Wednesday, March 30, 2005
I'm Sorry. So, So Sorry...
I'll be back soon. I see that I've managed to torque off some people and I will address that presently. But life calls right now.
Strength and honor, good gents.
(1) comments
I'll be back soon. I see that I've managed to torque off some people and I will address that presently. But life calls right now.
Strength and honor, good gents.
(1) comments
Friday, March 25, 2005
"JB" Hits The Big League
JB replied to my post, An Anonymous Reply to My Horsey Post. Here's what he said:
That's ridiculous. Think about it. Right now I'm not bashing gays. And I'm not doing it now, either. Likewise, as I type this, I'm not bashing gays. Nor now. And not now, either. Get it yet?
Hyperbole and $8 will get you a latte at Tully's. It doesn't get you anywhere here. I'm not saying Right-Wingers never bash gays, obviously some do. But I don't usually hear it from my side of the isle. I most frequently hear it from your side.
"Where in my post did you see any gay bashing?"
Now see, this is where I get to use the Lib Rules of Order against you. If I were to make mention of the fact that Andrew Sullivan is gay, and then proceed to verbally burn him in effigy, I would be accused of gay-bashing.
You made quite a point of pointing out the "gayness" of the people you referenced, then proceeded to ridicule them. Thus: "gay-bashing." Why bring up the fact that they were gay unless you thought it added somehow to your point? Was it truly relevant, or was it only relevant as a sharp stick to poke in our Right eye? The point is that you used the "gayness" of the people you were ridiculing to add more thrust to your attack.
"NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS THERE SKIPPY!!"
Go back and read your comment (by the way, I didn't know it was you because you didn't sign it like you had your others). Your point at the time was not that Bush used taxpayer money. Your point was that it was a disingenuous move on Bush's part to pay for clandestinely lap-dog commentary. I happened to agree with you. But I also pointed out, in the same vein as you opened the discussion about Bush, that Kerry had done the very same thing.
Instead of discussing, or even recognizing and dealing with that, though, you quickly move on to a different subject. I call this kind of thing, "shoot and move." And it's one of the most exasperating aspects of Lib argumentation. Please do try to stick to the topic. Was Kerry just as disingenuous when he clandestinely paid Daily Kos to parrot his campaign points?
That taxpayer dollars were used to buy that Conservative political whore is a separate, potentially criminal, issue. Obviously, since I disagree with Bush doing what he did, I'd be even more opposed to his using taxpayer dollars to do so. And I am.
"And 'just about anybody can get a press room pass'? Not true. Other reporters who actually ask questions that require real answers are crowded out by these phonies who get called on to break the tension after a real question is asked."
Do you ever actually watch press conf... No, lets take a look at your own statement. So, if I have your meaning right, the "plants" crowd out the "real" reporters, making it impossible for them to ask for "real answers"? But then you say that the "plants" are there to break the tension after those very same "real" reporters have asked "real questions"? Which is it? Either "real" reporters are crowded out, or they can ask "real" questions and that causes Bush to need "plants" to "break the tension" afterwards.
(I'd like to take this opportunity to urge all readers to donate to the Cure Cognitive Dissonance Now! campaign - obviously the disease is spreading)
"So yes, you appear to be driven primarily by "naked ideolgy" as you are cool with faux journalism."
You proceed from a myth. The idea of "objective journalism" is something that was the fashion de jour for a few decades last century. For a time it was pretty well just that: objective. But the history of journalism before that period was nothing of the sort. Newspapers were explicitly partisan. And everybody knew it. And after the fashion of "objective journalism" ended in the 1960s, journalism went right back to being partisan. The difference, this time around, was and is that "real" journalists attempt to deceive their viewers/readers that they are in fact not partisan at all. It's a conceit and a deceit that has resulted in viewers/readers abandoning those journalists in (here it comes!) droves once competing partisan news and commentary outlets once again became available.
"These people are plants in the press corp and you are lauding them for independent thought."
That they have a different political point of view to yours is not evidence that they don't exercise independent thought. But that's a consistent theme in Lib Think: if one disagrees, he is obviously a puppet. The problem is, that's not necessarily the case. Disagreement with the dominant Group Think that pervades the MSM can be a form of independence. Or hadn't you considered that?
It's a disagreement, not a deficiency.
"I guess you had me fooled. I thought you were soooooooooo much smarter than that. (JB)"
I disagree = I'm dumb. Somebody wake up the band, we all know this tune.
(2) comments
JB replied to my post, An Anonymous Reply to My Horsey Post. Here's what he said:
The point is that the ONLY time right-wingers don't bash gays is when they are their own. Where in my post did you see any gay bashing? Now you are bitching about "Daily Kos being on the take from the Kerry campaign". NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS THERE SKIPPY!! And "just about anybody can get a press room pass"? Not true. Other reporters who actually ask questions that require real answers are crowded out by these phonies who get called on to break the tension after a real question is asked. So yes, you appear to be driven primarily by "naked ideolgy" as you are cool with faux journalism. And again, "independent thought". These people are plants in the press corp and you are lauding them for independent thought. I guess you had me fooled. I thought you were soooooooooo much smarter than that. (JB)"The point is that the ONLY time right-wingers don't bash gays is when they are their own."
That's ridiculous. Think about it. Right now I'm not bashing gays. And I'm not doing it now, either. Likewise, as I type this, I'm not bashing gays. Nor now. And not now, either. Get it yet?
Hyperbole and $8 will get you a latte at Tully's. It doesn't get you anywhere here. I'm not saying Right-Wingers never bash gays, obviously some do. But I don't usually hear it from my side of the isle. I most frequently hear it from your side.
"Where in my post did you see any gay bashing?"
Now see, this is where I get to use the Lib Rules of Order against you. If I were to make mention of the fact that Andrew Sullivan is gay, and then proceed to verbally burn him in effigy, I would be accused of gay-bashing.
You made quite a point of pointing out the "gayness" of the people you referenced, then proceeded to ridicule them. Thus: "gay-bashing." Why bring up the fact that they were gay unless you thought it added somehow to your point? Was it truly relevant, or was it only relevant as a sharp stick to poke in our Right eye? The point is that you used the "gayness" of the people you were ridiculing to add more thrust to your attack.
"NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS THERE SKIPPY!!"
Go back and read your comment (by the way, I didn't know it was you because you didn't sign it like you had your others). Your point at the time was not that Bush used taxpayer money. Your point was that it was a disingenuous move on Bush's part to pay for clandestinely lap-dog commentary. I happened to agree with you. But I also pointed out, in the same vein as you opened the discussion about Bush, that Kerry had done the very same thing.
Instead of discussing, or even recognizing and dealing with that, though, you quickly move on to a different subject. I call this kind of thing, "shoot and move." And it's one of the most exasperating aspects of Lib argumentation. Please do try to stick to the topic. Was Kerry just as disingenuous when he clandestinely paid Daily Kos to parrot his campaign points?
That taxpayer dollars were used to buy that Conservative political whore is a separate, potentially criminal, issue. Obviously, since I disagree with Bush doing what he did, I'd be even more opposed to his using taxpayer dollars to do so. And I am.
"And 'just about anybody can get a press room pass'? Not true. Other reporters who actually ask questions that require real answers are crowded out by these phonies who get called on to break the tension after a real question is asked."
Do you ever actually watch press conf... No, lets take a look at your own statement. So, if I have your meaning right, the "plants" crowd out the "real" reporters, making it impossible for them to ask for "real answers"? But then you say that the "plants" are there to break the tension after those very same "real" reporters have asked "real questions"? Which is it? Either "real" reporters are crowded out, or they can ask "real" questions and that causes Bush to need "plants" to "break the tension" afterwards.
(I'd like to take this opportunity to urge all readers to donate to the Cure Cognitive Dissonance Now! campaign - obviously the disease is spreading)
"So yes, you appear to be driven primarily by "naked ideolgy" as you are cool with faux journalism."
You proceed from a myth. The idea of "objective journalism" is something that was the fashion de jour for a few decades last century. For a time it was pretty well just that: objective. But the history of journalism before that period was nothing of the sort. Newspapers were explicitly partisan. And everybody knew it. And after the fashion of "objective journalism" ended in the 1960s, journalism went right back to being partisan. The difference, this time around, was and is that "real" journalists attempt to deceive their viewers/readers that they are in fact not partisan at all. It's a conceit and a deceit that has resulted in viewers/readers abandoning those journalists in (here it comes!) droves once competing partisan news and commentary outlets once again became available.
"These people are plants in the press corp and you are lauding them for independent thought."
That they have a different political point of view to yours is not evidence that they don't exercise independent thought. But that's a consistent theme in Lib Think: if one disagrees, he is obviously a puppet. The problem is, that's not necessarily the case. Disagreement with the dominant Group Think that pervades the MSM can be a form of independence. Or hadn't you considered that?
It's a disagreement, not a deficiency.
"I guess you had me fooled. I thought you were soooooooooo much smarter than that. (JB)"
I disagree = I'm dumb. Somebody wake up the band, we all know this tune.
(2) comments
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
An Example of the Benefits of Republican Government
By that I mean (lower-case "r") republican.I do not know, but I would suspect (I know now) that the majority of the people in the US would support the husband's point of view on this, considering how the MSM has played the issue. Maybe it's not the case, but what if it is?
Should this be a legitimate rationale for executing this woman? Or, as I believe, isn't this a prime example of why we need to hire representatives who can spend more time considering the background and evidence before forming laws that determine whether people in Mrs. Schiavo's condition can be killed?
There are legal decisions that require more than a mere majority to pass. Constitutional amendments are such a case. And were it not for the out-of-control judiciary, it would take exactly that to kill people in Mrs. Schiavo's condition. She would have to fall under an exception to the 14th Amendment, which states:
Clearly, Mrs. Schiavo is now somehow outside the protections of the Constitution as a citizen of the United States. This, of course, is bitterly ironic since the Federal judiciary has now granted those very rights to foreign terrorists held by our military outside the contiguous United States.
It occurred to me to suggest that perhaps the President could issue a pardon. So I looked up the provisions for presidential pardons in Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, which states:
Unfortunately for Mrs. Schiavo, she's not committed any offenses against the United States. If she'd picked up an AK-47 and attacked our military forces, or bombed our embassies, or blew up a disco somewhere in Germany, she'd have far more legal protections than she does now as a victim of a random medical debilitation.
Welcome to the other side of the Looking Glass.
(10) comments
By that I mean (lower-case "r") republican.
Should this be a legitimate rationale for executing this woman? Or, as I believe, isn't this a prime example of why we need to hire representatives who can spend more time considering the background and evidence before forming laws that determine whether people in Mrs. Schiavo's condition can be killed?
There are legal decisions that require more than a mere majority to pass. Constitutional amendments are such a case. And were it not for the out-of-control judiciary, it would take exactly that to kill people in Mrs. Schiavo's condition. She would have to fall under an exception to the 14th Amendment, which states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.- emphasis mine
Clearly, Mrs. Schiavo is now somehow outside the protections of the Constitution as a citizen of the United States. This, of course, is bitterly ironic since the Federal judiciary has now granted those very rights to foreign terrorists held by our military outside the contiguous United States.
It occurred to me to suggest that perhaps the President could issue a pardon. So I looked up the provisions for presidential pardons in Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, which states:
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.- emphasis mine
Unfortunately for Mrs. Schiavo, she's not committed any offenses against the United States. If she'd picked up an AK-47 and attacked our military forces, or bombed our embassies, or blew up a disco somewhere in Germany, she'd have far more legal protections than she does now as a victim of a random medical debilitation.
Welcome to the other side of the Looking Glass.
(10) comments
Self-Protective Living Will
Well, with this morning's news that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore has ruled to allow the torturous killing of this helpless woman, I think it's time we need to consider that it appears that there is a new Law of the Land. Whereas in times past the assumption was that unless a written record existed stating the patient's wish to not be kept alive in this manner, that the patient would be assumed to want to live. That is clearly not the case now.
The case now is that if you are unable to effectively communicate your desire to live, you are at the mercy of your legal custodian, whether that custodian is working in your best interests or not. If you lose the ability to speak or otherwise communicate your desire to remain alive, whether that condition is known to be permanent or not, you can be killed without your due process rights being upheld.
This woman was not charged with any crime. She was not tried for any crime. She was not convicted of any crime. And she certainly was not sentenced to execution in any criminal court proceeding.
Her "crime" was losing (perhaps - we'll never really know) her ability to effectively and clearly communicate with the outside world. Think about that for a moment: that is now the standard that will be used to determine whether you may be killed or not.
Think about this: supposed there was a murderer, a death-row inmate who suffered the same kind of debilitation while awaiting execution. Where do you think these very same Leftists would stand with regard to strapping that disabled person to the electric chair? And the chair would be a far more merciful method of extinguishing the life of that individual. Would the Left support executing that convicted murder by dropping him on a gurney and watching that person starve and thirst to death over a period of 11 to 20 days?
So, we are still in the hands of an outrageously out-of-control judiciary that will have its way regardless of the Constitution and its subservient laws.
Here's a quote from the Florida State Constitution:
The Law is meaningless. We are ruled by an oligarchy, a caste of priest kings in black robes. And this will continue to be the case until the Republican Party in Congress steps up to their responsibilities to enforce the will of the People, and to follow the Constitution, and have up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. If they fail in this then they will pay dearly for it in their next primary elections.
As for the rest of us, I strongly suggest each person develop a "living will" that explicitly states under what conditions you wish to continue to receive medical treatment or basic food and water. Of course, in a world where the US Supreme Court has cited case law from other countries as part of their deliberative process, I foresee a day coming, should this situation not be righted, when even your own explicitly-stated demand that you continue to receive nutrition and hydration, via a "living will," will be dismissed as irrelevant.
After all, will come the reasoning, who would want to live that way, right? And isn't that more important than mere words written on parchment more than 200 years ago by dead white slave-holders?
(0) comments
Well, with this morning's news that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore has ruled to allow the torturous killing of this helpless woman, I think it's time we need to consider that it appears that there is a new Law of the Land. Whereas in times past the assumption was that unless a written record existed stating the patient's wish to not be kept alive in this manner, that the patient would be assumed to want to live. That is clearly not the case now.
The case now is that if you are unable to effectively communicate your desire to live, you are at the mercy of your legal custodian, whether that custodian is working in your best interests or not. If you lose the ability to speak or otherwise communicate your desire to remain alive, whether that condition is known to be permanent or not, you can be killed without your due process rights being upheld.
This woman was not charged with any crime. She was not tried for any crime. She was not convicted of any crime. And she certainly was not sentenced to execution in any criminal court proceeding.
Her "crime" was losing (perhaps - we'll never really know) her ability to effectively and clearly communicate with the outside world. Think about that for a moment: that is now the standard that will be used to determine whether you may be killed or not.
Think about this: supposed there was a murderer, a death-row inmate who suffered the same kind of debilitation while awaiting execution. Where do you think these very same Leftists would stand with regard to strapping that disabled person to the electric chair? And the chair would be a far more merciful method of extinguishing the life of that individual. Would the Left support executing that convicted murder by dropping him on a gurney and watching that person starve and thirst to death over a period of 11 to 20 days?
So, we are still in the hands of an outrageously out-of-control judiciary that will have its way regardless of the Constitution and its subservient laws.
Here's a quote from the Florida State Constitution:
SECTION 2. Basic rights.-- All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.-emphasis mine
The Law is meaningless. We are ruled by an oligarchy, a caste of priest kings in black robes. And this will continue to be the case until the Republican Party in Congress steps up to their responsibilities to enforce the will of the People, and to follow the Constitution, and have up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. If they fail in this then they will pay dearly for it in their next primary elections.
As for the rest of us, I strongly suggest each person develop a "living will" that explicitly states under what conditions you wish to continue to receive medical treatment or basic food and water. Of course, in a world where the US Supreme Court has cited case law from other countries as part of their deliberative process, I foresee a day coming, should this situation not be righted, when even your own explicitly-stated demand that you continue to receive nutrition and hydration, via a "living will," will be dismissed as irrelevant.
After all, will come the reasoning, who would want to live that way, right? And isn't that more important than mere words written on parchment more than 200 years ago by dead white slave-holders?
(0) comments
Monday, March 21, 2005
Liberal "Tolerance" On The March (Again)
What do you do if you're a Republican who works in a predominantly liberal industry? You keep very, very quiet.
You see, the Deacons of Diversity, the Imams of Inclusion are a little disingenuous in their application of the concepts of inclusion, diversity and (praised be its name) Tolerance. They can tolerate tax money for endless jars of urine and crucifixes. They can consider it diversity to have among their ranks anti-American propagandists like Michael Moore, and they consider it inclusive when their leader, Howard Dean, said, "I hate Republicans. And I hate everything Republicans stand for."
Maybe that's the Lib version of "tough love."
Drudge found a recent example of Lib tolerance in a very strange place.
"PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed how she voted Republican in the 2004 election."
"stripped." Heh.
Anyhow, she wrote to him to explain how this came about.
"I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Republican.
"I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views."
Let's face it; if there is a Party of Bigots in the United States, it is the Democratic Party. They are intolerant, racist, hateful, and mean-spirited. Maybe not all of them, and maybe not the majority. But there's enough of them to give them enough political strength to be represented at the top levels of their party.
(8) comments
What do you do if you're a Republican who works in a predominantly liberal industry? You keep very, very quiet.
You see, the Deacons of Diversity, the Imams of Inclusion are a little disingenuous in their application of the concepts of inclusion, diversity and (praised be its name) Tolerance. They can tolerate tax money for endless jars of urine and crucifixes. They can consider it diversity to have among their ranks anti-American propagandists like Michael Moore, and they consider it inclusive when their leader, Howard Dean, said, "I hate Republicans. And I hate everything Republicans stand for."
Maybe that's the Lib version of "tough love."
Drudge found a recent example of Lib tolerance in a very strange place.
"PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed how she voted Republican in the 2004 election."
"stripped." Heh.
Anyhow, she wrote to him to explain how this came about.
"I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Republican.
"I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views."
Let's face it; if there is a Party of Bigots in the United States, it is the Democratic Party. They are intolerant, racist, hateful, and mean-spirited. Maybe not all of them, and maybe not the majority. But there's enough of them to give them enough political strength to be represented at the top levels of their party.
(8) comments
Torture-Murder in Florida
Terri Schiavo is being starved and dehydrated to death as I type these words. This is happening because the oft-mentioned out-of-control judiciary wants her to die. As does her husband, and his band of ghoulish fellow-travelers. The Death Lobby is, once again, displaying its voracious appetite for human misery and death.
As Mrs. Schiavo proceeds to succumb to the torments imposed on her by her husband and a host of Florida State judges, I thought it might be useful to look up what she is currently enduring. Intellectual honesty demands that before I can support or oppose something, I should first know what I'm talking about. In this case, I believe the onus falls most heavily on those who support the killing of Mrs. Schiavo: They must read the lists below (or information like it) to familiarize themselves with precisely what they're supporting. Failing to do this would be an act of intellectual cowardice.
Symptoms of starvation:
Feeling cold and having a lower-than-normal body temperature.
Swelling in the feet and hands.
Hair loss, brittle nails, and dry skin.
Growth of fine hair (lanugo) on the body.
Muscle weakness.
Constipation, slow emptying of the stomach, and abdominal pain.
Sleep problems, hyperactivity, or extreme fatigue.
Fainting spells, low blood pressure, and slow heartbeat.
Yellow-orange skin, especially on the palms of the hands, or a purplish skin color on the arms and legs.
Symptoms of dehydration
Dark urine with a very strong odor.
Low urine output.
Dark, sunken eyes.
Fatigue.
Emotional instability.
Loss of skin elasticity.
Delayed capillary refill in fingernail beds.
Trench line down center of tongue.
Thirst. Last on the list because you are already 2 percent dehydrated by the time you crave fluids.
Now, in a country where you would be incarcerated for torturing a dog by preventing it from accessing food and drink, it is ludicrous in the extreme that a court would mandate a woman be tortured to death in this unbelievably cruel manner.
Where are the anti-death penalty freaks?
Where are the "women's rights" fanatics?
Where is the ACLU? (Oh, that's right. They're on her tormentors' side)
Oh. What was I thinking? When it comes to all things pro-death for non-murderers, the Left can be found prominently out in front of the funeral procession.
Before I drop the subject for now, I want to take a quick look at the nature of Michael Schiavo, the "husband," as seen through the eyes (and affidavit) of one of Mrs. Schiavo's former healthcare workers, one Carla Iyer, a nurse who cared for Terri Schiavo from April 1995 to July 1996. (Note, falsifying your affidavit testimony is illegal, and is punishable under the laws that address perjury.)
According to the testimony, Mr. Schiavo is reported to have said the following:
"When is she going to die?"
"Has she died yet?"
"When is that bitch gonna die?"
"Can't anything be done to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?"
"I'm going to be rich!"
Also, Iyer states that he, "would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things."
Assuming this nurse is telling the truth (and I suspect she is - have you ever heard Mr. Schiavo speak in public? He's a nutjob on steroids), Mr. Schiavo's feigning concern for his wife is nothing but naked deceit. His intent is clear, and the Florida "justice" system, and the Death Lobby are accomplices in his efforts to see her dead so that he can become "rich."
Simply disgusting.
There is, strangely enough, an upside to this distressing situation. The out-of-control judiciary is a very prominent actor in this sad play. They are, once again, stepping over the bounds of civilized behavior (much less judicious conduct), and doing so right in front of an increasingly shocked American public. Thinking of it in the light of purely cold-blooded practicality, you couldn't ask for a better example of outlandish judicial misbehavior on the run-up to the nuclear political war about to start in the US Senate over filibusters of judicial nominees.
Once again, the Left is reminding us that they've lost their sense of timing. But will they learn anything from this? Give me a break. You know what they'll do: They'll sit around their cafés, sipping their triple-mocha lattes, and grouse about those brain-dead morons who, incomprehensibly, keep kicking their ass at the polls.
Whatever. I wave at them as they continue to gibber their way off to the ash heap of American history.
Bub-bye.
(1) comments
Terri Schiavo is being starved and dehydrated to death as I type these words. This is happening because the oft-mentioned out-of-control judiciary wants her to die. As does her husband, and his band of ghoulish fellow-travelers. The Death Lobby is, once again, displaying its voracious appetite for human misery and death.
As Mrs. Schiavo proceeds to succumb to the torments imposed on her by her husband and a host of Florida State judges, I thought it might be useful to look up what she is currently enduring. Intellectual honesty demands that before I can support or oppose something, I should first know what I'm talking about. In this case, I believe the onus falls most heavily on those who support the killing of Mrs. Schiavo: They must read the lists below (or information like it) to familiarize themselves with precisely what they're supporting. Failing to do this would be an act of intellectual cowardice.
Symptoms of starvation:
Feeling cold and having a lower-than-normal body temperature.
Swelling in the feet and hands.
Hair loss, brittle nails, and dry skin.
Growth of fine hair (lanugo) on the body.
Muscle weakness.
Constipation, slow emptying of the stomach, and abdominal pain.
Sleep problems, hyperactivity, or extreme fatigue.
Fainting spells, low blood pressure, and slow heartbeat.
Yellow-orange skin, especially on the palms of the hands, or a purplish skin color on the arms and legs.
Symptoms of dehydration
Dark urine with a very strong odor.
Low urine output.
Dark, sunken eyes.
Fatigue.
Emotional instability.
Loss of skin elasticity.
Delayed capillary refill in fingernail beds.
Trench line down center of tongue.
Thirst. Last on the list because you are already 2 percent dehydrated by the time you crave fluids.
Now, in a country where you would be incarcerated for torturing a dog by preventing it from accessing food and drink, it is ludicrous in the extreme that a court would mandate a woman be tortured to death in this unbelievably cruel manner.
Where are the anti-death penalty freaks?
Where are the "women's rights" fanatics?
Where is the ACLU? (Oh, that's right. They're on her tormentors' side)
Oh. What was I thinking? When it comes to all things pro-death for non-murderers, the Left can be found prominently out in front of the funeral procession.
Before I drop the subject for now, I want to take a quick look at the nature of Michael Schiavo, the "husband," as seen through the eyes (and affidavit) of one of Mrs. Schiavo's former healthcare workers, one Carla Iyer, a nurse who cared for Terri Schiavo from April 1995 to July 1996. (Note, falsifying your affidavit testimony is illegal, and is punishable under the laws that address perjury.)
According to the testimony, Mr. Schiavo is reported to have said the following:
"When is she going to die?"
"Has she died yet?"
"When is that bitch gonna die?"
"Can't anything be done to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?"
"I'm going to be rich!"
Also, Iyer states that he, "would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things."
Assuming this nurse is telling the truth (and I suspect she is - have you ever heard Mr. Schiavo speak in public? He's a nutjob on steroids), Mr. Schiavo's feigning concern for his wife is nothing but naked deceit. His intent is clear, and the Florida "justice" system, and the Death Lobby are accomplices in his efforts to see her dead so that he can become "rich."
Simply disgusting.
There is, strangely enough, an upside to this distressing situation. The out-of-control judiciary is a very prominent actor in this sad play. They are, once again, stepping over the bounds of civilized behavior (much less judicious conduct), and doing so right in front of an increasingly shocked American public. Thinking of it in the light of purely cold-blooded practicality, you couldn't ask for a better example of outlandish judicial misbehavior on the run-up to the nuclear political war about to start in the US Senate over filibusters of judicial nominees.
Once again, the Left is reminding us that they've lost their sense of timing. But will they learn anything from this? Give me a break. You know what they'll do: They'll sit around their cafés, sipping their triple-mocha lattes, and grouse about those brain-dead morons who, incomprehensibly, keep kicking their ass at the polls.
Whatever. I wave at them as they continue to gibber their way off to the ash heap of American history.
Bub-bye.
(1) comments
Shame Shame Shame
Charles Krauthammer has a very interesting article that draws an analogy between what's going on in the Middle East today, and the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. He also discusses another revolutionary push for liberal freedom in Europe, circa 1848.
Good reading, and I suggest you check out the whole thing. The reason I bring it up here is because he closes with a few thoughtful, and somewhat provocative, summations of recent events. I also bring it up because I cannot resist the temptation to poke my finger into a few granny-glasses-adorned eyes. I always believe in being somewhat respectful of our peaceful, hemp-shirted, aging Paleo-Hippies™, but considering the recent nature of their vitriol which they freely dispense as if from a fire hose, a little blowback is justified, and very much in order.
Money Quote:
(0) comments
Charles Krauthammer has a very interesting article that draws an analogy between what's going on in the Middle East today, and the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. He also discusses another revolutionary push for liberal freedom in Europe, circa 1848.
Good reading, and I suggest you check out the whole thing. The reason I bring it up here is because he closes with a few thoughtful, and somewhat provocative, summations of recent events. I also bring it up because I cannot resist the temptation to poke my finger into a few granny-glasses-adorned eyes. I always believe in being somewhat respectful of our peaceful, hemp-shirted, aging Paleo-Hippies™, but considering the recent nature of their vitriol which they freely dispense as if from a fire hose, a little blowback is justified, and very much in order.
Money Quote:
After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.
A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero -- a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing -- Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons -- nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.
The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.
Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.
(0) comments
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Last Shot At Horsey (for now)
I was just looking at that Horsey cartoon again and noticed that he had depicted Rush Limbaugh as (of course) fat.
For one thing, Mr. Limbaugh has slimmed down quite a bit. And that happened quite a few years ago. Now, I don't object to Horsey's inaccurate depiction, but it brought up another instance of something I commented on earlier.
Why is it "okay" for libs to take potshots at somebody's physical shape? Have they none of their vaunted sensitivity for Mr. Limbaugh's beleaguered body image? Have they no tolerance for Plus Size people?
Why is it acceptable for libs to chortle over Al Franken's book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot?
Shocking! Heh.
Please forgive me in the future if I tend to dismiss lib outrage at the lack of sensitivity they see in people like me.
Take it down the road, asshats, I ain't buying any.
(4) comments
I was just looking at that Horsey cartoon again and noticed that he had depicted Rush Limbaugh as (of course) fat.
For one thing, Mr. Limbaugh has slimmed down quite a bit. And that happened quite a few years ago. Now, I don't object to Horsey's inaccurate depiction, but it brought up another instance of something I commented on earlier.
Why is it "okay" for libs to take potshots at somebody's physical shape? Have they none of their vaunted sensitivity for Mr. Limbaugh's beleaguered body image? Have they no tolerance for Plus Size people?
Why is it acceptable for libs to chortle over Al Franken's book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot?
Shocking! Heh.
Please forgive me in the future if I tend to dismiss lib outrage at the lack of sensitivity they see in people like me.
Take it down the road, asshats, I ain't buying any.
(4) comments
Wrapping Up (Response to WD Continued...)
"Ah.... at least one of the parties, (starts with D) still believes in true democracy and not a republic... HEY, isn't that why you're called REPUBLICANS and they are DEMOCRATS? Root words - Republic and Democracy... I never thought you'd turn your back on true democracy"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. A basic civics text will explain that the United States of America is a democratic republic. Here, let me help:
The people elect (democratically) representatives (republican) to make laws. This is all laid out in the US Constitution.
Are you suggesting that we need to revise the way this country is governed? If you think your party's had a hard time under the current rules, how do you think instituting a true democracy would help?
I, of course, would oppose any such move because:
1) This is a big country, and takes somebody who's almost constantly "on the job" to make decisions. It would be impractical to have the public vote every time some policy decision needed to be made. Response time would seriously lag.
2) I'm a firm believer in Federalism. To me, Federalism allows various groups of differently-minded people to run things the way they see fit in their individual communities. Federalism supports political diversity.
3) With a true democracy you run the risk of the Tyranny of the Majority. As one of your own Senators mentioned at that MOO revival, the Senate (for example) was designed to be a deliberative body not directly (or frequently) exposed to the passions of the populous.
4) Where is the room for the Judiciary in a true democracy? If all decisions are directly made by the public, what acts as a restraint on them with regard to personal liberty? What if the people take a liking to stripping some un-favored segment of the population of their civil rights? If my earlier supposition is true, that the population tends toward conservatism, what happens to people like you?
All that said, this is still a democratic republic. The systems of government may not be immediately responsive to every public whim, but, over time, the systems of government will eventually shape themselves to match the general public mindset. It's supposed to work that way, and it usually does. That's what you've been seeing over the last couple decades. That's what you find so infuriating and frustrating.
Sure, you're absolutely correct that this current trend is likely at some point to reverse. But that's not what's happening now. And it doesn't really represent any kind of political counterpunch. It's a lot like saying, "yah, well you wait! At some point the sun is going to rise." Huh? Yah. Whatever.
If you meant that as a warning that any structural changes my side makes could then, at some point, fall into the hands of your side... point taken. You're right. And that is always in the back of my mind, and the minds of the Conservatives. And it does provide a cautionary note, especially with regard to the upcoming Nuclear Option to allow a simple majority of Senators to end a debate to allow a vote on a judicial nominee. But what you may not be aware of is the fact that the Democrats were the first party to use filibusters to block judicial nominees. The Republicans voted down many Democrat nominees, but that was either a result of not providing a favorable committee report, or a direct vote of the full Senate. Not filibustering.
So, why should my side worry about removing a misused tool we never used anyway?
Besides, it's not like this is unprecedented. The House used to have filibusters (or the rough equivalent). But that was done away with a long time ago. And even the Senate can't filibuster budget bills (that's now the drilling in ANWAR bill was passed).
It seems, in fact, that it is you who are objecting to democratic ideals. This conversation began on the topic of filibustering judicial nominees. How long do you expect the American people to idly sit by while their will is repeatedly thwarted? The people voted to configure the Senate with 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent (who votes with the Dems). Likewise, the American people voted a majority of the House to be composed of Republicans. And, just to review, they voted in a Republican president. I sense a trend. LOL
Isn't it a reflection of democratic values that these collective popular decisions will eventually seep through into the machinery of government? A whole lot of people (including yours truly) are a whole lot of pissed off because we repeatedly have our will dismissed, overturned, discounted and treated with contempt by an out-of-control madcap judiciary. We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore. And if we can't get satisfaction with this lot of elected representatives, we'll find another bunch who will friggin listen to us.
Your judicial dictatorship is going down, WD. And it's going to do so under the weight of the majority of the American people. We've had it, and we expect our elected officials to do what they're told - and fix it.
"Remember.... once George finishes screwing the country while you guys BLINDLY follow orders"
Why "BLINDLY"? Or is this yet another example of lib contempt for anybody who doesn't fall in with your point of view? That has always confused me. I certainly credit you with having thought your way to your political positions. You're a smart guy. Wrong, but smart. :D
I mean, go ahead and assume that your opponents (including me) are a brain-dead lot of ill-informed nincompoops, but you should understand that that leaves you completely unprepared for a conservative with an operational neuron, or two. What are you going to do at that point? Hurl more political bombs?
You referenced in a (non-published) e-mail that you were going to turn lose a plethora of Left-Wing debate ninjas, kind of the rhetorical version of the Crazy 88.
Bring 'em on. DigiSamurai is ready to begin the lesson.
(0) comments
"Ah.... at least one of the parties, (starts with D) still believes in true democracy and not a republic... HEY, isn't that why you're called REPUBLICANS and they are DEMOCRATS? Root words - Republic and Democracy... I never thought you'd turn your back on true democracy"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. A basic civics text will explain that the United States of America is a democratic republic. Here, let me help:
1 entry found for democratic republic.
Main Entry: democratic republic
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a form of government embodying democratic principles and where a monarch is not the head of state
The people elect (democratically) representatives (republican) to make laws. This is all laid out in the US Constitution.
Are you suggesting that we need to revise the way this country is governed? If you think your party's had a hard time under the current rules, how do you think instituting a true democracy would help?
I, of course, would oppose any such move because:
1) This is a big country, and takes somebody who's almost constantly "on the job" to make decisions. It would be impractical to have the public vote every time some policy decision needed to be made. Response time would seriously lag.
2) I'm a firm believer in Federalism. To me, Federalism allows various groups of differently-minded people to run things the way they see fit in their individual communities. Federalism supports political diversity.
3) With a true democracy you run the risk of the Tyranny of the Majority. As one of your own Senators mentioned at that MOO revival, the Senate (for example) was designed to be a deliberative body not directly (or frequently) exposed to the passions of the populous.
4) Where is the room for the Judiciary in a true democracy? If all decisions are directly made by the public, what acts as a restraint on them with regard to personal liberty? What if the people take a liking to stripping some un-favored segment of the population of their civil rights? If my earlier supposition is true, that the population tends toward conservatism, what happens to people like you?
All that said, this is still a democratic republic. The systems of government may not be immediately responsive to every public whim, but, over time, the systems of government will eventually shape themselves to match the general public mindset. It's supposed to work that way, and it usually does. That's what you've been seeing over the last couple decades. That's what you find so infuriating and frustrating.
Sure, you're absolutely correct that this current trend is likely at some point to reverse. But that's not what's happening now. And it doesn't really represent any kind of political counterpunch. It's a lot like saying, "yah, well you wait! At some point the sun is going to rise." Huh? Yah. Whatever.
If you meant that as a warning that any structural changes my side makes could then, at some point, fall into the hands of your side... point taken. You're right. And that is always in the back of my mind, and the minds of the Conservatives. And it does provide a cautionary note, especially with regard to the upcoming Nuclear Option to allow a simple majority of Senators to end a debate to allow a vote on a judicial nominee. But what you may not be aware of is the fact that the Democrats were the first party to use filibusters to block judicial nominees. The Republicans voted down many Democrat nominees, but that was either a result of not providing a favorable committee report, or a direct vote of the full Senate. Not filibustering.
So, why should my side worry about removing a misused tool we never used anyway?
Besides, it's not like this is unprecedented. The House used to have filibusters (or the rough equivalent). But that was done away with a long time ago. And even the Senate can't filibuster budget bills (that's now the drilling in ANWAR bill was passed).
It seems, in fact, that it is you who are objecting to democratic ideals. This conversation began on the topic of filibustering judicial nominees. How long do you expect the American people to idly sit by while their will is repeatedly thwarted? The people voted to configure the Senate with 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent (who votes with the Dems). Likewise, the American people voted a majority of the House to be composed of Republicans. And, just to review, they voted in a Republican president. I sense a trend. LOL
Isn't it a reflection of democratic values that these collective popular decisions will eventually seep through into the machinery of government? A whole lot of people (including yours truly) are a whole lot of pissed off because we repeatedly have our will dismissed, overturned, discounted and treated with contempt by an out-of-control madcap judiciary. We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore. And if we can't get satisfaction with this lot of elected representatives, we'll find another bunch who will friggin listen to us.
Your judicial dictatorship is going down, WD. And it's going to do so under the weight of the majority of the American people. We've had it, and we expect our elected officials to do what they're told - and fix it.
"Remember.... once George finishes screwing the country while you guys BLINDLY follow orders"
Why "BLINDLY"? Or is this yet another example of lib contempt for anybody who doesn't fall in with your point of view? That has always confused me. I certainly credit you with having thought your way to your political positions. You're a smart guy. Wrong, but smart. :D
I mean, go ahead and assume that your opponents (including me) are a brain-dead lot of ill-informed nincompoops, but you should understand that that leaves you completely unprepared for a conservative with an operational neuron, or two. What are you going to do at that point? Hurl more political bombs?
You referenced in a (non-published) e-mail that you were going to turn lose a plethora of Left-Wing debate ninjas, kind of the rhetorical version of the Crazy 88.
Bring 'em on. DigiSamurai is ready to begin the lesson.
(0) comments
Fessing Up
I'll admit it, okay? I started my most recent exchange with Witch Doctor on purpose. I secretly bet myself that it would only take me one single sentence to get him to open fire. As it turned out, the single sentence referenced something he hadn't heard about.
Damn!
I had seen, the night before, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Boxer, Byrd, et al lined up behind the MoveOn.org banner, energetically defending The Faith and excoriating Bush and the Reps for destroying Democracy, burning down the Senate building and eating live human babies. Or something like that. Whatever. Evil Deeds aplenty.
So my intent was to engage our good friend Witch Doctor and maybe poke a little fun at him for his leaders' bemusing willingness to be so openly associated with an organization that ran an advertisement comparing Bush with Hitler. As if that kind of rampant ass-hattery did their side any good.
So I was a bit disappointed that he didn't immediately flamethrow me.
Nevertheless, true to form, Witch Doctor eventually got up to speed and flamed away. Here, take a look: (e-mail exchange follows)
DigiBlog: I saw that MoveOn.org/DNC orgy last night, and I was thinking, "good stuff." :D
WD: Wow.... was that on the Sex channel? I didn't see or hear anything... good stuff... eh?
DigiBlog: Several Senate Dem leaders having a rally hosted by MOO (heh) to complain about the Reps potentially preventing filibusters for judicial nominee votes. Lots of accusations, lots of raised voices. Reminded me of the Wellstone "funeral" back in '02. I was surprised to see Senator Clinton there, though. She'd been tacking to the right for the last several months.
WD: Well, I'm glad to see that democrats at least have the brains to discuss, argue and come to some consensus.... unlike the republicans who just do what Der Fuhrer instructs them to...
Ah.... at least one of the parties, (starts with D) still believes in true democracy and not a republic... HEY, isn't that why you're called REPUBLICANS and they are DEMOCRATS? Root words - Republic and Democracy... I never thought you'd turn your back on true democracy
Remember.... once George finishes screwing the country while you guys BLINDLY follow orders, the back lash will be fun to watch... and if you really truly think your party will not see it and run the country from now on... just take a look at american history my friend.... :-) Why didn't you guys talk about the issues your pushing now, during the election? hmmmm... might not have won maybe? (it is only about winning, not being truthful) Just where is Arnold and the other moderate republicans you guys paraded at your convention so George could be re-elected, why don't they get cabinet posts? Was it truly smoke and mirrors for the moderate fence sitters? You guys crack me up... you run on non critical issues (gay rights and Kerry's viet nam service, you put moderates on TV like your leadership is anything close to moderate, then you put them back in the closet when you win, and bring out the issues that smell (actually stink) of Fundamentalist Amerika....
Ronald Reagan is probably rolling over in his grave every day watching you guys... and the modern republicans try to say they still carry his banner... pretty sad.
DigiBlog: Heh heh. I love this. I've got a few minutes of lunch left so I'll start now and finish you-know-where, WD.
Do you really think wacko-leftist propaganda and hyperbole will win you the hearts and minds of the American people? Comparisons between GWB and Hitler are not going to endear you to the common citizen, who generally has a favorable opinion of GWB as a person, and have just voted for his policies. But then again, a healthy respect for the intellectual ability of the American public has never been you guys' strong point, has it? Whenever they vote against you it's always because they've been duped, or lack sophistication, aren't paying attention, or are just plain unenlightened. Same shtick, different decade.
I'm assuming one of GWB's policies you're referring to is the issue of the Dems filibustering judicial nominees. I don't know why this is a surprise to you (unless it's due to the long-time practice of Dems to "discuss, argue and come to consensus" only amongst themselves - not with the rest of us), but this issue was one of the primary domestic issues GWB ran on. I knew this, the talking heads knew this, the Dem leaders knew this (and argued against it), and a sizable chunk of the public knew this. This is no surprise.
You seem to proceed from a perspective that the general public is moderate. I'd have to disagree. Though a broad range is covered, of course, it works out (based on the election results of last year) that the public nets out fairly conservative. Take, for example, the 11 states that changed their constitution to solidify the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Even Oregon (!!!) voted for this. That is not a classically "moderate" point of view. It's conservative.
And as to the "where is Arnie" question: last time I checked he was the Governor of California, not exactly a political closet. Rudy is still going around the country giving speeches. And you make it sound as if the Rep party is somehow abusing and using these moderates by having them appear for stump speeches and the convention. What, did the Reps kidnap these moderates and force them to speak?
No, these moderates, for whom you feign such sincere respect, chose on their own to support GWB's bid to be re-elected. They knew his policies and his proposals. They knew what they were doing when they stumped for him. So if you respect them so much then you may want to consider some respect for their ability to make up their own mind, and choose between the two parties. Unless, of course, they were duped as well. You can't have it both ways. If you admire these moderates then you're just going to have to deal with the fact that they chose the Rep party of their own free will, and did not associate themselves either with the Dem party or the Left in this country.
Ask yourself this question: Given the choice between the Rep party and the Dem party, with which did these vaunted moderates side? Why?
(0) comments
I'll admit it, okay? I started my most recent exchange with Witch Doctor on purpose. I secretly bet myself that it would only take me one single sentence to get him to open fire. As it turned out, the single sentence referenced something he hadn't heard about.
Damn!
I had seen, the night before, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Boxer, Byrd, et al lined up behind the MoveOn.org banner, energetically defending The Faith and excoriating Bush and the Reps for destroying Democracy, burning down the Senate building and eating live human babies. Or something like that. Whatever. Evil Deeds aplenty.
So my intent was to engage our good friend Witch Doctor and maybe poke a little fun at him for his leaders' bemusing willingness to be so openly associated with an organization that ran an advertisement comparing Bush with Hitler. As if that kind of rampant ass-hattery did their side any good.
So I was a bit disappointed that he didn't immediately flamethrow me.
Nevertheless, true to form, Witch Doctor eventually got up to speed and flamed away. Here, take a look: (e-mail exchange follows)
DigiBlog: I saw that MoveOn.org/DNC orgy last night, and I was thinking, "good stuff." :D
WD: Wow.... was that on the Sex channel? I didn't see or hear anything... good stuff... eh?
DigiBlog: Several Senate Dem leaders having a rally hosted by MOO (heh) to complain about the Reps potentially preventing filibusters for judicial nominee votes. Lots of accusations, lots of raised voices. Reminded me of the Wellstone "funeral" back in '02. I was surprised to see Senator Clinton there, though. She'd been tacking to the right for the last several months.
WD: Well, I'm glad to see that democrats at least have the brains to discuss, argue and come to some consensus.... unlike the republicans who just do what Der Fuhrer instructs them to...
Ah.... at least one of the parties, (starts with D) still believes in true democracy and not a republic... HEY, isn't that why you're called REPUBLICANS and they are DEMOCRATS? Root words - Republic and Democracy... I never thought you'd turn your back on true democracy
Remember.... once George finishes screwing the country while you guys BLINDLY follow orders, the back lash will be fun to watch... and if you really truly think your party will not see it and run the country from now on... just take a look at american history my friend.... :-) Why didn't you guys talk about the issues your pushing now, during the election? hmmmm... might not have won maybe? (it is only about winning, not being truthful) Just where is Arnold and the other moderate republicans you guys paraded at your convention so George could be re-elected, why don't they get cabinet posts? Was it truly smoke and mirrors for the moderate fence sitters? You guys crack me up... you run on non critical issues (gay rights and Kerry's viet nam service, you put moderates on TV like your leadership is anything close to moderate, then you put them back in the closet when you win, and bring out the issues that smell (actually stink) of Fundamentalist Amerika....
Ronald Reagan is probably rolling over in his grave every day watching you guys... and the modern republicans try to say they still carry his banner... pretty sad.
DigiBlog: Heh heh. I love this. I've got a few minutes of lunch left so I'll start now and finish you-know-where, WD.
Do you really think wacko-leftist propaganda and hyperbole will win you the hearts and minds of the American people? Comparisons between GWB and Hitler are not going to endear you to the common citizen, who generally has a favorable opinion of GWB as a person, and have just voted for his policies. But then again, a healthy respect for the intellectual ability of the American public has never been you guys' strong point, has it? Whenever they vote against you it's always because they've been duped, or lack sophistication, aren't paying attention, or are just plain unenlightened. Same shtick, different decade.
I'm assuming one of GWB's policies you're referring to is the issue of the Dems filibustering judicial nominees. I don't know why this is a surprise to you (unless it's due to the long-time practice of Dems to "discuss, argue and come to consensus" only amongst themselves - not with the rest of us), but this issue was one of the primary domestic issues GWB ran on. I knew this, the talking heads knew this, the Dem leaders knew this (and argued against it), and a sizable chunk of the public knew this. This is no surprise.
You seem to proceed from a perspective that the general public is moderate. I'd have to disagree. Though a broad range is covered, of course, it works out (based on the election results of last year) that the public nets out fairly conservative. Take, for example, the 11 states that changed their constitution to solidify the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Even Oregon (!!!) voted for this. That is not a classically "moderate" point of view. It's conservative.
And as to the "where is Arnie" question: last time I checked he was the Governor of California, not exactly a political closet. Rudy is still going around the country giving speeches. And you make it sound as if the Rep party is somehow abusing and using these moderates by having them appear for stump speeches and the convention. What, did the Reps kidnap these moderates and force them to speak?
No, these moderates, for whom you feign such sincere respect, chose on their own to support GWB's bid to be re-elected. They knew his policies and his proposals. They knew what they were doing when they stumped for him. So if you respect them so much then you may want to consider some respect for their ability to make up their own mind, and choose between the two parties. Unless, of course, they were duped as well. You can't have it both ways. If you admire these moderates then you're just going to have to deal with the fact that they chose the Rep party of their own free will, and did not associate themselves either with the Dem party or the Left in this country.
Ask yourself this question: Given the choice between the Rep party and the Dem party, with which did these vaunted moderates side? Why?
(0) comments
An Anonymous Reply to My Horsey Post
Well, lookey what we have here!
Well, no. I'm not on the payroll. Kind of whish I was. Who couldn't use some extra cash?
Seriously, though, I consider Williams a political whore. Then again, Daily Kos, who was on the take from the Kerry Campaign, is just as much of a political Sex Industry worker. To hell with them all. I really don't care.
Well, I almost don't care. I think Bush paying for good press in such a clandestine way was one of the stupidest ideas, and disingenuous as well, to come across the table in many years. And the sad part is that my commenter is probably surprised to read me criticizing that dumba** move on Bush's part.
I think he/she (was that you, WD?) comforts him/her self by imagining people like me to be motivated solely by naked ideology. After all, isn't it easier to dismiss your opponent's opinions if you first dehumanize them personally and demonize their motivations? That way you really don't have to engage their thoughts. A snarky shot from the hip will do just fine.
As to the situation with "Gannon," I find myself observing the situation with a growing sense of mirth.
Besides the fact that just about anybody can get a daily Press Room pass (you are, after all, physically screened before being allowed access), there appears to be an amusing sense of outrage from our lib friends that "Gannon" was not a "real journalist."
This is a good sign, as I see it. This indicates that the libs have, at last, reached the last stage of desperation on their road of indignation regarding the appearance of the New Media and the Blogosphere. They're huffing and gasping, incredulous over the temerity of these young upstarts. "How dare those rubes, those unpolished ruffians, presume to enter the exalted realm of Journalists?!" Heh. They're defending their last battlements, on their last legs, left only with shock and horror as their last defense against the invading infidels of independent thought. (Ouch! That'll leave a mark!)
What I find most hilarious, though, is that the libs are getting so frantic that they commit acts they would usually find completely unacceptable were they taken by others.
To wit: The only time libs gay-bash, or find it acceptable to do so, is when the gay-in-question is a Conservative. Oh Lord! Where is the Tolerance?!
What's that noise? That buzzing in your ears? That is the sound of me, laughing at you.
What's also worth noting is that the only gay-bashing I encounter any more is the gay-bashing hate speech spewed by libs. And they do so excel at it, don't they? They appear to have a talent for adroit and visceral hatred for gay Conservatives that is amazing in its intellectual "flexibility."
Silly rabbit.
LOL
(1) comments
Well, lookey what we have here!
I know the Bush administration is paying Armstrong Williams, (who once hit on David Brock), and Maggie Gallagher to promote his programs in their columns and let this James Guckert/Jeff Gannon character with an alias, who is a gay escort and not a real journalist, get a press pass into the White House press room for the sole purpose of tossing softballs for McClellan and the Smirking One, really doesn't mind provocative questions. Ken, please assure me that you aren't on the payroll too. Ol' Horsey has a point even if he isn't reinforcing YOUR position and giving the lazy, lapdog general media a pass. This nonsense of the administraion paying public relation firms to promote it's agenda through misleading reporting/faux news reports has cost the taxpayers $240 million since he has been in office. Horsey nailed it.
Well, no. I'm not on the payroll. Kind of whish I was. Who couldn't use some extra cash?
Seriously, though, I consider Williams a political whore. Then again, Daily Kos, who was on the take from the Kerry Campaign, is just as much of a political Sex Industry worker. To hell with them all. I really don't care.
Well, I almost don't care. I think Bush paying for good press in such a clandestine way was one of the stupidest ideas, and disingenuous as well, to come across the table in many years. And the sad part is that my commenter is probably surprised to read me criticizing that dumba** move on Bush's part.
I think he/she (was that you, WD?) comforts him/her self by imagining people like me to be motivated solely by naked ideology. After all, isn't it easier to dismiss your opponent's opinions if you first dehumanize them personally and demonize their motivations? That way you really don't have to engage their thoughts. A snarky shot from the hip will do just fine.
As to the situation with "Gannon," I find myself observing the situation with a growing sense of mirth.
Besides the fact that just about anybody can get a daily Press Room pass (you are, after all, physically screened before being allowed access), there appears to be an amusing sense of outrage from our lib friends that "Gannon" was not a "real journalist."
This is a good sign, as I see it. This indicates that the libs have, at last, reached the last stage of desperation on their road of indignation regarding the appearance of the New Media and the Blogosphere. They're huffing and gasping, incredulous over the temerity of these young upstarts. "How dare those rubes, those unpolished ruffians, presume to enter the exalted realm of Journalists?!" Heh. They're defending their last battlements, on their last legs, left only with shock and horror as their last defense against the invading infidels of independent thought. (Ouch! That'll leave a mark!)
What I find most hilarious, though, is that the libs are getting so frantic that they commit acts they would usually find completely unacceptable were they taken by others.
To wit: The only time libs gay-bash, or find it acceptable to do so, is when the gay-in-question is a Conservative. Oh Lord! Where is the Tolerance?!
What's that noise? That buzzing in your ears? That is the sound of me, laughing at you.
What's also worth noting is that the only gay-bashing I encounter any more is the gay-bashing hate speech spewed by libs. And they do so excel at it, don't they? They appear to have a talent for adroit and visceral hatred for gay Conservatives that is amazing in its intellectual "flexibility."
Silly rabbit.
LOL
(1) comments
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Rumble At West Seattle High
Somebody obviously didn't get the memo. I don't have full information on this yet, and it's just (so far) based on what I'm hearing on (yes, the dreaded) talk radio, but apparently last night the local Fox affiliate KCPQ Fox 13 reported that an assembly was held recently at West Seattle High School.
Subject of the assembly? "Iraq Awareness." Ahh - a debate, yes? I think it's an excellent idea for high school kids to be exposed to the several sides of a debate. Good for mental agility and general information.
Unfortunately, from what I'm hearing, it wasn't exactly like that. Sheryl Sheaffer (of Operation Support Our Troops fame), KCPQ, and others, are reporting that instead of a balanced presentation, or even a spirited debate, the youts (that's right; youts) at WSHS were gifted with a presentation reminiscent of a People's Liberation Army political passion play in some small Indo Chinese village. White silhouettes of Iraqi women and children, splattered with red paint symbolizing blood (of course), adorned the stage. Then there were the depictions of American soldiers intentionally shooting civilians. And what wacko lefty presentation would be complete without (and I kid you not) some number of adults banging on sheets of metal with spoons?
I have two reactions. 1) When in the hell are the left-wing nutjobs going to figure out that we're going to catch them doing this? 2) Was Chris Kattan in tights? Er. Sorry. That's too much even for me at 6:30 in the AM.
Again: Somebody obviously didn't get the memo. The Lefties think they have exclusive control over secondary education (that reminds me: I have a local high school teacher to excoriate here soon - fun!), but they do not. At least not to the extent that they can do this kind of PLA song-and-dance without getting "outed."
I'll wait for more solid info, but if this proves out then it's going to be somewhat entertaining to hold it up as yet another example of the Left trying, once again, to get a wider audience for the Vagina Monologues.
(0) comments
Somebody obviously didn't get the memo. I don't have full information on this yet, and it's just (so far) based on what I'm hearing on (yes, the dreaded) talk radio, but apparently last night the local Fox affiliate KCPQ Fox 13 reported that an assembly was held recently at West Seattle High School.
Subject of the assembly? "Iraq Awareness." Ahh - a debate, yes? I think it's an excellent idea for high school kids to be exposed to the several sides of a debate. Good for mental agility and general information.
Unfortunately, from what I'm hearing, it wasn't exactly like that. Sheryl Sheaffer (of Operation Support Our Troops fame), KCPQ, and others, are reporting that instead of a balanced presentation, or even a spirited debate, the youts (that's right; youts) at WSHS were gifted with a presentation reminiscent of a People's Liberation Army political passion play in some small Indo Chinese village. White silhouettes of Iraqi women and children, splattered with red paint symbolizing blood (of course), adorned the stage. Then there were the depictions of American soldiers intentionally shooting civilians. And what wacko lefty presentation would be complete without (and I kid you not) some number of adults banging on sheets of metal with spoons?
I have two reactions. 1) When in the hell are the left-wing nutjobs going to figure out that we're going to catch them doing this? 2) Was Chris Kattan in tights? Er. Sorry. That's too much even for me at 6:30 in the AM.
Again: Somebody obviously didn't get the memo. The Lefties think they have exclusive control over secondary education (that reminds me: I have a local high school teacher to excoriate here soon - fun!), but they do not. At least not to the extent that they can do this kind of PLA song-and-dance without getting "outed."
I'll wait for more solid info, but if this proves out then it's going to be somewhat entertaining to hold it up as yet another example of the Left trying, once again, to get a wider audience for the Vagina Monologues.
(0) comments
David Horsey: Political Porn Artist
Mike, from Different Tack (see Nav Bar at left), pointed this out to me:
[Image Deleted]
Ol' David Horsey at it again. But that's okay. I've kind of learned, over the last couple of years, to take a certain sadistic enjoyment from these Left(behind) Wing misanthropic missives. After all, isn't it a little expected that if you hear the bleating of those you really just don't like, you eventually learn to enjoy it?
Besides, Maureen Dowd kind of looks hot in bondage. Heh heh.
(1) comments
Mike, from Different Tack (see Nav Bar at left), pointed this out to me:
[Image Deleted]
Ol' David Horsey at it again. But that's okay. I've kind of learned, over the last couple of years, to take a certain sadistic enjoyment from these Left(behind) Wing misanthropic missives. After all, isn't it a little expected that if you hear the bleating of those you really just don't like, you eventually learn to enjoy it?
Besides, Maureen Dowd kind of looks hot in bondage. Heh heh.
(1) comments
Monday, March 14, 2005
Here It Comes
(pregnant pause)
In a story only a contortionist could admire, the New York Times has attempted a preemptive strike on something that is gaining more prominence in the news. In a story that tries to "shape" the public perception of the (more and more likely) upcoming revelations about the Iraqi WMDs, they mischaracterize the disappearance of the WMD-making equipment, and possibly stockpiles, as having been done by "looters," a word they use (and it's variants) many, many times. As if we need to be spoon-fed their propaganda.
I have a boatload of quotes for you from the story. But, as always, I would prefer that you read the original as well. So light the incense and feel the karma of what the Grey Lady is trying to get you to "feel" about the gestalt of the penumbra of the implications of the story. Or, read what they're really tacitly admitting out of fear of being scooped (again). The choice is yours.
One thought before I lay it all on you, man: can you steal something that was not there in the first place? Oh, wait, man, I have another thought (this is heavy!): picture a looter in your mind. What do you see? Some guy running out of an appliance store clutching a TV? Me too.
Okay, here it comes: (the ellipses [...] separate individual quotes from the article)
Now, ask yourself this: how many "looters" come equipped with cranes and trucks? How many "looters" have sophisticated knowledge of what's important (and what's not) in a nuclear/biological/chemical weapons facility, much less "8 or 10" of them? How many "looters" know exactly, in vast complexes of buildings, where to find it? How many "looters" have the organization to strike almost a dozen sites just in the cusp of war? What kind of "looters" have the ability to conceal and transport large and complex equipment out of a war zone?
"Looters"? Bollix.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Er, I meant, what we have here is the first MSM confirmation that Saddam's WMD equipment existed in Iraq not only right before the war, but weeks into it. Perhaps the stockpiles as well.
We also have what I would consider to be detailed and specific evidence that these were not "looters." They were organized teams of people trained in the specific skills of handling and transporting sophisticated nuclear/biological/chemical weapons equipment with military precisions and deportment.
Does that remind you of something I said just a few days ago? (here, let me help )
To quote one of the Web's most brilliant and insightful bloggers (ahem!):
But wait! It's not proof. So, I encourage all anti-war protestors, Leftists, and George W. Bush haters to put their response down on the record here. Tell me I'm an ass. Tell us all (well, all three of us reading this), that there were no WMDs or equipment in Iraq immediately preceding the War.
What was that? You're worried that you might be proved wrong? You're concerned that the downward spiral of despair and pain you've been experiencing since the November election may just be capped off by being proved wrong about this, too?
Don't worry. I understand. After all, I am a compassionate DigiBlog. Please take advantage of the many support programs and therapists available to help you through this traumatic period of your life (Florida has many). One caution, however: you must never, ever relinquish your control of the Democratic Party. The rest of us need you right (oops, ah, "just") where you are, manning the battlements and defending the Faith.
Final thought: when you finally reach the point where you, in desperation, conclude that the only thing left is to hope for some kind of calamity to finally, once and for all, prove that DumYa is a complete and dangerously moronic bumpkin, understand that you've not just reached the edge, you've gone over and are picking up speed.
(0) comments
(pregnant pause)
In a story only a contortionist could admire, the New York Times has attempted a preemptive strike on something that is gaining more prominence in the news. In a story that tries to "shape" the public perception of the (more and more likely) upcoming revelations about the Iraqi WMDs, they mischaracterize the disappearance of the WMD-making equipment, and possibly stockpiles, as having been done by "looters," a word they use (and it's variants) many, many times. As if we need to be spoon-fed their propaganda.
I have a boatload of quotes for you from the story. But, as always, I would prefer that you read the original as well. So light the incense and feel the karma of what the Grey Lady is trying to get you to "feel" about the gestalt of the penumbra of the implications of the story. Or, read what they're really tacitly admitting out of fear of being scooped (again). The choice is yours.
One thought before I lay it all on you, man: can you steal something that was not there in the first place? Oh, wait, man, I have another thought (this is heavy!): picture a looter in your mind. What do you see? Some guy running out of an appliance store clutching a TV? Me too.
Okay, here it comes: (the ellipses [...] separate individual quotes from the article)
In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.
...
"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."
...
For nearly a year, the two agencies have sent regular reports to the United Nations Security Council detailing evidence of the dismantlement of Iraqi military installations and, in a few cases, the movement of Iraqi gear to other countries.
...
The disclosures by the Iraqi ministry, however, added new information about the thefts, detailing the timing, the material taken and the apparent skill shown by the thieves.
...
Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.
...
The peak of the organized looting, Dr. Araji estimates, occurred in four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. That operation was followed by rounds of less discriminating thievery.
"The first wave came for the machines," Dr. Araji said. "The second wave, cables and cranes. The third wave came for the bricks."
...
Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.
David Albright, an authority on nuclear weaponry who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said that Syria and Iran were the countries most likely to be in the market for the kind of equipment that Mr. Hussein purchased, at great cost, when he was secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon in the 1980's.
...
Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment.
The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs.
...
The diplomat added that the atomic energy agency's reconnaissance team found that Al Radwan was "significantly dismantled" and that Al Qadisiya had almost vanished. At the sprawling Hatteen base, he said, "parts are untouched, and parts are 100 percent gone."
...
Officials at the United Nations monitoring agency said some areas of the sprawling Qaqaa installation involved in chemical processing had been wrecked by fire and possible extensive looting. Unknown is the fate of such equipment there like separators, heat exchangers, mixers and chemical reactors, all of which can be used in making chemical weapons.
...
In its most recent report to the United Nations Security Council, in October, the [atomic energy agency] agency said it "continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program."
...
Agency inspectors, in visiting other countries, have discovered tons of industrial scrap, some radioactively contaminated, from Iraq, the report noted. It added, however, that the agency had been unable to track down any of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials.
Now, ask yourself this: how many "looters" come equipped with cranes and trucks? How many "looters" have sophisticated knowledge of what's important (and what's not) in a nuclear/biological/chemical weapons facility, much less "8 or 10" of them? How many "looters" know exactly, in vast complexes of buildings, where to find it? How many "looters" have the organization to strike almost a dozen sites just in the cusp of war? What kind of "looters" have the ability to conceal and transport large and complex equipment out of a war zone?
"Looters"? Bollix.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Er, I meant, what we have here is the first MSM confirmation that Saddam's WMD equipment existed in Iraq not only right before the war, but weeks into it. Perhaps the stockpiles as well.
We also have what I would consider to be detailed and specific evidence that these were not "looters." They were organized teams of people trained in the specific skills of handling and transporting sophisticated nuclear/biological/chemical weapons equipment with military precisions and deportment.
Does that remind you of something I said just a few days ago? (here, let me help )
To quote one of the Web's most brilliant and insightful bloggers (ahem!):
If this pans out, if it's confirmed, then that one issue the Left has been using to (so far legitimately) beat us over the head about the Iraq war will disappear in a puff of Soviet-era diesel exhaust.
But wait! It's not proof. So, I encourage all anti-war protestors, Leftists, and George W. Bush haters to put their response down on the record here. Tell me I'm an ass. Tell us all (well, all three of us reading this), that there were no WMDs or equipment in Iraq immediately preceding the War.
What was that? You're worried that you might be proved wrong? You're concerned that the downward spiral of despair and pain you've been experiencing since the November election may just be capped off by being proved wrong about this, too?
Don't worry. I understand. After all, I am a compassionate DigiBlog. Please take advantage of the many support programs and therapists available to help you through this traumatic period of your life (Florida has many). One caution, however: you must never, ever relinquish your control of the Democratic Party. The rest of us need you right (oops, ah, "just") where you are, manning the battlements and defending the Faith.
Final thought: when you finally reach the point where you, in desperation, conclude that the only thing left is to hope for some kind of calamity to finally, once and for all, prove that DumYa is a complete and dangerously moronic bumpkin, understand that you've not just reached the edge, you've gone over and are picking up speed.
(0) comments
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Canada-Bashing 101
Class is in session.
First, just to be clear and fair: I like the vast majority of Canadians I know an e-know. I love going to Canada because I think it's a splendid place with lots of nice people. That said, I do (obviously) have some problems with Canada's foreign and defense policies.
However, my intent here is not to take the hammer personally to Canada, but I happened to run across a very interesting (and entertaining) smash-job done by a well-known political writer. And I thought you might be interested in reading it.
Some quotes:
There's more:
And still more:
I suggest you read the whole thing. If you can get through it without guffawing openly at least three times then you need to cut your valium intake.
(0) comments
Class is in session.
First, just to be clear and fair: I like the vast majority of Canadians I know an e-know. I love going to Canada because I think it's a splendid place with lots of nice people. That said, I do (obviously) have some problems with Canada's foreign and defense policies.
However, my intent here is not to take the hammer personally to Canada, but I happened to run across a very interesting (and entertaining) smash-job done by a well-known political writer. And I thought you might be interested in reading it.
Some quotes:
If we have bothered forming opinions at all about Canadians, they've tended toward easy-pickings: that they are a docile, Zamboni-driving people who subsist on seal casserole and Molson. Their hobbies include wearing flannel, obsessing over American hegemony, exporting deadly Mad Cow disease and even deadlier Gordon Lightfoot and Nickelback albums. You can tell a lot about a nation's mediocrity index by learning that they invented synchronized swimming. Even more, by the fact that they're proud of it.
There's more:
Dejected Americans, most of whom already live in progressive enclaves, began sounding off to reporters, vowing to check out of the Red-American wasteland before true misfortune befell them. In footage of a Kischer seminar in San Francisco that I obtained from a Canadian documentary film crew (working title of the piece: "Escaping America"), one attendee who looked like a lost Gabor sister but with more plastic surgery said, "I really can't stand George Bush. I can't stand this culture, which is very selfish, aggressive, and mean, violent I think." After going to Canada for just a half an hour from Buffalo, she concluded, "It was like a completely different country. . . . The people seemed more internationally aware, not so isolated and unilateral. There was less evidence of commercialism and corporations. People were friendly."
And still more:
Canadians are traditionally so insecure about the lack of attention we pay them that their government has even paid American universities $300,000 to study them. One of the foremost Canadian Studies programs in the country is at Duke. A professor in the program has said, "We're the most important university to make a serious effort to study Canada. That's like being the best hockey team in Zimbabwe."
I suggest you read the whole thing. If you can get through it without guffawing openly at least three times then you need to cut your valium intake.
(0) comments
Ugh, Canada.
In an e-mail exchange I was having a couple weeks ago I made the assertion that there were Democrats feeling “in droves” to Canada because of the election. My e-mailing buddy immediately jumped on that, saying that he didn’t know a single Democrat who was planning to make The Move(on). He also said that he’d searched for evidence of this on the web, and the only thing he was able to find was a Right Wing blogsite that talked about a Canadian immigration lawyer.
Well, I didn’t have the time to Google it then, but I just got done spending a few minutes doing the research. I Googled +”Rudi Kischer” +Canada (Kischer is the Canadian immigration lawyer most often interviewed by the MSM on this issue). Got 213 hits, too. Now, a lot of them were in fact blogsites, but I also found others. Let’s have a look:
Here’s a quote from an AP story I found in The Olympian (Olympia, Washington):
"We started last year getting a lot of calls from Americans dissatisfied with the way the country is going," [Canadian immigration lawyer Rudi] Kischer says. "Then after the election, it's been crazy up here. The Canadian immigration Web site had 115,000 hits the day after the election -- from the U.S. alone. We usually only get 20,000 hits."
And a quote from The Hilltop - The “Student Voice of Howard University”:
Canadian officials say interest in their country began almost a year before Bush's re-election, but surged when polls showed that Bush would defeat his democratic challenger.
Let’s wrap up with a quote from a story in The Christian Science Monitor (quote is from a former American now living in Canada):
"It's one of the hardest things I've had to do, but I feel I don't really have a choice," Appoldt says. "I just don't understand where 51 percent of this country [who voted for Mr. Bush] is coming from. I feel ostracized - like I don't fit in anymore."
There was another story from CNN, but it’s already been either moved or removed because the story is now a bit dated.
I guess my most basic point is that if you want to leave (permanently) the United States and become a citizen of another country, you are de facto not a patriot. I don’t question these people’s patriotism; I state emphatically that they are unpatriotic and un-American. No question aboot it, eh?
Now, if that makes you angry to read that, then you should realize that you don’t have an argument with me; you have an argument with the English language. In other words – deal with it.
(0) comments
Effects Of Terrorism on the US Economy
Take a look at this chart of the S&P500 over the last five years.
(0) comments
Take a look at this chart of the S&P500 over the last five years.
Note the dip in the last quarter of 2001. We were already in the opening phases of a recession, but the attacks of 9/11 put the hammer to our economy; directly by destroying a major center of commerce, and indirectly by crushing tourism and air travel.
That’s just with the destruction of a set of commercial buildings in Manhattan. Imagine what the effects would have been had al-Qaeda been successful in carrying out the rest of their initial plan of attacking Chicago and the West Coast targets, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told us was their original intent. Thankfully, also according to Mohammed, the government’s swift reaction interrupted al-Qaeda’s planning, so it never got that dire. But what if some terrorist organization was to acquire something more devastating than four jetliners? What if they were to destroy not just a few buildings, but a major fraction of an entire city?
Assuming you were lucky enough not to be killed in such an attack, you’re still in the crosshairs. Do you have money invested in the Stock Market? Where is your retirement fund rooted? Obviously, the cost of such a strike in terms of human life would be horrendous, but we also need to take into account that the attack on 9/11 was not just aimed at killing and terrorizing people; it was also intended as a blow to our economy to restrict our ability to afford projecting our military might around the world, including the Middle East. It was an act of war, and it was effective.
That said, that attack was peanuts on the scale of what could happen should a terror organization get access to, and use, a weapon of mass destruction. And it’s not as if al-Qaeda hasn’t already told us what they have in mind. And now, with the re-emergence of Hezbollah as a potential threat, we have a new (actually old, but forgotten) enemy to contend with.
(0) comments
More On Hezbollah
There is no legitimate way to underestimate the threat this terrorist organization poses to the United States. They are well-equipped, politically savvy, and very, very driven to force us to leave the Middle East.
National Review Online has an interview with Barbara Newman, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. It’s well worth a read if you want to more fully educate yourself about who Hezbollah is, what they want, and what they’re capable of doing to achieve their goals. Here’s a sample of what you’ll find:
But the unvarnished truth is that Hezbollah is the most dangerous terrorist group in the world. It has about 25,000 armed members and as we saw in the pro-Syrian march in Beirut, it can muster a million in the streets.
It's no coincidence that former Deputy Secretary of State Armitage called them "the A team of terrorism." They are disciplined, highly trained, with incredibly lethal equipment with a frighteningly good counterintelligence network. A former head of the FBI's Hezbollah branch told me that "they are the best light infantry in the world and can strike the United States any time any where." [That general sentiment] was echoed by last week's testimony of both the CIA and FBI directors before the Senate in open hearings.
Hezbollah does have a dozen members in the Lebanese parliament, which shows how smart Hezbollah is; it is trying to go both way by having a political side and a standing terrorist apparatus.
Hezbollah doesn't play politics the way we think of it. Its members are devoutly dedicated to the creation of a theocracy in Lebanon similar to that in Iran and to the eradication of the "Jewish entity" — they don't even say Israel is a state — and to the obliteration of all U.S. influence in the Middle East. We are the "Big Satan" to them and Israel is "the little Satan."
(0) comments
Friday, March 11, 2005
Initial Response To Witch Doctor
There is a difference between a freely elected parliament and one that was put in power by an invading army from another country. You would have exploded with incredulity if the Provisional Governing Authority in Iraq had dared state that their actions were a result of the will of the people of Iraq.
Also, you seem to make a lot out of the fact that there were anywhere from 250,000 to half a million people in the street, and that this is proof of what the Lebanese people support. That’s ridiculous on its face. There are, according to a 2004 estimate, approximately 3.7 million people in Lebanon. Those protesting represented anywhere from 6.7% to 13.5% of the population (an impressive turnout, but it was organized – more on that later). When is the appearance of an organized protest proof of anything other than the fact that those people there at the time support the issue at hand? If I recall correctly there were approximately one million protestors in New York for the Republican National Convention. Most were virulent anti-war protestors, but either way, they obviously did not represent the opinion of this country’s majority.
And if you want to compare the sizes of the respective protests in Lebanon (the prior one and this one), then you should, in all fairness, understand one important thing: The first protest (against Syria and its puppet in Lebanon) was accomplished at grave risk to the protestors because they were challenging the government of Syria, with Syrian troops infesting the whole country and Syrian intelligence agents darn near everywhere in Lebanon.
The second protest was organized by Hezbollah, which is an agent organization funded in part by Syria’s regime. The leader of Hezbollah was the primary speaker at the protest (Link to a Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16165-2005Mar8.html )
So, let’s look a little closer at Hezbollah. Who are they? Well, according to the US State Department (which is tasked by law to categorize and evaluate terrorist organizations), Hezbollah is under the direct control of Syria’s intelligence organization and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. They receive funding and weaponry from both countries. They have a variety of aliases: Islamic Jihad, The Revolutionary Justice Organization, The Islamic Resistance, Organization for the Oppressed on Earth.
And they’ve been active terrorists. Perhaps you may remember some of their work. I’ll quote from the February 6, 2004 Congressional Research Service report (Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32223.pdf ):
So, that’s Hezbollah. A terrorist organization responsible for killing as many as 259 American service people. Those were the organizers of that rally. Those are the people who support Syria’s invasion of Lebanon and the continued occupation. And that they were able to gin up a protest is supposed to represent what?
How about we hold an election that isn’t influenced (i.e. threatened) by foreign forces and find out what Lebanon really wants?
(0) comments
There is a difference between a freely elected parliament and one that was put in power by an invading army from another country. You would have exploded with incredulity if the Provisional Governing Authority in Iraq had dared state that their actions were a result of the will of the people of Iraq.
Also, you seem to make a lot out of the fact that there were anywhere from 250,000 to half a million people in the street, and that this is proof of what the Lebanese people support. That’s ridiculous on its face. There are, according to a 2004 estimate, approximately 3.7 million people in Lebanon. Those protesting represented anywhere from 6.7% to 13.5% of the population (an impressive turnout, but it was organized – more on that later). When is the appearance of an organized protest proof of anything other than the fact that those people there at the time support the issue at hand? If I recall correctly there were approximately one million protestors in New York for the Republican National Convention. Most were virulent anti-war protestors, but either way, they obviously did not represent the opinion of this country’s majority.
And if you want to compare the sizes of the respective protests in Lebanon (the prior one and this one), then you should, in all fairness, understand one important thing: The first protest (against Syria and its puppet in Lebanon) was accomplished at grave risk to the protestors because they were challenging the government of Syria, with Syrian troops infesting the whole country and Syrian intelligence agents darn near everywhere in Lebanon.
The second protest was organized by Hezbollah, which is an agent organization funded in part by Syria’s regime. The leader of Hezbollah was the primary speaker at the protest (Link to a Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16165-2005Mar8.html )
So, let’s look a little closer at Hezbollah. Who are they? Well, according to the US State Department (which is tasked by law to categorize and evaluate terrorist organizations), Hezbollah is under the direct control of Syria’s intelligence organization and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. They receive funding and weaponry from both countries. They have a variety of aliases: Islamic Jihad, The Revolutionary Justice Organization, The Islamic Resistance, Organization for the Oppressed on Earth.
And they’ve been active terrorists. Perhaps you may remember some of their work. I’ll quote from the February 6, 2004 Congressional Research Service report (Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32223.pdf ):
Hizballah’s most active period of anti-American targeting occurred during the 1980’s and resulted in a very large number of U.S. casualties. Under the alias Islamic Jihad, Hizballah has been implicated in or is known to have carried out the truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut (April 1983), the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut (October 1983, killing 220 Marine, 18 Navy, and 3 Army personnel), and the U.S. Embassy Annex in Beirut (September 1984). Hizballah also claimed responsibility for an April 1984 bombing that killed 18 U.S. service members in Torrejon, Spain.Note for clarification: Islamic Jihad actually claimed “credit” for the barracks bombing, and Islamic Jihad is (as pointed out above) an alias of Hezbollah.
So, that’s Hezbollah. A terrorist organization responsible for killing as many as 259 American service people. Those were the organizers of that rally. Those are the people who support Syria’s invasion of Lebanon and the continued occupation. And that they were able to gin up a protest is supposed to represent what?
How about we hold an election that isn’t influenced (i.e. threatened) by foreign forces and find out what Lebanon really wants?
(0) comments
E-Mail Exchange O’ The Day
This started yesterday via e-mail. First shot was by a good, long-time friend of mine. Since he’s requested anonymity we can call him Witch Doctor (come on, my friend, think about it).
Opening e-mail was a Redneck joke. I’d reprint it, but even this blog has standards, heh heh.
DigiBlog Replies:
Heh heh. It's nice to see that a good lib feels comfortable making fun of somebody. That means there's still hope. :D
Witch Doctor:
Hey, I make fun of George "double-ya" all the time, he gives us "good libs" all kinds of material to work with on a daily basis (illiterates in office are good for that kind of stuff, now that we finally have one to prove it). Speaking of material to work with... What's Napoleon BonerBush gonna do in Lebanon now that he told Syria to pull out, and the Shiite majority/parliament put them back into place... When do we invade? Can't have a bunch of muslims choosing their own government if it doesn't fit the Bush War of Liberty POA, can we now... that wouldn't be very democratic... uh... well then again... by golly, I think it is!!!! How dare they choose the Syrians! Lets go kill em all, I'm sure they have WMD's or need a regime change or something to justify it... those Lebanese folks must be "Mis-Informed".. you guys better go straighten em out with the 3rd infantry division... I tell ya, he's a true statesman there bro... Was it "Lebo-lebalon" when he threatened the Syrians? (probably some good ratings for your blog if you wanna post it, no names/addresses allowed though..) I'd hate to see "Krystalnacht" brought back as an opposition handling method... considering I don't wear a brown shirt... :-0
DigiBlog:
Heh heh. Jesus. You really believe what you wrote re Lebanon and Syria? Talk about out of the mainstream. Wow!
So, educate me, my friend. Exactly how was the Lebanese "Parliament" put together? (I really need to find a good eye-rolling smiley for times like these!). It's almost (yes: almost) amusing to see that the only time libs
support the decisions of (what they call) the "people" is when those decisions are hostile to the interests of the US. But, hey, at least there's consistency. Right?
"(probably some good ratings for your blog if you wanna post it, no names/addresses allowed though..)" - Is this a general permission as long as I keep to the anonymity provisions? (please please please!!!). Note: all individuals who I take out after have the benefit of my "equal time" policy. It's only fair.
Witch Doctor
there you go again... "You really believe what you wrote re Lebanon and Syria?" - answer - Huh?
I guess the 400,000 people in the streets for/and the reinstatement of the Syrian backed PM is just more mainstream Mis-information and propaganda? I didn't say anything except (to paraphrase) it looks like the largermajority in Lebanon says bring back the syrian backed PM... that's all... not sure what else I wrote that I "believe about Syria and Lebanon..." Per you Right wing nuts own rehtoric, George wins an election, in a squeaker, half the country does not support him, and it's a "we win, you lose" and he has his this "political principle" to spend situation... (whatever the hell that means). Maybe more secret energy meetings in the whitehouse, that even YOU don't have a clue what went on... I did notice, within two years of that meeting, the four major energy companie's (two in texas) gained profits in the 500% to 650% range while purposely imposed 'shortages" drove up the costs to the point people experienced power outages... talk about holding a country hostage... good grief....
In Lebanon, based on the information provided by the "World Press" (sorry, not FOX news, no right wing spin to those films that I saw), 500,000 people have protested in the last few days... 80% of the people on the streets support the syrian backed PM (400,000/500,000), 20% back their removal (100,000/500,000)... I do believe, until the election results in April (isn't that the deadline "W" gave the Syrians before we do... what? Invade? bomb? just what is the deadline for?). One can safely say, based on the current numbers, it looks like the majority of Lebanese support the syrian backed PM, that's all... I hope it's a great anti-Syrian victory in the election, I'm all for the Syrians pulling out, it would be a great day... When the "Boy who would be King" from Texas, in his exhuberence to claim victory (as he always does... was it "mission accomplished in a fighter pilot uniform" on the deck of a Carrier?), goes out and threatens the Syrians to remove their troops, and 75% of the people in the streets say no.. pure statesman stupidity, that's all... (there is a HUGE difference between a threat and diplomacy, I wish George W could figure that out, he's so embarassing for many of us true patriots who still believe in Allies and diplomacy and olive branches before arrows)
OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...!!! Now I get it, the parliament was put there by some other method than a Bush/Republican approved method, so it's fair game to invade... they aren't legitimate anyway... it's just another "the ends justifies the means' situation, like going from WMD, to Regime Change, to Democracy in Iraq... whatever it takes to justify an action. Question: If your right wing foreign policy means that US specified "fake" or "illegite" parliaments don't count, why didn't Bush Sr finish off Sadam in the first Bush/UN war... did you see how Sadam picked his parliament (I think it was the ol' take em out back and shoot em in the head process, wasn't it)? Yet Rummy and Reagan kissed his A$$ until they created a monster, weren't they trading weapons to terrorists at that time to fight a war in central america. (continued more A$$ kissing as long as he was against the Iranians), THEN, after Sadam actually invades a neighboring nation (Kuwait in case you forgot), George Bush Sr decided the UN was in charge of that war (What percentage of American troops made up the Coalition force?), and decided to stop instead of going to Baghdad when it would have taken 24 hours longer (he didn't listen to his Generals - Schwarzkopf and staff), Bush Sr BOWED DOWN to Kofi Anon and the U.N will.... now that's turning our national security over to the UN my friend... plain and simple... let's see, not listening to his Generals... HEY, like father like son!!!!
Didn't Bush Sr then let Sadam fly his gunships in a U.S. controlled No Fly zone to kill Shiite protesters by the thousands, when we told them to rise up and protest, but then Bush Sr decided to pull a bay of pigs on em.... hmmmmmmm.... I give up, you guys have foreign policy all figured out. It's easier to spin than to explain? You want to talk about how they selected/appointed their parliament instead of agreeing what a diplomatic bonehead statement that was... amazing... you guys protect him at all costs... WHY? Do you really believe he is that perfect? WAKE UP DUDE! You can be a republican and still admit he's a bonehead... really, it's okay. "Is this a general permission as long as I keep to the anonymity provisions?" - SURE.... BUT ONLY AS LONG AS YOU KEEP IT ANONYMOUS, OH, and on one condition... I'll turn a few heavy hitters from the left on to your site so they can enjoy taking you out once they get a chance to see your comments for themselves... deal? (fair warning, these are professionals who enjoy feeding right wingers their words on platters...) Heck, it might do wonders for your ratings... if you can hang that is...
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
...
Now, I ran out of time so I couldn’t respond to this last properly. I will do so here. I'll either follow this up with another post or edit my response into this one, so use your "Refresh" button if you want to check for changes/updates.
(0) comments
This started yesterday via e-mail. First shot was by a good, long-time friend of mine. Since he’s requested anonymity we can call him Witch Doctor (come on, my friend, think about it).
Opening e-mail was a Redneck joke. I’d reprint it, but even this blog has standards, heh heh.
DigiBlog Replies:
Heh heh. It's nice to see that a good lib feels comfortable making fun of somebody. That means there's still hope. :D
Witch Doctor:
Hey, I make fun of George "double-ya" all the time, he gives us "good libs" all kinds of material to work with on a daily basis (illiterates in office are good for that kind of stuff, now that we finally have one to prove it). Speaking of material to work with... What's Napoleon BonerBush gonna do in Lebanon now that he told Syria to pull out, and the Shiite majority/parliament put them back into place... When do we invade? Can't have a bunch of muslims choosing their own government if it doesn't fit the Bush War of Liberty POA, can we now... that wouldn't be very democratic... uh... well then again... by golly, I think it is!!!! How dare they choose the Syrians! Lets go kill em all, I'm sure they have WMD's or need a regime change or something to justify it... those Lebanese folks must be "Mis-Informed".. you guys better go straighten em out with the 3rd infantry division... I tell ya, he's a true statesman there bro... Was it "Lebo-lebalon" when he threatened the Syrians? (probably some good ratings for your blog if you wanna post it, no names/addresses allowed though..) I'd hate to see "Krystalnacht" brought back as an opposition handling method... considering I don't wear a brown shirt... :-0
DigiBlog:
Heh heh. Jesus. You really believe what you wrote re Lebanon and Syria? Talk about out of the mainstream. Wow!
So, educate me, my friend. Exactly how was the Lebanese "Parliament" put together? (I really need to find a good eye-rolling smiley for times like these!). It's almost (yes: almost) amusing to see that the only time libs
support the decisions of (what they call) the "people" is when those decisions are hostile to the interests of the US. But, hey, at least there's consistency. Right?
"(probably some good ratings for your blog if you wanna post it, no names/addresses allowed though..)" - Is this a general permission as long as I keep to the anonymity provisions? (please please please!!!). Note: all individuals who I take out after have the benefit of my "equal time" policy. It's only fair.
Witch Doctor
there you go again... "You really believe what you wrote re Lebanon and Syria?" - answer - Huh?
I guess the 400,000 people in the streets for/and the reinstatement of the Syrian backed PM is just more mainstream Mis-information and propaganda? I didn't say anything except (to paraphrase) it looks like the largermajority in Lebanon says bring back the syrian backed PM... that's all... not sure what else I wrote that I "believe about Syria and Lebanon..." Per you Right wing nuts own rehtoric, George wins an election, in a squeaker, half the country does not support him, and it's a "we win, you lose" and he has his this "political principle" to spend situation... (whatever the hell that means). Maybe more secret energy meetings in the whitehouse, that even YOU don't have a clue what went on... I did notice, within two years of that meeting, the four major energy companie's (two in texas) gained profits in the 500% to 650% range while purposely imposed 'shortages" drove up the costs to the point people experienced power outages... talk about holding a country hostage... good grief....
In Lebanon, based on the information provided by the "World Press" (sorry, not FOX news, no right wing spin to those films that I saw), 500,000 people have protested in the last few days... 80% of the people on the streets support the syrian backed PM (400,000/500,000), 20% back their removal (100,000/500,000)... I do believe, until the election results in April (isn't that the deadline "W" gave the Syrians before we do... what? Invade? bomb? just what is the deadline for?). One can safely say, based on the current numbers, it looks like the majority of Lebanese support the syrian backed PM, that's all... I hope it's a great anti-Syrian victory in the election, I'm all for the Syrians pulling out, it would be a great day... When the "Boy who would be King" from Texas, in his exhuberence to claim victory (as he always does... was it "mission accomplished in a fighter pilot uniform" on the deck of a Carrier?), goes out and threatens the Syrians to remove their troops, and 75% of the people in the streets say no.. pure statesman stupidity, that's all... (there is a HUGE difference between a threat and diplomacy, I wish George W could figure that out, he's so embarassing for many of us true patriots who still believe in Allies and diplomacy and olive branches before arrows)
OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...!!! Now I get it, the parliament was put there by some other method than a Bush/Republican approved method, so it's fair game to invade... they aren't legitimate anyway... it's just another "the ends justifies the means' situation, like going from WMD, to Regime Change, to Democracy in Iraq... whatever it takes to justify an action. Question: If your right wing foreign policy means that US specified "fake" or "illegite" parliaments don't count, why didn't Bush Sr finish off Sadam in the first Bush/UN war... did you see how Sadam picked his parliament (I think it was the ol' take em out back and shoot em in the head process, wasn't it)? Yet Rummy and Reagan kissed his A$$ until they created a monster, weren't they trading weapons to terrorists at that time to fight a war in central america. (continued more A$$ kissing as long as he was against the Iranians), THEN, after Sadam actually invades a neighboring nation (Kuwait in case you forgot), George Bush Sr decided the UN was in charge of that war (What percentage of American troops made up the Coalition force?), and decided to stop instead of going to Baghdad when it would have taken 24 hours longer (he didn't listen to his Generals - Schwarzkopf and staff), Bush Sr BOWED DOWN to Kofi Anon and the U.N will.... now that's turning our national security over to the UN my friend... plain and simple... let's see, not listening to his Generals... HEY, like father like son!!!!
Didn't Bush Sr then let Sadam fly his gunships in a U.S. controlled No Fly zone to kill Shiite protesters by the thousands, when we told them to rise up and protest, but then Bush Sr decided to pull a bay of pigs on em.... hmmmmmmm.... I give up, you guys have foreign policy all figured out. It's easier to spin than to explain? You want to talk about how they selected/appointed their parliament instead of agreeing what a diplomatic bonehead statement that was... amazing... you guys protect him at all costs... WHY? Do you really believe he is that perfect? WAKE UP DUDE! You can be a republican and still admit he's a bonehead... really, it's okay. "Is this a general permission as long as I keep to the anonymity provisions?" - SURE.... BUT ONLY AS LONG AS YOU KEEP IT ANONYMOUS, OH, and on one condition... I'll turn a few heavy hitters from the left on to your site so they can enjoy taking you out once they get a chance to see your comments for themselves... deal? (fair warning, these are professionals who enjoy feeding right wingers their words on platters...) Heck, it might do wonders for your ratings... if you can hang that is...
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
...
Now, I ran out of time so I couldn’t respond to this last properly. I will do so here. I'll either follow this up with another post or edit my response into this one, so use your "Refresh" button if you want to check for changes/updates.
(0) comments
Open Forum
In an attempt to stimulate open debate and discussion, I’ve decided to open this place up a bit. In order to do this in some kind of organized way I’ve decided on a few rules.
1: Anybody can choose to participate in the Open Forum provided they are addressing something I’ve posted, or post a comment or send an e-mail that piques my attention and interest.
2: A willing participant can initiate entry into the Open Forum by either e-mailing me (see link in the navigation bar) or posting a comment, subject to rule #1. The e-mail or comment must express an interest in being considered for an Open Forum debate.
3: Keep your intended subject matter(s) specific. If I do not entirely understand what you’ve said I will propose a synopsis of what I think you’re saying and offer you the chance to clarify or correct before we proceed to the Open Forum.
4: Once agreement has been reached about the point or points under debate, stay on topic. Don’t go sliding about in the tall grass changing the subject and “shoot & move”-ing to avoid getting nailed on a point. Example: You state that George Bush “lied” about WMDs in Iraq. If I come back with some slamdunk rebuttal, don’t return fire with, “but Bushitler stole money from Social Security!” Stay on topic until the issue is settled or abandoned.
5: Propose debate only on things that can be proved or disproved. “I think Bushitler stinks!” is not a valid debating point. And no, I’m not interested in debating the existence/non-existence of God, unless He has a website heretofore unknown to me.
6: If you and your proposed point qualify for the Open Forum your argument will appear as posts here on the main site with proper credit given. The format shall be:
Open Forum: (WMDs in Syria) – Posted by John Q. Public
(argument follows after title)
7: You have the option of participating in the Open Forum anonymously. However, submit an appropriate web-name. Otherwise I shall invent one for you (e.g. AnonLeftistAsshat).
8: Don’t ramble. I retain the right to edit your comments for the sake of sanity (mine). I will not change the substance of what you’re saying, and I will be extremely reluctant to edit (and may never do so). But rambling screeds tend to make me bored. And that’s probably true of the other two people who read this blog regularly. If you believe I’ve changed the intent or meaning of your comment then e-mail me, or post irate comments in reply to the post. Take me to task, flame me, whatever. If I think you’re right then I’ll fix it to your satisfaction, if possible.
9: Try not to use too much profanity. I know, that’s a weird thing to hear from me. But profanity has a purpose, and that purpose is emphasis, goddamn it. Don’t wear out all the good words. I want to be able to use them too.
10: Commit to a willingness to back up what you say with some kind of objective or believable evidence. Why should I waste my time Googleing you into a smoking ruin if you just reply with “F*** You!!”? Suitable forms of evidence include news stories from Main Stream Media (MSM) publications (online, please!) or material originated by sources (e.g. thinktanks) that generally oppose your political philosophy. Make your intent to convince me you’re right. I’ll play by the same rules: It wouldn’t be very convincing to you if I constantly reference Fox News, right?
11: It is the height of talent and sophistication to “art up” your comments with hotlinks to informational or impactful imagery. If you need a hosting server, try www.bestupload.com. It’s free, loads any file extension, and is usually reliable. Max file size is 600kb.
...
Okay? So bring it on, badass.
(0) comments
In an attempt to stimulate open debate and discussion, I’ve decided to open this place up a bit. In order to do this in some kind of organized way I’ve decided on a few rules.
1: Anybody can choose to participate in the Open Forum provided they are addressing something I’ve posted, or post a comment or send an e-mail that piques my attention and interest.
2: A willing participant can initiate entry into the Open Forum by either e-mailing me (see link in the navigation bar) or posting a comment, subject to rule #1. The e-mail or comment must express an interest in being considered for an Open Forum debate.
3: Keep your intended subject matter(s) specific. If I do not entirely understand what you’ve said I will propose a synopsis of what I think you’re saying and offer you the chance to clarify or correct before we proceed to the Open Forum.
4: Once agreement has been reached about the point or points under debate, stay on topic. Don’t go sliding about in the tall grass changing the subject and “shoot & move”-ing to avoid getting nailed on a point. Example: You state that George Bush “lied” about WMDs in Iraq. If I come back with some slamdunk rebuttal, don’t return fire with, “but Bushitler stole money from Social Security!” Stay on topic until the issue is settled or abandoned.
5: Propose debate only on things that can be proved or disproved. “I think Bushitler stinks!” is not a valid debating point. And no, I’m not interested in debating the existence/non-existence of God, unless He has a website heretofore unknown to me.
6: If you and your proposed point qualify for the Open Forum your argument will appear as posts here on the main site with proper credit given. The format shall be:
Open Forum: (WMDs in Syria) – Posted by John Q. Public
(argument follows after title)
7: You have the option of participating in the Open Forum anonymously. However, submit an appropriate web-name. Otherwise I shall invent one for you (e.g. AnonLeftistAsshat).
8: Don’t ramble. I retain the right to edit your comments for the sake of sanity (mine). I will not change the substance of what you’re saying, and I will be extremely reluctant to edit (and may never do so). But rambling screeds tend to make me bored. And that’s probably true of the other two people who read this blog regularly. If you believe I’ve changed the intent or meaning of your comment then e-mail me, or post irate comments in reply to the post. Take me to task, flame me, whatever. If I think you’re right then I’ll fix it to your satisfaction, if possible.
9: Try not to use too much profanity. I know, that’s a weird thing to hear from me. But profanity has a purpose, and that purpose is emphasis, goddamn it. Don’t wear out all the good words. I want to be able to use them too.
10: Commit to a willingness to back up what you say with some kind of objective or believable evidence. Why should I waste my time Googleing you into a smoking ruin if you just reply with “F*** You!!”? Suitable forms of evidence include news stories from Main Stream Media (MSM) publications (online, please!) or material originated by sources (e.g. thinktanks) that generally oppose your political philosophy. Make your intent to convince me you’re right. I’ll play by the same rules: It wouldn’t be very convincing to you if I constantly reference Fox News, right?
11: It is the height of talent and sophistication to “art up” your comments with hotlinks to informational or impactful imagery. If you need a hosting server, try www.bestupload.com. It’s free, loads any file extension, and is usually reliable. Max file size is 600kb.
...
Okay? So bring it on, badass.
(0) comments
Opportunity Wasted on the Unworthy
So Mike (of Different Tack fame) recently went to San Diego. Fine. I hear it’s raining there anyway. But! While there he happened to encounter a situation for which he was singularly unprepared. And unworthy.
While there in Sunny San Diego™, Mr. Mike happened to meet the Mexican Women’s National Soccer Team (link: http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/Olysquad/0,3713,MEX-OFW-2004-7894-9,00.html - no pictures, you rampaging raft of lechers!).
Now, I know that soccer is an emerging sport in the US, but I do have some glancing interest in the sport, having been a coach of a girl’s soccer team for about seven years, and was responsible for the promotion of the sport in my local community for three of those years. As I understand it, Mike, too, was a soccer coach for a time (which only adds to his shame in this situation – he should have known better!).
So, knowing this, his own association with the sport, and his Very Important Friend’s connection with soccer, what does Mike do? Does he run down to the local sports store, buy a soccer ball (and a Sharpie), and gather autographs from this team of lady athletes? Does he do a little web research and discover that this team was the very first women’s team from Mexico to play in the Olympics? Does he get a few photographs of him and the players?
No. He’s Mike. If you get to know him you’ll understand what I mean.
Mike (hereinafter known as Evil Mike) does meet the coach and some of the staff, and does (to his credit) chat with some of the players. But the sheer injustice of this situation is without measure. It should have been me in that situation. I should have been the one on that trip, and I should have been the one to encounter that team. I would have acquired the requisite autographs and photos. I would have known how to build the foundation for some serious bragging rights. I could have been a contender!! Yeaaarrrrrggghhhhh!
Er. Yah. So, the point is that as much as I admonish my kids to not complain about “unfairness,” I have to say that this situation was so drastically unfair that it merits a comment here, on this exalted blog site.
(0) comments
So Mike (of Different Tack fame) recently went to San Diego. Fine. I hear it’s raining there anyway. But! While there he happened to encounter a situation for which he was singularly unprepared. And unworthy.
While there in Sunny San Diego™, Mr. Mike happened to meet the Mexican Women’s National Soccer Team (link: http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/Olysquad/0,3713,MEX-OFW-2004-7894-9,00.html - no pictures, you rampaging raft of lechers!).
Now, I know that soccer is an emerging sport in the US, but I do have some glancing interest in the sport, having been a coach of a girl’s soccer team for about seven years, and was responsible for the promotion of the sport in my local community for three of those years. As I understand it, Mike, too, was a soccer coach for a time (which only adds to his shame in this situation – he should have known better!).
So, knowing this, his own association with the sport, and his Very Important Friend’s connection with soccer, what does Mike do? Does he run down to the local sports store, buy a soccer ball (and a Sharpie), and gather autographs from this team of lady athletes? Does he do a little web research and discover that this team was the very first women’s team from Mexico to play in the Olympics? Does he get a few photographs of him and the players?
No. He’s Mike. If you get to know him you’ll understand what I mean.
Mike (hereinafter known as Evil Mike) does meet the coach and some of the staff, and does (to his credit) chat with some of the players. But the sheer injustice of this situation is without measure. It should have been me in that situation. I should have been the one on that trip, and I should have been the one to encounter that team. I would have acquired the requisite autographs and photos. I would have known how to build the foundation for some serious bragging rights. I could have been a contender!! Yeaaarrrrrggghhhhh!
Er. Yah. So, the point is that as much as I admonish my kids to not complain about “unfairness,” I have to say that this situation was so drastically unfair that it merits a comment here, on this exalted blog site.
(0) comments
Hostage Nation: North Koreans Yearning to Breathe Free
The world’s lone remaining prominent Stalinist state is feeling the pressure of modern information technology, and Kim Jung Il is not happy.
In a juxtaposition where China is revealed as a relatively free and open country, North Korea finds itself being infiltrated by cell phone technology and the transfer of information to and from the North Korean people using Chinese cell phones. They’re clandestinely finding out about the liberties available to the “outside” world, and trying to get the word out about what they’re enduring as captives of the hermit nation.
UPI link: http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/03110002aaa05d83.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=WORLDNEW&Type=News&Filter=World%20News
Apparently the NK regime is attempting to crack down by executing citizens in public as a means of terrorizing the population into submission. As harsh as this may sound, I view this as a good development. As long as information about the outside world is seeping in, the North Korean population will see these executions for exactly what they are: intimidation from renegade thugs, not the actions of any kind of legitimate “authority.”
There’s a vast and important difference between thinking you are just one more sufferer in a world of slaves, and coming to the knowledge that you are one of the world’s few remaining victims of an oppressive criminal gang. It is this contrast that the NK “government” is trying desperately to hide from the North Korean people, lest that contrast be noticed, evaluated, and acted on.
Kim Jung Il had better be watching his back.
(0) comments
The world’s lone remaining prominent Stalinist state is feeling the pressure of modern information technology, and Kim Jung Il is not happy.
In a juxtaposition where China is revealed as a relatively free and open country, North Korea finds itself being infiltrated by cell phone technology and the transfer of information to and from the North Korean people using Chinese cell phones. They’re clandestinely finding out about the liberties available to the “outside” world, and trying to get the word out about what they’re enduring as captives of the hermit nation.
UPI link: http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/03110002aaa05d83.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=WORLDNEW&Type=News&Filter=World%20News
Apparently the NK regime is attempting to crack down by executing citizens in public as a means of terrorizing the population into submission. As harsh as this may sound, I view this as a good development. As long as information about the outside world is seeping in, the North Korean population will see these executions for exactly what they are: intimidation from renegade thugs, not the actions of any kind of legitimate “authority.”
There’s a vast and important difference between thinking you are just one more sufferer in a world of slaves, and coming to the knowledge that you are one of the world’s few remaining victims of an oppressive criminal gang. It is this contrast that the NK “government” is trying desperately to hide from the North Korean people, lest that contrast be noticed, evaluated, and acted on.
Kim Jung Il had better be watching his back.
(0) comments
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Eating Crow, Volume II
The UK newspaper, The Independent, home to far-left bomb-thrower Robert Fisk (the inspiration for the blog term “Fisking”*) has released an OpEd by Rupert Cornwell entitled, “Was Bush right after all?”
I never thought I’d see The Independent roll over this quickly, but I believe there’s a growing realization from leftists who still expect to be serious players in the future, that they just got it wrong about Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
They are, after all, presented with a choice: continue to blindly hate Bush and hope for the failure of his policies (regardless of the harm that would bring to the “oppressed peoples” they purport to support), or understand that reality has shown them that they were wrong in this regard. Some continue on with the hate; unable or unwilling to square their views and goals with the emerging changes in the Middle East, but in a world where even Senator Edward Kennedy grant’s President Bush with some credit for the recent changes, I think that the time for poking the squirming libs - pointing and laughing at their ridiculous and mean-spirited antipathy to the best interests of the “oppressed” – may be drawing to a close.
Unfortunately, half way through my writing of this post, Kirby Wilbur (KVI Seattle morning talk show host) began discussing this issue. I’ll post it anyway.
(Hat tip to LGF and National Review Online)
* “Fisking” is the process of taking another person’s published comments apart, line-by-line if necessary, and providing fact-supported rebuttals as applicable.
(7) comments
The UK newspaper, The Independent, home to far-left bomb-thrower Robert Fisk (the inspiration for the blog term “Fisking”*) has released an OpEd by Rupert Cornwell entitled, “Was Bush right after all?”
I never thought I’d see The Independent roll over this quickly, but I believe there’s a growing realization from leftists who still expect to be serious players in the future, that they just got it wrong about Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
They are, after all, presented with a choice: continue to blindly hate Bush and hope for the failure of his policies (regardless of the harm that would bring to the “oppressed peoples” they purport to support), or understand that reality has shown them that they were wrong in this regard. Some continue on with the hate; unable or unwilling to square their views and goals with the emerging changes in the Middle East, but in a world where even Senator Edward Kennedy grant’s President Bush with some credit for the recent changes, I think that the time for poking the squirming libs - pointing and laughing at their ridiculous and mean-spirited antipathy to the best interests of the “oppressed” – may be drawing to a close.
It is barely six weeks since the US President delivered his second inaugural address, a paean to liberty and democracy that espoused the goal of "ending tyranny in our world". Reactions around the world ranged from alarm to amused scorn, from fears of a new round of "regime changes" imposed by an all-powerful American military, to suspicions in the salons of Europe that this time Mr Bush, never celebrated for his grasp of world affairs, had finally lost it. No one imagined that events would so soon cause the President's opponents around the world to question whether he had got it right.(Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617840 )
Unfortunately, half way through my writing of this post, Kirby Wilbur (KVI Seattle morning talk show host) began discussing this issue. I’ll post it anyway.
(Hat tip to LGF and National Review Online)
* “Fisking” is the process of taking another person’s published comments apart, line-by-line if necessary, and providing fact-supported rebuttals as applicable.
(7) comments
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Looky At What I Found...
Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
If this pans out, if it’s confirmed, then that one issue the Left has been using to (so far legitimately) beat us over the head about the Iraq war will disappear in a puff of Soviet-era diesel exhaust.
Hooo-boy, we’ve had a lot of success recently. The Iraqi elections, the pressure on Syria, the protests in Lebanon, Libya’s coughing up their WMD program. If this one turns out to be true then it will be a full-square, unadulterated tempest of victory.
A call to action: I urge you all to look up the various predictions the Left had made in advance of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Find the links on the web and either e-mail them to me or post them as comments. I would like to build a comprehensive list of how entirely wrong they’ve been over the last couple years.
I intend this list to be a continuing tool to be used to show how unreliable their warnings and assumptions have been. Put it this way: if you wanted to hire a financial planner, would you not first check the accuracy record of the candidates? This could be an eventual “insta-Fisk” list that could be used to precede every comment we might have to rebut some new dire prediction forwarded by our adversaries
Mike: I know you live and breathe for this kind of thing. What can you come up with? Remember, it’s best if we reference MSM sources. I know the link above goes to NewsMax (a conservative sourse), but that’s why I’m not declaring victory yet. I want to see CNN and CBS reporting this before I crow shamelessly.
But I feel it coming. And when/if it does I will be relentless in my NFL-worthy end-zone party-dancing, football-slamming, baring-my-ass-to-the-crowd acts of blatant triumphalism.
There is, after all, a reason why this blogsite is named as it is.
(1) comments
Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.Read the whole thing: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml
"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.
If this pans out, if it’s confirmed, then that one issue the Left has been using to (so far legitimately) beat us over the head about the Iraq war will disappear in a puff of Soviet-era diesel exhaust.
Hooo-boy, we’ve had a lot of success recently. The Iraqi elections, the pressure on Syria, the protests in Lebanon, Libya’s coughing up their WMD program. If this one turns out to be true then it will be a full-square, unadulterated tempest of victory.
A call to action: I urge you all to look up the various predictions the Left had made in advance of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Find the links on the web and either e-mail them to me or post them as comments. I would like to build a comprehensive list of how entirely wrong they’ve been over the last couple years.
I intend this list to be a continuing tool to be used to show how unreliable their warnings and assumptions have been. Put it this way: if you wanted to hire a financial planner, would you not first check the accuracy record of the candidates? This could be an eventual “insta-Fisk” list that could be used to precede every comment we might have to rebut some new dire prediction forwarded by our adversaries
Mike: I know you live and breathe for this kind of thing. What can you come up with? Remember, it’s best if we reference MSM sources. I know the link above goes to NewsMax (a conservative sourse), but that’s why I’m not declaring victory yet. I want to see CNN and CBS reporting this before I crow shamelessly.
But I feel it coming. And when/if it does I will be relentless in my NFL-worthy end-zone party-dancing, football-slamming, baring-my-ass-to-the-crowd acts of blatant triumphalism.
There is, after all, a reason why this blogsite is named as it is.
(1) comments
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Piling On (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Grey Lady... Long Time, Joe!)
Helpful Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/opinion/01tue1.html
(Requires free registration)
I’ll admit: I almost drove off the road this morning when I heard about this on the radio. So I had to check it myself.
(Requires free registration)
I’ll admit: I almost drove off the road this morning when I heard about this on the radio. So I had to check it myself.
Wholly sh*t. It was true: The Grey Lady herself had ordered a dish of crow and was busily munching away, ashen-faced, but no longer willing to play that childish game of holding her decrepit hands over her face, proclaiming, “it’s not real!”
It's not even spring yet, but a long-frozen political order seems to be cracking all over the Middle East. Cautious hopes for something new and better are stirring along the Tigris and the Nile, the elegant boulevards of Beirut, and the impoverished towns of the Gaza Strip.
It gets better...
Still, this has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power.
You know me, and you know what I’m thinking. Almost time to hunt up all those old posts. (He wouldn’t, would he?!!)
You’re damn straight I would.
(7) comments
