Moral Retardation & Islamophobia

You will have to excuse a somewhat longish introduction but I think it necessary to set the tone for the whole post.

One of the smartest people on the web today, a blogger par excelance is Gagdad Bob who writes One Cosmos and who's banner proclaims:

Circumnavelgazing the Whole Existentialada of Lumin Development with a Seer's Prattleogue of Joycey Jimgnostics, Verticalesthetics, Dilettantric Yoga, Stand-up Cosmology, Wide Angle Pneumography, Extreme Seeking, Freevangelical Pundamentalism, Darwhiggian Evolution, and Buddhaflaw Correcting, all in a Reluxing Atmasphere of Omade Jehovial Witticisms

Bob's site never ever under any circumstances ceases to amaze me at both his insight, and his love of punny stuff. For who else could string together such a lengthy list of puns and gags? But, I digress. I always feature one of Bob's brilliant pieces in my series "Brief Politico-therapies: A Tour of the Psychbloggers." Today, I was scanning both an email from the indescribable Larwyn and a post from Gagdad Bob and I came across the term "Moral Retardation," and it struck me what a profound term that is, because it so well describes o much of what we call the left and the cult of islamofascism. Bob stated:

The moral retardation of so many leftists just astonishes me. And it is literally retardation, for just as one may be mentally retarded but a decent person, one may be intellectually brilliant but a moral imbecile, as so many leftist professors prove (not that they're so brilliant, either). Violence is good or bad, depending entirely upon the uses to which it is put."

[...]

Yes, fighting fascists will only create more fascists! Until we kill all of them.

At a particularly dark time of the war, "when Germany's panzer divisions turned west, Allied armies collapsed under the ferocious onslaught, and British ships were streaming across the Straits of Dover from Dunkirk, [Gandhi] wrote furiously to the Viceroy of India: 'This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man....'" [by the bye, read the whole thing]

So, Gandhi was, except for who he was willing to bow down to, a early modern dhimmi.

And, the suggestions that Gandhi made for European Jews was morally reprehensible in suggesting mass suicide as a "moral" response. As Bob notes, after the war when the extent of the holocaust became known, Gandhi was alleged to have said "that the Jews died anyway, didn't they? They might as well have died significantly."

Moral Retardation! That is what we are going to talk about when it comes to the islamofacist and their supporters. I'm sure you are as tired of being called an Islamophobe as I am, but when you get right down to it, it is a meaningless term used by morally retarded individuals who wish to see only one side of any dust-up involving Muslims. Let's get at least one thing straight, a phobia is a real disorder involving an irrational fear of a person, place, thing or situation. And the fear is such, that it interferes with normal day to day living/functioning. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th ed. (text revision) (DSM-IV TR) has a diagnostic code of 300.29 for any given specific phobia. Thus, Coulrophobia (a fear of clowns) is given a diagnosis something like this:

Axis I: 300.29 Coulrophobia

Don't laugh, people who have true phobias are in many ways quite miserable in their fear. But again, I digress, so the term of islamophobia is a fauxphobia if you will. If someone is out to kill you (oh, not you specifically necessarily, for example they are not out to kill GM Roper, that I know of) but out to set bombs and other devices designed for mass death it is not an irrational fear.

If I believed, in spite of all available evidence that Islamists were out to kill me, the appropriate diagnosis might be paranoia. If I tremble and exhibit fight or flight symptoms in the presence of a Muslim, that might well be a case of islamophobia. But being angry at Muslims for not standing up to the islamofascists in their midst is not islamophobia, it is plain old anger, and not misplaced anger.

In the past, when Christians have trespassed the bounds of decency such as bombing abortion clinics, or a certain well known TV Evangelist saying that the tragedy of 9/11 may be God's wrath being visited on sinful America, the backlash against this was immediate and pronounced and most often, dealt with swiftly and succinctly. That has been almost universal. Even the bloodshed in Northern Ireland was denounced by a majority of Christians. Not so the trepidations of the islamofascists by other "moderate" Muslims. At least not more than a few.

Which brings us right back to the concept of Moral Retardation. There can be no response to the violence of the islamofascists other than to beat it back swiftly and harshly. To do otherwise is to embrace their tactics at worst, and at best a reprehensible bow to inhuman tactics. The Democrats (and others) who inveigh against the war in Iraq (or, if you are an avid reader of the New York Times inveigh against fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or as James Taranto says in the Wall Street Journals "Best of the Web Today:"

"al Qaeda Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq in Mesopotamia Which Also Has Nothing to Do With Iraq Even Though It's Another, More Poetic Name for Iraq Which Has Nothing to Do With al Qaeda, a Homegrown Iraqi Group That Has Nothing to Do With Iraq Even Though It Is Mostly Iraqi, Albeit With Some Foreign Involvement Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq."

Convoluted to say the least. Yet, we can see in the left and in the Democratic party specific signs that indicate that there is no belief in this war, that it was a mistake, that it should have been a "police action" at most and preferably we would have negotiated with our enemies. Although they do not say how you negotiate with people that are actively trying to kill you.

If one cannot see that the reaction to a bunch of cartoons and ink drawings that call for beheading and death for the artist is over the top, the moral retardation is profound. What ever happened to the stalwart fellow who used to say "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?" What happened to liberalism? I'm old enough to remember when the staunchest anti-communists were part and parcel of the Democratic Party, that their willingness to tolerate a despotic and violent system was close to zero. Where did those people go? Have they all died out? Have they been replaced by those who say that islamofascism is just another belief just like Christianity and Judaism or Hinduism and Buddhism?

The chorus from the left is almost non-existent, except to say "Get out of Iraq," or perhaps a plea to "negotiate" with Iran or Syria. Cannot those people see the ultimate aim of the islamofascists? Cannot they tell that the tactics used by islamofascists and their supporters, those who hold up signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" are beyond the pale? Is the moral retardation that profound?

I cannot help but wonder where and when there will be another strike of unimaginable proportions. Is that what it will take to wake up these people? Does the multiple arrests worldwide of would be terrorists complete with finding the ingredients of explosive devices not convince you that this is indeed a war of belief? If it doesn't, count yourself in with the other moral retardates, for you see, but you do not believe, you see, but you do not understand what is laid out before you in simple black and white.

So, the Diagnostic Criteria for Moral Retardation can be stated fairly easily:

An inability to comprehend the evil of islamofascism that occurs prior to the age of 100 and is pervasive in all or almost all of political thought and the presence of two or more of the following:

A belief that western values and traditions are a direct cause of increasing violence by the islamofascists.

An inability to roundly condemn the tactics of beheading, explosive devices set off among non-military targets.

A belief that George Bush is an evil greater than any other.

A belief that all cultures are morally equivalent.

An inability to understand that the very values that allow one to condemn the west, would be silenced should the islamofascists take over any political organization.

Others may be able to add to the criteria, but for now, and for arguments sake, these are posted for your consideration.

Update: A great example of Moral Retardation here.

Ghosts of the Chicago 7 and the Wayback Machine!

The definition of insanity is often described as doing the same thing again, and expecting the results to be different. And so it is with a group called Recreate '68.

In 1968, a relatively large group of anarchists (called protesters) protesting the Vietnam War created havoc outside of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Ill. The news of the day was replete with images of thousands of young (and some not so young) protesters taunting the police, nominating a pig for president, assaults by both the police and rioters, and general chaos. Later, a grand jury indicted 8 individuals for conspiracy: Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale.

Seale, a Black Panther was later removed from the trial for contempt and the resulting trial defendants became known as the Chicago 7. Five of the seven were convicted but their convictions were later overturned, justifiably in my opinion, "on the grounds of bias by the judge and his refusal to permit defense attorneys to screen prospective jurors for cultural and racial bias." Had the judge allowed the defense to screen jurors, I have no doubt that the convictions would have stood. During the trial, the Weathermen attempted to break up the trial and four days of rioting, destroying property and general lawlessness occurred during what was then termed the "Days of Rage."

The above is cited as a little historical tale to introduce the subject of this post; the formation of a group determined to bring back those tumultuous days in a recreation called "Recreate '68."

This organization's website states:

This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party.

R-68 agrees with the proposition, POTESTAS IN POPULO, "all power comes from the people." What stands between the people and power are the party machines. The parties were devised as a means to represent the people. Today they represent nobody, not even party members, but only party bureaucracy. The people have been left without appropriate institutions for their representation. We intend to create those institutes!

Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained.

This is of course, complete with the raised fist symbol of communism and radicalism which tells us that they are taking themselves seriously as anarchists.

Events planned (so far) include a Denver City Council Proclamation to "We need a wide showing of support so plan on attending the meeting to support the non-violent actions by the police and your civil rights!" and they say that they will be in part represented by the National Lawyers Guild The guild, or NLG is according to some, a group that finds it difficult (if not impossible) to disagree with any principles of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and includes in its membership such defenders of law as Lynne Stewart.

The group plans four days of something called the "Festival of Democracy" in which one of the stated goals is to "share some fun and to work towards the development of programs and networks that will address our community problems, ourselves, without relying on the two party capitalist system." Two party capitalist system huh? Well, I can only surmise they prefer then a one party "communist" system and over the last two decades we've seen the horrors of that type of system in Russia, China, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. No thanks fellows, I'll stick with the system we've got.

Also during the same four days, there will be "Days of Resistance." Their site proclaims "During the Convention, there will be four major protest [sic], one each day. Each protest will focus on a symptom of the disease of an Imperialist, Capitalist, Racist system as seen in our communities." Oh, those Democrats, who knew they were imperialists, capitalists and racists?

So, one must wonder at the intent of this group. Do they really want to protest about the perfidy of the Democratic Party as being imperialist, capitalist and racist. Or do they want to recreate the electoral victory for the Republicans (and yes, I'm tempted to donate to them). Richard Nixon won the close election in 1968 in part because of the riots in Chicago in that year running on a platform of "Law and Order." Too, it didn't help the Democrats that they were bitterly divided into essentially four camps: Labor and big city party bosses aligned with Humphrey, the Catholics, blacks and other minorities backing Robert Kennedy, the anti-war faction composed of students and academics largely supporting Eugene McCarthy and lastly the "Dixiecrats who aligned with Humphrey initially, but later backed George Wallace in a third party bid. The end result was a fractured Democratic Party and a narrow Nixon win.

Today, the Democratic Party is still fractured with Clinton, Obama and populist Edwards leading essentially three factions. However, the Republicans are not in much better shape, but they do have less infighting between the candidates than the Democrats do. Enter Recreate '68.

Will these folk be able to pull off a "peaceful" demonstration or will their natural inclination towards anarchy contribute to a greater fracturing of the Democrats? Has anyone in the Democratic Party stopped to think of the possible implications of Recreate '68 or are they even on the horizon of the DNC? As Recreate '68 attempts to use Sherman and Professor Potter's Wayback Machine (for you Rocky and Bullwinkle fans) the results are likely to be just as wacky and at the end, Professor Potter will turn to Sherman and say "Quiet Boy!"

Regardless, I'm looking forward to the action (or inaction as it may be) and will enjoy tremendously the DNC's show inside and the Recreate '68 on the outside. And a good time was had by all.

Something for Each Side

The first poster represents my view of why our nation has the problems that it does and my message to those who put us there. The second is the left's view of how we're solving them now. Same message, different perspectives.

..

I remember the first guy from college. He's a professor now.

I'm Sick of "Second-Guessing Liberals"

Whenever I lose my head and read a liberal blog, I see the same repetitive anti-war comments claiming stupidity of President Bush and denouncing mistakes that he has made in Iraq. The liberals knew "from day one" what obstacles that we faced, but they just didn't mention them at the time. For example:

You can call me a “Monday moring quarterback” but I’ll stand on my record in seeing through not just the phony rationales for the war but the way its been waged and most of what’s followed from it. I understood from Day One that this debate started that the “WMD threat” was being hyped for purely political reasons. I knew from Day One that there was no strategic national security reason to invade Iraq and that we were being suckered by the neoCons’ crackpot agenda. I believed from Day One that Rumsfeld was going in with too few troops to successfully secure the country. I knew within weeks of the invasion that security was unraveling disastrously....

You get the point. From day one, the dark side had all the facts and all the answers. Right. Liberals are great at pointing fingers, but talk is cheap. What could they really do if asked before hostilities broke out?

I gave them a chance. After reading that French President Sarkozy said that diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's production of a nuclear bomb must work or that Iran would have to be attacked, I asked these left-wing liberal geniuses to prove what they could do.

For “everyone who knows all the facts and solutions from day one,” share your wisdom now on this (Iran's) WMD issue rather than wait to see what didn’t work.

Response has been somewhat quiet, but one person said that they were speaking no differently than Bush when he made a comparison of Iraq to Viet Nam, and would I attack him for second-guessing President Nixon? They never answer the question that is asked.

That's it! I'm sick and tired of their rhetoric and better than thou attitudes. Here is my rant.

To liberals and left-wingers regarding Iraq, you’re not even talking about the same thing. Bush discussed Viet Nam from a long-term historical standpoint and said that there were lessons to be learned from its aftermath. That’s different than finger-pointing and saying that the coach is doing it all wrong with each step and, in many cases, while the game is still being played and, at the same, time screaming and throwing bottles at the team and demoralizing the players on the field.

You’re already planning on halving the athletic budget when the team needs equipment and you want to yank the players off the field before they achieve victory. You’re the guys who sit by and watch the coach go for it on 4th and 2, and if it didn’t work, you say, “I would have kicked.” If the offensive line “surges” forward and the play does work for a first down, then you look the other way or say that it didn’t work despite the obvious down marker, and you hope that some idiots will believe you.

Well, if you know everything, why aren’t you coaching? Why didn’t you say something before the game was played or the play was run? It’s because you aren’t qualified and know less than you admit.

You guys are the biggest bunch of second-guessing whinners that I’ve ever heard, and you won’t even tell us what plays we should run against next week’s opponent, Iran, before that contest begins. Come on! Show us your coaching skills. At least let us know that you’re pulling for our team rather than the opponent, because it’s sure not clear.

The only people who respect your opinions and think that you’re brilliant are YOU yourselves.

Other people must sit back and laugh at the stuff that you write. I sure do.

We've made decisions with Iraq. We need to make decisions regarding Iran. Where are the wise people? Why, the Democrats, who were going to end the Iraq conflict, still cannot agree what to do to this day. Oh, they talked about it during the election (remember, talk's cheap), but they haven't done anything constructive.

The only people who are dumber than people who make bad decisions are those people who refuse to make decisions at all, because not making a decision is the same thing as letting someone else do it for you. It just gives you the false satisfaction of being able to blame someone else.

Liberals never have been good at taking responsibility. Now, we know that they aren't very good at giving advice either--just blame. I'm still trying to figure out why they consider themselves smart. That's one thing that I didn't decide for them.

Instead of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks," a better name for them might be "Monday Moron Quarterbacks."

Help NY Times Brainstorm for Terrorists

Yes, a blog author for The New York Times wants attention and asks readers to offer suggestions to the terrorists on how best to attack the United States. Americans have ingenuity and are practical, so the terrorists might appreciate a little American know-how.

If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?
By Steven D. Levitt

...Hearing about (the new TSA) rules got me thinking about what I would do to maximize terror if I were a terrorist with limited resources. ...I’m sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them. ...So by getting these ideas out in the open, it gives terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur.

Yeah, right. The New York Times and college professors writing for them are so well known for wanting to fight terrorists. Do you recall the image from this post?

The author praised his father, Dr. Michael Levitt, in his article. His dad specializes in the study and treatment of flatulence. He couldn't have made a better producer of it than his own son.

Now, we could ask people to think how the terrorists should attack The New York Times, but it's unlikely that terrorists would hurt one of their biggest allies.

You must be a liberal if …

We see lists like this regularly, but occasionally we need an update.

You must be a liberal...by Dave Weinbaum

I must admit, I've been surprised by the amount of vitriol coming from supposedly intelligent rational people when it comes to what they believe about our world and how we should live and govern. They seethe when talking about President George W. Bush. Their hate for him is inexplicable. Those people are known as Liberals, or as some refer to themselves, "Progressives." Below are traits of the above. You can believe in one or two, but if you identify with 3 or more you get the Liberal medal around your neck or as I look at it, the albatross. You must be a liberal:

If you voted for the Iraq war when it was the popular thing to do, then claim you were hypnotized by Bush's "lies" when it became unpopular.

If you say Bush is "dumb" even after he beat you in two elections you were positive you would win.

If you don't want profiling for terrorists even though evidence is overwhelming that most are Middle Easterners.

If you think capitalism should be replaced by Socialism, despite hundreds of years of evidence that our economy is number 1 in the world.

If you think all American corporations are evil.

If you think you can't have a view about foreign policy if you haven't served in the military…that is…unless its' your opinion.

If you believe there is no liberal bias in the media.

These represent selections. For the entire list, go to this link: JWR

Did he leave any out? My list would include "if you are compassionate with other people's money." If you think of any others, add them to the comment section. I'm sure that we can find a few more.

Stay in School - It Pays!

Liberal lunacy is telling kids that the rewards of staying in school are not enough. Well, given the way that liberals have ruined a lot of schools, they may have a point.

It pays exactly $25 for Tucson kids to stay in school

More than 20,000 Arizona teens dropped out of the class of 2006.

To fight the problem, 75 students from low income families at Amphi High and 100 from Rincon high were picked for the new program.

The students will get $25 a week as an incentive to stay in school.

What happened to doing the right things without having to be bribed? Staying in school to make a better future for one's self should be reward enough. Next thing you know, there will be ten thousand kids threatening to leave school if they don't get the money, and then they'll want "pay raises" each year. Maybe they learned something on the streets that liberal advocates for schools don't understand.

Me? I want $25 a week to take out my trash. That should go over well with the wife. Besides rewards, there can be penalities, too.

More On Scott Thomas - The Intrepid GM Grabs His Magnifying Glass And His Calabash Pipe, Puts On His Deerstalker Cap and Solves The Case.

I've been following the Scott Thomas Beauchamp (or is that Beauchump?) story since the "story" broke in The New Republic. Via the incomparable and magnificent LARWYN, I've been able to keep up with all the key players enjoying the discomfiture of TNR as they backtrack, waffle and crawdad (if you don't know what crawdad means, you haven't been to the South very often have you?). One of the more serious investigators has been Ace, a fellow Munuvian and an all around great blogger. But I digress. Ace has been following the machinations of TNR closely as has Dan Riehl (Faux TNR masthead courtesy of Dan) and as I noted, both have been doing an absolutely outstanding job.

One of the posts I read (I'm too tired to track it down now after slogging through a days worth of progress notes, and billings) noted finding the blog of said Scott Thomas (Beauchamp) that he wrote while in the Army stationed in Germany. And one of Scotts posts had a photograph which I reproduce for you here:

along with the caption:

Train ride to Wurzberg: 11 Euro
Two Steins of Beer: 12 Euro
Having a girlfriend that embodies racial perfection: priceless

Now, I suspect that you, like me, have a whole bunch of blogs that we enjoy, even if we get to them only once in a while. Such are my friends at Misunderestimated Germans, and I recognized that photo. It is a photo of Claudia Heym who, along with Michael Meyn and Jürgen Krafzik write Misunderestimated Germans. At least, I was pretty sure it was so I wrote Michael with whom I've enjoyed exchanging comments and emails from time to time. Sure enough, it was indeed a photo of Claudia (and somewhere I heard taken around 2002) and, from their website here is their banner (reduced in size);

Let me repeat Scott Thomas' caption: "Train ride to Wurzberg: 11 Euro - Two Steins of Beer: 12 Euro - Having a girlfriend that embodies racial perfection: priceless" and you can tell that the implication is that Claudia is Scott Thomas' girlfriend. Nicht wahr? Ahhh, but I know that in 2002 Scott wasn't in Germany when that photo was taken, and that Claudia and Jürgen are very good friends and I suspect, though I cannot know as yet, that Jürgen would be very surprised to know that Scott's girlfriend is an embodiement of "racial perfection."

Not only is that a shameful and crass statement, especially given the country that is hosting Thomas, but he didnt' even know the young lady as far as I can tell. Perhaps Mr. Scott Thomas Beauchamp is not only a fabulist, but a cultural/ethnic bigot as well.

More and more, it's looking like Mr. Scott Thomas Beauchamp has done for The New Republic what typhoid did for Mary, or what Steven Glass did for...... get my drift?

UPDATE: Damn, this is fun. Or, as Sherlock Holmes has said:

when one has eliminated the impossible, whatever is left must be the truth, no matter how unlikely it may seem."

Dan Riehl has MORE on this story... yeppers, damn fun!

UPDATE 2: John Tabin at The American Spectator has more (including a link to this article. (H/T to Michael Meyn at Misunderestimated Germans)

Tax and ...Waste

Maybe if the government quit taking so much money from taxpayers and consumers, individuals could afford the services that liberals say that government should provide...if it really could. I'm still waiting for victory in the war on poverty that started over forty years ago.

For the Past Six Months,
You've Been Working For the Government
July marks the beginning of the first day
you start making money for yourself. (Abridged)

Every hour worked, every item purchased… money is always going to the government in the form of taxes. From income tax, to sales tax, to gasoline tax, to property tax, roughly half of your income goes to Big Brother.

The government continues to consume vast quantities of money while producing relatively little. Since the government has largely failed in providing key services such as healthcare, retirement, and competitive education, perhaps these areas of life should be left to personal choice.

While government is an essential component of an advanced, free, capitalist society, it should only provide services that it is has a competitive advantage in – things such as national defense, the rule of law, police and fire services, and roads.

So long as we value personal choice and accountability, we must fight to keep the government out of areas it doesn’t belong.

Since it is finally the day we start making money for ourselves in 2007, think about the fundamental questions that have plagued man’s thought for thousands of years – what is the role of the individual? What is his duty to the state? What is the state’s duty to him? You may very well find that your answer is not the direction we are heading towards.

When the government does something for its citizens, it also takes away from its citizens--not only money, but liberties. Watch out for all the promises in the upcoming Presidential campaign. Government health care, anyone?

You Never Know What Might Happen

What if Terri Schiavo had been treated according to a judge's order in Arizona instead of Florida?

Injured man's awakening called 'miracle' - USA Today

PHOENIX — Eighteen days after his wife instructed doctors to disconnect food and water tubes, a Chandler, Ariz. man is sitting up in his hospice bed, giving the thumbs-up sign and communicating with visitors.

Jesse Ramirez Jr.'s awakening, which friends called "a miracle," occurred after his sister, parents and other relatives went to court and obtained an emergency order for feeding and hydration tubes to be reinserted, reversing a directive given by his wife, Rebecca Ramirez.

Maybe the wife of Ramirez felt that life was worth little after what happened to Terri Schiavo. Isn't that what the liberals said...some lives are not worth as much as others, especially if they inconveniece you. "I kept my promise," indeed.

CNN = "Cannot Name Nations"

What is wrong with CNN's placement of Afghanistan?

Nothing more than what is wrong with CNN overall...it's too far left.

Via Bob Harris

Today' Media Covering Yesterday's War

What if the Normandy invasion had occurred on June 6th, 2007? How would the modern media report it?

D-Day: Crisis On Omaha

And, the coordinated response and influence of the Left? "Bring the troops home! We can never defeat the Nazis! We should stay out of Europe, where we're not wanted. Hitler didn't attack us. Give peace a chance."

Or, something like that.

The source of the video is The Combat Report, which has more to say on this issue and publishes articles about Americans in combat, past and present.

2007 Commencement Addresses: Leveling the Field

Liberal speakers dominate college commencement addresses, as indicated in the study below, so you may want to try leveling the playing field by sharing conservative speeches that a graduate can read but will never be allowed to hear on campus. These can actually help the graduate.

Leftist Speakers and Themes Dominate College Graduation

The majority of commencement speakers at our nation’s top colleges and universities in 2007 were Democratic Party officials, leftist activists, and members of the old media, according to a survey released by Young America’s Foundation.

Using U.S. News & World Report’s ranking of the nation’s top 100 colleges and universities, Young America’s Foundation found that for every one speaker on the Right, there were roughly seven speakers on the Left. The Complete List of Commencement Speakers for 2007....

Here are alternatives for our graduates...who want to be successful.

The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech (Selections)

...In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

...(L)et's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world. ....

And this one...

The Graduation Speech You'll Never Hear From The Left! (Selections)

Political correctness is censorship. It is an attempt by others to regulate what you think.

...Want to climb the ladder? Show up five minutes early, everyday, do your job and keep your opinions to yourself until you’re asked.

...The mainstream press is unreliable. Period.

...Despite what teachers say, self-esteem cannot be bestowed. It can only be earned. ...

Good luck, Graduates! Your real education is just beginning. Trust me.

President Dennis J. Kucinich and "The Bomb"

In last nights New Hampshire edition of the Democrat Party Pander-A-Thon Debate, Dennis J. Kookycinich Kucinich stated:

But what I intend to do is to be a president who helps to reshape the world for peace -- to work with all the leaders of the world in getting rid of all nuclear weapons..."

Hop into our little time machine and lets see how that worked out.

Whooooooooooosh, the year, 2009. The first 100 days of the new president... day 43:

Thank you for joining me on this conference call Mr. President and Mr. President

You're Welcome Mr. President, and hello to you Mr. President

Thank you Mr. President, and to you Infidel, Death To America

Continue reading "President Dennis J. Kucinich and "The Bomb""

Baseball - All American Play

It's nice to be reminded about one of the 100 Classic Moments in the history of baseball by the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The image of a major league baseball player snatching an American flag from liberals trying to set it on fire, although thirty-one years ago, brings a smile to my face today.

A summary from an L.A. Dodgers press release:

On that day in 1976, Monday was playing center field for the Chicago Cubs during a game at Dodger Stadium. Though the Vietnam War had ended the year before, it didn't stop two protestors from trying to burn an American flag on the outfield grass.

Once the fans reached left-center, one of them took out a match and tried to light it. At that point, (Rick) Monday raced towards them and just before they could set fire to the flag, he reached down and grabbed it from underneath them.

More detailed coverage along with links to a video are found at Major League Baseball and NewsBusters. Most of the story is reproduced in the "read more link" below. Try to take time to view the video, too.

Continue reading "Baseball - All American Play"

Outrage!

There is no such thing as a "liberal media;" so say the leftist pundits. After all, the media is owned by corporations which are by definition "conservative" and thus they wouldn't jeopardize their income by being liberal. And if you believe that twaddle, I've got a quit-claim deed to the Brooklyn Bridge I'd be happy to sell to you for the paltry sum of only $99.99. Think of it, having your very own bridge.

But, I digress! The ABC blog "The Blotter" has a report by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito concerning the existence of a "Presidential Finding" that authorizes the CIA to begin a campaign of "covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government."

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.

So, since this is a "covert" action, lets spread it over the airwaves and the internet, I mean after all, it is the peoples right to know isn't it? Geeze guys, can you be more Anti-American than you already are?

This isn't a matter of beating another news organization to the punch, this is a matter of divulging to Iran, a country guilty of arming the so called insurgents in Iraq, helping them plant and manufacture bombs designed to kill civilians and US military alike. This is the country that committed an armed act of war against the US when it occupied our embassy in the waining days of the Carter administration. This is the country that any truly rational person recognizes as a very real threat to peace with their willy-nilly rush to manufacture nuclear bombs. And you bastards have the gall to "out" the plan?

Too often the left leaning media (and some of their allies in the Democrat party and in the CIA) have accused the right of questioning their patriotism. Well, they have proven themselves unpatriotic. And I would still be making this charge if it were a Democrat in the White House as well. Of course, if there were a Democrat in the White House, I doubt that the left leaning media would have stooped to this level of chicanery.

The media has let their aptly named Bush Derangement Syndrome overrule all common sense, and for what? To discredit a President? To warn Iran? To get a scoop? Bastards!

Another point of view from Jules Crittenden:

I’d be curious to know whether the people blabbing are disapproving or purposefully trying to send a message. Given that the message seems to be “We won’t attack,” I’m not sure how useful it is to put this out. That just tells the Iranians going into next week’s Iraq talks that they don’t need to worry about military consequences.

A tip O' The GM Derby to Larwyn

Buying Liberal Offsets? This Is The Place!

Are you sometimes ill at ease - even in Massachusetts - with the liberal tone of political discourse? GM and the WideAwakes are ready to help with the sale of Liberal Offset Certificates.

From the description by Kender on EBay -

Yes that's right, you can still say that the War in Iraq is wrong and as long as you have bought a sufficient amount of offsets your patriotism cannot be questioned. Walk around freely yelling "Bush lied - people died" and if you are confronted by a conservative, whip out your Liberal Offset Certificate and put them in their place. In fact you can spout almost any nonsense you want and as long as you have bought a Liberal Offset, nobody can say a thing.

Here's how it works. When you hold liberal beliefs many people believe you are simply insane, and Liberal Offsets counter that simply by taking the money you have paid for the Offset and...well, much like Carbon Credits nobody is really sure how paying some Voluntary Guilt Tax is supposed to offset the pollution you create, but believe us it does. Just ask Al Gore.

Liberal Offsets work the same way.

When you buy a Liberal Offset that allows you to spout insane viewpoints Justin from Right ON The Right, Kender from Wide Awakes Radio and, indeed the ENTIRE Wide Awakes Radio crew will continue to hold view points that are based in logic and argue from a position of Common Sense and Patriotism.

It is that simple.

Now you can hold positions that directly contradict each other and not have to explain the disparity between them.

Each Liberal Offset Certificate comes personalized with the name of your choice. For a limited time each Liberal Offset you buy will have 4 FREE Offsets added to each order, for a Grand Total of 5 Liberal Offsets for the amazing low price of $5.00 plus shipping. That is 125 hours of argument for each certificate. That should be enough to last until the 2008 Presidential election. Handling Charges are included in shipping.

Peter Porcupine, Right on the Right, Mr. Ogre of the Carolinas and the other Wide Awakes will continue to pump rational argument into the hyperbaric chamber of liberal thought, in order to keep balance and rationality alive. For instance, Peter Porcupine will even provide cogent arguments agaisnt the banning of dihydrogen monoxide, and other such substances.

A link to obtain your certificate is HERE - Kender will help keep the progressive movement from spining off any number of cliffs with this handy trade-off.

Jack Cafferty Channels Don Imus?

Don Imus was fired from his job recently for uttering an admittedly crude saying. I don't need to go into it because just about everybody who reads blogs or pays any attention to the news knows all about it. Now comes Jack Cafferty of CNN who apparently has no more social IQ than Imus. On March 12th of this year, in the CNN show "The Situation Room" Who called Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez "the president's water boy" and no one in the MSM has risen to the task of taking Cafferty to task.

Except the Latino Coalition of Washington, D.C. In a statement, the non-profits president Robert G. Deposada said:

This kind of rhetoric from a journalist is simply unacceptable and racist."
[...]
"We cannot be hypocritical when it comes to racist statements in our national media. If the Attorney General was an African American, and Mr. Cafferty would have called him a water boy, the entire media establishment and civil rights organizations from across the country would be calling for Mr. Cafferty's firing."
[...]
"Attorney General Gonzalez is a highly qualified and very accomplished professional. For anyone to call this highly respected Latino a water boy is simply outrageous and shows enormous amounts of prejudice."

I respectfully disagree Mr. Deposada, you see, the MSM is highly prejudiced regarding anything to do with the Bush Administration. Attorney General Gonzalez is part and parcel of that Administration and so anything said about him is, by the MSM standards OK and appropriate. Now, had the Attorney General been a Latino member of a Democratic administration, the uproar would have been indeed vociferous.

I'm afraid that Mr. Cafferty gets a pass simply because he insulted a minority that happens to be in a despised administration and thus, he can do no wrong. And of course, there-in lies the hypocrisy. Imus is fired because the MSM decided that he had egregiously violated the tenets of liberalism and he was demoted from liberal pundit/entertainer to being a conservative. Mr. Cafferty maintains his liberal status because he only insulted a Republican. And that dear sir is a "Big Difference!"

Technorati Tags: Media, Liberals and Liberalism

A tip O' The GM Derby to Jennifer Harper

Hillary Rides To The Rescue!

Obama shows up in Selma to comemorate the civil rights movement. Not satisfied with her attempt to get Obama for the defection of David Geffen, Hillary shows up with a faux Southern accent. In fact, Hillary is in a dither because of Obamas entry into the fray!

Then comes along Don Imus with his trash talk calling the Rutgers ladies basketball team "...nappy headed ho's." Now, I don't know about you, but I find that comment offensive on a number of levels, not the least of which is as a father. I can only imagine what those young ladies (and their speaking up show that they are classy young ladies indeed) fathers must have felt; as a dad myself I would have wanted to punch Imus in the nose just to hear the "splat."

Obama was somewhat delayed in his condemnation of Imus and his mouth, but still faster than Hillary:

Her Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, was faster out of the gate, with this to say on Monday: “The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds. With a public platform, comes a trust. As far as I’m concerned, he violated that trust.”

But old Hillary may have gone one better, with a bit of pandering that is not to be believed. Oh Hillary, have you no shame at all?

None? Not a shred? Zero, zip, zilch, nada?

Unions Pick at Scabs / Democrats Reward Unions

Picking at a scab just makes it last longer on the skin. Picking at a "scab" can make him determined to stay longer on the job. Wounds must heal rather than be aggravated.

Replacement Worker Finds His Car TorchedBy E&P Staff, March 19, 2007

(Emphasis mine) Labor problems at The Toledo Blade in Ohio hit a new level with a replacement worker (Pete Thayer) relating that his car was intentionally torched last night while he was on the job.... Larry Vellequette, a spokesman for the Toledo Council of Newspaper Unions, denied that any of his members played a role in the incident... "I'm pretty sure it wasn't us," he told E&P.

...Someone had spraypainted the word "scab" in black and thrown a cinder block through the driver's side window. "Thayer tells us he thinks this is a scare tactic and it will not prevent him from showing up for work." ....

Well, I suppose that there's a chance of that specific type of car destruction happening anywhere and having nothing to do with the union's strike. At least, that's what I would conclude if a goon was standing over me.

If someone wants the same job as the strikers and is willing to work for wages agreeable to both himself and the employer, shouldn't he be able to do that without intimindation and without laws working against him?

Disagreeing, the Democrats are figuratively tossing bricks into the lives of honest workers with their new bill that will eliminate secret ballots in union votes. It's pretty tough to vote your conscience and wishes when some union thug is standing there watching you fill out the ballot so that he can take it from you and check your vote.

In their typical fashion, the Democrats violate truth in advertising by misnaming the bill "Employee Free Choice Act." If you express your free choice and it's not the one they want, expect the union to act against you.

This is clearly a union pay-off for Democratic support, and neither one is caring about "working families."

U.N. to Sanction Asteroid

Well, not yet, but that's how they deal with other rogue threats to our world. Accordingly, the asteroid is expected to ignore the U.N.

Action plan for killer asteroids (selections)

The threat of an asteroid hitting the Earth is being taken more and more seriously as more and more NEOs (near-Earth objects) are found.

In the US, Congress has charged NASA with the task of starting a more detailed search for life-threatening space rocks.

The UN draft treaty would establish who should be in charge in the event of an asteroid heading towards Earth, who would pay for relief efforts and the policies that should be adopted. In addition, it would set out possible plans to deflect the object.

It is difficult decisions like this which can only be addressed by the UN, the Association of Space Explorers believes.

Does it give you comfort knowing that the U.N. wants to be in charge of protecting us from space disasters? I hope that there are many centuries before there is an actual threat of an asteroid striking the Earth. It will take that long for the U.N. to reach agreement on how to handle the problem. In the meantime, just issue sanctions.

Now, it will be fun watching one group of scientists on the asteroid collision side arguing with the global warming "scientists" as to who has the latest and greatest crisis and who should get more tax funds for studies--as long as the nuclear winter and Y2K alarmists don't start up again.

Help Me, G.M., With Global Warming Psychology

G.M., I need the help of you and your psychology buddies to help me understand if it's the other guys or me who is psychologically off base on this so-called global warming thing. An Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed piece that basically states that I'm nuts because I am skeptical about global warming claims.

I thought that skeptism was a good trait and kept us from making rash, bad decisions. She thinks that I'm in deliberate denial. Take a look at selections from her article:

Continue reading "Help Me, G.M., With Global Warming Psychology"

Arkin, Mercenary's and the WaPo

One of the really fun things about being a blogger is the people you meet over the internet. It doesn't matter, well, perhapst to some it does, but it doesn't matter to me what political stripe they are because I just like people, even when I violently disagree with them. And I always learn something and I always think about what I've read.

Another really great thing is being able to join a number of chat groups and other forums where you get to meet many like minded people. Carolyn is one of those. I believe she lives in San Francisco, I know she is passionate about what she believes in, and I know that she totally disdains stuffed shirts and scoundrels. Especially those of the lefty persuasion. Especially those who are by their very nature idiots, malcontents and outright knaves. Such a person is William Arkin who recently published under the Washington Posts's dot com site a really nasty screed (unless of course you agree with Mr. Arkin in which case your intellectual ability may be in question). In effect saying that our troops in Iraq, and indeed perhaps in the military are "mercenary's." Now, I'd tell you what I think about Mr. Arkin, but this is a work friendly blog. So, I'll publish Carolyn's thoughts and let them speak for me as well. Please note, I'm not fond of cussing (though I've been known to turn the air blue on an occassion or two) but I'm going to let Carolyn's word choices stand as written (with only minor editing that is - after all, it IS my blog and I get to decide the level of cussing allowed .) So, without further ado here is Carolyn's take on the whole matter.

So here's WaPo's story about the firestorm over William Arkin's 'early warning' piece that called our soldiers a whole lotta s***, not least of which was 'mercenary'. WaPo's explanation doesn't begin with 'once upon a time' but it's still fantasy they expect us to believe.

First off, Arkin doesn't work for them. 'Cause, you see, even though he writes for WaPo, like everyone at WaPo - and he really hates the military, like everyone at WaPo - and he has his stuff checked by WaPo editors, like everyone at WaPo - that doesn't mean he works FOR WaPo!!!! Get it?

He's different. 'Cause, see, he's got these four tiny little things typed out after the Washington Post title - the 4 things are '.com'. So, like, he's not really working for Washington Post which is a newspaper you can hold in your hands to read the s*** it spits at our soldiers - and Arkin writes his stuff for the net which you can read on the screen to see the s*** it spits at our soldiers. Totally different, you can see that, right? (Can I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn?)

Oh, and by the way, he's like really really sorry you butt heads were dumb enough to take the word 'mercenary' literally. The word means someone who kills for money - and you were stupid enough to think it meant someone who kills for money. I mean, a (nameless) editor at WaPo didn't think it meant that -so what's your problem? Of course, the WaPo now insists the nameless editor's superior - executive editor Jim Brady - would have known what mercenary literally meant and edited it out. But he wasn't editing that day - he was just, you know, calling himself an editor but not really editing. He only started doing that once all hell broke loose over Arkin's hateful piece of s*** hitting the air waves and so many furious responders sending in 'comments' that the damned site crashed.

That must have been when Brady screamed tell everyone this a** doesn't work for us. And so, like, that's what Deborah Howell, the damage control lady, just tried to do. She says the WaPo and WaPo.com are, like, miles apart 'physically' and, like under 'different management'. And, of course, Arkin's got those 4 little things typed after WaPo, so, uhm, he's not one of us.

By the way, Howell still insists Arkin is really qualified. He speaks. Ahuh, that's what she said, right there, he speaks - at 'armed services' war colleges'.

Well, isn't that special? My sister's Peke speaks too - if you give him enough beer.

Folks, in my opinion, Arkin has just revealed the only thing the Washington Post is fit for -toilet paper cleaning up after its writers' s***.

And you can take that literally.

Carolyn

Filed under: Liberals & Liberalism, Stuffed Shirts and Scoundrels & Media

A Wingnut Knuckle-Dragging Neandertholic Conservative Defends Marcotte And McEwan: Free Speech Is Exactly That ~ Free Speech!

I haven't blogged about Amanda Marcotte or Melissa McEwan, primarily because they really don't have anything to say that makes much sense to me. Both tend to be potty mouths and I'll be here to defend their right to cuss all they want. I've visited their blog a few times and found them to be both potty-mouthed and intransigent.

Now, this may sound like heresy to a lot of my friends, fellow conservative bloggers and readers, but hear me out. John Edwards is running for the Democratic nomination for president, but as a campaigner, he has much to learn. Too, I don't think he has a snowball's proverbial chance in hades to win the nomination, let alone the election, but he is wiley enough to know that there is something out there called the "internets" and he needs someone savy enough to get him an in with the netroots folk. Edwards looked around, talked (no doubt) to a number of advisors and was told that Marcotte and McEwan were some of the best in the business at laying it on the line against us warmongering knuckle-draggers. Fine!

As anyone familiar with my blog knows, I seldom use or tolerate cussing. It's not my style and this is my blog. In my Rules For Commenting, I swiped a phrase from Kat at Cathouse Chat who had swiped it from La Shawn Barber. It is pretty simple in it's formulation.

"this is my weblog and I pay for the hosting. 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."

I also added

There will be no swearing, invective (look it up), or ad hominem attacks of a juvenile nature...

The point being here that Pandagon where Marcotte and McEwan blog is their blog and they are, by law allowed to say just about anything they want. Nuff said?

They may (or may not have been) much of persuaders in the lefty corner of the blogosphere, and now the controversy has arisen regarding the tendency of these two to rant, rave and cuss on their blog. Guess what folks, I rant and rave but seldom cuss because that just ain't my style. It is apparantly their style and that is OK.

Of course, when the news came out there was a lot of pseudo-outrage that the two were potty mouths, that (and this was likely real outrage) they had made disparaging remarks about the Catholic Church and Christians and that Edwards must have holes in his head for hiring them without looking at the stuff they put on Pandagon (you may have noticed that I haven't linked to their site - nor will I, if you want, go find it on your own). But, I digress, the outrage was all over the blogosphere from righties and even from some lefties. But folks, we are the same ones that were outraged at the Muslims who rioted over cartoon's of Mohammad. Was the blog-riot of the same type? Are we so locked into our own partisanship so tightly that we cannot see the bigger picture?

And a bigger picture it is. It is the right of each American in this country to say just about what they want, where they want and how they want to say it. It is codified into one of our most cherished documents, the Constitution. And I for one believe that each amendment means what it says and that is that. Now, that seems pretty simple doesn't it? You will find, for example, many lefties that don't think the 2nd Amendment or the 9th or 10th Amendment don't mean what it says very plainly. But that is their right to say that. Doesn't matter if it makes sense that some amendments say what they mean and others don't.

Freedom of speech is then, the issue. You either have it, or you don't and the Constitution guarantees that Marcotte and McEwan have it, as do I, as do you.

And just after typing the above, but before I published it, I read Glenn Reynolds Instapundit and see that the Beltway Blogroll has an entry on just this subject and it's pretty good too. A sample:

You can tell they are working for a political campaign now because they are apologizing just like politicians.

Rather than saying "I am sorry," for instance, Marcotte wrote, "I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics." And this from McEwan: "It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”

Basically, Marcotte and McEwan have agreed to muzzle themselves while working for Edwards.

Of course, this is the typical mealy mouthed non-apology apology of politicians and others who have transgressed but don't have the guts to admit it, but, you know what, it is still their right to say what ever they want. And it is my right to criticize it but it is not my right to shut them up. I suspect the electorate will do that just fine.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh writing in his own inimitable style reports on attempts to crush free speech at San Francisco State University. This is a good read folks and underscores my point that free speech isn't free unless it is free for everyone.

Professor Volokh has a link to F.I.R.E. (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) which has more on the issue and while niether post is about Marcotte or McEwan, both underscore my main point.

Two Americas

Of all the demogogues of both the left and the right (yes, you read that correctly) John Edwards has to be scored at or near the top on any list. Really!

John Edwards, he of Two Americas fame. You know who I mean, the Vice Presidential Candidate in 2004, the one that ran as second banana to John "I have the hat" Kerry? Yeah, that one!

The fellow that rants about how we treat our poor, but who sues the crap out of docs who treat the poor to enrich himself. The same guy that is building his own multi-million dollar dwelling somewhere in the Carolinas when he could use some of that ill gotten gain to help so many homeless folk. Now Mr. Edwards, who really, honestly thinks he has a shot at the Presidency (gag me with a spoon folks) has weighed in on Iran and their nukes. Yeppers, and like his former running mate, he was against them before he was for them. His first shot at it when speaking before the Herzliya Conference in Israel:

...Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats." [emphasis added]

"My country hasn't done enough...abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans"? When it is his party demanding those very things? Since he spoke in Israel, I guess we ought to just mark it up chutzpah!

Ahh, but dear readers, that is not the half of it. Two weeks later, in an interview with Ezra Klein, Edwards answers a question thusly:

Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

Edwards: "I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … " [emphasis added]

How's that for double speak? Yeah, yeah, I know, repubs do it too. So, that makes Edwards duplicity OK? Nope, all it does is underscore the need to elect honest folk, of which you will find damned few in the halls of Washington D.C.

Two Americas? You bet. One that is sick of the duplicity of politicians of all stripes and one that will defend this kind of crap because it comes from one of their guys.

A tip 'O The GM Derby to Oxblog

Lies, Damn Lies and Hillary Clinton!

As any reader of this blog will undoubtedly know, I'm no big fan of Hillary Clinton, in fact, there are fewer people in politics that I despise more for their politics. When the harridan from New York via Little Rock via Washington via Chicago announced for the Senate in 2000, no one who could think in coherent sentences doubted that her only goal was to run for president. Her constant lies about "not decided yet" not-withstanding, she was running from the first day her husband was running. Anyone remember the famous "two-fer" she uttered during the '92 campaign? That alone should have made it obvious.

Now, she is "officially" running and true to the ideals of Bill, she is lying up a storm and expecting no one to notice. In Iowa, she said:

I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So [President bush] took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority." [emphasis added]

Wow, the smartest woman in the world was duped by the dumbest president ever! Whoda thunk it? But wait, she has, on record, other statements about her vote, one that kinda, sorta, perhaps, maybe, ah hell, definately puts the lie to her statement in Des Moines when she justified her vote to Code Pink:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefulling reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part of this decision." [emphasis added]

There you have it, out of her own mouth. Yeppers, the big lie, repeated often enough will be believed (but only by those who can't think their way out of a wet paper sack (you sure are getting fond of that phrase Roper... ed!) I wonder if "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies," includes her husbands foray's into Kosovo without UN sanction? Hmmm?

How To Lose A Sale, And Piss Off America At The Same Time

Last Friday, Cinnamon Stillwell, a good friend and fellow blogger alerted me to an almost unbelievable "sales" response to one of our troops stationed in Iraq. The troop, one Sgt. Jason Hess serving with the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq. Sgt. Hess was inquiring about better mats for his troops to sleep on. Here is his email to Discount Floor Mats of West Allis, Wisconson:

To Whom it may concern:
Do you ship to APO addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.

SGT Hess

Continue reading "How To Lose A Sale, And Piss Off America At The Same Time"

It Takes the U.N. or Nancy Pelosi for These Ideas

This action by the United Nations must make perfect sense to Nancy Pelosi.

First All-Female U.N. Peacekeeping Force to Deploy to Liberia

...this is the first all-female peacekeeping team, and participants have said it would have unique advantages in conflict zones. 'Women police are seen to be much less threatening, although they can be just as tough as men. But in a conflict situation, they are more approachable and it makes women and children feel safer,' Seema Dhundia, a unit commander, said recently.

Right. These women may end up doing battle against men and are expected to "be just as tough" and survive? But, the Left says that men (mainly U.S. soldiers) are "baby killers," so these women are expected to make children feel safer. Kids have better instincts than that.

For example, one time my family and I were standing in the front yard when the sound of a loud explosion came from up the road. My youngest son, who was about three at the time, always liked to be picked up by Mom. But, when he was frightened by the loud noise and he wanted security, he ran right past her and leaped into my arms. I'm not tough guy, but instinctively this child knew where to find safety within his family unit.

Well, that doesn't necessarily prove my point and call me sexist, but I can safely say that men provide better fighting and defensive forces than women--unlike Democrats who have talked about drafting our daughters.

Do you think that the Indianapolis Colts would pull QB Peyton Manning and replace him with a cheerleader?

If Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Were Alive Today

Today we celebrate the life and contributions of Dr. Matin Luther King, Jr. If Dr. King were alive today, what would be his positions on current issues? It depends. In doing some research, I find that most people who answer that question, believe that Dr. King would be for whatever cause that they are for and against those that they oppose--no matter what position.

There is a lot of cherry-picking of quotes in which one can usually find something to fit any side of any cause that Dr. King probably never likely anticipated or considered. Generally, I find that liberals believe that Dr. King would adjust his beliefs to the times, while conservatives point out that principles don't change and that Dr. King would hold to his principles which support their side.

What do you think that Dr. King might say about the following issues:

Affirmative action
Abortion
Gay Rights
Iraq War

Here are some articles on this issue:

Martin Luther King Day, by Paul Craig Roberts

What would Martin Luther King do if he were alive today? Would he endorse redistributive "racial justice," which means the end of limited government and the death of legal equality, or would he come to the defense of equality before the law?

Hijacking A Civil Rights Hero, by John Rosenberg

Advocates of racial preferences usually go ballistic when those of us who oppose them quote Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, especially:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

King’s legacy alive today, By Tom Grace

What would the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. say if he were alive today....? King, who battled for racial equality and expanding human rights, would have been disturbed by talk of a Constitutional amendment that restricts same-sex couples from marrying.... "If Martin Luther King were alive today, I’m sure he would be opposed to the war in Iraq, and the increasing use of the military...."

Colson misrepresented Martin Luther King Jr. as "a great conservative....", from Media Matters

Contrary to Colson's hypothesis that King would be "in the vanguard of the pro-life movement" today, King was presented in 1966 with the Margaret Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood. In his acceptance speech, "Family Planning -- A Special And Urgent Concern," King declared, "Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her." Sanger was a leading advocate of women's access to birth control in the first half of the 20th century.

[Personally, I don't think that Dr. King envisioned abortion to be the same as family planning and birth control, and his death came five years before Roe v. Wade. Also, consider this: (Planned Parenthood's) founder, Margaret Sanger, believed that the poor were a burden on society and that a cleansing of the gene pool through birth control was in order. In the 1930s, Sanger targeted blacks with "The Negro Project" that strategically placed birth control clinics in poor and minority neighborhoods.]

The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, by Robert Woodson and Dr. William J. Bennett

Conservatives did not, and do not, agree with all of Dr. King's political positions. In particular, we think Dr. King looked too much to government, too much to the welfare state, and not sufficiently to entrepreneurial capitalism, to win economic opportunity for African-Americans. But there was a deeply conservative message throughout Dr. King's life and work, and we are fortunate today to have with us two distinguished speakers who will talk about the conservative virtues of Dr. King.

Without recalling all of Dr. King's leadership on issues, including equality and voting rights, here's what I remember most about him from my childhood in a segregated South. He offered an alternative to hatred and destruction between the races. I remember a deep fear of Malcom X, an opposing black leader, who converted to Islam, referred to whites as devils, called for black separatism and black power, and advocated war against the whites--thus, rejecting non-violence as preached by Dr. King. Imagine that...an Islamic leader calling for war against Americans in the 1960's. As you might imagine, my reaction to the deaths of Malcolm X and Dr. King were very different. Dr. King's legacy to me was his non-violent approach to justice, as opposed to what could have happened.

Well, Dr. King would be seventy-eight years old today, and I think that if he were alive today...he would say that he wanted to enjoy retirement and wants to know what's for lunch. But, naturally, some liberal would disagree with me.

Anyway, take a moment to think about his contributions to us and what might have been had it not been for Dr. King. Then, if you want, you may think about what he might say today if he were alive, but that's something that no one could really know.

Rude Jaywalker is Fined. It's Bush's Fault. [Updated]

Here's the deal...a left-wing British history professor who teaches in Boston was in Atlanta for a conference and had a run-in with a policeman over jaywalking, and you won't believe (or, maybe you will) the professor's snotty reaction in a letter to the AJC compared to what really happened. Here's a selection from his letter with emphasis mine.

'Atlanta police are barbaric, brutal, out of control'
By FELIPE FERNANDEZ-ARMESTO (Snotty, Jaywalking Professor)

"I have long known, as any reasonable person must, that the courts are the citizen's only protection against a rogue executive and rationally uncontrolled security forces. Though my own misadventure was trivial – and in perspective laughable – it resembles what is happening to the world in the era of George W. Bush. The planet is policed by a violent, arbitrary, stupid and dangerous force. Within the USA, the courts struggle to maintain individual rights under the bludgeons of the "war on terror," defending Guantanamo victims and striving to curb the excesses of the system. We need global institutions of justice, and judges of Judge Jackson's level of humanity and wisdom, to help protect the world."

He also compared himself to Nelson Mandella!

Then, I heard the other side of the story in a lengthy radio interview with the policeman who arrested him. The policeman stopped this man and others because another pedestrian had recently been killed by a bus while illegally crossing at that very place. He was trying to help and to do his job. He did not slam the jaywalker to the ground and gave him every chance.

But, it was clear that the professor had no respect for our police and refused to cooperate. He kept trying to walk away when being addressed and would not provide any identification when repeatedly requested. The policeman said that he had to see some personal identitification or that he would be forced to take him in to establish identity, which would be ridiculous for something like jay walking. The policeman remained calm and polite.

The professor not only refused, but he demanded to see the driver's license of the policeman! Thus, he went to jail for a hearing--his choice. But, we have learned that this "violent, arbitrary, stupid and dangerous force" trying to protect people was brought on by George W. Bush. I guess this has to do with Iraq, too, like everything else.

Don 't you get tired of socialist, European snobs who "know more than us?" Just pay your fine and shut-up.

If the jaywalker who was killed by the bus could talk, I bet that he would say that he wished that the policeman had stopped him, and he sure wouldn't have written a snotty letter in response.

via Nealz Nuze

[Update]

Here's one other version of the story that gives the policeman's account, which is essentially what I had heard on the radio.

Officer says he used discretion before arresting prof

The Atlanta police officer being investigated for his treatment of a prominent British historian said Tuesday that Felipe Fernandez-Armesto is not the innocent abroad he claims to be.

Additional Discussion at DADvocate: Egocentric Professor, Jaywalking and Bush

Big Government Knows No Bounds

Here's another case of big government headed by liberals who are determined to make eveyone conform to their standards no matter how ridiculous the rules and no matter how ridiculous the penalties. It's "we know what's best so you better do what we say or else." Here's part of the article on that with its comments:

EU stealing the crown of the great British pint

For more than 300 years, the stamp of the crown on top of a pub glass has stood as a guarantee that it is big enough to deliver a full pint. But this British tradition has now fallen victim to the extension of the EU's tentacles into national life....

Critics fear the loss of the crown will be followed by the loss of the pint itself, with British drinkers being required to switch to continental metric measures.

Consequently, the new glasses now appearing in British pubs and bars carry a CE mark - which, in French, stands for ‘European Conformity'.

Already greengrocers have been hauled before the courts for refusing to abide by EU rules that fresh produce must now be sold in kilos and grams, rather than pounds and ounces.

Yeah. Let's keep those grocers and tavern owners in place, especially since all of the big problems in Europe have been solved. What would we do without the left telling us how to live? With the Democrats taking over Congress this week, we might expect the same attitudes being expanded over U.S. citizens.

And of great concern, will this step change the focal point of "beer goggles?" Maybe the metric pub glasses could make even liberals look attractive--but, it might take a few more drinks.

Ursus Maritimus Delinda Est - NOT!

Ursus Maritimus, the great white Polar Bear is in danger of becoming, not extinct, except to the degree that any species anywhere (including man perhaps) is in danger of becoming extinct. But the Polar Bear is is becoming another symbol. A symbol of the left's attempt to make global warming a dread catastrophe.

The polar bear is an off-shoot of the famous brown bear, the grizzly (Ursus Arctos) along with other Brown bears probably share a common ancestor until about 20,000 years ago. This can be discerned from changes in the molars of the polar bear. It should also be noted that the polar bear can mate with the brown bear (and has) indicating that the polar variety is probably a subspecies of the brown bear.

A little less than two years ago this was reported:

A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, said: "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change."

Mr Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears.

He even suggests that global warming could actually be good for the bears, and warns that the ever-increasing proximity of the animals to local communities could mean that a cull will be required sooner rather that later if bear numbers are to be kept under control.

In another article, published just 6 months later the claim is there is a serious decline due to "global warming"

So, since February of '05, the big fuzzy white bear has gone from a 25% increase to "nearing extinction?" Balderdash.

But really, lets take a look at what the reality is. The reality is that there are a number of differing populations of polar bears. One may decline, others increase. One article noted above indicates a decline in the "condition" of momma bears in the Hudson Bay area while a side article notes that "increased ice" in the Baffin Bay area has threatened narwhals who need holes in the ice to breathe.

The U.S. has indeed indicated that it wants to put polar bears on the endangered list, but is this good science, or more hysteria? Lets look at the numbers:

Estimates of the size of the population of polar bears in the Chukchi Sea are lacking, but the catch per unit of effort during research tagging there may suggest an increase, as do observations and kills by coastal residents. Uspenski and Belikov (1991) believe there are more bears in the Chukchi Sea now than in the past despite the absence of a reliable population estimate.

Thus, the good news of apparent increases in numbers is accompanied by increased challenges for management. Those challenges can only be met by a better understanding of the dynamics of the polar bear's ecosystem. In the Chukchi Sea, there is a pressing need for development of new methods for determining numbers and trends. This need appears more urgent in view of the likelihood that the ban on polar bear hunting in Russia, in effect since 1956, will be lifted. The bounds of optimum sustainable population levels are not known in the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, and interactions between polar bears and their prey and polar bears and sea ice, which establish these levels, are not understood. If managers are to keep polar bear numbers at optimum sustainable population levels in the face of increased harvests and other local and global perturbations, they will need more accurate and precise population estimates and an understanding of the ecosystem forces that limit polar bear population size.

A 2005 estimate was that there were between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in all populations.

In a closed meeting here late last month, 40 members of the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union concluded that the imposing white carnivores -- the world's largest bear -- should now be classified as a "vulnerable" species based on a likely 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. There are now 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears across the Arctic.

And since these stocks are fertile with other brown bears, the chance of full extinction is slim.

There are other voices however and one wonders why the emphasis on this animal rather than others. One explanation:

Polar bears are cute. Just ask the marketing executives at Coca-Cola which used animated polar bears to hawk their wares in recent years. Bears, pandas, lions and elephants are "charismatic megafauna" -- meaning basically cute animals that people care about. If you want to sell a product, or a cause, just tie it to one of these animals and you've got the attention of millions of people; kids and adults alike.

Thus, environmental alarmists have made much of research claiming the Arctic's great white bear faces extinction from human-caused global warming. Snails, snakes and spiders withering in the sun just don't pack the same emotional punch as a cuddly, furry polar bear slipping beneath the melting ice.

In the same article, we find indications that the picture is much less bleak than the global warming enthusiasts would have you believe:

Fortunately, a new study by David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim global warming threatens polar bears survival.

Mr. Legates critiques the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that proclaimed Arctic air temperature trends strongly indicate global warming, causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, Mr. Legates says, the Assessment ignored data that undermine these claims.

For example, coastal stations in Greenland are cooling and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since measurements began in 1987. In addition, records from Russian coastal stations show the extent and thickness of sea ice has varied greatly over 60- to 80-year periods during the last 125 years. Moreover, the maximum air temperature they report for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the air temperature in 2000.

Ice core data from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea also show that even if there is warming, it has occurred before. In Alaska, the onset of a climatic shift -- a warming -- in 1976-1977 ended the multidecade cold trend in the mid-20th century returning temperatures to those of the early 20th century.

In addition, a study commissioned by Canada's Fisheries and Oceans Department examined the relationship between air temperature and sea ice coverage, concluding, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice."

The above referenced article concludes:

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. But, their own data on polar bear populations contradict claims that rising air temperatures are causing a decline in polar bear populations.

According to the WWF there are some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number -- are growing and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.

As for the rest, 10 populations -- comprising about 45.4 percent of the total -- are stable, and the status of the remaining six is unknown. Conclusion: based on the available evidence there is little reason to believe the current warming trend will lead to extinction of polar bears.

These bears have survived for thousands of years, during both colder and warmer periods, and their populations are by and large in good shape. Polar bears may face many threats, but global warming is not primary among them. Global warming alarmists are like the wizard of Oz, asking the public fear the spectacle, but not to pull back the curtain and unmask them for the charlatans they are.

So, Ursus Maritimus Delinda Est? I think not, but then I'm a global warming skeptic. The true believers will use the polar bear issue to the hilt, not because it is true, but because cute cuddly white bears have a definate anthropomorphic quality and the charlatans aren't above pulling on heart strings to get your attention. Fear tactics only work when the populace isn't aware that that is the method being used.

UPDATE: One of our commenters who calls himself GW (but is really Mark York incognitio) typically likes to point out that "government" scientists, in particular "BUSH GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS" (you do note the sarcasm here don't you yorkie?) upholding his claims of a major catastrophe two weeks from when ever he says it will happen. (snark) Well, here is a "Government Scientist" from Canada that flat out desputes Yorkie:

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment,
Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

May 1, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Flannery is one of Australia 's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea.

The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong.

All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs — sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.

One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.

Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor

The Eye Of The Beholder

Allow me to paint a word picture for you:

You enter a room, quietly close the door behind you and sit in the rose colored easy chair next to the lamp on the south side of the room. Looking around, you take in your surroundings. The room is warm, and comfortable. You glance around looking at nothing in particular finally noticing a brightly colored square of paper on the coffee table. You pick it up and try to think of the name of the color. Forrest green you decide. No, wait, perhaps a deep emerald green. Yes, that's it. You take the paper to your spouse and note the deep shade of green, scintillating in the light. Your spouse looks at you in confusion and says "No sweetheart, that is scarlet red." Confused, you ask your children and they too say red. For a week, everyone you ask says "red," but you still see green."

The reality is that it doesn't matter what other people say, your experience of the square of paper is green, that is your perception of reality and it matters not what other peoples reality is. The knowledge that you are colorblind, that you will always see one color when other's see another matters not. In the case above, green is your reality.

So too it is with politics. It doesn't matter a whit if you are a conservative or liberal, a communist or libertarian, a socialist or anarchist. Your perspective is colored by your world view. Now, to say that some world views, some political systems are more, shall we say, realistic than others ought to be a no brainer. And so it is. I am amused by liberals that proclaim that they are "Proud Members Of The Reality Based Community" as if by proclaiming that, they are the only purveyors of truth, justice and the American Way! Of course, the entire purpose of the Reality Based Community canard is to provide an internal boost to what must be a very lonely position, say that of seeing a green square of paper when most everyone else sees red.

My real problem with liberals is that they see the world as they want it to be, not as it is. Their reality is not based in reality, but is completely colored by their perception, and too often, it is not a pretty sight. Take education for example. The liberal position is that we need a federal bureaucracy, more teachers unions, more money, longer school days; we need to fix the broken "structure" of education. It doesn't seem to matter that the so called structure is the same as it has been for the last 75 years or so and that it worked pretty well in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's and with the advent of the professional educator the so called structure seemed to break down yielding 4 year olds being charged with sexual harrassment, a multitude of "pride" days and high school teachers being terminated for teaching real as opposed to say "culturally correct" history.

The coloring of politics has also entered the vaunted main stream media or MSM as we bloggers call it. I know, I know, the soi disant reality based community (shall we abbreviate this as RBC for the rest of this article?) maintains that the MSM is owned by corporations and thus must be "conservative" but that is reflective of their world view; all corporations are money grubbing conservative organs of the state who protects corporations via tax structure forcing the weak and the poor to feed their hard earned dollars to the fat cats. Of course, the "real" reality is that newspapers are owned by corporations but staffed by graduates of schools of journalism and anybody that believes that those schools are not "generally" bastions of left leaning thought are not only not thinking, they are not using one scintilla of their supposed brain power.

Thus, we get headlines like posted in the L.A. Times: "Monthly U.S. toll in Iraq at 2-year high". The headline is the political view of an organization viewing casualties and other stories from Iraq through the liberal prisim, but it is the "green square of paper" we talked about above. The reality is (courtesy of Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette):

Barring a New Year's Eve plane crash, 2006 looks like a slightly better year in Iraq for US casualties

...the year total of 816 as of Saturday morning, is on course to be slightly lower than last year's 846 U.S. fatalities.

The number of U.S. wounded also declined this year, from 5,947 in 2005 to 5,676 so far this year.

(We should also note that the majority of troops wounded in Iraq returned to duty within 72 hours.)

O.K. Roper, this means what? Well, simply put the American people are getting a description of the War in Iraq as a massive US failure and George Bush as a bumbling idiot at best and a war criminal at worst. The reality, as opposed to the view of the RBC, is that the massive civilian casualties in Iraq are the work of Iraqis against other Iraqis. Sunni vs S'hia as it were. Some call it civil war, but that is a little misleading because it is sectarian violence by one tribe of Muslims against another tribe of Muslims. The common ground here is that many of the illegal combatants here believe their version of Allah is better than the other version of Allah and that alone gives them license to kill other Muslims.

Now, has United States policy played into this? Sure, somewhat. Back some time ago an arrest warrant was issued for Moqtada Sadr:

An Iraqi judge has released an arrest warrant for Moqtada Sadr in connection with the death of a moderate Shia leader, Abdul Majid al-Khoei, in April 2003, just two days after the fall of Baghdad.

Moqtada Sadr strongly denies any role in the murder.

His supporters have also clashed with followers of Ayatollah Sistani.

He has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran.

Got that did you? I'll repeat for any liberals reading this blog: "He has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran."

Iran? Iran, you say? What does that have to do with the criminal liability of George Dubya? Well, it should show those in the RBC that the violence in Iraq is not necessarily the fault of GWB, but rather the involvement of Iran in an act of state supported terrorism. The same will go for the Syrian version of Wormtongue (with all due apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien). That the RBC cannot see this because it is a red square of paper should not be surprising. All they can see is the green because of their own inability to understand that their perception is not the so called real world.

There will, no doubt, be those who would challange this understanding, but that is OK, it is, again, their perception. The reality is, despite what the majority of the left would think, that the sectarian violence in Iraq is sponsored by two states, Syria and Iran. Oddly enough, those with clear eyes can see that, can see that Moqtada Sadr is a puppet with a famous name (his father, a revered S'hia cleric, was reportedly assassinated by Saddam's orders).

So, if you do indeed have the ability to think, to reason beyond your own perceptions, think through who benefits from an unstable Iraq? Who is rapidly running out of the ability to bring their oil to the market because they have ignored their infrastructure from the beginning of the so called mullahocracy:

"They need to invest $2.5bn (£1.28bn) a year just to stand still and they're not doing it because it's politically easier to spend the money on social welfare and the army than to wait four to six years for a return on investment," he said.

"They've been running down the industry like this for 20 years."

For 40 of my 60 years on this earth the MSM has been pissing on my shoes. I didn't believe it was rain then, and I don't believe it now, but then, my eyes aren't blind to reality even though I see things through a conservative perspective.

English - Official Language of GM's Corner

If it makes sense and is politically incorrect, then why are the British requiring immigrants wanting permanent residence to prove their proficiency in English?

People wanting to live permanently in Britain will have to prove their proficiency in the English language and demonstrate their knowledge of life in the country from next year. The measures will come into force on April 2, 2007 with only those who pass the tests being given permanent residence status, the Home Office announced.

"It is essential that migrants wishing to live in the United Kingdom permanently recognise that there are responsibilities that go with this," said immigration minister Liam Byrne on Monday. "Having a good grasp of English is essential in order for them to play a full role in society and properly integrate into our communities."

So, who could be against making English the official language in the United States other than the Democrats, the ACLU, the NEA, college professors, illegal immigrants....?

With no objections from our readers and commenters, we hereby declare English the official language of GM's Corner. Comprende?

Liberals Can Be Nuts!

Waxworks visitor casts vote early

President Bush's wax likeness is taking a thumpin' these days at Madame Tussaud's celebrity waxworks in Las Vegas. Bush's head suffered about $25,000 in damages when a Madame Tussaud's visitor attacked it the day before last week's elections.

Why wasn't the wax Secret Service there to protect the wax President from someone who is wacked? Really. Can you imagine someone hating President Bush so much that he attacks a likeness of Bush? That feeling is so common from the Left, that the attacker probably got special recognition in the Democratic Underground.

Liberal Response to Hussein's Death Sentence

Even I was a little flabbergasted at liberal reactions to Saddam Hussein's death sentence for crimes against humanity. I guess I expected some silence from them, as this news might help the Republican election effort. Rather, liberals and left-wing radicals condemned the death sentence against this murdering dictator. It raises the questions as to whose side they favor and what are their values.

Continue reading "Liberal Response to Hussein's Death Sentence"

The Sissification of American Kids by Educators

As a kid, I played tag, football, and other contact sports--and, I lived. So what? Well, according to this article and film clip , the people who run the public schools in Attleboro, Mass. think that these games for kids should be forbidden because of safety risks--and lawyers, who seem to ruin a lot of things. But, my gripe here is with the boards of education that deal in such silliness. It's not just Addleboro, but here are others:

Santa Monica, Calif: "The principal said children playing tag suffered both physical and emotional injuries." Emotional? He means self-esteem. If someone tries to win, then he's hurting someone else's self-esteem and is bad, bad, bad. No competition allowed. Here's more.

Cheyenne, Wyo, Wichita, Kan.; San Jose, Calif.; Beaverton, Ore., Rancho Santa Fe., Calif., ...: "The bans were passed in the name of safety, but some children's health advocates say limiting exercise and free play can inhibit a child's development. ...Critics of the bans say playing freely helps kids learn to negotiate rules and resolve disputes."

Spokane, Wash.: Principle (sic) Terren Roloff told Fox News she chose to ban tag because it encourages victimization and students are encouraged to play. ...The National Association of School Psychology agress with Roloff, and other schools have been banning tag as well."

Sacramento, Calif: "Concerned about safety and injuries and worried about bullying, violence, self-esteem and lawsuits, school officials have clamped down on the traditional games from years past. ...At Natomas Park...yard supervisor Janice Hudson spotted a first-grader pushing a girl on the swing. 'Do not push,' Hudson told the student. 'Let her push herself, please.'"

Silver Spring, MD: "The school had been cracking down on those games at recess because, as Principal Doris Jennings explained, 'Body contact is inappropriate for recess activities.'"

Or, you can read a study that influences these school decisions. Neil Williams, chair of the health and physical education department at Eastern Connecticut State University, has compiled and updates "The Physical Education Hall of Shame" list of recess activities that he feels are inappropriate.
"The Physical Education Hall of Shame was established to identify certain activity programs or games which, although physically demanding, do not contribute to the development of motor, cognitive, and affective skills of the students. Such meaningless activities have limited physical activity time, promote minimal participation, embarrass students in front of their classmates and are primarily concerned with having fun. Line Soccer, Red Rover, Simon Says, Spud, Tag and Messy Back Yard are examples of such activities."
Well, we can't have games "primarily concerned with having fun," can we? His list also adds Dodge Ball, Duck Duck Goose, Kick Ball, Musical Chairs, and Steal the Bacon, the last of which I think is a game for inner city school kids.

Many of these schools banning tag are in Massachusetts and California, which are trying to overtake France as the land with the most weenies. Instead of exercising, maybe kids could take up some other activity that is non-contact, like target shooting, walking over to McDonald's to eat and hang out, or playing video games. Those are non-contact, so they might be good.

The education establishment is getting worse and more out-of-touch with the real world, desires of parents, and the best interests of the kids.

Air America Bankrupt - Financially and Otherwise [Updated]

Gotta like the contradiction in the headline from liberal Think Progress.

EXCLUSIVE: Air America To Declare Bankruptcy, But Progressive Radio Remains Strong

Here's how their liberal commenters responded to the news:

● Progressives get their news from reading blogs and other online sources. ...Let the radio format go the way of the Dodo… let’s concentrate on more and better online media.
● R.I.P., Air America. If it had been a right-wing network, this administration would have secretly funneled millions of dollars into it.
● This country needs to have a place for people too smart to listen to the right wing noise machine. those who will dance in the streets and cheer the demise (premature) of Air America only show that they are not in favor of a free country where everyone has a right to speak and also to hear their kind of politics.
● What a shame…I’m sure this is Bush’s fault too.
● That proves that the neo-cons are still back in the dark ages of radio …and all other things….the Progressive and “Green Peopleâ€� are downloading and Ipoding. We are the future!

Wow! They're better than conservatives, free speech means someone else should pay their bills, and Bush is to blame.

And, do you want to know how these people who are so compassionate and worried about working families are treating the employees that they laid off? They gave them NO SEVERANCE PAY! I bet Al Franken got his paycheck, though.

To think that these people want to run our country.

Additional News:

As this news gets out and the story develops, we find more information, which includes a claim by Al Franken that his checks are behind, too. When you read about the lies and mismanagement of the group, you have to wonder about Franken's sanity in supporting them--if he's being honest, which is a rarity.

However, I think that the comment by one of their primary investors speaks volumes:

Norman Wain, a Cleveland-based former radio executive and investor in Air America, says he hadn't heard about any financial difficulties. "I know nothing about it," he says. "They don't communicate with investors very well. They only come to us when they're looking for more money."

Now, that does make them sound like Democrats and how they think of taxpayers--an endless source of money to fund useless programs.

09/14/06 - For Current Updates:

The Radio Equalizer with Brian Maloney follows this matter with current and in-depth information, if you have continued interest. He speculates that this announcement was leaked prematurely or falsely as part of insider politics. He also reports this: "Oddly enough, all network spokesperson Jamie Horn could do when finally allowed to address the by-then out-of-control story was to infer that conservatives were to blame for it."

Naturally.

All Women Talk Radio - I Give It Six Months [Updated]

Greenstone launches all-women radio talk network

Greenstone Media, a radio company whose founders include social activist Gloria Steinem and actress Jane Fonda, has launched an all-women, all-talk network across the United States.

Steinem said the network, which is run by women, aims to provide an alternative to current radio talk, which she describes as "very argumentative, quite hostile, and very much male-dominated."

Well, first, "all-women, all-talk" goes without saying. But, to state that an all-woman network is an alternative to "hostile" talk radio is to ignore who are the very founders of the network.

I give it six months. They just want to be around until the fall elections, anyway, as a way to skirt campaign laws and to advertise under the guise of talk radio for the Democrats right up to the elections.

Update:

Here is Greenstone Media's home page, where they introduce their new on-air personalities. If they wanted "women talk radio," what was wrong with these people--Laura Ingraham, Michele Malkin, even Tammy Bruce, or especially these famous women radio hosts?

America Going to the Dogs-Another Hyphenated American

Yeah, the Left gets wackier and wackier. You might remember that PETA recently called on the U.S. military to evacuate all Americans during the war in Lebanon--not just the human Americans. Well, not to be outdone, at a national conference, the President of the Humane Society of the United States urged more animal rights laws to replace animal ownership laws, and he emphasized that by asking everyone to start referring to dogs as ''Canine Americans.'' A press release described conference attendees as "educated professionals" or, as I like to call them, "Psycho-Americans."

The Path To 9-11: The Left Is A Comedy For Our Times

The subject of 9-11 is frought with pathos. It is both a sad remembrance and an act of war. But, on the 5th anniversary of this tragic day, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) has decided to show a production of a "Docu-Drama" called "The Path To 9-11". Now, in and of itself, that is nothing remarkable, the history of the socalled "docu-drama" is long and comical for its historical inaccuracies and/or outright fiction, witness the productions of "Death Of A President" in England for example (which many have defended on the grounds of "free speech").

Yet, let a shibboleth of the left be challenged (Clinton was a terrific - though perhaps oversexed president) and watch the fur fly. The reaction of much of the left is almost comical, nay, it is entirely comical and I'll take a few snippits from here and there to prove my point.

First up my friend Marc Cooper (a self identified "progressive") posts "The ABC's of Panderning" in which he states:

L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten perfectly nails the shameless shlockmeisters at ABC who think it's just spiffy to capitalize on the pain of the 5th anniversary 9/11 to broadcast one more manufactured piece of dreck -- a two part "docudrama" on the Twin Tower attacks powered by blatant right-wing spin.

Now, Marc is a friend of mine, and my 'blogfather' if you will and I highly respect him and his blog (though that does not apply to some of his more vociferous commenters). But gee could the rhetoric be more appalling, could the prose be a little more turgid? Understand please, as a progressive, Marc is no friend of the Bushes or the Republicans, but having said that, he is no friend of the Democrats either.

More amusing (if that is indeed the word) are some of the comments from that blog entry. This one for example:

NeoDude Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am

When has Right-Wing Nationalists (SALUTE!!!), in any Western tradition, not exploit a national tragedy?

Oh gosh, "Right-Wing nationalists." Codewords for fascists perhaps? Oh, the humanity!

How about this one (if you are a fan of conspiracy theories you will LOVE this one):

r. l. c. Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am

It really is obvious what happened here. These projects don’t get made overnight and when ABC Entertainment (NOT the news division) OK’ed this Bush was riding high - just been reelected and had increased majorities in both houses of Congress. And what were the pundits saying? Why the GOP wiould be ruling the roost for a long time to come and the Dems were in “Disarray� (a town near Vegas, I believe). So why not get in bed with right wing crazies? They would be in position to help the Mouse with issues like Intellectual Property and Media Ownership. Its not personal, just business.

(Hell Robert Iger was a Clinton Contributor, as were a lote of ABC/Disney Execs)

Sure the Dems would complain but what could they do? Well its now two months from an election that will probably produce a tsunami for them and the miniseries don’t look so hot now does it? That is what happens when you listen to experts!

Can you say "off base?"

But Marc's commenters are rational compared to others (although that is obviously not saying much). For example, Ann Althouse has a terrific post on some of these left-wing rantings here and she has a link pointing to something called "AMERICAblog" with some suggestions to sue, boycott etc Disney, ABC and Apple because of the so called docu-drama. A sample:

Certainly we're going to be live-blogging the show, Sunday and Monday. I'd appreciate those of you in Australia and New Zealand, if the show does air there shortly, please give us feedback as to what they cut and what's still in the show? It will give us a window as to what defamatory material Disney/ABC insisted on keeping in the show, which will help the lawsuits and our organizing.

Secondly, when the show airs in the US, if Disney/ABC still run it, I want to be sure a number of us are live-blogging it to list the defamation and the errors. If Disney/ABC insist on making a cartoon out one of the blackest days in America history, then we will hold them responsible."

Aren't these the same guys who "demand" freedom of speech on campuses and other venues? Does that apply only to speech from their side? Funny, I thought that speech was free for ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. I guess not. But I digress, as funny as the posting is, some of the comments (over 380 of them) are even funnier (or would stranger be a better word choice?) For example, this little bon mot:

I think iTunes is a really good place to hit Steve Jobs and Apple. It is direct and to the point, and it is not platform-based.

It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are offering this as a free download.

They would notice immediately if there was a slack-off in sales.

I have already written to Steve Jobs and the iTunes crew about this.
samia | 09.09.06 - 6:38 pm |

Wow, but this is mild compared to:

It appears that the governments use of the MSM for propaganda distribution is becoming extremely transparent. If we, as Americans, cannot stop this from happening, or becoming any worse, then we have lost the control of our public servents, and more drastic actions must be taken. Boycotts/leaflets/emails/videos/ demonstations etc.
Joe Danger | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 6:43 pm |"

Joe Danger, what a nom-de-pixel that is. Ok lets see, the government controls the MSM enough to make it a propaganda arm of the Bushies. So, how did the NYTimes sneak by with those "expose's" of our efforts to listen in to Al Qaeda or monitor financial transactions? Hmmmmm?

OK, how about this one:

As well as an organized and long-term boycott of Disney and ABC, we should use this opportunity to call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
nervesofsteel | 09.09.06 - 6:50 pm |"

OK, now that really is scary. The fairness doctrine was less about fairness than it was a way to silence the broadcasters (radio and TV) from airing any "political" speech because the so called doctrine would allow opposing views time on air. General Managers would have a scheduling nightmare and we'd loose talk radio and have to go back to elevator music. No thanks! One more reason not to elect Democrats or liberal Republicans. Oh, and by the way, the above commenter's nom-de-pixel is "nervesofsteel" More like "nerves-of-tinfoil." What a frightened little bunny!

The latest (well, maybe not the absolute latest) lefty "talking point" (I'm being generous here you understand) is that this is NOT the same as Michael Moore's fatuous "Farenheit 9/11" which everyone now says was a "polemic." A polemic?

WordNet
po·lem·ic (p-lmk): adj : of or involving dispute or controversy [syn: polemical] n 1: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) [syn: polemicist, polemist] 2: a controversy (especially over a belief or dogma)

Really, seems to me that at the time many on the left didn't see any controversy at all, it was truth and a terrific slam on the Bush Administration (note: Marc Cooper, always his own man, saw it different and the vast majority of his commenters agreed - at the time, not now; now it's just a polemic).

Again, I digress, the whole point of this little exercise is to point out the utter insanity of the left in regards to this docudrama. Reminds me of the "revised" words of the Bard: "The left doth protest too much, methinks."

Cross posted at The Real Ugly American

Update, I've only scratched the surface of the left's response to "The Pathway to 9-11" but James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has looked at how "The Left Remembers 9-11." It's an excellent read and I'm in awe of his article.

Russell Shaw - Is This Guy For Real?

WILL THE REAL RUSSELL SHAW PLEASE STAND UP?

Confused? Can't figure out if Russell Shaw is as his photograph on the Puffington Host, or a Pig, or a Death's Head? Well, after his latest, join the club, many others can't figure it out either. Because you see, Russell Shaw is a liar, a conman or perhaps evil in disguse as a member of the "reality based community" (or what ever the far left calls themselves these days). You decide:

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:

This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

This guy, despite his claims to the contrary, wonders if another terrorist attack wouldn't sicken enough Americans so that they would vote democratic and thus bring about all kinds of "goodies" that the Democrats want.

I can't figure it out, is he for real, a pig or a death's head? What say YOU?

Are Rodents More Important Than People?

The left is always complaining about inadequate housing for the poor. The left is always complaining about protecting habitats of wildlife. What happens when you have a choice to spend on one or the other? Do you have to guess? After all, this is the left that we're talking about, and it's their efforts that cause these budget choices.

Analysis: Beach mouse habitat will cost $18m - $51m

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service released a draft version of an economic analysis examining costs associated with designating parts of the Ft. Morgan Peninsula and areas around Gulf Shores as "critical habitat" for the endangered Alabama beach mouse. ...The report concludes that the costs associated with designating the beaches, scrub forests and high dune areas required to keep the mouse from becoming extinct would be somewhere between $18 million and $51 million.

Fifty-one million dollars! Wow! Would that ever impress Dr. Evil. With that money, are they preserving a habitat or buying them beach condos?

To play the game of the left, what would $51,000,000 buy?
▪ It would buy over 500 memberships at exclusive golf clubs.
▪ It would buy 850 Mercedes or BMWs.
▪ It would buy 250 club suites at major league stadiums.
You know, important stuff. Why, it would even come close to buying off the Democrats.

But, consider that $51,000,000 would also go a long way to feeding, sheltering, and educating the poor. But, in the world of the left, man and animal are equal. So, let's spend the money on a bunch of rodents that serve no purpose to my knowledge except to feed the rattlesnakes in the area, which I guess they also want protected.

Couldn't we just take half that money, give it to the mice, and tell them to move to Massachusetts? They can take the fleas that they carry, and maybe the rattlesnakes will follow them, too. Once there, all the rats and snakes will have a friendly habitat and be among their own. See I just saved half of fifty-one million and made Alabama a better place with my solution.

Did'ja Notice?

Has anyone besides me noticed that the left accepts the scientist's "consensus" on "Global Warming" cause "scientists" know better, but doesn't accept the Arab worlds "consensus" that Hezb'ollah is the aggressor here and needs to be stopped in spite of the fact that as muslims they probably know better also?

What is it with consensus? Is it the ruling meme or not? The world wants to know!!

What Does A Living Wage Look Like?

UNDER THE SPREADING CHESTNUT TREE THE VILLAGE SMITHY SNOOZES,
NO HORSE SINCE 1933 HAS COME TO HIM FOR SHOESES.
The Democratic Party and the left (not always the same thing) have been agitating for a substantial raise, to a "living wage" the federal minimum wage law. Currently, and for many years, the federal minimum wage has been $5.15 an hour and the generic left (in which this time I'm including the Democrats) would like to see that raised. I've seen suggestions ranging from $6.00 an hour up to $12.00 an hour. When anyone suggests that price increases passed on by businesses and or job loss from small firms may result, the outcry typically is that Republicans and Conservatives (again, not necessarily the same thing) hate the poor and don't want the rich to have to pay anything out of their pockets. And, depending on the blog you go to, the language to describe generic conservatives (this time I'm including Republicans) is a whole lot worse.

Well, the fact of the matter is that there will be a tradeoff. Companies, large and small will either have to raise prices and/or lay folk off in order to keep profit margins within the realm of feasibility. What's that you say? No they won't? How silly, of course they will. No politician is going to pass a law limiting profit (unless it's big oil and a windfall profits tax - and you see how well the last one worked) because they know that the funds for re-election come essentially from the pockets of investors and owners of small and large businesses. So, ask for the moon, you have as much a chance of getting that.

But, I digress, back to the issue of the minimum wage. Many states and localities have already passed minimum wages for residents in their respective political subdivisisons, so why aren't the generic leftists prodding them for increases and the rest of the country to catch up? Simple really, again politics. To effectively "buy" votes for the Democratic Party, there needs to be a national stage for Democratic politicians to run from.

It just won't do to have a bunch of Democrats touting a higher minimum wage as a local issue (although they are doing so for state wide initiatives). Ahhhh, but "The Democratic Party forced the administration to raise the minimum wage can be a national cry and be much more effective. But, that is still not the whole answer.

The rest of the answer lies in the amount of the raise. If $9.00 an hour is "OK" but not where it should be, why stop at $9.00, or $10.00 or even $15.00? Let us go all the way to $30.00 an hour for all entry level jobs, regardless of skills, education, or experience. Those don't matter anyway, because a minimum wage is just that... the minimum that you can pay someone for work received. But, you know, I've never had a generic lefty say "OK, you bet, let's do it." They all say something along the lines of "Don't be ridiculous." But, I'm not being ridiculous! If that, or some other figure exceeding a figure of say $18.00 an hour is what it takes to reach the "livable wage" criteria, why heck, lets do it.

If we did however, while the Democrats could claim victory for that election's pandering, it wouldn't hold up over the long term. No, not even close, in fact the resulting economic displacement and chaos would be horrendous. You see, the Democratic party really doesn't give a damn my dear, about the "little guy" they only want policies that insure his vote. Look at all the "grand coalition" of special interest groups called the Democratic Party and where they are today. The Democrats ruled congress and the senate from 1954 through 1994, with a single exception of the U.S. Senate on the coattails of Ronald Reagan's landslide, and that only lasted a couple of years. Are those groups substantially any better off now than they were then? Blacks? The Poor? The Hungry? The Homeless? Labor? Or, as it seems to me the Dems are running on the same issues that they have always run on? Except of course when a Democrat is in the White House. Whole different ballgame then friends.

So, why not raise the minimum wage all the way at one time? Because they want to use that issue again, and again, and again. $7.00 an hour now, in a couple of years, another $0.75 then another a dozen years after that. Each time decrying the lack of a livable wage. Yeppers dearly beloved readers, a platform they can run on forever, and never be held accountable for. No wonder the horses haven't been to the smithy since '33, same old tired platform, same old tired policy.

Thoughtful comments from generic lefties requested. No vitriol please or I'll take your comment down.

More on the Minimum Wage and other egregious fibs from my good friend Donald Luskin on my blogroll, who writes "The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid." By the Bye, if Luskin isn't on your favorites list, he ought to be.

It Takes the Mind of a Liberal

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled it constitutional for citizens to vote on an amendment which would overturn the ruling allowing gay marriage. What I have trouble with is the basis of the lawsuit opposing the right to vote on the amendment. Read this paragraph from the AP Article carefully with emphasis mine:

The ruling came on a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to certify the question because the state's constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.

I'm not making a statement on the issue at hand and I'm not making a legal judgment, but is there something wrong with this rationale? If a judge makes a ruling, which may overturn a legislative act, then no one should have the right to vote on overturning the judges later on--ever?! Why don't we just get rid of governors and legislators and even the voters?

It takes the mind of a liberal to come up with such a twisted scheme for governing. This time the justices ruled on the law rather than their preferences. But, if it were not for activist judges in most cases, the left wouldn't have much say so in government.

Why I Don't Want to be More Like Europe: Now, Rights for Apes

Only the left could consider apes their equals. I, of course, don't see it that way. Apes are much more intelligent. But, apes are not human and do not rank being given the same rights...at least, in my opinion. Nevertheless, the Spanish government has joined the growing class of wackos and is ready to grant new rights to these animals.

Here's the gist of the story:

"Spain could soon become the first country in the world to give chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes some of the fundamental rights granted to human beings under a law being proposed by members of the ruling Socialist coalition."

Well, there are plenty who see this as progress and the next important step, since we've conquered cancer and have world peace. Here is a group supporting this act: GRASP: Great Ape Standing & Personhood No, you read their site yourself. I can't do them justice.

On a more sane level, this group sees things in a different light: The Center for Consumer Freedom.

I guess that Charlton Heston's statement, "...you damned dirty ape!" will no longer be politically correct. But, if we give the apes an inch then they'll take a mile. How long do you think it will be before Democrats want to give them the right to vote? Finally, here's what you might expect if we encourage the apes to seek more rights and power:

Continue reading "Why I Don't Want to be More Like Europe: Now, Rights for Apes"

Wild Eyed Liberal Alert

Who is this "Wild Eyed" Fellow? Why does he imagine that we on the right side of center are not on to him? Well, if you guessed that he is Markos Moulitsas of "The Daily Kos" give yourself two brownie points and the secure knowledge that you know the enemy. This portrait is courtesy of the indomitable Tim Blair who picked up on MM's stint on CNN's Reliable Sources as reported by Ian at Expose The Left.

I remember the uproar caused by Kos's remarks "Screw Them" when referring to the four security people murdered by the islamo-fascists, their bodies burned beyond recognition, and hoisted on a bridge upright. He was insensitive then (oh yes, boys and girls, the left is far more insensitive then almost anyone on the right) and more so now. Read his blather when questioned by Howard Kurtz:

KURTZ: Now as you know, “National Review’s� Byron York resurrected a quote from you, this was after four American contractors were killed in Iraq in 2004. The quote was, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They are there to wage war for profits, screw them. You dealt with this at the time and you expressed regret. My question is, are you prepared for the extra scrutiny that comes with this higher profile you have, whether you particularly want to be out there as the symbol of the blogging movement or not?

MOULITSAS: Absolutely. To me in a way it’s funny that they have not updated their talking points in two years. And so they want to keep resurrecting an old quote, there’s nothing I can do about it. What I can do is I can say the fact is the reason; the context for that quote was solidarity with my brothers and sisters in arms, Marines and soldiers. I wore combat boots. I served during the first Gulf war and people are making a choice between private armies and mercenaries. I make my choice. I stand behind our men and women in uniform and I’m not going to apologize for that. But they’re going to keep resurrecting that and that’s fine. That’s what they do. They smear, they attack, they don’t like the fact that people are getting engaged in politics, that people are getting involved. There are too many turf to protect so they’ll keep doing that and that’s fine. I can fight back. [Emphasis provided in the original at Expose The Left]

Well, let us take a look at Kos's "claim" that he served during Gulf War I (and don't you think that he sounds like he had boots on the ground in the middle east?), but I digress, here is his statement:

...the context for that quote was solidarity with my brothers and sisters in arms, Marines and soldiers. I wore combat boots. I served during the first Gulf war and people are making a choice between private armies and mercenaries."

The reality is:

And this little gem from his bio: Immediately after high school, at the age of 17, I enrolled in the US Army, and served in Lawton, Oklahoma and Bamberg, Germany. I was a 13P—an MLRS/Lance Fire Direction Specialist (artillery), and served between 1989-92.

1st off private, you ENLIST in the Army, not ENROLL. This ain’t charm school, Cupcake. Secondly, you were TRAINED at Fort Sill (Lawton) you didn’t SERVE there.

And since you were stationed in Bamberg, Germany, you fired the weapon system approximately ZERO times during your entire “career� as a soldier. Thanks for serving your country in Germany during the Gulf War and keeping the German economy going by patriotically guzzling gallons of Hefe Weizen.

Imagine the guy in the picture coordinating the fire of a system designed to flatten an entire square kilometer. Be afraid, be very afraid.

This little gem was provided by a comment from "Texas Bob" on Tim's post. Delightful if you ask me, and of course, it had to come from a Texan.

Again, I digress. It seems that Kos thinks that the right is upset because “they� are getting engaged in politics. Wrong-O Kos, totally wrong! We are upset because you think you have a lock on truth, you think you own the Democratic Party and we think you are leading the left in entirely the wrong direction from what is best for America. Get real Kos, get real!

CBS: Rather Not Here

I'm not gloating. Are you? We have more class than that, don't we? Well, we should.

Final Day at CBS

Here's the story of Dan Rather's final farewell with CBS:

Dan Rather Signs Off
Veteran Newsman Exits CBS After 44 Years With Tiffany Network
New York, June 20, 2006

Like Nixon was to Dan Rather, Dan Rather is to us. We won't have him to kick around anymore. We'll miss his legacy, his Ratherisms, and his "fake but accurate" memos. But, CBS will give us a new line of liberals to take up his cause and provide us with new material.

So, as a last sign off to Dan Rather: Courage...and, don't forget that frequency.

The Limits Of Tolerance

If you know anything about me, you know that I am intolerant. I wear that as a badge of honor and see it as the ultimate in human intelligence, intellect and education. "Roper, are you out of your mind?" I can hear you saying. No, I'm not, and if you read on you will discover what I mean.

Tolerance, as foisted on the denizens of western civilization is an outgrowth of the '60s and '70s growth of "self esteemism" and psychobabble such as "I'm O.K., You're OK." Having participated in some of that dreck, I know whereof I speak, but it didn't take me long to figure out that "When everything is tolerated, then nothing is sacred and evil is unrestrained."

Tolerance: tol•er•ance pronunciation – tol-er-ens:

The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."

Recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others - nothing is sacred and evil is unrestrained. Yes, these two concepts are greatly connected and should be, I repeat, should be a strong hint to the rational individual that tolerance is not the way to practice human relationships. Yet, there is room for tolerance, and that too should be obvious to the rational among us. For example, I am more than willing to tolerate the religious beliefs of others when those other's beliefs also tolerate the religious beliefs of others. As a Christian, I tolerate the beliefs of Hinduists, Confucionists, animists, Jewish folk etc. I'm intolerant to a large degree, though I accept their freedom to worship as they choose, of those who believe that their faith is the only "allowable" faith. I do not believe, for example, that as a Methodist, all Baptists are doomed to hellfire and brimstone. Nor do I accept that only the Roman Catholic faith is the only way to heaven. Nor do I accept that Mohammad is the ONLY prophet of Allah or even that Islam is the "one true faith."

Continue reading "The Limits Of Tolerance"

The Left Is Just Nuts - George Galloway Evades Nurse Kratchet

I've mentioned before that the left is full of people who deal in situational ethics. Anything is okay to them if it is for a cause that they support. Why do I say anything? Well, take this exchange between a reporter and Hussein's paid-off waterboy, George Galloway:

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked [MP George Galloway]: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

Was this a statement made when he was taken off guard? Well, consider another action of his according to this article on his own web site:

Controversial British MP George Galloway has made a surprise appearance on live Cuban television.

He defended Cuban President Fidel Castro against allegations made by a US magazine that he has amassed a personal fortune of $900m (£477m). Mr Galloway said the article was part of a "Yankee imperialist" conspiracy.

He describes Fidel Castro as the living person he most admires.

You would think that the left would be proud of his comments and would be seconding them.

Selective Outrages of the Left

Why do the animal rights folk attack women in fur coats and not those wearing leather Jackets? Both are from "bred" animals, in both cases the wearer is wearing an animal by-product.

Ahh, but the answer is EASY: It is safer to attack middle-aged society women than it is to try to spray-paint a bunch of bikers. Simple, really simple.

Cheerfully taken from a comment by Mark who blogs at Marked Up Thanks Mark, your blog is a good one too.

What Government Intimidation?

For you people on the left who think we should pay more in taxes, here's someone who would love to have your names and social security numbers just so that you can do that.

IRS Employee from Hell

Eva Temple was a quality analyst at the IRS with a serious anger management problem. After harassing and threatening her landlord, Temple was arrested. She was abusive to the arresting officers and threatened them with audits. Then, when the IRS fired her for unrelated reasons, she left threatening voice mail messages for the person responsible for terminating her.

Marc Cooper: Just Can't Help Himself!

One of my favorite blogs, and one that I read at least daily is Marc Cooper's site. Truth in Advertising: Marc is my blogfather. Having said that, I will also state that I seldom agree with him about anything. But, from the beginning there was a sympatico between at least he and I if not between other righties and him. Marc generally holds fast to his lefty origins, he espouses all the right (left?) causes for all the right (left?) reasons. But one of the things I really like about Marc is that he has never been two faced about anything. He pounds the left almost as often as the right. When he says something, I pay attention, even when I disagree with him (and I do, about 99% of the time).

Marc has signed on to the Euston Manifesto and blogged about it here. Typically, some of the harder left members of his commentarian peanut gallery have taken him to task. Read the whole thing, read the comments and you will get an elightenment about how the hard left excommunicates anyone who dares to disagree with them. That is one of the reasons the left is so hard to take.

And, while the Right also has it's "true believers" many if not most of us who are conservative argue from principle (and no, I don't expect you lefties out there to agree with that statement) and not from emotion. The left is a feel good place, the right tends to be more practical. If you don't believe that the left will excommunicate you, just read Democratic Underground or the Daily Kos for any and all proof that any ordinary person would need.

So, Marc, your blogson wishes you well! I have a few beers set aside for you anytime you get down to South Texas and I'll still read your blog, even though you are usually wrong about things. God speed blogdad, God speed.

Global Warming - Cause and Effect [UPDATED]

*

Left: Cause of Unwarranted Hysteria................Right: Effect of Natural Changes

....................

Time's latest contribution to hyped-up hysteria, as pictured on the left (appropriately), starts with this headline on global warming: "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point."

On the right, is an animated map from the Illinois State Museum showing the retreating North American ice sheet over the millennia after the end of the last ice age.

You can draw one of two conclusions: Either (1) the Earth has been warming naturally for the last 11,000 years or (2) prehistoric man was bad, bad, bad, and started the chain of events leading to melting glaciers today.

Early Man Emits Carbon into the Atmosphere

Innocent or guilty? Did prehistoric man trade his comfort for the devastation of future generations?

To Freed Hostages - You're Welcome. So, be Christian about it.

How typical of the left. The organization and families of American activists, operating under a Christian banner and who were kidnapped and held hostage in Iraq, have not acted very Christian after they were freed by our armed forces. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed, but none came. Not only that, they blamed OUR government for the kidnapping and referred to our soldiers who freed them simply as occupiers. Still, our military does the right thing and risks the lives of soldiers to save even Americans who don't like them or appreciate them.

Here is coverage on the rescue of and responses about the three remaining workers of Christian Peacemaker Teams--freed in Baghdad and saved from the fate of another member who was murdered by terrorists in the region: The New York Times, Associated Press, and Canada's Pulse 24. What you don't see is any appreciation to our forces--but, only disdain for them. Am I missing something?

Maybe members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams should actually take a moment to learn lessons about an ungrateful heart or spirit of ingratitude by going here, here, or here--just in case they don't remember where they misplaced their Bibles.

via Drudge Report

Two Views on a National Leadership Style - Male and Female

Here are excerpts from two articles, which contrast the leadership styles of President Bush and the Clinton's--in terms of male and female qualities. Which is preferable and when?

First, President Bush....

Man Overboard, By Ruth Marcus, WashingtonPost.com, Tuesday, March 21, 2006; A17

I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.

"Manliness" is the unapologetic title of a new book by Harvey C. Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University.... Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as "confidence in the face of risk," is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.

Manliness, he writes, "seeks and welcomes drama and prefers times of war, conflict, and risk." It entails assertiveness, even stubbornness, and craves power and action. It explains why men, naturally inclined to assert that "our policy, our party, our regime is superior," dominate in the political sphere.

..."The problem of manliness is not that it does not exist," Mansfield concludes. "It does exist, but it is unemployed." Well, um, excuse me, but I think -- it's just my opinion, now, maybe you disagree, and I'm sure we could work it out -- Mansfield has it exactly backward. Manliness does exist. The problem is that it's overemployed -- nowhere more than in this administration.

...The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined. (Okay, there were some unfortunate, testosterone-filled moments, too.)

...But the manliness of the Bush White House has a darker side that has proved more curse than advantage. The prime example is the war in Iraq....

...Mansfield writes that he wants to "convince skeptical readers -- above all, educated women" -- that "irrational manliness deserves to be endorsed by reason." Sorry, professor: You lose. What this country could use is a little less manliness -- and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt.

But that's just my view.

Hmmm, womanly qualities include restraint and self-doubt??? This from a woman? Maybe she should have applied some restraint and self-doubt before she wrote that.

Okay, now for the Clinton's....

I'm boss, Hil Tells Bill; By Kenneth R. Bazinet, Daily News Washington Bureau, Monday, March 20th, 2006

After being surprised by her husband's role in the Dubai ports deal, Sen. Hillary Clinton has insisted that Bill Clinton give her "final say" over what he says and does, well-placed sources said.

..."He knows it's Hillary's time now," said an adviser close to both Clintons who expects to play a key role in her likely 2008 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton's handlers are keeping a close rein on the former President's schedule to try to prevent another embarrassing screwup like their competing roles in the Dubai ports deal.

..."Hillary has final say," said the adviser, and the ex-President's staff has been warned not to do or say anything without running it by the senator's handlers.

"That was true in the White House during the [2000] Senate campaign," recalled another longtime aide who stayed close to the ex-President after he left office. "If he said the sky was blue and she said the sky was purple, then the sky was purple."

...Bill Clinton jokingly admits he's a liability. "It's fun to be able to say what you want, and I do that, but I do try to avoid doing anything that complicates Hillary's life," he says in a now-routine line in his public remarks. ........

Yeah, Bill, you wimp. You watch what you say, not because you don't want to complicate Hillary's life, but, because you don't want to complicate yours--not that I blame you, especially if I had to share a house with her...but, let's hope it's never the White House, again.

Well, in my view, if the first writer worries about the testosterone level in the Bush White House, then she will have a real shock coming if Hillary Clinton gets elected. On the qualities of a government being "male of female," in times of war and crisis I'll take someone who will kick some tails and take names later. But, I want the male qualities that will solve problems rather than qualities that are only interested in domination and holding power...which seem the way that they are expressed by the Clinton's.

Hollywood Sees a Need and Answers

Was there really a big demand for this movie? "Sarandon to Play Cindy Sheehan in Movie" I could watch a Jane Fonda film before this one. At least Fonda looked good.

Marine Ace Who Downed 28 Enemy Planes Is Downed Himself by Snot-Nosed College Student

It's so typical. University students get infected with academic liberalism and take great pride and glee at attacking and destroying the memory, reputation, and heroic deeds of our military. The latest victim at the hands of the left was a military hero for whom a memorial was proposed by the student senate at the University of Washington. Here are the credentials of this hero. Can you guess his name before I reach the end? ...Medal of Honor winner, Navy Cross recipient, Purple Heart recipient (won honestly, John Kerry), World War II Marine combat pilot hero, destroyed twenty-eight Japanese aircraft, survived Japanese POW camp, and a graduate of the university snubbing him. Who is he? Colonel Gregory "Pappy" Boyington of the famed Blacksheep Squadron

Neal Boortz had an excellent entry on this matter, which was covered by the WorldNetDaily. The complete discussion by the students is documented by a copy of the 02/07/2006 minutes of the Washington student senate meeting. Here is part of Boortz's article.

Under old business there was a discussion of a resolution calling for a tribute to Pappy Boyington. Student senate member Jill Edwards immediately moved to table the resolution. She wanted other issues to be considered. Another member said that the issue was at the top of the agenda and should be dealt with. Jill's motion failed, but she wasn't through. There was then some discussion on why Andrew Everett, another student senate member, wanted the memorial. Everett responded that Colonel Boyington "had many of the qualities the University of Washington hoped to produce in its students." Well, I guess that might be true, if leadership and courage are considered to be good qualities. Anyway ... that's when Jill Edwards spoke up and showed her true colors. She questioned whether it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people. Then the lovely Jill Edwards said that a member of the Marine Corps was not an example of the sort of person the University of Washington wanted to produce. By the way .. there's at least one more moonbat on the U of W student senate. Her name is Ashley Miller. Ashley says that there are already enough monuments at UW commemorating "rich white men." Well .. I guess you have to get that wealth-envy stuff in there somewhere.

(Note: Boyington was not rich and, in addition, he was part Sioux, according to the discussion at Paradosis, of which the writer personally knew the man.)

Lasting Memorial for Denounced "Person Who Killed Other People"

How pathetic of the student representatives at the University of Washington. How pathetic and typical of the arrogant and unappreciative attitudes of those in college academics. Maybe the next time that they want protection from our enemies or terrorists, they can find someone who can stop the attackers without killing them. Maybe one day they will learn that war is fought with bullets and not college text books.

Marine Ace Who Downed 28 Enemy Planes Is Downed Himself by Snot-Nosed College Student

It's so typical. University students get infected with academic liberalism and take great pride and glee at attacking and destroying the memory, reputation, and heroic deeds of our military. The latest victim at the hands of the left was a military hero for whom a memorial was proposed by the student senate at the University of Washington. Here are the credentials of this hero. Can you guess his name before I reach the end? ...Medal of Honor winner, Navy Cross recipient, Purple Heart recipient (won honestly, John Kerry), World War II Marine combat pilot hero, destroyed twenty-eight Japanese aircraft, survived Japanese POW camp, and a graduate of the university snubbing him. Who is he? Colonel Gregory "Pappy" Boyington of the famed Blacksheep Squadron

Neal Boortz had an excellent entry on this matter, which was covered by the WorldNetDaily. The complete discussion by the students is documented by a copy of the 02/07/2006 minutes of the Washington student senate meeting. Here is part of Boortz's article.

Under old business there was a discussion of a resolution calling for a tribute to Pappy Boyington. Student senate member Jill Edwards immediately moved to table the resolution. She wanted other issues to be considered. Another member said that the issue was at the top of the agenda and should be dealt with. Jill's motion failed, but she wasn't through. There was then some discussion on why Andrew Everett, another student senate member, wanted the memorial. Everett responded that Colonel Boyington "had many of the qualities the University of Washington hoped to produce in its students." Well, I guess that might be true, if leadership and courage are considered to be good qualities. Anyway ... that's when Jill Edwards spoke up and showed her true colors. She questioned whether it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people. Then the lovely Jill Edwards said that a member of the Marine Corps was not an example of the sort of person the University of Washington wanted to produce. By the way .. there's at least one more moonbat on the U of W student senate. Her name is Ashley Miller. Ashley says that there are already enough monuments at UW commemorating "rich white men." Well .. I guess you have to get that wealth-envy stuff in there somewhere.

(Note: Boyington was not rich and, in addition, he was part Sioux, according to the discussion at Paradosis, of which the writer personally knew the man.)

Lasting Memorial for Denounced "Person Who Killed Other People"

How pathetic of the student representatives at the University of Washington. How pathetic and typical of the arrogant and unappreciative attitudes of those in college academics. Maybe the next time that they want protection from our enemies or terrorists, they can find someone who can stop the attackers without killing them. Maybe one day they will learn that war is fought with bullets and not college text books.

V.P. Cheney Causes Hunting Accident, But The Left "Shoots from the Lip" and Misfires

As you may have heard, V.P. Dick Cheney accidentally peppered a hunting companion with birdshot. According to Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch were the accident occured: "It broke the skin. It knocked him silly. But he was fine. Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there..." According to reports, the injured man is in stable condition and being treated at the hospital. It was an accident, but a very interesting part is how gun control advocates immediately reacted with hysteria and irrationality.

Release by Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

James and Sarah Brady Comment on the Vice President's Hunting Mishap

"Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him," said Jim Brady. "I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog - and I thought he was an idiot."

"I've thought Cheney was scary for a long time," Sarah Brady said. "Now I know I was right to be nervous."

There you have it. There was a hunting accident--an accident--caused by the Vice President and "activists against gun violence" make Dick Cheney their latest notorious threat to the safety of humanity. I know that Jim Brady suffered brain damage in the attempted assassination of President Reagan, but what's the excuse of others who hate all guns except those held by government?

By the way, check out the linked article covering this story. You have to love the picture of V.P. Cheney that they selected. Certainly, no bias intended, huh?

On a somewhat related and ironic note, in 2001 there was a Saturday Night Live opening skit where President Bush discussed the future of the nation:

President George W. Bush: ...Okay, listen.. I'm just gonna get this Address thing over with. As we assess the State of the American Union today, we have reason to hope, because.. [ takes out a map which shows California and Florida as islands, Texas in Communist Mexico, and the Great Lakes on fire ] Holy crap! When did all this happen?! Wow.. the Great Lakes are on fire - even I know that's not good. [ laughs ] Okay, America, we got a lot of problems. I ain't gonna lie to you. But with the help of Vice-President Dick Cheney..

Voice of Advisor: You killed him in a hunting accident!

You're going to hear a lot of irrational reactions and accusations from the left about this accident. Just remind them that no one drowned and that no one "committed suicide" on the hunt.

Miser Refuses to Sell Land to Support Family - Who is he and why?

What do you think of a miser who owns more land than he needs or can maintain, and yet he refuses to sell any of it to support his family? He says that he wants to save the land for his future grandchildren, but his own children need money for school and living needs today. In fact, he even demands that other people pay his bills so that he does not have to sell the land at all. What kind of selfish idiot is someone who hoards possessions rather than handle his obligations? Well, you ask, just who is this miser? Why, he's no more than liberals and the Democratic Party that are fighting efforts of President Bush to sell excess and useless federal land to raise money for schools and roads in those rural counties hurt by reductions in logging on nearby federal lands. The Democrats are opposing the sale of government property partly because they don't like the seller, President Bush, and they don't like possible buyers, businesses that can make this property productive. Here are excerpts about the sale in a story from AP with underlined emphasis added:

The Bush administration on Friday detailed its proposal to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and other public land to help pay for rural schools in 41 states. The land sales, ranging from less than an acre to more than 1,000 acres, could total more than $1 billion and would be the largest sale of forest land in decades.

...Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy, said the parcels to be sold are isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet the needs of the national forest system. The administration expects to have to sell only about 200,000 of the 309,000 acres identified Friday to meet the $800 million goal, he said. "These are not the crown jewels we are talking about," Rey said in an interview.

The proposed sell-off would total less than half of 1 percent of the 193 million-acre national forest system. The money would be used for roads, schools and other needs in rural counties hurt by sharp declines in timber sales, in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Land Management, which previously said it will sell another 125,000 acres, said BLM land to be sold would be identified at the local level. The lands are typically part of a checkerboard pattern of small parcels surrounded by suburban or urban areas, Interior officials say, and have been identified as holding little natural, historical, cultural or energy value.

To be fair, let's see what is being said by those who oppose the sale.

At The Wilderness Society, Dave Alberswerth said the plan would privatize treasured public lands to pay for "tax cuts to the rich." Another spokesman, Mike Anderson, said, "I am outraged, and I don't think the public is going to stand for it for one minute. It's a scheme to raise money at the expense of the national forests, the wildlife, recreation and all the other values that Americans hold dear. It's the ultimate threat to the national forest."
(My response: Oh, it's a scheme! And, the government is selling a checker board of less than 200,000 out of its 193,000,000 acres, and that's a threat to the national forest!?)

From the Democrats, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA called it "a terrible idea based on a misguided sense of priorities. ...Here the administration wants to pass more tax cuts for the rich, and to pay the bill, they want to sell off public land - our nation's natural heritage." Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM said, “"Our hunters, anglers, campers and other recreational users benefit from � and depend on � access to public lands,. Selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a short-sighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in federal land management policy. ...just to make the administration’s budget numbers look better.�
(My response: So, let's not sell excess land and get the money from "the rich" instead, and let's not help Bush balance the budget. Well, it sounds like wealth envy plus intentions to sabotage a balanced budget.)

Lynn Adler runs the Sacramento-based Mountain Lion Foundation, which is dedicated to preserving open space for big cats. She says each mountain lion needs 100 acres of space- about the amount of acreage that's proposed for sale in the Angeles National Forest."
(My response: Yeah, let's raise more mountain lions close to where people live. Children and pets taste good to them!)

At the Huffington Post, the headline states, "National Forest For Sale! Bush Admin. To Sell To Highest Bidder..."
(My response: Gasp! How awful. Not to the highest bidder!)

And, besides the benefits listed in the article above, what are we hearing from those who support the sale?

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy, said, "This is a reasonable proposal to take a small fraction of a percentage of national land which is the least necessary and use it for those in need and achieve an important overarching public purpose."

Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, said "Private property will end up in the possession of those who value it the most. That is an iron law of economics."

The administration says this plan will extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, signed by President Clinton in 2000 and set to expire next year, by using the land sales to offset the program's cost. This act has sent over $1.5 billion to counties hurt by reduced timber sales on national forests.

My view? If this country has excess assets, then it should sell those assets to offset the national debt and fund worthwhile programs. In addition, private enterprise can use this land productively and pay local property taxes that the counties don't get now. Unlike the miser, there is no need for hoarding--unless you're a Democrat who can think of one need...to hurt the Republicans at the expense of our citizens.

Muhammad Cartoons: Flush Out Offenders and Wipe Away Problem

- G.M. is still recovering nicely and communicated that it would be nice if we did a post on the controversy over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Naturally, in his interest, I warned him that some Muslim may not like it and could stand on his oxygen tube. Nevertheless, as a good soldier, I follow orders. It's his hide, and he's not around to deny this, anyway...so, here goes. Well, why is there controversy? Why are people apologizing over these cartoons or else running for the hills if they don't?

Do you remember when The National Endowment for the Arts funded and defended art work offensive to decent people and Christians? They felt that they could take money from taxpayers and use that money to insult those taxpayers by claiming freedom of speech and expression. (Hey, guys, do your freedom of speech thing with your own money.) Nevertheless, we were forced to pay for "Piss Christ," a crucifix submerged in a plastic container filled with the artist's own urine. Did you have any problem with that? Did you see tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets and threatening death to the artist? No, and I also sure didn't see any liberals rushing to apologize for the offending art work. But, this is different...or, maybe, they're scared to death of retaliation.

But, I have to agree that the Muhammad depictions have gotten out of hand. In fact, the White House has denounced changes to some government bathroom facilities, as they relate to this issue. I am presenting this only as a public service to show examples of offensive material and what types of things we should avoid and not pass along. I know that you will respect the spirit of this and take it with the sincerity offered. I suspect that G.M. would agree, but I'm probably lucky that he hasn't gotten out of the hospital yet.

Click on the "Continued" link to view the latest controversial art.

Continue reading "Muhammad Cartoons: Flush Out Offenders and Wipe Away Problem"

Cindy Sheehan, Proud Member of the Left - Runs Mouth, Not Race

Well, California Sen. Diane Feinsten and President Bush can relax and take a deep breath. Cindy Sheehan just announced that she has decided against running for the U.S. Senate. What a shocker. And, she had so much support! (Remember the lines at her book signings?) Now, Sheehan can devote full time to putting her face on the left and the Democratic Party who have cheered her in her protests against our nation, our president, and our military-and just in time for the Fall elections. The CNN report gave us more about her announcement and the effect on the crowd:

Behind her, supporters held a sign that said, "Peace is the most noble cause." A young girl clutched a sign that read, "Peace and love are the ONLY noble cause."

Well, good. Now that we find that national healthcare, stopping global warming, and abortion are not included in noble causes, can we take those hyped-up issues away from the Democrats? Hey, aren't "peace and love" two causes--not one? Maybe teaching the left to count would be a noble cause.

Liberals Tolerate Liberals--and, That's About All

This begins the first entry by Liberty Dog.

For as long as I can remember, the left side of the spectrum has been devoid of new ideas. I guess that they have just become so comfortable recycling the threadbare ideas of Marx and Ingles that they have, in their own minds, reached the apex of economic and political thought. This is, of course, unfortunate because as such notions are propagated, useful skills such as critical thought are abandoned.

However, at some point one new realization did manage to ooze its way up through the miasma of leftist thought: the largest portion of the American public will not accept these ideas on their face. Therefore, it became necessary to dress them up and obfuscate the consequences of these ideas in order to push them into the public domain. That is when leftists embarked on a campaign of lexicon transmogrification. Words such as "liberal" were co-opted from the classical liberals to be used as part of effort to make stale lines of thought more palatable to the masses. When "liberal" started leaving a bitter taste in people's mouths, "progressive" was adopted as its ideological offsping.

In addition to morphing words for their own ends, leftists started taking cues from Madison Avenue and put buzzwords to use. Today's bucket-o-buzz contains such gems as "reality based community," "multi-culturalism," and "the party of tolerance." Though the humor of the first term is self-evident, it is the last that always makes me chuckle. I laugh because when I hear the word "tolerance" I always think of its base word "tolerate." Tolerate, as leftists proclaim themselves to be using it, means To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others). Tolerate, as actually practiced by leftists, means To put up with; endure.

By claiming the use of the first definition, leftists are free to wallow in their own self-righteousness. In reality (except the "reality" of the "reality based community") leftist are merely putting up with the various groups they feign concern for in order to get their support come election time. This becomes blatantly obvious when you look at the ideas and programs put forth by the left for the benefit of these groups. Programs such as affirmative action do not show respect for minorities, they are condescending insults that say to a person, "Look, we know that you are incapable of competing on your own merits and abilities, therefore we will make things easier for you."

While there are undoubtedly a great many proponents of such measures who are ignorant of the backhanded racism they are practicing, I have to believe that this is such a blatant slap in the face to those it is supposed helps, those advocating them must be aware of it. You better believe the minorities it is directed at understand it for what it really is, but like any other beneficiary of pork accept it as long as the benefits keep coming. People, like water and electricity, tend to take the path of least resistance when seeking to achieve a goal.

The question that all this leaves me asking is why. Why have those on the right allowed those on the left to play such word games and why are so many reticent to call these leftist ideas what they really are: racist, regressive and condescending? My guess is that even though a majority of Americans are not buying what the leftists are selling when they step into the voting booth, the leftists have been fairly successful at perpetuating their myths in the public arena, leaving those on the right afraid of being called mean-hearted, uncaring, or even racist if they dare speak out against leftist policies. Of course, like all fears, the only way to overcome it is to face it head on.

Authored by Liberty Dog

Air Force One - Up Close and Personal

Today I saw Air Force One parked at the airport, which I thought was pretty cool, so I took a picture of it to show the kids.

This is not my picture. When I tried to proudly display the proof of my seeing the plane from fairly close, the digital image had totally disappeared! I couldn't have made a careless error like failing to save it correctly. So, I checked some left-wing, conspiratorial sites, and they confirm that there are, in fact, secret emissions and signals coming from Air Force One to not only erase unauthorized pictures, but tap into the brains, yes brains, of average citizens. Lucky for the left that they don't have anything to be tapped. Tomorrow, I think I'll get my camera checked.

Manners Escape the Left - Disgrace King Funeral

As I discuss issues with people on the left (why, oh, why do I do that?), I often find that they lack any class at all. (What a surprise.) It's almost as if they have a unique form of Tourette's syndrome which causes them to blurt out leftist slogans and political drivel at inappropriate times. Hollywood stars are famous for this at award shows. Today, we saw a classic case of the left using the podium and cameras to make statements totally inappropriate for the occasion--a funeral, of all things! At the church services for Coretta Scott King, Rev. Joseph Lowery of the SCLC and President Jimmy Carter both used their allocated time to honor Mrs. King by launching into attacks of President Bush seated behind them--the President of our country who took the time to come down for the funeral and to speak a few words in honor of the deceased. Much of Lowery's and Carter's audience punctuated the bad behavior with clapping and laughter. What a total disgrace and lack of class.

From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The funeral tributes for Coretta Scott King took a twist toward political rally when the Rev. Joseph Lowery criticized President Bush’s policies on Iraq and military spending.

Former President Jimmy Carter also took a swipe at the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

Lowery, the 85-year-old friend and former lieutenant of Martin Luther King Jr., launched his criticism with a smile as Bush and First Lady Laura Bush sat behind him.

And more from The Drudge Report:

Today's memorial service for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King -- billed as a "celebration" of her life -- turned suddenly political as one former president took a swipe at the current president, who was also lashed by an outspoken black pastor!

The outspoken Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ripped into President Bush during his short speech, ostensibly about the wife of Martin Luther King Jr. "She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said. The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation.

A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably.

Former President Jimmy Carter later swung at Bush as well, not once but twice. As he talked about the Kings, he said: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." The crowd cheered.... Later, Carter said Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America.

You would think that there could be one occasion, just one, where politics could take a back seat to decency. But, never with the left. They are so desperate for attention and approval, that they pick their audiences and act up like the bad boys in grammar school trying to get laughs from their classmates. Don't most people grow out of that?

The next time I attend a funeral where there is political speech from the left, you will find that I have left.

"This Makes It Real"

ABC's Bob Woodruff was wounded in Iraq covering the Iraqi forces. He and his cameraman suffered serious but not fatal wounds and are being treated in Germany.

That is the story so far, but the blow-dried talking heads want to make this into a cause célèbre. On ABC's "Good Morning America," Diane Sawyer, Elizabeth Vargas and ABC News President David Westin talked about Woodruff's injuries:

SAWYER: "To that point, being in the Iraqi vehicle was part of the story. The story right now is the Iraqi troops traveling with the American troops."

VARGAS: Are they prepared enough to take over the security of Iraq so that American forces can come home? That is the big single issue in Iraq right now, and I covered the story when I was there, Bob was out covering the story. You can't assess their readiness unless you're traveling with them and observing them do their job.

WESTIN: My initial reaction is we've all talked about this as a very real possibility, but this makes it real. I mean, we've talked about it, we knew someone was going to get hurt. We discussed what can we do to try to minimize that risk, how cautious can we be. But now it's really one of us, and two of us, actually. What choice do we have? As long as the United States is over there, and our men and women are over there and they're in harm's way, this is a story we have to...[emphasis added]

Excuse me? The wounding of an American newsman makes it real? So much for the two thousand plus American troops who have given their lives, so much for the thousands of Iraqi's murdered by Al Qaeda and their fellow travelors. That wasn't "REAL." But this is!

Idiots!

"This Makes It Real"

ABC's Bob Woodruff was wounded in Iraq covering the Iraqi forces. He and his cameraman suffered serious but not fatal wounds and are being treated in Germany.

That is the story so far, but the blow-dried talking heads want to make this into a cause célèbre. On ABC's "Good Morning America," Diane Sawyer, Elizabeth Vargas and ABC News President David Westin talked about Woodruff's injuries:

SAWYER: "To that point, being in the Iraqi vehicle was part of the story. The story right now is the Iraqi troops traveling with the American troops."

VARGAS: Are they prepared enough to take over the security of Iraq so that American forces can come home? That is the big single issue in Iraq right now, and I covered the story when I was there, Bob was out covering the story. You can't assess their readiness unless you're traveling with them and observing them do their job.

WESTIN: My initial reaction is we've all talked about this as a very real possibility, but this makes it real. I mean, we've talked about it, we knew someone was going to get hurt. We discussed what can we do to try to minimize that risk, how cautious can we be. But now it's really one of us, and two of us, actually. What choice do we have? As long as the United States is over there, and our men and women are over there and they're in harm's way, this is a story we have to...[emphasis added]

Excuse me? The wounding of an American newsman makes it real? So much for the two thousand plus American troops who have given their lives, so much for the thousands of Iraqi's murdered by Al Qaeda and their fellow travelors. That wasn't "REAL." But this is!

Idiots!

Today Marks the Anniversary of Kerry's Promise to Sign Form 180

To follow-up on G.M.'s letter to John Kerry from two weeks ago, today marks the one-year anniversary of John Kerry promising on national television to sign Form 180 and to release all of his military records for review. Today also marks the one-year anniversary of John Kerry not keeping his word. Today also marks the one-year anniversary of me not being a bit surprised. A captain of a swift boat should be a little more swift about these things.

Democrats Cut and Run, Or Is It Slash and Burn? Anyway, Read It.

Did you ever wonder what happened to the paid workers of John Kerry's campaign who slashed the tires on vans and cars of Republicans on election day in November, 2004? The main stream media has been very quiet about them. (Imagine if Republicans had done that to Democrats.) Well, we have the answer, and you won't be surprised. Mark Belling, a Milwaukee journalist, covers the final box scores with totals and highlights in his editorial of January 25th. Here are some excerpted sentences, but please read the entire article.

What a surprise - the tire slashers got away with it. Despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt, the five men accused of vandalizing vehicles to be used by Republicans on Election Day in 2004 will face no punishment at all. What was the reaction of most Democrats to the verdict? Glee. Why did they get away with it? Answer: Because everybody involved here was a Democrat. We had Democrats accusing Democrats that were prosecuted by a Democrat and a jury laden with Democrats. Justice never had a chance.

I'm not sure, but they might have applied for purple hearts from the Kerry campaign for self-inflicted razor cuts.

Found at and a thanks to Tom McMahon!

Filibuster, John Kerry, Kennedy and Judge Alito

There are a lot of things in politics that deserve a rip-roaring belly laugh; JFK excuse me, John Friggin Kerry being chief among these. Kerry is most noted for being elected as Mr. Flip-Flop of 2004. Of course, he was running for president at the time, but so what?

Kerry (and his partner in crime - T. Kennedy) have decided that they would like to filibuster the vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Senator(s) can you say STUPID? You two have got to be the dumbest of the dumb.

From the CNN folk comes this:

Sources close to Kerry, who lost to Bush in the 2004 race, told CNN that the senator was calling colleagues from Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum. He announced his decision to support a filibuster Wednesday at a meeting of his Democratic colleagues.

The White House believes Alito's supporters have the 60 votes they need to block any filibuster, spokesman Steve Schmidt said, and suggested that Kerry's move was designed to buttress a possible 2008 presidential run.

The Washington Post's Charles Babington reports:

Several prominent Democratic senators called for a filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination yesterday, exposing a deep divide in the party even as they delighted the party's liberal base.

The filibuster's supporters -- including Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts -- acknowledged that the bid is likely to fail and that Alito is virtually certain to be confirmed Tuesday. But they said extended debate may draw more Americans' attention to Alito's conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters.

"Judge Alito will take America backward, especially when it comes to civil rights and discrimination laws," Kerry said in a statement issued by his office. He added: "It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court."

The Democrats are divided? News to me! On the other hand, that famous entertainer Will Rogers once noted: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Senator Kerry, you greatly remind me of a saying by Dietrich Bonhöffer:

Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction... Against folly we have no such defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use...

So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel.

H/T to Stop the ACLU

The Press - Hoist On Its Own Petard

Scooter Libby is planning to subopena a number of journalists in his defense trial. This poses a series of tough decisions for the press for a number of reasons. Timothy Phelps has a lengthy (but worth the time) article in the Columbia Journalism Review regarding the background of the Plame case, including his own actions and the actions of others.

Of course, as a member of the press, Phelps is not happy about the possibility of two things. One, that Libby may call journalists for testamony, and two, that the press doesn't seem to have the "protections" under the first amendment that it did in the past. Phelps does acknowledge that there are indeed limits on the ability of journalists to protect sources, but decries the lessening of that.

It should be noted that much of the current brouhaha is of the making of the journalism profession. They were less concerned about the "leak" than about (in general) being able to hammer the Bush Administration for wrongs (real or perceived). In fact, two journalists, David Corn (The Nation) and Paul Krugman (The New York Times) raised a big stink about the illegality of "outing" Plame.

Even Phelps says she was in a role "undercover." However, nothing could be further from the truth. Undercover typically means assignment in the field, pretending you are something you are not in order to gather information necessary for our national security. Plame worked in a "secret" department of the Directorate of Operations, but was not "under cover" as she drove to work daily, was doublessly photographed many, many times by our adversaries (who ever they may have been) and even people in her neighborhood knew where she worked. Too, her "cover" had been blown years before and that is why she was pulled from the field.

The press demanded an investigation until finaly, someone in the CIA asked for an investigation. Usually, these requests don't go very far as Phelps acknowledges. This time, however, with the reporters and Democrats up in arms, Gutless Ashcroft recused himself and recused his deputy from looking into the matter and appointed a Special Prosecuter to look into the "outing" of Valarie Plame.

As we know, that investigation went nowhere, despite calls for Karl Rove to be frogmarched out of the White House. Libby in what must have been a non-compos-mentos moment lied about who he talked to or when or under what circumstances and as a result he is up on perjury charges. If found guilty, I hope they throw the book at him. What could he have been thinking?

But, I digress. The issue is that the press, so rabid in their attempts to nail the Bush Administration (and denying that is ludicrous on it's face) is now going to have to testify in the Libby trial. Too damn bad. The old saw that you need to be careful what you ask for, because you may not like what you get couldn't be more apt.

Libby's right to a fair trial trumps, it seems to me, any 1st amendment protection the predatory press has. Phelps may have said it best:

The prosecutor seems to have had the last word about the First Amendment, at least for now. “Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality � no one in America is,� he told Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Hogan agreed. Of course, we never did have the right to offer complete confidentiality in every circumstance. But as a result of this case and others in the pipeline, the question now is, Can we honestly promise our sources anything?"

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to James Taranto

Senate Democrats ≠Rational Thinking

The Circus is over, the Big Top has been struck. The Ringmaster has put away his top hat and whip, the clowns have removed their makeup. Bits of popcorn and other detritus litter the floor of the once formidable Greatest Show On Earth, but now, the lights are dimmed, and sadly we walk away from the circus.

The analogy between a circus and the Alito hearings is an apt one I think, given the clown like performances of certain members of the Judiciary Committee. I won't mention their names, but their initials are Ted (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy:

In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling..."

Joseph (Who thinks the Constitution requires two female members) Biden:

And it's also important to note that you're slated to replace the first woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court. We can pretend that's not the fact but it is. And through no fault of your own [though I'm holding you responsible - snark added], we're cutting the number of women in half on the court."

Charles (Please Don't Indict Me) Schumer:

This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

Patrick (Damn it, I want a liberal judge) Leahy:

The American people deserve a Supreme Court Justice who inspires confidence that he, or she, will not be beholden to the President but will be immune to pressures from the Government or from partisan interests [emphasis added as a snark]."

Diane (I don't care what Ginsberg said, how will YOU answer) Feinstine:

However, in 1985 you clearly stated that you believed Roe should be overturned and that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to choose. Despite voting to sustain Roe while on the Third Circuit, your opinions also raise questions about how you would rule if not bound by precedent. I will be interested to learn about your legal and personal views on Roe and the Constitutional right to privacy as you see it today."

and Dick (Damn Those Nazis) Durban:

Your record raises troubling questions about whether you appreciate the checks and balances in our Constitution � the careful efforts of our Founding Fathers to protect us from a government or a president determined to seize too much power over our lives..."

In room 216, the Senate Judiciary Committee in the guise of it's Democrat members participated in what could be termed illegal torture of a United States citizen. Alito was in a room, hot via overcrowding, blazing lights aimed at the responder, torturous and repetitious meanderings from the bloviatings of said Democrats [equal to, for sure of blaring rap "music"], sitting in an uncomfortable position for hours and hours and hours with no relief - not able to get up and walk around, not able to relax and having to pay attention to those who do not have his best interests at heart (let alone the best interests of the country).

Perhaps, the denouement of this whole Democratic engineered farce will be the final vote. I'm predicting that the committee vote will be along party lines and the final vote in the Senate will be something like 78-22 with precisely the same idjits voting against Alito as voted against Roberts. These guys just don't learn. There are consequences folks for elections and this last election put a Republican in the Whitehouse with the ability to appoint judges and (finally) the willingness to appoint conservative judges. Cry all you want, the people see through you and know that your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. Carol Dean Thomas, a strongly liberal attorney probably said it best (in the NY Times no less):

The president took the high road on this nomination. He juggled his politics and his public relations, and while I don't like either, I have to be grateful for the quality of lawyer, and individual, who emerged as the nominee.

We have to decide whether the unfortunate tradition begun with Robert Bork's nomination should be continued indefinitely or whether, with the wisdom of hindsight, we exhume it only when absolutely warranted. Liberals among us have got to get real - to press for the finest jurists a conservative administration is willing to offer, and to spend our capital in that pursuit." [emphasis added]

Ted Kennedy Creates a Splash - for the Children, Of Course

Surely this is a put-on...but, according to a real article in the USA Today book section, Ted Kennedy is writing a book for young people in which he is the main character along with...are you ready? Are you really ready? His co-protagonist is a Portuguese Water Dog named Splash! Yes, Kennedy's side-kick is a water dog. And, his name is Splash! Well, it had to be that or a St. Bernard with a cask. Someone wake me and tell me this is a spoof.

Sen. Ted Kennedy to publish children's book (c) AP

NEW YORK (AP) � Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C. Ted Kennedy's 56-page children's book will be released by Scholastic Inc. in May.

"I am very excited about the opportunity to create a book for young readers and their families that will deepen their understanding of how our American government works," Kennedy said in a statement Monday issued by Scholastic.

According to Scholastic, Kennedy's book "not only takes readers through a full day in the Senator's life, but also explains how a bill becomes a law." Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, was inspired to write the book from his work with a Washington-based reading program, "Everybody Wins!"

Well, "Everyone Wins" unless you're the passenger in Kennedy's car...and were unlucky enough that Splash the wonder water dog wasn't there to save you. I'm anxiously awaiting the chapter where Kennedy teaches Splash how to rescue drowning people.

What other adventures could Kennedy and Splash have to teach children about Washington? "Splash filibusters a Presidential appointment?" "Splash opposes military funding?" But, my favorite will be "Splash bites the Senator in the crotch."

Discriminate to Eliminate -- Then Compensate

Sometimes you can't win. You promote someone to avoid discrimination suits and then you get sued by the person who was promoted...and lose. It's a "Catch 22" for the employer and a ticket to "Easy Street" for the employee. Here's how it works.

Camilla's protector paid out

A BLACK police bodyguard who protected the Duchess of Cornwall has won $70,000 compensation after suing Scotland Yard for "over-promoting" him because of political correctness. His representatives argued he landed the prestigious job as Camilla's bodyguard only because he was black. It was claimed that as a result of being over-promoted and not receiving proper training and support, Sgt Turner made mistakes which led to him being re-assigned.

Please keep this a secret from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If they get hold of this idea, they'll be demanding demotions with raises.

Bloviation Continues

KENNEDY CONTINUES THE ATTACK ~ ALITO BENEFITS

The florid countenance to the left belongs to Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) who has written a hyper-partisan screed and actually had it published in the Washington Post, (you of course, are not surprised that WaPo published it.) The title is quite interesting if you will; "Alito's Credibility Problem" which might be OK if it came from someone with some shred of credibility himself. Kennedy's frequent bombastic attacks on anything and everything coming from conservatives, Republicans or anyone/anything to the right of Kennedy have made him a laughing stock for anyone capable of rational thought.

Kennedy has made a name for himself based primarily on scandals ranging from his infamous drinking bouts, to him and Chris Dodd and waitresses, to weekend parties with cousins and of course to Chappaquiddick. It has not hurt him that he had a famous brother who got elected to the presidency.

Ed Whalen, writing in Bench Memos for National Review Online has done a credible job of slicing and dicing the utter leftist nonsense from Kennedy. A sample:

After a thorough investigation, the American Bar Association unanimously gave Judge Alito its highest rating (“well qualified�) on its criteria of “integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.� But that hasn’t stopped Teddy Kennedy from cobbling together a nasty hit piece on Judge Alito (“Alito’s Credibility Problem�) in today’s Washington Post.

Kennedy’s attack is a jumble of distortions, inventions, and non sequiturs. In the interest of brevity, I’m going to refrain from revisiting Kennedy’s own credibility. Here’s a quick response to Kennedy’s five stated areas of concern:

1. Alito’s 1985 job application essay sets forth a classic statement of American principles: “I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values. In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decisionmaking authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate.�

Kennedy asserts, without anything resembling an argument, that these views “raise serious concerns about [Alito’s] ability to interpret the Constitution with a fair and open mind.� He also claims that Alito tried to distance himself from those views by telling Kennedy that he “was just a 35-year-old seeking a job.� A well-informed source tells me that Kennedy’s quote is a concoction and that Alito has never tried to suggest that the 1985 essay was not a genuine statement of his views at that time.

Senator, Alito is NOT THE ONE WITH A CREDIBILITY PROBLEM...Get it?

What to make of the Senator from Massachusets? I'm not sure. It is obvious from the frequent gaffes he makes (even worse than the worst of the Bushisms) from the recent "Goldwater Presidency" (discussed in yesterday's entry "Bottle Of Wine..." a couple of posts below) to the hillarious stumbling almost drunken "Osama Obama" (he was trying to come up with Barack Obama) that Kennedy isn't hitting on all cylinders. Yet, the good people of Massachusets keep electing this embarrassment. He has been kicked out of school for cheating, he has been complicit in the death of a young woman, he has been a philanderer and yet...and yet, he keeps getting elected (along with the equally embarrasing, sloppy saluting, pseudo-hero, "the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.") (and a tip of the GM Chapeaux to James Taranto). What can be wrong with the thinking peoples of Massachusets?

Abraham Lincoln said that you can "...fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Obviously, Kennedy and Kerry are trying to prove Lincoln wrong, I'd guess, when it comes to Massachusets politics.

Can You Debate the Left? ...or, How to Waste a Day.

Help me out. Am I overreacting, maybe like an adult disgusted with kids who refuse to learn or act right, or am I just being realistic? Tell me how you would respond to a comment from someone from the left who challenged my opinion that views and statistics of the left deserve little respect..then, he asks why mine should be accepted.

Here's the background. I have been know to tread into "Liberal Land" at Marc Cooper's site. (Yes, I should know better, but Marc is a nice guy in his own right, and I keep thinking that the next time things will be different.) Over a period of time, I gave up on expecting honest or quality debate from the left. Therefore, I dismissed their views by simply saying that most anything from their side should be rejected, and that they can accept what I say or not. Either way, I don't care. The response to me was that my view was an ad hominem attack and that I shouldn't say something that I wasn't prepared to defend against counterclaims and statistics from the very left that I don't respect. Frankly, the comment to me has some validity but, in a more general sense, I don't think that the time and brain energy required to argue with these people are worth it. Here's the link to the thread and below is my response, quickly prepared but representative of my feelings at the moment of writing it.

(Friend on the Left), let me address your comment with generalities.

(1) First, keep in mind that facts, polls, and statistics that I have provided here in the past are routinely and incorrectly dismissed because they are from the left’s considered conservative sources–as (another commenter), himself, has done in this thread. What can I provide that won’t be dismissed by false conclusions from your side? The left is completely close-minded.

(2) Next, even if people on the left, such as (another commenter), provide statistics, I see flaws in them. Sometimes they’re outdated, they’re incomplete, they’re biasly prepared by a prejudiced source, they’re misinterpreted, etc., etc. It’s rare that statisitics from the left can’t be butchered with facts, logic, and truth. Frankly, right-brained people are not equipped with using analytical ammunition that their brains can’t fire correctly.

I give the left opportunities to convince and impress me. However, I have learned to offer little, if any, respect to analyses from people on the left because they have not earned that respect. In addtion, they have not earned my trust. I continue to consider their views with disapointment, and the left continues to reinforce my negative conclusions about them. Generally, the ideas coming from the left should be received with as much respect as fecal matter flung by monkees at the zoo.

(3) Frankly, any statistics from anyone are suspect. You’ve heard that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Both sides claim similar attacks on these numbers–with mine, of course, having more validity. In my field, I can make numbers say anything that I want them to say, and I’m cautious and skeptical about others doing that–especially, if those people can’t be trusted.

So, what we are left with is the presentation and argument of ideas. Ideas can be debated without claims that the originating source is made-up or incorrect. Ideas can and should be debated on merits and logic.

Unfortunately, it is your side that is most guilty of rejecting facts that oppose its agenda based upon nothing but agenda. It is your side that rejects ideas by saying F yourself. It is your side that is closed minded to opposing views.

So, first, I don’t waste hours anymore to prepare and provide research that the left will reject based simply upon it’s source or conclusions rather than validty. Second, I don’t waste time anymore to explain their flaws that the left would never accept, anyway. Next, I say what I think based upon a lifetime of learning and analysis. Finally, because the left is never, never satisified with anything that contradicts their indoctrination, I don’t worry about whether or not they accept what I say.

I state the truth and my views and it’s simply up to the reader to do what he wants with that. Reject them without serious consideration and you stop learning. Consider them seriously and you might see that opposing views might be right and demand respect. Either way, I don’t worry about it–but, I still keep an open door.

It was a sincerely felt response. As I get older, I just don't want to waste time and energy trying to argue with people who already have their minds made up--even if they still have a lot of learning left to do. Maybe I could have handled this differently, though.

As I'm still willing to learn, what do you think of the response and what would you have said?

Maybe I need to consider Ann Coulter's book: "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," but, if I had read that, I may not have even tried at all. (What a way to start the new year.)

Ted Kennedy Attacks on Homeland Security: "Fake but Accurate"

A UMass - Dartmouth College student claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents, who were investigating him for wanting to check out Chinese Communists Mao's "Little Red Book" from the library. The timing was perfect to help sabotage the vote on the Patriot Act, and Ted Kennedy jumped on it faster than he could swim. From the WSJ Opinion Journal come this report with this follow-up. It seems as if the story was false, but the Senator is sticking by it as "fake but accurate."

Federal agents' visit was a hoax: Student admits he lied about Mao book

The UMass Dartmouth student who claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for "The Little Red Book" by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story. The 22-year-old student tearfully admitted he made the story up to his history professor...after being confronted with the inconsistencies in his account. ...His basic tale remained the same: The book was on a government watch list, and his loan request had triggered a visit from an agent who was seeking to "tame" reading of particular books. He said he saw a long list of such books.

The story's release came at a perfect storm in the news cycle. Only a day before, The New York Times had reported that President Bush had allowed the National Security Agency to conduct wiretaps on international phone calls from the United States without a warrant. There was an increased sense among some Americans that the U.S. government was overstepping its bounds and trampling on civil liberties in order to thwart future attacks of terrorism. The story of a college student being questioned for requesting a 40-year old book on Communism fed right into that atmosphere.

Oh, it's so touching that the lying student "tearfully admitted" to the truth.

But, before the truth came out, how did the Senior Senator from Massachusetts use the story for political purposes? Here's what he said in an op-ed:

On wiretapping, Bush isn't listening to the Constitution, By Edward M. Kennedy

Think of the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom when a government agent shows up at your home -- after you request a book from the library. Incredibly, we are now in an era where reading a controversial book may be evidence of a link to terrorists. Something is amiss here. Something doesn't make sense. We need a thorough and independent investigation of these activities. The Congress and the American people deserve answers now.

Well, I think we have the answers you wanted, Senator. Now, how about an apology? Here's how that was handled:

It's Mao or Never

Here's the actual Kennedy response as reported by the Globe: "Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ''public reports" in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy's broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance."

Okay, the Senator fell for the hoax and didn't check it out because it furthered his attacks against the President, but when confronted with the truth it still didn't matter, because his statements were correct even if supported by lies. Is Dan Rather his ghost writer?

Oh, and the student? Here's the university's position about the student, his lies, and the effect on our country: "He needs attention, he needs care. I feel for the kid. We have great concern for this student's health and welfare." and "We consider this to be an issue to be handled faculty member to student. We wouldn't discuss publicly any other action. Student discipline is a private matter." Do you think that the student learned a lesson here? Do you think that it's the right one?

The next time that some Democrat or liberal is telling you that Bush lied, consider the source.

Liberal Ideas

One of the more conservative blogs employing biting humor (and oh so correct 99.999999% of the time) is Espella Humanzee. A fellow Texan and for sure a caustic wit (yesterday's post is a great example). Scrolling down his site early this morning, I came across a sidebar graphic that I thought was so accurate it was worth putting on my blog as an entry. Some of my more "lefty" type readers won't get it or if they do, they will be insulted (hey guys, you can't be insulted when your friends tell you the truth), but the vast majority of my thinking readers will. If you doubt the veracity of the graphic, just go to the sites indicated (no, I won't provide a link to garbage sites.) Heh!

Continue reading "Liberal Ideas"

The Silence of the candidate!

Hillary is silent! What's that you say? Hillary, the mouth, silent? Ann Althouse suspects that Hillary knows that speaking out against the wire-tapping of folks here in America calling friends perhaps associated with Al Qaeda is a losing proposition. Could be!

Hillary didn't get where she is by being dumb (although she is, from my point of view, nowhere near as brilliant as she and everyone else thinks she is - shrewd perhaps, but not brilliant). The fact of the matter is, as a commenter on Althouse noted:

"Scarcely anyone will admit to it, but most people are perfectly willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security. The revelation that the government is taking proactive measures against terrorism - even ones which may well be illegal, if not unconstitutional (see Orin Kerr's comments here) is reassuring. Of course, most people are also aware that there is something socially unacceptable about admitting ass much, but when you vote, it's just you and a ballot paper, and I think people get pretty honest about what they think when they vote."

I couldn't have said it better myself. And this, my beloved readers will indicate that Hillary is much smarter than the rest of the Democratic herd. Though that isn't saying much.

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to Ann Althous and the Instapundit

Cross Posted at The Real ugly American

Irony Abounds When You Least Expect It!

My Gawd, I hope he isn't looking at TEXAS!