldest woman, noting that the occasion was punctuated with a snide remark from a Reuters reporter that ..."Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.", (as if that had anything to do with the story.) Well, today we have some bad news and some good news, but let's help the press report it in a positive tone.

The bad news is that this lady passed away early this morning in her sleep. The director of her retirement home said, "She was very clear mentally right up to the end, but the physical ailments were increasing." May she rest in peace. Now, the good news is that she passed away on the very date in 1645 that "American Indians and the Dutch made a peace treaty at New Amsterdam. New Amsterdam later became known as New York."

So, if the press marked her birth by noting a bad time in Indian relations, it can now mark her passing with good news in Indian relations, in that she passed away on the same date that the Indians and Dutch settlers negotiated peace in their time and for future colonists. It just seems fitting.

The Earthquake That Is Germany: Teil Zwei (Part II)

Way back in February of this year, I penned a post called The Earth Quake That Is Germany, a takeoff on Taylor Cowen's fine work here..

In today's Wall Street Journal George Melloan pens "With Luck, Japan and Germany Will Get Reforms" (subscription only) noting that Ms. Angela Merkel of the Christian Democratic Union has a better than even chance (if the opinion polls are correct) of taking over as Chancellor of Germany. That will be a welcome change from that Schröder buffoon. Melloan writes:

Under Ms. Merkel's leadership the CDU has captured all of Germany's 16 state governments. What persuaded Mr. Schröder that it was time for a new election was teh CDU's sweeping final conquest of North Rhine-Whestphalia, Germany's most populous state."

Melloan continues:

"Ms. Merkel wants to move closer to the U.S. than Germany has been under Yankee-baiter Schröder. If a Merkel-led Germany teams up with Britain, the EU might become a more useful ally in the U.S. effort to bring democracy to the Middle East. Jacques Chirac would begin to feel lonely."

Let us hope so!

Letter From The Left

My kid brother is a conservative, perhaps even more so than I am. He is also a fantastic sculptor and recently completed a 2.5 times lifesize memorial to the K-9 Corps, Wardogs which will be installed in a park on Long Island, New York. His website is here and if you take a look, you will like what you see, I guarantee it, this shot for example is a wolf in winter. (No Doug, no charge for the plug) At any rate, Doug and his wife Janet annually travel to Guatamala where they work with a clinic providing medical care to some of the poorest people on earth.

Doug recently corresponded with a founding member of the team who Doug describes as quite a liberal fellow about Cindy Sheehan. This fellow, who I will not name responded back with:

Hi Doug:

Thanks for your email. I do not share your opinions. I believe that Mr Rove is the son of Machiavelli, thoroughly evil, totally duplicitous, and a liar to boot. I think the king of sleaze at Halliburton, our vice president, is no better. If you think there were long and careful deliberations about when to invade Iraq, think again. Read Richard Clarke's "Against all Enemies." He is the guy who was in charge of much intelligence info during Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II until recently. He had first hand information. Read his FIRSTHAND accounts of decision making in the White House before you get too fired up with our righteousness.

These people sent our young, somewhat uninformed, volunteers into harm's way without the slightest damned idea what they were doing or for that matter how to do it....i.e unarmored HumVees, body armor that does not protect, inadequate troop numbers, etc. They are finding IED's rather than chemical and nuclear stuff. Read the British memos if you think Bushites were telling the truth.

The fact that anybody's daughter is going to Fallujah does not make a right or a wrong. Blind adoption and belief in the rightness of our government policy is wrong and was in part why we persisted so long in Vietnam. That was when I was drafted. Patriotism is not just waving a flag. Patriotism is holding our government to the crucible of honesty. And our government is not honest.

I used to think that Bill Clinton was a lying cheating character of no personal integrity (still do). I had not thought I would consider Bush and cronies right down there with him....until about 6 months ago. Maybe they are even worse, if such a thing is possible, because they are sliming the Almighty by claiming such self-righteousness.

Dick G

Posted by GM Roper at 10:42 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

Guard Our Borders!

Lou Dobbs had it right on the money when he said, "We are a nation of immigrants, and there is no more diverse and welcoming society than ours. But we are first a nation of laws, and upholding those laws and our national values makes this great country of ours possible."

What happens if we do not uphold those laws? Dobbs goes on:

Failure to secure our borders means that we will continue to lose the war on drugs and lose a generation of Americans to those drugs. It also means the crushing burden of our failed immigration and homeland security policies will continue to fall exclusively on the shoulders of working men and women. Not only do illegal aliens and those who employ them cost the nation tens of billions of dollars in social services, principally in health care and education, they also depress wages for American citizens by an estimated $200 billion a year.

[Note: The following was written by Mustang, a retired Marine officer who blogs at Social Sense. This is reprinted in full with his gracious permission]

The number of Americans who believe that our borders should be secure from illegal entry is overwhelming. Not everyone agrees, obviously, but those who argue for open borders mostly represent organizations that have a peculiar agenda. Of those who demand (although not too loudly) a secure border, there are essentially two camps: One group worries about our security in light of terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the other group voices concern over the economic implications of illegal immigration.

I have had a number of conversations with close friends on the subject of immigration gener­ally, and on the issue of securing our nation from those who would do our people harm. Even those who support President Bush seem to disagree with his view that people coming here illegally, no matter the point of their origin, are simply looking for work. As evidenced by the amount of attention this issue is getting nationally, however, the problem is not restricted to border-states. People throughout the entire country seem genuinely angry that our government lacks the will, or the resources, to halt the influx of people who come here illegally.

The issue of illegal immigration generates emotional rather than thoughtful debates among the so-called talking heads of our national media. Screeching at one another on national television does not bring to the table thoughtful discussion or reasonable solutions to the problem. In the first place, most people do not understand the implications of illegal immigration, including the politicians whose job it is to frame laws, and provide funding for the enforcement of those laws.

The task of problem-resolution appears to fall into three stages: (1) Determine the true affect of illegal immigration, (2) Discover reasonable solutions, and (3) Implement programs that do not demean people of other ethnic groups or nationalities.

In spite of the fact that current statutes prohibit the employment of military forces in the pursuit of civil law enforcement duties, it may be time to reconsider such prohibitions. America's open border presents a real and present danger to the people of the United States in any number of ways, not the least of which might involve the illegal entry of Middle Eastern terrorists. In fact, at least one terrorist has been arrested, a female; it is not unreasonable to wonder how many others evaded arrest or detention. Discounting terrorists, however, Americans are harmed by “illegals� who perpetrate crimes against persons and property in the United States, and do so with some impunity.

Criminal activity along the border, according to this article, is getting out of hand. The federal government's unwillingness to address this problem is causing harm to American citizens, and of course it is the local taxpayer who has to defray the costs of increased local policing. It is little wonder that citizens have formed local groups to augment police departments, but that may not be enough. Contrary to Mr. Bush's position, these people are not vigilantes, but they could be if something isn't done � and soon.

There are also good arguments that illegal immigrants pose a significant economic danger to the United States. A source of information and discussion on this topic can be found at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Among a wide range of issues, FAIR provides specific economic information relative to illegal immigration, breaking those costs down state-by-state. One might conclude, based on the data provided by FAIR, that the costs of doing a poor job in protecting America’s borders far outweigh the costs of hiring more law enforcement or border patrol officers.

For more on this topic, check out Kleptocracy to the South � a good read. The bottom line, folks, is that until citizens are fully informed about the ramifications of doing nothing, Americans cannot approach the three-step mentioned above to resolve this problem. It’s your country, dear reader, and the choice is yours � but Social Sense demands your involvement.

Respected Scientist Tosses Ice on Global Warming [Updated]

The September issue of Discover Magazine has an interview that offers refreshing honesty from a climate expert who is a doubter of human induced global warming. Dr. William Gray, a climate expert whom the magazine says may be the world's most famous hurricane expert, explains his position and describes the effect of that on his federal grants. Here's part of the interview:

Dr. Gray: Right now I’m trying to work on this human-induced global-warming thing that I think is grossly exaggerated.

Discover: You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?

Dr. Gray: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

Discover: That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.

Dr. Gray: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us.

It continues and gets interesting when he discusses motivations for the climate hysteria and how V.P. Al Gore directed research funds on the issue.

Here's the entire article: Discover Dialogue: Meteorologist William Gray

(Via Newsbusters linking to Mullings)

A Video You MUST Watch

NOTR writing at ROFASix, an excellent blog, and one well worth putting on your blogroll (I have) has a terrific post up on a debate between LA psychologist Wafa Sultan and Algerian Islamist Ahmad bin Muhammad over Islamic teachings and terrorism. The video here. As NOTR states:

Ahmad, sounding much like Teddy Kennedy, cuts loose with a tirade of anti-Bush, Hitler analogies, while even managing to slip in the A-bomb and Spanish American War. It is chilling to see what Muslims are hearing from their Imams. “We are the Victims,� he yells at Wafa Sultan."

NOTR also supplies a link to the transcript (English) of the "debate." Actually, calling it a debate is somewhat misleading, the Psychologist presents solid evidence, the Professor calls himself a victim and hurls ad hominem attacks. Check and Mate Professor - you loose.

The Professors Who Are Left Are Left

Do you believe that university professors are overwhelming liberal? Well, there have been recent studies (here and here) to confirm that. Have you wondered why universities are reluctant to admit that this is a problem and why the trend continues? Well, below are excerpts from articles that present two sides of this issue--first from the left and then from the right. (Be sure to read the articles in their entirety.) Who's right?

From the left:

Proving the Critics’ Case
(via The Volokh Conspiracy with good comments)
By KC Johnson

Inside Higher Ed recently reported on four University of Pittsburgh professors critiquing the latest survey suggesting ideological one-sidedness in the academy. “Many conservatives,� the Pitt professors mused, “may deliberately choose not to seek employment at top-tier research universities because they object, on philosophical grounds, to one of the fundamental tenets undergirding such institutions: the scientific method.�

1. The cultural left is, simply, more intelligent than anyone else. As SUNY-Albany’s Ron McClamrock reasoned, “Lefties are overrepresented in academia because on average, we’re just f-ing smarter.�

2. A left-leaning tilt in the faculty is a pedagogical (d. befitting a teacher or education necessity), because professors must expose gender, racial, and class bias while promoting peace, “diversity� and “cultural competence.� According to Montclair State’s Grover Furr, “colleges and universities do not need a single additional ‘conservative’ .... What they do need, and would much benefit from, is more Marxists, radicals, leftists..."

3. A left-leaning professoriate is a structural necessity, because the liberal arts faculty must balance business school faculty and/or the general conservative political culture. ...

The intellectual diversity issue shows no signs of fading away. Ideological one-sidedness among the professoriate seems to be, if anything, expanding.

Now from the right:

Fear and loathing in faculty recruitment
Mike S. Adams

When I was hired as a professor, I didn’t have to worry about political or religious discrimination. That was because I was an atheist and a Democrat. ...Because the university Left freely admits to engaging in race and gender discrimination in hiring, I will not make race and gender the subject of this article. Instead, I will focus on two factors they deny using in the hiring and promotion process; religion and political affiliation.

I did manage to serve on a number of hiring committees.... I heard and recorded a number of instances of direct and indirect religious and political discrimination.

• the label “too religious� was attached to an applicant who had graduated from a religious institution
• the label “too conservative� was attached to an applicant who had written an article for a conservative publication
• the label “too much of a family man� was attached to an applicant who was married and had several children before the age of 30.
• a feminist objected to another female candidate after having dinner with the applicant and her husband. She specifically complained that the applicant’s husband played “too dominant a role in the marriage.� In other words, only women who are also feminists need to apply.
• a job candidate was asked the following question during an interview: “Who did you vote for in the 2000 election?�

The obvious political and religious discrimination at UNCW does not end with faculty recruitment. It is also extended to the tenure and promotion process. I once witnessed a non-feminist with a weak record labeled as “clueless� and in need of training in “impression management� by her angry feminist “colleagues.� But the story is different when a Leftist comes forward with a weak record. They are simply labeled as in need of “nurturing� by caring and concerned tenured Leftists.

A tenured UNCW English professor recently tried to convince me that the absence of a single Republican in their department of 31 full-time faculty members was just a coincidence.

Several questions come to mind:
Is there a liberal bias in hiring and tenure? It seems so.
What are the real causes for that?
Why aren't colleges doing more to promote a broader range of ideas?
What are the implications on the lives of students in one-sided academics?

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that liberals appear to create an extremely hostile work environment in colleges for conservatives. How can someone work at a place where you are attacked and your advancement blocked because of your political and religious views--which have nothing to do with your work?

And, here's my question: Are liberals really smarter than conservatives, as the left says? Does that make us liberal or make them wrong?

Bush Gets Kicked In The Shins - Again!

I support the President, but not uncritically. I support the global war on terror and against the Islamic fascists who preach and practice terror. I support conservative causes in general and am pro-life. What I do not understand is how often George W. Bush has to be kicked in the shins before he figures out that it hurts! From Yahoo comes this tidbit:

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President George W. Bush put pressure on the Palestinians on Saturday to respond to the Israeli pullout from Gaza and portions of the West Bank by cracking down on terrorism.

“Now that Israel has withdrawn, the way forward is clear. The Palestinians must show the world that they will fight terrorism and govern in a peaceful way,� Bush said.

“We demand an end to terrorism and violence in every form because we know that progress depends on ending terror,� Bush added in his weekly radio address."

In this case, Bush reminds me of none other than Charlie Brown and Lucy. "Here Charlie Brown, I'll hold the football and you kick it a mile."

Every fall, Shultz would tease us with that one, every concession, the Pali's tease us with controlling the terrorists in their midst.
President Bush, if Hamas or others begin to operate terror campaigns from Gaza, will you be in favor of wiping them out, or do you need to have your shins kicked a few more times, the football yanked away a few more times?

UPDATE: Pali's fire rockets into Israel from GAZA OK, Mr. President, your response is?

Click the "continue reading" button immediately below for an example of the humanity of the Palistinians... And those who believe that all cultures are equal: "Kiss my grits." WARNING, GRAPHIC DEPICTION FANATIC PORNOGRAPHY

Continue reading "Bush Gets Kicked In The Shins - Again!"

Managing Trolls In The Blogosphere

What to do with TROLLS? That is a question plaguing bloggers from day one, handling those people who do not contribute to the conversation, rather hurl invective, make ad hominem attacks, challenge rather than discuss and otherwise make a nuisance of themselves. Some bloggers, like LaShawn Barber have decided to cut out comments entirely, and she had plenty of justification for doing so. She was called so many vile names by trolls that any self respecting sailor would blush and disown the language that made the cliché famous.

In fact, for many political bloggers, of the left, the right, centrist, libertarian, etc., trolls are as bad as spam, and in some cases, much worse.

Trolls disrupt polite conversations, and sometimes rather impolite conversations between like minded people. In fact, some of the reasons that people go to political blogs is to A.) have their political leanings reinforced; B.) to see what opposing political thought is; C.) because they are addicted to politics and it really doesn't matter whose politics they read. This is well and good and has been a boon to the blogging phenomena. In fact, the last time this kind of phenomena took the country/world by storm involved CB radios and (ugh!) polyester. But, I digress; trolls are difficult to deal with for both the blogger, and for the bloggers audience.

Some bloggers have never had comments as such, and therefore are rather immune to the troll phenomena (although I suspect they get their share via e-mail if they publish an e-mail address on their site) So, sites like one of my favorites (Glenn Reynolds at The Instapundit) never shows troll attacks openly. Others, such as Little Green Footballs (on the right - at least as far as the WOT is concerned) and Democratic Underground (on the left) have their share of trolls and that is fairly plain to see if you are a regular reader of those sites. I have had a few myself and although I've threatened to ban a few, I have yet had to do so.

With my site, it is fairly easy to manage trolls. Most posts on my site, whether authored by myself or by my good friend and compatriot Woody draw somewhere from one (1) to twenty (20) comments. Trolls then stand out fairly well. On LFG, Charles Johnson gets sometimes upwards of 300 comments per post and managing trolls can be a much more difficult and time consuming prospect. Conservative ladies in the blogosphere such as Cao, Raven, LaShawn, Michele seem to attract brave trolls who curse and use vile language with anonymous names so they don't fear retaliation. Anonymity is both a curse and a blessing on the internet. A blessing because, for example, an employee can blog about their boss without much fear of retaliation. A curse, because some really vile stuff is out there and some folks feel that they can say or do things that they would never consider doing in front of their mother or with a boss/co-worker; and that is sad.

Reading Michele Malkin's blog, she has posted some of the words/phrases used to describe her and/or her positions. She has received some pretty nasty stuff. I don't know how she can manage it without blowing a gasket. My hat is off to her and La Shawn Barber, Cao, Raven and any other blogger who gets that kind of hate mail. And it seems, although I can't prove it, that some of the vileness from the radical left far exceeds that of the radical right. I'm not sure why, except to ascribe it to Bush Derangement Syndrome, which seems to infect even members of my own extended family (not that my family members use that kind of really nasty language).

So, what to do? Well, I think I'm going to start publishing Troll's IP address along with some of the inanities they spew, maybe even their e-mail addresses though I know that most often those are fake - lots of cowards out there... Maybe even a box on my sidebar with the same information. "The following Commenters have been designated Trolls by the Court of Rational Opinion."

Anonymity seems to bring out the worst in some folk; guess they don't have the courage of their convictions. That is sad, really sad!

Diane Wilson has this to say:

The only thing that relieves their self-hate is to see other people in pain. If you let them get to you, that only encourages them. That's why they're here in the first place.

The point is that flaming them hurts you more than it hurts them.

What makes it worse--been here, seen this before, too--is that these trolls are insiders. Yes, they hurt, they're depressed, they are at least as far down as any of us. What that means is that they know all the right buttons to push to make us angry. They have no conscience that prevents them from pushing those buttons.

That is the difference between them and us. They have turned abusive. Yes, that does make a difference. I've encountered some recovering abusers on the net, and I learned a few things from that experience. The one thing that sustains an abuser is denial; an abuser cannot allow hirself to be open to the slightest possibility that sie is harming another human being. They blame anyone and anything else in sight, but virtually all of that blame is directed at the victim, in one way or another. Abusers REFUSE to take responsibility for their behavior.

This is a "Webmaster's Challenge" from AOL Members, but it equally applies to bloggers methinks:

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed � more on this later.

The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.

Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.

Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?

Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one � himself.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden:

Patrick and I were delighted to have Jay Allen invite us to be panel participants at this year’s South-by-Southwest conference, but there’s no way we can make it to the convention. Here’s a little bit of what I would have said on Liz Lawley’s panel on “Spammers, Trolls and Stalkers: The Pandora’s Box of Community.� The text I’m responding to is taken from Jay Allen’s letter.

“Spam, Trolls, Stalkers: The Pandora’s Box of community�
The ease with which people from all over the world can come together and create a virtual community is one of the most powerful gifts of the internet. Sites which facilitate community�from Slashdot and Metafilter to the single-author blog with comments enabled�do so first by making communication easy. Unfortunately, this also opens the gates to undesirable parasites who, at best, don’t care about your creation or, at worst, want to destroy it.

Yup. All points touch within the internet, and getting online just gets easier and easier. It’s an inescapable truth that for some people, the most interesting way to participate in online discourse is to kick holes in the conversation. Others�many of them young, but some, alas, old enough to know better�have a sense of entitlement that leads them to believe that their having an opinion means the rest of us are obliged to listen to it. Still others plainly get off on verbally abusing others, and seek out conversations that will offer them opportunities to do so.

And so on and so forth: the whole online bestiary.

Must all good things come to an end due to the network effect and the shadow of anonymity? In this panel, we’ll discuss all of the things that exposure and user-submitted content might bring and how to mitigate its effect on your site’s health and growth.
Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space:

1. There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting that your front yard will automatically turn itself into a garden.

2. Once you have a well-established online conversation space, with enough regulars to explain the local mores to newcomers, they’ll do a lot of the policing themselves.

3. You own the space. You host the conversation. You don’t own the community. Respect their needs. For instance, if you’re going away for a while, don’t shut down your comment area. Give them an open thread to play with, so they’ll still be there when you get back.

4. Message persistence rewards people who write good comments.

5. Over-specific rules are an invitation to people who get off on gaming the system.

6. Civil speech and impassioned speech are not opposed and mutually exclusive sets. Being interesting trumps any amount of conventional politeness.

7. Things to cherish: Your regulars. A sense of community. Real expertise. Genuine engagement with the subject under discussion. Outstanding performances. Helping others. Cooperation in maintenance of a good conversation. Taking the time to teach newbies the ropes.

All these things should be rewarded with your attention and praise. And if you get a particularly good comment, consider adding it to the original post.

8. Grant more lenience to participants who are only part-time jerks, as long as they’re valuable the rest of the time.

9. If you judge that a post is offensive, upsetting, or just plain unpleasant, it’s important to get rid of it, or at least make it hard to read. Do it as quickly as possible. There’s no more useless advice than to tell people to just ignore such things. We can’t. We automatically read what falls under our eyes.

10. Another important rule: You can let one jeering, unpleasant jerk hang around for a while, but the minute you get two or more of them egging each other on, they both have to go, and all their recent messages with them. There are others like them prowling the net, looking for just that kind of situation. More of them will turn up, and they’ll encourage each other to behave more and more outrageously. Kill them quickly and have no regrets.

11. You can’t automate intelligence. In theory, systems like Slashdot’s ought to work better than they do. Maintaining a conversation is a task for human beings.

12. Disemvowelling works. Consider it.

13. If someone you’ve disemvowelled comes back and behaves, forgive and forget their earlier gaffes. You’re acting in the service of civility, not abstract justice.

Disemvowelling... yeah, that's the ticket.

So, if you are a commenter on this blog, try not to act like a troll, be an adult. Disagree if you wish, use what ever language you wish, but know that there are consequences for our actions, always!

Special Thanks to Anthony at School of CIT for the drawing of the troll that I obtained from the internet. I did the colorization so I hope that he isn't upset with me.

Hawaii Caps Gas Prices - Receives "F" on Economics Test

The government of Hawaii, raising its level of stupidity, has declared war on the economic law of supply and demand by fixing limits on gasoline prices in that state. It is under the delusion that refineries will be willing to ship them gasoline at a loss even though they can more easily sell at a profit in other states. Can you say gas lines and shortages?

Two years ago, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report on this issue, which was specifically directed at Hawaii and included this statement, "Price controls usually create shortages, reduce quality, and generate inconvenience for consumers when they are imposed in markets that could be competitive."

Nevertheless, the Public Utilities Commission placed a cap on wholesale gas prices from producers, who are out-of-state and must deliver the gasoline in tankers. The Commission expects that move will stop rises in prices at the pump, which are not capped for the retailers in the state. The order becomes effective next week. Governor Linda Lingle can repeal the gas cap if motorists start paying more for gas or if there are shortages. Why wait? Will someone rush a pen to her before too much damage is done?

This article says that Hawaii is the first state to cap gas prices. If the other states pay attention, then Hawaii will also be the last state. There are some economic lessons that I would rather read about than experience.

Chuck Hagel Redux

I was taken to task by a commenter regarding my use of "idiot," "idotarian," and "RINO." (See first comment here.) The commenter rightly noted that the Senator is a Vietnam vet who was decorated, has some purple hearts and a distinguished career before coming to the senate. My commenter is correct. But that doesn't give the good Senator a pass when he goes overboard and says something really stupid. Another example of the good Senator's fatuous remarks:

We should start figuring out how we get out of there [Iraq]," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

OK, let us analyze this bit of "punditry".

But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East." - - - OK, if I understand Hagel correctly, if we leave precipitously, we create a vacuum [of power] that will lead to the middle east being destabilized, OK, I'll buy that!

I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. - - By this statement, I understand that the Good Senator is saying that by going to the middle east, in particular Iraq, we have destabilized the middle east. Are you following this?

And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur." - - got it, if we stay we will destabilize the middle east!

"So, beloved students," as my philosophy professor used to say, "let us review what we have discussed." By going in we destabilized, by leaving we destabilize, by staying we destabilize. Well, that sums it up, the middle east is doomed to destabilization.

Please note, I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, though I tend to vote republican most of the time, I will always vote for a conservative Democrat over a wild-assed liberal Republican any day of the week. I am a conservative, but with a mind of my own and I tend to associate with like thinkers but we don't think alike, nor should we. I say this because I don't want to be accused of mindlessly bashing Senator Hagel, of name calling, of ad hominem attacks (ad hom·i·nem - adj: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason) I am attacking Chuck Hagel's ability to think clearly and to enunciate what he means. His attacks on VP Dick Chenney, on our efforts in the war in Iraq and the global war on terrorists have the effect of encouraging those we are fighting, increasing their belief that if they just hang on long enough, the American people will demand a pullout and leave them the field.

My commenter made this statement:

Given his history, he probably has a pretty good idea of the "consequences" our troops face in combat."

I agree whole heartedly. Chuck Hagel spilled his blood on the battlefields of Vietnam. He felt the ferocity of the enemy in that war, he felt firsthand the effects of an encouraged North Vietnam who hung on despite many defeats becacuse they believed then, correctly, that if they did, political pressure would force the US out. And that is what happened. I would expect that Chuck Hagel does have a pretty good idea of the consequences our troops are facing, and his actions and words have increased, in some measure, their risk.

Of this I am certain.

Chuck Hagel is no doubt a good man, but in this controversy, one of his making, he is an idiot expressing idiotarian ideas. I guess however I should apologize for calling him a RINO. That is for registered Republicans to decide.

UPDATE: Those of you doubting my claim from my earlier post here and this post that the Left is claiming Chuck Hegel as their own, need to read this from the Washington Post. Nuff said!!!

NCAA Folds Teepee on Indian Name Ban

This afternoon the NCAA announced that it was making an exception to its "No Indian Names Policy" for college teams and would allow Florida State University to continue using Seminoles, noting "the unique relationship between the university and the Seminole Tribe of Florida." FSU President T.K. Wetherell, in a surely unrelated decision, dropped the threat of a lawsuit against the NCAA. Wetherell, who has had contact with the other schools affected by the policy, said "I think they (NCAA) understand, there will be other requests." In related events, it is rumored that some tribal leaders are upset that the NCAA has taken back its promise to them and are calling it an "Indian Giver."

Global Warming: Will the Religion of Politics Silence Science? [UPDATED]

The New York Times reports today that a scientist has resigned in dispute from the panel that will issue a report on global warming for the Bush administration. This concerns me because it is an indication that the report might be slanted and inconclusive, and such a report may be used wrongly by people demanding money and resources for a problem that requires additional and honest research. This global warming stampede is being driven by politics rather than science, and a bad decision would be very costly and lead to cheating worthwhile medical research, education, and social programs. Shouldn't we step back and be sure about what we're planning based on real science?

I'm not going to attempt to make a conclusion about the causes of global warming or even make a conclusion about whether or not it is real, except to say that I'm skeptical about the claims, I'm suspicious about the motives of people who back the theory, I'm worried about the economic consequences of a bad decision, and I don't see where taking even another decade for study will make a difference. That's right...a decade. That seems long in our lives, but it is no time in the climate cycles of Earth. Also, there don't appear to be short-term solutions--just short-term consequences. So what are a few years to be sure that we have our facts right? There's a lot at stake.

Let me state it simply. For now, I'm more concerned with the process to determine the cause and extent of global warming than then conclusions. I want a process that leads to the truth--not opinions or manipulated facts.

You and others may have a similar concern. If so, consider the particular samples of sources and references that are provided and concentrate on the accuracy of their information rather than any biases that you might have with the sources. I don't want to hear that a factual statement must be false simply because the group providing it is conservative. If I say that water is wet, then it's still true no matter how I voted. Any emphasis to the articles has been added by me to highlight points. Feel free to find and share your own resources.

View this as your assignment to answer: Are you satisfied with the completeness, accuracy, and objectivity of the claims about causes of global warming, or do you feel that more time should be taken to be sure of our facts? This is not asking you if you accept global warming claims. It's asking if you accept the process to this point for which actions are being planned. Construct your own well-thought out opinion, rather than accept what someone else tells you, and share it if you like.

As a start, here's the statement from the article about the views of the scientist who quit the panel.

The scientist, Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climatologist at Colorado State University, said most of the other scientists working on the report were too deeply wedded to particular views and were discounting minority opinions on the quality of climate records and possible causes of warming. 'When you appoint people to a committee who are experts in an area but evaluating their own work,' he said in an interview, 'it's very difficult for them to think outside the box of their research.'

I have to agree that a conflict of interests might affect the conclusions of the report and absolutely affects its credibility

From the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal about the science involved:

The issue of climate change urgently needs to be brought down from the level of theology to what we actually know. It is, of course, quite likely that the greenhouse effect has to some extent contributed to global warming--but we simply do not know to what extent. The insistence that global warming is primarily the consequence of human activity leaves scant room for variation in solar intensity or cyclical phenomena generally.

We must always bear in mind that the earth's atmosphere remains a highly complex thermodynamic machine. Given its complexities, we need to be modest in asserting what we know. Knowledge is more than speculation.

...science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is more than computer simulations--whose conclusions mirror the assumptions built in the model. Irrespective of the repeated assertions regarding a 'scientific consensus,' there is neither a consensus nor is consensus science.

This reminds me of polls taken about national and world affairs, which are opinions and not facts. I prefer the facts rather than the polls, and I prefer science over a consensus. Do you remember the scientific method that you learned in school? Stay with me here. Don't put your head on your desk and start drooling. Sure, you remember it. It is Observation, Questions and Hypothesis, Prediction, Testing, and Modification of Hypothesis and Re-testing until the theory and experiment agree. Why is that important? It provides proof of a theory. A guide from a college physics department explains the process and benefits of this approach.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable.

Wake back up! I like that. I've heard the theories. Give me proof that I can believe.

Then, there is this from the Brookes News about the motivations and politics of the scientists:

In 1989 the organisation (Union of Concerned Scientists or UCS) circulated a petition urging action against 'global warming'. Most of those who did not initially sign were generally approached two times or more. This tactic finally netted them 700 scientists, including some Nobel Laureates. However, it seems only four of the signatories at the most were involved in climatology.

At one stage (the UCS) had Chris Riddiough running its so-called global warming project. Her qualifications consisted of having worked for the leftwing National Organisation of Women, after which she became a full-time activist for the Democratic Socialists of America.

(Regarding) the UCS's 38-page report purporting to detail an assault on science by President Bush...An outraged Dr Allan Bromley, a Yale physicist and former science adviser to President Bush Sr., attacked the report as being a 'very clearly a politically motivated statement.'

Nevertheless, the report received the unqualified support of Dr Kurt Gottfried, a Cornell University emeritus professor of physics, and fellow scientists David Baltimore, Steven Weinberg, Leon Lederman and Harold Varmus. No doubt that it's pure chance that Dr Gottfried and his wife are staunch Democrats and Bush-haters who donate to the Democratic Party, as do David Baltimore, Steven Weinberg, Leon Lederman and Harold Varmus.

It's truly sad to be able to say that this is not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last, that scientists have abandoned scientific integrity to advance a political cause.

I don't reject their conclusions of "concerned scientists" because they are Democrats, but I would need some proof beyond what they say simply because of their other motivations.

The Boston Globe carried an article about the Buenos Aires conference on global warming as a follow-up to that sponsored by the U.N. in Kyoto, Japan.

The organizers of the Buenos Aires conference take it for granted, of course, that global warming is real. The 'consensus' among scientists, it is said, is that the planet's temperature is rising, .... So if the scientists are all in agreement, who said this?

'We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.'

It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry.

We've been down this 'consensus' road before. Remember when the Chicken Littles were warning that the earth was getting colder? 'The evidence in support of predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively,' Newsweek claimed in 1975, 'that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.' Except that there was no global cooling. The alarmists were wrong then. They're wrong now.

I have more confidence in the views of scientists who work in fields related to global warming than the views of scientists and laymen who are outside of that realm.

Now, if you want to get an idea of what trying to "cure" global warming is costing now, which is only a fraction of what it will cost in the future, then check out Junk Science, which has constantly updated counters for costs versus temperature changes.

I know that many people accept global warming as fact and believe that human activity is the main cause of it--and, this belief has almost become a religion with them. They should learn from history and not make the mistakes that the church made in its conflict with Galileo about the place of Earth in the universe. The resignation and protest of a scientist from the global warming study should send up red flags that science is being silenced. But, if the global warming activists aren't afraid, let science decide the issue.

The costs are too high for a wrong decision either way, so let's make sure we know which way to go. Let's not rush into into this without more information. Do you agree?

UPDATE:

The New York Times is accused of false reporting about the scientist who resigned from the global warming study.

A Colorado State University professor who quit a Bush admission science advisory team researching the causes of global warming said his reasons for leaving the committee were 'mischaracterized' in an article published Tuesday in the New York Times. Roger Pielke Sr., a respected atmospheric science professor and also Colorado's state climatologist, on Wednesday issued a retort to a Times article in the form of an open letter to reporter Andrew Revkin. Pielke, in his post, also disputed (another) line in the Times article...saying: 'This is a completely bogus statement of my conclusions on climate.'

I'm shocked. This might be the first time that the NYT has mischaracterized a position of someone connected with President Bush. Do you think that maybe the NYT reports bad information about global warming, too?

Who Is Chuck Hagel And Why Is He Crapping On The Military?

A lot of anti-military stuff in the news today, and there are still those that don't think the MSM leans left. The USS Iowa was in the news when the idiotarians in San Francisco voted to NOT have the venerable battleship be permanently docked there. At least, that's what this report says:

The USS Iowa joined in battles from World War II to Korea to the Persian Gulf. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt home from the Teheran conference of allied leaders, and four decades later, suffered one of the nation's most deadly military accidents.

Veterans groups and history buffs had hoped that tourists in San Francisco could walk the same teak decks where sailors dodged Japanese machine-gun fire and fired 16-inch guns that helped win battles across the South Pacific.

Instead, it appears that the retired battleship is headed about 80 miles inland, to Stockton, a gritty agricultural port town on the San Joaquin River and home of California's annual asparagus festival.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former San Francisco mayor, helped secure $3 million to tow the Iowa from Rhode Island to the Bay Area in 2001 in hopes of making touristy Fisherman's Wharf its new home.
But city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Feinstein called it a "very petty decision."

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in," Feinstein said.

Harrumph; that's got to be the FIRST time I agreed with Feinstein. But this story has a happy ending at least, Stockton, California is ready to give the grand old lady a home.

The real reason for this post is that idiot Charles Timothy (Chuck)Hagel, Idiotarian-Nebraska. Now, don't get me totally wrong, Hagel is not a bad man, he is just not a wise man at this juncture. He is a Senator, he has been elected several times, he is a loving father and husband, he has a distinguished biography, is a Vietnam Vet, and has a pretty significant record of supporting the military. But not now, not when he can garner microphone time, headlines and the sure knowledge that the MSM loves nothing more than a contrarian Republican (How much play time will Feinstein get for supporting the Iowa vs the Board of Supervisors of SF?).

Hagel has stated:

We’re past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam..."

Hagel also said.

The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have.

Hagel mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion in June that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes," saying the U.S. death toll has risen amid insurgent attacks.

"Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking," the Nebraskan told CNN.

"If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do."

Hagel wouldn't call for immediate withdrawal, agreeing in principle with President Bush, but he did believe that we would be "withdrawing troops from Iraq next year."

Now, it doesn't take rocket science to know that the VP was correct, the terrorists are running out of time, they are losing their base and the effectiveness of the Iraqi army and police forces are increasing. At the tail end of WWII, both the Germans and Japanese grew more brutal and fought harder, just as the terrorists are now. And notice, I didn't call them "insurgents." That is something they definitely are not. They are terrorists, plain and simple and while they have killed and maimed US Troops, they have done far more harm to the Iraqi civilians and police.

When a RINO like Hagel takes to the microphone and makes pronouncements like the ones above, he lends strength to the nay-sayers. "Oh, My, listen to that Hagel fellow and he is a member of the President's party... maybe the Democrats are right."

Well I've got news for you Senator, our troops are taking casualties; that goes along with being in a war. They volunteered for duty, they knew what they were doing. What they didn't volunteer for is some idiotarian in the states making their job harder. What they didn't volunteer for was a group of US Government officials calling them Nazi's (Are you listening Durban?) What they didn't volunteer for is the negative attitude that you are giving off. Don't like the war? Fine, take your case to the President. But what the hell happened to disagreements stopping at the water's edge?

Our folks over there have a job to do and they are doing a damn fine job of it. Read Michael Yon's reports, Black-five, The Mudville Gazette's Dawn Patrol, find out what progress we are making against a determined enemy that doesn't care about anything but killing. Grow up Senator, next time you want to speak out, think about the consequences to the troops, and not just your pretty face on TV or in print.

Sports Pages - Give me the Scores and Skip the PC

Sports pages are supposed to give you scores and standings, describe the highlights of the last game, and give you some insight into the one coming up. A special story about a hometown player or occasional controversy is good, too. What's not good is taking up perfectly good space and leaving out good information to cater to the PC crowd and people with little interest in athletics. So, here's a message to America's newspaper editors: "Leave the sports pages alone!"

Today, the Project for Excellence in Journalism issued a study on America's sports pages and found the following:

The sports sections of America’s newspapers are a passive and reactive space, one dominated by game previews and recaps with little room for enterprise reportage. ...this traditional formula still raises some journalistic issues, particularly about what is absent. The range of subject matter is narrow and the coverage of those subjects is similarly limited in voice, style and viewpoint.

Fine...that's what we want. Keep it that way and don't make it worse. Don't get me wrong. There is a place for issues such as women's sports, minority issues, Kobe Bryant, and Title IX--but, don't overdo it. It frustrates me when I'm looking for some ball scores that the paper left out because it wanted room for some social issue or a women's sport that three people won't read about. Oh, I like some women's sports. For instance, I like to watch her and her and to read this. I'm fair minded.

The study goes on to make some conclusions that I believe are false, but it's written by journalists and not sports fans, so that's expected. While the researchers cannot pinpoint reasons for the sports page formula, they hypothesize that readers just want it that way. Yep.

Fortunately, almost in resignation, the study concludes:

America’s sports pages are a lot like a comfortable bar or restaurant you go to before or after the game. You know what you are going to get and it’s not going to be spoiled by the latest fad, but you’re also not going to see a lot of change on the menu.

And, to that, I say "thank goodness and amen."

So, editors, quit conducting studies and listen to your customers. You can mess up the front page, editorial pages, and even the comics--but leave the sports pages to what sports fans want. Let the sports section be written by people who care about sports and know something about sports. Got it? If you can learn to stick to the facts and give your readers what they want in the sports section, then next try to do it with the rest of your paper.

Now, let's get ready for baseball's stretch and post season and the start of football season.

Learning Curves and Other Inanities.

Timothy Birdnow writing in The Bird Blog is gamely learning to use his program's features. Keep it up amigo, your blog is good, you will learn the process as time goes by.

When I started GM's Corner, it was a total mess, but good people along the way helped out and they will make the difference in your blog too.

Announcing The Truth Project: Promoting the Dissemination of the Truth about Islam.

A group of right thinking bloggers have announced the formation of The Truth Project. You can find the announcement for the blog here at Always On Watch. What is interesting in the announcement are the multitude of comments, some laudatory, some not so laudatory. Guess which ones are not laudatory, lefty's or righties? At any rate, this ought to be good reading regardless of your political POV.

The Issue Is Freedom Of Speech

You can pick almost any quote from a far left individual who claims to be from the "Reality Based Community" which, as every thinking individual knows is a codeword for radical left, and you will find a fairyland, populated by Republican Trolls, Dragons, Castles, Evil Wizards named Karl etc.

An example:

1) It was criminal for Cindy Sheehan’s son to die for Israel rather than for the true interests of America.

From the beginning, this war was orchestrated from top to bottom by Jewish Neocons that saw the war as one for Israel’s strategic objectives. They ramped up the war through Jews such as Perle and Wolfowitz, the false intelligence through CIA analyst Stuart Cohen and by Israel’s Mossad, and had a compliant Jewish-dominated media to cheer on the war. The truth is the Iraq War has inflicted incredible damage on America and the American people. It is war against America rather than in defense of America.

2) It was criminal to send her son to die for a lie.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, no uranium from Niger, no links with Al Qaeda, no imminent threat to the American people. Every reason the American people were given for going to war has turned out to be a lie.

3) It is criminal for her son to be forced to die for democracy in other countries.

If Americans were sent to die for democracy or justice in all the countries of the world we deem unjust or undemocratic, then we must be ready to send millions of our sons and daughters to war all over the globe.

4) The lie that her son died for the good of the Iraqi People is false on its face.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraq men women and children have been killed, injured, made homeless and suffered from this war. You don’t save people by destroying their homes and hospitals, and throwing their country in chaos.

5) The Iraq war and her son’s death did not defend American from hatred or terrorism.

In fact, the war is massively increasing hatred and terrorism. For every one terrorist killed in Iraq, we are creating thousands more who hate and want to hurt America and Americans. This is the surest way to lose the war on terror not win it.

6) Cindy Sheehan’s son died for no true interest for the American people.

It has secured us no new or cheaper oil, it has cost a national treasure of hundreds of billions of dollars, it has alienated friends and allies, it has hurt American business around the world, it has separated and caused hardship upon millions of American military and National Guard families. It has killed almost 2000 and maimed tens of thousands of loyal and brave Americans who do their duty in Iraq. Again, this is war against every true interest of the America. The only nation that benefits from it is Israel!

A confession, that is not from the "reality" based community; that is from David Duke. However, given the CONTENT of the speech, the meaning associated with those words, one could reasonably assume that those very words came from the radical left.

I can only assume that those supporting Cindy Sheehan on the left must be severely nauseated to think that a Klansman is hawking the same drivel that they are. Do you think that they will be willing to stand up to Duke and say, "We don't want you in our movement!" If so, I've not seen any evidence of it. Therefore, can we reasonably assume that the left is practicing "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. In addition, while there are no limits on speech, other than things such as not yelling fire in a theater, incitement to riot, etc., etc., we are free to say what we want, when we want, and how we want to say it. This includes calling the President a murderer, burning the Flag of The United States; all these forms are protected.

But that doesn't mean that there are no consequences for speech. I'm free to call you an idiot if you make speech sounds that I don't like. I am free to say "You sir, are deranged." when your speech seems way out in left field.

I have noticed that speech, like any freedom can be abused, even though it may not be illegal it can be disconcerting. I have a rule on my blog regarding the use of foul language. The rule is:

There will be no swearing, invective (look it up), or ad homonym attacks of a juvenile nature (see below for what I mean by "juvenile nature") in the comments here, either directed at me or at another commenter.

Yet, there have been a couple of interlopers that have tried to measure my patience and have found that I really meant what I say. Another rule for commenting on my blog is:

The First Amendment protects my right to speak on this site, not yours. The amendment prohibits government from infringing on my right of free expression. On this blog, your expression is a privilege. On your own blog, your expression is a right. Learn the distinction."

You see, there really are limits to the First Amendment. In general, I’m free to say what I like, you don’t have to agree with me, but you can’t restrict my freedom to say it. Cindy Sheehan has exercised that right to the utmost in the silliest, most juvenile, most pitiful way I can imagine. The media who have given her a stage has also contributed to that silliness. My heart goes out to any mom, dad, brother, sister who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. It must be terrible. I remember the fear when my dad was fighting in Korea and in Vietnam. Thank God he wasn’t killed, though very many brave men and women were. When I was in the Army, I told my family to celebrate if I were killed in war, celebrate my life, not mourn my death. Like other things, I doubt if they would have listened to me, but I felt the need to say it none-the-less.

And that brings me back to Ms. Sheehan. I cannot and will not tell her how to grieve, but it seems to me that if this were really about her son, there would have been more of that, and less of the circus that we saw. Daniel Henninger writing in Friday’s Wall Street Journal says it pretty well:

Cindy Sheehan may grow into the most potent Media Mom yet. In this version of the parade, the Cindy balloon is doing battle with the President Bush balloon. One side wants to make the Cindy balloon bigger, while the other wants to blow a hole in it.

"Go, Cindy, go. You're the one. Stop this criminal and his insane war."

"Cindy, go away. You're a left-wing nut babbling, 'I want to put this war on trial.'"

The ethereal Cindy floats past every night on three channels. So much is happening all around her at Camp Cindy in the Crawford ditch. Two nights ago, hundreds of pro-Cindy "vigils" were held across the country, organized largely by MoveOn.org.

Probably Cindy is getting what she wants, but this Media-Mom event may be taking the country to a place it should want to avoid, whatever one's views on the war.

Losing a son in war and simultaneously losing perhaps half the nation's sympathy is quite an accomplishment, but that's the way it works now. Modern media has become an either/or, for-or-against world. They create Media Moms because Moms are sympathetic figures. But ultimately the audience in the new electronic Colosseum--a video-game experience for couch potatoes--turns thumbs up or down on most of these Moms. After a few weeks, people were either rooting for Terri Schiavo's desperate Mom or saying she should shut up and go away. How edifying.

Which brings us to the end. If you want your speech to be heard, to be acted on, to be listened to with thoughtfulness, then you need only do one thing; try to be reasonable, let go of the hate, let go of the antagonism. Of course, I doubt if the left will hear me, they seem too invested in what they are doing. And of course, some would say that many on the far right won’t heed this message. That’s OK, I have the right to say it, I have no right to make anyone listen.

A Women's Group - Looking Twice and It Looks Nice

Last week, a women's organization offered a $5,000 prize in a college essay contest that is limited only to female college students and asks "what you think it means to be an independent woman in the year 2005." My first impression was, "Oh, boy. Another man-hating feminist group brainwashing young women." Well, mark it on your calendars, because today I am admitting that I am wrong. I did a double-take and found that it is a feminist organization, but in the good sense, and one in which parents could be proud of their daughters' participation. The group is the Independent Women's Forum (IWF).

In viewing their list of issues, I was surprised to see that they accept that men and women develop differently because of biology rather than society. What a concept! Then, they have a section on the rewards of dating and romance rather than just "hanging out together." There is another section on rights for the women of Iraq. They take positions on a broad spectrum of matters--from judicial appointments to balancing work and family.

This organization has strong common-sense women who can help properly teach young women and further their needs in life and business--without being radical and hating men. How refreshing! You may want to read some of their studies and refer them to others. In fact, suggest to any college women whom you know to enter their essay contest about being an independent woman. There's nothing wrong with that and the way they approach it.

I'm glad that I was wrong today. It's nice to see examples of women being strong without being filled with hate and bitterness. Now if we can just train them to cut the grass...okay, okay--I'm just kidding. Now, go read about them.

Hunter S. Thompson - A Gonzo Memorial

Hunter S. Thompson, a unique writer until his suicide six months ago, will be remembered in an appropriately unique memorial ceremony at his Woody Creek home this Saturday. His cremated remains, about the size of a basketball, have been mixed with fireworks and packed into 34 mortar tubes that will be blasted by a cannon about 300 feet into the air. Guests should have those little drink umbrellas to keep the ashes from floating into their margaritas at this solemn occasion.

The service, the cost of which has been estimated at $2 million, is being covered primarily by Johnny Depp, who played Thompson in the 1998 movie "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." Lyle Lovett, the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, a Japanese drum group, and someone with a flute will perform in this event being called "Hunterpaloosa." I guess the guests who can't perform will have to settle on bringing covered dishes.

Thompson once said, "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." Well, as some might say, whatever works. However, there are prices to pay and sometimes those prices are paid by the people who are closest.

Thompson had strong political beliefs and hated Richard Nixon. Given Hunter Thompson's values and death: if he thinks that Richard Nixon resides in hell, then maybe Thompson will join him--with his hell being stuck with Nixon through eternity. Now, that would be a fitting conclusion to this, but I wouldn't wish that on Nixon--nor Thompson either.

UN-doing the U.N. - Why America Must Act Alone

Every once in a when I'm doing research, I'll discover a commentary that expresses a view and condenses arguments so well that it is worth sharing, even if it is a few weeks old. This happened yesterday when I found a recent analysis on the United Nations, in which the author pulled no punches about the problems of the U.N. and states that the United States must set its own course without U.N. approval.

Bruce S. Thornton wrote this paper on the U.N. that I found on the site of Victor Hanson. To get the full thrust of the author's position, be sure to read the entire article titled "Lo, the U.N. By What Name Do We Call Thee? Failed, useless, dubious, impotent, pernicious, morally exhausted. . ." Just to give you a glimpse, here are some of the things he had to say...along with my comments, of course.

....the United Nations has outlived whatever use it may have had as an institution for defusing crises and managing conflict.

The U.N.'s failures just in the last twenty years are legion � in Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, and currently in Sudan, hundreds of thousands have been brutalized, mutilated, raped, and slaughtered, often right under the noses of U.N. forces and observers.

Yes, he left off Iraq, but he's getting there.

Like its earlier incarnation, the League of Nations, the U.N. was the fruit of an old Enlightenment dream: that negotiation, diplomacy, and rational discussion could manage crises and avoid the use of force in settling conflict.

...But that dream is itself based on a questionable assumption: that rational negotiation, discussion, and appeals to self-interest and material benefits can trump force. In fact, rational discussion and negotiation work only when everybody at the table respects them, bargains in good faith, and sincerely desires peaceful coexistence. ...(N)egotiated settlements and resolutions are only as good as the credible threat of force backing them

Demands with no teeth or not demands...they are weak appeals, and appeals don't work with tyrants. (I think we're getting close to Iraq, now.)

The U.N.'s failure as a force for order and justice in the world was clearly manifest in its indulgence of Saddam Hussein and its paralysis in dealing with his obvious ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. For more than a decade, Hussein violated UN resolution after U.N. resolution, sixteen in all. He demonstrated his scorn and contempt for the U.N. and its ideals, booting out the weapons inspectors after years of harassing and deceiving them. And he corrupted the U.N.'s Food-for-Oil program, which attempted to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people caused by Hussein's intransigence and brutal disregard for his own people, whom he watched suffer and starve as he spent billions on vulgar palaces, gaudy mosques, weapons, and bribes to U.N. officials.

See. I told you. Yet, you'll hear the left cry that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that Bush only gave the U.N. just three months to deal with Saddam Hussein, and the United States had no business invading Iraq and putting Hussein out of business. They ignore facts, but Thornton just gave us the facts--not opinions. Well, the U.S. put some teeth behind the resolutions, and what happened?

You would think, then, that the U.N. would have been eager and grateful for action that would show its resolutions really mean something and are to be ignored only at great cost, particularly since the United States would be carrying most of the military and financial load. Instead, the U.N. worked against such a demonstration, even though its own credibility was at stake. The U.N.'s alternative? Pass yet another toothless resolution....

The U.N., in short, did everything in its power to help Hussein create a face-saving illusion of 'compliance.' ...The President's tortuous attempts to work through the U.N. accomplished nothing except to give Hussein several months in which to destroy or transport to other countries his WMD's and facilities before the war began in March 2003

.

Okayyyy. So, why do people put up with useless resolutions and other nonsense from the U.N.?

One answer can be found in the assumption frequently lurking beneath such demands: that the United States and its power are untrustworthy and prone to abuse, that America's record of racist, colonialist, and imperialist interventions and adventures abroad demands that it be carefully watched by international monitors and limited by various international agreements and protocols.

Shocked? If you are, then you don't know America's enemies over whom the left becomes duped and joins their chorus. We even have a former president that buys into this.

What all this behavior demonstrates is that the U.N. does not function on principle but rather on politics and the interests of the members. This truth renders even more disgusting the assumption that America needs some international body to watch over US behavior, as though foreigners are more principled than Americans. But America does not need to be monitored by unelected European functionaries or United Nations bureaucrats. The greatest danger to the world today does not come from American power.... In actual fact, America's power represents the best hope the world has for creating stable political, social, and economic orders that will benefit the greatest number of people and liberate them from oppression by thugs and gangs disguised as governments.

Our power, made possible by our people and systems, offers hope for the world--but, one that doesn't appreciate the help and interferes with our efforts. So-called leaders of other nations choose politics and corruption over the hopes of freedom and progress for their people. Looking at ourselves, do we have hope from the U.N.? Do you have to ask? If not from there, where do we get our hope for the future and for our freedoms?

So instead of seeking the approval and sanction of a weak and morally exhausted U.N., we should be confident that our own political virtues and institutions will rightly guide America in the pursuit of our principles, security, and interests.

What makes America unique is...is America's political principles and institutions.... These and the good sense of America's citizens will provide the best restraint on the arrogance and abuse of power, certainly one better than the self-interested machinations of unelected U.N. delegates....

So, there it is. The U.S. can only count on itself. Fortunately, we have what it takes and do what it takes when others ignore us or wish us harm.

To extend this, these comments don't even begin to address the financial waste at the United Nations and whether it is worth the cost to U.S. taxpayers, who bear a disproportionate share of the dues and costs of military operations. Many people want the costs of the U.N. spread fairly to other nations. Going further, many in the U.S. fear the U.N.'s efforts to apply international laws and taxes to our citizens--becoming supreme over our consitution and laws. Others complain about its ineffectiveness in foreign disputes. You hear cries to get the U.N. out of the U.S. period. And, yet others say that the U.N. should be abolished all together. Where do we go?

As a starting point, I would be glad if the United Nations simply recognized the financial and human sacrifices of the United States to serve the best interests and needs of the world. Those interests include the end of tyranny and the growth of freedom. After recognition, the U.N. can do what is right by supporting our efforts. A responsible U.N. would have many more countries joining us. So, when can we start?

Until then, I'm proud of this nation and our leaders, and we will succeed even if we have to do it without them.

Baseball Wars

...UPDATED, and Updated Again

GO BRAVES!

It's been a week. Does anyone think that G.M. will look back and see this change? Nope. It's been a few more days and he never saw this. I guess the Braves came out on top! --Woody

Judging by the number of comments on the last entry here Quite a number of readers (and Woody) are die-hard baseball fans. And that is as it should be.

I'm known to be a major fan of the Boston Redsox World Champions 2004. But if the truth be known, I'm really in support of two teams:

1. The Boston Redsox
2. Any team playing the NY Yankees.

In honor of my beloved readers, this post is just about baseball and comments should be limited to baseball. In particular, three teams; The Red Sox (for GM), The Atlanta Braves (for Woody) and any other team the readers prefer.

This is an exciting season, with ups and downs and all arounds for everyone. The Sox are up and the Braves are up in their respective East Coast divisions, and our good friend Jim's Dodgers are down, as befits any team crass enough to leave Ebbets Field ;-)

At any rate, comment to your heart's content. Baseball Rules!!!

UPDATE: Good try Woody.... LOL (Woody tried to put the Braves logo ABOVE the Red Sox logo) Close, but no cigar!

The REAL Cost Of Gas - Today, Yesterday And Around The World

I had an unusual experience today. Normally, when I fill up for gas I use my debit card. Now, for those of you who may not know. When you use an automatic pump and pay with your credit card that you slide in (and remove quickly) the credit card authorization program makes sure you have at around $50.00 on your credit limit and uses that until the actual price is done. I always assumed that debit cards were pretty much the same. So today, I used my debit card and started to fill my tank (it holds 14.5 gallons actually 15.5, but I've never let it get all the way down to that level of dryness) and was surprised to see that the pump slowed down at $34.90 and stopped at $35.00. Obviously I had hit the internal limit for that particular transaction. I looked at the pump and saw that I only had pumped slightly more than 14 gallons, in other words, I hit the limit before my tank was full.

Now, at $2.49 a gallon, gas ain't cheap. I'm not worried though, while I know that this is up about 60 cents in a number of weeks (tell me how that No Blood For Oil thingy works again?) the REAL peak in gasoline prices came in at $3.03 per gallon in today's dollars way back in March of 1981. USAToday lists the prices in today's dollars going back to 1950 from a low of $1.81 in 1970 to today's $2.40

Meanwhile, President Bush, in his quest for oil profits (see last three comments here) has apparantly talked other cities in other COUNTRIES to jack their profits up as well. Morg in The Lesser of Two Evils has a terrific post up regarding the cost of gas. An exerpt denoting the cost elsewhere:

$6.48Netherlands Amsterdam
$6.27Italy Milan
$5.96Denmark Copenhagen
$5.93Belgium Brussels
$5.91Sweden Stockholm
$5.80United Kingdom London
$5.79Germany Frankfurt
$5.57France Paris
$5.54Portugal Lisbon
$5.35Hungary Budapest
$4.94Luxembourg $4.82Croatia Zagreb
$4.81Ireland Dublin
$4.78Switzerland Geneva
$4.74Spain Madrid $4.55Japan Tokyo
$4.24Czech Republic Prague
$4.19Romania Bucharest
$4.09Andorra
$4.08Estonia Tallinn
$3.62Bulgaria Sofia
$3.52Brazil Brasilia
$3.12Cuba Havana
$3.03Taiwan Taipei
$2.84Lebanon Beirut
$2.63South Africa Johannesburg
$2.62Nicaragua Managua

So, until it hits $6.00 a gallon, I'll cease complaining.

Meet Larry Northern - Idiot

Meet Larry Northern. Mr. Northern is a resident of Waco, Texas and considers himself a patriot I'm sure. He is an officer in a gun club, and possibly, though not necessarily a veteran. He is my age, so he is at least old enough to have faced a draft in the 60's unless he joined of course.

Mr. Northern was arrested Monday night for:

...allegedly driving his pickup truck over wooden crosses erected near the roadside campsite of Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has brought her antiwar protest to President George W. Bush's Crawford doorstep. A row of the memorial crosses, which carry the names of U.S. soldiers killed during the Iraq war, were destroyed when Northern, a Waco resident, allegedly drove his truck (which was dragging a pipe and chains) over them.

Now, I think Ms. Sheehan is being used by the media, and she is more than likely complicit in the circus going on outside of President Bush's Crawford ranch. But, she is also an American, and American's have the right to freedom of speech, they have the right to be safe in their person and they have the right to redress the government if they believe those rights have been violated.

AND THEN THIS BASTARD COMES ALONG AND THINKS HE IS HOT STUFF CRUSHING A BUNCH OF CROSSES AND POSSIBLY ENDANGERING PEOPLE WHO ARE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS AS AMERICANS.

What kind of idiot are you Mr. Northern? Did you really think that this is what America is all about? Do you really think that this is what Specialist Sheehan died for? Really?

You sir are an Idiot!

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to The Smoking Gun.

Busting Liberal Media Bias - Launch of NewsBusters

Years ago, we had to wait for Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather to come on the air before we could get the latest liberal media bias--only they called it news. Most news was one-sided and journalists seemed to have a code of protecting their own, making it worse. In 1987, the Media Research Center (MRC) was launched "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." They must be doing a good job because all the liberals that I know hate it. Now, the MRC has kicked it up a notch by introducing a new site, NewsBusters, which shines immediate light on media bias--meaning that you don't have to wait all day to discover the latest on how the press is misleading the public.

This week, the Media Research Center launched a new Web site, NewsBusters.org, a blog site designed to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism, and timely corrections to news media reporting. Joining the MRC in this project are Matt and Greg Sheffield, the brothers who ran the highly successful RatherBiased.com Web site that became a must-visit clearinghouse of information about the disgraced ex-CBS anchor’s skewed reporting.

With an army of bloggers � including both MRC’s team of news analysts and a wide array of independent contributors � there is already a wealth of material at NewsBusters.org, including careful transcripts of news broadcasts and provocative commentary.

This is an example from today. You have to read it to enjoy the bias and hypocrisy.
"Washington Post Pulls Support for Freedom Walk; Afraid of 'Bias'"

The site is new, but it shows a lot of promise and will be a good reference site whenever you feel the urge the trust the liberal media.

Cindy Sheehan is Losing It - Puts Publicity Over Marriage

Cindy Sheehan is losing it: first her son, then her mind, and now her husband. Her need for public attention through the harassment of President Bush is leading to the death of her marriage. Is it worth it, Cindy?

Sheehan's Husband Seeks Divorce
Bush roadside protester named in California petition filed Friday
(From The Smoking Gun with copy of divorce petition)

AUGUST 15--The next well-wisher approaching Cindy Sheehan at her tent encampment outside President George W. Bush's Texas vacation home may actually be a process server. That's because the California woman's husband--in a curious bit of timing--filed for divorce Friday afternoon. ...With Sheehan, 48, entering a second week outside Bush's Crawford retreat, her husband's divorce petition cites "irreconcilable differences" for the demise of the couple's 28-year marriage....

Do you think that the divorce petition has anything to do with that picture of President Bush kissing Cindy Sheehan at the first meeting that didn't happen? Maybe the press can blame Bush for the divorce and call for his impeachment.

You have to feel for this woman, even if she's getting exactly what she brought upon herself. It's just my opinion, but I have to think that she is mentally disturbed beyond the grief of a mother. I wonder if the left wing organizations that have been coaching her and using her will be around to help when she's alone. I wouldn't count on it. Their compassion stops with their causes.

The President will carry on, the left will continue to attack him and use people, but their pawns will be left with nothing but bitterness. If the left has an ounce of compassion, then people from that side need to start helping Cindy Sheehan and stop using her. We can hope for miracles, can't we?

A Democrat Fable - Caring More than Republicans

The Barber

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The florist is pleased and leaves the shop.

Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The cop is happy and leaves the shop.

Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop.

Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as "How to improve your business" and "Becoming more successful".

Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop.

Next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.

(via Emigre with a Digital Cluebat)

Reflections On A Theme: Cindy Sheehan's Protest

It is very hard to feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan since she has alligned herself with the radical left. I do feel for her but it is getting increasingly difficult. Recently, Sheehan has been quoted saying:

You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

Sheehan, not satisfied with her first meeting with President Bush is demanding a second meeting and she says defiantly:

My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

She is also quoted as saying:

And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."

No one can doubt the grief and dispair of any parent loosing a child, and too many parents over too many wars have shared that grief. Sometimes the war was strongly supported as in World War II, sometimes not as in the current conflict in Iraq. What the political differences are, however, are overshadowed by the grief shared by everyone who has lost a son, a husband, a father, a wife, daughter, mother.

Robert Jones, writing at Conservative Punk has written a piece called Mama's Boy and in it, regarding Ms. Sheehan he says:

The question here is: Why parade Cindy Sheehan and her pitiable pieta for all the world to gape, throw brickbats and dissect a war half a world away?

“Don’t bother to examine a folly,� exclaimed Ayn Rand's villain extraordinaire, Ellsworth Toohey, “ask only what it accomplishes.�

Is there anybody out there who honestly believes that Cindy Sheehan has offered one new word of evidence or argument to help buttress the left’s case against the war? I doubt that even among Mrs. Sheehan’s closest handlers there’s anyone who would think to use her shopworn clichés to close their case. I think it’s safe to say that she isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer."

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Well, what could be plainer. Sheehan is accusing Israel of being behind the terror, of it being a war for oil, of Bush "killing" her son. War for Oil? Gads, Sheehan, have you looked at the gas pumps recently?

Jones follows the above with:

Cindy Sheehan’s strident vigil is about her son the way World War I was about the assassination of an archduke in Sarajevo.

"What is going largely unsaid about the Sheehan media circus is the fact that the far-left has run out of arguments. At least when they repeated the “no WMD� mantra draped in multi-syllabic verbiage and run-on non-sequitur, their Big Lie attempts to sway public opinion took place under the cover of pseudo-intellectualism.

"They bankrolled a charlatan of a documentary film director to concoct a hit piece based on half-truths, innuendo and sleight-of-hand montage and those red state idiots still voted for Dubya!

"The left still find themselves at an impasse. When argumentation – and such shoddy and dishonest argumentation at that – fails, it’s time to turn on the tears and pull out the Kleenex."

Jones ends with:

I don’t need to repeat to you the left’s oft-asserted plea to “just bring home the troops.� Such notions of victory and honor aren’t to be found in their loser lexicon – “Just Bring Them Home!�

"Whom do they intend to sway the American public to bring home? Dedicated men and women who bravely face peril daily, but nonetheless put their lives on the line to build a democracy for a nation of souls who’ve never known freedom?

"Based on the 24/7 quagmire coverage, I doubt it.

"No, they intend to bring home Mrs. Sheehan’s boy, little Casey, the young kid who got suckered in to fighting W’s immoral war.

"And all those other mothers’ boys.

"Men are sentient beings with free will and agency. But, by infantilizing the American soldier, Marine, sailor and airman, the media have deftly turned the Commander in Chief into a child-murderer.

"And, the people who buy this line – what are we to think of them? Are we to leave the fate of our fighting men and women in the hands of grown-ups, such as the adults who run the Department of Defense?

"Or, are we to leave them at the mercy of the self-satisfied media elites, who condescend to and patronize our service members? And who insult our heroes, by painting them as naïve children who only know how to take orders.

"Has it not ever occurred to these Philistines that if we bring our troops home in the shameful ignominy of defeatism that we make our nation and our allies more vulnerable to attack? Must we send division after division overseas only to bring them back based upon the ephemeral inanity of poll numbers? And then, send them back to clean up the mess they should've in the first place?

"Those were rhetorical questions, of course: Most of the left know the consequences of their agenda. Truth be told, they don't give a rat's ass about our soldiers. The only use they have for our troops is to use them as a cat's paw to try to sabotage President Bush.

"Let us not insult and defame the memory of Specialist Casey Sheehan. He very well may have entered the U.S. Army as a boy. But, that troop who answered the call to protect his fellow soldiers in harm’s way – he was a man.

"It’s time for Cindy Sheehan to cut the apron strings."

Robert Jones has written a powerful indictment of the media, the left, and the naysayers. I hope he wins lot's of awards for this, he deserves it.

But I'm still stuck with the WHO, the WHY and the WHAT is the matter with these people? The who is fairly easy, we have seen multiple reports of the instigation by Markos M of The Daily Kos, by George Lakoff scripting a new "Framing" of the debate. In this, Jones is absolutely correct, having lost the war of words and honest disagreement (see my article on Acquired/Induced Bush Derangement Syndrome here), they are re-framing the argument as "W killing the children." Added to the WHO we find our old groody friend Michael Moore. Pardon My English says it pretty well:

So I went to MichaelMoore.com and found that the majority of the home page was dedicated to Cindy Sheehan so I figure there must be a hell of a connection.

"When I say "dedicated to Cindy Sheehan" I mean just that. There is not a mention of her brave son Casey anywhere on the page. There isn't a mention of ANY of the brave soldiers who have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan except for the liberal boast that one died used as anti-war propaganda. This whole protest and the shameless media engorgement with it has nothing at all to do with our brave soldiers and their sacrifice. It's all about Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and the media and Moore's exploitation of Sheehan and her cause for their own selfish political interests: Get us out of the war at all costs and if possible, get George W. Bush run out of Washington on a rail."

The WHY is a little more complicated, because this involves motives and peoples motives are always a little hard to discern because we cannot see their thinking, we can only see their actions. In fact, we can never tell what another person is thinking, we can only observe what they do. In this case, the WHY is predicated on the media circus that media whores such as Moore, Kos, Lakoff and others in the prostitution of Cindy Sheehan to meet their own political ends. Media Whore is pretty strong, but I think it is pretty accurate. Of course it is a strictly negative connotation and so I apologize to those who earn honest livings on their backs for comparing these media whores to them.

Jones again has it pegged correctly with his bringing up the circus that this has become, not out of respect for Casey Sheehan, but for gain on the back of a mother's grief.

Lastly, we come to the What Is The Matter With These People? That one is relatively easy too. These people are deranged, specifically, they are afflicted with Charles Krauthammer's Bush Derangement Syndrome and as such, they treat others (Bush in particular, conservatives, republicans and red-staters in general) in ways that they would never contenance treating their own family, unless of course the said family member was a conservative, republican or a dreaded red-stater. Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is far more insidious than was Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and that was bad enough.

Perhaps, these folk and I'm referring specifically to the media whores supporting and encouraging a grieving mother in her delusional thinking (yes, delusional, more about that in another post) truly believe that they are on a mission from God. But most of them don't really buy into all that religious stuff. Perhaps they believe that after so many years of inept conservatism and them being the "powers that be" that now that the conservatives are the "powers that be" they must plot and scheme to take back the reigns of power. It doesn't occur to them (the left) that America kicked them out for a reason. No, not only doesn't it occur to them, it wouldn't occur to them.

Too many of the left are so filled with a narcissistic belief that they are the only ones that can "rule" that they have lost all ability to reason. I remember when Clinton was President, some of the foul language used by those on the right. But, as bad as that was, it doesn't come near to the strength of the foulness seen today. And, please note, I'm not talking about all of the left, and I'm not talking about those that see themselves as being slightly liberal. I'm referring only to those who's hatred of Bush cause them to be irrational, intemperate and behave in ways they would surely paddle their own kids butts if they behaved in a similar fashion.

Update, via Dawn Patroll and Mrs. Greyhawk in The Mudville Gazette a report in Newsweek:

It does not appear that the White House or the military makes any effort to screen out dissenters or embittered families, though some families decline the invitation to meet with Bush. Most families encourage the president to stay the course in Iraq. "To oppose something my husband lost his life for would be a betrayal," says Inge Colton, whose husband, Shane, died in April 2004 when his Apache helicopter was shot down over Baghdad.

I predict that attempts to prove Bush an inhuman monster vis-a-vis Cindy Sheehan will backfire on the MSM and the radical left.

Update: Welcome Instapundit and Mudville Gazette readers, feel free to leave a comment, agree, disagree or just a plain 'ole comment. Be respectful of others though.

Update: Chrenkoff has responses of other families that have lost a loved one in Iraq. A must read

Is It Possible To Have A "Moderate" Islam? Probably Not!

Jason Pappas writing at Liberty and Culture asks "Is Moderate Islam viable?" and answers the question too. An Exerpt:

Muhammad preached tolerance as he struggled for acceptance in Mecca. His subsequent rule in Medina, however, is marred with violence. He funded his nascent religion by raiding caravans on route to Mecca even during periods held sacred by regional custom. He encouraged the assassination of his critics, establishing a reign of terror that culminated in the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Medina. In general, he conquered and subjugated most of Arabia. In doing so he created a supremacist warrior religion that is imperialist in nature."

This is a seminal work, read the whole thing.

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to Timothy Birdnow

Acquired/Induced Bush Derangement Syndrome

On December 5, 2003 Dr. Charles Krauthammer, a trained psychiatrist coined a new term for a then recently discovered psychiatric syndrome. Then name of that syndrome became known world wide as "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and it apparently afflicts approximately 30% of the populace of the United States, 50% of England, 75% of Germany and 137.33% of the population of France (They always did go overboard on these things.)

The term became so well known and applied to so many, that if you do a Google Search you will get about 11,000 entries. A Yahoo Search produces almost 38,000 entries and a Dogpile search of other search engines lists 65 search engines with BDS listed.

Although not listed in DSM IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision) of the American Psychiatric Association, it's definition is fairly clear as postulated by Dr. Krauthammer.

BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

The signs and symptoms of BDS are all around us, afflicting some otherwise seemingly intelligent and articulate people. This is especially true since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Perhaps, in the case of Afghanistan, it is because the predicted mass starvations and 10's of thousands of American Body Bags weren't filled, though too many were. Perhaps in Iraq, it is because the terrorists have been re-branded as insurgents and "freedom fighters." What ever the source, BDS is the symptom, rationality remains the cure.

Today, BDS has a new, very public, very sympathetic, very grieving celebrity; a mother named Cindy Sheehan. In fact, I propose that Ms. Sheehan is afflicted with a new variety of BDS which I shall name Acquired/Induced Bush Derangement Syndrome. Like Dr. Krauthammer, I will give a definition:

Acquired/Induced Bush Derangement Syndrome: In an otherwise normally grieving individual, A/I BDS is the presence of irrational thinking patterns, of a paranoiac mindset that allows the victim to espouse such phrases as

We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity,"

and

We need to get our troops out of Iraq. The only reason Bush wants to stay there is because his buddies are getting rich and feasting off the blood of our children,"

that has been fostered by those individuals who attempt to portrey Mr. Bush in as bad a light as is humanly possible regardless of the consequences to others.

Note the phraseology, "...he killed an indispensable part of our family..." and "...feasting off the blood of our children." A number of conservative bloggers indicate that Ms. Sheehan has "flip-flopped" on the issue, being somewhat glowing regarding her meeting with President Bush in Fort Lewis in 2004 and how she feels now. Drudge, Malkin, O'Reilly and others have made note of what she said then and what she is saying now. Media Matters for America Attempts to "de-bunk" the conservative POV and states that Ms. Sheehan didn't put the same meaning to what she said as did the conservatives. Well, dear readers, I'd have to say that there are some qualitative differences in the two POV's of Ms. Sheehan, but I'm not her so I can neither guess her motivations nor her thought patterns, though she and others seem to have no problem guessing the motivations of Mr. Bush.

I do know however, that the MSM is playing this up for all it's worth, a grieving mother attempting to accost the President to let him know how much the death of her son has affected her. Well, Duh! Of course it has. If you Google "Cindy Sheehan" you will get, are you ready for this, some 729,000 hits. Seven Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand. I checked out the first 10 pages (some 100 mentions) and found that the vast majority of these mentions were from left wing blogs/sites.

I'm not going to question the grief that Ms. Sheehan is experiencing. I know that when my sister died in 1990, my parent's still felt the grief to the very day that they died, eight and ten years later. That is not disputable. What I'm curious about is who is behind the media circus that this has caused. Is Ms. Sheehan, despite her belief that the war was a mistake, being used because of her grief? In the counseling/psychology/psychiatry profession, secondary relationships between the therapist and client are forbidden by both law, and by codes of ethics precisely because the client is in a emotionally vulnerable position.

Can I prove that Ms. Sheehan is a victim of A/I BDS? No, but I know grief and how it affects people. I know that unscrupulous individuals will stop at nothing to gain their goal. I know that Ms. Sheehan is a grieving mother, one who has lost her son tragically.

I also know that this has a significant impact on her family with lines drawn in the sand as it were. Ms. Sheehan and some family members on one side, Grandparents and other family on another side, each claiming the high road. That in and of itself is a tragedy.

But politics, the war, and media attention tend to focus on tragedy. The end result is that Ms. Sheehan makes intemperate statements that Mr. Bush killed her son. No Ms. Sheehan, Islamo-fascists killed your son. They killed thousands in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. They have killed hundreds of thousands of their own people, they have used bombs, suicide bombers, chemicals, retarded teen-agers and children as bomb carriers, they have used ambulances to deliver ordinance and they have used terror to foster their fascistic POV with the stated goal of bring Shaira law to the world, a world under a Caliphate where Islam is the only religion allowed.

That Ms. Sheehan and others don't see this is also a tragedy, for they have their heads collectively buried in the sand. And a storm is coming!

The Mudville Gazette has more

Avoiding Profiling Like The Plague

Since the entire leftist establishment has decided that profiling is immoral, the New York Transit Authority has decided that random searches will commence of all living things on the New York Subway system. This tiny feline was caught trying to bring in a bag of explosives from the surface, ran but was cornered near a windowsill in a building nearby. The Mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg has stated that he is ambivalent about sending Kitty to Guantanamo's Camp X-Ray and may decide to send the cat to Rikers Island where the liklihood of abuse is much, much less. More as this story develops.

And a grateful tip of the GM Chapeaux to EnlightenmentReactionary

Mama's Boy

If you want to read something that will grab you and not let go, go to Conservative Punk and read this by my new friend, Robert Jones. Good stuff!!

Tales from the Left - We Can't Make This Stuff Up

Thanks to liberals, we don't have to make up anything crazy to report on them. They give us more material than we can use. Look at these samples:

==========

The Winner of the Distinguished Guardian of the Year for 2005 is... (envelope please) ...Michael Schiavo!

The Florida State Guardianship Association (FSGA) bestowed its Guardian of the Year Award on Schiavo for carrying out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially despite a drumbeat of criticism. In a rare public appearance, Schiavo, 42, accepted the award at the association's 18th annual conference at the Doral Golf Resort & Spa. 'As you know,' he said, 'I'm not much of a speechmaker. I don't talk much. But on behalf of my wife, Theresa, I thank you.'

Great choice, huh? And, Michael, that's okay about not making a speech. Your actions speak louder than your words. And, you accepted on behalf of your wife, too! Enjoy your visit at the spa and resort and think how much Terri would have liked being there with you.

==========

In a related story...

Schiavo Seeks Extension on Deadline to Sue Caregivers

Michael Schiavo has asked a Florida court to extend the deadline for him to file lawsuits under the state's medical malpractice laws. The move indicates that Schiavo could be planning to sue some of the medical professionals who cared for his former wife, Terri Schiavo.

(Wait. I thought he didn't want her to get any care.) Anyway, I hope that any extra monetary awards that you win, Michael, will help to ease your pain.

==========

Planned Parenthood Wants Choice - "Choose to like us or choose to die."

An animated video produced for a Planned Parenthood chapter in California, advocating sexual activity by teenagers and violence against conservatives who oppose abortion, was removed from the organization's website Tuesday, but the reaction to the video itself is still pouring in. Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League's STOPP International, told Cybercast News Service that what the animation 'really shows is that if you don't agree with Planned Parenthood, then they want to eliminate you violently.'

The video...features a female superhero called Dianisis, presumably named after the president and CEO of PPGG, Dian J. Harrison. Dianisis travels the world fighting for 'choice.'

'It starts out with an abstinence educator who is simply trying to tell kids that if they want to avoid STDs and other problems, that they should abstain from sexual activity. Planned Parenthood's response is to drown him in a garbage can,' Sedlak said.

'Then you have pro-life protestors outside a Planned Parenthood and in the video, [Planned Parenthood] even admit[s] that these people are not violent, they are doing everything legal, but she just wishes they would go away, so she shoots them with a condom gun and blows them up,' Sedlak added.

The next scene....

There's more, and this is good. If you want to view the fun cartoon, go to the bottom of this article; or, go to The Dawn Patrol (a different one) to see pictures and comments along with another link to the clip.

Here's the kicker from the article. You're paying for this!

Sedlak called for taxpayers to cut off Planned Parenthood funds. 'People should understand that we give Planned Parenthood $265 million a year in taxpayer money. That particular affiliate in San Francisco, PPGG, gets over $9 million a year in government money -- just that one affiliate and this is what they're spending the money on; on films promoting violence.'

==========

Next...

Court Ruling Paves Way for Men to Wear Dresses to Work

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled Thursday to uphold a human relations ordinance in Allentown, Pa., which added 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' - a ruling a family group said paves the way for men to wear dresses to work and to shower with female coworkers.

I don't know how many men will get drunk enough to put on a dress just to gain entrance into the women's locker room, but I do know that two straight men just got married to each other under the new Canadian gay marriage law just so that they could enjoy the tax benefits--much to the consternation of the gay community.

==========

Finally...NORAD, which is charged with protecting our air spaces against terrorist attacks, took some time off and reallocated funds to see if it could be as silly as the NCAA about being PC.

Military commands drop Indian terms from exercise titles

(NORAD) at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs...struck the word 'warrior' from one major exercise and replaced it with 'phantom'....'Amalgam Chief' has been changed to 'Amalgam Arrow'...an exercise dubbed 'Amalgam Fabric Brave' is now 'Amalgam Fabric Dart.' 'Fabric Indian' was deleted in favor of 'Fabric Sabre.'

Just to make this trend clearer, consider this report:

ACLU: Effort to Marginalize Indians Succeeding

The nationwide campaign to drum American Indians out of the public square chalked up another win this week as NORAD announced it would stop using Indian names to describe its air defense exercises. This follows last week's decision by the NCAA to ban Indian mascots from its college sports tournaments.

'Naming things after Indians gives these tribal people recognition that they don't deserve,' said an unnamed spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 'After all, we conquered them and occupied their land. Why give them the honor that comes from naming stuff after them as if they were brave, victorious warriors. They lost. Do you really want your children emulating a bunch of losers?'

In related news, the Indiana state legislature today will take up debate on a measure to change the state's name to Caucasia.

==========

See...we don't have to make jokes up about the left when they are doing it for us without even realizing it. But, as funny as they are, this entertainment comes at a price and the taxpayers pay for most of it. I'm laughing so hard that it hurts--right in the ol' pocket book.

Victory! We've Won The Battle, Now Let's Win The War.

I received an E-Mail from Chris Muir this morning. What was to have been a 10 day campaign, was a two day campaign. Thanks to you my beloved readers!

GM,

www.cancerablation.com is on the 1st & 2nd pages on Yahoo and Google, under multiple search names, and the ad is on this Sunday!

The power of the blogosphere...and more importantly, what it says of
the people thereof.

My thanks to you. Many thanks.

Sincerely,

Chris

Now, sit down and write a check to this fine organization; the battle was won, but there is still a war going on against the scourge of cancer and every day offered to a person with cancer and to their family is a precious day indeed:

American Cancer Ablation Center
1680 W. 2nd Street
Gulf Shores, Alabama 36542

And I add my thanks to all of you!

Hey, Dems, Your Hypocrisy Is Showing!

In the election of 1960, some Republicans and Southern Baptists in particlular, but others as well argued that the election of John F. Kennedy would put the United States in the position of having to bow down to the wishes of the Roman Catholic Pontiff; that if Kennedy were elected he would "owe" more aligence to the Pope, than to upholding the Constitution. The creepoids making that argument were absurd then, and it hasn't gotten any better. Only now, the creepoids are (and have been for some time) members of the Democratic party.

In 1994, Mitt Romney had the gall to run against Teddy Kennedy (Whale, Mass) who promptly raised questions about Romney's Mormon Faith (The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints). Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe noted in a Town Hall.com article:

When Romney first ran for office in 1994 against US Senator Ted Kennedy, then-congressman Joe Kennedy -- the senator's nephew -- derided him as a member of a ''white boys' club" whose church treated women and blacks as ''second-class citizens." Kennedy later apologized, and said he didn't know the Mormon priesthood had been opened to blacks 16 years earlier. ''But the attack may have had the desired effect," Eastland notes. ''Ted Kennedy's poll numbers went up and stayed up."

Today, Adam Reilly says similar things in a lengthy article on Romney's faith (and little other than the impact of his faith on his politics) in the Boston Phoenix. Specifically Reilly states:

If there’s a moment that marks the beginning of the LDS ascendancy, it came in 1979, when right-wing Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell announced the formation of the Moral Majority, the anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-gay, pro-school-prayer group that reshaped American politics. In Falwell’s coalition, individual Mormons joined forces with Christian fundamentalists and conservative Catholics in an attempt to make American politics more godly. The oft-isolated LDS Church had finally found willing partners."

How's that for guilt by association?

When I first heard of Romney as a possible canidate for the Presidency, I thought "Ok, here come the anti-Mormon forces out of the darkness." I was right.

But, this isn't about Romney, I'll save that for sometime in 2007 (see, you have something to look forward to~). This is about Judge John Roberts' nomination to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And the anti-Catholic vultures are circling.

Christopher Hitchens, that irrascible tippler from the left whom I always enjoy reading, even when he is an ass (especially when he is an ass?) writes a decidedly anti-Catholic (as applied to Judge Robert's nomination) screed in Slate. Hitchen's states:

If Roberts is confirmed there will be quite a bloc of Catholics on the court. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are strong in the faith. Is it kosher to mention these things? The Constitution rightly forbids any religious test for public office, but what happens when a religious affiliation conflicts with a judge's oath to uphold the Constitution? Some religious organizations are also explicitly political and vice versa�the Ku Klux Klan was founded partly to defend Protestantism�and if it is true that Scalia is a member of Opus Dei then even many Catholics would consider him to have made a political rather than a theological choice. Are we ready for a Scientologist on the court rather than having him or her subjected to the equivalent of a religious test? I merely ask."

Now, why would Hitchens bring up Scientologists here? More guilt by association? Damn, those Dems are really good at this ain't they?

A simple Google search of "John Roberts and Roman Catholic Church" brings up over 360,000 articles/sites in less than 1/4 of a second. Amy Sullivan of Beliefnet states that the Republican defense of Robert's Catholic faith is libelous:

Not 24 hours had passed after Bush introduced Roberts to the world before conservatives played the Catholic card. In a move that could charitably be called a preemptive strike and more accurately called a political maneuver, Catholic League president Bill Donohue told Religion News Service that "Any scratching around this area would suggest that there's a veiled religious test by asking questions about his deeply held views." "Our antennaes will be up on that," he warned. In the same story, longtime Roberts associate and Washington attorney Shannen Coffin said he was concerned about "an anti-Catholic witch hunt."

A "pre-emptive" strike Amy? Why am I not surprised? A good offense the best sort of defense? Of course it is, and any argument to the contrary is hypocritical in the extreme.

The reality is that Roberts, like ALL CATHOLICS does not belong to a monolithic group that owes it's allegiance to the Pope. Catholics of all stripes have various ideas as to how their faith interacts with their public as opposed to their religious life. But the Dems aren't satisfied with this. They will attempt to belittle Roberts on his faith just as they are doing to Romney.

But note, the Constitution specifically prohibits a "religious test" for office and that would seem to include baring from office someone because of his faith. What don't the dems understand about these words:

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

Not satisified with the wording of the Constitution, Christopher D. Morris of the Boston Globe opines:

Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

Of course, such a new law should cover anyone whose religion makes it impossible for them to decide on their own whether abortion should be legal; therefore, testimony should be taken from the leaders of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths as well. It is clear that several mainline Protestant denominations separate the issue of abortion from church membership and personal salvation; judges from these faiths would face no conflict of interest.

Draft legislation for what amounts to a religious test? What part of the Constitution don't you understand Mr. Morris?

Mario Cuomo, the former Governor of New York, once considered a leading possibility for the Democratic nomination for President stated this last Sunday on Meet the Press:

The law today, we all know, is Roe against Wade. That was made my judges and it can be overturned by judges. To say that the rules that apply to legislators shouldn't apply to judges is, it seems to me, wrong.

Finally, Judge Scalia: Now, there's a Republican conservative, if there ever was one, on the bench. Judge Scalia dealt with this--tangentially, but he dealt with it--on the subject of the death penalty. He said judges, Catholic judges, may be bothered in their conscience in voting for the death penalty because the pope has said that it is evil. He said under those circumstances, the Catholic judge should resign. There is no question it's relevant. Everybody takes an oath to support the Constitution, including especially judges. So why not ask them: "Will you, Judge, apply a religious test to the Constitution? Will you start by saying, `I'm not going to support the Constitution if my pope tells me not to'?" [emphasis added]

Uh, Mario, what part of the Constitution don't YOU understand?

Attacking John Kennedy for his faith was wrong 45 years ago, it is wrong now to attack Roberts for his faith.

Border Patrol Catches, uh... Its Own Agent?

Well, the U.S. Border Patrol caught an illegal alien that went undetected by the Minutemen group. But, the Border Patrol had an advantage. The illegal alien was one of its own agents! On top of that, he is charged with smuggling more than one-hundred illegals across the border from Mexico using his border patrol vehicle. How was the Border Patrol to know that the birth certificate that he produced with his application four years ago was forged? What are the odds of that?

According to reports from San Diego, the now former agent, has been charged with falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen and with smuggling illegal immigrants. He went before a federal judge for a bail hearing.

"Magistrate Judge Anthony Battaglia ruled that Oscar Antonio Ortiz, 28, is an illegal alien himself, and no amount of bail could ensure his return to court. The temptation for Ortiz to flee to his native Mexico was strong, the judge said. "You are an illegal alien," Battaglia told the defendant. "You have no right to work here. You have no right to live here."

Ortiz must have been shocked to be the first illegal immigrant in California to be told that he had no right to work or live there. However, he wasn't needed to pick fruit, so I guess he was dispensable.

Now, are you comfortable with the security of our borders?

NPR - Lessons on Raising Children

Once in a while as I drive my son to school, he tries to get under my skin by switching the car radio from sports to National Public Radio (NPR). Today, he did that again, and the first story from our local NPR station was about correcting a racial disparity in our region. It seems that one out of four white families have broadband internet access while only one out of seven black families have broadband. A higher percentage of blacks have to suffer with dial-up service. Wow! Now, this raises two questions in my mind.

First, are you like me on this? Is this really a problem? People on the left (if you consider NPR left, and you should) have to really stretch sometimes for causes. Is this the best that they can do? How about the homeless? The broadband disparity has to be worse with them, and that has to be Bush's fault!

Okay, I got that out of my system. Now, here is the second question. What would be an appropriate punishment for my son's putting my car radio on NPR? I don't want him to turn out wrong...and, I really don't want to get in the car each day to hear something else like more white families have hockey tickets.

Raising kids is tough, and a lesson on NPR is just what we need.

Please Help!!!!

Most of you know that I am a big fan of Chris Muir, author of the Day By Day Cartoon. Well, Chris needs our help. His sister Cathy has cancer and is getting treatment at the American Cancer Ablation Center in Gulf Shores Alabama. Click on the graphic below~

As Chris notes, don't send money now, the idea is to raise awareness and increase publicity for this form of treatment of cancerous tumors. The more we click, the better the "rating" on the internet which will also result in increased focus on the treatment.

You will note the "Future" publication date on this entry, that is to keep this at the top for a full week. Regular posts will be found below so after you have clicked on the Click4Cathy graphic, scroll down and read. But, BEFORE you leave this site, come back and click again. Thanks~

PLEASE HELP!

Update: It's working

Republicans Resurgent

This is a bit of a difficult puzzle, but the time spent will be well worth the wait I promise!

Uncivil Civil Rights "Leaders" Want Right Voting, Not Voting Rights

Rev. Jesse Jackson led a march in Atlanta Saturday purporting to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and to launch a two-year campaign to extend the act when it expires in 2007. Judging from the speeches, it doesn't seem that they want to extend a hand of friendship or cooperation to get that done, but rather are relying on hate and threats to push what must be another agenda.

Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition sponsored the march and invited leaders from the SCLC, the NAACP, National Urban League, and the AFL-CIO. I tend to believe that the Young Republicans were not invited.

When I first saw articles about the march in the Atlanta paper, I thought that it seemed strange that, seemingly out of nowhere, there were articles about extending the act and telling people where and how they could attend activities on this. The law was passed in 1965, applying to selected states, to end barriers to the registration of black voters: such as the poll tax, literacy tests, and difficulties with courthouse access. However, it is forty years old and had been extended once to 2007 and seemed, to me, to have met its purpose of opening the voting process to blacks. The problems of that period and those places seem to have long been overcome to where the voting process is the same for everyone.

However, there are those who disagree, whether for legitimate reasons or purely political and economic ones. If the reasons are legitimate, then let's hear legitimate discourse. If the reasons are not legitimate, then we can expect to hear shrill speeches and demands from "leaders" whose economic livelihood is dependent upon maintaining division and "leaders" whose political ambitions depend upon catering to the those who can create problems and withhold votes. What I am hearing are the illegitimate (probably a sore word for Jesse Jackson) reasons and shrill outcries for continuing the law.

Here are samples from a news article of what was said at this weekend's hate fest:

"They all need to be locked up because they are all criminals and they are all thieves," said Judge Greg Mathis, the star of the syndicated television program "The Judge Mathis Show." "It is indeed criminal to steal an election and within two years run up a federal deficit of half-a-trillion dollars, send our young people over to Iraq to die for an unjust war. What they are doing is criminal," Mathis said to loud cheers. The Bush administration was equated with past policies of slavery and segregation and labeled "the enemy of our (black America's) progress" by Mathis. "They shot and missed when they enslaved, segregated and oppressed our people. They shot and missed when they stole the past two presidential elections. They shot and missed when they denied our right to vote," Mathis said.

Entertainer/activist Harry Belafonte also used charged rhetoric during the march when he referred to black members of the Bush administration as "black tyrants."

"Some changes have to be made so we don't have a repeat of 2000 and 2004 where there was intimidation and discrepancies at the polls," (Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California) told Cybercast News Service during the voting rights march.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) echoed the accusation of many at the march that Bush was an illegitimate president. "The last two elections were stolen. They were stolen and so we will not rest until we reclaim our democracy and this is what today is all about," Lee told the crowd gathered. Lee also called the war in Iraq "unnecessary, immoral and illegal" and added "our nation was lied to in order to justify this invasion and occupation."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) made it clear who the marchers were directing their anger at on Saturday. "We are here to take on President Bush, [Vice President] Dick Cheney. We are here to take on [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay. We are here to take on the new appointee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts," Waters said from the podium to cheers from the crowd. 'Cause Mother Earth so much pain'

Also, adding their criticisms of The Bush administration was Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who said America was being ruled by the "Bush mentality."

Musician Stevie Wonder said, "Having to demand that we have a bill that will guarantee the voting rights of all American citizens forever is ridiculous." "At this time we have a choice to make. Father God is watching while we cause Mother Earth so much pain. It's such a shame. Not enough money for the young, the old, the poor, but for war there is always more," Wonder said. (Stevie, money isn't for the war. The money is to free people--the young, old, poor, and all. The war is just the tool to accomplish that freedom. P.S. I liked you on that one episode on The Cosby Show.)

"Race baiters and discriminators may go underground, but they never move out of town," Jesse Jackson said (with his special rhyming ability.)

Okay, that's enough. It's apparent that the speakers are either challenged with facts or integrity.

So, why is all of this necessary? Why all the rhetoric? What position has the Bush Administration taken to bring on all of this vile talk? Here it is:

...the Bush administration and House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) have indicated that they would support full reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act provisions in 2007....

Okay, so what's the problem of Jackson and his band? It's not the Voting Rights Act. That is a smokescreen. Bush has signed on to that. This group is after economic and political power, but in a way that is not honest and has no sincere concern for those who feel that they need leadership. What these people said and the messages they delivered do not build bridges or win civil rights goals. What they say creates and festers hate--for the selfish goals of those making the comments rather than for the people who should be helped.

This charade is not about Voting Rights. It's about Right Voting--meaning votes for the left-wing, activist, in-your-face Democrats who will prop up the civil rights pimps and shake-down artists and make idle promises to the masses. Their jobs suffer unless they can create division and distrust among the races and with our nation's leaders.

The black community, and our nation, deserve better than this so-called leadership. Improvements come with better understandings instead of hateful attacks.

The left never learns.

Who knows what best for you? You or Big Government Boobs?

Think big government knows what is best for everyone? Well, consider what the European Union was trying to do until faced down by opposition.

EU tells Bavarian barmaids to cover-up:

Under the EU's Optical Radiation Directive, employers of staff who work outdoors, including those in Bavaria's beer gardens, must ensure they cover up against the risk of sunburn.

Bavarian bar keepers have been told that the dirndl, generally rather revealing, will have to be replaced as it offers no protection against what the directive calls "natural sources of radiation", meaning sunlight.

Employers now face heavy fines if they fail to protect their workers from the threat of sunburn or skin cancer.

Okay, these locals didn't like this any more than the folks of Hazzard County would like to see Daisy Duke covered up. So, they mounted a protest and their thoughts were expressed as such:

Citizens Tell EU Regulators to Back Off:

Frank-Ulrich John, a spokesman for a Bavarian innkeeper's association, told Deutsche Welle that the dirndl is an integral part of Bavarian culture and joy of living.

I have spoken with many servers, and I have never heard that a sunburn in the cleavage area has been a problem, John said.

Well, once it was explained that the barmaids' cleavage was an integral part of Bavarian "joy of living," the regulators did back off. Was this any of their business anyway?

This illustrates how intrusive government can get into the business of individuals; and, the bigger the government and more removed from the people that it gets, the more intrusive it can get. Is this "knowing what's best for you" style of government more to the liking of liberals or conservatives? ...I thought you knew.

Now, let them try to require cover-ups for topless beaches in France.

Found at Ravenwood's Universe.

The OFFICIAL Notice

Hey, since the constitution only states that 18 people are in the official "Order of Succession" what happens if all 18 get it at the same time. Wondering that, some one came up with an idea to begin a regular order in which we all have a stake.

Get your position here

NCAA Drives Indians Off College Campuses

When it comes to the latest attacks by the PC crowd, especially at colleges, ...well, some things you just can't make up. I'm not going to waste my time explaining. Just read the following stories.

Here's what it's about:

NCAA bans Indian mascots, 'abusive' nicknames from postseason
AP NEWS via CBS SportsLine.com
Aug. 5, 2005

Fed up with what it considers "hostile" and "abusive" American Indian nicknames, the NCAA announced Friday it would shut those words and images out of postseason tournaments, a move that left some school officials angry and threatening legal action.

Starting in February, any school with a nickname or logo considered racially or ethnically "hostile" or "abusive" by the NCAA would be prohibited from using them in postseason events. Mascots will not be allowed to perform at tournament games, and band members and cheerleaders will also be barred from using American Indians on their uniforms beginning in 2008.

..."Certainly some things remain to be answered from today, and one of those things is the definition of what is 'hostile or abusive,"' said Tom Hardy, a spokesman at Illinois.

The NCAA did not give a clear answer on that.

Florida State University Seminole

Dennis Dodd of CBS Sportsline goes on to express his opinion....

NCAA takes a stand that isn't much of one
By Dennis Dodd
CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer
Aug. 5, 2005

That raises the next point. If the NCAA stops at the Native American issue, then it is diminishing issues at Notre Dame, Texas A&M and Louisiana-Lafayette. I'm sure I can find 13 Irishmen somewhere that are offended by Notre Dame's nickname. For some, "Fighting Irish" might conjure a stereotype of brawling, drunk Irishmen. If the NCAA found a Seminole tribe, I'm sure I can find an Irish nationality advocacy group.

Or what about the Aggies of Texas A&M and Utah State? To many, that nickname means uneducated, rural farmers. It's a punch line at places like Texas. Or what about the Ragin' Cajuns of Louisiana-Lafayette?

If we're going to split hairs here, let's get an ax.

...Already schools like St. John's and Marquette are among the 14 schools that have changed their nicknames on their own, bowing to societal pressure, not an NCAA edict.

...I'm more concerned that five years ago, Hawaii changed from being the "Rainbow Warriors" to just "Warriors." Some school officials and athletes thought the rainbow part had a gay connotation.

You get the point. But, just so you know that we're not making this up, here is the official press release from the NCAA Executive Committee comprised of university presidents. It also has a list of the "offending" schools:

NCAA Executive Committee Issues Guidelines for Use of Native American Mascots at Championship Events
Friday, August 5, 2005

It's just a matter of time until the NCAA caves in to the PETA protesters and makes college teams stop using names like the Tigers or Bulldogs. The PC crowd doesn't even like white people as mascots, as shown when UAB was forced to drop its Viking mascot because it was "too violent."

Some people just choose to be offended. I believe in most cases, it's not that they're that sensitive or really offended, it's just that they don't have much of a life, so they want to cause problems for the establishment whom they blame for their own failings--while giving them a sense of importance and putting them in the limelight at the same time.

I think that PC represents more than Politically Correct, because, in these cases, it might mean Psychologically Challenged. Rather than spending money on changing the names of teams, take that same money and hire psychiatrists for the PC protesters. What do you think?

Atomic Bomb: 60 Years Ago the Right Decision by a Democrat

Today, August 6, 2005, marks the sixtieth anniversary of the U.S. dropping an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. For years, there have been debates over President Truman's decision to use the weapon, but those debates have based their views on incomplete information and, sometimes, the inappropriate application of today's standards. With the recent release of previously classified information, the correctness of the decision comes into focus.

Consider the information and analyses in the articles linked below for which excerpts are provided.

The Weekly Standard
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision.
by Richard B. Frank
08/08/2005

Starting with the publication of excerpts from the diaries of James Forrestal in 1951, the contents of a few of the diplomatic intercepts were revealed, and for decades the critics focused on these. But the release of the complete (unredacted) "Magic" Far East Summary, supplementing the Diplomatic Summary, in the 1990s revealed that the diplomatic messages amounted to a mere trickle by comparison with the torrent of military intercepts. The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.

National Review Online
60 Years Later
Considering Hiroshima.
by Victor Davis Hanson
08/05/2005

The truth, as we are reminded so often in this present conflict, is that usually in war there are no good alternatives, and leaders must select between a very bad and even worse choice. Hiroshima was the most awful option imaginable, but the other scenarios would have probably turned out even worse.

Was the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan correct?

Well, consider that it took two of them. If one bomb didn't get the attention of the Japanese leaders, then a non-lethal demonstration had no chance. I'm convinced from the data that America would have suffered significant and unacceptable losses had we not used the bombs as we did. If that had been the case, then people today would be questioning why we permitted so many of our military men to die when we had the ultimate weapon but wouldn't use it.

We can learn many lessons from history. Some of these lessons might be applied to our war on Islamic terrorism. So, here's a lesson that Japan learned from the atomic bomb that America's enemies might want to learn today: Don't start something you can't finish.

And, here's a lesson for all the history revisionists and bashers of this country: Get the facts and be honest. Ultimately, the truth will come out and your biases will be exposed. The U.S. should not have to defend itself to you when it is right, and the U.S. should not form policy based upon your analyses when you have been proven so wrong in the past.

Did Karl Rove Tip Off "Who's Who" on Name of CIA Agent?

When Bob Novak walked away from the discussion with James Carville on CNN's Inside Politics the other night, one might have overlooked the fact that there was a book of "Who's Who in America" sitting on the discussion desk. Too bad that they never got to it. That edition from 2002 contained an entry about Democratic Ambassador Joseph Wilson and identified that his wife, with the CIA, was Valerie Plame--and that reference was in all the books from 1999 - 2005! Here's a copy of the entry from Wizbang.

If the Democratic Underground and MoveOn can act quickly, they can claim that Karl Rove is so devious that he tipped off "Who's Who" years in advance about Wilson's wife to set them up. Rove is so devious that he read the tea leaves for the future and began his dirty trick when Bill Clinton was still in office.

If I were with the Democrats, I'd consult with a fortune teller to find out what Rove is doing today to hurt Hillary Clinton in 2008. Do you think that he would expose the name of her husband?

Pettiness of The Left - Name Roads for Liberals, But Not Reagan!

Democrats and liberals in general want to rename every school and road for their heroes but go ballistic when someone suggests naming something after President Ronald Reagan, who was recently voted the Greatest American by the public. The latest fight by the left is to block the renaming of 16th Street, N.W. in our nation's capital to the new name of "Ronald Reagan Boulevard".

Here's a sample of such pettiness from the Washington Post titled A Roadblock for Reagan:

(Washington, D.C.) Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) objected, saying that renaming the historic north-south route that leads to the White House would mar the elegant street plan laid out by French engineer Pierre L'Enfant in 1791 -- and cost the city $1 million to alter maps and signs. "It's been a long time since I've heard of a plan that made so little sense," Williams said. "Changing the unique and beautifully mapped street system in Washington would mean undoing . . . a design that has inspired millions of people from around the world."

Believe me; he's not concerned about the money. The city wastes that much in incompetence and waste in three hours. Oh, but what about his concern for undoing what has "inspired millions of people from around the world" by renaming 16th Street? I can hear the outcries from Bohn and Paris. Nahhhh...I tend to think this is just another expression from the left for its hatred of Ronald Reagan and everything conservative.

Of course, we saw similar complaints with the renaming of Washington's airport in honor of President Reagan. When the proposal was made, the left complained, for the most transparent of reasons, and finally forced a compromise to where the airport would retain the old name and simply add that of the president onto it--making it Ronald Reagan National Airport. This, of course, makes it easy for Democrats to refer to the airport simply as National, which they do, so as to not recognize the purpose of the renaming, which is to honor our former president.

Following suit, the Democratic controlled D.C. Metro authority refused to change its route signs for the new name of the airport, having passed a resolution, after the renaming had been introduced, which said that the authority would not pay to correct its signs for such a situation. How convenent. You know how efficient and concerned about money the mass transit authorities can be. Anyway, I thought they might want to notify their riders about the correct names of destinations.

Now, here in my town we have renamed dozens of highways and streets after local Democratic politicians and the favored classes without obstacles from the right--only dismay every time it is done. Whenever I go to a ball game, I have to wonder how important someone named Pollard must have been for the city to rename an adjacent street after him that was previously named for Washington, our first president. On the interstate that circles our city, the east side is named for Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who gets very substantial contributions from Arab groups for her stances supporting them, even after 9-11. No problem there for the left.... Oh, yes, the west side of that road is named for her dad, former Democratic state representative Billy McKinney, who is famous for threatening to pull a knife on a colleague on the floor of the Georgia House of Representatives. Appropriately, the road takes you nowhere and just keeps you going in circles.

Why is the left so petty? I guess they're just jealous that their heroes aren't as good as those on the right. The left gets their names on roads and buildings, but they can never concede anything to conservatives. Just to get their goats, shall we propose renaming Pennsylvania Avenue after George W. Bush? We better get started now if we want it in twenty years. It may take that long for the Democrats to give up on their filibusters.

Guess The Location - Photo-blogging For Fun

One of the joys of travel is the ability to bring back photographic memories of places you have been, things you have seen and people you have met. By and large, people all over the world are good people, in spite of the relatively small number of creepoids (Yes Terrorists, I AM referring to you!). Below are four photos taken from various travels. Use your imagination and your knowledge of the world to see if you can guess where these were taken. At the end of the last of the 4 pictures is a link that says "continue reading." Click on that and you will be able to check your answers.

This is the first one:



This is the second one:



This is the third, one more after this:

This is the last:

Continue reading "Guess The Location - Photo-blogging For Fun"

NY Times Seeks Dirt on Judge Roberts' Adoptions - For the Children?

The "New York Times", so desperate to derail the confirmation of a (gasp) conservative Supreme Court appointee, has now lowered itself to investigating the adoption of the two children by John Roberts and his wife. Surely, there is something sinister or illegal in these actions of Roberts and maybe it indicates that he opposes abortion because he adopts unwanted children. It could be!

This recent flash from the Drudge Report provides more information:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN

**Exclusive**

The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES' newsroom to look into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper's 'standard background check.'

Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.

Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Josie’s and Jack’s mother had them wear at the announcement ceremony.

One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES’ plans declared: 'Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.'

One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. 'This can’t possibly be true?'

Developing...

Of course, liberals claim there is no media bias, but I suspect, with good reason, that the "NY Times" would come out with headlines condemning any conservative group doing the exact same thing to a liberal judicial appointee--which is hypothetical because conservatives have more class than that. But, since the "NY Times" views conservatives as evil, maybe they are looking into the adoptions by Roberts for the "cause of causes for Democrats"--it's for the children. Excuse me for being skeptical.

US vs Richard Reid

Judge William Young, US District Court, Washington DC has a pair as we say. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, attempted to murder a plane full of people by exploding a bomb built into his shoe. His clumsy attempts to light the fuse gave passengers and crew time to restrain him and he was taken into custody when the plane landed. He pled guilty to 8 counts and was sentenced by Judge Young. At the time of sentencing, Judge Young asked Mr. Reid if he had anything to say.

Reid replied:

I start by praising Allah because life today is no good. I bear witness to this and he alone is right to be worshiped. And I bear witness that Muhammad Sa'laat Alayhi as-Salaam is his last prophet and messenger who is sent to all of mankind for guidance, with the sound guidance for everyone.

Concerning what the Court said? I admit, I admit my actions and I further, I further state that I done them.

JUDGE WILLIAM YOUNG:

I didn't hear the last. I admit my actions and then what did you say?

REID:

I further admit my allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah. With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. If you want to think about something, against 2 million, I don't see no comparison.

Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons. I don't know, see what I done as being equal to rape and to torture, or to the deaths of the two million children in Iraq.

So, for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country. I'm at war with them not for personal reasons but because they have murdered more than, so many children and they have oppressed my religion and they have oppressed people for no reason except that they say we believe in Allah.

This is the only reason that America sponsors Egypt. It's the only reason they sponsor Turkey. It's the only reason they back Israel.

As far as the sentence is concerned, it's in your hand. Only really it is not even in your hand. It's in Allah's hand. I put my trust in Allah totally and I know that he will give victory to his religion. And he will give victory to those who believe and he will destroy those who wish to oppress the people because they believe in Allah.

So you can judge and I leave you to judge. And I don't mind. This is all I have to say. And I bear witness to Muhammad this is Allah's message.

Judge Young then delivered this sentence:

Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other.

That's 80 years. On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory
30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not

Posted by GM Roper at 12:10 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (1)

On The Road Again

This Saturday, my brother-in-law is getting married. Steve Gregory is in his 50's and is a delightful man, and a really good fellow. Steve was my first wife's brother and when she passed away in 1996, he was a rock. Much later, when I decided to re-marry, I asked Steve to be my Best Man, and too my absolute delight, he said he would be proud to be.

Steve sent me an E-mail a couple of month's ago and said he was also getting re-married this August, would I be HIS Best Man? Folks, nothing on this earth could make me prouder than to return the favor for this terrific person.

By the time you read this, my daughter and I will have already left on the long drive from deep south Texas to the vicinity of Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. I'll be back late Sunday night, exhausted but happy for Steve. In the meantime, I've prepared a number of posts that Woody will be putting up for me and adding his own inimical style to his own posts. So, keep coming back, and keep commenting.

Ya'll take care now, ya he'ah?

Why Did So Many Hate Bill Clinton?

Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse has an answer. Read the Whole thing.

Jimmah Cartah, Ex-President Exposes......Himself!

Following up on Woody's post below, I am adding that I am disgusted with this poor excuse for a statesman. Jimmah has all the stature of, as the french would say "Un Ver," a worm, well, actually, I hold worms in much higher regard.

A link fest of others who also see it the same way that I do.

Protein Wisdom's ""Jimmy Carter: Guantanamo 'is a disgrace to the USA'" here
Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page: Jimmy Carter is a Disgrace
Captain Ed with Jimmy Carter Insults American Military On Foreign Soil
Left Noose: Stick a Putrid Peanut In It Carter
Macsmind with No President Carter, You're Disgraseful
Johnathan and Wanda Rantings with Jimmy Carter Needs To Shut His Pie Hole
Peter Fisher In Renew America has Yes Jimmy Carter, It's Our Entire Fault

Each of these sites has multiple links that you need to read and comment sections you need to read also. Jimmah, you are an ass Sir, Plainly and Simply an ass. Shut up, go home and let adults handle the world. You tried, you messed it up, and others have taken your place. Have the decency to butt out!