Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Birthday Wishes

Folks,

Couple of related thoughts.

First:

"Russia is to sell thousands of Second World War tanks, machineguns and cannons in an attempt to raise funds and remind the world of its pivotal role in defeating Hitler.
The company is tempting collectors with a selection of weapons that includes Maksim machineguns, 76mm ZiS-3 field guns, PPSH sub-machineguns and T-34 tanks, the backbone of the armoured columns that drove the German army out the Soviet Union in 1944."
- London Daily Telegraph

Second:

My birthday is coming up.

I'm thinking something in a Russian Steppe Green/Khaki Camouflage. The tanks themselves are going for dirt cheap, but the shipping costs are going to be a bit steep, so pool your money.

"In July 1942 the factory received the first blueprints of the T-34, and the first production model from Uralmashzavod was called "Comrade Stalin". The T-34 came as a sad surprise to the Germans when they encountered them in quantity in July 1941." -Geocities/Pentagon

The sad surprise being that hitting a T-34 only made it really mad...

Via Best of the Web

Friday, January 21, 2005

QUESTIONING PATRIOTISM

I saw a news conference regarding unfair trade practices by China. Attending is NY Senator Charles "Get Out of My Way there is a News Camera!" Schumer, among others. The speaker, a Mr. Curtis Ellis of the American Jobs Association.

The issue may be a valid one; that's not my point. My point deals with part of what he said was this:

"We have a 5th column in this country which is aiding and abetting a dictatorial regime..."

He mentions Wal-Mart in particular as part of this 5th column.

Now, when someone questions a Democrat/liberal's patriotism due to their views or stands on certain issues, or accuses them of treason by supporting, say, Saddam, there would be indignant shrieks of "McCarthyism!". Here, its A-Okay, because its leveled at an American corporation.

No further comment needed. The hypocrisy is obvious. Just wanted to mention it.

UPDATE: When I ran spell check, the program asked me if I wanted to Replace "Schumer" with "Schemer". Again, no comment, except maybe (snicker).

I'D RATHER DIE...

Hat Tip Kaus Files:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4189615.stm

Alcohol-free beer 'stops cancer'

Beer is often associated with negative health effects
Drinking non-alcoholic beer may ward off cancer, research on lab mice shows.


Having tasted non-alchoholic beer ONCE, I would seriously rather die.

FIGURING IT OUT

Thomas Friedman (who I generally like, because I think he is fair.)
writes an article detailing the European disappointment at Bush's re-election. He calls Europe one big blue-state, and then notes a supposedly curious irony:

"An Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran told me that young Iranians were "loving anything their government hates," such as Bush, "and hating anything their government loves." Tehran is festooned in "Down With America" graffiti, the student said, but when he tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by their government and was not how most Iranians felt. Iran, he said, is the ultimate 'red state.' Go figure."

Perhaps Friedman is being ironic himself with this last line and I could give him the benefit of the doubt. But if he is aware that the irony is not so ironic after all, I am sure many blue-staters are not. I am sure many are saying, "What is wrong with them?" So, for them, let me try to explain.

Why would Iranians be "red-staters"? Hmmm, well, lets look at the difference. Despite all their faults, the western european countries are democracies (although some seem determined to reverse that), are pretty well off and secure. There is no mass oppression, no police state, no government whose possession of nukes is giving people the shakes. They are wealthy, free and without any real world-wide obligations (the US handles that dirty stuff, the imperialist pigs).

The Iranians, on the other hand, live in a repressive tyranny with no real representation under theocrats threatening to embroil them in a suicidal jihad against the West.

So, those who are opposed to tyranny and oppression are for Bush, and those that most oppose Bush are Europeans. More to the point, the oppressed support Bush, and those who are free hate him for trying free those oppressed and spoiling their post-modern comfort.

For all the talk of the United States benefiting from the misery of the third world, it seems the Europeans are most guilty of this charge. We are told by Europeans (and other Blue-Staters) that these countries, and these people, are not capable/ready/desirous of freedom, democracy and even life. Its the old class system of europe rearing its ugly head.

"This lot understand their place in life, Yankee. Why are you creating such a fuss?"

Bush's course of action, even if he is dead right, engenders cost, sacrifice, danger. It is an effort of the sort we have not seen since the Cold War, maybe even WWII. Bottom line, the europeans want none of it. And they see Bush as forcing it on them for no reason. Bush's contention, and others, is that events themselves are forcing the issue, and that too much of Europe, and the world, is ignoring it for their own reasons.

Of course, Europeans did not want any part of WWII before it started, and their determined effort to avoid what was coming did more to encourage that terrible war. Coming off the horrors and cost of WWI, it may be understandable how Europe chose procrastination over action. Post WWII, many red-staters, in America, Iran and elsewhere, cannot understand how they can be making the same mistake twice.

The Iranians understand tyranny intimately. They live with it. They endure its oppression, its menace its despair every day. They have not had a 60 year respite from it that Western European had thanks in no small part to American efforts. Its the same phenomena we see with eastern europe. More of the those nations, only within recent memory freed from tyranny, understand its nature and its threat, and they too have been more supportive of the US during Bush's tenure.

Why are Iranians "red-staters"? Because they do not have the detached luxury to be blue-staters, unlike most Europeans. Its a difference of life and death, existential and otherwise.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

You DICK!

Hugh Hewitt points to a interview Sean "Baghdad" Penn gave recently to the Boston Globe. Hugh found Penn defensive about his unscripted wits, but what struck me was this:

"I wasn't scared, per se, by 9/11. I'm scared if I turn into a dark alley one night and someone says "Boo." I'm scared if I wake up in the middle of the night and there's someone standing with a shotgun at the foot of my bed. But I'm not scared hearing about something on the news. I'm saddened by it. I'm concerned."

Do I have to point out the selfish, self-centered nature of this twit? So, someone says "Boo!" to Sean and he's scared, concerned for himself. When a guy with a shot gun shows up at the foot of his bed, he is alarmed, worried about HIS welfare. When 3,000 people die in one day he is merely "saddened". He is "concerned". It is "something" he "heard" "on the news".

Wow. His empathy for others is overwhelming, isn't it? Same sort of empathy he must have felt for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam, and the millions suffering under him every day when he went to Baghdad, I guess. I mean, when he went to Iraq, he had no reason to fear for his own safety, so everything must be honkey-dorey there, right?

Bottom line; if something does not personally involve HIM, or HIS safety, it generates, at best, some sort of vague concern on his part. Oh, and makes him sad. But, it is far superior to the unreasonable fear of the masses who overeact to those things which do not threaten Sean Penn.

"I'm in a very lucky club of being able to dictate a lot of my own life."

Yes, Sean certainly leans toward favoring those being able to dicate... By the way, Sean, what's a dictate like? I would guess like you.

"And that's not the majority of this country."

The plebeians...or was it peasants?

"So their fears are about what compromises consistency, that familiar day after day."

Yes, those little rabbits, those plebes, they get so excitable just because something unusual happens. Like, say, 3,000 of them suffering firey deaths.

"In some ways, they embrace the monotony, and when that's broken, that's someone saying "boo.""

Yes, it was the loss of monotony, that day to day, what really upset people. People are SO fond of monotony in this country.

Loss of monotony SO upset those people in the towers so much that when they could not get their usual coffee break, they decided to jump rather than face it. And it also upset people at home because all of their regular programs were pre-empted to no end. What?! No "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" tonight?

I guess 9/11 was Osama Bin Ladin's way of saying "Boo!", right?

"I think the culture.."

Of those ignorant peasants I mentioned before...

"that's most hurt by this administration are the people who are most in support of it."

You know, the red-neck, bible-thumping, gun-toting pricks who did not see I Am Sam and love it...

"Look at it economically:"

Which, you know, involves money and jobs and stuff.

"I'm better off with Bush, not the guy who's working two jobs."

You know, the guy who does the menial, monotonous stuff. He probably has two jobs just to break the monotony; even though he loves it so much.

"But fear is something that's related to this culture of comfort."

You...actually, I have no idea what the hell he means by this.

I was at first hesitant to label this entry You Dick, because I thought it was a little childish and cliched'. Upon further contemplation, I cannot think of a better title for it.

Sean, you ARE a dick.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

INCOMING!


Catch this! Posted by Hello

British troops send a personal message of greeting to enemy Iraq soldiers during 2003 invasion.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Brad and Jen Split, Civilization Doomed


Dig this profile, biatchh! Posted by Hello

You may be one of the unfortunate few who is only now just learning that Brad and Jen are breaking up.

No! None of that! Pull yourself together, DAMMIT! We have a serious situation here. If these two cannot resolve their own differences, then how the hell are they going to solve the Middle East Crisis like they promised?

Goddammit! I know Bush and that pig Sharon are behind this somehow!

CBS TAKES HIT, RATHER DUCKS

The report on the CBS memos is out. Check out blogger recap and analysis here and here.

What I can add, or what I should reiterate, is that the report somehow manages to remain agnostic regarding the authenticity of the memos. I find that so incredible that there is no way to describe it.

If you read the analysis from people like Charles Johnson at LGF, and if you consider that NO ONE yet has recreated these memos on a typewriter of that period, this is stupifying. I know some people feel no punches were pulled in this, what with Mapes fired and several bigwigs asked to resign. However, I think this was a big punch left unthrown. Why? Because if you can leave some element of doubt whether these memos COULD have been real, you can leave some element of doubt that the various actors, especially Rather, acted in good (albeit misguided) faith in this whole thing. The fact is they did not, but as bad as they were caught here, there is one thing that cannot be admitted by CBS or the larger Media. Bias DOES exist, and it is virulent.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Skunk in the Big Tent

Le Sabot Post-Moderne takes out the ideological trash in a critique of Michael Savage's less than charitable take on the Tsunami aid. Go Read.

For my part, I used to listen to Michael Savage on WABC in New York, before he was booted off their air for telling a caller her wished he got AIDS and died. While I did agree with some of his positions, particularly regarding borders and multi-culturalism, I always found him annoying at the end of it. What he seemed to be doing at times was schtick, sort of mimicing old-style Bob Grant at a time where even Bob Grant was no doing so (or so I hear).
Grant, if you ever heard him while he was on WABC was a hard-core, angry conservative, with more than a hint of racism in some of his remarks. Again, I would agree with alot of Grant's basic positions, but then his remarks like calling Dinkins a bathroom attendant would leave you with a bad taste in your mouth. As much as I disliked Dinkins, and thought he was a terrible mayor, the washroom attendent comment was an inappropriate remark because it a racially directed one. So, it was not particularly sad to see Grant go at the time. He supposedly has lightened and enlightened up since then, although I don't listen to him.
Anyway, La Sabot's point is that Savage should get a boot in the ass from conservatives because his message is nasty, selfish and ultimately destructive to the cause. As he puts it;

"We justly critique the Left for embracing the fabrications and betrayals of Michael Moore. But we need to keep our own house in order as well."

I don't think Savage in this case is guilty of fabrications or betrayals, but rather is just being a major ass. Which is certainly reason enough for us to give him a smack-down.

UPDATE:

Wow, I guess I am not the only who felt Savage was not what he seemed. Via Classical Values:

"Their ultimate replacements were -- guess who? -- two hitherto unknown local San Francisco novices, Michael Savage and J. Paul Emerson. I listened as these slimy people advocated things like a nuclear blast to clean out San Francisco's Castro District, and I wondered, "Hmmm… Does someone here have a plan to discredit the right wing?" To this day I believe they were agent provocateurs -- deliberately inflammatory poseurs masquerading as conservatives."

That's scary. BTW, the should have noted before, I got both these posts via INSTAPUNDIT where I always begin my blogging day.