Captain Wrath's HQ

TWO FANS!

2005-10-21T04:57:00.000-07:00

I had missed this email from a satisfied reader:

"Hello!
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, donÂ´t miss this opportunity to find out all You need to know in one place.
wedding flower decoration "

Excellent!

I HAVE A FAN!

2005-10-21T04:51:00.000-07:00

Well,

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, itÂ´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!

2005-08-22T13:51:00.000-07:00

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.

ERRRGHHHH!!

Got A Reason for Posting This

2005-08-20T21:01:00.000-07:00

Sean,

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.

UPDATE OF BELOW

2005-07-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

Via The BIDINOTTO BLOG:

"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.

NO FEAR IS GOOD, NOW COMES THE HARD PART

2005-07-13T05:38:00.000-07:00

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

Friedman Gets it Right...Sorta

2005-07-08T10:52:00.000-07:00

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!

2005-07-08T04:09:00.000-07:00

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.

More of This Sentiment, Please...

2005-07-07T05:18:00.000-07:00

Tim Worstall responds to the London bombings:

"...you 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.

Doonesbury Exposed

2005-07-05T07:29:00.000-07:00

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

Original hat tip to Simon via ClericalGal.

SCRATCH A LEFTIST, FIND A BIGOT

2005-06-21T18:16:00.000-07:00

So, I am on the Kevin Drum site, arguing over Durbin, when some annoying weasal named solar who starts quibbling with me over...grammar. So, after on one of my last exchanges, I wrote this:

Solar,

Again, nice try, genius, but you did exactly what I expected you to do. Instead of trying to argue on the substance of the issue, you continue to engage in snide remarks. Who was the troll again? (Pssst! That’s you!) Who started the anonymous little tough-guy act over the internet? (Pssst! That would be you, too!)

Being merely snide requires no talent, you hack. See, watch:

"I know you are functionally limited, so I will assist you just this once."

*But solar, you've already helped me with my grammar several times, so obviously you are a liar! Nyah-Nyah-Nyah! Thhhffffbbbbttt!*

I know you think that sort of thing is the height of wit, solar, but it ain't. And yes, solar, I meant to type "ain't". Go tell the grammar police! Putz.

I have tried to engage the issue on this site (look it up), but I get either silence, or petulant little twits like you giving English lessons. My Holocaust denier post was meant to point out how trivializing horrific events for political gain attracts lunatics, but I guess that was too simple a concept, eh? Whether Honest Joe meant what he said does not take away from the issue that trivializing events like the Holocaust makes things easier for Holocaust deniers.

However much I would so love to engage in this petulant game-saying exercise with you, I wanted to hear real arguments, not drivel. But, when in Rome…

Just to help YOU out:

1) "pathlogical" is actually spelled pathological in English.

2) "Kommando" is spelled commando in English.

3) English as a proper noun is capitalized, professor.

4) said(as pathlogical" - You STILL keep thinking that a parenthesis replaces a space.

5) "the normal people..." - You need to capitalize the beginning of your sentences.

Like I said, being a snide, petty putz is easy, TROLLar. Tee-Hee. See, I did it again.

When your English and typing are immaculate, you can belittle others. Until then, you just look like a dweeb.

I am done with you. You may leave.

So, I apparently got him really riled up (It appears I am a good enough writer to piss him off) and he posted this response:

Captain Constipated,

I'll leave whenever I decide to, not when some Faux News-bleating mindless idiot decides that I should. If this bothers you, I suggest you return to fucking yourself.

This:

"...trivializing horrific events for political gain attracts lunatics..."

is the closest you've come to self-knowledge. Recognizing your illness is the first step towards mental health, I suppose. Good luck with all that twisted pathology.

""Kommando" is spelled commando in English.” Except it isn’t spelled that way, of course, when it is deliberately misspelled so that the first letters of all the words in your title will be the same. You really are a mincing little simpleton, aren’t you?

"English as a proper noun is capitalized, professor."

This is a sentence fragment. No matter, Captain Illiterate, your point is mistaken (see above). Perhaps you should employ a reader familiar with the language.

"said(as pathlogical" - You STILL keep thinking that a parenthesis replaces a space."

I don't know what your TRS-80 displays but look again. Of course, since we know you cut and pasted the post into Word and spell-checked it, you might mistakenly assume the lack of a space. By the way, should I be having this conversation with Microsoft (as you display no proofreading skills of your own)?

“Like I said, being a snide, petty putz is easy, TROLLar.”

Yes, and I can see after flunking out of middle school you have elevated it to your profession. An unemployed fuckwit- I'm sure your parents are quite proud.

“Tee-Hee.”

This is neither a word nor a sentence, but a fairly good measure of your effeminate mannerisms. Why is it that all loony-fringe trolls are closeted gays? Could your writing (and whining) be more effeminate?

“When your English and typing are immaculate, you can belittle others.”

I understand that you, as someone who aspires to no more than a clerical position, might equate perfect typing with being on top of the world. Sadly, they are not equivalent. Therefore, I feel free to belittle dishonest little cut and paste monkeys like you whenever I feel like it.

Still waiting for the quote where Durbin called our troops Nazis. I suppose that was just another of your lies, right, Captain Cretin? Where is that "substantive" debate? Doesn't real debate "more fit" you?

Woah, a little hidden prejudice peeking out, eh? I replied:

"...your effeminate mannerisms."

"Why is it that all loony-fringe trolls are closeted gays?"

"You really are a mincing little simpleton..."

"I understand that you, as someone who aspires to no more than a clerical position, might equate perfect typing with being on top of the world."

I love it. Get a moonbat riled up enough and you find either an anti-semite, a racist, a class snob or a homophobe. I KNEW you had it in you, solar. Good job.

Oh, DO go on, please. Your sputtering rage and bigotry are so illuminating...and sweet. ;)

LOL

So is it not amazing that an avowed leftist, one who would most likely howl in rage over Bush's opposition to Gay Marriage, would turn out to have "gay" issues. And check out the class warfare insults. Looks like he forgot that he is supposed to be a friend of the proletariat, no? Some friend of the working class. It's funny, but also pretty ugly, is it not?

Oh, I am not sure of the ethics of posting content on a message thread, but it is an open area, so I consider it fair game. After all, he told me to 'eff myself. How rude!

ENOUGH ALREADY!

2005-06-17T05:36:00.000-07:00

So, can we drop the pretenses now? You know, the ones where we say that while everyone has differing opinions, everyone in the end supports the troops and loves their country, despite their criticism? The masks have dropped on the other side, so can we stop kidding ourselves?

Senator Durbin's off-the-wall and over-the-top...no, see that is way to mild. Let me try again.

Durbin's vicious and blatantly anti-military slanders, and the lack of criticism of them from fellow Dems and lefties, should show everyone who is not a deluded ideologue the truth. In fact, if there is any doubt, look at the support he is getting.

Here is Daily Kos, a true, true asshole no matter how you look at it:

The Wingers are freakin' out about Durbin right now, trying to shut his efforts to speak the truth. But if they really wanted to protect the soldiers (six more who have been killed today), the way to do it is to stand for basic democratic principles and ideals.

Such as the one that dictators and tyrants use torture, democracies do not.

The truth?

Lets go to what Osama Bin Durbin said once again:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime _ Pol Pot or others _ that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.

I am not going to go into the figures, and numbers and the litany of the abject horrors of the regimes that come rattling off Durbin's tongue with ease. Either you know, based on history, what a ignorant or completely dishonest comparison this is, or you are an ignorant twit.

I am not going to list all the ways in which we have gone out of our way to treat these mass murdering fascists thugs with kid gloves, because you either know it by now, or you are an ignorant twit.

Nothing in what Durbin said even remotely resembles the truth, and those who claim otherwise are either stupendously brain-damaged, or they know they are lying and do not care, because their agenda is more important than the truth. Since I do not think either Durbin or Kos are morons (just anti-American, borderline traitors), then I have to assume they know they are lying, and the reason is they have another agenda. Of course, lying in support of their agenda, nomatter what that is, is taking the form of slandering the troops they supposedly support. Yeah, okay.

But look at what Kos said again:

The Wingers are freakin' out about Durbin right now, trying to shut his efforts to speak the truth. But if they really wanted to protect the soldiers (six more who have been killed today), the way to do it is to stand for basic democratic principles and ideals.

I'm a little confused. WHY does Kos want to protect the soldiers, when they are the ones that are one doing the torturing, carrying out the genocide and are behaving like the very worst murderers in history? The guy is SO fixated on his goal of attacking Bush, the war in Iraq and the war on terror, that he cannot even maintain consistency.

Kos, do you get this, you stupid schmuck? If the US military should be counted among the worst fascist and totalitarian thugs in history, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT THEM?

The answer, of course, is the KOS does not really care a good goddamn about the military. He does not care about the truth. His "Screw 'em" attitude extends beyond American citizen contractors. He cares about power, about getting his guy or guys in office, and about his agenda, which seems to be America to leave itself defenseless.

Oh, you don't think so? Well, fine. You give me an explanation for a guy who is this dishonest and craven that he would support such a lie, then call for action which contradicts the lie, all in the same paragraph. You let me know what you come up with; I'm sticking with my answer because it makes sense.

Bottom line is this: There are people, American citizens, who really do not care what happens to this country, who do not care about the military. Denying this to ourselves does us no good. We need to start calling things the way they are, because the well-being of this nation, and everyone who cares about it and the freedom it supplies, really is in jeopardy.

Oh, and Kos, another thing:

"Such as the one that dictators and tyrants use torture, democracies do not."

Another thing dictators and tyrants use is the "big lie". That's when they make such outrageously incredible charges that people say to themselves, "They CAN'T be lying about that. Who would have the balls to lie about a thing like that." You would have made a great propaganda minister. Oh, wait, you already are. Hope the check from Osama comes on time.

IT'S OFFICIAL!

2005-05-18T10:20:00.000-07:00

CNN.COM

CANNES, France (CNN) -- "Star Wars" director George Lucas says that although he wrote the original film during the Vietnam War, his six-part saga could apply to the war in Iraq.

''In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship,'' Lucas told a news conference at Cannes, where his final episode had its world premiere.

''The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.

''On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,'' he added.

George Lucas is a fucking twit!

Sexual Predators Tonight!

2005-05-12T17:22:00.000-07:00

Went to the local Stop and Shop to get my wife some Phish Food frozen yogurt, and came back to find her livid after watching Entertainment Tonight.

"At the risk of sounding like your father, maybe the world is going to hell," she says.

Now, my father is prone to depressive rants regarding the world going to hell in a hand basket, and my wife does not agree with his gloomy outlook (although she can see he his point about many issues). So, what got my wife to think we might be slouching toward Babylon?

Apparently, ET did a story on the upcoming wedding of Mary Kay LeTourneau to the boy she had slept with when he was 12. Here is a link to a text story, and a video clip.

You can read it all yourself here:

Mary Kay Letourneau Preps For Her Wedding

May 12, 2005

With the nuptials between ex-teacher MARY KAY LETOURNEAU and her former student VILI FUALAAU fast approaching, JANN CARL gets all of the wedding details -- from the cake to the theme!"

The theme bouncing between pedophilia and statutory rape.

"We start with a vision, we find pictures, we find out what's available," Mary Kay says about planning the big day.

When Mary gets a few more years on her hide, the vision Vili is going to have when she gets naked is going to have him picturing escape and seeing who else is available that is not his mother's age.

"The place, the theme, we know the feeling we want for people -- a real celebration and an intimate welcoming."

To facilitate this, the guests will be groped by the ushers as they enter, and the flower girl and ring boy have got quite a little surprise waiting for them when no one is paying attention.

Something important to both of them is keeping the family happy.

Since that is a completely fucking shot prospect, they will try to keep the family from killing themselves with alcohol poisoning at the reception.

"The feel of where family is, where everybody is going to be sitting and how the chairs are going to be arranged -- that's come together beautifully," she says.

Yes, they decided to sit everyone in separate rooms, to lessen the chance of a riot breaking out.

Making sure the location of the ceremony is special is also a top priority.

That it was not taking place in a jail or a country without an extradition treaty was a big get.

"It not being actually in a church or a chapel,...

As bursting into flames tends to ruin the ceremony for all involved.

"creating that sacred space is really important to him -- also to me."

Sacred in this case meaning somewhere where lightning is incapable of penetrating the roof.

And decisions are still being made about the ever-important cake! "I'm just happy that I found a picture that fits my own vision," she says of the confection. "It's so much easier to go to someone and say 'something just like this,' instead of having to describe it verbally."

I am getting a very, very disturbing images in my head of Mary Kay showing things to Vili, rather than having to "describe it verbally".

And although the music and decorations have been well thought out, it's their guests they care about the most.

They are hoping none of them are armed, or ratted them out by telling God where they were. You know, in case the roof is not entirely lightning proof.

"I want them to know that this is for them," Mary Kay says.

...Jammming both middle fingers up in the air and flicking her tongue suggestively...

"It's our day but it's for us to celebrate with them ... it'll represent us but I'm thinking of them, what will make them feel what we're feeling."

What feeling is that? An overwhelming urge to become a twisted, demented freakshow?

You know, I do consider myself to have a some strong libertarian leanings as a conservative, and I am uncomfortable with some social conservative prudishness. I think one should be careful about declaring the whole country/world lost because some people engage in behavior I dislike or disapprove of.

However, this ain't right.

The very fact that a show about ENTERTAINMENT has these two twisted freaks on at all is disturbing in and of itself. This is entertainment? I can see this story on INSIDE EDITION, where at least the salaciousness of it might be balanced by a disapproving tone at least. Notice anything about that story above? How about the fact that nowhere does it mention the sordid facts of the case. No mention of the fact that the blushing bride was in her thirties when she screwed a 12 YEAR OLD, and got herself impregnated TWICE by him. She is a pedophile and child rapist. Think I am over reacting? Imagine a 30 year old man fucking a 12 year old girl, creating two kids and then MARRYING her, and having ET get "all of the wedding details -- from the cake to the theme!"

Our culture has now gone from the whole Paris Hilton celebrity whore spectacle and driven down several more layers of the abyss. From what my wife saw, they even went into details about her dress and it seemed to her that ET was paying for it.

Would ET be asking a male rapist about his tux before his nuptials?

That ET would even touch this story at all is sick, but to cover it as just another storybook wedding shows there is something to the social conservative agenda. I am not calling for legislation here, but how about a little friggin' condemnation?

Why The UN Needs John Bolton

2005-05-12T07:09:00.000-07:00

From an official UN Press Release: (Hatip: Transatlantic Intelligencer)

"In other business, the Assembly adopted a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and declared 8 to 9 May as a time of remembrance and reconciliation and invited all Member States, organizations of the United Nations system, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals to observe annually either one or both of those days in an appropriate manner to pay tribute to all who lost their lives in that War." - http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/ga10303.doc.htm

From an official UN Press Release after John Bolton is nominated:

- "In other business, the assembly revoked a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War which called for tribute to all who lost their lives in that War. That resolution was replaced by one sponsored by the American Ambassador John Bolton which contained a tribute to all those who had died defeating the fascist, imperial mass murdering Axis regimes and damned to hell the souls responsible for starting the war, operating concentration camps, conducting mass executions and other WWII atrocities.
- "Due to some subsequent confusion, the assembly next adopted a resolution, also sponsored by the American Ambassador, which officially defined "atrocity" as things like bayoneting babies and using poison gas to kill civilians, and not putting panties on people's heads and taking pictures.
- "After some further confusion on the part of some members of the Assembly, the American ambassador proposed another resolution which defined "fascist", "mass-execution", and "imperial" by reading them out of a dictionary.
- "This lead to a final resolution in which Mr. Bolton proposed that an official definition of "clueless assclown" be anyone who needs the definitions of "atrocity", "fascist", "mass-execution", and "imperial" read to them out of a dictionary. Mr. Bolton then threw his dictionary at the Ambassador of France, who attempted to debate the definition of 'assclown', knocking him out."

What's Ridley Thinking?

2005-05-04T07:24:00.000-07:00

Beautiful Atrocities and 3 Martini have reviews of Kingdom of Heaven, a movie I was interested in and anticipating, that is until Little Green Footballs noted that CAIR gave its seal of approval to the film:

Beautiful Atrocities has a rundown on why a seal of approval from CAIR is a big warning sign. Read it before reading on.

Both are not impressed (particularly with Bloom as lead) but they also are disturbed. Both see an attempt to create a propaganda piece (my word) lambasting Christians, deifying Muslims and trying to cast negative aspersions on the Iraq war, and maybe the war on terror in general.

Scott is quoted as saying:

" 'I'm not fighting another holy war here, I am trying to get across the fact that not everybody in the West is a good guy, and not all Muslims are bad.
'The tragedy is that we still have a lack of understanding between us, and it is 900 years since the crusades.
'We have never truly resolved our differences.' "

Now, I am working without a net here, a little bit, because I have NOT seen the film, and I am going off the impressions of the others and several circumstantial facts. So, keep that in mind, and I will too.

What this reminds me of was when Troy came out, director Wolfgang Peterson tried to whip up some audience from the Farehnheit 9/11 crowd with claims that his film was a critical analogy to Bush and the war in Iraq:

" 'I couldn’t believe it. I thought, it’s as if nothing has changed in 3,000 years. People are still using deceit to engage in wars of vengeance.' While emphasizing that he 'did not make this film with the intention of making an anti-American statement,' Petersen told the press that the parallels between the Trojan and Iraq wars became more apparent on a daily basis during the filming. 'Just as King Agamemnon waged what was essentially a war of conquest on the ruse of trying to rescue the beautiful Helen from the hands of the Trojans, President George W. Bush concealed his true motives for the invasion of Iraq.' "

Oliver Stone would do so as well for Alexander, although he would later mollify or back off the statements.

‘I started this thing before all this nightmare came down, this morass,” Stone said of the Iraq war. “It’s ironic, and I think there is a coincidence that’s far beyond my understanding, but I would certainly not limit this to the current situation. This is an older situation, East vs. West. This is pre-Muslim, and there was always a conflict between Persian and Greek.
‘Alexander was beautiful because he saw beyond that conflict into a synthesis,” Stone added. ’“I’m not so sure our present administration does. It’s great that they say, ‘Democracy, blah, blah, blah,’ but you have to modify democracy to the local customs.’
‘Alexander brought the Hellenic way which is, let’s say, more freedom for the individual. He abided by the customs of, unlike our administration, of leaving the [opposing] armies intact and used the armies. He always needed more men.’
‘[Alexander] was always inclusive, and we were exactly the opposite when we went into Iraq. We were totally exclusive...You could argue the policy was malformed from the beginning, misintended.’ “

Just ignore the historical ignorance here, and examine how a film coming out for release is portrayed as some sort of useful allegory for modern times, one which does not portray the U.S. in a positive light.

It was with these two incidents in mind that I began to see the emergence of a pattern here. CAIR’s endorsement was a big clue to that, but also what occurred to me was how likely was it that politically Hollywood would make a film that was historically accurate film regarding Muslims and Islam in that period. That they would portray the Europeans negatively as needed (or primarily) I had no doubt, but the followers of Mohammed?

Still, I hoped against hope that maybe the movie would be a good one, either simply an action film that avoided lame or misguided lessons about current events, or would even show history in the proper context, even it was tinged with some PC elements.

The reason I thought I had hope was I recalled an interview Ridley Scott had done with CNN when Black Hawk Down was released in theaters. Although I have not found the transcript online yet, I remember clearly Scott called himself an interventionist, and part of the reason he did the film was because he supported the operation that led to the events in Somalia. I assumed that this meant Scott was several steps removed from typical La-La land groupthink, and had a both realist but compassionate philosophy.

I did find this in another article to support my recollection of his attitude then:

“As the film views the situation, the humanitarian intervention in Somalia was carried out with the best intentions. Scott and his producer, Jerry Bruckheimer -- responsible for Pearl Harbor, Top Gun, etc. -- set the matter up while in San Francisco to promote the picture.

" ‘In this instance,’ Scott explains, ‘there was no subtext, no value to grabbing a footprint in Somalia. There's no oil there as far as we know. We went in because of the misbehavior of [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid. Aidid discovered that famine is a subtle form of genocide. There's no bang when you kill them that way. People just melt into the ground.’ "

So, Scott is clearly a person who backs military force for humanitarian reasons. It is there in black and white.

But, you say, he clearly gives the caveat that there was no subtext, no value in going to Somalia (of course, the U.S. would not consider human life to be valuable, right?). Okay, fine, but then you read the following exchange: (underlines mine)

" '[Mark] Bowden [author of Black Hawk Down], who has studied the battle of Mogadishu the most closely, reaches a somewhat different conclusion about the Somalian intervention: 'It's another lesson in the limits of what force accomplishes.'
'With respect to Mark,' Scott says testily, 'that statement is 20-20 hindsight. I still say if I see women and children there who are dying, we should go out there, because we're the only ones qualified to do it. There's merit to the ideal of an army as a peacekeeping force that comes in, camps out, and says, 'Don't do that or we'll slap your head.' Of course, you can just ignore genocide.'

'As we did in Rwanda,' Bruckheimer adds.
'And yet we ask, '[Is] there another way of stopping it? How? Sending in nuns?'' Scott says. "

Okay, so square these statements for me in regards to a viewing a difference with Iraq.

Women dying. Check.
Children dying. Check.
Men dying in even larger numbers. Added ‘bonus’ qualification. Check.
We are the only ones qualified (and one of the few willing to do it). Check.
We again lacked ninja nuns capable of stopping Saddam’s oppression without bloodshed. Check.

Gee, it seems to me we met Scott’s criteria, did we not?

Again, I am assuming a lot here in what Scott is thinking, but it seems to me, and my gut tells me, that Scott is another one of this Hollywood types who can’t even keep his own positions straight in general, or just when it comes to policies originating from George Bush.

In Somalia, where 10’s of thousands were dying, Scott thinks U.S. intervention was not only necessary, but even mandated by virtue of ability to do something. Sort of the Spiderman philosophy “With great power comes great responsibility”. But, in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands were murdered, with the prospect of more of the same in the future, and with a man believed to possess the will and means to cause more death and destruction, we overreacted. The problem is that we not understand Muslims or Islam or the Middle East and we are only there for the oil. I guess in Mr. Scott’s world, all a brutal dictator need do to prevent U.S. intervention is to declare they possess oil reserves and they will left unmolested.

One would wonder here whether is really in fact blinkered in his thinking, overwrought with dislike of Bush, or is making a cynical attempt to whip up an audience. Of course, the content of the film, as described because I admittedly have not seen, suggests any anti-Iraq war sentiment was pre-meditated.

Bin Ladin To Gyllenhaal: Thanks, Slut!

2005-04-26T07:59:00.000-07:00

New York Daily News -

Bin Ladin: Actress Gyllenhaal is Right, and a Dirty Whore
By Scoop Johnson
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, April 25th, 2005

Osama Bin Ladin, terrorist leader of Al Queda and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, broke a months long silence yesterday, thanking an American actress for supporting his cause by saying America deserved it.

Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, star of a new flick about the aftermath of 9/11, told NY1 yesterday she thought "America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way and so I think the delicacy with which it's dealt allows that to sort of creep in."

"By the Prophet, this foul temptress of unholy flesh shall burn in the fires of damnation, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, even a whorish clock," declared Bin Ladin on a newly released video statement sent via the web.

Among the sins of America for which it deserved the 9/11 attacks, Bin Ladin cited the United States' Constitution, democracy, and open society. Also denounced were America's lack of stoning laws, its intolerance of man-sheep love, and its love of dancing, music, and movies. Ironically, one of Gyllanhaal's earlier films came in for specific denunication.

"What was with Donnie Darko?" asked Bin Ladin, "What the hell was the point of that movie? A giant, evil rabbit orders him to commit acts of violence? Is he supposed to be crazy or what? Everyone knows the only legitimate orders to kill come from sexually repressed theocratic fascists hiding in caves while others blow themselves up. I gave that movie two thumbs way down."

"Still", concluded Bin Ladin, "It is truly a revelation of the All-Powerful that such a person so deserving of having her head cut off should also so bravely denounce the sins of her own nation. I would bless her if she was not such a disgusting infidel deserving of eternal torment."

The segment released on the web was reportedly only a portion of the Bin Ladin speech. The entire speech will be included on a special edition DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11 entitled, F911: The Jihadist Cut.

I Got A Place...

2005-04-26T04:28:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst, on American Morning, commenting on laws attempting to prohibit sex offenders from living within certain jurisdictions:

"These people have to live somewhere..."

How about jail? Jail sounds like a good place for them to live. Or perhaps the bottom of an active volcano...

Me Stealum Good Quote

2005-04-20T09:38:00.000-07:00

Karl Kraus pointed out (which quote I've shamelessly cribbed from The Weekly Standard), "'the secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience, so they believe they are as clever as he."

Ahah, Pirateballerina, I have cribbed YOU!

Anyway, its a damn good quote. I think that sums up Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Churchill (about whom Pirate's post is about) and various white power/klan idiots.

God, a really witty phrase is almost as good as sex...

Paying the Effin' Piper

2005-04-19T11:49:00.000-07:00

Student gets 8 years for SUV vandalism

An aspiring physicist was sentenced Monday to more than eight years in prison and ordered to pay $3.5 million for his role in a spree of arson and vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility vehicles.

I was not aware that they had actually caught any of the little eco-anarchist terrorists responsible for this felonious temper tantrum. Well, let me just say...

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

More when I stop laughing.

Hat Tip Tim Blair

UPDATE: Whatever this guy's issue is, really, I am glad his ass is going to the slammer. What do I mean "what is his issue"? Its environmentalism, right?

No. Its not. This idiot has other issues and he decided to "work it out" by acting out. I don't know whether its anger over a bad prom date 6 years ago, or that as a promising*(See Update2) physicist he's ultimately mediocre, or what. What I do know is he is using an "issue" to justify his crime. The whole environmental angle is just an excuse, certainly political but also psychological.

Merely torching a building or cars in a parking lot is a random crime, an act of senseless vandalism. But, do it for the ENVIRONMENT, and you are a hero; a green warrior, bravely lashing out at the corporate evil doers destroying the planet.

Problem is, this promising physicist can't even keep his message consistent. One of the things he wrote on the vehicles was "Fat Lazy Americans". What does this mean? How are Fat and Lazy related specifically to SUV's? I mean, ANY car would convey Americans around who are too fat and lazy to walk. Hell, even hybrids and electric cars would keep lazy, fat Americans from walking. So why just torch SUV's? What about compacts, and sports cars and mini-coopers and even the two car dealerships still selling electic cars? Why not lash out at all forms of mechanical conveyance eliminating the need for exertion? Wouldn't that make more sense?

It does, at least for someone who claims to be an environmentalist. But Cottrell's message and his target only makes sense for someone who is anti-American, not anti-internal combustion engine. It makes perfect sense for someone who will use any old stereotype to vent his rage and frustration and own-self loathing, just like any other bigot.

By the way, I would love to know if William Cottrell and his two co-conspirators walked to the lot for their Hummer roast. I certainly hope they were not fat and lazy and drove there.

What annoys me so much about the radical left (okay, there are many things that annoy me about them) is how much of their activism seems more like publicly interactive therapy. Remember that form of therapy, primal I think, where you were supposed go into your basement and scream at the top of your lungs? Many leftists are engaging in this, but its now out of the basement and onto the streets. This way, everyone can share in their little drama. When they get together for a event, I guess it would be considered group therapy.

Look at this. Its meant to be a nudie site, but it serves the purpose. Look at these people. Protesting all this and that and that other thing, and they all decide the best way to make their alleged point is to get naked. The issue is not really the motivation here, is it? Its the exhibitionism. Its a desperate cry of "look at me, I need attention" rather than "save the planet/seals/whales/etc.". Why the hell else would you strip down, paint yourself and bang a freakin' drum, while shouting?

Of course, nudity is one thing. Its silly, it can be disgusting (not enough hot people take the nude protest route) and its ultimately pointless, but its relatively harmless. Arson is another matter.

These little terrorists, and yes, they are terrorists, feel justified in engaging in mass destruction, and as we have recently scene, have graduated to murder.

Andrew Hampton Mickel (rot in hell) used the "evil corporations are destroying the environment" justification when he ambushed a police officer in Red Bluff, California, and shot him dead. Here again, we have a psychopath who is using the justification of fighting for a cause to commit acts of violence and satisfy his rage.

His act is the logical conclusion to the Cottrell's and the ELF's and the little anarchistic ninjas you see show up at WTO protests. They justified any manner of anti-social behavior and criminal acts in the name of the environment and anti-corporate resistance, and Mickel just took it the next step. First the Hummers and coffee shops and Gap stores deserved destruction, and then Officer David Bilio. It all makes perfect sense, you see, if your understand the real motivations...

Update2 Rereading the story, I realize I did not read it correctly. The first idiot is not even a "promising" physicist, he's "aspiring". Sort of like, I guess, the thousands of "aspiring" actors in LA and New York. This makes it even more pathetic. I'm sure his aspirations were thwarted by the fact that he is not really that bright, and now he has a prison term to prove it. Nice work, genius!

Things On My Reading List

2005-04-13T11:49:00.000-07:00

Just making some notes as to books I need to read, or re-read.

The Art of War (new version)
Clausewitz: On War
Strategy Hart
Athenian writer Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War

Know Thy Enemies

2005-04-13T07:26:00.000-07:00

From a New York Times Article "U.S. Commanders See Possible Cut in Troops in Iraq":

"Senior American officers are wary of declaring success too soon against an insurgency they say still has perhaps 12,000 to 20,000 hard-core fighters, plentiful financing and the ability to change tactics quickly to carry out deadly attacks."

...As well as against a hostile press corp eager to find cowboy-esque hubris in any such declaration, and then refute it after even the smallest of setbacks or adversity. Ditto for way too many Democrats, also known as the "loyal" opposition.

-Hat tip to Grim's Hall

Michael's Newest Single

2005-04-08T05:21:00.000-07:00

"Boy In The Mirror"

I'm Wanna Make A Change,
Before I'm doing Life,
But then it Feels Real Good,
So I'll Make A Payment
Gotta Make It Right . . .

As I, Turn Up The Collar On My
Favourite Black Trench Coat
This schoolyard's Blowin' My Mind
I See The Kids In The Street,
Who I Want to Eat
Who Am I, To Be Blind?
Pretending Not To See
Their Needs
A Little Merlot or Port,
In a can of Soda Pop
And a bit of internet porn
They Follow Each Other
In the bed ya know,
'Cause They Got Nowhere
To Go
That's Why I Want You To
Know

I'm Looking at the Boy Through
Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change
His Pose
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The Boy Sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy Sit on Your Face)
Take A Look At Yourself, and make sure its in Place
(Take A Look At Yourself, And
make sure its in place)
(Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na,
Na Nah)

I've Been A Victim Of A Selfish
Kind Of Love
It's Time That I Realize
That There Are Some With No Home,
Whom I'm eager to bone,
Could It Be Really Be,
That We're Finally Alone?

My Willy's Deeply Scarred,
From all the bleaching Ops,
And there's my Washed-Out Face
(Washed-Out Face)
It Causes Most of them to Freak, Ya' See
But They Got No Place
To Flee
That's Why They're sleeping With
Me
(Sleeping With Me!)

I'm Starting With The Boy In
The Mirror
(Ooh!)
I'm Asking Him To Change
His Pose
(Ooh!)
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face)
Take A Look At Yourself And
Make Sure its in Place
(Take A Look At Yourself And
Make Sure its in Place)

Now I'm Talking to the Boy through a
Lawyer
(Ooh!)
I'm Asking Him To Change His
Claim
(Change His Claim-Ooh!)
And No Message Could've
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face)
If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face
(If You Wanna Make The Boy sit on Your Face)
Then Pay!

Just Seen on The Volokh Conspiracy

2005-04-07T06:55:00.000-07:00

New Euphemism: Heard on local NPR station WAMU: "Most murders in DC are caused by 'loosely-knit neighborhood groups.'"

You mean, ummh, gangs?

Jesus, how far down does the left's depravity go? This is not exactly the same of the "War is Peace" mindset, but it is pretty Orwellian, is it not? We cannot call terrorists "terrorists", and now street gangs need non-judgemental euphemisms.

Terrorism does not frighten me. The mind that can engage in this level of denial and delusion is what keeps me up nights. Radical hatred from brainwashed ignorants born into a closed society is one thing. The mind bending contortions of supposedly educated people in a open society is something else entirely. It is a willful distortion of reality in order to maintain an ideological paradigm. Religious people are derided for their rigid and simplistic faith by the likes of these true believers?

Part of what so crazes me about Michael Moore or Jon Stewart is not them, but the people who so willingly swallow their swill as truth, and do so even in the face of their lies and distortions because it adheres to their mindset. Truth, as far as objective truth, does not matter. What matters are the "ideological truths" which are really nothing more than articles of faith in a religion unburdened by God or a sense of ethics.

People capable of engaging in this sustained and intense level of distortion are capable of what else? That question is what both infuriates and frightens me.

Jon Stewart Annoys Me

2005-04-06T06:46:00.000-07:00

I thought about writing about this awhile ago, but then dropped it several times. I kept going back and forth over it, trying to make sure that it was just not a matter of being irked over Stewart's general politics. I am striving to avoid being annoyed just because someone takes a disparaging view of things I respect. I also did not want to be accused by my liberal friends of lacking a sense of humor. I see how a lack of humor on the left affects them, and I did not want to fall into that trap.

However, I finally figured that my desire to be fair was actually stifling my judgement in this case, and as untimely as it is, I need to vent.

Jon Stewart is an ass. A true, bona fide ass.

Not because he makes fun of the President, disparages this country or mocks our war effort unfairly, although that does not endear him to me.

What annoys me is the self-righteous smugness that has become part and parcel of his persona. Stewart is a hypocrite, and a snide jerk masquerading as a comedian. In that sense he reminds me of Michael Moore, which goes a long way to explain my growing visceral dislike of the guy.

My issue with Stewart is this two-faced attitude he maintains regarding his role. On one hand, Stewart balks at any claim that he bears some responsibilty to his viewers because so many of them watch him for news coverage.

"Hey, no, no, no," Stewart says. "I am a comedian, doing a comedy show. That's for you news guys to handle."

He told Ted Koppel as much when questioned about his responsibility to his viewers to present news fairly.

I get this point. If The Daily Show is a comedy show, then expecting balance and fairness is a case of misplaced expectations. It is supposed to be comedy. Comedy relies on highlighting the absurd, or heightening things to the absurd for comedic effect. Fair enough. Koppel should do the news (and he should have been concentrating on that fairly, rather than critiquing Stewart), and comedians should handle the comedy. Okay, Jon, with you so far.

But then, Stewart turns around and pulls stunts like lecturing reporters and commentators on their behaviour. Remember this from Crossfire?

STEWART: .... And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad... And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. But I wanted to come here today and say...
Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.
No, no, no, you're not too rough on them [politicians, corporation]. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

Now, I can certainly understand the tendency to call reporters and commentators partisan hacks. I find myself doing it all the time. Many times it is accurate, as we have all seen, although Stewart and I would no doubt disagree on who the hacks are. That's not what bugs me. What bugs me is the hypocrisy here.

Stewart is railing against Begala and Carlson (even calling Carlson a "dick") at one point, calling them hacks, calling them names, and telling them they are ruining the nation with their partisanship.

What happened to the comedy, Jon? Did we put away the jokester hat, and put on the serious political/sociological professor cap? I thought you did not want anyone trying to hold you to standards of real journalism?

And what exactly is it Jon Stewart thinks his own goddamn show is about? If you've seen it, you have to know what I am talking about. The Daily Show can be amusing, funny and even witty, but if you can come away thinking it is not a bunch of partisan hackery wrapped in a comedy show, you are delusional. Stewart makes no bones about his personal politics, and the others on the show do not either. If there is a shot to be taken, 9 times out of 10 is at the conservative/republican/Bush side of the political spectrum.

If it were really all about comedy with him, the jokes would be even sided. I think my side of the aisle certainly has aspects suitable for (and even demanding) satire, but you are telling me the left is mostly devoid of it? The sloshy rantings of Ted Kennedy alone would fill a third of each shows airtime without even trying.

This is not to say I think Stewart's show should be regulated, banned, censored or even protested. What I am saying is Stewart is engaged in the same kind of vitriol and partisanship he complains about to Begala, Carlson, and to others. Oh, but because it is dressed up as "comedy" or "satire", it apparently does not count as such. This is the Michael Moore modus operandi.

"Inaccurate? How can comedy be inaccurate?"

See, Stewart does not want the responsbility of being a pontificater, of a pundit, but he wants to be one all the same by chastising others on how to "behave". He hates how others are supposedly bitterly partisan, yet he heads a popular show which is exactly that, laughs or not.

Bottom line: Stewart is a hypocrite, who engages in the same behavior he criticizes in others but expects a pass because he is a “funnyman”. The irony is that to me, this makes him a lot less humorous.

Blog Burnout

2005-04-06T06:21:00.000-07:00

No, not burning out blogging because, heh, obviously I do not do enough of that to merit burnout (unless I was REALLY lazy).

I am getting a little burned out on reading blogs. I still check in everyday, but there is this tension between wanting to read more and keep informed, and skipping over things so as to not get too deep. I am not sure if it is true burnout, or if an element of urgency to do so has lessened now that the election is over and events are proceeding more positively in Iraq and elsewhere.

As I wrote before, the Schiavo mess just was too much for me to follow. Maybe it was that I could not really come down completely on either side, or that deep down I found it annoying that this one case was taking up so much energy. With everything else going on in the world, it seemed self-obsessive on America's part.

I think part of it also is that I feel restless. Restless and dissatisfied with myself. I have made it a point of keeping informed, which I think is vital nowadayas, but I lack action. I wanted to blog before because I thought it would accomplish something, and of course I did not keep up with that. I have noticed that the best blogs seem to be by people who are actively engaged in other professions, vocations of consequence. My work in television news, particularly WHO I work for, leaves me feeling more and more that what I do is worthless; sometimes worse. Sometimes I feel what I do is contribute to is damaging to any number of things I care about; truth, this country, fairness.

I don't respect what I do, so I guess I question my ability or worth to comment in length on things. Even as I just wrote that, I do not agree with it, because I don't believe one needs to have a "job of consequence" to have an informed opinion. Still, I don't feel at ease with it.

Of course, much of this smacks of the same masturbatory introspection I will fall into rather than do something more difficult. Instead of writing why I can't seem to write, perhaps I should just write? Duh, ya think?

Anyway, getting back to the rather ethereal point I was trying to make, I find myself unable to follow the blogs as closely as I did, even though I am still drawn to it. It is kinda like exercise. I don't particularly like doing it, but its good for you and thus you need to stay in a routine.

Huh, that's it. My blogreading has become part of routine, rather than a sheer joy. What I need now is for another MSM creep to get caught with his pants down, or for Bin Ladin to be caught and the moonbats to come out and start ranting about violating his civil rights.

(Sigh)

BTW, if anyone were to actually to read this and think I am whining or kvetching, you are right. But Eff' you anyway.

Schiavo

2005-03-24T17:32:00.000-08:00

I did not follow this case very closely, in large part on purpose. I just could not muster the strength to do it, and truthfully, I did not want to. Its not that I don't care, but the whole thing is a dreadful, sad mess and there is no easy answer to the situation. Seems to be there is plenty of doubt in the case (Is she really brain dead? Are the husband's motives pure? What were her wishes? etc.). While the left accuses the right of playing politics in the matter, they are too, and it is not easy to decide whose motives are pure or not. I can tell you three things I do know:

1) Mrs. Schiavo should have written her wishes down and had them put in her will.

2) Congress should not have gotten involved in the matter, although I understand the motivation.

3) Starving someone to death, no matter the motivation, just seems plain wrong to me, and nothing will change that. No, wrong is too mild a term. It seems sick and cruel and inhumane. There seems to me no way to get around that basic fact.

*$&%$#!@

2005-03-22T10:56:00.000-08:00

Coming from the UK's Guardian, there is always a chance for a misquote, but if this is accurate...

George Lucas is not worried whether fans will like Revenge of the Sith, the final chapter in his latest trilogy of Star Wars films.

"I never try to anticipate what the world's going to think or even worry about whether they're going to like it or not. That's not my job, to make people like my movies."

...then George is a big fat chooch who when he goes to hell will be forced to eat every single piece of Star Wars licensed crap ever produced, which conveniently, would take the rest if eternity.
Preferably, the demon feeding him would look and sound just like Jar-Jar Binks.

"Oooh, yousa still hungry?"

"No, no. Please, no more."

"Oooh, yous looksa still hungry. Me feed you Special Edition Star Wars DVD's with the Han and Greedo hug and make friends in the cantina scene. Yousa like. Uhmm-Uhmm. Dumba-Blaata Goot!"

"No, NO! AHHh-ghhghemmmph!"

US Policy and the Life of Brian

2005-03-04T06:07:00.000-08:00

Excellent article by Gerard Baker, partly because of its Monty Python analogy.

via Instapundit.

They Hate Us? EXCELLENT!

2005-03-02T06:29:00.000-08:00

Art Imitates Death
"Controversial German artist Gunther von Hagens, known for his displays of preserved human corpses stripped of skin, wants to build a factory in Poland to mass-produce his art," Reuters reports from Warsaw...
The scandal around von Hagen's plans spiced up further when the Polish and German press said his 89-year-old father, Gerhard Liebchen, who represents his son's businesses in Poland, was suspected of carrying out crimes against Poles in World War Two.
"We will probe if Gerhard Liebchen cooperated in sending 60 Poles to concentration camps, which would give reasons to launch an investigation for participation in genocide," a state institute set up to examine wartime crimes said on Monday.

Okay, so someone, SOMEONE, please, PLEASE, tell me how much Europeans hate Americans so I can yawn in your face. Being despised by these morally degenerate, no void, pretentious cretins helps keep me warm at night.

And spare me the "educational value" argument over this bullshit. Mass-producing corpses for public consumption does not qualify. If you still disagree, sign your body over to him when you die, and STFU.

via Best of the Web

And this is news?

2005-02-11T08:35:00.000-08:00

You know, North Korea announcing they have nuclear weapons is sort of like Ellen Degeneres announcing she is gay...

Uhhhhh, no. You're Wrong.

2005-02-11T06:37:00.000-08:00

Via Michael Totten, I was referred to an article by Steve Silver, which Totten describes as a defense, although critical, of the MSM.

It is lengthy, and I have not read the whole thing, but early on in it I see some dissembling which makes me want to stop reading. Silver writes:

I’m not here to argue that the mainstream media is perfect, that the emergence of blogs isn’t a major event, that incidents of bias and inaccuracy don’t exist, or that certain frequent targets of blog attacks don’t deserve it. But I can say with complete confidence that the mainstream media does a very good job with the vast majority of the content that it produces, and there is worthwhile, entertaining, and valuable work to be found in the MSM every single day. It’s about time they got a break.

Much like lefties simultaneously bashing George W. Bush as both stupid and cunningly evil, bloggers who bash “MSM” are making two arguments that contradict one another- MSM is effectively and ruthlessly biased, yet they’re also incompetent. How can both be true?

Yes, reporters will sometimes make mistakes. But such mistakes are not necessarily a sign of incompetence. There are a million things that can go wrong with a story and all those things can happen to bloggers too. That’s the way it is, and the way it will continue to be for as long as reporting is done by humans.

Silver is trying a little slight of hand here.

First, he is setting up examples which are not quite accurate.

When lefties bash Bush, they do so as both a moron, and as a diabolical genius, depending on their mood. Cunning does not quite cover it.

But, even taking Silver's words, the left's position is absurd because stupid and cunning are oxymoronic. Basically, many on the left claim Bush is a both an idiot and a genius. Because they are mutually exclusive, it shows the illogical thinking of the left trying to have it both ways.

Silver then compares this oxymoron with the bloggers portrayal of the MSM as "effectively and ruthlessly biased" but "also incompetent" and then asks, how can they be both? Well, Mr. Silver they easily can be, because these two things are not mutually exclusive.

First of all, the bloggers do not lump together the MSM together as incompetent and biased. They find evidence of both on separate occasions. Sometimes the reporter is not doing their job, and ends up repeating bad info. Othertimes, you can see a pattern or a blatant act of bias.

But, the Rathergate episode is evidence of both at the same time. The report concluded that CBS news/60 minutes II was blatently incompetent in their handling of the Bush AWOL story. They ignored or bypassed a number of ethical and professional standards to get the story on the air. So, we have incompetence. However, despite what the report concluded, if you look at all the evidence, especially the stonewalling after the report aired, you have to see bias.

One could also say that the CBS staff were incompetent in their bias in that they stuck their necks out with this bogus story and phony documents, and did not cover their asses. Then, when confronted with mounting evidence that the jig was up, they stuck to their guns rather than quickly retract.

So, why can't somebody be effectively and ruthlessly biased and incompetent at the same time. Ruthless means "without mercy or remorse". How this does not jibe with someone who is incompetent is beyond me. Its a none starter.

Effectively has more legs, but not much. The reason the press can be effectively biased and incompetent is because the longest time, and even to a certain extent today, there was no effective dissenting voice against the MSM. They could do a pathetic job of slanted journalism in reporting a story, but who would or could question it. For the longest time the MSM could get away with biased reporting because they both were given this elevated status as truthtellers and were the gatekeeprs of information. They were effective at it because they owned the airwaves and much of the newsprint, and there was little ability for counterthought. Thus, the MSM got fat, lazy and complacent, thinking, "I'll just write something up that matches what I think, and who'll know the difference."

Unfortunately for them, times have changed. Not only are they challenged, but they are challenged effectively, and they are constantly caught being sloppy and biased because they were used to getting away with it.

I can agree some of Silver's other points, particularly the warning to blogs to not get too cocky themselves. They need to be vigilant and tough, but they also need to be fair. Hubris is human, bloggers are human, so its easy to do the math. Many bloggers view themselves as superior to MSM journalists, and in many cases they are right. However, they have to strive to remain that way.

The Opposite of Brilliant

2005-02-08T02:29:00.000-08:00

A couple of left-leaning friends of mine sent me a copy of this drivel , and asked for my thoughts. Apparently they thought it was "brilliant". I did not agree. This is what I sent back. The author's material is in italics.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

My thoughts? Well, remember you did ask for them.

My first thought was that if the “Bush is Hitler” chant is going to be replaced with “Bush is Bonaparte”, then the left is really in trouble.

The second was that if the chant is picked up by the Democrats, then Republican super-majority in the Senate here we come!

Third thoughts were that it’s a badly written, poorly researched, hate-filled, childish rant full of hypocrisy, racism, and historical inaccuracies. I couldn’t decide if you guys sent it to me as a joke just to bust my chops, or really thought it was, as Lisanne put it, “brilliant.”

Originally I was going to leave it at that, because, well, I did not think the guy’s article warranted response. I did not intend to read it all the way through, because I read stuff like this all day on the web. Well, as much as I can stomach. Then, after skimming over it, I was just going to give it only an acidic and sarcastic response because, hell, it’s funning poking holes in pompous balloons. I actually enjoy it very much, once I get going.

Then I remembered recently reading this article by someone who, although on the left and suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), was making an attempt to see things differently. And I remembered this exchange between him and a soldier and pro-Bush supporter. It was a dialogue, and while probably still miles apart on many issues, the attempt was made, and maybe some progress resulted. So, I am going to be a little more tempered and thoughtful in my response, although not completely. Just too much of this guy begs to be mocked because he deserved.

When I’m done, let me know if you still think he’s brilliant, and if you have any second thoughts passing it along as a good representation of oppositional thought. His stuff is in smaller fonts, and in italics.

The emperor of vulgarity

By Mike Carlton

I think I know which definition of vulgarity Cartlon means, but keep this one in mind as you read:

Main Entry: vul·gar
5 a : offensive in language

January 22, 2005

George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnant as I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in 1804. The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing.

“Orgy of triumphalism”? C’mon! One would think reading this that Bush had taken a Koran and a Saddam Hussein doll, spiked them football style, then did a jig on both while waving a big green styrofoam finger.

Already Carlton is tipping his hand that this not going to be a serious piece, but one based on making reality fit his worldview. So, how exactly is a democratically elected President of a Republic equivalent to a dictator proclaiming himself overlord? And how would Carlton know just how much triumphalism there was at Napoleon’s coronation unless he’s over 250 years old, or gets a C-Span channel that looks back in time?

Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal.

Okay, lets start with writing 101. Avoid run-on sentences. This thing is (count them) 85 words long. 85 Words! The Gettysburg address was only 235. This single one sentence is more than a third as long. And no semi-colons!

Am I being petty? Well, what is the literary function for this verbal monstrosity? What does this paragraph-long sentence tell us; how does it illuminate anything?

It doesn’t. It is simply a rambling list of all the cliched’ barbs and snide stereotypes and petty insults that have been fueling the left for upwards of 5 years now. Its not clever, or witty, or unique. Its an ejaculation of hatred; a mental evacuation of pent-up rage and frustration that Carlton can only express in a “sinuous” rant of name-calling.

Mountebank? Not any old mountebank, mind you, but a TEXAN one. Yikes! The very worst kind.

Chimpanzee? We are still here, at the 5th grade level, after 5 years? And isn’t this a little, eh, incongruent. “I’m so much more terribly sophisticated and urbane than this vulgar cowboy peasent Bush, but, Tee-hee, he sure looks like a monkey! (snicker-snicker)” Say it like Homer Simpson. It better illustrates my point.

Plastic wife? Wow! A politically incisive comment. Classy too. I’m in awe of his powers of debate.

Scheming Junta? Actually, I was kind of partial to plotting cabal myself.

The last part…well, yes, that stuff is actually true. I was at the latest meeting of the Long Island chapter of Republicans, and representative Darth Kapital laid out the agenda:

Repubs are intent on robbing the poor of every last dime, which just goes to show how stupid they are. I mean, if you go to the effort to rob someone, shouldn’t you rob the rich? The Dems are definitely one up on this one.

Repubs are also very much for giving that whore mother nature what she deserves. I mean, she’s freakin’ asking for it all the time, is she not? What with the hurricanes and the tsunamis and all that. About time we slapped that bitch up, if you ask me.

Repubs are also planning to turn everyone’s cities to charcoal, nomatter what they do. The fact is that once they steal all the oil, it will still run out, and they need something to fuel those SUV’s so they can run over baby seals for laughs.

Difficult to know what was more repellent: the estimated $US40 million cost of this jamboree…
Nice word, jamboree. Nicely dismissive, suggesting an certain immaturity, like that possessed of Boy Scouts, or say, those that call other people silly names rather than engage in reasoned argument. Plus, them Boy Scouts all wear brown shirts, the little homo-phobic fascists!

BTW, according to this Washington Post article, Clinton’s inauguration cost nearly $30 million. Taking into account a) the rise of inflation, and b) the cost burden of additional security, it seems pretty in line. Which would seem to make attacks on this point both petty and unfounded.

I mean, are the self-absorbed elites at the Oscars gonna scale that stuff down this year? Rescue workers are still going to be finding and burying the dead when that self-congratulatory meeting of the self-absorbed meets in March. Are they going to mail everyone their Oscars and tell them stay home?

How about the Superbowl? Did they cut back on the hoopla of the Superbowl this year? HOW much is every 30 second spot going for this year? Exactly.

(most of it stumped up by Republican fat-cats buying future presidential favours),

Or, to put it another way, most of it was not paid for with public tax dollars, but with private donations. The left sure does hate anything not paid for with public tax dollars.

Oh, and we all know that Democrats have no fat-cats *cough* Kennedy, Corzine *cough* buying future presidential favors *cough* Soros *cough*.

…or the sheer crassness of its excess…

Uhhhmmm, Carlton calling Bush excessive? Pot to kettle. Pot to kettle. You are black. Over.

…when American boys are dying in the quagmire…

First they are men, and women, dying there.

And yes, it is a quagmire just like the one we got into in Afghani- Uh, just like that quagmire that was declared 3 weeks into Ira… Uhm, just like that quagmire we were facing when we went into Baghda- er, uh,…VIETNAM!!!

…of Bush's very own Iraq war.

Yes, a war of his very, very own. Not like one anyone else voted for it or anything… http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Other wartime presidents sought restraint.

Yes, unlike stupid Chimpy who we all know 5 minutes after he finished listening to the goat story was randomly launching nukes at all those fur-in countries with weird names and turning their cities into charcoal! Am I right people? HUH?

Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address in 1865 - "with malice toward none, with charity for all" - is the shortest ever. And he had pretty much won the Civil War by that time.

Wow, where to begin. Let’s start with a factual error. Lincoln’s second inaugural is 702 words long. The 4th inaugural of FDR that Carlton cites later in the piece is 558 words long (give or take a few words, depending on the source). By my calculations, that means that Lincoln’s could not be the shortest ever if it were in fact longer. Call me crazy. Here, look them up yourself:

Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural

Roosevelt 4th Inaugural

Already he’s off the mark just with basic, and easily checked, facts. The fact that he does not know really know the speeches comes up later as well.

Second, to whom should Bush have addressed a “Malice toward none, and charity to all” message? This is where the left in general tends to have a deaf ear. Americans have plenty of malice toward the people who killed 3,000 of them on September 11th, and they have malice toward thugs who cut people’s heads off because they are infidels, and they have malice left over for dictator’s who murder hundreds of thousands of people. And with good reason.

The Confederacy, repugnant as some of its beliefs were, was not trying to destroy the North, they wanted separation from it. Islamofacists want all lands under Islamic law, and anyone who resists will be destroyed. That’s not hyperbole or propoganda. Listen to what they say in their internet messages and what they preach in the radical mosques. They are the ones who demand that all shall submit or die.

Lincoln was looking toward a resolution of the Civil War by the time of his 2nd inaugural, but that victory was over fellow Americans who had a common, if now bloody, history. What Lincoln was trying to do was assure the people of the South that while slavery was done, finished, they could and would be accepted back as Americans once the war was over. What he may have feared, and rightly so based on records from the Confederacy, was that the South would carry on a campaign of guerilla warfare, of “insurgency” if you will.

And despite what Carlton writes, Bush did extend such an offer to the thugs and dictators of the world in the inaugural speech. But just like the South had to give up slavery and insurrection to be welcomed and accepted, the Islamofascists and dictators will have to give up tyrrany and terrorism to be receive charity. Until that time, they are the enemy. If they do not give them up, then they are doomed, and that is as it should be.

In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt opened his fourth-term speech with the "wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief".

Okay, here we have another blatant factual error. It did not seem right to me when read it, but just be sure, I checked 5 different sites, and they all state that FDR gave his fourth inaugural speech on January 20th, 1945, not in 1944. Mr. Carlton, apparently in full stream-of-conscioussness rant mode, could not be bothered to check his facts here, and neither did his editor (if he even had one). This i swhat we call a pattern.

Why do I harp on things like this? Not to be petty, although I admit it is satisfying. I say it because it goes to the heart of the problem with much of the press as well as too many on the left nowadays. Carlton is talking out of his ass, and cannot keep even basic facts straight. He does no research and no fact-checking, and his knowledge of history, despite him knowing what minor battles Napoleon won, seems lacking. So, am I supposed to trust his opinion or analysis? Come to think of it, I did not check him on Napoleon, so who knows if that is accurate.

He spoke for a couple of eloquent minutes, then went off to a light lunch, his wartime victory almost complete as well.

Right, a LIGHT lunch, because no fat-cat was he.

But lets look at a little of that short speech by FDR, and see what wisdom lies within that Mr. Carlton thinks so sets him apart from Bush. Please read it all. I don’t think Carlton did. The bolds are mine:

“We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage-of our resolve-of our wisdom-of our essential democracy. If we meet that test-successfully and honorably-we shall perform a service of historic importance which men and women and children will honor throughout all time. As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen-in the presence of our God- I know that it is America's purpose that we shall not fail. In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work and fight for total victory in war. We can and we will achieve such a peace. WE shall-strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately-but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes-but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.”

Funny. Carlton did not quote the part above, even though it comes right after the part he DID quote. Wonder why?

The entire speech is short, but it seems to be to making some rather grand statements, and contains some rather strident language, wouldn’t you say? Phrases like “Supreme test”, and “service of historic performance”. Language kinda lacking in restraint, one might say.

How about “Fight for Total Victory in War”? Seems like FDR still had quite a bit of malice for our enemies at that point. He must not have been paying attention to Lincoln’s speech. Although, he did seem to talk a little of charity toward our enemies. Then again, I think its fair to say he made it clear that the charity came AFTER we had kicked their fascist asses. Remember, FDR was the one to use the term “unconditional surrender”. Even the British and Russians whipped their heads around and said, “Say what now?” to that one. Restraint my ass.

Oh, and before that “almost complete” victory was complete; the battle of the Bulge would grind to a close; the battles of Okinowa, Iwo Jima would be fought; the firebombing bombing of Dresden and Japanese cities would occur; the invasion of both the German and Japanese heartlands loomed; and the dropping of both atomic bombs all remained. But, yeah, other than those events and the hundreds of thousands who would be killed, it was pretty much all wrapped up by then.

But restraint is not a Dubya word.

Nor apparently was it a Roosevelt word when it came to defeating fascists and genuine imperialists, thank God. Nor was it a Clinton word when it came to chubby interns, but I digress.

Learning nothing, the dumbest and nastiest president since the scandalous Warren Harding died in 1923, Bush is now intent on expanding the Iraq war to neighbouring Iran.

See, now, SOME would tend to think of it like this:

With the Iranians attacking and occupying our embassy in 1979,

Then holding Americans hostage for over a year,

And then killing Americans for 20 years with their terrorists,

And with them actively supplying the fanatics who are targeting our troops, our allies soldiers, and the CIVILIAN population of Iraq,

SOME might kinda see it as Iran has been expanding the war toward us for quite a long time. Isn’t perspective a wonderful thing?

Condoleeza Rice did admit to the US Senate this week that there had been some “not so good” decisions.

See Roosevelt’s references to “mistakes” above. Even the liberal Democrat icon admitted mistakes.

Of course, to be fair, Carlton’s point may be that Rice did not call them mistakes. Fair enough. But what Carlton fails to note is that when FDR admitted his mistakes back then, it was accepted. It was not met by a hostile press and slavering opposition that proceeded to lambast, pillory and slander him, claiming he had planned Pearl Harbor and was stubbornly keeping America in a pointless war on behalf of the jews. Times have changed, have they not?

But the more I see of her gleaming teeth…

???

Gleaming teeth? Gleaming teeth? WTF? Seriously, no seriously. Did Carlton just make a racist, stereotypical reference to a black person’s teeth? You know like:

Q. How do they make roads in South Africa?

A. They make the black people lay down and have every other one smile.

Har-har. Sure seems like a racist comment to me.

But, wait. I forgot. Mike Carlton is on the left, and we all know people on the left can’t be bigots, unlike those cross-burning right-wingers. Sorry about that. Don’t know what I was thinking there.

…and her fibreglass helmet of hair…

Wha- OMFG! “Fibreglass helmet of hair”? He did NOT just write that, did he? Did- Did Mr. “I Hate Vulgarity” just make a derogatory reference to black people’s hair? Does Carlton just have a thing against hair-straightener, or would he have described an afro-headed Dr. Rice as having a “brillo-pad helmet of hair”? I could be dumb, but I am not sure what the texture of Dr. Rice’s hair has to do with national policy. Mike sees a connection. What would that be?

But, wait, wait. Maybe I am being unfair and jumping to conclusions. Maybe I am misreading this last bit. Again, Mike is on the left, probably a card-carrying liberal. I am not sure what he meant by this focus on physical attributes, but it just cannot be prejudice. I am sure that nomatter Carlton’s disagreement with Dr. Rice on the issues, he respects her as a women, a human being and a learned professional. Let’s Move On, as they say.

…and her perky confidence, the more I am convinced that back in the ‘60’s she used to be Cindy Birdsong, up there beside Diana Ross as one of the Supremes of Motown fame. I don’t think it’s a good idea to let her make a comeback as Secretary of State.

ALRIGHT! THAT’S IT! TWWWHEEEEEEE! Flag on the goddam play! Did he just say-?

So, let me get this straight.

Carlton looks at a African-American woman who is:

a Phd;

an expert in her field;

a classical pianist;

a Stanford Provost;

a National Security advisor;

a published author;

and he sees…

A Motown singer with gleaming teeth and fibreglass hair!

There is a word for this. Its called “racist”. R-A-C-I-S-T. Racist. Say it with me.

Interesting that Carlton also goes back to the 60’s for his insulting singer reference. Hmmm, maybe because the darkies all knew their place back then, Mr. Carlton? They were singing songs, and dancing and were not getting all uppity by trying to be something above their station. Ahh, the good old days.

Oh, and “perky confidence”? Isn’t that kind of a sexist minimalization of Rice. “Well, aren’t you all perky darlin’. Oh, I’d love to hear your thoughts about Russo-German trade relations post-Kaiser, really. But first, why don’t you all get us some coffee, cupcake. Thanks.”

We call that misogyny, ladies and gentlemen, although the judges tell us “sexist” is also an acceptable answer, Alec.

THE war in Iran is under way already, if we believe Seymour Hersh,

Actually, I do not need Seymour Hersh to tell me the war is underway. It was declared in ’79 as I mentioned before, but thanks for the reminder, Seymour.

… the distinguished investigative writer…

Well, distinguished might be a bit strong, actually. Hersh’s work has not always been stellar according to these guys:

Ted Kennedy described Hersh’s work as “fiction” full of “maliciousness and innuendo.”

"It's depressing to see such shoddy and careless arguments and such self-serving credulity coming from a celebrated investigative reporter," said Alan Brinkley, professor of American history at Columbia University.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, who served as an aide to President Kennedy, said “…Hersh's capacity to exaggerate is unparalleled."

..for The New Yorker magazine. Hersh reported this week that clandestine US special forces have been on the ground there, targeting nuclear facilities to be bombed whenever Bush feels the time is ripe.

Probably when it is “Orphan and Single Mother Tour Day”, no doubt.

"The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran's ability to go nuclear," he wrote, quoting reliable intelligence sources.

Which we all know is a crazy idea, given the Iranian mullahs’ decades long show of responsible leadership, humanitarian disposition and overwhelming need for nuclear power to build an better society. I mean, its not like they have oil coming out of the ground for Christ’s sake!

"But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work…”

Cue somber, foreboding music. What dastardly, dark motive could this be?

“The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership."

Bastards! Trying to topple a dictorial theocracy giving loads of cash and aid to thousands of terrorists and busily assembling the means to attain nuclear weapons. No doubt to spread more of that vile democracy. Nasty democracy iz, and tricksy, yes…

Naturally, Pentagon flacks rushed out to deny all.

Well, you know those flacks. Always flacking off…

But then they did that when Hersh broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968, and again when he revealed the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A tussle for the truth between Hersh and the Pentagon is no contest.

Uhmmm, see, we again have a problem with facts here. Colton tries to cover by mixing Mai Lai with Abu Ghraib, both making the latter more henious with association, and trying to forestall any deniel of Hersh's charges as Pentagon spin. Ah, but then the darn facts get in the way.

The Pentagon did not “deny all” when it came to Abu Ghraib; not even close. In fact, it was a soldier in the army who started the whole investigation when he reported the sickos on overnights, and as CNN reported on 1/19/2004:

* An Army criminal investigation into reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers is focusing on reports of illegal treatment at Abu Gharib prison in Baghdad, a prison notorious for torture of Iraqis during the regime of Saddam Hussein. According to a senior Pentagon official, the reports of abuse came from other U.S. military personnel. "If it happened, it's criminal activity," the official said. It is not clear if there were witnesses to the reported activity, he said, but added there are "credible reports" that there may be photographs of the alleged abuse.

See, when you say “If it happened”, you are not denying it did. You are saying you cannot be sure, but you are not saying it did not. In fact, what they said was it might well have happened, and if it did, someone is going to jail. People generally don’t discuss penalties for offenses they absolutely deny occurred in the first place.

Also note that the Pentagon labeled as “credible” reports that said there were photographs of the abuse. Now, if the Pentagon was “denying all” about abuses at Abu Ghraib, they certainly would not then label as credible reports of photographs of those very same abuses, would they? Well, maybe they would if Mike Carlton was writing the press releases.

What terrifies me most is the people planning this new war.

For the third time, it is not a new war! Oh, nevermind...

The CIA professionals have been frozen out: too weak and wimpy for the Bushies.

Uh, so Mr. Carlton is upset that the CIA is NOT involved with something. I take it back. He does say something new and unique for a leftist.

Oh and, “Bushies”? I knew there was some Maureen Dowd in here.

The Defence Secretary, the incompetent Donald Rumsfeld, has seized control, aided by two Pentagon under-secretaries.

The incompetent that oversaw the swift invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taliban within two months of 9/11, and the overrunning of Iraq in weeks, despite the loss of a major front due to UN waffling and French interference. Check.

The same incompetent whose military has managed to help organize and protect two successful elections in those nations within 2 years of invasion. Check.

The very same incompetent who, pre-9/11, saw the need for a faster, more mobile military to meet unconventional threats in the post-Cold War era. Check.

One is Douglas Feith, a mad-eyed Zionist…

Zionist means Jew. So “mad-eyed Zionist” must mean CRAZY JOOOOOOOOO!

…largely responsible for the post-invasion collapse of order in Iraq,…

Actually, I thought the combination of decades of brutal oppression, miserable deprivation due to Saddam’s theft and the corrupt oil-for-food program, and the reluctance of Coalition troops to shoot the people they came to liberate was largely responsible, but maybe it WAS all the fault of this one guy. What a jerk.

…a civilian bureaucrat memorably described by the former Centcom commander, General Tommy Franks, as "the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the Earth".

Wait, wait, wait. I thought Bush was "the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the Earth". Now I am really confused.

Anyway, Feith could very well be a schmuck and an idiot, but he is one of HOW many bureacrats in the government? How does the existence of a schmuck in the bureacracy create guilt by association? What? FDR, Carter and Clinton had no boobs working for them?

So, why does Feith get such rich abuse and the whole collapse of Iraqi order laid on his shoulders? Maybe Feith deserves it, but Carlton does not tell us why. You know, a sentence or two EXPLAINING how he is responsible might have been nice. Instead, we get a quote from Tommy Franks, who, I will admit, could be considered a reliable judge of character and ability. But, why did Franks say that? Carlton, again, does not bother to tell us. He had room for that 85 word insult-gorged sentence above, but none to say why Franks thinks so little of Feith. For all we know Feith scratched Frank’s Lexus in the Pentagon Parking lot. But, we are supposed to trust Carlton knows what he is talking about. Hmmm, based on his record so far, I’ll decline.

Hey, could it be because Feith is a jew? I don’t know. But, considering Carlton’s Rice comments, why can’t he be both a racist and a anti-semite?

The other is army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, whose name also rings a bell. Jerry is a born-again Christian evangelical, a three-star bigot who, in his spare time, stumps the country in full uniform, preaching that America's enemy is Satan, Allah is a false idol, and that George Bush has been ordained by the Lord to rout evil.

Well, as far the bigot reference, we call that projection.

I could go off about free speech, and even Carlton acknowledges Boykin was doing this on his own time. People are free to believe or say what they want, or aren’t they? Boykin was talking at a prayer meeting. What happened to the Separation of Church and State, folks?

Yet, I concede that Boykin, because of his position, should have been more moderate in his remarks. There is a political/social aspect of this war that needs to be respected. Carlton may have a point. What someone says can be damaging to our cause and our image and one should take care.

Of course, try to tell the left that very same thing. When you suggest that promoting the “Bush planned 9/11 with the Mossad” idea might not be the best thing for the war effort, or that calling the terrorists in Iraq “minutemen” encourages them, they don’t want to hear it. You are instead met with shrill cries of “McCarthyism” and “Crushing of Dissent.”

But, lets get back to Carlton and Boykin. How is Boykin different from Carlton? Carlton faults Boykin for mocking another’s faith, but Carlton is busy mocking Bush for his in very insulting terms. We call this hypocrisy. Read on.

"He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this," Jerry told a prayer meetin' in Oregon just a while back.

This part illuminates my point better. This particular quote from Boykin is not racist, it ain’t bigotted. It’s a belief that God had a plan. You might not think there is a plan, you might not think there is a God, but someone is entitled to believe there is both. Cartlon says Boykin is wrong to deny Muslims their belief that Allah is God. Yet, Carlton then denies Boykin’s faith which says to him God has a plan, and it is in effect. What exactly if the difference?

Oh, there is prejudice in that last line, but its Cartlon’s. Notice the word “meetin’”, a bigoted crack meant to stereo-type by both religion and regional dialect. One can almost see the assembled hillbillies (for there are no other kind of people living between the coasts) gettin’ together for their meetin’.

Think I’m stretching? Well, let’s rephrase this a bit, adjusting for left-wing sensibilities.

The anti-semetic Baptist Jesse Jackson was pointed in his criticism of the President. “Mr. Bush has not met with organized labor leaders, the NAACP, the National Organization of Women and others … he seeks to close the door,” Jesse told da prayer meetin’ at a Chicago church.

Now, if a white conservative columnist had penned that passage, I am sure a number of people on the left, Mr. Carlton included, would be up in arms. “What are you trying to say? All black people talk like that? Typical right-wing racist.”

Be very afraid.

Here’s the hypocrisy again. For the last few years I have heard the left claim that the Bush administration was using fear to keep people in line, to force consent, to “chill” dialogue. Yet, it seems the left is the one throwing around the scare-mongering. Just in Carlton’s case, look at the language used:

Junta

Warmongers

Rape

“World must submit or be bombed in charcoal.”

Quagmire

Terrifies

Seized

Mad-eyed Zionist

Be Very Afraid

Who is telling who to be fearful again?

Combine this with; the “Bush is Hitler”, “43rd Reich” themes; the constant threat of the Arab street rising up; the various conspiracies regarding how 9/11 was planned to how it never really happened; to the jewish neo-con cabal talk; to the draft rumors; to the varied claims that Bush was going to seize power, destroy the environment, abolish civil rights, etc. It all adds up to a raging culture of fear.

So, I have shown this professional writer to be lazy, incompetent, childish, racist, anti-semetic, sexist, ignorant and for the most part vapid in his content. What exactly did you see in him again? Your thoughts... :)

Birthday Wishes

2005-01-25T04:50:00.000-08:00

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

QUESTIONING PATRIOTISM

2005-01-21T08:25:00.000-08:00

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...

2005-01-21T07:44:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-21T05:46:00.000-08:00

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.

You DICK!

2005-01-13T05:09:00.000-08:00

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.

INCOMING!

2005-01-11T17:24:00.000-08:00

Catch this!

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

Brad and Jen Split, Civilization Doomed

2005-01-10T16:48:00.000-08:00

Dig this profile, biatchh!

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

2005-01-10T08:45:00.000-08:00

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.

Skunk in the Big Tent

2005-01-09T07:45:00.000-08:00

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.

So, Its Over...and its just begun

2004-11-04T04:32:00.000-08:00

From the Daily Kos:

"Why were we in this fight in the first place? Because terrible leaders are doing terrible things to our country and calling this wonderful. Because radical reactionaries are trying to impose their imperialist schemes on whoever they wish and calling this just. Because amoral oligarchs are determined to enhance their slice of the economic pie and calling this the natural order. Because flag-wrapped ideologues want to chop up civil liberties and call this security. Because myopians are in charge of America’s future."

The election is over, and Bush, thank God, or whoever else you want to thank. Bush won, and did so handsomely, at least considering the circumstances.

Lets be honest. Everything considered, this election should not have been this close. One of my biggest peeves with Bush and his administration is that they were often terrible in defending themselves, even when the facts supported them. It seemed at times that they became paralyzed when confronted with accusations and biased questions, instead of taking them head on.

I remember Bush April press conference. I was physically uncomfortable watching the way Bush handled the questions posed to him by an obviously hostile press. Sure, the MSM were smelling blood and they were looking to trip Bush up or supply the Kerry campaign with a good soundbite, but Bush could have done so much better.

"Sir, you said that the Iraqis would welcome us with cheers and flowers, but we know none of this happened, and now we've lost X number of soldiers to Iraq resistance fighters. Can you admit you were wrong about this imperialistic war?"

Bush mumbled out some semi-coherent reply. What I would have said was:

"Well, Mr. Press Weasel, lets be straight and accurate here. In fact, forces of the international coalition liberating Iraq WERE met with cheers and flowers and enthusiasm in many places. We have all seen video of it. You have seen it, correct? Now, no, no, there were Iraqis that greeted us openly and warmly, were there not? Yes, okay, now, hold on, please.
Now, this did not happen everywhere, and at everytime, of course, but it did happen. The vast majority were overjoyed to see their country saved from the grip of Saddam Hussein tyrranical rule.
Now, there were many places where this did not happen. Lets look at why.
We know there were a large group of Iraqis who hated to see us there, who saw us not as liberators but as occupiers. They certainly did not greet us with smiles or flowers but with cold stares and sneak attacks. But who are these Iraqis, Mr. Press Weasal?
They were the deposed thugs of the toppled dictator, the fascist adherents who watched their power crumble as coalition forces brought liberation and the promise of freedom.
They were also the tools of the radical elements of fundamenalist Islam. The ones supported by other dictatorships such as Iran and Syria and terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and yes, even Al Queda.
These two groups and their adherents were of course not greeting us warmly. They hated us before, and they hated us even more that we were there to stop their oppression of their fellow Iraqis and muslims.
We know that Iraq was a complete and total police state. It was a place where owning U.S. dollars could get your hand cut off, where having an attractive daughter or wife could get her kidnapped, raped and murdered by Hussein's sons, where voicing any disatisfaction with the regime could get you killed.
Of course people who have lived under such a regime were hesitant to openly express a welcome to our troops. They still live in that country with the likes of the facists and fanatics and were understandably afraid. Showing any sort of friendliness to the coalition could and would bring vicious, cowardly reprisals. I don't think you can blame these people, who lived under so much brutality for so long, for not all rising as one and holding parades in our honor. Did we underestimate how vicious and total was the rule of Saddam Hussein and the how strong the effect of fear it had on the Iraqi people? In that sense, yes, we may have underestimated how frightened and cowed 30 years of brutality would make even a a great people like the Iraqis. Next Question..."

Bush faced a MASSIVE onslaught of propoganda against him, his administration, his policies and the country itself. From the Main Stream Media, to Michael Moore, to the entertainment industry, George Soros, the 527's, on and on and on, it was concerted and relenting. However, I felt that Bush could have been more active in deflecting the criticism by addressing the issues in a blunt, honest way. The above is just one example. By letting that MEME by, that the Iraqis as a whole did not greet us with enthusiasm, that the liberation was an occupation, Bush is forced back on the defense. Now, you are forced to argue for the war starting from a false starting point.

I thought Bush did this again and again at times. Yielding ground when he did not have to do so, weakening positions that could have been strong points from which to sally from.

Yeah, I have heard the theory that this was some ultra-brilliant plan of Rove's for discrediting the media and creating hostility for it going into the election, but I don't buy it. I think it would have been much more effective to constantly challenge the media's assumptions along the way, forcing them to defend THEIR positions and exposing misrepresentations as they were made. It would have had a similar effect as the CBS memo scandal, where the press was exposed as biased, sloppy and untrustworthy.

My point in all this is even considering the amazing amount of resistance, much of it shrill and nauseatingly, there was way to make ground here, and not just for this one election. This country will have to deal with the sort of thing for years to come, and the sooner the lossened stranglehold MSM has on the American Public is released completely, the better.

Kerry Clock

2004-09-09T06:55:00.000-07:00

Nevermind. Never gotr this to work. Not much point now. Heh.

What's The Point?

2004-09-06T09:36:00.000-07:00

That's what I find myself asking as far as having a blog. Or, even getting involved in some of the online discussion. I discussed my original intentions below, and also highlighted the vast distance I was behind due to the enormous amount of work already being done.

I like reading Blogs for information, the discussion and the entertainment. I also enjoy them because they are posing a direct and considerable challenge to the established Media, which is so vitally important. I can watch the sea-change beginning to occur, and unlike watching a tide roll in, it is much more exciting.

I just don't know if I am up to the task, and I don't just mean intellectually. The constant drain these people must be under to not only keep on top of the news, but also to wrangle with the 'opposition' over and over again, particularly with those to whom truth and logic are simply relative terms, to be used and discarded as needed. Take a look at this exchange. The post is from Tacitus, regarding the AP's latest reworking of reality. Now, read the responses from the people regarding this story.

Notice anything? Like how, in pretty much all the responses, they completely ignore or do not get the point of the story? I wonder why these guys bother...

1936 ALL OVER AGAIN

2004-09-03T18:41:00.000-07:00

Fox News
World Leaders Horrified at Russia Siege
Friday, September 03, 2004

PARIS — World leaders expressed horror over the bloody hostage crisis at a school in southern Russia on Friday, saying the attack on schoolchildren showed terrorists have sunk to new lows. Some experts warned that Russia's Chechnya conflict (search ) was becoming the next crossroads of international terrorism.
"The series of escalating attacks in Russia this month leaves no doubt that the conflict in Chechnya is a matter of international, not merely internal, security," said Celeste Walander, director of CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program (search ) in Washington, D.C.
Messages of solidarity and shock poured in from capitals worldwide as a three-day standoff at a school turned into a gunfight between Russian commandos and Chechen militants holding hundreds of hostages. An official said the death toll could be far more than 150.
The bodies of children killed in the fighting were lined up in and around the school in the town of Beslan, in the southern republic of North Ossetia (search ), near Chechnya. Wounded children, some naked and bloody, were carried from the scene to a makeshift hospital.
"We have been confronted with a deep human tragedy," said Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, speaking on behalf of the European Union (search ). "This shows once again that we have to do everything in our power to confront terrorism."

Many decried the violence as heinous new territory for terrorists.
"This is a new dimension of terrorism," said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
"There are no reasons imaginable that could justify taking children, toddlers, babies and their mothers hostages," said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer.
President Bush called the siege "another grim reminder of the length to which terrorists will go to threaten this civilized world."
"We mourn the innocent lives that have been lost," Bush said. "we stand with the people of Russia, we send them our prayers for this terrible situation."
France, caught in a hostage drama of its own with two French journalists held in Iraq, called for "everyone to mobilize in the fight against terrorism."

NO GODDAMN KIDDING!

Jesus, would it not be so easy? If the world, even just the sane, semi-rational, civilized part, were to stand up, as one and say:

ENOUGH! GODAMMIT, THAT IS ENOUGH!

Imagine:

WAR ON TERROR REGIMES PRODUCES RESULTS, CRITICISM

September 11th, 2006

New York, United Nations-
A year after historic watershed moment for the world body, the United Nations declared it was winning the war against terrorism and genocide.
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said the dramatic reduction on terrorist acts withing the last year shows the efforts are working.
"The road as not been easy, and the sacrifices have been considerable, but the liberation of Iran, the capture of Osama Bin Ladin, and the defeat of radicalism in the central asian states, and the holding peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Republic has led to a dramatic drop in terror attacks. I think you would have to call that success."
The United Nations Security Council unanimously declared terrorism a scourge of mankind on August 18th last year.
The resolution, symbolically numbered 9-11-2004, clearly defined terrorism as deliberate attacks on non-military targets and non-combatent civilians, and declared any nation that supports, harbors or facilitates terrorist acts as an enemy of civilization.
The resolution created a NATO like strike force comprising forces from nearly 100 nations, commanded by a council headed by the United States, United Kingdom and Russia. The strike force is authorized to take military action on any country found to be supporting terrorism or genocide.
"The time for equivication and appeasement is long over," said Vladimer Putin. "All nations have all failed at what time or another to confront terrorism as a global threat, dealing only with those who harmed ourselves. We all have grown wiser."
Russian, American and Iraqi forces attacked Iran this past March, toppling the Mullahs in a week after evidence surfaced of Iranian support of Chechen rebels. The Chechens were responsible for numerous attacks in Russia over the years, including the siege of a school and the murder of hundreds of people, mostly children. The Iranians were also known for sponsoring attacks against America and supporting guerilla war in Iraq.
Iraqi agents are believed to have suceeded in pin-pointing Iran's several nuclear missiles, which were destroyed as the opening salvo in the brief war.
The success of the joint action caused Syria to reveal its WMD stockpile soon after. Many of the weapons were apparently of Iraqi origin from the reign of Saddam Hussein, who was executed last year for war crimes.
French Prime Minister Jaques Chirac, formerly a bitter opponent of direct military action, voiced his support of the resolution.
"We foolishly believed negotiation would work, but the biological attack on Paris has shown us an enemy which has no humanity. We need to face this threat."
Last year, an outbreak of ebola in Paris killed thousands, and the damage to French cultural landmarks due to the panic and fires reached into the billions.
The amount of agreement at the UN at the time was staggering considering its previous ideological split, although not universal. China had expressed apprehension over the resolution, but relented when faced with a unified American/European/Japanese alliance.
Egypt, headed by hard line Islamist population which overthrew the previous regime, denounced the resolution and even threatened Council members with more "plagued Parises".
The Council then swiftly announced a blockade of Egypt, declaring the Jihadist government illegitimate for engaging in terrorist threats. American and British warships were dispatched to the Med while French and Italian warplanes moved to Malta to support the military action.
The standoff continued until a load of Sarin gas was discovered being transported across the border with Chad. Captured with the shipment were several agents of Al Queda, who had planned to use the material.
The discovery led to an invasion of the nation, with over 26 nations directly involved...

This is going to get so much worse until all these dick-heads pull those heads out of their asses and get serious about this. But, God, could you imagine what a resolute, determined effort could do NOW? Iran, Syria and North Korea could not stand up to a united effort here, and a sustained campaign against these cockroaches would spare so much more blood in the long run. 1936 all over again...

ZELL HITS A NERVE

2004-09-03T18:38:00.000-07:00

There is apparently ALOT of strong reaction to Zell Miller's RNC speech. Repubs seems to have loved it, while Dems are aghast, horrified, indignant.

The Dem reaction, at least from moderates, is critical, saying Zell was wrong, vicious and a demagogue.

Well, as for wrong, we can go to the record on that.

Kerry DID vote against a long list of weapon systems. Its in the record. Yeah, Dick Cheney voted against a few of the same, but that does not a pattern make. Zell's point was that Kerry seemed to vote against almost everything.

Kerry also has stated numerous times his intention to defer to France and Germany and other "allies" when it comes to foreign policy, particularly when it comes to military decisions.

What he said at the DNC does not matter when it is compared to his consistent statements (unusual term for Kerry I know) during the last year and a half.

Kerry has repeatedly said that had he gone to war with Iraq, he would have not done it without our allies on board. He means France and Germany and maybe Russia. Britain, Italy, Poland are all on board, already. What he wants and says he could have gotten was the cooperation of the French, Germans and perhaps the Russians.

This attitude flies full in the face against the reality of the situation. France, Germany and Russia were NOT going to join us, period. France stated that they would never agree to military action against Iraq under any circumstances.

Someone who states that he would have gotten the agreement of an ally that was NEVER going to give it before going to war is effectively saying France had a veto on our actions. Did Kerry directly state this? "I will not go to war without the agreement of France!" Of course not, but that does not mean that he means just that. Look at what he says and what the implications.

Zell Miller was just laying out that logical conclusion based Kerry's repeated statements.

As far as being a demagogue...

dem·a·gogue also dem·a·gog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-gôg, -gg)n.
A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

By this definition, Bill Clinton and the democrats are the biggest demagogues around. He and the democrats (liberal) are always appealing to the emotions, particularly fear and envy, rather than fact and logic:

"Its for the children."

"The Republicans are trying to poison the water and air."

"The Republicans are trying to create a police state."

Clinton was an acknowledged master of using emotion ("I feel your pain") in addressing the public.

Zell Miller was certainly emotional (the term is pissed off) but he also had the facts to back him up. To call him a demagogue is an easy way to avoid addressing the points and issues he raised.

And what the man said in no way compares to the vitriol pouring from the Dems mouths since Bush took office. Not in any way, shape, or form. Not even close.

Zell gave the Dems a slap in the face for being pricks, and now they want to whine about it.

Screw them.

UPDATE:

Take a look at what an acceptable attack speech looks like according to ABC. (via. Media Research Center, Tip: Instapundit)

"ABC then showed Miller taking a whack at Bush and, indirectly, then-Vice President Dan Quayle: "Let's face facts: George Bush just doesn't get it. He doesn't see it, he doesn't feel it, and he's done nothing about it. That's why we cannot afford four more years. If the Education President gets another term, even our kids won't even be able to spell 'potato.'"

SO CLOSE, SO VERY, VERY CLOSE

2004-08-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

Looks like the fighting in Najaf may be yielding even better results. Al Sadr, the I AM SAM of the radical Islamic world, was reportedly wounded in the chest and leg with shrapnel.

SHOT EXTERIOR - NAJAF PERIMETER

Two Marines stand next to a mortar tube, listening to the above news report on Armed Forces Radio.

MARINE ONE

Told you it was a little more to the left.

MARINE TWO

Yeah, yeah. Got it, Dave. Now shut the f**k up and hand me a shell.

Anyway, nice try guys. Better luck next time.

Course, there is a chance this is a lie, an attempt tp elicit sympathy for this moron as his 'army' proceeds to get their turbaned heads handed to them.

But, if its true, I can only hope it really, REALLY hurts you fat, stupid prick.

HES GAY, BUT THATS NOT ALL

2004-08-13T06:06:00.000-07:00

In regards to this truly surprising announcement from New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy, I just wanted to point out one thing because I envision a whole lot of political noise building around this event.

If reports are true, the Governor's lover was reportedly given jobs because of that relationship:

A New Jersey Republican source told Reuters a lawsuit would be filed in the state alleging sexual misconduct by the governor against his former Homeland Security Advisor Golan Cipel.
Cipel, an Israeli national, took the $110,000-a-year job in early 2002 but had to step aside after his credentials for the position were questioned. The long-time friend and former campaign aide to McGreevey was kept on in the governor's office until August 2002, when he resigned after officials refused to say what his duties were.

This kind of behavior falls under the heading of corruption, and thus would point to the real reason McGreevey is stepping down. This is especially serious because it was not just some nebulous governmental office do-nothing position. This is Homeland Security we are talking about. The alleged sin would be just as bad if Cipel had a vagina.

I only point this out because it seems likely that we will soon see the development of a meme that McGreevey had to step down merely because he was gay. This would play into the idea of a homophobic America, and a public intolerant toward gays, which of course would be used politically by certain groups, maybe even the Governor himself.

The fact is that McGreevey cheated on his wife (with whom it does no matter) and may have used the power of his office illegally to further this affair, and that is why he is stepping down. Being gay perhaps makes the story more salacious, but it is not the long and short of it.

IRAQ KICKS ASS WITHOUT BEING BEATEN

2004-08-13T05:44:00.000-07:00

The Iraq National Soccer teams scores an upset against Portugal in an Olympic match yesterday.

PATRAS, Greece - In its first Olympic competition since its country was shattered by war, Iraq upset star-studded Portugal 4-2 on Thursday in a gritty, come-from-behind victory that set off cheers and celebrations among some 200 fans.
“This victory will be received with happiness by my people, who have suffered through much,” said Iraqi coach Adnan Hamad, whose countrymen were already taking to the streets of Baghdad, lighting up the night sky with streaks of celebratory gunfire.

Wow, imagine that! Olympic atheletes who can perform WITHOUT torture and death threats.

I think its a great story just from the athelete's perspective, but I certainly hope that this is a greater symbol for the whole country. One hopes this win, and others to come, will help unite the country around it. I am bit cynical on sports in general (American sports in particular) but I can see the value that national sports can have in wielding cultural cohesion in my country. One hopes the same can and will apply to Iraq, which can use a sense of commonality in dark times.

Congratulations, guys! And good luck. I know at least one team I will be rooting for this Olympics.

BUT WERE THEY GOING TO HURT AMERICANS?

2004-08-06T04:10:00.000-07:00

On American Morning (CNN) this morning, Bill Hemmer was questioning Governor George Pataki about the two "family men" accused of conspiracy to launder money financing a terrorist attack. The men were told by an FBI informer that he intended to buy shoulder launched missiles for terrorists planning to kill the Pakastani Ambassador to the U.S.. They agreed and the Feds grabbed them.

First Hemmer asks the Governor

"Is there any evidence that the two men were planning to kill Americans?"

WTF?

Two things, here.

First, what DIFFERENCE does that make? If they were ONLY planning to kill a foreign diplomat, how does that make any difference at all? A Pakistani does not count? I'm open to suggestions that I am missing something here.

Two, logic time. If they are going to use an anti-aircraft missile to kill (allegedly, hem) the Ambassador, then what are the chances that they are going to have a little, como se dice, 'collateral damage'? Seems to be me that's a pretty good bet when your target is a airliner (probably commercial, although Pakistan may have a private plane for an Ambassador) which would most likely be flying over land when it is hit.

Sorry, call me a right wing paranoid, but this seems to me an attempt to downplay the importance of this arrest.

Oh, and to top it off, Hemmer asks Pataki about accusations of entrapment. Hats off to Pataki who managed not to reach through the camera and bitch slap Hemmer, yelling "What the hell is wrong with you!"

Entrapment? So if we inquire whether someone would LIKE to fund terrorist operations in the U.S., we are not playing fair? Jesus...

The Green Goblin and Osama Bin Laden

2004-08-05T15:55:00.000-07:00

I want to revise and expand on this, but its taking me a little longer than I thought. Stay tuned.

It is easy to label Hollywood and its product as one vast diatribe of liberal thought and leftist ideology, precisely because so much of it is. Many of those in the movie business (not cinema, you pretentious fools) are decidedly left of center and have no trouble testifying to it in public and through their work. One screenwriter even boasted about the right’s inability to compete with the overwhelming, conscious effort by left-leaning writers to convey their politics and points of view in every medium they can. It’s an enviable position, actually. Being paid handsomely to produce propaganda that espoused your most heartfelt beliefs. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.

So, we as movie goers are treated to continual clichés and messages from the leftist point of view, whether it is the portrayal of military members as power hungry fascists, or religious people as close-minded, judgmental bigots, or the United States as a nation Imperial power run by fools and crooks. If we are lucky, the subject matter is sufficiently entertaining and we can ignore the message and go on with our lives.

But, is that really all a conservative movie-goer gets for his $9.50 ticket? As Thomas Sowell says, rewarding behavior gets you more of it. Are we not just paying to see more of the same anti-America, anti-freedom, pro-leftist garbage in the theatres? Bottom line is yes, when we patronize those kind of movies, whether it be in a theatre, at Blockbuster or we buy the DVD.

But, if I enjoy movies as much as I do (Fahrenheit 9/11 and its ilk notwithstanding) am I doomed to perpetuate and strengthen the propaganda I detest? Or am I missing something amidst all the agitprop? Actually, you may be missing a lot.

Conservative messages, patriotic themes do make it into movies, despite Hollywood’s best efforts. Not everyone in Hollywood is a neo-marxist, flaming liberal, and even some who are slip up and produce something which does not tote the party line.

As a conservative, one should take heart and patronize that product which promotes those ideas, and to learn to see recognize when someone is pulling for us, intentionally or not.

Movies, among other popular media, supply us with our modern mythology, the entertaining but also instructive tales which illuminate what we are, what we cherish and what we hold ourselves to be, as well as what dangers we face and what we should fear. While leftist Hollywood regales us with its cautionary tales of global warming and snap ice ages, and supposedly stupid/evil genius government conspiracies, some traditional, conservative messages do make it under the radar, onto the silver screen, and they do so in movies more popular than even the overly fawned over efforts of Michael Moore.

I pleasantly reminded of this upon seeing Spiderman 2 in the theatres. I loved the movie for a number of reasons, but I was bowled over at the pertinent messages, wisdom and symbolism which permeates the film. Amidst the humor and action of this comic book tale comes some considered wisdom which applies the some of the very crises we face as the United States confronts the war on Terror, and our very identity as a nation.

But, let me backtrack, because this was true of the original Spiderman, which premiered the summer after September 11^th. The dialogue in that film struck me in several parts as being particularly profound, and time as well as events has only deepened that feeling in me.

Cast your memory back to the first film, where the Green Goblin, a force of terroristic destruction, attacks the city. His motive is revenge and domination for slights he feels performed against him and his family. The Goblin and Spiderman fight several times, but the Goblin uses more than just pumpkin bombers and missiles to attack our hero, who stands alone against him. He uses words and manipulation as he attacks the psyche of the man who would try to save a city:

“But the one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying. In spite of everything you’ve done for them, eventually they will hate you. Why bother?”

“Join me. Imagine what we could accomplish together. What we could create. Or, we could destroy. Cause the deaths of countless innocents in selfish battle, again and again and again, until we’re both dead.”

“This is why only fools are heroes. Cause you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice.”

What does this sound like to you? Read them again, ignoring the movie, and just reading the message.

To me, a lot of it sounds like a fair summation of leftist arguments against U.S. action against terrorists and their sponsoring states:

“We are hated by the world. We’ve squandered our goodwill from other countries by taking the actions we have. Why would we risk such enmity?”

“Our quest to ‘liberate’ other nations has killed innocent people and is perpetuating a cycle of violence and unending war.”

“We shouldn’t be fighting this war. It will enrage our enemies, and embolden them, and they will only attack us more because of it.”

“We should reach out to those who hate us, and work to find some common ground.”

The voice and message is the same. Just the words are different. It is the voice of pessimism, cynicism and defeatism. It is a voice that says there is no point in fighting, it will accomplish nothing, will make things worse, and it will cost too much. It is also the very thing an enemy would want you to believe if he wanted to weaken your resolve.

Let’s take the Goblin quotes one by one.

“But the one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying. In spite of everything you’ve done for them, eventually they will hate you. Why bother?”

After over a year of protests against the U.S. by supposedly allied peoples, and the active interference of supposedly allied governments in the war on terror, often in the most crude, cheap and vitriolic manner, do these words resonate?

The fact is we are hated, by a good many people around the world. By people, in many cases, for whom the United States has done unacknowledged and massive good, at considerable cost in both blood and gold to ourselves.

Other people have illuminated this issue at length, and done so better than I could, so let me just sum up my feelings on it. We are hated because of the very strength we have used to protect and help the ones who despise us. Understand this because you try to understand anyone else about the international situation.

Envy is an all too common human emotion, and a mighty strong one at that. I think it ranks just behind lust and greed, and probably ranks first considering those two tend to generate envy in copious amounts. The fact is we are envied and resented because we are, without a doubt, a juggernaut, a behemoth. Economically, militarily, culturally, technologically, etc., we are a giant. This is not to say that we excel in everything (although much of the world probably feels that we feel that way), but in the aggregate, we are deserving of the label hyper-power, whether the French diplomat who use that term meant it as less than a compliment or not.

We are hated around the world. Not by everyone, by far less than people would have you think, but often by the people for which we have done so much. So, why do we bother?

In the movie, Spiderman replies to Goblin’s “Why bother?”

“Because it’s right.”

I, and many brilliant diplomats from Europe and intellectuals from our esteemed universities, could NOT sum it up better than that. Actually, they would not even agree with it, now would they?

Because it’s the right thing to do…geniuses. It might not be popular, it might not bring us hugs and roses or the Nobel Peace Prize like Messier Arafat, but it is what needs to, and SHOULD be, done.

A big theme of the Spiderman character is that he continues to do the right thing, fighting the bad guys, even though he is often portrayed negatively by those who he is trying to help, particularly the press (more on that later). So, what kind of hero would Peter Parker be if he listened to the crowd and stayed home and did not get involved? Okay, maybe a hero to the French, but who else?

“This is why only fools are heroes. Cause you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice.”

These two actually dovetail nicely, in that it crystallizes the current attempts by the left, aided greatly by the press (yes, I am pretending that there IS a difference, for now) to attack the war. It also sums up a good part of the terrorists’ strategy, which plays into the attacks of the left. Coincidence, I’m sure.

People, innocent people, ARE being killed and wounded by United States Armed Forces. They have been, they are now, and more will be in the future. There. I said it. I admit it. And your point was?

No, I am not being cold or callous or, uhmm, let’s use the term “cowboyesque”. I am acknowledging a reality; an unfortunate one. Also, an unavoidable one. Yes, unavoidable. Civilians are going to get hurt no matter how we deal with terror, irregardless of how we could have handled Iraq. CIVILIANS WERE AND ARE GOING TO DIE! THERE IS A WAR GOING ON! THE PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING TARGET INNOCENT CIVILIANS!

Civilians died on September 11^th in New York, DC and Pennsylvania, they died in Bali, in Turkey, in Madrid and they are dying in Iraq as you read this. They will continue to die whether we stay in Iraq with more troops, or whether we pull them all out tomorrow. Civilians would be getting killed in Iraq at this very moment had we never set foot across the border to this date. And they would be getting killed in far greater numbers and with NO hope for reprieve or future.

The left beats us over the head with the number of civilians who are killed in the wars we fight against our enemies, but they seem very quiet when it comes to civilians killed during ‘times of peace’, or those killed by the enemy. You remember massive protests over Iraq’s butchering of civilians in the hundreds of thousands, whether it was with bullet, shredder or poison gas? Did ANSWER and the Worker’s World Party and the Democrats organize marches in the streets to decry the slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda? Anyone recall hearing about the human shields who went to Sudan to stand in the way of Islamic government thugs sent to murder, rape and drive out Christians and others?

Yeah, I did not see that either.

The death of civilians is terrible, and despite what others think, the U.S. takes extraordinary steps to prevent it, but it can never stop them altogether. It is the nature of war itself, and the enemy we currently fight does not care one goddamn about human life. In fact, part of the terrorist strategy, whether Gaza or Baghdad, is to maximize civilians deaths and then blame it all on us. In this, the left is more than eager to comply.

Civilians were killed by the U.S. in every conflict we have ever fought. They were killed in the controversial wars like that of Vietnam, and they were killed in the wars we believe righteous like WWII or the Civil War.

The left knows all this, or at least most of them do (some are not bright enough to really absorb it) but they do not acknowledge it. But, it works for them to hold up those deaths caused by our actions, and to ignore the actions of others which led to those deaths. Or, even better, to blame us for all the deaths, as if the US is arbitrarily attacking others. The left and the terrorists know we have a conscience, and even with no other choice left, the reality of it will still gnaw at us. They wish to paint our every move, every victory or action of necessity as a useless but pre-planned bloodletting fulfilling some dark purpose.

The left also loves to ignore the costs of inaction. Had we not invaded Iraq, how many people would have died anyway in the past year? How many in the next 5 if we had left it up to the ‘international community’. Rough estimates figure that 1 millions Iraqis have died as a direct result of Saddam Hussein’s 30 year reign. This ignores the deaths he has caused do to warring on surrounding regions. If we break that down by the 30 years the man was in power, it works out to be 33,333 Iraqis a year. So, had we done NOTHING, and had Saddam not been in a particularly bad mood, over 33 THOUSAND Iraqis would have died under his rule just this past year alone!

This is what the left does not want you to realize. Inaction kills. Peace can kill. It can murder more than a war can, given a complete disparity amongst combatants and indifference by those who could interfere. 800,000 were murdered in Rwanda in a matter of a few MONTHS! There was no war there, certainly none the U.S. took part in. And almost a million people perished in horrible fashion. Where was the left when this was going on?

Helping to argue the definition of ‘is’, ‘oral sex’ and ‘perjury’.

When the Goblin tells Spiderman that by fighting him, he will just cause the death of innocent people, he is using the same tactic. He is appealing to Parker’s conscience and morality in order to convince him to make an immoral choice. JOIN ME and no one will get hurt. Anyone who dies will be YOUR FAULT.

It is, at its base, a ridiculous proposition. If people die in New York while Spiderman battles Goblin, only one carries the blame, the Goblin himself. He is the one initiating hostilities, the one seeking to dominate the city. It is his war of aggression which will cost people their lives. But he knows this, and he doesn’t care. But he knows Spiderman cares, so he attacks this weak spot, or what he perceives to be weakness. He knows it WILL bother Spiderman. It will cause him to doubt himself, and what he is doing, and thus weaken his resolve, weaken him.

Again, any of this seem familiar in light of current events?

The Spiderman sequel, if anything, is richer with lessons for us all in this current struggle, and it elaborates of this theme of the importance of will.

Things are not going well for Peter Parker. He continues his battles against crime in the city as Spiderman, and he is winning. Crime is down, the city is safer and the city has Spiderman to thank for it.

But, is there thanks?

Parker can’t concentrate on his studies, is fired from his job, broke, finds himself growing distant with friends and flunking out of school. Mary Jane Watson, tired of waiting for Peter to declare his love, moves on and into the arms of another man. He protects the innocent and saves lives, but is hounded and berated viciously by the press, painting him as the bad guy, a menace greater than the thugs and criminals preying on the innocent. His oldest friend hates his alter-ego with a passion, blaming him for the death of his father, who was the psychopathic Goblin.

He is stretched thin, has few allies, and he loses confidence in what he is doing. Then, his spider-powers on which he relies begin to fail him. Again, any of this sound familiar?

When Parker confides in his doctor, he tells of his ‘dreams’ wherein he is Spiderman but is losing his super power. The doctor (openly wearing a dead-head t-shirt under his unbuttoned coat…MESSAGE!), condescendingly tells him that the reason he is losing his powers is because maybe he was never meant to be Spiderman in the first place. He is told, in other words, you are not what you think you are and you cannot do what you think can and you should just give it up. Defeatism in a nice little nutshell.

Is there neater little synopsis of the aftermath of the 60’s mentality than this? The left, the 60’s generation and its progeny, constantly question the use of U.S. power, our capabilities, our intentions and our goals. Defeat terrorism? Not possible. Bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East? Never work. Fight a war against crazed fanatics and win? You’re delusional.

This is not to say whether the use of power should not be questioned and justified. The Spiderman creed is “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility” and that is also so profound because it is so simple. Power must be used responsibly, but what the left does not get (or chooses not to for other reasons) is that the responsibility often entails that you DO use that power. There are sins of commission, yes, but there are the sins of omission. Having the power to stop something wrong and choosing NOT to do so is a moral choice, and most times NOT a good one.

So the doctor with dead-head shirt discourages Peter Parker from believing in himself and his abilities. Peace Man!

Later, Parker is sitting in his apartment, contemplating his path, considering giving up the life of responsibility he has led. He has a vision of his Uncle Owen, his father. Uncle Owen reminds Peter of his responsibilities, of his duty to carry on in a replay of the last conversation the two had before his death. But, Peter rejects the quest, the charge, telling his uncle it is too hard, too difficult, and it is costing him too much.

Peter Parker forsakes his power and responsibility, tosses his suit in the garbage and in a great montage played to Sun Shiny Day, goes on about his life without a care in the world. He watches police cars race by with sirens blaring and does nothing, and even walks away when he sees someone being mugged.

He later confesses his actions preceding his uncle’s death to his aunt, actually claiming responsibility for it, for the murder of his uncle. His aunt is devastated by the confession and walks away.

But, Peter is drawing the wrong lesson from that episode, or rather he forgets the lesson he had learned at such painful cost. In the original film, he attributes his greed, his vanity, his self-interest for his uncle’s death, and certainly, those things may have led toward the events which later claimed his uncle’s life. But, it was Peter’s refusal to act later on when he could have easily done so, which truly leads to the death of his uncle. Peter believes the use of his abilities has led to that traumatic episode in his life, but it in fact was the direct opposite: his failure to act when he could have, his sin of omission allowed evil to escape and in the end personally cost him.

This is not to say Peter’s life as Spiderman does not cost him as well. It does, in more ways than one, and the film emphasizes this for the audience. The life of a hero is not easy and without costs, even of the everyday quality. And, in the end, the one responsible for Uncle Ben’s death is the thug who shot him, not Peter.

To me, Uncle Ben symbolizes the older generation, the WWII generation, if you like, passing off the responsibility to the younger, which rejects it in order to do what it wants, regardless of the peril which exists and is growing. Power and freedom and come at a cost, he tries to remind Peter, but Peter does not want to hear it.

Thus we find the attitude of a disturbingly large portion of our generation. They shrink from the power we possess, and from the threat we face, and from the solemn responsibility which face.

Belief in oneself and one’s powers is the most important thing; the power without the will means nothing.

But, while Peter enjoys his new carefree life (and it is hard to blame him), a danger grows. His thinks he has eliminated the threat to his loved ones by giving up his powers, but he is deceiving himself. Doc Ock is plotting and scheme to assemble a device which could destroy the entire city in which Peter, his aunt, his friends and Mary Jane live. A threat looms, and grows larger, and crime rises and people are hurt and they die because someone who has the power to do something does not. Peter has not escaped the danger. He is merely ignoring it, allowing it to increase.

He begins to realize this, of course. Part of why Peter Parker is a hero is not his strength or super powers, but his sense of compassion, and responsibility and honor. When he comes upon a burning building, and hears that there is a child inside, he ventures in, EVEN THOUGH HIS POWERS ARE GONE. He rushes is and saves a child owing simply to his heroic nature, not any superhuman ability.

When he discovers that another person is dead in the building, one he no doubt could have saved had been his old-self, his alter ego. It wounds him.

We next see him in his apartment, agonizing over his decision. His sense of responsibility is at war with his desires. Should he denied the things he wants, should he be required to give up his dreams?

That phrase struck me. It struck me when he first mentions it, and when it comes up several more times, particularly at the end. Peter tells Ock (after being told by his Aunt May) that sometimes we have to give up our dreams in order to do the right thing.

Giving up your dreams, even the thing you want the most, for the greater good?

This kept coming back to me again and again. This was a jarringly unusual idea for a Hollywood movie. Hollywood tends to extol the virtue of dreams and dreamers over everything else. Tradition, values, respect, duty, pragmatism, etc., are all pale and insignificant compared to the DREAM. Dreams are really the only things that count, says Hollywood; everything else is an annoying, useless, inhibiting distraction from them.

How could a movie tell its audience that dreams are secondary to words like sacrifice and responsibility? What bizarro world did tinsel town get sucked into? Even I found it a disturbing thought, having been indoctrinated by movies since before I could know better. Give up your dreams? What kind of oppressive, fascist conformist concept is THAT? What was the writer trying to say here, that stupid prick!

Then I remembered something I had read two years prior, just a little after 9/11, during the battles in Afghanistan after the first American casualties occurred. In this article, students in Washington Square Park were asked about their willingness to sign up to fight the war on terror, to fight those who had attacked us.

One student said he thought it was important to fight terror, but he had dreams he did not want to give up, and by going to war he might do just that. Forsake his dreams.

Then I got it.

It is no doubt that Americans are dreamers, and most of them have dreams and ambitions and desires, and always have. We are a nation of dreams. We exist to create an environment in which personal dreams can be realized because we value them so highly. It is what makes us so special and so mythical. It’s called liberty. The pursuit of happiness. It’s only listed prominently in the Declaration of Independence, for God’s sake. America is special because it allows human beings to pursue their dreams and extols it as a virtue and right.

But…the catch is, they aren’t free, these dreams. They always cost something to achieve them, and they can cost even more to defend them. Even everything you have. Even the dream itself.

Americans have defended those dreams, at Yorktown, Gettysburg, St. Lo. In our own land, and in places like France, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. The Americans who came before me who had their dreams of a better life in this nation, and they gave life, limb or sanity in the battles fought against enemies who would have taken all of those things from us anyway, and left us without the dreams as well.

A dream is NOT the most important thing, because without the ability and will to defend against those who would take it from you, what will you accomplish? A dream does not last long against exposure to the harsher realities of life without protection.

That student did not want to give up his dreams, and that is understandable. He had the rest of his life before him, but so did those who were at their desks in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, or those sitting on a plane somewhere over America that September morning. They had the rest of their lives before them, before the knives came out, and the impacts came, and the fire spread, and gravity took them. These had their lives and dreams ripped from them from black holes of humanity who cared nothing for the first, and have only dark, twisted visions in place of the other.

Seeing the smoke rise, and the people fall, others put aside their dreams and picked up a gun and went to fight for us, some giving up those dreams forever. They ALL had dreams for their lives beyond the mountains of Kabul or the streets of Baghdad, but, they understood those the dreams meant nothing in the face of an enemy who feeds on destruction, and so they went. They risked and sacrificed all saving others by choosing to fight. They were, they ARE, goddamn super heroes.

As did those who marched off to Valley Forge with Washington, who held the line at Gettysburg, and who stormed the beaches of Normandy. They ALL must have had dreams, but they went and fought anyway. It is the compact which holds the nation together. We can have so wonderful, grand dreams in this country, and pursue them with passion, but there is a price to be paid for it.

On the subway train, after battling Doc Ock, Spiderman saves the train full of people, and is pulled in by them, exhausted, seemingly dead, carried by the populace almost in a ceremonial fashion. The slain warrior laid to rest. When he is placed down, they comment on how young he is, one comments he is no older than his son.

He represents the young who at this very moment are defending the republic around the world at mortal peril to themselves, and like real life, his sacrifice is appreciated by the everyday man, but not by all.

Tomorrow: Jay Jonah Jameson. Poster child for the real-life press…

MORE POLICE BRUTALITY! THE ANIMALS!

2004-07-14T11:32:00.000-07:00

Well, its looks like the tiger who escaped from a b-actor's residence was shot dead by fascist, racist (or specist? speciest?) police in Florida.

The tiger escaped yesterday, and was seen roaming the populated area of LOXAHATCHEE, Florida.

On CNN today, the owner, one Steve Sipek, was shown emotionally distraught with the blood of his pet on his shirt, crying that the police did not have to shoot the tiger. A recent hit with the CNN reporter showed what I believe was a candlelight vigil for the tiger in the background.

...

Okay, I don't hate animals, and from a purely emotional level, its a shame such a magnificent animal had to be killed. But, if I could make one small point.

It was a $&%@* tiger, okay? Running around, free amongst peoples of varying tastiness depending on the creature's hunger intensity. Authorities said that they would investigate as to why the police felt it necessary to kill the creature.

Again, if I may point out a relevant fact.

It WAS A TIGER! Tigers are huge, they are powerful, and should one decide it does not like you, you had better have a large caliber weapon IN HAND. Those who did not would be dead meat, no pun intended.

All this hand-wringing over a freakin' animal. Would there have been as much anguish had it eaten a kindergartener, or mauled some woman, or disembowled a guy? Sorry for your loss, Mr. Sipek, but if you wanted your tiger alive, you should have kept him on your property, LOCKED UP!

I tell you one thing. If that animal had killed my child or wife, I would kill it myself, and Mr. Sipek might be in trouble as well. And, had my loved ones been eaten alive AFTER the police had a chance to kill it and chose not to out of animal compassion, the ensuing lawsuit would stagger the imagination.

Next time, keep it in your fence, Mr. Sipek.

WHY THEY HATE US? GAY MARRIAGE?

2004-07-14T06:38:00.000-07:00

Regarding this gay marriage thing. I will not get into a big discussion about it, pro or con, right now. What I do want to do is point out one reason why the left, based on its thinking on other issues, should NOT support same-sex couples.

We are told by the left that the Arab and Muslim world hates us,and with reason. It is what we are and what we do which 'inflames the Arab' street, offends Muslims, and thus makes them hate us. We thus are responsible for this hatred toward us, and must look at ourselves and change our behavior to lessen this righteous rage.

Okay, so lets start with gay marriage.

First, some thoughts on homosexuals in general from some of those Muslims who hate us:

"A Muslim spokesman has called for death for homosexuals on New Zealand television. Responding to protests, the dhimmis at the television network said that "the programme was a religious address by a mullah concerning issues raised by the Koran. The television company acknowledged some of the comments could be viewed as 'rather extreme' but it had 'reason to believe' the comments were a genuinely held belief of followers of Islam."

Jihadwatch.org

"Sulayman X, a gay Muslim journalist based in Asia operates a web site which he calls Queer Jihad (Queer Holy War) at Queer Jihad

"While other major religions have been coming to grips with homosexuality, or least trying to," says Sulayman X, " Islam is far behind."

He hopes, he says, that gay publications worldwide will consider covering the lives of gay Muslims today.

Current conditions could hardly be worse, he writes.

Homosexuality and/or homosexual sex is punishable by whipping, jailing or death in some Muslim countries, especially Iran and Afghanistan.

Islam is fiercely homophobic and considers marriage and procreation the only acceptable 'lifestyle'. Sulayman X laments that those who go beyond these boundaries are shunned, shamed or driven away from families, mosques and communities."

Gaytoday.badpuppy.com

"I see it [Muslim Hatred] everyday in the dozens of email messages that pour in to Queer Jihad, messages filled with profanity and hate, messages that detail the gruesome ways in which homosexuals ought to be put to death, messages that ridicule the very notion that anyone could be both Muslim and homosexual.

Messages like this:

"I THINK ALL OF YOU SODOMITES SHOULD BE BEHEADED AND THROWN OFF A CLIFF!!! WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU GET THIS HOMOSEXUAL MUSLIM IDEA??? YOU EVER HEARD OF A MUSLIM GAY?? THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!!!! WE KILL THEM ALL!!! ALL OF EM!!!! I OR ANY OTHER MUSLIM BETTER NOT GET A HAND ON YOUR ASS OR ELSE YOU AND ALL OF YOUR FAGET FRIENDS ARE GONNA BE BEHEADED. DON'T EVEN THINK OF PUBLICIZING YOUR PRESENCE ON THE INTERNET AGAIN. WE WILL KILLLLLLL YOU!!!!!! WE KNOW WHERE YOU FAGS ARE.. WE WILL FIND YOU AND HUNT YOU DOWN LIKE DOGS AND NO ONE WILL ESCAPE!!! DEFAMING MUSLIMS' NAME LIKE THAT YOU FUCKEN SODOMITES."
well.com

Muslim fundamentalists threaten to kill gay man

"Islamic fundamentalists tried to beat up a gay man and threatened to kill him at a London conference on "Islamophobia", designed to promote understanding and tolerance of Muslim values, and attended by Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders.
The conference declaration claimed that "Islam is wrongly and unjustly portrayed as barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist, violent and aggressive".
During the question and answer session, OutRage! activist and former Muslim of Pakistani descent, Muhammad Khan(*), asked the panel of speakers how negative attitudes towards Muslims among gay people could be overcome, given that Islam advocates the burning alive of homosexuals.
Most of the conference turned on Muhammad. He was surrounded by over a hundred Muslims who screamed abuse and threatened to kill him. "I thought I was going to be lynched", he said. "Some were trying to hit me. It was only the intervention of the stewards that stopped them."
outrage

Just a few examples of hundreds you could find if you looked for it.

So, part of what so inflames the Muslim fundamentalists is gays in general. Gays deserve scourging at best, brutal death at worst. So, what do you think these 'angry Muslims' think of us for our widespread tolerance of homosexuality in general, and the movement to legalize it with marriage?

If you can't even get to this point logically and answer the question honestly, stop reading now. You are wasting time for both of us.

For those who are free thinkers, you see the conundrum for the left, don't you? We in the west are doing things to piss the Arab and Muslim world off, and we need to acknowledge it, and change our behavior, right? Well, one of the first things on our list will be to correct our 'immoral ways' and that means no gay marriage. Hell, that actually means no gays...by any means necessary.

So, if someone on the left can explain how and when they plan to eliminate homosexuality in our nation (oh, and as a first step, write your representative and let them know you do not support gay marriage in the interest of cultural sensitivity), I would appreciate it. It would make for an interesting read.

Oh, and while you are at it, please let me know your plans to eliminate the following, which also upset our fanatic Muslim brothers and sisters:

1) alcohol
2) drugs (includes pot, by the way, hopheads)
3) sex outside marriage
4) women enjoying sex inside marriage
5) women outside, ever
6) laws prohibiting the honorable killing of whores who violate 3-5
7) eating pork (you vegetarians can get on board with this no doubt)
8) freedom of speech (yeah, that includes the Village Voice, and Michael Moore
films, sorry)

Of course, you MIGHT come to the conclusion that much of what pisses off the fanatics is exactly what makes the West and the U.S. so good to live in, and that we MIGHT have to fight those who want us to give it all up. I don't know. Call me crazy...

Pot to Kettle, Pot to Kettle...

2004-07-09T03:38:00.000-07:00

You are black, over!

At the Demo fund-raiser/hate fest at Radio City Music Hall, the vapid and crude gathered to raise cash for Dull and Duller. You can read about that there elsewhere.

But, I have to comment on this. Chevy Chase (I think he used to be in movies, or something) was on tape saying:

"I am afraid of Bush, quite frankly. I think he's a narcissist."

nar·cis·sism

( P ) Pronunciation Key (närs-szm) also nar·cism (-szm)
n.
1 Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
2 A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
3 Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.

I just LOVE it when people engage in projection. Its so deliciously sad. I am sure many of the narcissistic, idiotic, greedy doofuses there at Radio City Music Hall think of Bush in such terms, but NEVER themselves. To tell the truth, its suprising that with all the self-absorption which must have been there last night, I am shocked the whole place did not collapse upon itself like a too dense star...

A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR MORE SILENCE

2004-04-07T13:49:00.000-07:00

Today they are holding memorial for the victims of the Rwandan massacre of 10 years ago.

Big #%$^@ deal.

Am I heartless? Cruel? Racist?

NO. I am pissed off at the fucking useless memorials for people for whom NOTHING WAS DONE AT THE TIME THEY NEEDED IT MOST!

Oh, sure, the goddamn memorial will get coverage, and everyone will speak in hushed topnes about tragic it was and never again and blah, and blah and blah.

Meanwhile, the dead still lie in their graves, their screams and cries for mercy and justice echoing through Africa.

No one did a thing. According to who you quote, 600,000 to 1 million people were murdered over the course of, what? The course of a few months?

The self-righteous United Nations, arbiter of what is right and wrong, did NOTHING! Some say a few thousand peace-keepers could have prevented the whole thing. No one could be bothered.

Oh, and does anyone recall the massive protests of ANSWER and all the other left-wing "activists" decrying this wholesale slaughter? I seem to have not caught the coverage of all the "concerned" filling the streets to protest.

MORAL EQUIVALENCY SMACKTARD ALERT

2004-04-03T03:23:00.001-08:00

Les Payne, who is one of most favorite columnists to despise and ridicule (both for his views and lack of logical consistency) writes today, proclaiming the deaths of Uday (the really violent, evil one) and Qusay (he even more violent, evil one) equivalent with those of the 4 Americans killed in Fallujah. His "point" is that the overbearing firepower used to bring these two murderous bastards in, and the fact that we displayed the bodies to prove to a frightened populace brutalized by them that they were dead, is equivalent to what happened in Fallujah:

"This space wondered at the time whether Americans were embarrassed by the Bush administration's release of those photographs. Or whether they were repulsed by their government hiring assassins to hunt down fugitives as if the world's lone superpower is some tin-horned, nuclear-crazed vigilante state. Or whether, alas, the White House had lost its Wild West, bounty-hunting mind.

My mail suggested that the Hussein brothers, their bodyguard and the Iraqi teenager were oxen that Americans should not care about, even though soldiers had gored them bloody and celebrated over their corpses. Such morbid exultation King would have denounced.

Last week in Fallujah, several other oxen were gored and burned and strung up on a bridge over the Euphrates River. This time, the gloating is on the other face.

It is the White House's turn to take the next eye-for-an-eye in its mad march to blindness."

Just so happens I am reading Victor Davis Hanson's Between War and Peace, and he discusses the rot of amorality in the Israel/Palestinian question, but it certainly applies here:

"...we live in a society in which playground fights in our schools are often adjudicated by concepts such as 'zero tolerance' and 'equal culpability'. Rather than exercising moral judgment-and investing time and energy in such investigation-our school principals simply expel any student caught fighting, as if the bully and his victim occupy the same moral ground.

Our schoolbooks devote more space to Hiroshima than to the far, far greater casualties on Okinawa. Students are not told that the two tragedies are connected-as if the American bombing to prevent an enormous bloodbath on the Japanese mainland is somehow not a direct result of the Japanese imperial military's efforts a few weeks earlier to unleash thousands of kamikazes, and through suicide attacks and banzai charges kill every American (and tens of thousands of civilians) on the island rather than surrender."

Here we have Les Payne's "argument" exposed by Hanson. United States troops (hired assassins to Payne) finally catch up with two of Iraq's former leaders, men responsible for rape, torture, oppression and large scale murder. Because we do not take them alive, because we have more firepower than them, because we show they are dead to frightened populace who thrive on conspiracy theories, their deaths are somehow a crime. This then allows Mr. Payne to explain away and excuse the murder and butchering of 4 men who were in the country to insure the delivery of food to the same mob which murdered and tore them apart. See, those four men deserved it, at least by extension because of what Bush and the U.S. did, you see.

There is no moral dimension for Mr. Payne, because if there were, he would like a blatant fool, rather than the slightly more subtle one he is. The deaths of two fascist, murderous thugs and their bodyguards trying to escape justice (yeah, a 14 year old could still wield a weapon, and if he was truly an innocent bystander, than the blood is on Dead-ay, and Gone-ay, not the U.S. for not sending him out) who shot the troops coming to arrest them is the same as 4 men killed while trying to rebuild the country destroyed and raped by the two said thugs. The displaying of Hussein's sons in photographs is the equivalent of burning, butchering, dragging and hanging bodies of security guards.

But you know, I have to take that back. Mr. Payne is not a fool. To declare him as such is both false and absolves him of his responsibility as a 'journalist' or even commentator. What he does is carefully craft the situation so as to make some moral equivalency appear where there is none. In the article, Mr. Payne makes great reference to amount of military hardware used to kill the four people inside the house where they were hold up:

"With a $15-million bounty on each of their heads, the brothers were gunned down allegedly in a "fierce gun battle." They were up against the 101st Airborne Division armed with limitless anti-tank rockets and supported by Apache helicopters, a pack of A-10 Warthogs belching death fire, and a squadron of impatient laser-smart jet fighters. Pulled from the house the U.S. firepower had shredded like a termite mound, the playboy sadist, Uday, and his more sedate brother, Qusay, were displayed in the full-color bloom of blood and gore as front-page trophies for President George W. Bush's den."

There are a couple of things here to take note of. First, Payne says there was "allegedly" a "fierce gun battle." I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reports of several U.S. servicemen being wounded when they initially tried to enter the house. So does CNN.com:

"Four coalition troops were wounded in the six-hour operation at a residence on the northern edge of Mosul, Sanchez said.

TV cameramen who witnessed some of the fighting said U.S. forces attacked from all sides after being refused admission to the house, and charged into the villa, encountering fierce resistance."

So, first Payne tries to diminish the threat these two psychos posed to our troops. It’s the old "police brutality" bit redone for the Iraq war. He then rattles off all the hardware supposedly used against the house to get at the men. I am sure about the 101st airborne (God Bless them) and I think the Apaches may be right, but "A-10 Warthogs belching death fire, and a squadron of impatient laser-smart jet fighters."? The article I found does make reference to air cover, but no where does it indicate the use of either a 20mm cannon, or jet laser guided bombs being used on the house. All this is hyperbole which leads to this line:

"Pulled from the house the U.S. firepower had shredded like a termite mound, the playboy sadist, Uday, and his more sedate brother, Qusay, were displayed in the full-color bloom of blood and gore as front-page trophies for President George W. Bush's den."

See the slight of hand here. First, Payne tries to paint a picture of a house reduced to rubble. Here is a photo from CNN.com. You decide if it looks as bad as he describes. Then, he says the bodies were "pulled from the house", again evoking the all too frequent line "Pulled from the rubble". I think, again, we are meant to draw that conclusion without Les saying so. He then declares the house was shredded and quickly goes back to mentioning the two Husseins, again, leading anyone reading it quickly to surmise that the bodies were "shredded".

The reason for this last bit is most important. See, again, Payne is trying to draw a moral parallel between the deaths of Bye-ay, and Corpse-ay, and what happened to the Americans in Fallujah. In Fallujah, yes, the Americans were cut to pieces, but did not the U.S. forces shred the likes of the 4 men in that house in Mosul? See, it’s the same, you see?

Of course, it is not the same, either in physical reality when you check the facts, or in any recognizable moral universe, but to write it any other way might lead Mr. Payne to support his own country, his own countrymen and maybe even the whole war. And, well, Mr. Payne can't do that, can he?

What really makes this all the more ludicrous is that the article starts off with the assassination of Martin Luther King. So, is Payne saying King was the moral equivalent of Saddam’s murderous sons?

SEE I TOLD YOU AND QUICK HITS

2004-04-03T03:23:00.000-08:00

See, I told you I have a hard time with consistency. Over a week, no post. Bad blogger, BAD!

THE FACE OF EVIL
Okay, so I might comment on the Fallujah massacre, but I could not say anything more incisive than U.S.S. Clueless, so check it out. Remember, revenge is dish best served cold...

One thing I will say is; keep in mind that these people, the Baathists are the ones who were running this country until we liberated last year. This kind of savagry was ROUTINE in Saddam's Iraq, and all the worse because there was no shelter from the horror, or justice in its wake. Times have changed. Our troops are poised outside the city. Some of those who were cheering and clapping over the death of our fellow Americans are soon going to see that Saddam is truly gone, and their time is over. Forever.

HYPOCRISY ALERT
So, listening to Laura Ingrahm last night, and she has a soundbite from Senator Dodd emphatically praising Senator Robert Byrd, saying "you would have been a great senator at any time in our history" and other effusive terms. I am trying to find the actual quote, but trust me. Okay, quick, guess why I am mentioning this?

Time's up. Well, you may not know, especially if you are one of the clueless left, but the doddering old DEMOCRAT fool Senator from West Virginia used to be in the Klan. That's the motherf***ing Klu Klux Klan! For YEARS! So, what DEMOCRAT Senator Dodd was saying was that Byrd would have been a great senator for this country, even during those years when he was denouncing nigras, calling for lynching, and burning crosses. Nice!

Here's the kicker. Everyone pay attention to the general media over the next week. Let's see how much of a broohaha gets raised over this matter. Remember Trent Lott, and what happened to him when he made remarks at a birthday party praising Strom Thurmond? Lets compare the reaction to that to this open praising of a hood wearing, cross burning asshat who is the only national politician in recent times to have used the word "nigger" on national TV. We'll come back to this in a week.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH

2004-03-23T03:08:00.000-08:00

So, I understand Hamas is promising homicide bombings against Israel in response to the Kablooming of the old terrorist fuck in the wheelchair.

And...the difference between this and before the IDF sent Sheik Ahmed Yassin into 11th plane of hell? Hey, Hamas, here's a hint. In order to really threaten somebody effectively, you really should try something different than what you are already doing on a daily basis. Otherwise its kinda pointless. Why do you think this guy went POOF! in the first place?

Oh, everybody hold onto your seats as we see an outpouring of outrage over this 'assassination' of a 'poor old man in a wheelchair'. Boo Hoo.

Hey, I remember a guy named Klinghoffer and the ruthless animals that dumped him off the Achilli Lauro? Well, he was an old man in a wheelchair, and an American, and HE was executed by Palestinian fuck-wits. Yassin deserved what he got. Now that Hamas is threatening the U.S., I say, bring it on. I may die, but maybe it will galvanize enough of the weak, feckless idiots in my own country and we can finally take all these assholes out.

9/11 MUSINGS

2004-03-17T17:03:00.001-08:00

You know, I just started this blog, and I’ve already begun to feel I am not accomplishing what I wanted. The primary reason for this is because so many other talented people are doing it already. They find news stories not reported by mainstream media, give immediate analysis, do the research for subjects necessary to give me the bigger picture. I do not have the skills and abilities they have, at least not yet, but I do want to do what they want, which is to find the truth amidst all the noise and fog. It drives me to read the blogs, more and more, to more clearly pierce the veil, to see better the gathering storm. And there is a storm coming. Its going to be fucking huge, it going to be bloody, and I am not sure if can even be stopped. I consider myself a bright person, and I have a pretty decent ability to understand concepts and to reason out solutions, but I also rely a decent amount on my gut to tell me things. Intellect and intuition both guide me, and while I wish my discipline and analysis skills were better, I think I am pretty receptive.

September 11th did not catch me by surprise, nor was I particularly shocked. I woke up one morning to the sound of my telephone. I was working and evening shift and was still asleep. It was my wife.

“Glenn?”
“Yeah?”

“Are you watching the tv?”

“What?! No. I was sleeping.,,”

“They flew planes into the buildings.”

“What?”

“They flew planes into the world trade center. The twin towers.”

I got up and turned on the TV and saw the smoke and the flame. I listened to the chatter of the newsmen, watched the video of the impacts again and again, and I watched the first tower fall, begin to disintegrate, even before the broadcaster realized it.

Its falling, I thought to myself, mentally telling the anchor, Pay attention, its collapsing.

I honestly do not recall feeling any horror or revulsion of disbelief. I swear to God. As I saw one building fall, then another, and watched the billowing clouds and running people and the smoke coming from the Pentagon, I was, for the most part, unfazed. Not unmoved mind you, just…taking it all in.

I knew something like this was coming. I knew it. I felt it.

I read history. I know the horrors and homicide and crimes that have occurred throughout the ages. Hell, just keeping up with current events would have revealed the potential for mass murder that made 9/11 pale in comparison. Kosovo, Rwanda, Iraq, Chechnya, and one and on.

I knew this was coming. Not planes in particular (although I had a strange dream once that a little bizarre in its familiarity). I had no idea this would be it, although I had read Tom Clancy’s Debt of Honor, where a vengeful Japanese airline pilot flies his jetliner into the Congress, killing most of them and the president. I did not know killers would be ingenious in their assault and daring in their execution and so stone cold hateful in their devotion to do what they did.

But I knew SOMETHING was coming. And the scary thing was that Tuesday was just the beginning. We have.nt fully accepted, I think, most of us. Well, I think I have, although I still find myself not fully capable or willing to fully grasp the implications of it. The scale of it, and the probable distance in time draws a mist around it, obscuring it, but its there.

The dream I had was at least a couple of years before 9/11. I don’t dream a lot, or at least I do not remember too many dreams upon awakening. They say people dream all the time, every night, but you just remember a small amount of it in your conscious mind. So, those I do recall tend to stand out.

The dream was this, I was out on a front lawn near a mall near my childhood house. It seemed to both night and day, so I think it was more of a twilight; bright enough to seem like day around you, but with a darkening sky. I do not recall too much of the details, but what I do remember was an airliner streaking overhead, and then disappearing beyond the horizon to the north. When it disappeared behind the horizon, there was a groundshaking blast with erupted from behind the trees and up into the sky. I rememeber being thrown to the ground. My dreams, the ones I remember, tend to be vivid, and this was. I could feel the vibration of the shockwave and flinched from the flash in the sky and I was stunned. I remember panic, and I remember suddenly knowing things, being fed information about what was going on in a kind of epiphanies common in a dream. I can’t remember the details, of the thoughts, but I knew it was not over. A second plane appeared in the sky, and I could see this one was going to crash, and I knew it would be closer and I remember scrambling away, hands and knees, trying to get away from the blast, which I knew would be bad. The second blast went off when I wasn’t looking and it shook everything around me and lit up the sky. From the intensity, I concluded in my dream that it had to be a nuclear blast, although I think I remember pondering how I would still be alive to think that.

Then I woke up.

I am not saying that dream was a premonition or anything. I could not say that. But I swear its true.

So, move forward a few years later, and I am watching the towers fall, and seeing the video of falling people, conscious people falling to their death and I am not shocked.

As I said, I knew something like this was coming. Actually, I imagined something much worse, which is what frightens and concerns me know.

I have told friends for years now that the world has at least one World War left in it before we’re done; whether for a resolution of our strife, or the destruction of our species. I felt it was inevitable. My reading of history, the path of current events and my gut all told me it had to happen. Conflict has always been there, and whether it was between neighboring tribes or nations states, it had continued throughout centuries. The only thing that really changed was the technology and the body count. The tensions and rivalries, the will to dominate and the will to fight back, the folly of weakness and the triumph of strength have always been there.

Most of all, my gut tells me in can be no other way. It is not sophisticated enough to tell you the how and the why and the when, exactly. What my gut tells me is that it is coming, and it will be horrendous before it is finished.

I used to be afraid of death, obsessed by it. I worried about what would happen, how it would happen, how I did not want to do die nomatter what. I did not want to accept my own mortality.

I accept it now, just as I accept the coming storm. The people of the last century, those in the 20’s and 30’s, how many of them saw it coming? I mean really it saw it. A few did. A precious few saw it coming toward them, but most of them could not have imagined the true magnitude of what was to come. The rest, they had no idea. First awash in wealth and prosperity, then numbed by poverty and despair, they were not paying attention, and they could not even imagine what was to come.

During the reign of the Mongols, I read that at Baghdad, they made an example to other cities who would resist them by cutting the heads off of 1 million residents. They piled the skulls together, a massive, grotesque monument to their power and their cruelty. How many of those Baghdad residents, men, woman and children, young and old, could have imagined such a thing a year before? 6 months? A month, even, when they had to have heard the rumors of the approaching hoard? When did it sink in to them just what their enemy was capable of, what would be their fate?

The Second World War, depending on whose estimates you use and how you frame the conflict, cost around 50 million lives, many dying in the most horrible of ways. Shot, burned, blown to pieces, pierced, gang-raped, torn apart, starved, frozen, suffocated, hung, buried alive, crushed, dismembered, experimented on, drown, smashed into the ground, crushed by the depths of the sea.

What will this next World War bring us. Some believe the Cold War was in effect the Third World War, and based on the body count alone, they have a point. So, this Fourth World War, WWIV, when it comes, what will be the butcher’s bill? If it occurs, if nothing is done to prevent it from getting to that point, the results will have to be mind-shattering. Take the zealous hatred of Nazism, take the very worst aspects of religious extremism, add dozens of nations dominated within a fascist alliance, and add several cups of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and mix. YOU do the math. Or just listen to your gut. Either way, its adding up to a charnel house even compared to the 1940’s.

The current situation does little but encourage me in this direction. The U.S. is waging a war to head this conflagration off at the pass (so sorry, intellectuals, for the typical American cowboy symbology), and we are increasingly fighting it alone. Just like that oft-mentioned conflict of blitzkrieg and , those standing in the way of the beast choose not to see or hear its approach. They hide their heads in the sand, or stand still, and expect the creature to take no notice of them. And perhaps they are right. Perhaps they will be spared while the beast seeks other prey and devours them instead. They will be spared, for a time, but when all others are gone, and the beast has grown bigger and more varacious, what will it then eat?

I accept my own death now. I do because I know there is nothing I can do about it, and my only concern is to make the most out of what remains of it. It may be a lot, and I may have so little time it would kill me if I knew. I accept it now because I realize that like so many people before me, so many who were caught by the beast, their wishes and desires and their protestations to the contrary, the beast will take them when it is ready.

That is, unless you kill it first. That is what America is trying to do, people. The beast is growing and creeping and it is feeding of the weak and the craven and those seeking scraps from its kills like jackals. It is coming, and if you don't stop it now, it will eventually come for you...

FRIENDS IN LOW PLACES?

2004-03-17T17:03:00.000-08:00

I thought you might find this interesting. I came across it while I was reading the New York Times March 17th, Page A12 (non-fiction section) in a article titled "Spain grapples with Notion that Terrorism Trumped Democracy”. The story tries to explain how the Socialists pulled ahead because after the attack, Aznar quickly and vigorously blamed ETA, rather than consider an Al Queda connection. Apparently he lacked friends with insider information:

“Meanwhile, within 24 hours of the terrorist attacks, the Socialists, through their own intelligence and diplomatic contacts in the Muslim world, were already leaning toward the theory that Al Queda and not ETA was responsible, two senior Socialist Party officials said.”

Huh, you don’t say? Hmmm, now, when it says ‘within 24 hours of the terrorist attacks’, it doesn’t quite say whether that was BEFORE or AFTER the attacks, right? Just, ‘within 24 hours’ of them occurring. Interesting. I’m not making accusations, here. I am just wondering.

Then there is the sanitized reference to “intelligence and diplomatic contacts in the Muslim world”. What this says, in plainer language is, “Someone who has contact with both Al Queda and the Spanish Socialists told them with some authority who was responsible in less than a day after the incident.” So, who knows both groups so well? Who are these people who are so trusted or familiar with Al Queda that they would know with authority they were responsible, and who are so trusted by the Socialists to be reliable for their information?

I’m not making accusations, here. Again, I am just wondering.

And if these unknown "contacts" knew within 24 hours of the bombing that it was Al Queda, what did they happen to know earlier? Did they tell their confidants in the Spanish Socialists anything they may have known prior to the mass murder? This seems to me pretty disturbing. What would have been our response if, within 24 hours of 9/11, when speculation was still high about Bin Ladin’s involvement, the Dems had said, “Yep, it was him. The people WE know in the middle east confirm it, and believe me, they would know.”? Wouldn't everyone want to know how the Dems found out? Particularly if the incident had happened just before an election?

And, what is this about a party in a country having its own intelligence and diplomatic channels, anyway? Opposition party or not, are you not supposed to still be working with and for your COUNTRY, and within its intelligence and diplomatic agencies? And when they ‘leaned’ in the Al Queda direction, did they share their info with their government and their intelligence agencies, or did they hold back for a bit, waiting for political gain?

I'm just wondering.

NO MEDIA BIAS HERE, MOVE ALONG...

2004-03-17T13:30:00.000-08:00

The word is spreading in the news regarding the scandal at the UN regarding the Oil for Food program. Basically, the scheme involved kickbacks for UN staffers and members as well as over $4 billion worth to Saddam himself, who was supposed to be keeping his people from dying (Hmm, guess maybe it wasn't our fault?).

Fox News ran the story at 3:30p, maybe earlier as well.

I have been watching CNN for most of the day, and if they have mentioned the scandal once, I missed it. Their website also does not mention it anywhere I can find it as of 4:35pm. CNN has instead focused on the bombing of the hotel in Iraq.

Granted, its an important story, but isn't corruption and graft at the UN involving Iraq's dictator and those at the organization who worked so hard to protect him?

Apparently not. Its more important to dwell on a "Bush's Quagmire, Iraq is the 11th Plane of Hell" story, rather than a "The UN is bunch of lying, thieving, weasels story."

Rise of the Islamofascists

2004-03-16T03:37:00.000-08:00

Little Green Footballs brings up and example of the Leftist and Islamic Fundamentalistic contradictions coming to a head.

Travesty or Turning Point?

2004-03-15T03:09:00.000-08:00

Belmont Club has a interesting take on the debacle which is the Spanish election in particular, and european politics in general. I do not feel positive as their assessment, but it is worth a read for a different perspective.

Belmont believes the election will reveal for all that the Socialist Left and the Islamosfacists are in cahoots, the former subservient to the latter, and thus the Spanish election is ultimately a victory in the War on Terror.

I find myself somewhat more pessismistic.

For one, I believe a good chunk of people, particularly in Europe, ARE socialist in heart and mind, including all the political ramifications it entails. They do not want to be bothered with the day to day drudgery of freedom; they want to be taken care of by a benevolent power (as they see it), which will make everything fair and all right and they are willing to submit to anything that deliver's this utopia. Partly this comes from ignorance, partly human nature.

People, in this country and elsewhere, have been indoctrinated with the left's ideas for decades. Its been in taught school, permeates popular culture and is reinforced by political correctness. These people do not know history, they scorn logic and common sense, and hatred is what chiefly animates them. In fact, for many of them, hatred is the only real passion they feel. They speak of universal brotherhood, peace and understanding, but they will back and support any vicious pyschopath that murders and oppresses as long as it serves "the revolution". The revolution is Marxism/Communism, but its chief driving goal is confrontation with the United States and liberal (old-school) democracy.

This is where I can agree Belmont is 100% correct. The Left and the Islamofascists have formed an alliance. How official and coordinated it is uncertain. I myself feel its just been a simple gravitational pull of mutual hatred toward the U.S. and the west over the years. In some ways it is unconscious or at least periphery, but I sense the convergence is growing, as is the cooperation. That is irrelevant, however, in that both are have been working roughly toward the same ends here for a long time.

The Left hates the U.S. because it, and the capitalism that forms the cornerstone of its economic strength (and all the other power that brings), destroyed its precious ideology and its political fountainhead, the Soviet Union. The U.S. was at the forefront of driving the stake through the heart of communism by beating the USSR. Not only did the U.S. destroy the cradle of communist civilization, but it helped completely invalidate Marxist theory by showing how pathetic a system it was. The Left has not forgotten its murdered revolution, and has not forgiven the one who pulled the trigger.

The Islamofascists are a little more complex, their origins tied up further in history, but it comes down to this. They are seeking a power grab, pure and simple. There is a reason for referring to them as fascists; its not just propaganda. The IF's seek complete domination and control of people's and societies. Look at the societies they run in other nations. The people's will MUST be subordinated to the will of themselves, but to bolster their claims and in effect make them unassailable, they claim divine right from Allah.

"Bend your will to Allah, but since he's busy right now, why don't you bow to us in the meantime?"

The U.S. represents the most across the board free society in the history of the world. We are a threat politically, economically and, worst of all to Islamofascists, culturally.

Next time someone asks you, "Why do they hate us?", or tries to tell you the reason they hate us is because of;

A) The "mistreatment" of Palestinians, B) The legacy of colonization and the Crusades, C) Misapplication of farm subsidies harming third world agriculture, etc.; try giving them these reasons instead:

1) Rosie O'Donnell, Elton John and thousands of other gays (abominations to Allah) living, kissing, raising children and/or "marrying" publicly without being stoned to death.

2) Female performer X (prostitute), strutting around a stage, half-dressed, bumping, grinding, gyrating and exposing breasts on national TV.

3) The widespread practicing of religions (heathens, cults) other than Islam, without strict governmental control of who worships what and how.

4) Access to all sorts of media which promotes immorality and decadence and dangerous thought, whether it is Hustler (pornography), Maxxim (pornography), Car and Driver (pornography) or the Village Voice (pornography).

5) The acceptance of woman (whores) to work and socialize openly and publicly with men; allowing women (arrogant whores) access and influence in men's affairs.

You get the idea (if not, you are hopeless. Go away). So, if we are to accept the notion that we have somehow offended the Islamofascist's in some way, and they were right to strike back at such offense, and we need to make amends, let us be intellectually fair and honest and rectify the above issues. Such things are truly offensive to Osama and Mullah and the fundamentalist clerics. If we wish to stop offending, it is going to take more than removing support for Israel, buckos.

Of course, we won't do more than that, will we? We like our basic human freedoms here, and even if you don't approve of some of the above, we at least can agree that NO ONE SHOULD BE BLOWN THE F**K UP FOR IT!

But then, we begin to see evidence of the emerging alliance of the Left and the Islamofascists here. A Faustian bargain, yes, but oh, such a desperate and necessary one. The Left will not even acknowledge the inherent contradiction in their stance regarding the Islamosfascist movement. To them, its all about the poor, oppressed people of the middle east who are being victimized and humiliated by a evil U.S. and its imp, Israel. Its not about an savagely oppressive theocratic ideology bent on domination and willing to commit mass murder to achieve its ends.

For the Islamosfascists, they pretend that when the Islamic revolution comes, toppling those goverments with decadent ideas like a Bill of Rights and Separation of Church and State, they WON'T be rounding up the communists, gays, NAMBLA members, hollywood nitwits, "liberated" woman, intellectuals, educators, etc., and dropping them all into a great big pit. Filled with fire. And snakes. Poisonous snakes.

Seem crazy? Hey, Hilter and Stalin HATED each other, both personally and ideologically. To the CORE! Yet, they two found it in their hearts to work together for their own mutual benefit until one of the two decided he had gotten all he could out of the arrangement. We all know how that ended. Well, the people who actually paid attention in history class know how that ended. This usually excludes people who have been marching in war protests, I know.

2004-03-14T16:44:00.000-08:00

"MADRID (Reuters) - Spanish voters swept the center-right government from power on Sunday in a spectacular general election upset over last week's suspected al Qaeda attack in Madrid."

"In a high turnout, voters said they wanted to display unity for democracy after the worst guerilla attack in Europe since the 1988 Lockerbie bombing (news - web sites) of a U.S. airliner killed 270 people."

READ HERE

Apparently, they also wanted to display appeasement. I am sorry for the deaths on Spain, and I do not feel I can question another nation's grief, but the results of their elections are tragic. The Spanish have allowed Al Queda to dictate to them their own government through terror and propaganda, pure and simple. I was hoping that this attack might wake the rest of Europe the f**k up, but apparently things are worse there than I thought.

What do they think? They elect a socialist government who pulls out of the war on terror, and the Islamofascists won't ever bother them? Hey, Spain! You will merely be bumped down on the list, my friends. When we are gone or have given up and left on rocket ships to Mars, the Moors will be coming back, and they won't remember this little bit of appeasement and give you a break.

I swear to God, I love this land, but this country is bound up in a spirit, not soil. If I could move the entire goddamn nation to Mars or beyond tommorrow, I would do it. I would just like to be close enought to pick up the transmissions as the whole freakin' planet went to hell. Oh, and to transmit one simple message, over and over again:

"We told you so, we told you so, we told you so, we told you so..."

Sad, so goddamn sad.

2004-03-13T12:58:00.000-08:00

THINGS TO READ
I highly recommend the following books. They speak volumes of the dangers and challenges we face today, even though some of them were written decades ago. You may have heard of them, but if you have not read them, do so. I know for myself, two of them were required (1984, Fahrenheit 451) reading in high school, and being the undisciplined student I was, I never read either until years later. I wish I had done so earlier, although they might not have seemed as prophetic back then.

1984 by George Orwell

The world is in the iron grip of an all powerful fascist state, where truth has been murdered and thus total, unending despotic rule has been achieved. How can anyone fight for freedom when there is no longer any word for it? Illustrates the danger of having reality pervasively spun. If you've noticed how media and politicians misuse words constantly, don't assume its ignorance. There may be another purpose....to make reality suit their own agendas.

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Shows how political correctness can lead to the suppression of free speech. In a world obsessed with not offending anyone for any reason, nothing is allowed to be written which has not been cleansed of any "unenlightened" thought. Anything written before this culturally sensitive age must burn! Amazing book, written more than 50 years before the term political correctness came about, but it describes it very well.

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein

Heinlein caught alot of crap for this book, his original publisher calling him a Nazi sympathizer. He, of course, missed the point entirely. Heinlein illustrates some of the inherent weaknesses of democracy and lares bare some ugly but important truths. One is, violence DOES solve problems, when applied appropriately, and sometimes it is your only solution. It is something that resonates especially well now in our fight against the Islamofascists.
The book describes a warrior code which of course gives the left fits because it is not all about peace, love and understanding. It is about honor, courage and the type of men needed to protect any society from its vicious enemies.
It is also a very visionary book in that the kind of powered armor Heinlein describes in the book is under development, albeit in the primitive stages, for our own military.

The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula LeGuin

Simple theme is "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." The more complex one involves the inherent problem with centralized control over societies, the impossibility of a 'perfect' existence and the dangerous unintended consquences that spring from trying to achieve both of the former.
Economic, social and political solutions cannot be forced from any authority, nomatter what the intentions are, or the power at one's disposal. Human societies, and life in general, have too many variables to try and control and contain. Trying to do so just brings more misery than what you were trying to achieve. Societies benefit from structure, but not when they are forced into one man's, or a small group's, vision of what they should be.

2004-03-13T12:56:00.000-08:00

WELCOME TO HEADQUARTERS

Well, why another blog? Let me start with telling you how I got here.

I am right-wing, conservative American who loves his country (imperfect though it may be) and I found it increasingly difficult to sit back and listen to the insanity that surrounded me in the media, from politicians and from woefully uninformed blathering twits who malign the United States, and often most of what is good and decent in the world.

The more I read and heard and thought, the more it became obvious that there is a concerted effort to limit and manipulate the information we receive from the glorious "4th estate", and that the intention is to further the agendas of select groups and ideologies.

I try to keep informed, and of course that not onloy means keeping up with the news, but also realizing when the news is NOT the truth. I listen to Rush Limbaugh (gasp), Sean Hannity (eeek!), read National Review and love Fox news in an attempt to get a balanced view of the world. Lord knows we are not getting now from Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and a slew of other propogandists who call themselves journalists.

Finally, after seeing enough of the lies, distortions and bias, and the way that certain issues, or certain viewpoints on issues were ignored and supressed, I decided something had to be done. I had heard of blogs in relation to the Iraqi war, and how alternative viewpoints, from those actually there, doing the fighting, were challenging the mainstream press line. I figured, that was it! I would create a website blog that would record, catalog and analyze all the tripe and garbage and propaganda spewed out by all those for truth meant nothing, but the "cause" (whatever it was) was everything.

So, I figure I have this brilliant idea that no one has though of yet; a political analysis and archive blog where people came come and see for themselves the lies and deceit and stupidity. I am genius!

I go online, and look up some of the warblogs, and then notice links to other sites with interesting names, like EJECT, EJECT, EJECT, and IMAO, and RACHEL LUCAS, and the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller, and Dissident Frenchmen, and U.S.S. Clueless...well you get the idea.

Well, I immediately have two ideas run through my head.

1) "Hey, this good stuff! Bill Whittle's essays are fantastic! Inspiring and incisive. IMAO makes me laugh my ass off! Rachel Lucas, cute, spunky and taking no goddamn prisoners. Steven Den Beste's so smart, he makes my head hurt, but in a good way. Wow, there are some really talented people on this already."

2) "Wow, I certainly was and arrogant ass for thinking no one had thought of, or done this before! Schmuck!"

So, why another website, another political blog?

Because they are needed. I know I need them. Being able to read the common sense, and logical and intelligence and good humor of these people, and hundreds of others helped me keep a little of my sanity, and I believe maybe a little of the sanity of the country. Finding others who thought that political correctness was an intellectual virus, that the United States was not center of all the is evil, that fighting was much better than capitulating gave me hope and inspiration.

We need more because we need to carry on the fight. There is so much bullshit flying around these days, so much Orwellian groupthink and newspeak idiocy becoming pervasive in our world, that any contribution to fight is needed. When others are unable to take up the blogger sword any longer, as some have, there must be others willing to continue on. This fight is real and it is neccessary. We cannot let the apologists for terror and the stealth marxists win the debates because there is too much at stake.

If for no one else, though, this blog is for me. I need to be able to vent my frustrations and express my thoughts on topics. I cannot keep silent anymore, keeping things in because I figure others will say what I need to express, and I don't have the time. I need to make the time. We all need to make the time. If not writing, then reading, being informed. Information is our weaponry. We need to be armed at all times, ready to defend ourselves and what we believe in.

I do not have a good track record with Journals. I have several with entries 6 months or more apart. It used to be that I only sat down to write when I was particularly annoyed or frustrated or when a particularly interesting idea came into me head. Unfortunately, that is not really writing, but more like ejaculatory prose. I am hoping I am better with this, and I think I will be. There is unfortunately something to write about when your topic is the maelstrom of hypocrisy and stupidity we are exposed to everyday.

I will talk about topics of the day most times, things occuring in the moment, events as they occur. I will also tend to harken back to earlier issues, expressing my thoughts on them at that time, which I may or may not have written about in another format.

This whole thing is new to me, and I am not sure what the rules are yet. For instance, I am not sure of the propriety of linking to other people's sites, so I may just refer you to the site name until I clear that up. Also, I may post comments from people within the body of the blog, as I do not think this current system allows for it seperately.

Assuming this site generates any interest at all, and thus responses, let me just make a couple of things clear. If you write me, I don't care if you disagree with me, but use LOGIC and COMMON SENSE and make ARGUMENTS for your viewpoints. Rants of any types will be met with one of two responses.

Mocking derision, posted for all to gaze at your rabid stupidity...

OR

DELETE

I want my viewpoints challenged, because it requires me to be a better thinker and writer. However, arguing with the insane is nothing but a waste of time and time is not something I wish to waste.