Friday, October 21, 2005


I had missed this email from a satisfied reader:

I find this blog very interesting and I will come back often.
In the meantime I can recommend wedding flower decoration
This is a directory of all You need to find out about wedding flower decoration.
So please, don´t miss this opportunity to find out all You need to know in one place.
wedding flower decoration "




I obviously have not really been doing any blogging, but apparently my efforts have not been in vain. I got my first piece of fan mail:

"Looking forward to reading more great info on your blog, I added you to my favorites and will be checking back often.
If you got time , go visit my site, it´s about retrogade ejaculation also we have retrogade ejaculation It pretty much covers retrogade ejaculation help and other similar topics available."

Its all, all been worth it. I just wish I had the guts to click on the links he gave me and find out what "retrograde ejaculation" is...EEEEeeeeeUUUUUU!

Monday, August 22, 2005

Short Story is this. Austin Bay guest blogged at PressThink with an interesting article regarding Bush's relationship and strategy with the press. Bay has criticism for the press and for Bush, and Jay Rosen, who runs the site, commented on the article.

The reason I am bringing this up is not only is the article worth reading, but the comments are as well. While they are voluminous, they are very telling regarding some off the MSM reporters attitudes about the public (bullboys and fools), bias (does not exist, but if it does its conservative) and hyprocrisy (its okay for us, no one else).

After putting my two cents in, I was challenged by Steve Lovelady, who rather than engaging me on the merits, started at the outset to dismiss and demean me. What ensued was a some of the most unbelievable displays of arrogance, denial and hypocrisy that I have seen in a while. It was topped off by this sanctimonious post by Rosen, closing out the thread:

I'm embarrassed that this thread appeared at my weblog. I'm embarrassed that something I wrote and edited was the occasion for it. I embarrassed that the letters "edu" appear in the Web address at the top of this page, since most of this is the opposite of education. I'm embarrassed for having entertained, even for a second, the notion that Austin Bay, a Bush supporter and war veteran, might get a hearing for some of his warnings from those who agree with him on most things.

And I've had enough of anonymous tough guys with their victim's mentality raging at their own abstractions...

Those who wish to continue can head over to Austin's thread, where the story is pretty much the same. But four days of this pathetic spectacle is enough for me.

Thread closed. My advice: Go home to your wives and children, and breathe some truth.

It could be that I have a splitting headache right now, but this arrogance is just too much for me to take. These people are SO horrified and angry that they have to answer for their actions from the unwashed masses that it makes them feel dirty. While I can't take all the 'credit' for Rosen's post, I know that it was written at least in part towards me.

I was certainly sarcastic and acerbic to Steve Lovelady, but I did not give anything I did not get in the first place, and in return. I did not curse, I was not really nasty, and I thought I kept getting back to the points at hand, even when they were not interested.

I particularly like the part about Austin fans are not able to accept his warnings for those who agree with him. What about the criticism of the reporters? Has none of this sunk in? Can they deny any of this? Sure they can! Hell, they don't even acknowledge it.

Look I am pissed, but I am going to revisit this in a day or two and reexamine what happened to see if I was out of line, even though provoked. But right now, I just cannot believe this attitude on the part of Rosen and his pals. It is galling to me.


Saturday, August 20, 2005

Got A Reason for Posting This


Blah, blah, blah. You go on and on trying to defend yourself, throwing everything in the left-wing book at me, hoping to, what? Hit on the right answer? Make me go away rather than wading through your tsunami of useless information?

Your knowledge of left-wing/Demo talking points is impressive, but seeing as how they are bereft of facts and logic, I'm just gonna ignore them. They have been refuted again and again by people much better than me, so who am I to try again. Besides, based on your response to what I wrote, you'll just ignore it, and waste my time. I've dealt with people like you before, Sean, so spare me.

Instead, let me point out that while you claim I am being sarcastic and nothing else, you have responded with a myriad of insults and dismissive contents. This alone tells me; A) you know I am right, and are reflexively hitting back like a small child B) don't have the balls to stand up to what you wrote, C) logic and facts, like to many left-wingers, are irrelevant to you. The ideology is a religion, and no one may speak against the religion, right bud?

You know, I was going to respond in more detail to all your nonsense, but its not worth it. I took the time to read your blog, responded to it, pointed out where you had a logical error, and you respond with the vitriol that you claim I possess. Nice. Trying to maintain a long conversation with you would be like arguing with the insane, and I better things to do than read the blog of a mental patient. And if I did want to do that, I could try DailyKos, not some no-name dweeb.

But, for the record, genius, I gotta point out you still have not answered my original question. Bush created WHAT mess? Your post, and I did read the whole thing, suggested that Bush's invasion of Iraq led to the attacks, i.e., your "I wonder if those rockets came from Iraq' comment.

I responded by pointing out to you that terrorists in general, and Al Queda in particular, have been attacking America since before Bush even took office. You respond with:

"The terrorists started everything with 9/11."

Do have ANY freaking idea how that statement makes you look like a complete and utter idiot? I mean, apart from other raving moonbats such as yourself. The terrorists started everything with 9/11? Where the hell have YOU been for the last 20 years? Okay, how about the last 10? Hello? Testing! Is this thing on?

The fact that you are either so ignorant or so willfully obtuse on this only illustrates how pathetic you are. Reality-based community my ass. You've created a nice little world for yourself where all the "facts" are created to support your pre-conceived ideas, and not the other way around.

Case in point. I never once tried to state Iraq had any part in 9/11, but hypocrite that you are, you really did not read my post, but launched into a hate-filled, fact-starved tirade that is the calling card of modern leftists. Go ahead, point out where I said Iraq was behind or part of 9/11, Sean. Where? Huh?

Congratulations, loser, you just lost your only reader and anything that might have been a shred of credibility. Consider yourself busted. You may now resume blogging to the ether.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005



"More recently, this past May, Bruce Thornton offered his own quite similar assessment of Muslim culpability -- and cowardly Western "tolerance" -- in a brilliant essay titled "Suicidal Tendencies in the West." He closes thus:

Increasingly we Westerners resemble the Eloi of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, beautiful, gentle, highly civilized hedonists whose fate is to be devoured raw by the brutal Morlocks. We are the beneficiaries of a culture created by those before us who forged European civilization in the fires of resistance to Islamic jihad: in Spain, in Sicily, in Eastern Europe, in Greece -- the plunder, rape, slaughter, massacres, sacks, kidnapping, and enslavement perpetrated by the armies of Allah were for centuries fought by those whose names now most Westerners have forgotten or would be embarrassed to claim as their own. Don John, Charles Martel, Leo the Isaurian, Prince Eugene, Montecuccoli, Andrea Doria, El Cid, Sobieski, Charlemagne, Suvorov, Boucicaut, Hunyadi, Fernando II of Castile, Alfonso I of Aragon, Guiscard, Harold Hardrada -- who among us knows anything about the men who fought and killed so that Europe, and Europe's offspring America, today looks like Europe and America instead of looking like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Syria?

Because of the brutal violence of those warriors against jihad, we in the West today enjoy the luxury of cynicism, cheap irony, effete tolerance, and hedonism. We moral dwarves stand on the shoulders of those giants and spit on their heads, thinking our ingratitude is really an intellectual sophistication superior to the primitive superstitions and naïve ideals that have made our lives of freedom and prosperity possible. Meanwhile jihad by other means -- demography, immigration, terrorism, the oil weapon -- continues apace, at least until the time when a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon falls into the hands of a modern jihadist and we are returned to the sort of slaughter our ancestors suffered for centuries. Maybe then we'll wake up.

Will it take that? Must an entire American city lie in flaming ruins, or its population lay dying in the streets from some plague, before we get serious?"

That is exactly my fear, and if an American or British city ends up in flaming ruins, it will NOT be the last.


Here you can find the We Are Not Afraid Website, a collection of photos submitted by everyday to declare their support of London and their defiance of terrorism. It is heartwarming and the myriad of photos are very creative. This one is my favorite.

Of course, I can't shake the feeling we've been here before. Its very nice to declare oneself unafraid and defiant. Its another thing to have the resolve to do something about it.

I thought 9/11 would have been sufficient to rally the world to do something about terrorism and those that sponsor it. I read the letters of support written by people around the world published in the local papers, and I actually wept with the kind sentiments and brave words of encouragement we received. I believed that the world finally got it; that they had found a cause to unite behind that would allow some real good to be accomplished. The idea of a better world seemed very real, very possible.

But, it didn't quite play out like that, did it? All the solidarity and sympathy the world had seemed to wane very quickly in many quarters, especially when it became evident the US was planning to actually DO something as part of their defiance. The world was so ready to stand behind us we lay bleeding in the streets, but when it came to helping us punish who had attacked us, the crowd began to disperse, some muttering curses at us as they left.

The people in London, in England, in Europe all have a choice to make. They can be defiant sheep, whistling while led to the slaughter, or they can become lions who hunt down those who hunt them. It takes courage to be unafraid, yes, but it takes even more to face and eliminate the source of your fear, and to make all the hard decisions that go along with it.

Many Brits are already in the fight, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or simply backing the war and their troops from wherever they reside. Many others, however, are not.

The theme of Winston Churchill's history of the Second World War was:

"How the British people held the fort ALONE till those who had hitherto been half blind were half ready."

There is a heavy dose of acidic criticism here, most of it directed at the United States (the Russians probably deserve some of it as well). Churchill, admiring and loving of America as he was, was a little bitter that it took so long, a direct attack, and a declaration of war against them, for the US to join Britain in the fight against Hitler's Germany. Not only did facing Hitler alone for almost a year bleed Britain badly, but the outcome of the war was very much in doubt as a result. Only Britain's dogged defiance held the day long enough for others to join the fight.

This is how I feel about the current GWOT. While Britain is obviously on our side, as are others, there are large parts of our and their populations who are not. They are at best indifferent, and at worst actively working against our efforts. In some regards, in overall military effort, it seems like the US is alone. It should not be this way. People are indeed half-blind to the threat here, and I am doubtful whether the London bombings are going to convince, I mean REALLY convince, those people that there is a serious war going on, and it needs to be won. Already we some of the press retreating back to euphemism, and the terror apologists and defeatists are already at work.

I'll say it again. There is a concerted effort by the international left, now joined by elements of the extreme right (where they meet in the middle of hell), which does not want us to win this war. They hate us as the Islamists hate us, for reasons which do and do not overlap. They at every turn tell us that there is no threat, that the threat is us, that we are the cause of the threat, and everything in between to sap our will. They will continue to do so until we win, wherein they will then write for decades how terrible we were and should have lost, or until we lose, and those left alive will join the caliphate.

Let me leave you some more words of Churchill which should become a daily mantra. Even though he did not number them, I think its pretty obvious to proceed in order.

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will

Friday, July 08, 2005

Friedman Gets it Right...Sorta

Thomas Friedman often leaves me with a lukewarm feeling. While he is much more even-keel than the demented lot who write for the New York Times, he often hits wrong notes, even when playing a good tune.

Case in point is this article, the crux of which is that Islamic terrorism needs to be addressed by Muslims, for everyone's sake, but especially theirs. Good point but Thomas goes a bit off track...

"But maybe the most important aspect of the London bombings is this: When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem."

This is not the most grievous example, but Friedman misses a step here. What about Israel? Israel is a western nation, even if it is in the Middle-East. Jihadist-style bombings have been occurring in Israel for years now. Why does it need to wait to come to London to become a "civilization" problem? I think the omission is telling.

"What do I mean? I mean that the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed. Many people said Palestinian suicide bombing was the spontaneous reaction of frustrated Palestinian youth. But when Palestinians decided that it was in their interest to have a cease-fire with Israel, those bombings stopped cold. The village said enough was enough."

Sorry, this part is misguided and naive. The suicide bombings stopped because the terrorist organizations running them ordered them stopped for political/tactical reasons. The average Palestinian does not have to power, even in the collective, to influence such matters. Trying to do so within Palestinian society makes you a collaborator, and bad things happen to you. What this argument boils down to is the same "can't we all get along" kind of thinking that permeates idealistic but deluded left (as opposed the rabid, neo-marxist type).

The following is true enough, but is incomplete:

"The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst."

There are other ways this will stop as well, and they are filled with blood and horror. That is why I agree overall with Friedman's sentiment; The Muslim community and faith must heal itself and put a stop to this, or the consequences will be dire...

There is No Front Line, Jackass!

While arguing in a thread over the Marxist Dhimmi Galloway on Democracy Guy, a creep named Mike pulled the chickenhawk argument out of his ass. I responded in part with this:

"Regarding the chickenhawk label."

Yes, regarding it, Mike... If these attacks in London show anything, it is that just being on a bus or subway going to work means you ARE IN THE WAR. There is no front line; you get it? Anyone could die tomorrow. More people have died in American, British, Turkish, and Spanish streets than have died in combat.

Mike, brain trust that he is, responded with this:

"Ah, the crazy rationales the Chickenhawks come up with. Everywhere is on the front line, that's a new one."

Hey Mike, check out this list, via normblog. It shows the war everywhere around us. The front line IS everywhere. That's the very nature of terrorism, dumb ass. Nowhere is safe to be a "chickenhawk". Perhaps you need to be showered in someone's blood and guts in order to have that sink in?

Everyone else read the whole thing and by all means remind Norm about anything he missed. This list should be expanded then printed on the forehead of everything appeasement left-winger.

Of course, that will do no good, because they are quite willing to submit to the Islamist overlords rather than fight, or even lower themselves to support those willing to do the fighting for them.

I will say it again. There is a sizable contingent of people in the US and the west who are traitors. They support the enemy by fighting every effort to battle, contain and defeat them. Their reasons may be varied, but in the end all that matters is that they want us to lose, and they are working toward that end. Period. They don't want terrorists killed, held or even made uncomfortable. They want people who commit horrors like those in London free.

You can read the whole thread with Mike here, where he runs away when challenged. Big surprise.

Another thing. There is an attempt to stifle any debate regarding the war, terrorism in regards to London, labeling it ghoulish or inappropriate, political opportunism, etc. I don't buy it. Comments are inappropriate by their substance, not the fact that they are made. We need to argue about this because its MY ASS ON THE LINE. It also your ass. We need to fight these psychopaths and defeat them before more people end up murdered by them, perhaps millions. I am not willing to die just to be courteous in the face of idiocy. If I have to die, I want it to be as part of a successful effort to destroy the animals who murdered those people in London's streets. As they sadly remind us, one does not have to be in the mountains of Afghanistan or the sands of Iraq to become a casualty.

Bottom line, Mikey, its better to be a "chickenhawk" than a chickenshit, of which you are the latter.

I am telling you right now. We either get serious about this war, or we are looking at an even larger, more deadly one down the road, for all concerned. I am talking body count in the millions.

UPDATE: Here is some evidence that the deranged left has wasted no time in politicizing this event, trying to shift blame for the carnage on everyone but the terrorists. Note the Moore-like tactic of complaining that the terrorists attacked the wrong people, not that they attacked at all. THIS is why this needs to be argued NOW, even as the dead are counted. Time is not on our side here... Hatip: Malkin and Angry in the Great White North.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

More of This Sentiment, Please...

Tim Worstall responds to the London bombings:

" threaten us, try to kill us? Kill and injure some of us?

F**k you, sunshine.

We’ll not be having that.

If we had more of this attitude among all civilized people, terrorism would suffer a quick demise.

My fear is that, despite Worstall's hopes, not enough Brits will respond as needed. That is no knock on Brits in general. I think Al Queda or whoever is behind this is woefully ignorant of history if they view the Brits as faint-hearted and easily cowed. I just think that like the U.S., there is a sizable portion of the population who will shrink from reality and want to blame their own nation for the atrocities committed against them. For proof, see the twit Matt in Worstall's comments section.

Also, someone here at work, commenting on the assembled G8 leaders standing "united" behind Blair, calls it "impressive".

Yeah, well, I do not. Chirac for one is seem prominently over Blair's left shoulder, showing the reality of that "unity". It is one thing to stand behind a man at a podium, pledging support. It is another thing to actually DO something that matters a good goddam. Remember "We are All Americans"? Easy to say, alot harder to back up, especially when you don't mean it.

When French paratroopers start jumping into terrorist enclaves, screaming for jihadist blood, I will be impressed. Until then, spare me.

For now, my prayers are with the victims of London.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Doonesbury Exposed

Via Roger L. Simon, I saw this cartoon. I decided it needed a little revision...

Original hat tip to Simon via ClericalGal.