Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Even more insufferable than the faux world-weary condescension of the proprietor himself is the crowd he seems to have drawn in his comments. LGF has kindly offered today to broaden his user base, and he wasted no time in deleting the posts he didn't like.
To a lefty, communication is good, but only if it's heavily censored. Add one to the idiotarian blogroll.
Burg's late father, Yosef--a long-serving Israeli Cabinet minister--was my mother's teacher in Leipzig during the 1930s. Life for Jews there was indeed "torture," and our parents were "hungry and humiliated." No Jew resorted to blowing themselves up in restaurants or night-clubs, did they Avram?
She is taking to task Israeli Labor MK Avram Burg, who seems to be an idiotarian of a kind I hear about from time to time trying to spread the idea that suicide bombings are caused by "poverty, despair, and humiliation". In the course of demolishing this canard, she poses the crucial questions for that portion of the Israeli elite that are such close cousins to those who after 9/11 asked "why do they hate us?":
Why does Burg have such trouble accepting the fact that the murderers are motivated by hatred, not humiliation? How have we arrived at the point where some leaders of Israeli society have bought into the propaganda of the enemy?
Indeed. Why? We'd really like to know.
The International Court of Justice (search) ruled Wednesday that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row and ordered their cases be reviewed.
The United Nations' highest judiciary, also known as the world court, was considering a suit filed by Mexico claiming 52 convicted murderers weren't given their right to assistance from their government.
So far it's reasonable. Or as reasonable as a court can be when it's out of its jurisdiction. In my humblest of opinions, the jurisdiction of ANY UN organ should not reach off of UN property, however.
"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.
Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States.
But for three men who have already exhausted all other appeals, the court said the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time.
Okay, so what they're saying here is that in all but three cases, we're already doing what we should. In those three special cases, however, we should break our own laws to give them yet another chance. I don't suppose this judge is by any chance European? Perhaps a bit left of center politically? Just askin', is all.
The court found that in the remaining case, the convict had received his rights and his case didn't need to be reviewed.
And speaking for the US, I know that all of us are very grateful to you for bestowing your blessing upon our humble nation.
Mexican officials praised the ruling as "a triumph of international law" and said they were confident the United States would comply with the court's order.
Arturo Dajer, a legal adviser with Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, said it will be an important legal tool for Mexican inmates in the United States.
"Of course we have full confidence that the United States will comply with the court's ruling," Dajer said, adding that if it doesn't, Mexico could ask the U.N. Security Council (search) to issue a resolution urging it to do so.
Mexico can eat our shorts. The runup to the Iraq war proved the relevance of the UN, or more accurately the lack thereof. Our legal system will never be bound by the ruling of some robe-clad star chamber dweller in The Hague.
"Mexico was not vindicated. The rule of international law was vindicated. Of course we are confident the United States will fully comply with the ruling," said Juan Gomez Robledo, Mexico's ambassador to the Netherlands.
"International Law" is a myth. If it's real, then show me the book that lists all the laws. I can show you one for each of my governments from city to state to federal. You show me the international one. International law is a mishmash of bi- and multi-national agreements and time-encrusted customs, nothing more. Unless something falls under the rubric of one of those two, "International Law" does not apply. Thanks for playing, though.
He said Mexico "doesn't contest the United States' right as a sovereign country to impose the death penalty for the most grave crimes," but wants to make sure Mexico's citizens aren't abused by a foreign legal system they don't always understand.
OF COURSE Mexico contests our sovereignty. Otherwise they wouldn't be so complicit in trying to drown us with their unwanted masses. Neither do they care if their citizens are abused by a foreign legal system, American or otherwise. If they did, they wouldn't allow their people to flood across the border to that country, and they wouldn't fight every effort we make to return to them those citizens who hadn't committed horrible crimes.
But I'll admit I'm tired of seeing our guys risking and losing their lives to help these pigs. Maybe we need to reconsider the idea of tactical nukes. I don't know what the current status is, but the president was making noise about developing them again. I propose when we have a working prototype, we test it on Fallujah. Extreme? Yes. Just like people we're trying to help doing their best not only to blow us up, but drag the charred bodies through the streets. I'd put the two on a par for sheer savagery. And you better believe that if we don't make these pigs respect us, we'll certainly keep paying for it.
UPDATE: Looks like his majesty shares my frustration, only he does it with a little more...flair.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Duelfer agrees with Kay's assessment of Saddam's Iraq as having maintained programs, especially in biological weapons research, that were in clear violation of UN sanctions, which would be more than sufficient to justify military action on its own. However, Duelfer's continuing investigation leads him to believe that there's fire to go with all of the smoke, and that cooperation of the engineers and scientists that worked on these programs will assist as soon as more of Saddam's regime is rounded up.
I share this reaction, and I would only point out that no WMD-related justifications were needed whatsoever. Saddam gave up his right to continue ruling Iraq the first time he shot a missile at one of our planes after we called the ceasefire in 1991. But it does sound like they may yet find something...
This may not be the best time to go public with Duelfer's optimism on WMDs; after all, if it turns out that Duelfer's wrong, or that he can't lay his hands on any this year, it may backfire on the US internationally all over again, just like last year when Kay's report seemed to put an exclamation point on the search. However, since the rest of the world has already written off any possibility of discovery of stockpiles of chemical and biological agents or weapons, perhaps there is no real downside in talking about it now.
Exactly. There's nothing really to lose. But I'd bet a whole lot of cash that if we do end up finding something incriminating, it will be in Syria. And I'll bet twice that much that wherever we find it and under whatever circumstances, there will be immediate outraged cries that we planted it. It's as predictable as day following night.
Santa Monica (search), San Clemente and Solana Beach have banned lighting up on the sand. Advocates cite health hazards and problems with litter as the main reasons behind the ban. But opponents say smokers are being unfairly targeted.
You can say that again. Smokers are the most-abused whipping boy of the last 20 years, and it's time to quit hassling them. Today it's smoking, tomorrow it will be free speech.
Still, five more seaside cities are set to adopt similar restrictions because they don't want to be inundated by smokers — and their butts.
Ah, so it's not really the health hazard, it's the litter. See, now, it's a funny thing, but that's why there are laws banning LITTERING. If you ban smoking to prevent the possibility of litter, then under the 14th amendment you also have to ban eating. Also drinking soda or (gasp) beer. Wouldn't want the possibility that somebody might just drop a coke can, for cryin' out loud.
"The smokers still have opportunities to smoke," said Glenn Maddalon of the American Lung Association (search). "This is a public area that we're trying to protect for the public and protect against the harmful effects of secondhand smoke."
Sorry, Glenn, you'll have to work very, very long and hard to convince me that secondhand smoke--a bogus non-problem in the worst of smoky bars in my opinion--is going to be a problem on an open-air beach. That dog won't hunt.
The smoking nazis have had it all their way for a very long time now. It's time to lay off the poor people who just want to have a few puffs in peace. The ire would be far better directed at people who, say, strap on bomb vests and blow up school buses. But that's just my opinion.
In short, Bush is good for this country, and he's going to take this election going away down the stretch because most Americans see and feel and "get" it, even if they can't articulate it very well.
UPDATE: This, too.
I'm eagerly anticipating the rest of the election season. It seems like Kerry can't open his mouth without sticking his foot in up to the knee, and I love this sort of entertainment.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Noplace else in the United States but the upper midwest can you truly experience such sharp and beautiful definition in the four seasons. Summer is hotter than hell, often breaking 100 or even 105 degrees. Winter can bring temps as low as 60 below zero, although most areas of the state don't get below 20 or 30 below in an average winter. Fall means just that: the leaves fall en mass anywhere from late September to early October, depending on your lattitude. And spring is glorious, letting us out after a long winter mostly cooped up in our houses (or in our fishing shacks, heh).
But every place has its drawbacks, and Minnesota's main drawbacks are the summer mosquitos, the winter cold, and the incredibly socialist political climate. They try to disguise it as "Minnesota Nice", a local cliche that basically means "aw, give everybody everything they want and tax everybody until they bleed". We have a yearly fight because a largish faction of the body politic feels it is important that we scrap the 20-year-old Metrodome and build a new outdoor baseball-only park for the twins (we demolished the Met Stadium, an outdoor facility, in favor of the 'dome), a new retractable-roof stadium for the Vikings, and some sort of new stadium for the Gophers. Good grief. It seems it never occurs to these people to simply tack a surcharge onto event tickets to pay for the damn things. If they were such a great deal to build, the team owners already would have done it, right?
The conservatives here refer to the Minneapolis Star/Tribune as the Minneapolis Star & Sickle, and with good reason. A read through any given day's editorial *or* letters from readers will give you a pretty good idea of what we're up against. My own pet theory is that most of the people around here have some scandanavian blood (I have 100%), and if you look at Scandanavia these days, you see where we might have contracted this disease. Whatever the case, conservatives here have an uphill battle trying to turn the state from blue to red.
And I'd be remiss if I said progress hasn't been made. Tim Pawlenty, a pretty staunch conservative was elected governor a year and a half ago, and Republicans control the house. The senate is holding out so far, but it's being worked on. Problem is, we have such a liberal tradition even the conservatives are often pretty liberal.
The other thing is that whenever a conservative speaks out here, he/she is likely to discover themselves surrounded by a hostile crowd. I shook off my liberal brainwashing fairly recently, but it is only *very* recently that I've felt comfortable spouting my mouth off about it. For a long time conservatives here were sort of in the closet.
But hey, it's spring. The geese are back and causing traffic jams, the walley opener is just around the corner, I saw my first robin of the season yesterday, and the ice is all melted out of my yard and I've already cleaned up the winter's worth of accumulated dog droppings from my back yard. My motorcycle is waiting for the first 70 degree day and life looks pretty good for the foreseeable future, liberal, conservative or whatever.
According to AAA (search), formerly the Automobile Association of America, nationwide gasoline prices hit a record high of $1.74 per gallon, up from an earlier peak reached in August 2003. The high price of crude oil — hovering around $37 a barrel in the last week — matched with high demand and lean commercial inventories of gasoline have sparked the increases, with little hope for prices to decline over the coming summer, industry officials report.
$37 a barrel? Helllooooooo, people! What ever happened to the Saudi Entity's "target band" of $23-$28 per barrel? There's no shortage of oil to pump. With oil well above that band, they even voted recently with the rest of OPEC to CUT production.
What's happening here is that the Saudi Entity is angry with Bush because he actually does what he says, and he said he was going to fight terrorism. The Saudis HATE that because they are the primary sponsors of said terrorists. The only weapon they have to hit Bush with is oil prices, so that's what they're doing. They know that many American voters are clueless, and will blame Bush for high oil prices.
Their chances for success? I don't know, but I don't think it's as good as they likely think it is. Kerry is such a stiff they'll have a *very* difficult time getting him elected after joe voter gets to know him better. But who knows? Weird things happen sometimes. But I have a feeling that the Saudis are in a fight for their own survival. If Bush wins, he'll be gunning for them, and they know it. And they're too brittle to stand up to the political storm that's coming to the Kingdom.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Next time somebody tells you the US is to blame for Saddam raping and pillaging his people because we sold him all his weapons, show them this. Then spit in their eye.
Thanks to a poster at LGF under the name "David 'Parisian Insider'", I found this link from October 2000, shortly after the current splodathon started. Now, I am a newshound, and have been for years. So if I never saw this, you can bet your private parts most people didn't:
Facing what he later said were "heightened pressures" on Italian journalists following the Ramallah incident, Riccardo Cristiano, a correspondent for Italy's RAI state broadcast network, who was not present at the lynching, wrote a letter that wound up on the front page of the October 16 edition of the Palestinian paper Al-Hayat Al-Jadedah. "Dear friends of Palestine," the Italian press quoted the letter as saying. "A private network and not official Italian television filmed that footage.... We would have respected the Palestinian Authority's rules for press working in Palestine."
They would never have done anything without Arafat's permission. Sickening. I'm very, very glad the US has its own initiative most of the time lately.
And this time there's incontrovertible proof it wasn't the Israelis. Those dirty, dirty PIGS.
Here's the front page of foxnews.com right now:
A U.S. Marine and an ABC freelance cameraman were killed during a bitter, hours-long firefight between American troops and Iraqi insurgents in the city of Fallujah (search), while 18 people died in violence elsewhere across Iraq.
Note it doesn't say word one about how many of those 18 are the enemy. I've noticed this a lot throughout the postwar...a lot of articles will list soldiers, Iraqi police and civilians that get killed, but don't say boo about how many of the enemy are killed. Why is that? Later in the article:
The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force issued a statement saying it was "conducting offensive operations ... to foster a secure and stable environment for the people." It went on to say that "some have chosen to fight. Having elected their fate, they are being engaged and destroyed."
I'm sure that's right. But how many have been destroyed, and what is the current estimate for how many more there are? Are they all foreign, or is there a significant Iraqi portion? I have a hard time picturing a successful insurrection without a significant amount of local support for weapons, ammo, and safehouses, if not people.
The great news is that the elections still seem to be on schedule. Note to the terrorists: you will not win. The most you can do is destroy the lives of many of your fellow Arabs and end your own. I have no idea why this continues, but until it stops you will experience nothing but misery and death. Go home to your families, and we'll leave Iraq when we're sure you won't be back and the Iraqis will remain in control of their own country. It's that simple. Let the Iraqis live in peace. They had enough war under Saddam.
You know, when you bother to look at the facts, you find some pretty startling things. I mean, Clinton felt our pain, right? He was all about fixing poverty and other Really Bad Things, especially the ones that would get him votes if he could sympathize with them without actually having to do anything. Then someone bothers to chart the numbers, and...voila.
But wait...I thought Bush hated children and wanted to keep them in poverty? He just wanted to give tax cuts to the rich on the backs of poor people?
There's a lot of complete crap that gets printed in the Arab press. Almost all of it is subject to state censors and the like, so you can't really blame the columnists/"reporters". Plus, their culture is such that hyperbole is the order of the day, and usually of the most offensive kinds to western minds, such as the "river-to-the-sea" thing, "death to America and Israel", yadda yadda yadda. A third point is that opinion columns are mixed in with the "news" articles, and often opinion is mixed in with "news" pieces.
So for now I'll just fisk a representative article that caught my eye and that is so wrong in so many ways that it takes my breath away. In a piece called "A Fading American Conscience?", Mr. Tariq A. Al-Maeena writes:
As Americans get drawn into the presidential elections process to pick their new leader some months from now, how many will pause to give thought to the events of the past 18 months, events that have led to the death of over 13,000 civilians and hundreds of American soldiers.
I don't know. I can say that I personally have been watching things very closely on a daily basis, including the tripe put out by your publication as well as real news outfits, bloggers, and reading transcripts of speeches from all sides. My first reaction to your claim of 13,000 civilians is that you, sir, are full of shit. But even if we take that number at face value, if Saddam had gone unhindered by America and continued at the same rate as he had the last few decades, that 13,000 represents a net saving of life. The soldiers are in part a gift to the Arab and Muslim world and in part an investment to try to ensure that your culture and religion never, ever make it to our shores. We don't want to be you.
It was back in October 2002, at the United Nations, that their president boldly claimed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in a faraway country — a country armed and ready to fire into the heartland of America. And to bolster his claim, he even managed to bring on stage a metal pipe supposedly housing the tools of an evil intent.
That is a hyperbolic description of ONE reason, yes. How about the other 2,926 reasons? Are you saying that Saddam didn't violate the 1991 cease-fire dozens of times? Are you claiming that he didn't ever kick out the UN inspectors and use the most bellicose of language in threatening us? Come on. Get off the old crap and give us something new. The only problem here is that there were so many reasons to get rid of the Baathists that we had trouble picking just one.
His alarm rang in a chorus of similar threatening notes, from Dick Cheney to Colin Powell, from Condoleeza Rice to Paul Wolfowitz, all nodding in agreement, and all actively engaging the American public in a doomsday scenario. Meanwhile, his man of war, Donald Rumsfeld, was busily oiling the machinery that would deliver Mr. Bush’s “democratic” message.
Um, as secretary of Defense, that's Rumsfeld's JOB, asshat, and he did it spectacularly. As for a chorus, Europe was singing the same tune before the war, and nobody in the Arab world was contradicting it until the weapons didn't jump into our hands after the war. Of course, actual historical events don't fit into your preconceived storyline, so don't let them stop you.
Despite calls of caution from the US Congress, which passed a resolution stating “Congress and the American people are increasingly concerned that the president is prepared to use armed force against Iraq without broad support by the international community, and without making a compelling case that Iraq presents such an imminent threat to the national security of the United States that unilateral action is justified,” Mr. Bush autocratically went ahead.
And you would know something about Autocracy, living under it and all. In case you didn't notice the poll numbers before and during the war, Bush had over 70% backing of the U.S. citizenry. All autocracies should operate that way, including the Kingdom. You'd find you would have no reason to hate us if that were the case.
Today, in a torn and twisted nation where death has become a daily way of life, where basic services are no better than they were before this invasion, where refugees are an instant byproduct as factions fight for power, America has spawned a new Vietnam. And their presence there has not been welcomed with garlands of flowers.
I've been reading services ARE better in most cases. You should read something besides your anti-American rags. Try LGF to get a picture of how Iraq (and you) look from outside your borders. Better yet, ask your fellow Arabs in Iraq. Where services are not better, it is mostly because foreign terrorists keep blowing things up. Now where would those terrorists be coming from, hmmmm? Could they be coming from Syria? Iran? COULD THEY EVEN BE COMING FROM YOUR PRECIOUS KINGDOM??? The main point is, I notice less and less anti-Americanism in Iraq as they see that we are there to help them. As things get better there, anti-Americanism gets worse and worse in the surrounding countries and in Europe. I'm guessing Europe is because THEIR policies toward the Arabs have failed so they hate the idea that ours might succeed. The surrounding countries, and every other country in the Arab league, are all dictatorships and feel their grip on power loosening as their people watch Iraq and wait.
The agenda for his war is slowly unraveling today. As US officials scurry about to avoid being trapped into admissions of lying and misleading, the truth is beginning to emerge. Charges that this administration was aware of the threats that led to the carnage on that fateful Sept. 11 are adding to the deceit. The world is certainly no safer today.
The "agenda" for this war is over, fool. The rationale is as strong as it ever was. What you see as "US officials scurrying about" is the Democratic attack machine in action in an election year. Trust me, when Bush wins and things are back to normal, you won't be seeing this sort of thing nearly as much (although it's an ongoing phenomenon in Washington at the best of times). As for the "Bush Knew" thing, get over it. Good Christ, you people will believe anything. Besides, I thought it was the Jews that did it in what passes for your minds?
When Americans decide on their future leadership early November, they will have an option: A choice to preserve what was once a universally admired conscience, or to cave in to this dubious administration.
Hmmm, let's see. I could vote for a complete moron who contradicts himself almost daily, goes on vacation in the heat of the campaign, talks down to me like I'm a child and talks the same old anti-business, anti-free-enterprise class warfare bullshit. Or, I could vote for the incumbent, who spends too much, got one of the motivations for the war wrong (but remains 100% correct on the other 2,925), and wants to reward illegal immigration, but also shows that there are prices to be paid for threatening the US (with or without WMDs, Saddam constantly threatened us), relates to me in a manner that isn't smarmy and overbearing, and whose style I personally love. Easy choice. It would be harder if Kerry had even one major issue on which I agreed with him.
And when conscience begins to fade, immorality waits impatiently at the corner, eager to usurp its place.
Now that was the dumbest metaphor I've been subjected to in a very long time.
So there you have it. The US finally begins to defend herself, and the Arabs take that as a sign her conscience is out of whack. That's what passes for news analysis in the Arab world. No wonder they haven't contributed anything useful to the world community (except for the happy accident of their oil) in the last 1,000 years.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Man, 4 years ago I was still enough of a liberal that I voted for Gore and felt heartsick when the election was called for Bush. Now I can't stand the sight of Gore, or most of the major Dems. I don't know if I've been liberated or if the Dems have all turned into bots, but whatever the case I can't believe I was one of these people not all that long ago.
All decent Democrats should be hanging their heads in shame and revulsion. This is sickening.
From the Boston Herald article covering this incident:
The Bush opponents held signs that read, ``Get the terrorists out of the White House.''
Supporters of the president held competing signs that read, ``A vote for Bush is a vote for freedom.''
That pretty much frames how this election is going to work out. The Kerry folks hysterically screaming hyperbole, and the Bush folks throwing a positive message out there. I really don't want to hear complaints from now on when Bush's team points out inconsistencies in Kerry's record.
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, launched a trenchant attack on Islamic culture last night, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving.
And those are their GOOD points.
In a speech that will upset sensitive relations between the faiths, he denounced moderate Muslims for failing unequivocally to condemn the "evil" of suicide bombers.
That part is what really gets me. I dated a muslim once when I was in high school. The reason we broke up? Because her family didn't want her seeing an infidel. Oh, that wasn't the stated reason, but after carefully examining the events of the last few years and superimposing them on my own history, that's the inescapable conclusion. And these "moderate" muslims are the same ones that secretly cheer on the suicide bombers. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim. It's a complete contradiction in terms.
Dr Carey acknowledged most Muslims are peaceful people He attacked the "glaring absence" of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries and criticised the Islamic faith.
When a Christian is serious about his faith, he goes to Nambia or China or Russia or someplace and does missionary work. When a muslim is serious about his faith, he kills jews (and Christians, when no jews are around). The muslims who are peaceful (majority or otherwise) are the ones who don't take their faith seriously. And he's right on the money saying that they've done nothing worthwhile in centuries.
Dr Carey's comments, in a lecture in Rome, are the most forthright by a senior Church leader. He was speaking on the eve of a seminar of Christian and Muslim scholars in New York, led by his successor as archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams
Finally somebody with a platform is speaking truth. Read the whole thing, it's electrifying.
Al-Sadr, who also has a powerful base in a poor Baghdad neighborhood, railed against the United States' occupation of Iraq.
Keep railing, asshat. That and 50 cents will get you a soda.
"I seek the spread of freedom and democracy in the way that satisfies God," he said. "They have planned and paved the ways for a long time, but it is God who is the real planner -- and the proof of this is the fall of the American Twin Towers."
That had less to do with God than with the type of maniacal religious dogma spread by asshats like you.
He then referred to the September 11 attacks as "a miracle from God.
"As we say, 'The rain starts with a drop,'" he said.
The rain already started, right down on your head. You're beat already, in case you didn't notice. If you keep up the incitement, you'll share Yassin's fate. Wouldn't be any skin off my nose. I'd *love* to see our government take a wise page out of Israel's book and just start killing assholes like you that incite murder.
By the way, very nice demonstration of what the Religion of Peace™ is all about. Tune in next Friday for more of the same screeching, howling, animistic, criminal behaviour by their imams.
I need a drink. Too bad I quit 5 years ago.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
In condemning Yassin's killing, then, Europe contradicts itself. It has made clear that Israel must apply the laws of armed conflict vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Now, however, it says that individual militants cannot lawfully be targeted. Indeed Europe's outrage over the Yassin assassination is far more troubling than a little Israel- (and by implication America-) bashing. It reveals, once again, the ever-widening canyon that separates the United States, and Israel, from its NATO allies on the question of fighting terror and on the laws of war themselves.
Read the whole thing. Europe wants it both ways, plus its cake, eating it too, the bakery it was made in and the girl that made it. No can do, asswits.
I wish I knew what it was about Europe that makes people who live there want so badly to kill, torture, or at least grossly inconvenience jews. The instinct of rejecting people who aren't just the same as oneself runs very, very strong on the old continent. I'm glad I'm on the new one.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Of course, it is the BBC, so we shouldn't be all that surprised, I suppose.
Countries that don't suck: Australia, Britain (except Ireland), Canada except Quebec, Russia sometimes, the old Spain, the new Iraq, the other half of the 'stans, Japan and, surprisingly, sometimes Libya.
Countries that blow: France, Belgium and Germany. The three stooges of Europe, and a category unto themselves. May they be infested with communists and socialists. Wait...
... Newdow is not going to wow anyone. His arguments were routine at best. He cited all of the appropriate Establishment Clause tests — "Lemon," "Endorsement," and "Coercion" — but he too easily conceded that his construction of non-establishment encroaches upon free exercise. I argued that if public schools cannot "endorse" religion, as he claims, school administrators must limit the religious speech of official school speakers — including student graduation speakers who want to talk about their faith. If pressed to its logical conclusion, I continued, Newdow's position, like that of Jacques Chirac, would prohibit public-school teachers from wearing religious articles — like a cross pendant.
I've been looking for an article that gives a fair estimate of this clown's chances of changing the entire country for the worse. This article rings true to me.
Yes, I know all the arguments about how "under God" "infringes" on atheists' rights. So what? Newdow's solution taken to its logical conclusion infringes on my rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.
If this guy wins, it won't make much difference to me anyway, though, in a practical sense. I'm still going to say "under God" when I say the pledge, only I'll probably say it just a little louder than I do now and with just a little more conviction. While I do it, I'll be watching other people's reactions, too. It should give a good idea of who are the fifth columnists.
This country was founded by Christians. We've done a better job than any other nation in the history of humankind to make sure minority religions--including atheists, the most agressive religionists--are not abused. I insist, though, on our right to freely practice our religion, even in the public square if we choose. The government should not force religion on anybody (nobody is saying the words "under God" MUST be spoken by EVERYBODY), but it most certainly should be tolerant of it, so long as it isn't killing people as in the case of Al Qaeda.
This Minister has guts!!
Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer given in Kansas at the
opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer still upsets some people.
When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas
Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but
this is what they heard:
"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to
seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who
call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our
spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess that we have
ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and call it Pluralism. We have
exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and
called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have
shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self
esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our
neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with
profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it
enlightenment. Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us
from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent
to direct us to the center of Your will and to openly ask these things in
the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen!"
The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the
prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev.
Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those
calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international
requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, The Rest of
the Story," and received a larger response to this program than any other he
has ever aired.
With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and
wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called "one nation
If possible, please pass this prayer on to your friends. "If you don't stand
for something, you will fall for everything."
Think about this: If you forward this prayer to everyone on your e-mail
list, in less than 30 days it would be heard by the world.
Monday, March 22, 2004
The new horror movie "Dawn of the Dead" is so scary, it's terrifying people who haven't even seen it.
Phone calls are pouring in to Britain's Advertising Standards Authority (search) that posters for the flick are just too frightening, says England's Lincolnshire Echo.
Complainers cite one billboard, showing the enormous face of a zombie child who has just risen from the dead, as especially nightmarish.
"It is absolutely horrendous and really disturbing," said Angela Kelly, of Cherry Willingham, Lincolnshire. "Children will be really scared by it. It is such a frightening image, the girl has piercing eyes. We try to avoid driving past it now."
In the movie's opening sequence, a little girl zombie breaks into a couple's house and attacks them, killing the husband and turning him into a zombie as well.
Words nearly fail me. I always knew many of the Brits had a tendency to be pansies, but this is a new low. Good lord, people. You want the US to go easy on Saddam and Osama, and you wanted to appease Hitler in the 30s, but you want to protect your children from a movie? What kind of backward thinking is that?
If the Brits are reacting like this, it's a cinch the thing has been entirely banned in Spain, home of the Pansy Patrol™. Notice that those guys who do the bullfighting, supposedly such a manly sport, do it in tights? They're sort of a veterinary version of Gorgeous George. Disgusting.
Seriously, folks, we have those funky treason laws on the books for a reason. It seems like since 9/11 those laws don't even exist. But then, maybe it's just that sensible people, which are generally in the majority, have a hard time taking people like this seriously. I mean, even the Loony Liberal Left had the good sense to turn away Mind Control Satellites Kucinich in the Dem Primary (even if they never took a serious look at Lieberman, the most serious Dem contender for the title).
So maybe clowns like this are considered just too stupid to kill as things are. I'm not really worried about how things are right now, though, it's just the principle of the thing. A time may come when we need to start putting some of these asshelmets out of their misery, and it would suck if they got out of it on the grounds that we didn't do the right thing right away.
What a tortured, twisting, painful analogy. The Left is really, really having a tough time coming up with convincing ways to look at events that might mask their stupidity.
Clue, guys: it isn't working. It would help if you didn't insist on looking so stupid in public, though.
Friday, March 19, 2004
PARIS — The world is a more dangerous place because of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which may have toppled Saddam Hussein but also unleashed postwar violence and an upswing in terrorism, the French foreign minister said.
And at last somebody did something besides surrender. de Villepen wouldn't know a successful war if it bit him in the ass. And if his country doesn't stand up to the bullies sometime soon, it may just actually bite him in the ass.
"This is a belief that I have never stopped expressing," Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (search) told Le Monde newspaper in an interview in its Friday edition.
Only because he never stops talking. If his government ever did anything about terrorism except protect it, appease it and try to find ways to profit from it, there might not be quite such a problem.
"We have to look reality in the face: we have entered into a more dangerous and unstable world, which requires the mobilization of the entire international community," de Villepin said.
The US has been looking reality in the face and meeting challenges with direct action. France has done diddly squat beyond saying "le no, le no". Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. If this fictitious "international community" gave two shits about anything important and were willing to mobilize, they would have already been standing shoulder to shoulder with those of us who *do* give a damn and *are* willing to mobilize.
Assertions by the administration of President Bush (search) that ousting Saddam would make the world a safer place proved not to be true, de Villepin said.
Not enough time has even passed to make any kind of judgement on that, you dumb mollusk. Unless you take a very, very short view of things, but the foreign minister of such a wise country would never do that, would he?
"Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before," de Villepin said. "Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism."
Ever heard of Abu Nidal? Abu Abbas? All the other bastards Saddam was harboring and training at Salman Pak? I can't even think of a way to make his statement sound dumber than it already does, so I guess I won't try.
De Villepin called again on the United States to respect a June 30 deadline for the Americans to hand over power to the Iraqis.
Fuck you, Opey. We're obviously much better judges of what should be done than you are. Let's just leave this one to the grownups, m'kay?
"All houses as well as a market and a health centre were completely looted and the market burnt. Over 100 women were raped, six in front of their fathers who were later killed," he said.
A further 150 women and 200 children were abducted.
This attack a fortnight ago is one of many across the arid territory.
Village after village is being razed to the ground by the militias, he said.
As Charles points out, nowhere in the article do the words "Muslim" or "Islam" appear. And yet that's who's doing these things.
People in Europe say that America is the greatest danger in the world, while Arab Muslims are doing this in the Sudan. Europe in general is very sick, and the BBC has a particularly virulent strain of whatever is going around over there, refusing to admit that Muslims suck in general and even more or less lying by omission to keep them from looking horrible.
Sometimes I really wonder if the world wouldn't be a far better place if man had never evolved.
America's popularity abroad appeared unsteady Thursday after the president of Poland said he was "misled" about Iraq intelligence and an anti-American candidate won Spain's prime minister race this weekend by riding a wave of terror fears to victory.
Zapatero is a pansy who is about to begin leading a country of apparent pansies (I've heard their soldiers are generally stalwart, but their citizenry obviously lacks the guts God gave a bunny). I'm relieved we found out this way, rather than having them cave when we were really depending on them in a hot war or something.
A recent poll on the European continent and in the Muslim world doesn't do anything to dispute that image. It shows that America's stature in the world has fallen since the war in Iraq.
America's "stature" has fallen? Bull. Our POPULARITY has fallen. Rest of the world, listen up: we're not in this to win a popularity contest. We want your respect. Failing that, we'll settle for your fear. Since you only seem to respect failed socialist states like France and Russia, fear it is. You think your nervousness about the US is an accident? Feh.
Just don't piss us off for awhile and everything will work itself out. Those who help us will be rewarded. Those who oppose us, well, we have a history of forgetting injustices done to us over time. It'll maybe take a little longer this time around, but we'll likely forget sooner or later. But it would be better if you just act like human beings toward us, for you and for us.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
But today we spoke of Iraq. I am *SO TIRED* of hearing about how Bush "lied" about WMD, and how the whole effort lacks legitimacy because we haven't found stockpiles of weapons. Some unanswered points:
1) We did find the programs, if not the weapons.
2) If you gave me months and months while the UN bickered, the resources of a state and a land mass the size of California, I double guarantee that I will be able to hide an entire warehouse full of WMD such that 100,000 heavily armed weapons inspectors would not find it in 10,000 years. Under those circumstances it's just not that hard to hide stuff.
3) WMD was about 1/10 of the total rationale for going to war. Nobody has done the first thing to invalidate the other 9/10 (mass graves, human rights abuses, Saddam breaking the terms of the ceasefire, harboring known terrorists, the terrorist training camp at Salmon Pak (or however you spell it), etc.)
4) At least Bush did something substantive. Nobody's done anything like it since his father, and even his father caved to the UN and called off the dogs on the "highway of death", or he would have been able to prevent this whole shitty mess.
5) Kerry really, really is unqualified to be elected dogcatcher anywhere except Taxachussetts and maybe California. If he had been President during and after 9/11, we'd never have asserted our right to exist by retaliating in Afghanistan, and we'd SURE as hell never have held Saddam's (or Khaddafi's) feet to the fire.
"Bush lied". What a crock. Bush was given the same info as other western leaders were being given by their intelligence services. People claiming Bush lied are depending on group amnesia. Problem is, I distinctly remember how unanimous was the idea that Saddam had at least chemical and biological, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. Everybody believed that, including the Brits, the French, hell, even Blix thought so. Watch the old footage, it's all in there. Hell, the Brits to this day still stand by the Saddam-tried-to-buy-uranium-in-Africa intelligence. A former diplomat with an ax to grind against Bush goes over and drinks a glass of wine with some dirtbags in Niger and declares that Bush lied, and the Left eats it up.
The world has gone insane, but I know what I know, and I remember how it was when all that went down. They'll never make me believe the ridiculous shit they've been spewing simply by repeating it again and again ad nauseum.
Have I mentioned that I voted for Gore? And Clinton? Twice? I may never vote for a Democrat again.
Christ on a popsicle stick. Just hang the bastard. He's had his day in court. Over 300 of them, actually, according to the article.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Friday, March 12, 2004
specifically , who thinks the ROVE machine created the scenario to take the heat off Bush and the bad press hes been getting, PLUS the fact he hasnt got a goddamn issue to run on except for KEEPING THE US IN TERROR
Already the news whores like Wolf are playing it like a cheap whore.
Seriously, people, it's time to go take your medication. Followers of the fever-pits over at DUMB are familiar with the hysterical, blame-Bush-for-all-bad-things mania, but this is even a little over-the-top for THEM.
I've never officially registered as anything other than independent, but I used to consider myself a half-assed Democrat. That only started changing in about 2000...with a hard swerve to the right in late 2001 for obvious reasons.
I've heard lots of solutions proposed already for what to do about the Madrid thing yesterday. My solution would have little to do with "talking" and "dialogueing" and "communicating", and much to do with Ruger and Smith & Wesson and Glock.
The Euroweenies are clueless on this one, though, and have been for several decades now. If anybody is going to find the right solution to the current terrorism problems, it will have to be us. If Blix had his way, for instance, we'd hold an intervention and develop a 12-step plan for "terrorism cessation" or some such crap.
"The way to achieve inner peace is to finish all the things you've
started." So I looked around the house to see all the things I started and
hadn't finished....and before leaving the house this morning I finished off
a bottle of red wine, a bottle of white, the Bailey's, Kahlua and Wild
Turkey, the Prozac, some Valium, some cheesecake and a box of chocolates.
You have no idea how freakin' good I feel.... You may pass this on to those
you feel are in need of Inner Peace...
Funny, I can easily imagine that friend doing just as described. Heh. Love ya, Kayla.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
A 12-year-old girl was beaten into a coma (search) by a group of other girls and women after she kissed the boyfriend of another girl on a dare, police said.
Three adult women and two teenage girls have been charged in the beating of Nicole Townes, who remained in a coma Wednesday more than a week after the attack at a Feb. 28 party.
"I have seen people beaten to death, but not a child and not for no apparent reason," Detective Donny Moses said. "This is a hideous story."
The attack happened after an unidentified boy, also 12, was dared to kiss Nicole. After the kiss, his 14-year-old girlfriend attacked Nicole, and others joined in, beating the girl for at least 30 minutes.
As I said, holy shit. 30 minutes of beating over a kiss. Seriously, folks, something is badly broken in our society where a thing like this could happen. Hands up, anybody, who could stand aside and watch this happen without busting somebody in the chops, much less participate in such barbarity.
Monique Baldwin, 36, and Erin Baldwin, 19, were charged with attempted murder and assault, said Moses, who said he didn't know the relationship between the two. Kenya Keene, 25, was charged with assault and conspiracy to commit child abuse.
Two unidentified teens, ages 13 and 14, were also arrested, but Moses said he did not know the specific charges against them.
I can't stand it. Yes, people, Muslims aren't always the worst of humanity. Just usually.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Monday, March 08, 2004
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Is the analogy between homosexuality and self-mutilation far-fetched? Perhaps, but only because we make the mistake of treating homosexuality only as a problem of sexual ethics. The radicalism of the gay rights movement, however, lies not merely in the sexual liberation it both extends and helps secure, but also in its claim that people should be treated equally not merely with respect to skin color, sex, or ethnicity, but also with respect to desire.
This principle, however, has no limits. If self-mutilators were themselves to argue that their desire to lacerate themselves is an essential and undeniable fact about who they are, in no way different from other persons' desire for such important human goods as, say, challenging physical activity, then they too might succeed in winning privileges from an otherwise bewildered public.
Indeed. I used to be very, very pro-gay-rights, having had several gays as friends. Now, though, my mind is changing. Maybe that will tend to happen when somebody shoves something down your throat for long enough. Anyway, as more of a libertarian than some, I'd rather just retract the special legal priveleges marriage bestows and make it more of a pure religious commitment. But then, I'm currently going through a divorce, so my views on this subject are probably best taken with a block of salt. Right now I don't understand why gays want this.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Another aspect of dirty-piggishness that is displayed here requires more memory than the average Leftist can bring to bear on a problem, which is why you don't really hear much about this in the major media. What I am talking about is the fact that this attack, Arab Muslim AGAINST ARAB MUSLIM, occurred on a MUSLIM RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY. Oh, LORD, but did we have to hear about the fact that we attacked the Taliban during Ramadan, and oh, but weren't we just dreadful savages. What a crock. From now on, we'd be far better off not even looking at the calendar when it's time to do something. Just do it, and if the timing isn't just what the Leftists want, well, at least they have a reason to get together and have a pity party and walk some giant puppets down the street.