MacBoar's World

Need I Add a Comment?

2010-10-01T18:15:00.001-07:00

Education Today

2010-10-01T17:34:00.000-07:00

Since I send my children to private school, yet pay my local taxes, I still feel I have a voice in how the local public school district should conduct themselves. I have absolutely NO love for the Teachers Unions. They only care for the teachers and not for the students. My local school district is rate low on scholastic achievement and THE highest in weapons possession. This is why we've always had our children in parochial school. I may not be Catholic, but they teach a fine lesson!!

One of my daily sites is 'Q and O', a libertarian site. Bruce McQuain has an excellent post on education. There are some interesting graphs that just make you shake your head.

Here's the take-away paragraph from the post:

Japan spends about 5% of its GDP on education, pays its teachers the equivalent of $25,000 US, has average class sizes of 33 and graduates 93% of its students from their equivalent of high school. South Korea actually spends more of its GDP than does the US (7.35%), pays its teachers a little over $27,000 US, has huge average class sizes (almost 36) and has a graduation rate of 91.23%. The US’s stats are 7.38% GDP, average teacher’s salary of almost $36,000, average class size of 19 and a graduation rate at a dismal 77.53%.

Charts of the day – do we really need more teachers?
October 1st, 2010 | Author: Bruce McQuain

Apparently the president’s job initiative centers around hiring 10,000 more union teachers.

The reason given is we need to beef up our math and science achievement. And, as usual, the way to do that is to throw either more money or more teachers at the job.

What everyone ignores, however, is we’ve been doing both for years with no change. What’s the definition of insanity again?

So for an approximate 10% rise in enrollment, we’ve added 10 more public school employees for every student. And we’ve also seen the spending go through the proverbial roof as a result. The normal, everyday, tax paying citizen would most likely expect spectacular results if he or she invested the amount they were taxed in something of their choice. Instead, they end up screwed again:

Looking at those two charts, does anyone think the problem is related only to the money spent or the number of teachers?

Japan spends about 5% of its GDP on education, pays its teachers the equivalent of $25,000 US, has average class sizes of 33 and graduates 93% of its students from their equivalent of high school. South Korea actually spends more of its GDP than does the US (7.35%), pays its teachers a little over $27,000 US, has huge average class sizes (almost 36) and has a graduation rate of 91.23%. The US’s stats are 7.38% GDP, average teacher’s salary of almost $36,000, average class size of 19 and a graduation rate at a dismal 77.53%.

To most that would signal that something is wrong other than the number of teachers or what we’re spending. Somehow, however, that message seems never to get through to our political leaders who continually work under the premise that more money and more bodies is bound, at some point, to make it all better.

That thinking, In this case, given the word pictures the two charts paint, it is obviously wrong. When and how we can get that message across to both sides of the political spectrum remains to be seen. But if the left wants to invoke the “for the children” canard in an attempt to shame the right into capitulating for the usual remedies, maybe they can put these two charts in their pockets and make one up of the comparative spending and graduation rates and change not only the discussion, but the solution. My guess the new solution would take less people and less money. Wouldn’t the taxpayers love that?

~McQ

I don't expect teachers to raise our children, that's the job of parents. Until we get parents to really care about their children's education we'll be hard pressed to hold teachers accountable for test scores.

peace

Totten in Israel

2010-08-20T16:58:00.000-07:00

Welcome back!! Oh wait, that's what you should say.... sorry, once again I've been delinquent in my blogging. But here's something from Michael Totten while he's currently in Israel. The vid is powerful and validates why I support Israel 100%.

Yoram Hazony wrote a fascinating essay about how many Europeans view Israel, and why so many of them find the country distasteful. A sovereign Jewish state that uses armed force to defend itself and advance its own interests is increasingly at odds with the pacifistic post-nationalism of Europe.

“If Germany and France have no right to exist as independent states,” he writes, “why should Israel? And if everyone is prepared to remain dry-eyed on the day the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are finally gone, why should anyone feel differently about Israel?”

He suggests that Israelis and Europeans learned the opposite lessons from Nazi Germany. Israelis learned that Jews can’t survive without a sovereign state and army of their own, while many Europeans think national sovereignty and military force are what lead to events like the Holocaust.

It may be useful, then, for Europeans and other Westerners who find Israel so exasperating to step outside their own paradigm and take a look at how Israel views itself. The following six-minute video is an excellent place to start. It’s not comprehensive, it avoids the tough questions, and the Palestinians have their own counter-narrative, but when Israel looks in the mirror, it sees this:

Fox is Most Trusted in News!!

2010-01-26T19:45:00.000-08:00

I think I just heard a collective "Wow!" across the nation! Who would have thought that Fox News would have such an honor of being the most trusted news organization in America, especially considering the polling source? Public Policy Polling, a Democratic leaning organization, conducted a phone poll of 1,151 registered voters and found that 49% of those polled 'trusted' Fox News compared to 37% of those who did not. CNN was next with 39% trusting vs. 41% who did not trust them. In fact, Fox was the ONLY news organization with more folks trusting than not trusting!! Amazing!

Needless to say, the results are drawn starkly along political and ethnic lines, but hopefully this will lay to waste the Obama Admin's ridiculous and juvenile argument that Fox News is NOT a 'real' news organization.

Here's the poll.

Peace

Mayo Clinic - Obama's Example of Health Care

2010-01-04T19:07:00.000-08:00

Well, I knew it was too good to be true. Obama held up Mayo Clinic as the example of how health care was to be managed. Unfortunately, Mayo never reciprocated that same love.

Now comes news that Mayo will be discontinuing Medicare service to some of their Arizona patients due to low reimbursements from Medicare.

Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”

This is what to expect with the new Obamacare. With the Govt paying low-ball prices, you can expect providers to opt out of the program (if they're allowed!!)

The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government’s health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.

Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.

“We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed,” Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. “It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.”

With the kerfuffle concerning 'Death Panels' by Sarah Palin, few recongize there are panels currently in place. When the money doesn't materialize as expected, there WILL have to be choices. While they may not really be 'Death Panels', you can expect a sharp decrease in quality care as the limited number of current providers either drop out of the Govt program or drop out of medicine all together.

Nationwide, doctors made about 20 percent less for treating Medicare patients than they did caring for privately insured patients in 2007, a payment gap that has remained stable during the last decade, according to a March report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a panel that advises Congress on Medicare issues. Congress last week postponed for two months a 21.5 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for doctors.

[...]

Medicare covered an estimated 45 million Americans at the end of 2008, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of the programs. While 92 percent of U.S. family doctors participate in Medicare, only 73 percent of those are accepting new patients under the program, said Heim of the national physicians’ group, citing surveys by the Leawood, Kansas-based organization.

Greater access to primary care is a goal of the broad overhaul supported by Obama that would provide health insurance to about 31 million more Americans. More family doctors are needed to help reduce medical costs by encouraging prevention and early treatment, Obama said in a June 15 speech to the American Medical Association meeting in Chicago.

This is only the beginning of the restructuring of health care in America. While we never liked our insurance carriers, at least we received the highest quality of care in the world. Obama and Congress really missed the opportunity for real reform. Transportability, pre-existing conditions, tort reform and anti-trust would have met most of America's expectations of Reform.

What we received instead was a Govt mandate to purchase insurance (from private corporations!) with massive cost increases via taxes on existing plans as well as taxes on services. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste...

Peace

Tea Party Dilemma

2010-01-02T18:45:00.000-08:00

What to do? What to do??? The masses forming the Tea Party movement are coming to a crossroads. Do they play hardball and try to form a new third party to take on the dinosaur parties or do they try to reform the Republican party from within?

If they try to form a new party, they run the risk of a massive failure ensuring the Democrats' consolidation of power. How much power do the Tea Party folks really weld? There's no denying a massive disconnect between the politicians and 'everyday' people. However, how this translates into action will depend on how pervasive the anger (yes, real anger) has percolated throughout the heartland. If they overreach and try to form a new political party without sustained support, it'll be doomed to failure. We already know they'll get no love (nor respect) from the Mainstream Media and without a modicum of support or fair reporting, then the 'non-informed masses' will vote as they always have (if they even bother to vote...).

If this happens, the Democrats will be the winners even in an expected down year and the momentum will have been lost. This will leave us as serfs to the politicians and lobbyists to pay of years of debt.

On the other hand, if the Tea Party tries to reform the Republican party from within, will this run the risk of alienating the hard core believers? Will it or can it truly reform such a corrupt monstrosity? With power and money entrenched, it'll be hard to replace or reform people so used to suckling at the teat of the taxpayer.

As a Libertarian, I've watched the two parties from afar for some time. With the Tea Party bringing a wild card to the table, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. We've already seen some Republicans trying to jump on the band wagon and hijack the movement.

Michael Munger, at Reason.com, takes on this topic. He too is not sure how it will play out. But it will make for a good political bloodbath.

With the nation on the precipice of a massive debt collapse, I just wish the government would just rein in all the spending. We are leaving our children nothing but a mess...

Peace

Obamacare - Loss of Freedom?

2009-12-23T18:19:00.000-08:00

Jeffery Anderson, at National Review, has a thoughtful article on the impact of Obamacare will have on personal freedom.

Remember back in June, in President Obama’s major address to the AMA, when he said the following? “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise. . . . If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” In the six months since, there seems to have been a change.

Obamacare would require Americans to buy government-approved health insurance. It would make it illegal to offer choices in insurance plans beyond the handful of very similar ones that the government would allow. It would become illegal to offer new and innovative plans. Under any of the government-approved plans, it would become illegal to pay your doctor directly for more than a certain percentage of your care. Higher deductible, consumer-driven plans would be severely altered or eliminated. By law, a greater percentage of money would have to be paid in insurance premiums, rather than directly for care. Competition and choice would diminish tremendously. One-size-fits-all conformity would rule the day.

At its core, what Obamacare really means is a loss of freedom.

Obamacare would significantly diminish Americans' freedom to control the fruits of their own labors and to spend them as they choose and as they think best. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that American taxpayers would be on the hook for approximately $2.5 trillion for Obamacare in its real first ten years in operation (2014 to 2023) — about triple the false number of $871 billion that the Democrats are spreading. As the CBO conveys, $871 billion only covers the cost of insurance coverage expansions, which is only a portion of the bill. Furthermore, less than 2 percent of the costs for what the Democrats are calling the bill's "first-ten-year costs" would hit prior to the fifth year of that period. So the Democrats are really giving the six-year costs — for insurance coverage expansions alone — and calling them the ten-year costs for the whole bill. Either the Democrats know this and are being deliberately deceitful, or else they don't understand their own bill and are in over their heads even more than it appears

I don't know HOW the United States Government can legally mandate us to purchase PERSONAL health insurance from a PRIVATE corporation, but then I didn't think Eminent Domain could take PRIVATE property and give it to a corporation either. Are they going to whip out the old and tired Commerce clause in the constitution? This covers interstate transactions, but due to anti-trust status of the health care insurances, many are limited to intrastate commerce. If that's the case, the Commerce clause would not be applicable. However, what will happen is Obama will transfer $1.0 trillion from American taxpayer to the insurance companies... Talk about redistribution of wealth! Is this REALLY a surprise? How many people know that Obama more than doubled the contributions for McCain from the health care industry during the 2008 election? He received a record $389.4 million!!!!

The CBO also reports that, in its real first twelve years in operation (2014 to 2025), Obamacare would transfer $1.0 trillion from American taxpayers to private insurance companies. Ever wonder why insurers back Obamacare — even though they would no longer be free to control their own product-line? The answer is plain: Obamacare would mandate that Americans buy insurers' product. And to make that mandate more feasible, it would transfer a trillion dollars of Americans' earnings to insurers over a dozen years. That trillion dollars would be funneled through the government and used to help individual people comply with the mandate, but the money would be required to be spent on insurance, and it would therefore end up in the hands of insurers.

The Democrats are not only making disingenuous claims about the costs of their proposal, they are making similarly disingenuous claims about its effects on the deficit. Democrats claim that this massive expansion of government would somehow reduce the deficit. But the CBO says otherwise. The CBO says that unless Democrats follow through and cut doctors' pay under Medicare by 21 percent next year and never raise it back up, the bill would increase the deficit by over $200 billion in its real first decade. How many people think that the Democrats would really cut doctors' payments by a fifth? Certainly the Democrats know that they won't, and yet they are shameless enough to pitch Obamacare as deficit-neutral, despite the CBO’s plain findings to the contrary.

What is to happen next? I guess we start paying now for the future prospect of "reward". Kinda like Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you next Tuesday for a hamburger today." Not only will we pay, but our children will pay as well as our grandchildren will pay. I have no doubt health care needs to be revamped, but this monstrosity along with the anticipated collapse of Medicare will only bring us pain with little reward. The 20th century will be remembered as the halcyon days of America...

Peace

Healthcare Bill Changes Senate Rules - Illegally

2009-12-22T19:13:00.000-08:00

Something amazing is happening with the disastrous ObamaCare bill about to be passed. Reid has sneaked in a Senate rule change under the guise of it being a procedural change. This is significant. Any Senate rule change requires a two-third approval, not just the filibuster proof of 60 votes.

Sen. DeMint (R-SC) brought it to the floor of the Senate trying to get parliamentarian clarification, but was informed it was merely procedural and not really a rule. How does this sound to you?

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

What this means is the IMAB, the Medicare review board (I won't call it the Death Panel...) will now be permanently entrenched with no future Senate able to amend or dissolve it.

While I don't believe the IMAB will actively be something like the so-called Death Panels, I do believe they will be active in deciding what is the preferred treatment or what is considered acceptable treatment and will not allow payment to treatment they don't prefer. Remember the outcry recently concerning mammograms? These folks will issue guidelines along this line. Granted, there is always some 'rationing'. The insurances do that NOW. But to have it written into law that the IMAB cannot be amended is frightening.

Is this constitutional? If this goes through it will truly be frightening! Imagine the next Republican Senate inserting language that prohibits future Senates from modifying or amending a permanent tax rate of 10% or prohibiting (insert ANYTHING here) from considering any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

The dissatisfaction with Congress is at an all time low and rightly so. These folks are using our money as Monopoly money, spending it like there's no tomorrow. Know what? If we don't get these people under control, we'll NEVER pay off the $14 TRILLION we now currently owe. Our children's lifestyle will be considerably lower than ours and that's a sad testament to our responsibility to provide for them to the best of our ability.

New Evidence Against Iran

2009-12-13T16:51:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the lack of posting. There have been MANY topics to comment on but I've just not had the desire to give my two cents worth.

However . . . after having just read this article from Times (UK), I felt I had to post something.

Unlike a lot of people, I believe what the Mad Mullah says when he talks of the destruction of Israel. For some reason, many folks just poo poo it as rhetoric. But I truly believe he'd like nothing better than to be known as the one to wipe Israel off the map, regardless of the consequences.

The latest in Iranian nuclear armament shows their desire to acquire or build the nuclear trigger require to detonate their bomb.

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

[...]

The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”

Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”

The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.

Wonder what the IAEA will say about this new development? Will the toothless enforcers try to brush is aside as inconsequential or try to get the Security Council involved?

Publication of the nuclear documents will increase pressure for tougher UN sanctions against Iran, which are due to be discussed this week. But the latest leaks in a long series of allegations against Iran will also be seized on by hawks in Israel and the US, who support a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first warhead.

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”

The Times had the documents, which were originally written in Farsi, translated into English and had the translation separately verified by two Farsi speakers. While much of the language is technical, it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.

The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.

Ultimately something must be done otherwise the Mad Mullah will have The Bomb, which means Hezbollah and Hamas wield more power against Israel. God help Israel because no one else will.

Shame on you, UN

2009-09-25T17:00:00.000-07:00

This week was a circus of madness with Gadhafi and Ahmadinejad. I didn't catch Gadhafi's 90 mins of rambling nonsense but did manage to catch Ahmad's vitriol. He rambled on about Israel and the US. what crap!

I also watched Benjamin Netanyahu's address to the UN. My stance on support for Israel is clear and his call out to the UN, "Will you stand with Israel or will you stand for terrorists?" is plainly spoken and unambivalent.

Support for Israel is so important. It can't be minimized. Their very existence depends upon our support.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

May Peace be finally come to Israel.

h/t LGF

Pres. Carter Jumping the Shark

2009-09-16T18:52:00.000-07:00

Up front, I'll admit I have NO love for Pres. Carter. It's not his effort with Habitat for Humanity, which I admire nor is it his work on fair elections around the world that cause my disdain. It's his anti-Semitic words and actions toward Israel and his blind faith in Palestinian causes. But that's not the purpose of this blog...

Has Pres. Carter jumped the shark? The phrase comes from an old Happy Days episode where all who watched knew the moment Fonzi jumped a shark while water skiing that the show was over. Is this Carter's moment? I sure hope so.

Carter went on NBC Nightly News and proudly proclaimed that those who currently oppose Pres. Obama are racist. This does not take into consideration the merit of his proposals nor plans, but only supposes opponents are automatically racist. Can you believe it? Almost 53% of America voted for Obama. He enjoyed a 70% approval rating six months ago. Yet, if you oppose him you are branded a racist...

Granted, there are probably at least 10% of America who are out and out racist. This can't be helped. Some people are just plain stupid and nothing you can say or do will change that; probably another 15% are 'uncomfortable' with certain aspect of race issues. I don't know this for a fact, but in my life I've met some fine people who occasionally were a bit squeamish in certain environments or circumstances. However, this does not make them automatically racist, just outside of their comfort zone.

But, Carter goes well beyond comfort zone issues. He paints a broad brush saying:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News." "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

Now, I'm not naive enough to think some people oppose Obama because he's African-American. Bigot abound. But please, there of us who oppose the man for his political beliefs and not for the color of his skin.

My issue is massive, unsustainable spending and increasingly engorged government. The moment you have a populous that is a majority working for the government (national, state or local) is the moment we lose our true republic. It will be a government-employer for life...And this doesn't even begin to talk about the healthcare issue!!

I just wish Carter would retire on his porch in "his" racist South and fade away...

Peace

Freedom Towers?

2009-09-11T18:21:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 8th year since the disaster of Sept 11th. I can't call it an 'anniversary' since that connotates a celebration. I remember turning on the TV getting ready for work that historic day. Being on the west coast, it was around 10:00a ET when I saw what was going on. What a shock! A day I will truly never forget.

Watching Glenn Beck tonight brought forth something I've had in the back of my mind but never really thought too much about. Why after 8 years do we NOT have something built on the Twin Towers site?? Are you telling me that we can't either build this 'Freedom Tower' or some special memorial monument?

Why? How can we NOT have done SOMETHING to honor those who perished on that tragic day? Didn't the politicians 'promise' to rebuild something called the Freedom Towers? What happened? Was it the political correctness calling for "Freedom" Towers to be changed since it might offend the Chinese, the primary renter of the previous Twin Towers? Or is it just ineptness?

I can't believe it's really ineptness, can you? If the Empire State building could be built in 400 days, why would it take over 2,000 days (and counting) to even start something on this national treasure site??

I really do think this is an example of the our entire system, be it political or economical. Our ineptness is palpable. It's in the air. It's something we can feel everyday! 'Normal' people question daily what our elected 'leaders' are doing, but unfortunately we find that while we question what 'other' US Representatives are doing (Pelosi, Frank, Rangel et.al.), we feel 'our guy is OK'. Pathetic.

If the politicians can't agree on what to build on the site, then just pave it and make it a memorial park. Just put something to honor the fallen and stop all the game playing/power tripping.

We owe the fallen more than this...

Peace

AP photo of mortally wounded soldier

2009-09-04T21:18:00.000-07:00

I'm torn on what AP published today of a mortally wounded soldier, Lance Cpl. Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, 21, who died in a grenade ambush in Afghanistan on Aug 14th. They published a photo of Bernard as he lay dying while being triaged by fellow soldiers. AP had a reporter and photographer embedded with his unit.

While I don't hold the media today to the stature they once held, I feel they need to be free to delve into areas that make us think. Unfortunately, they have not done so for several years, especially in recent years. I'm not overly concerned when they buck the government since that's their job (although they can't seem to do that today!). However, when a family first 'request' them not to publish their dying son, then later, in 'stronger terms' ask the photos not to be used, I'm torn and tend to lean towards the family.

While the story was being written, an AP reporter visited the home of John and Sharon Bernard to learn more about their son. The couple was shown Jacobson's pictures, and requested that they not be used. In a later fact-checking phone call, John Bernard asked in stronger terms that the photos not be used, Daniszewski said.

We're not talking about a flag covered casket, but an action photo of their son dying.

Secretary Gates contacted AP to express his disappointment, too:

Gates wrote a strongly worded letter to AP President and CEO Tom Curley on Thursday, saying it was a matter of "judgment and common decency" not to use the photo. A Pentagon spokesman said Gates followed up with a phone call "begging" Curley not to use it.

It seems some of the newspapers have picked this time to express their views:

The Newark, N.J., Star-Ledger ran a picture of Bernard's memorial service on its front page and the ambush picture inside. Editor Jim Willse said it was "not a difficult decision for us," and said it would have run the ambush picture out front "if the story had been presented differently."

The Wheeling, W.Va., Intelligencer ran the photo inside and an editorial explaining why it did "after hours of debate."

"Too often, we fear, some Americans see only the statistics, the casualty counts released by the Department of Defense," the newspaper wrote. "We believe it is important for all of us to understand that behind the numbers are real men and women, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice, for us."

At least the Portland (ME) Press-Herald showed some courtesy:

The Portland (Me.) Press-Herald ran an editor's note with the story saying it had received the photo but believed it would be in "poor taste" to publish it. Bernard was raised in New Portland, Me.

Ultimately, AP tried to balance the family vs. what they felt was news:

Although the family was shown the pictures ahead of time as a courtesy, "we did not ask permission" to use them, Daniszewski said.

"There was no question that the photo had news value," he said. "But we also were very aware the family wished for the picture not to be seen. That created a difficult choice between our job to document the war and our respect for the suffering of the corporal's family."

During lengthy internal discussions, the family issue was the most difficult, he said. Ultimately, the AP concluded that "the photo itself is a part of the war we needed to cover and convey."

While I've never disagreed with going into Afghanistan, I think 'nation building' in that country is doomed to failure. Believe it or not, not every country/civilization is ready for democracy. Our mission was/should of been to destroy the AQ/Taliban infrastructure with the idea of keeping an eye of their future developments.

Once again, I'm torn on how to report Lance Cpl. Bernard's tragic death. While it is relevant, the family's wishes should be respected. I live within five miles of Ft. Lewis, a major departure Army base, and just this last week, 10 soldiers stationed here will not return home to their families. I see their photos in the paper along with their mourning family members. The anguish is tough to view. I cannot imagine them having to see a photo of their son as he lay dying.

Peace, Lance Cpl. Bernard. Thank you for your service and ultimate sacrifice

No Peace without Syria

2009-08-31T19:56:00.000-07:00

Michael J. Totten has once again written an excellent article in Commentary on the realistic chances of peace in the Middle East. Needless to say, it's not a very optimistic view given the Assad regime's tenuous hold over the Sunni majority.

Syria’s fundamentalist Sunnis have long detested his Baath party regime, not only because it’s secular and oppressive but also because its leaders are considered heretics. The Assads and most of the Baathist elites belong to the Alawite religious minority, descendants of the followers of Muhammad ibn Nusayr, who took them out of mainstream Twelver Shiite Islam in the 10th century. Their religion has as much in common with Christianity and Gnosticism as it does with Islam, and most Syrians find it both bizarre and offensive that the Alawites are in charge of the country instead of the majority Sunnis.

The greatest Assad fear would be the Sunni charge of treason if peace between Syria and Israel ever came to fruition. So there will be no peace between Syria and Israel as long as Assad is in power, but then...there would probably be no peace with a Sunni fundamentalist government, either.

Media Bias

2009-08-25T13:04:00.000-07:00

James Taranto at WSJ blog has an excellent example of the media bias that drives sane people crazy. The bashing of Bush even at the beginning is reflected in a NY Times piece in the summer of 2001, yet Obama rightfully is allowed his Martha' Vineyard vacation with little questioning.

Can't Seem to Get My Mind Off of You
Back Here at Home With Nothing to Do
Here's a blast from the past. The New York Times, July 9, 2001, reports on George W. Bush's first summer vacation as president:

On Friday, as new unemployment figures painted a newly troubling portrait of the American economy, Mr. Bush placed himself in the same scenes--golfing and fishing in a New England paradise--that once caused his father electoral grief.

Simply amazing.

Here's the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, dated July 6, that "painted a newly troubling portrait of the American economy":

The unemployment rate was little changed at 4.5 percent, five-tenths of a percentage point higher than the average for 2000.

As Barack Obama embarked on his first summer vacation as president last week--also in a "New England paradise," Martha's Vineyard--the most recent unemployment rate was 9.4%, more than double the summer 2001 figure. Covering the Obama jaunt, the Times offers no hint that there's anything wrong with a president taking a vacation during a time of genuine crisis. Indeed, it offers this justification:

Mr. Obama, whom aides described as being amused by all of the gloom-and-doom prognosticating over his health care agenda, did not even consider skipping his vacation. Last year, he talked about the importance of taking a break to avoid "making mistakes."

That makes sense--and in any case, it's not as if the president actually escapes his responsibilities when he goes on "vacation." But the Times's coverage of Obama is a useful contrast to the paper's petty partisan sniping against Bush.

World Soccer Daily - RIP

2009-08-25T10:59:00.000-07:00

It was an amazing shock yesterday, when I went to listen to my favorite podcast and web cast, and found it off the air!! I was so disappointed. These folks, Stephen Cohen and Kenny Hassan, were like best buds. I would say like 'best mates' but that would sound too Anglophile.

We can thank the rat-bastards that support Liverpool FC for this loss of the only daily soccer show in America. It's always been known that Steven despises Liverpool fans for their historical hooliganism and he has never been shy about voicing his opinions on his show. But when he expressed his opinion on the Hillsborough tragedy (as factually incorrect as it may have been), all the Liverpool FC fan base went nuclear. They began a massive boycott effort against Fox Soccer Channel and against WSD. They succeeded in removing Cohen from Fox Football Fhone-in (FFF), but since WSD was co-owned by Cohen, it was more difficult.

When they couldn't get all the sponsors to stop supporting WSD, many of the 'fans' turned personal, attacking Cohen directly with anti-Semitic vitriol as well as attacking his family. It was these attacks on his family that became the last straw, so he pulled the show from the air.

While I didn't agree with Cohen's view of Hillsborough (in which 96 people died in a stampede caused by local officials), the thought that free speech has been gagged due to a few thugs is chilling. If you don't like a program on radio, TV or podcasts, then TURN IT OFF. What they have done is throw such a tantrum that ruined an otherwise excellent soccer program.

Here is an excellent post from Mark Sawyer who tried to mitigate a resolution btwn Stephen Cohen and Mel Abshier, the main drive behind the witchhunt. Even as a veteran of conflict resolution, he was disappointed with Abshier's actions.

I am truly sad about this loss...

Here is WSD's final show:

Healthcare

2009-08-13T18:38:00.000-07:00

I am so f’ing tired of all the BS about the town halls currently taking place around the country. Does the media really think we have such a short term memory that we can’t even remember the 2008 election with Obama’s ‘grassroots’ movement? How about the `90s with Medicare reform?? It’s amazing how the US Reps are running or hiding from the meetings. Oh, and news flash, yes the little folks are a wee bit upset and don’t need to be ‘organized into mobs’.

On healthcare, since I work in the biz I naturally have an opinion!

Since healthcare was employer mandated during the `30s, it’s moved from personal responsibility to ‘someone else supplying it’. This takes the personal ownership away from the primary responsible individual to one of a view of becoming a ‘right’. While healthcare is not really a right, I do believe it can/should be classified as something of a sub-right, where responsible folks should not be penalized for things like pre-conditions or transportability.

First…this should concentrate on functionality currently able to be fixed such as fore mentioned pre-existing conditions and transportability, but also tort reform. I see doctors having to order a whole menu of tests just to cover themselves. Yes, I know some folks may think this is only ‘talking points’ but I’ve seen it in action… Blanket tests covers a shotgun approach for diagnosis.

Second, tort reform. How to handle this?? If a doctor, screws up an operation leaving a loved one as a vegetable, how do you compensate for this? Who takes care of this person for 30-40 yrs? Is the family penalized by sacrificing everything for care? Who pays? I don’t have the perfect answer to this very complex answer. I do know that doctors are brought before peer review boards and are slapped on the wrist for offenses you and I would be thrown in jail for. I would be in favor of a cap of ‘personal suffering’ with life time medical care by Social Security as long as the provider lost their license in ALL states. It’s not much but a start in the conversation.

Third. No one seems to talk about the MASSIVE influx of patients if a public coverage is instituted. Right now the ratio of patient to doctor is 1 to 400+. If you add 40 million, PLUS the 20+ million illegals currently the leading drain on hospital care, that ratio will sky rocket. Talk about a decrease in care!!! If Medicare dictates the reimbursements to providers, this will truly scare away some of our brightest. (believe it or not, not ALL doctors do it for the love of their patients…) Obama has already said part of the cost control was reimbursement. Contrary to what Obama said, if a doctor know he's going to be paid $.50 cents on the dollar, he's more likely to NOT order the procedure if it takes more effort to fill out the paper work than to pass the patient on to another provider...

Finally, I happen to work for a major healthcare institution, so I don’t have to worry about them ‘canceling’ my healthcare. But think about this ‘public option’, if the govt is in direct competition with private coverage, we already KNOW they compensate providers at a lower rate than what should be paid to doctors (see Medicare). So…a company of 100 has to pay out thousands of dollars for healthcare. BUT since there is a ‘public option’ they can discontinue their coverage and pay an eight percent ‘tax’ to have their employees be cover by the govt. Right now, we know by the metrics that a person earning $50,000 is REALLY earning about $60,000 with healthcare and matching IRA. So, WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WILL DO?? They are going to drop the healthcare upon the govt!!!!!

This, with the massive influx of 'new’ patients (IE uninsured and illegals) will overwhelm our current system!!! It's doomed to failure. This with Medicare, and the monetized debt, will bring us down just like a lion brings down a gazelle on the Serengeti. While we may not suffer, know that I children will...

Side notes:

Obama said during the primary campaign, he was in favor of single pay. Now he says he’s not….

He also said he’d ‘suggest’ giving the elderly patient a ‘pill’ to alleviate the pain instead of an operation. But when asked about his own grandmother, he said ‘he would pay’ for the hip replacement. Who would pay for your grandmother, if you couldn’t afford it?

His czars for health care and regulation (as well as Rahm’s brother) have advocated RASH ideas (aka eugenic). Deny this ALL you may, but it’s published and scary. As Obama said during the primaries, judge him by who he surrounds himself with…

If government dictates what you do and if they own major industries (auto, financial, energy), what form of government would you call it??? Is it Progressive? How about National Socialist? No matter how loud the Liberals cried out during the Bush II administration, what he had was not fascist. They just cried out about government intervention without knowing the true meaning of fascism. But with government control of major industry (auto, financial, energy), this will truly lead us down that path. God help us when the government institutes an emergency…

EPL Predictions 2009

2009-08-12T20:26:00.000-07:00

It’s time for the annual Premiership (BPL) football predictions. As most know, predictions are truly a hit-n-miss proposition, especially concerning English football. Except for the Top Four, of course…

Last year, I had Chelsea over Man Utd (wrong) and missed fourth place (had Aston Villa over Arsenal). In the relegation battle, I lost the plot completely, with my second fav team, Newcastle Utd, being relegated… Oh the pain!! But with their abhorrent yellow away kits this year, I’m glad I don’t have to witness the yellow mess.

And away we go…

Chelsea – solid foundation hasn’t changed
Man Utd – Rindaldo and Tevez’s absence must be felt
Liverpool – hated but respected with Gerrard and Torres (both on my fan. team)
Arsenal - talented but too young, need toughness in the back
Everton – haven’t made moves but a solid team
Aston Villa – thin squad, tire towards the end of the season
Manchester City – the new deep pockets, spent tons!! But little cohesion and no defense.
Tottenham – offense but injury-prone on the back four
Fulham – decent team, no movement this year. Play for draws away.
West Ham Utd – Zola did a good job last yr. Financial uncertainty.
Blackburn – defensive, ugly but effective
Bolton – dependably mid-table
Sunderland –Bruce taking the helm with some new blood should help
Stoke City – scrappy team that showed they could hang, tough at home.
Wigan – new mgr may inject some life
Wolves – don’t know much about them
Birmingham City – relegation three of the last five years, may make it four of six!
Burnley – gave up a ton of goals last year in Champ league doesn’t bode well
Portsmouth – team in disarray, selling left and right
Hull City – early darlings last year, but Phil Brown lost the plot. Hope Josie does well!!

Let the games begin!! Go Chelsea!!

Ramblings

2009-07-10T20:37:00.000-07:00

Once again, I'm just plain deliquent in posting... So, let's just free-form:

> MJ - I know he was a great entertainer, but the spectical of his death was just an overkill. I must have been one of the four people surfing cable TV looking for something other than MJ. I don't have much to say about his troubles. I think everyone can agree that he was a troubled soul, but I still wouldn't let my children near him no matter how innocent he was.

> Sarah Palin -I don't know WHAT to think of her. I think she really does march to her own drum beat and I like that. However, her resignation speech was one of her worst. It just ramble and didn't quite make sense. With all the frivolus lawsuits draining her family resources (I think I read during the `08 race that her wealth was less than $500,000 and that was mostly tied to her home), I can see why that alone would be enough to say 'screw this!'.
I really hope she doesn't run in `12 cuz that would be a disaster. Let's hope she's still as feisty in `20 as she is now. Love her independent streak and would love to back her even if I don't agree with her totally. I'm just sooo tired of all the negative press about her!! MSNBC is just amazing with the pitbull attitude towards her. Disagree with her politics but do it civilly.

> Obama picture in G8 - Don't know if any of you saw the picture floating about showing Obama and Sarkozy appearing to eye the nice ass of a 16 year old memeber of a delegation. The still photo looks great!! and quite convincing. See ALL men are hounddogs!!

HOWEVER... if you see the video of the scene, you can see that he is glancing down in anticipation of assisting the young lady behind him (black blouse). Now Sarkozy is a different matter, it show him clearly checking the young one out!! But to hear all the talking heads, it was just another example of skewed "journalism". Now, I'm no fan of the big O's policies, but when things are taken out of context, it shows just how bad things can get and BOTH sides are guilty.

> Sotomayor - next Supreme Court justice. I can't dispute her qualifications and think she deserves to be appointed. I think she'll get 86 votes. My point on this is while Repubs may disagree with her opinions, they don't dispute her judical judgement. This cannot be said of the Dems when faced with the same choice. They threaten a filabuster just to make a political point. Shamefull, just shamefull.

> Joe Biden - God love him, cuz I sure do!! Talk about loose lips ... he's always so entertaining!! Never a dull moment when he's in front of a microphone.

> Iranian protests - I was glued to Nico Pitney's Huff Post blog. I feel for them and hope the can achieve their freedom from the mullahs.

That's all for now.

Peace

Cap and Trade (Tax)

2009-06-26T20:26:00.000-07:00

Boy, isn't this fun...
Ok, so we're now on the hook for the Dem's version of environmental engineering. One the environmentalist don't like and one that will become the largest tax increase in US history. This MAY be the undoing of the Dem domination in the Congress in 2010. It may (hopefully) usher them out of majority in the next election.

We should all expect our taxes to increase, but more sublime will be the cost passed on by manufacturers as their costs increases.

The complex bill mandates a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 83-percent cut by 2050, reductions that will be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It mandates that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020. And the legislation gives electric utilities, coal plants, energy-intensive manufacturers, farmers, petroleum refiners, and other industries special protections to help them transition to new, less-fossil fuel-intensive ways of doing business.

Does anyone believe we can be at an 83% decrease by 2050 without a "Manhattan Project" style revamping of our energy? I hope this can happen, but no leadership has offered direction. So, we, as the middle class, will have to pay for this extravagance.

The worst of all this is the fact NO ONE read the 1300 pages -plus 3:00a amendments- of the bill. So much for transparency....

Iran

2009-06-19T19:46:00.000-07:00

I went to high school for a couple of years at University High in west LA during the late `70s. This was at the height of the Iranian/Persian migration and knew quite a few Iranian students. We would sit around and smoke and talk about their plight. It was amazing. They didn't like the Shah but were terrified of what was to come. They were good people. So, like the Armenians, I've always watched with some interest on their travails.

So, I've been glued to the Huff Post's live blog by Nico Pitny. It's riveting...

Saturday will be the turning point after Khomeini's Friday prayer speech. Will they or won't they turn out... I hope they do.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

US Bonds found in Italy

2009-06-15T18:58:00.000-07:00

I know I've been delinquent in blogging and have missed so much. I hope to have more on the Iran election later, but first this just jumped out at me.

If the bonds are real, it's more then all but three nations holding US bonds. If the are counterfeit, then talk about diluting our currency...

Italian prosecutors were trying to establish yesterday whether US bonds with a face value of $134 billion seized from two alleged smugglers were real or counterfeit.

The bonds were found when the two men — said to be Japanese but as yet not identified — were arrested while attempting to cross into Switzerland from Italy by train at the frontier town of Chiasso this month. Prosecutors in Como said that the two men had hidden the bonds in the false bottom of a suitcase.

Police said that Chiasso was a notorious crossing point for currency and bond smugglers but the sums involved this time were “colossal”. The amount of $134 billion would place the two travellers as the fourth most important investors in US debt, well ahead of Britain ($128.2 billion) and just behind Russia ($138.4 billion).

The bonds were described as being 249 US Federal Reserve bonds each worth $500 million, plus ten Kennedy bonds with face values of $1 billion, in addition to various other types. Police said that the two men had stayed at a hotel in Milan last Tuesday. Instead of taking the express train to Lugano, they had boarded a slow commuter train from a suburban station to attract less attention.

Although Switzerland and Italy adhere to the Schengen accords on frontier-free travel, customs officers from both sides who still watch travellers became suspicious, Italian reports said.

Police said that there was cause for concern even if the bonds turned out to be forgeries, since it would amount to a counterfeiting scam “on an unprecedented scale”.

Seattle Sounders' Keller

2009-05-01T21:34:00.000-07:00

I've bought into the Seattle Sounders soccer team! Lock stock and goalie! Being an avid fan of the Braclays Prem League (commonly known as the English Prem League), I watch matches every weekend on FSC. The quality of MLS is well below that of the BPL which is to be expected. The BPL is the superior league in the world.

The joy now felt in Seattle by the 28,000 season ticket holders is unprecedented in MLS. The NW has been a hot bed of soccer for many years, but now it is expressed with fullt financial authority.

Here's an article on Kasey Keller which should warm the ol' cockles of the heart:

SEATTLE -- Bottom line: If you're a soccer fan living in America, you're doing yourself a great disservice if you don't make an attempt to take in a Seattle Sounders FC game. The overwhelming fan support, the sold-out crowds, the insane noise level inside Qwest Field -- it's enough to bring a tear to one's eye, as it did for MLS commissioner Don Garber.

Most affiliated with Major League Soccer expected a successful beginning for an expansion team with this kind of powerful ownership structure (many thanks, Seattle Seahawks) playing in the Emerald City. But few could have guessed the avalanche of noisy crowds the Sounders are getting in what has turned into perhaps the greatest homefield advantage in MLS history.

Count iconic goalkeeper Kasey Keller among the shocked -- and that's saying a lot. During a hugely successful 17-year career in England, Spain and Germany, Keller played in front of some of the loudest, most feverish crowds in the game. He always wanted to end his storied career -- which includes four World Cup appearances with the U.S. national team -- back in his home state of Washington. But never in his wildest dreams did he think Seattle conceivably could be the best market in MLS.

The Sounders are a surprising 4-2-0 just six weeks into the season and are in second place in the Western Conference. Perhaps even more impressively, they've only allowed three goals, and zero with their captain tending net.

SI.com caught up with the 39-year-old legend shortly after the Sounders' 2-0 victory over San Jose here this past Saturday, a game in which, by the way, Keller set a record by playing 389 consecutive minutes without conceding a goal to start a season. One of the best-spoken and most intelligent athletes you'll ever come across, he discussed his expectations for Seattle and had some strong words on what he believes U.S. national-team players deserve from MLS.

SI.com: Did you ever expect the support to be like this?

Keller: No. I knew that Seattle should have had an MLS team years ago. I knew there was a fan base here. But at no time did I ever think we're going to have 28,000 sold out or that we'd win our first three games without conceding a goal. It's our dream start. To be able to come home and finish my career in this atmosphere has been huge. Nothing would have been worse after experiencing the things I've experienced all over Europe and then to come home and hear crickets at games. This has been phenomenal. It very much reminds me of that European environment.

SI.com: After seeing this, are you sort of wondering what took MLS this long to get here?

Keller: Totally. At the same time, there's no good in hurrying something up just because you want to stick it in there. Timing could not have been better for this franchise. With the Sonics leaving, it left some openings in talk radio and in local TV sports coverage. Once they were able to see it was going to be done the right way, you had radio franchises bidding for the rights. In other cities, you couldn't give it away. When I got red-carded earlier this month, it was the talk of the town on sports-talk radio. That's cool. That's the way it should be.

SI.com: We talked in spring of 2007 right after Germany's Borussia Mönchengladbach cut you loose and you said you were too old to sit out a season to wait for an expansion team in Seattle. Yet that's what you ended up doing after one season back in England.

Keller: That was an interesting situation because 'Gladbach asked me to sign early on. And I just didn't think I could be motivated if the team got relegated. I can't just do something because of a check. I had a bunch of offers and I was being very picky. At the last minute, Fulham came along with the chance to move back to London. I had a tremendous run at the end of the year to keep the team up and have that experience. And then I had to make another decision: Do I stay there and maybe not play, maybe be a backup, maybe go back to Tottenham, drop down a division or two, go back to Europe? It was hard.

My kids are 11 years old and now they're in their fifth school in their fourth country. If I'm going to drag them around a bit more, it's got to be the right situation. Then it was even tougher when I committed to this team because it was, OK, do I take that little time off and be here from Day 1? Or do I come back in the middle of July? After that first game [a nationally televised 3-0 win over New York in front of 32,523], my wife said to me, "You know, it would have been a huge shame to have missed that experience." I fully agree that the choices have fallen into place.

SI.com: Would you have signed on no matter who the owners were?

Keller: No. I could tell from early on this group had it. Having the Vulcan organization, which owns the Seahawks -- let's be honest, what are we striving to be in this sport? We're striving to be on par with the NFL. We know we have to accept what our place is. But at the same time you have to have an ownership group that's forward-thinking, that's saying, we want to be in a stadium that holds 30,000 people. Hopefully at some stage it becomes 40,000 and 50,000. My experience in this sport is on that NFL level in Europe. Knowing that was what the aspiration was in what they were trying to achieve made it that much simpler.

SI.com: Over the past two years, you, Brian McBride, Eddie Lewis, Bobby Convey and Gregg Berhalter all have come home to MLS. That's five members of the '06 World Cup team. How big is that for the league?

Keller: That's key because we still are not quite as respected as much as I think we should be in our own league. Before I went to Fulham, I had an offer to come home and I had an offer to go to Romania that was three times what MLS was offering. At the same time, MLS has no problem paying a Mexican $2 million. That's the thing that still frustrates me. The better the Americans can do when they come home from Europe, hopefully the more respect they'll have from the ownership group and the fans to pay them what they deserve.

I had a conversation with a prominent coach here when I was on-again, off-again to coming home and he basically told me that I "owed it to the sport" to come home and play. I had to fight for everything I possibly could in Europe and now I have to fight twice as hard to come home and get a contract? That's not right. Look at the way the Dutch do it -- they understand. Ajax and PSV Eindhoven know they can't keep a hold of their homegrown stars. Someone like Phillip Cocu, who leaves PSV for Barcelona, wins everything under the sun, and what does PSV do when he's done there? They open their arms and say, "We might not be able to pay you what Barcelona can, but we're not going to pay you a fifth of what we're going to pay this Brazilian guy." It just doesn't work that way because the respect is there for him and what he has done. There are little things that need to change here.

SI.com: Six weeks into your first season, what do you think of the quality of MLS?

Keller: There's no question that it's in a great position. What we need now is to try to bump up that salary cap a little bit more, first of all, to reward those guys who do well. Too many times have I heard, "Hey, great season, but we don't think you have any options so we're actually going to lower your salary." That can't happen. At the same time, understand your place. No, you're not going to go compete with Chelsea. But the little bit more money you can pay, the little bit more quality player you're going to get.

SI.com: How close are we to catching up with Europe?

Keller: Twenty to 50 years. The NFL in 2009 is not what it was in 1959. You can't think after 14 years you're going to go compete with 120 years of history. It just doesn't work that way. But what you can do is steadily grow. And sometimes you have to take that little risk. When I first got to England in the early '90s, the Premier League was not what it is today for one major reason. That's because Rupert Murdoch paid a whole lot of money and started a TV company called Sky, bought the Premier League and gambled a big fortune. With that, the TV contracts shot through the roof and the clubs were able to pay more money to get the best players in the world away from Italy and Spain. Sometimes you have to make a commitment and hope that the more franchises we have like Seattle, the better it's going to be. It's a better game to watch on TV when it's a better game to watch in person.

SI.com: Do you see yourself staying here long enough to experience the Pacific Northwest rivalry with expansion teams in Vancouver and Portland in 2011?

Keller: That's why I've been hinting at maybe playing that one more year after my contract expires, to be a part of that. And to get as much stick as I'll get in Portland, having played in college and one year professionally down there. It'll be a lot of fun. We'll see how the body feels, we'll see how I'm playing. I could see myself squeezing another year out.

SI.com: Do you hope to be part of this organization after you hang 'em up?

Keller: That was a big part of the conversation I had in coming back. I said at my introductory press conference, I would love to be to this franchise what Franz Beckenbauer is at Bayern Munich, to go into coaching and into the back room and then still be here 30 years later.

Ahmadinejad and the Two State Solution

2009-04-26T20:48:00.000-07:00

I'm going to pull completely from Barry Rubin's article on Ahmadinejad's responses to George Stephanopoulos' questions on the Two State Solution in the Middle East. However, I can't say I'm surprised on Mr. Madman's response. Since he denies the Holocaust, I can't ever imagine him allowing the existance of Israel, as Barry also noticed. I can't imagine a more vile person leading a country... Until Hamas agrees to the two state solution by agreeing to Israel's right to exist, nothing will ever change.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC. He knew what he was saying but others want to insist on refusing to understand him.

First the relevant exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide….
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that's fine.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel's existence, Iran will as well?
AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask them. But I'm asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?....
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.

And how did the Israeli online service of Yediot Aharnot newspaper, YNet News, play this? Here’s the headline: “”Ahmadinejad 'fine' with two-state solution.”

Well, not exactly. He refused to say that. All Ahmadinejad said was that he would support what the Palestinian people decided. What does that mean?

First, he personally believes that they would never accept a two-state solution so there’s nothing to worry about in that respect.

Second, of course, he knows that Hamas would never agree to such a thing and Hamas already controls how people vote in the Gaza Strip. One might presume that if a referendum was held there, the vote would be “100 percent” against a two-state solution. In addition, Hamas and others opposing a two-state solution would get between 30 and 70 percent of votes in the West Bank. A lot of Fatah supporters would also vote against it. The exact numbers aren’t important because whether the number is the higher or lower figure such a proposition would always be defeated.

Third, any two-state solution would only be made by Fatah. Iran supports Hamas. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority were to make a deal with Israel, Tehran would still back Hamas in overthrowing that government, using the deal to portray its rival as treasonous. Once Hamas took over the state of Palestine, it would tear up all the agreements and invite in the Iranian military.

So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.
But Ahmadinejad also put a little bomb in the interview which no one seems to notice. Let me repeat one of his answers:

AHMADINEJAD; “Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?“

What’s he saying here? “All Palestinian lands” might sound like saying the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem to Western ears, but everyone in Iran and among the Palestinians knows this means: all of Israel plus all the territories it captured in 1967.

So here’s what the Iranian president is saying: Suppose the Palestinians vote that they want all of Israel, would the United States accept that? The answer, of course, is “no” and so, Ahmadinejad is saying: I’m the one in favor of democracy and you’re against it.

(According to him, of course, Israelis have no rights to a state so they don’t get to vote.)

Ahmadinejad has built his own career on regarding the West as extremely stupid, cowardly, and easy to fool. Many or most of his colleagues in the Iranian regime agree with him.

I could write at this point that the one exception was when in the mid-1980s the United States was appearing ready to attack Iran unless it ended the Iran-Iraq war. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did so but I think he was misreading American intentions (albeit to the credit of U.S. policymakers in pulling off that bluff).

Still, I’m tempted to say that up to now that the Iranian leaders’ assumption has never proven to be wrong.

h/t augean stables

Halliburton vs. GE

2009-04-23T21:23:00.000-07:00

Glad to be back!!!! Sorry, but haven't been in the mood to blog. Although, there's been a shit load of crap to blog about. I know it's been a couple of months and I've chosen to pass on commenting. Obama's admin has been a worthy subject as has been MSNBC's abject 'reporting' of the new administration. But how do you quantify crap . . . Lord knows the rabid Left tried during the Bush admin. And this was rightly so! After all, crap is crap. But what is so righteous is when the Left is called out on their righteousness by the Right!!

Look, Halliburton was the poster child of the Right's military industrial complex during the Bush admin. Now guess who is the poster child of the Left's eco industrial complex?? Well, that'd have to be the fine folks at General Electric!! While they push the eco agenda, they gather government chits on eco credits!! Who is going to benefit from the 'cap `n trade' more than GE with their wind turbine program??

And where is the Left on this corporate sponsorship of government programs?? Silent of course...

The Right has many faults, but the Left has them too. They just refuse to own up to them....

Hamas and the U.N.

2009-02-04T20:49:00.000-08:00

Well, new router is in place and I'm back!!

Ok, so now we hear about some Hamas atrocities directly from the U.N.

JERUSALEM – A U.N. spokesman says Hamas police in Gaza have seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.

Spokesman Christopher Gunness says Hamas police raided a U.N. warehouse in Gaza City on Tuesday evening. He says police snatched 3,500 blankets and more than 400 food parcels.

The aid is vital now because Gazans are facing hardship after Israel's three-week military offensive against Hamas.

Hamas has ruled Gaza since it seized control of the territory in 2007. Gunness said Wednesday this is the first time Hamas has seized U.N. aid.

Israeli officials have charged that the militant group routinely confiscates supplies meant for needy Gazans.

A Hamas government spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

But wait there's more!!

Seems the supposed Israeli bombing of the U.N. school wasn't what it was alleged. Remember, the Israelis, at the time, said they were fired upon by Hamas, but no one believed them. Well, it now seems it was all true! Of course, that's because the U.N. says so....

The United Nations has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza city of Jabaliya last month hit a school run by a UN agency.

"The humanitarian coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school," the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in its latest weekly update on the situation in Gaza.

It stressed that its initial report of the January 6 incident correctly stated that Israeli shells hit outside the school run by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA, but that it later referred to "the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabaliya."

The Israeli military initially said its forces had responded to hostile fire from within the UN school but later reportedly retracted that statement.
The attack sparked widespread outrage in the midst of Israel's deadly offensive in Gaza

I do believe the principle of the United Nations is noble. However, it's be usurped and rendered impotent by the chamberlains and the rampant anti-American attitude. This with all the money the US provides...too bad.

h/t LGF

Mother of All Quagmires

2009-01-29T18:20:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the slow blogging. I've had router issues.

Once again Michael Totten has written an excellent expose on the Middle East. There is no easy answer to the Israel/Palestinian issue.

Posting

2009-01-17T19:43:00.002-08:00

Sorry for the lack of postings, have been having router problems.

Quick thoughts:

Israel is pounding the shit out of Gaza. Good! They need to pound Hamas. I've seen YouTube vids of the heroic Hamas fighters using children as shields as well as firing rockets from schools. Sorry, but can't link due to router problems.

Obama's inauguration - I'm filled with hope. I want to see what this man can do!! I may not have voted for him, but I still wish him to succeed. Bush was a wanker. He may have protected us from a security prospective, but he was not a true conservative. His 'compassionate conservatism' was nothing but bunk...

Premier Club Rock Bands

2008-12-03T21:32:00.000-08:00

EPL Talk has a cool entry on if Premier clubs were rock bands. As luck would have it, my two favorite clubs (Chelsea and Newcastle United) also are matched with two of my most fav bands!!

Arsenal - The Gunners used to be on top of the world, but no matter how gifted they are, they still feel like REM to me. Lots of talent but they’re never going to be as big as they once were.
Aston Villa - Martin O’Neill, himself from Northern Ireland, would feel right at home with The Undertones, the Northern Irish band best known for the song “Teenage Kicks.” While they’re not teenagers, Villa has plenty of youth talent such as Ashley Young, James Milnar, Isaiah Osbourne and Curtis Davies.
Blackburn Rovers - The heavy metal sound of Motorhead is a perfect accompaniment to Blackburn’s rough and tumble style of play. It makes you wonder if Motorhead’s “Ace Up Your Sleeve” tour was named for Blackburn’s own “ace,” aging striker Robbie Fowler.
Bolton Wanderers - It’s appropriate that Bolton is synonymous with Metallica. “Enter Sandman” is an appropriate title for watching Bolton apply their physical tactics which can quickly become boring to watch.
Chelsea - If the Blues move from Stamford Bridge to Battersea, then Pink Floyd would be the best resemblance to Chelsea. But if a move isn’t on the cards, then the closest thing to the Chelsea of the 1970’s would be the Sex Pistols, who routinely hung out at boutique shops on the trendy Kings Road near Chelsea’s home.
Fulham - While not a rock band per se, Blur’s bass player Alex James is a massive Fulham supporter.
Everton - The most famous rock star synonymous with Everton is the one and only Paul McCartney, a self-confessed Toffees supporter.
Hull City - What do Hull City and Faith No More have in common? One hit wonders.
Liverpool - Most neutral fans continue to be awestruck by the amazing football anthems that emanate from Anfield stadium on Merseyside. The only rock band that gets strangers singing as much as Liverpool fans do is Queen, creator of several rock anthems. Plus, like Liverpool, they were big in the late seventies and early eighties.
Manchester City - With a song called “Champagne Supernova,” who else but Oasis would be a perfect fit for City, especially since the band members are already massive fans.
Manchester United - There are few football clubs who are as big worldwide and as polished as U2. It often seems that they can’t do any wrong. Alex Ferguson is Bono, saying whatever he wants whenever he feels like it. Both United and U2 seem indestructible.
Middlesbrough - Middlesbrough supporter and rocker Chris Rea is best known for the aptly named single “The Road To Hell.”
Newcastle United - Did AC/DC lead singer Brian Johnson pick Newcastle as his favorite team, or was it the other way around? AC/DC’s song titles seem made for Newcastle United. Consider “It’s A Long Way To The Top,” “Ballbreaker” (a tribute to Joey Barton?), “Moneytalks” (Mike Ashley), “Highway to Hell” and “The Razors Edge” (on the precipice of relegation).
Portsmouth - The Pompey squad features seven Frenchmen, and players from Cameroon (Lauren), Iceland (Hermann Hreiðarsson ), Senegal (Papa Bouba Diop), Nigeria (John Utaka and Kanu), Croatia (Niko Kranj?ar), Scotland (Richard Hughes ), Wales (Richard Duffy), Mali (Djimi Traoré), Ireland (Marc Wilson) and Canada (Asmir Begovic). If Portsmouth was a rock band, they’d be Motley Crue.
Stoke City - When you think of Stoke’s Rory Delap, you have to think Cheap Trick.
Sunderland - If Sunderland was a rock band, it’d be the Eurythmics fronted by guitarist and Sunderland supporter Dave Stewart.
Tottenham Hotspur - Genesis’s lead singer and drummer Phil Collins is reportedly a massive Spurs fan.
West Bromwich Albion - Tony Mowbray’s side this season hasn’t been playing like worldbeaters, but they have the world’s greatest guitarists, Eric Clapton, as one of their fans. Clapton played a concert for skipper John Wile’s testimonial year back in 1982 and draped an Albion scarf across his guitar on the back sleeve of his album “Backless.”
West Ham United - Any investor considering a buy-out of West Ham United should heed the song title “Run to the Hills” by Iron Maiden whose band leader Steve Harris is a massive Hammers fan.
Wigan Athletic - It’s only fitting that the best known band from Wigan, The Verve, have a discography with an album titled “A Northern Soul” and song titles such as “Lucky Man” and “Bitter Sweet Symphony.” “Lucky Man” could have been written about Paul Jewell after he helped the club escape relegation. And the chorus of “Bitter Sweet Symphony” with the lyrics “I can’t change, I can’t change” could sum up the mood of the town of Wigan who seem rooted to their rugby league roots instead of coming out in droves to watch their local football team.

Veteran's Day

2008-11-11T08:37:00.000-08:00

Thank you to all who serve or have served to keep the nation free.

High Cost of Education - Why?

2008-10-26T21:21:00.000-07:00

When I went to college, starting in 1980, the cost was a bargain compared to today. In 1980, I think it cost about $1000 a year. I enjoyed college sooo much I wound up going for seven years!! Of course, I didn't go for education but went to party my ass off. I was not very productive... I majored in sex, drugs and rock and roll. It's truly amazing I survived to become such a productive member of society.

For some time now, we've heard about the increased cost of higher education. How it's increased over the years.

For the 2000-01 academic year, annual prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board were estimated to be $7,621 at public colleges and $21,423 at private colleges. Between 1990-91 and 2000-01, prices at public colleges rose by 23 percent, and prices at private colleges increased by 27 percent, after adjustment for inflation.

And how it's eaten into the median family income:

Tuition has risen 126 percent (after inflation) since 1984 and is eating up an ever-growing chunk of family incomes. In 1984, the tuition and fees at a public, four-year college was just 4.8 percent of the median family income; today it's 9.5 percent.

These stats are from almost a decade ago and the increase is far greater today.

The cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at public four-year universities has increased 52 percent, from $8,439 in 2000-2001 to $12,796 in 2006-2007 (in current dollars); and

The cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at private four-year universities has increased 37 percent, from $22,240 in 2000-2001 to $30,367 in 2006-2007 (in current dollars).

We've heard about Obama's desire to provide affordable higher education to the masses:

we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

[...]

Finally, Obama says he will create a tax credit that would ensure the first $4,000 of a college education is free for most Americans.

This sounds great. I'm not exactly sure how he's going to pay for it all with the tax credits. But I can guarantee you the cost of higher education explode of the government winds up paying for everyone's college expenses. It's just economics. The universities will begin to inflate the fees knowing the government will payout. When the money finally runs out, where will we be left...

Now here the jest of this post.

Have any of you looked at the endowments of the major universities? Here's a definition of endowment:

Dictionary: endowment (ĕn-dou'mənt)
n.
The act of endowing.
Funds or property donated to an institution, individual, or group as a source of income.

Notice the phrase 'source of income'. It amazes me our higher learning institutions are charging outrageous tuitions while hoarding vast sums of money. Harvard's endowment in 2007? It's $34.6 BILLION dollars !! That's $1,456,940 per student (2006)!! Yale? How about $22.5 billion!! Public systems are not as fortunate, but let's not feel too sorry for them. The University of Texas has an endowment of $15.6 billion, University of Michigan has $7.1 billion...

I find it truly amazing all the major universities have such a vast pool of money they are accumulating while raising the cost of tuition at such an inflated rate. Where's the outcry from the Democrats? Why aren't they targeting their excesses? Could it be because the campuses are their playground?

I'm not for playing Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor (or Obama's desire to 'spread the wealth'). So I'd like to be consistent. But what's the difference between high class executives getting such high salaries while their workers earn such meager wages and high class universities gorging on such exorbitant endowments (not to mention high faculty salaries) while placing their student body in such debt? Where is the common good in this?

Until the Democrats address such inequities, I'll judge them to be insincere and in the pocket of the intelligentsia just as the Republicans are in bed with the corporate oligarchy.

Either way both parties have become our plutocracy, our ruling elite...

peace

Madness at White Hart Lane

2008-10-25T18:54:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of the Barclay's Premier League ( formerly the English Premier League), the hot teams were Tottenham Hot Spurs and Aston Villa. I picked them to place 6th with Villa in 5th and qualifying for UEFA. While Villa currently reside in 6th on the table, Tottenham dwell in last with an unbelievable 2 pts!! They've looked horrible!! They lost Keane to (hated) Liverpool and Berbatov to (evil) ManU, so they lost the heart of their scoring and it shows this season with only 4 goals and a -6 goal differential.

So after shafting manager Martin Jol last season, they've now dismissed Juande Ramos and are trolling after Portsmouth's Harry Redknapp. As good as ol' Harry is, I don't think he can save them from relegation. Only Southhampton ever fended off relegation with so few points.

The Guardian has an interesting take on the cause of the Hot Spur's woes. Seems Garth Bale is a jinx! I thought he was a promising young Welsh left back. I went so far as to pick him in a fantasy league for a bit. But the numbers just don't lie:

With Bale P: 15 W: 0 D: 6 L: 9 F: 19 A: 30 GD: -11 Pts: 6
Without Bale P: 32 W: 11 D: 9 L: 12 F: 53 A: 45 GD: +8 Pts: 42

peace

Obama's too late for Iran

2008-10-14T21:34:00.000-07:00

Much has been said about Obama insisting he never said he'd talk to Iran (or other 'bad' nations) without preconditions, although there's tape of him saying just that during a Democratic 'debate'.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

But what is truly amazing is his stand may be for naught. Seems the fine leaders of Iran have other ideas like preconditions for us!! How about the U.S. leaving the Middle East and to stop supporting Israel!!

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.

It is the Americans who are in dire need of reestablishing ties with Iran, he underlined.

Iran is not obliged to reestablish ties with the U.S., he said.

"If they take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared," he said.

It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in U.S. attitude, he underlined.

Well, it's good to know someone is clear on where they stand...

Debate and Election

2008-10-07T20:27:00.000-07:00

Took in the debate tonight. I've come to the conclusion this election is Obama's lose. His command of presence and eloquence is so superior to McCain it's not even funny. He's a natural where as McCain is surly and just not charismatic.

I think Obama was the designated victor tonight. He was just smooth and more in command. McCain, I'm sure, tried to be personable but failed. A side note - if I still drank, I'd love to play a drinking game with McCain's "my friends". We'd all be plastered after an hour and a half....

In reviewing the post-debate pundits, the consensus seems to be a clear Obama victory. There wasn't much McCain could do to close the gap and sure enough nothing happened to change it. As could be predicted, CNN and MSNBC clearly sided with Obama while Fox went with McCain. Have I mentioned recently how much I can't stand Keith Olbermann? He just makes my hair stand on end. He's as bad as Hannity but tries to pass himself off as a newsman. I just have a hard time watching him without gagging.

So, let's get ready for an Obama administration. It will be interesting and I hope it is a successful one. However, my biggest fear is an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic congress will run roughshod with a Progressive agenda on par with the New Deal era. If they enact all their desires, we will embark on a Socialist path with more government intrusion and dubious economic policies.

As much as I'm a political junkie, I think I'll have to abstain and just watch some baseball. I think it's only going to turn nasty and I just don't want to watch how ugly it's going to get.

Peace

Biden's Lack of Charity and Other Thoughts

2008-10-04T20:07:00.000-07:00

Well, Palin's tax returns were released on Friday. The Palin's earned only $166,080 for 2007. I think that's kinda low for a two income family where one happens to be a governor of a state, but then I don't know how much Todd worked in 2007 if he was the primary care giver of the family since she was in Juneau. Either way, this shows they truly are a middle-income family.

I'd heard how much (or how little) the Biden's had given to charity a couple of weeks ago and was aghast at how little it was. They've given only $3,690 to charity since 1998!! This in spite of earning $284,000 in 2006 and 2007 alone. Only $3,690 for the last 10 years?!?!? I'm insulted!! Here is a man who is eagerly, willing and wantonly, planning on using MY taxes to redistribute America's wealth and yet he is unwilling to use his own money to assist those less fortunate than him. I guess he feels his taxes are enough of a personal commitment. So much for his Catholic faith of providing for the poor. I guess his belief of taxes being patriotic is his new faith:

“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,” he said.

It reinforces the belief that Democrats just don't get how many Americans feel. We'd rather give our money to charities of our own choice than to give it to Government for them to dole out. Sad, just sad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Watched the VP debate on Thursday after a colonoscopy...talk about joy! I came in with questions about Palin after her interview with Katie Couric. The bits I saw were disturbing. Let's say some of the luster was lost. I began to question her readiness. There's no doubt she's set to be a major political player, but I was beginning to think it was a bit too soon.

However, after watching the debate, my fears were allayed. Don't get me wrong. She's still extremely green and has a lot to learn, but the foundation is there for her to be a power player. She held her own and sounded competent. She had a couple gaffes like that wacky expanding of the VP powers and mis-stating the commander in Afghanistan, but not nearly as bad as Biden's claim of the UN peacekeeping forces (at the behest of France and US) pushing out Hezbollah, his backing of 'clean' coal or that Obama never said he'd meet Iranian leader without preconditions. It's a shame Palin didn't pounce on these and nail him on them.

But I'm growing weary of this silly season and to think we have four more weeks of this nonsense.

Peace

Policy, Not Race

2008-09-27T17:09:00.000-07:00

Here's an article by Ross Balano in the KC Star which outlines my thoughts on voting for Obama.

So the race card has been played again this election; nothing new about that either. Democrats do it every election cycle. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend race.

Now again, if you aren’t liberal, you must be some kind of racist, right? After all, there’s no other reason why anyone would not vote for Obama, correct?

So let me get this straight. With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you don’t want higher taxes, you might be a racist.

If you think we should drill for more domestic oil, you could be a racist.

If you believe we should secure the borders, you might be a racist.

If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life or winning the war on terror, you just might be a racist.

Heck, if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be a racist.

I, for one, am tired of this old routine.

Let me be very clear: The problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Rather, it has to do with positions, beliefs and associations and the lack of any substantial experience that would qualify him to be president.

As I've mentioned before, my objection to voting for Obama comes clearly from not agreeing with his policies and nothing else. I happen to think he's the epitome of Cool.

Although I've seen several articles on a national scale posit the belief that if you don't vote for Obama, it MUST be because you're racist and worse, watch out if he loses. All hell will break loose, because it must have been stolen from him...Bullshit. I don't vote for Buddhists, because they're Buddhists. I don't vote for Texans, because they're Texan. I don't vote for whites, because they're white and I don't withhold my vote just because a candidate is not white. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. There will be Crackers out there who will not vote for Obama just because he's black, but also there will be others who DO vote for him just because he IS black. All of these people are ill informed and ignorant.

I feel fortunate to have friends on both sides who are not so shallow. We've had discussions on this topic and I'm glad to say we've all moved to a better place where color is not a factor to judging a person's merit.

Please, be informed and vote on merit. If America wants to vote in a Dem, then let it happen. We'll survive (although God help us if both the President AND Congress are Dems . . .). Obama is a good man, just not my cup o' tea.

Peace.

Debate 092608

2008-09-26T20:44:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm back...

I've refrained from blogging during the lonnnnng political season because it's been just that, lonnnnng. How I wish we were limited to no more than six months of campaigning. I'm a political junky but man, this has been tiring. And we're not even going to bring up the Sarah Palin issue. (maybe later!)

So I watched the debate. I came in thinking McCain was going to be in trouble. He's old... He's a curmudgeon. Yet, he held himself together without blowing up. I think he scored points on the economy by pointing out Obama's earmarks. I'm still wondering how Obama is going to cut taxes on 95% of America, those under 250K while increasing spending by billions of dollars. Does he expect 5% of America to pay for all that? Quite frankly, I don't believe him.

I've heard how the middle-class has been shrinking for the past 10 yrs. Has no one thought that it's shrinking because to "upper-class" has increased? From what I've read, the lower class has shrunk along with the middle class. So, where do these people go....

Back to the debate. I think Obama shows he's a bright man. He's in charge of the facts and a very good 'debater'. McCain's strength is his experience, especially in foreign policy and military issues. Obama's very personable while McCain is not.

As I've discussed with friends, I'd be honored to vote for Obama if I shared his beliefs. I think he's a good man, but I've studied him and truly believe he's not for me. Being a Libertarian, I feel he's for increasing Government's intrusion into our lives. McCain at least shows an inclination to get Government off our backs.

I don't think I'll have a candidate I'll be truly satisfied for years to come...

Now, a bit about the post debate discussion - I normally watch MSNBC and Fox. I applaud MSNBC's move of getting Olberman off as the face of these programs. I watched him on both conventions as truly was revolted. While I do think Fox is more on the conservative side, besides their 'opinion' talking heads, I think they can be some what objective. During this 'silly' season, MSNBC has shown me that they really are on the left. Olberman has tried to portray himself as next Edward R. Murrow but he's so in the pocket for the Dems that I have to disregard anything he says, just like Hannity. But at least Hannity doesn't try to portray himself as a 'newsman'...

Anyway, the post script on MSNBC has been mixed. Matthews has been a bit harsh, repeatedly leading on how McCain didn't look at Obama. how troll like McCain was and bringing up a load of 'talking points' that Obama missed. On Fox, the scooped MSNBC by having Bidden on right after the debate. Wallace tried to 'get' him on the experience issue but Bidden adroitly deflected the issue. I just can't wait for Maddow...not!! I can tell you how she's going to spin it... wanna bet?

Overall, I think McCain has to consider this a victory since he came in as an 'underdog' when it comes to debating. He scored some points while not blowing up. Obama scored some point by his knowledge and his skill.

Man, I can't wait for this to be over...

Financial Bailout

2008-09-24T21:34:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned before, I have little or no sympathy for those who've mortgaged their lives for a better house while those of us who have sacrificed with smaller dwellings saved and worked for a better life. While I've always questioned the massive payout clauses to departing CEOs, I've never begrudged them anymore than I would a sports athlete or movie celebrity. It's what the market pays out. Shareholders are ultimately responsible for those golden parachutes just as fans are responsible for the sport salaries.

I do scoff at the political gamesmanship currently en vogue in Washington. Democrats are aghast at what's happened even though their leadership was in charge of 'oversight' while the present administration's laissez faire only contributed to the nod-nod-wink-wink of the money shell game. All are culpable and yet we are left holding the bag.

I still don't know how I feel about bailing out the financial crisis. Being a Libertairian, I feel failure is the best medicine. We don't have a significant debt since we've made a conscious effort to live within our means, but we'd still feel the pain caused by those frivolous buffoons. And yet...I'd be willing to suffer if it righted the ship.

Below is an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson, pls enjoy:

Dr. Frankenstein's Wall Street

By Victor Davis Hanson

When the mortgage bubble burst, Americans were "shocked" at how many Wall Street buccaneers had been gambling in a vast pyramid scheme with someone else's money. Paper fortunes were made buying and selling questionable sub-prime mortgages on the silly assumption that such gargantuan inside profiting would always expand -- even as the number of homebuyers able to buy overpriced properties was shrinking.

Now after the recent crash in sub-prime mortgages and the stock of several investment firms, a trillion dollars in "assets" could be nearly worthless. An already indebted American government must restore some sort of trust to banks and markets by either printing money or borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors to guarantee loans.

All that remains of this Ponzi scheme is the election-year blame game. Republicans charge that important financial firewalls were dismantled by the Clinton administration while insider liberal senators got shady campaign donations in exchange for aiding Wall Street. Democrats counter that the laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Republicans for two decades encouraged financial piracy while tax policy favored the rich speculator over the middle-class wage earner.

But no one dares to ask what really drove the wheeler-dealer portfolio managers. Who re-elected these shady politicians of both parties? Who fostered the cash-in culture in which both Wall Street profit mongering and Washington lobbying are nourished and thrive? We citizens did -- red-state conservatives and blue-state liberals, Republicans and Democrats, alike. We may be victims of Wall Street greed -- but not quite innocent victims.

Let me explain. The profiteering was not just the result of a few thousand scoundrels on Wall Street or in Washington, as greedy and as bonus-hungry as many of them no doubt were. Look at the housing market as a sort of musical chairs in which everyone profited as long he grabbed a seat when the music stopped. Then those left standing -- with high-priced loans and negative equity when the crash came -- defaulted and stuck taxpayers with debt in the billions of dollars. But until then, most owners who had sold homes cashed out beyond their wildest dreams.

Thousands of dollars in past profits are still in sellers' bank accounts or were spent on their own consumption. If the shaky buyer at the bottom of the pyramid should not have borrowed to buy an overpriced house, then the luckier seller higher up hardly worried that the cash-strapped fool was paying him way too much with unsecured borrowed money.

We created the cultural climate for this shared madness. Television shows advised how to "flip" a house after putting in cosmetic improvements. Real-estate seminars and popular videos convinced us that homes were not places to live in and raise a family but rather no different from piles of chips on a Vegas table.

We created the phony populist creed that everyone deserved to own a house. So lawmakers got the message to relax lending standards in service to "fairness." But Americans forgot that historically nearly four in 10 of us aren't ever ready, or able, to sacrifice for a down payment, monthly mortgage bills, home maintenance and yearly taxes -- and so should stick to renting.

The problem went way beyond real-estate fantasies. Five-percent interest as a return on our money was once considered pretty good -- especially inasmuch as a factory or farm on the other side of the banking equation could not really stay in business paying 10 percent in interest to banks for its necessary borrowing.

But soon retirement-account holders and institutional investors began to expect as a given 7, 10 -- and even 20 -- percent "return" on their portfolios. Wage earners and professionals alike compared the glossy brochures that appeared in the mail, and then jumped to this 401(k) investment or that mutual fund to "maximize" retirement portfolio earnings.

How Wall Street managers, eager for more multimillion-dollar bonuses, planned to deliver on their promised sky-high returns no one asked. But it often proved to be more by hook-and-crook shell games than by financing new productive businesses or by extending credit for the production of real goods in vital plants.

In a larger sense, this zeal for quick profits and easy money reflected an oblivious too-good-to-be-true culture in which we drove larger cars but demanded more oil drilling from everyone except ourselves. We expected both expanded government entitlements and lower taxes.

Our government borrowed ever more money from foreign creditors, because it was a collective reflection of our own profligate financial habits. Of course, we should reform Wall Street and Washington -- and punish severely the crooks in both places. But Americans should remember that Frankenstein was not the name of the monster but of its creator.

Premier League Predictions!!

2008-08-16T19:12:00.000-07:00

I've been smitten with English League soccer for the last couple of years. Here's my hand at the year end table.

1. Chelsea - one of my two fav teams. Just too much firepower.

2. Manchester United - the hated ManU . . . one can hope for relegation, eh?

3. Liverpool - Torres, Gerrard? `nuff said.

4. Aston Villa - great moves off season.

5. Arsenal - beautiful football peters out over the long haul.

6. Tottenham - a lot of offense, but gave up a lot, too.

7. Portsmouth - Crouch and Defoe may click after a time.

8. Everton - didn't do squat in the off season.

9. West Ham Utd. - average last year, average this year.

10. Sunderland - greatly improved, tough manager, Keene.

11. Manchester City - owner turmoil, should self destruct.

12. Blackburn - new manager, up four levels. Can Ince keep it going?

13. Newcastle - my other fav team, but a whacked team. Who knows where they'll be.

14. Wigan - team as tough as their manager, Bruce.

15. Fulham - scrappy team who made improvements.

16. Middlesbrough - in the mix for relegation.

17. West Brom - relegation battle to the last day?

18. Bolton - just not impressed, manager will probably be the first to go, too.

19. Hull City - my heart says they stay up, but my head says down for the drop.

20. Stoke City - nobody could be as bad as last year's Derby, right?

These predictions are always a challenge. The August transfer window is still open and there are still rumors of pending transfers. In addition, the January transfer window allows those still hanging in there to make a bold move. I just hope Newcastle doesn't implode.

Personal Responsibility

2008-03-15T18:09:00.000-07:00

Several years ago during the high times of this decade, my wife and I made a choice. We were torn between moving from our 'cracker-box' rambler we'd owned for 10 years to a more up-scale neighborhood or refinancing it from a 30 yr to a 15 yr mortgage. It was tough. Our current school district is the worst in our county. Therefore we make a conscious choice of sending our children to a parochial school where they get a top-notch education. Some of our friends call us 'education elitists'. We wear that moniker proudly!! So, if we moved just two mile into the newer developments, we'd be able to consider public education.

Well, we chose to re-finance and were able to pay the same monthly mortgage payment as before and stay in our 'cracker-box'. We made the informed and correct choice.

Meanwhile, all around us, folks who decided to upgrade are struggling. I have NO sympathy for them. We knew what we were doing and so did these people.

Here's an Op-ed piece from Glenn Beck where I agree 100%. Whether it's people who doubled their mortgages to get a piece of the high life or states who think changing the rules only apply to 'other' states, our collective mindset for personal responsibility has evaporated as surely as the value of housing market.

We are doomed.

Obama in the Real World

2008-02-09T17:52:00.000-08:00

As an opened minded chap, I really do look at all the candidates to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses for the real world. I'm not locked out of them just yet. But that's not to say I'd really vote for all of them.

Appeal Experience Philosophy Electability

Obama McCain McCain McCain

McCain Clinton Clinton Obama

Clinton Obama Obama Clinton

I guess I'm most satisfied with McCain, but his age predicates him selecting a strong VP. If he chooses someone like Huckabee I'd be disappointed. But I've heard scuttlebutt that there's talk of a McCain/Condi Rice ticket. Now THAT'd be a fun Presidential race, eh? McCain/Rice v. Clinton/Obama.

I absolutely love the fact that we have an opportunity to pick between a woman and a person "of color". I just wish they were not so liberal. Being a fiscal conservative/social liberal, I have no choice but to pick McCain. As Hillary has already said, "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." We know she has grand ideas, but all of them will be coming out of my checkbook. With Obama, we know he's the most liberal Senator currently sitting. However, what will he do once he's in the Real World? Obama sounds great. I enjoy his speeches, so positive and uplifting. Unlike John Edwards, who is renown as an orator, but became so negative with his 'two Americas'.

Here's an article by Michael Totten discussing Obama's Syria policy. Once again, he's spot on. Is Obama just using the Bush-hating rhetoric - “Washington musts rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans” - to get elected or is he really that naive to think ALL of the Arab world and world in general is wrong in dealing with Assad and Syria. I hope he's just using the anti-Bush language and once in office (maybe) he'll begin to realize life is not so simplistic.

Senator Barack Obama went on the record about the never-ending political meltdown in Lebanon, and for a moment there I thought he might have it just right.

“The ongoing political crisis is resulting in the destabilization of Lebanon,” he said, “which is an important country in the Middle East. The US cannot watch while Lebanon’s fresh democracy is about to collapse.” So far so good. “We must keep supporting the democratically-elected government of PM Fouad Siniora, strengthening the Lebanese army and insisting on the disarmament of Hezbollah before it leads Lebanon into another unnecessary war.”

This is all excellent, so let’s get something out of the way. Barack Obama is not a leftist. He is a liberal. The difference between an American liberal and an American leftist on Lebanon is enormous. I can’t tell you how many Western leftists I’ve met who ran off to Beirut where they endlessly excuse or even outright support Hezbollah. (They are “victims” of Zionism, they aren’t pro-American like those icky “right-wing” bourgeois Maronite Christians, etc.) Some of these Hezbollah supporters, tragically, are journalists. They put me in the right-wing “imperialist” and “orientalist” camp for no more than saying what Barack Obama just said.

Obama’s problem isn’t that he’s on the wrong side. His problem is he’s the latest in a seemingly limitless supply of naïve Westerners who think they can reason with Syria’s tyrant Bashar Assad.

“Washington must rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans,” he said.

“What is bizarre about this sentence,” Lebanese political analyst Tony Badran said to me in an email, “is that the Lebanon policy has been precisely that. While Sen. Obama’s statement — and indeed conventional wisdom — tries to paint all Bush administration policies with the old brush of arrogant unilateralism, in reality, the Lebanon policy has always been a multilateral policy of consensus, through the UN security council, through international law, and through close partnership with European and regional allies like France and Saudi Arabia. It is unclear how Sen. Obama wishes to ‘replace’ that. The current policy is as consensual, multilateral and internationalist as you can get. What you need to replace ‘hollow rhetoric,’ as he put it, is not more ‘diplomatic engagement,’ it’s more tools of pressure.”

This is exactly right. Pressure of one kind or another is the only thing Bashar Assad, or his more ruthless father Hafez Assad, ever responds to.

Syria has exported terrorism to almost all its neighbors – to Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey. So far only Turkey has managed to put an end to it once for all, and did so by threatening to invade. Turkey could smash Syria to pieces almost as quickly and easily as the Israelis were they so included. So that, as they say, was that.

Likewise, Assad withdrew all his occupation troops from Lebanon in 2004 after a million Lebanese citizens – almost a third of the total population – protested in Beirut’s Martyr’s Square and demanded their evacuation. It wasn’t the protest, though, that forced Assad out. It was what he felt was extraordinary pressure from the international community, most pointedly from the United States. “I am not Saddam Hussein,” he said at the time. “I want to cooperate.”

I doubt the Bush Administration threatened an invasion of Syria. It wasn’t necessary. The United States had just pulled the trigger in Iraq.

“We have,” Tony Badran continued, “as have our allies and friends, tried talking to the Syrians and the result is always the same: disastrous failure. Mr. Obama might think that his own personal charm is enough to turn Assad into a gushing 14 year old girl at an N’Sync concert, but he should pay close attention to the recent experience of one of our closest trans-Atlantic allies, French president Nicholas Sarkozy.”

Sarkozy thought he could achieve what Obama says he’ll achieve. After finally getting over the learning curve he decided, as have all others before him, that the only solution is a united Western front against Syria. That united Western front would join the already existing united Arab front against Syria. Every Arab government in the world is aligned against Syria already. The only Assad-friendly government in the region is the (Persian) Islamic Republic of Iran. All Arab governments are ahead of Obama, just as they were ahead of Sarkozy, who refused to listen when they warned him.

Assad is not going to break the Syrian-Iranian-Hamas-Hezbollah axis because Obama talks him into it over tea after everyone else who has ever tried has failed utterly. Obama could be counted on to iron out at least some differences with European diplomats and Republicans in Congress, but that’s because they’re democratic, civilized, and basically on the same side. Syria is an enemy state and acts accordingly. Assad isn’t a spouse in a troubled marriage on the Dr. Phil show. Obama is no more able to flip Syria into the Western camp than Syria can convince the U.S. to join Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Common ground does not exist. We have nothing to talk about because what Assad wants first and foremost – Syria’s re-domination of Lebanon and its absorption into its state-sponsored terrorist axis – is unacceptable for everyone involved from Barack Obama to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Seniora to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

A united Arab-Western front against Syria might be effective. That’s what Assad is afraid of, and it’s the reason he continues to pretend what he wants is just “dialogue.” As if he just wants a friend and Bush is mean for not listening, as if “dialogue” is a cry for help so someone can help him kick his terrorist habit. There is always another sucker, somewhere, who thinks he or she can talk sense into the man and is willing to sabotage a united front in order to try.

Everyone who has ever tried to reason with Assad at length will tell you what I’m telling you now. It’s not a “liberal” or “conservative” thing, it just is. Obama is like the smart and popular college kid with a bright future, yet who still needs time to learn how the world works. He hasn’t acquired any foreign policy experience or expertise, and unfortunately his advisors are failing him here. They, of all people, should know this by now, yet they do not.

Obama desperately needs an advisor who understands Syria, and if he wants one who isn’t conservative he could could far worse than bringing on board political analyst and blogger Abu Kais, a Lebanese Shia who moved to Washington during his country’s civil war and is a Democratic opponent of the Bush Administration.

“Murder has been profitable in our country, and in the region,” he wrote last month after assassins murdered anti-terrorist investigator Wissam Eid with a car bomb. “No one is going after the killers – their harshest punishment to date took the form of ‘initiatives’ and ‘dialogue.’ Lebanon, once again, is where anything goes, a free killing zone sanctioned by its enemies, and by friends who talk too much and do nothing.”

Something About Bill

2008-01-26T18:26:00.000-08:00

I've never had a hardon for Bill Clinton like the Republicans. I thought he was a pretty good president, considering what other presidents have done in the past. I thought his many peccadilloes were disgraceful but not worthy of impeachment.

But I've grown weary of him like never before. His grandstanding and greater-than-thou attitude during this campaign season is revolting. He's using his past presidency as if gives him the right of anointing the next president, oh and she just happens to be his wife. His righteous indignation is laughable.

I've enjoyed the Democratic kerfuffle over racism and sexism in this race. I think it truly wonderful that a political party in America is seriously considering the nomination of both a 'person of color' and/or a woman. It's also truly a shame that for political reasons only I can not vote for either of them. I really wish I could, but I feel both of them are nothing more than socialist. The old white men don't thrill me either...

But I'm off on a tangent, back to Bill.

What a pompous ass he's become. His attitude is so condescending and pejorative. I find it insulting. The Bill and Hil show has become a tag team now. You just know they'll be one in the White House. This is something I dread even more than just Hilary.

Football in a Snow Globe

2008-01-13T18:37:00.000-08:00

That was some game.

The forecast on Friday called for cold but no snow. However, when I turned on TV on Saturday and saw the snow, I knew we were doomed. The Brett seems invincible in snow. The Packers didn't need any help but got loads from Marcus Pollard. (photo by Jeff Hanisch/US Presswire)

He's not solely to blame for the loss and considering Seattle is 0-8 in postseason road games since their only road win in 1983.

Is ANYONE going to stop The Magical Tom Brady? His performance was wonderful. What a show it'll be Brett v. Tom! Of course, they both have to get through one more game...

NFL Playoffs

2008-01-11T22:12:00.000-08:00

OK, time to see if the Seahawks are for real!!

Seattle 23 Packers 21
Pats 28 Jax 10
Colts 24 Bolts 14
Giants 21 Cowboys 20

Go Hawks!

A Little Diddy on Immigration

2008-01-10T20:47:00.000-08:00

I'll delve into the morass of immigration probably at a later date, but here's an article from Victor Davis Hanson. It is short and concise and lays out a political plan for both the Dems and Repubs. It is a measured plan for which I can buy into:

What then might an astute candidate advocate?

Close the border now through fencing, more agents, employer sanctions, enforcement of the law and verifiable identification. Restore faith in the melting pot by insisting that new legal arrivals learn English and the customs and protocols of the United States.

Explain to the Mexican and Central American governments that using the United States to avoid addressing internal problems -- while making easy dollars off the backs of their own expatriate laborers -- is over.

Finally, deport aliens who have broken the law, are not working or have just arrived. Some illegal aliens will not like the new atmosphere of tough enforcement and will voluntarily go back home. Others may have criminal records or no history of employment and should leave as well.

We, as a nation, need to come up with a reasonable plan. One that closes the boarder, punishes the employer and allows those here to prove and earn their stay.

So Sad - Where's the Outrage?

2008-01-06T17:41:00.000-08:00

I can't express my outrage enough when I see stories as outlandish as the one in Texas or the one recently in Canada. These are classified by the media as "Honor Killings", but I just can't call it that. There is no 'honor' in murdering your child or worse your children over some misguided belief of false pride. This 'pride' is not necessarily Muslim in origin, but Islam has embraced it with a blood lust. I tried searching the net to find any non-Muslim 'honor killing', but couldn't. Either it's virtually non-existent or just plain old murder. To murder your children takes a monster.

Here's a story from a couple months ago that should have had women all over the world uniting in outrage, but except for a few nights on the news cycle it was not as unifying as I'd have hoped. This is another example of Islam's misogyny and don't tell me I'm 'misunderstanding' Islam. Women are treated as chattel and you can't tell me different. It disgusting and I'm ashamed that women here and all over the world have not united to call these people out.

There is no cultural relativism with either the 'honor killings' nor Islam's misogyny. Both are wrong and evil, pure and simple.

2008-01-05T19:21:00.000-08:00

Sticking to my word, here’re a few thoughts for today:

>How `bout them Seahawks!!

Got all caught up in this game. Nothing like the playoff on a blustery winter day. Man, that was a great first half and a nerve wracking third quarter. But Hasselbeck is a stud. On to Green Bay next weekend. I like our chances since our defense is playing so well.

> EPL Football --

Man, I’m hooked on English football! I’ve been watching matches most weekends and recording ones I can’t watch live. I got hooked a bit last year, but am absorbed this year. Since I don’t have any ties or know anybody from England to attach my banner to what ever teams have caught my fancy.

Last year, I landed on Chelsea and Wigan. I wanted to pick one of the top four (Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool) and one from the ‘commoners’. Not exactly how I chose Chelsea. I like Terry and Lampard from the World Cup, but I think it was subconscious. The others’ colors are primarily red while Chelsea is blue. Also, I couldn’t find myself rooting for Man Utd since it would be like rooting for the Yankees. So I decided to root for the Blues.

Picking Wigan was pretty simple at the time. They had the only player in the league with the last name of McCulloch. Lee McCulloch was a pretty good striker from Scotland. So, it was a no brainer. But he went back to Scotland and joined the Rangers.

That left me in a bind. I had no loyalty to Wigan, so I decided to pick another team. I narrowed it down to Everton, Reading and Newcastle Utd. I like the way Everton plays and almost picked them, but chose Newcastle.

My logic in choosing Newcastle has been outted as faulty. Here’s my problem- I decided to choose Newcastle since it’s the region Dick Francis used to write about. He’s a mystery writer and former jockey. I love his books and his subject deals with horses and horse racing. Now here’s the problem – Dick Francis writes about Newmarket and NOT Newcastle . . . what a boob. I figured this out about four months into the season. Oh, well. I’ll keep rooting for them (at least for this year!!)

Back to Blogging

2008-01-02T20:08:00.000-08:00

Howdy! OK, here's the deal. I plan on takin' up the blog again. Let's see if I can post more than 13 times in two years, eh? That's quite pathetic really.

It's not that I haven't had much to say, but found myself just burnt out from politics and worldly crap. I find myself with more time on my hands now that I've quit drinking. Sad but true. My high blood pressure finally caught up with me. Thirty years of imbibing was truly a grand time, but when I became a walking time bomb (155+/100+) it's time to stop. So, I'm on 2 months sober with barely a twinge. Wish me luck.

Anyway, get ready for some more drivel. This can't be helped with the political season upon us. I just can't believe how much is riding on white bread Iowa and recalcitrant NH. Iowa is nothing but a popularity contest with who can turn out the most supporters. Oh the madness. More on this later. I don't want to get carried away on my first post back in the groove!

Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

2007-10-10T19:50:00.000-07:00

Did Churchill Have the Right Idea About Iraq?

By Shannon Monaghan

Shannon Monaghan studies history at Yale University and writes for the History News Service.

On Sept. 1, 1922, Great Britain's colonial secretary, the man responsible for the administration of the British presence in Iraq, wrote a scathing letter to his Prime Minister on the miserable state of that country and Britain's interests there. He closed his letter with these crushing lines:

"At present we are paying eight millions [in] pounds Sterling a year [the equivalent of half a billion dollars today] for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

The name of that colonial secretary? Winston Churchill.

The phrase "history repeats itself" is overused; the greater tragedy is that in this instance the cliche is entirely appropriate. President Bush appears to think that he can somehow escape the lessons that the past can teach us and that history will treat his misadventure in Iraq well. Experience does not bode well for his hopes.

By 1922, Churchill had no such illusory hopes about Iraq. In fact, he declared the task of managing the country "impossible."

Little has changed since Churchill came to that sobering conclusion. Like those who would today challenge the American president on Iraq, Churchill paid a price for his view. His prime minister severely rebuked him, and refused to allow even the notion of withdrawal to be brought before his cabinet. It took Great Britain ten years more of harsh lessons before it finally granted that nation its independence.

In making his case to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Churchill argued that Britain's course of action in Iraq was a waste - a waste of money, effort, time and political capital. The difficulties with Britain's stance that Churchill emphasized are those that the American public faces day after day, month after month, year after year.

Churchill declared the Arab officials of Iraq's British-backed King Feisal "incompetent." He noted the gross over-expenditure of monies in the region by the British government, which "it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay." Furthermore, he lamented that "no progress has been made in developing the oil." He was worried about British troops and desperately concerned about increased Turkish influence in the region and a potential Turkish invasion. He insisted that "there is scarcely a single newspaper . . . which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country."

In fact, Churchill strongly advocated immediately removing the British presence in Iraq if the provisional Iraqi government did not co-operate. Furthermore, he pointed out that in Britain the party had "no political strength to face disaster of any kind," and that the British public's opinion of the situation was so poor that a newly formed government at home would have to order "instant evacuation" to gain immediate support. After reciting at length this litany of failures, Churchill crisply stated, "Altogether, I am getting to the end of my resources."

One need only to turn on the news to realize that the United States is futilely struggling with the very same problems that Churchill struggled with - and more. The U.S. government and its military leaders cannot find a solution to the problems besetting the Iraqi government, the development and allocation of the country's oil, the influence of Iran and other countries in the region and sectarian violence. U.S. military forces face unrelieved dangers. Public opinion at home has soured on the war. Americans, like Britons in Churchill's day, have reached the end of their resources.

Ironically, Bush declared in 2004 that "I've always been a great admirer of Sir Winston Churchill, admirer of his career, admirer of his strength, admirer of his character -- so much so that I keep a stern-looking bust of Sir Winston in the Oval Office." If the President so admires Churchill, he should heed that great man's warnings about involvement in Iraq and remove American troops from that nation now.

A True Hero

2007-04-18T22:15:00.000-07:00

Not often in our lives do we really see a Hero. We try to equate the movie image with real live, but that truly is not the case. Movies, as expected, are nothing more than a hyperbole of life. I know we’ve often heard of courage with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade, but these heroes are ‘trained’ to sacrifice for the ‘greater good’ of the team.

But the actions of Liviu Librescu during the massacre at Virginia Tech are truly heroic. Here is a 76 year old man who ‘just’ happened to be a Holocaust survivor who give his life to safe his entire class on the official Holocaust Day acknowledged throughout the world (except in the Islamic/Arabic world).

I know there were others who showed heroism during this tragidy, but I am in awe of Mr. Librescu. Could I, would I try to barricade a door and look in the eyes of a mass murder and throw my body and soul to save a group of students??? It is said that Cho was able to push open the door(s) a bit as he was trying to enact his destruction.

I can’t imagine what Mr. Librescu saw in Cho’s eyes. Mr. Librescu would have been around twelve years old during his incarnation by the Nazis. Can you imagine as a young lad to witness the horrors of the concentration camps and then experience this? I wonder if the dead eyes of Cho were the same as those of the heartless guards. After hearing and seeing Cho’s unbelievable post-mortem manifesto, I’m even more impressed by those who sacrificed themselves.

After this horror, I choose to not acknowledge the devastation wrought by Cho, but the honor Mr. Librescu.

God Bless.

Can Secular West Understand?

2007-02-17T20:25:00.000-08:00

I was raised in pretty much a secular home growing up. I never remember going to church until I moved to Texas at the age of twelve. My early years were spent in So Cal, from Torrance to Encino. Once in Texas, I was required to go to Baptist church weekly. Can’t say it helped much as some people may attest… Today whudda thunk I’d attend Catholic church every week (albeit as a “practicing non-Catholic” as my wife calls it) AND send my children to private Catholic school??? More on that in future posts!

My original point was going to be growing up in a secular home, I’ve always given the benefit of the doubt when it came to religion to the believer. I was one of those dope smokin’ slackers in college that took up every religion that I could came across. I read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Daozang and the Book of Mormon; I thought all these religions were all basically good at heart. At times, I thought the Christian church was the least worthy of all the major religions due to its bloody past.

I never really studied Islam during this time and thought it was just a step child of Judaism and Christianity and thought Mohammad was just another prophet. I don’t think I’ve EVER been so naïve.

During Islam’s Golden Years, I have no doubt it was a thriving social and cultural leader, but that was between 700 to 1200 years ago. Now they’ve, and yes that is a massive generalization to say this, but I’m speaking from North Africa to Indonesia, devolved into a series of societies with petroleum and terrorism as the primary export.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I came across an article by Shlomo Engel today which I thought included several valid points.

The current war between Islam and the West is over the most fundamental cultural values of the two civilizations.

Followers of Western culture believe in the supreme value of human life, civilian rights, complete freedom of thought and human spirit, genuine pluralism of beliefs and views coexisting side by side, equal status of men and women, and a free economic and intellectual market that is constantly improving as a result of competition and the individual's right to advance.

Western culture also believes in the power of words and persuasion, the use of force as a last resort only, individualsism, limitless self-criticism and public criticism, and all other values of freedom and equality.

On the other hand, followers of the Islamic culture believe in one religion and one opinion meant to overtake the world through a Muslim crusade of blood and infidel bodies.

The well known duty of spreading Islam by the sword reflects the essence of this belligerent, murderous culture, which is willing to sacrifice millions of human beings (both Muslims and infidels) whose value is insignificant on the altar of the Muslim ideal of conquest and force.

In such a belligerent, violent society, there's of course no room for civil rights or any status for women, or any aspiration for education that is not zealously religious.

What is so amazing with today’s West is the lack of acknowledgement of Islam’s fundamental mistreatment of women.

It's difficult to point to a significant social movement by Muslims that espouses the values of education, freedom, equality, and peace. On the other hand, millions of Muslims are quick to avenge and destroy and kill and burn over any caricature or utterance they do not like.

Muslims are almost completely absent from the scientific and academic world, not to mention the Muslim woman.

This religious zealotry is unrelated to economic and social status, and is true for residents of luxurious palaces in Saudi Arabia as it is for residents of refugee camps in Gaza and Lebanon.

It is to be expected that merely presenting this war of civilizations will immediately elicit the regular derogatory insults of racism and fascism that are so much liked by Muslim fanatics and their innocent supporters in the West.

The Western world's great openness created a situation whereby the blatant, anti-democratic racism and inequality that is built into Muslim culture receives the same status and legitimacy as other Western cultural values.

Under this cover, the violent and fanatic aggressor allows itself to fight Western culture in its own home by demanding rights of equality and freedom that it doesn't believe in, but is glad to utilize in order to achieve its own destructive objectives.

[…]

The realization that a democracy must defend itself against those threatening to ruin it, even at the price of undermining the rights of those fighting against it, is a required condition for a victory by the sons of light against the sons of darkness – a war faced by the entire world, and particularly in Israel.

This is not just Israel’s fight but all of ours. Until we recognize what radical Islam is bringing to the West, we’re in dire peril being blinded by our sense of fairness which these folks don’t seem to fathom.

Jimmy Carter's Folly

2007-01-28T18:16:00.000-08:00

I’m sure most of you have seen Jimmy Carter’s book tour and subsequent explanation or rationalization of all the factual errors. It’s a shame how he’s turn into such a flamin’ anti-Semite, but then chances are he’s always been one.

Carter has always been considered somewhat of an intellectual, but his blatant dishonesty is beyond the pale.

CARTER: Page 57: The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations.

FACT: The 1949 armistice lines separating the West Bank from Israel never became permanent borders recognized by Israel, the United States or the U.N. Security Council. On the contrary, the Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement of April 3, 1949 specifically notes that the lines are not borders: "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

CARTER: Page 190: [The barrier] is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel’s internationally recognized border ...

FACT: The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that "Because of its meandering path into the West Bank, the [total 703 km length of the route] is more than twice the length of the "Green Line" – 315 km."

CARTER: Page 50: Perhaps the most serious omission of the Camp David talks was the failure to clarify in writing Begin's verbal promise concerning the settlement freeze during subsequent peace talks.

Washington Post Op-Ed, Nov. 26, 2000:

Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed.

FACT: Begin promised—and delivered—a three month settlement freeze. At a Sept. 17, 2003 symposium at the Carter Center, Israeli jurist Aharon Barak explained he was in the relevant meeting, had been the only one taking notes, and that his notes showed that Begin had agreed only to a three month freeze. Off camera Carter is heard to state, "I don't dispute that." William Quandt then added that while he had not been in the meeting, Cyrus Vance (Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State) had been and told him immediately afterwards that Begin agreed to a three month freeze. (See details and video clip here.)

Too many more examples to list, but pls review the numerous factual errors.

Red State Mentality

2007-01-06T16:26:00.000-08:00

Stumbled upon an interesting snippet from Inside the Beltway buried deep. John McCaslin brings up an interesting comparison which I've not heard of, yet.

"Weather Bulletins" from both North Dakota and Colorado are making the rounds on Capitol Hill, about how the regions are recovering from 90-mile-per-hour blizzards that dropped upward of 44 inches of snow, broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, cut power to tens of thousands, closed roads and stranded motorists in lethal snow banks.
Nevertheless, say the creators of the bulletins: "George Bush did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one blamed the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit. Our mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else. Our governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either. CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit — or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards. No one asked for a FEMA trailer house. No one looted. No Larry King, no Bill O'Reilly, no Oprah. ... "
It goes on and on and on, but you get the message.

Could this be the middle America work ethic verses the urban entitlement syndrome?

Happy New Year!!!

2006-12-31T21:21:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year! ! !

I’ll try to begin bloggin’ again shortly.

Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols

2006-05-16T19:19:00.000-07:00

I've been so delinquent in blogging due to apathy, sorry...but this just gets me. The Mexico govt has the audacity to threaten us with lawsuits for enforcing our laws and borders.

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants. Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.

So because we make it more difficult for them to cross, they're threatening to sue us...

Look, we need to truly be compassionate about the whole immigration process. I mean, if you have children raised as Americans, we really shouldn't force them back to their 'home' country. But then again, before we do any reformation, we REALLY need to be able to seal up the border as much as possible.

Wafa Sultan

2006-03-12T18:59:00.000-08:00

I don’t know about you, but I enjoyed reading in my local rag, The News Tribune, about Wafa Sultan and her lashing out at radical Islam. It was a joy. I’ve been waiting and waiting for moderate Muslims to unite and repudiate the Islamofacists. The rebuke has been few and far between for whatever reason.

The Religious Policeman has an excellent article on the moderate Muslim’s perspective. In addition, he links to MEMRI’s video of two of her interviews. Pls watch them. I have profound respect for her….and wish her health and happiness in face of what no doubt will be unrelenting harassment. She has true bravery.

What are your thoughts today?

2006-03-04T18:33:00.000-08:00

What are your thoughts these days? I’m not too moved by the Portgate issue, sorry to say. Both sides are on the roof tops bemoaning the thought of ‘foreign’ countries operating ports. When Sen. Boxer goes off, it’s rather laughable given the fact Chinese are operating two major ports on the West coast. I may not be 100% comfortable with foreign ownership, but let’s see what the impact truly is before we go off.

Victor D. Hanson’s Friday article once again is spot on:
Fear in the U.S. of Russian nukes made strange bedfellows during the Cold War, like our relationship with the shah of Iran, Franco, Somoza, and Pinochet. The logic was that such strongmen, unlike Communist thugs, would evolve eventually into constitutional governments, or, unlike elected socialists, they could at least be trusted not to turn their countries into satellites of the Soviet Union.
We paid a price for such realpolitik when the Berlin Wall fell. Few gave us the deserved thanks for bankrupting the Soviet empire, but we did get plenty of the blame for the mess left behind by third-world dictatorships.
Now Middle East autocracies use the same "it's either us or them" blackmail. They hope to survive the tide of democratization by showing off their antiterrorist plumage. The problem is that the defeat of terrorism — like that of global Communism — ultimately rests with promoting freedom, not authoritarianism.
Decades of supporting right-wing authoritarians did nothing to ameliorate a dysfunctional Middle East. Perhaps support for democratic reform will usher in Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, something worse than Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan, and a shaky post-Saddam Hussein government in violence-torn Iraq, but what else is the United States to do?
About what we are doing now: We should keep supporting the process, but not necessarily the result; much less should we subsidize elected anti-Americans. The key is to keep a low profile and promote consensual government, but without bullying or grand moral pronouncements when the odious are elected.
We should praise the relatively free voting that ushered in Hamas, insist that they institutionalize the process that brought them to power, but under no circumstances give such terrorists any American money as long as they pledge to destroy Israel.
Allowing the autocratic Mr. Mubarak to go his own way without any more American largess may well empower the Muslim Brotherhood. Fine. Let the zealots talk all they want about bringing corruption-free government to Egypt at last, and hatred of the United States too. In response, America need only quietly explain that we no longer subsidize dictators — or terrorists who are elected to power through principled American support for democratic elections. I'm sure that after all the invective subsides, the Egyptians can sort out both our logic and idealism.
I’ve long questioned the support of Egypt as being foolish. I also am not fearful of the election results of Iraq and Palestine. Democracy has a way of balancing out differences. After all, we’ve always had a ‘cordual’ relationship with India while not always agreeing with their relationship with some of our adversaries.

2006-02-13T17:52:00.000-08:00

You scored as Serenity (Firefly). You like to live your own way and donâ��t enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you.

Moya (Farscape)

81%

Serenity (Firefly)

81%

Babylon 5 (Babylon 5)

75%

Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)

75%

Bebop (Cowboy Bebop)

69%

Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix)

69%

FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files)

69%

SG-1 (Stargate)

63%

Deep Space Nine (Star Trek)

63%

Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica)

63%

Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda)

31%

Enterprise D (Star Trek)

31%

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com

VDH Post

2006-02-04T14:53:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the absence, I’ve just had no inclination to blog. I’m finding most of life inane, especially politics. From Alito to ‘Domestic Spying’, all is just gak and I just don’t care…

Yet, I do feel the Indignation felt by printing of cartoons in Europe is hypocritical. It’s the old ‘do as I say, not as I do’ mentality. They can dish it out, but not take it . . .

Victor Hanson has yet again posted an insightful piece on the lunacy of the Middle East. I do feel the next focus of American ingenuity should be on Alternate Energy. It is vital for the survival of the Western beliefs. Otherwise, we will be consumed…

From VDH:
Public relations between the so-called West and the Islamic Middle East have reached a level of abject absurdity. Hamas, whose charter pledges the very destruction of Israel, comes to power only through American-inspired pressures to hold Western-style free elections on the West Bank. No one expected the elders of a New England township, but they were nevertheless somewhat amused that the result was right out of a Quentin Tarantino movie.
Almost immediately, Hamas's newly elected, self-proclaimed officials issued a series of demands: Israel should change its flag; the Europeans and the Americans must continue to give its terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars in aid; there will be no retraction of its promises to destroy Israel.
Apparently, the West and Israel are not only to give to Hamas some breathing space ("a truce"), but also to subsidize it while it gets its second wind to renew the struggle to annihilate the Jewish state.
All this lunacy is understood only in a larger surreal landscape. Tibet is swallowed by China. Much of Greek Cyprus is gobbled up by Turkish forces. Germany is 10% smaller today than in 1945. Yet only in the Middle East is there even a term "occupied land," one that derived from the military defeat of an aggressive power.
Over a half-million Jews were forcibly cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, and other Arab cities after the 1967 war; but only on the West Bank are there still refugees who lost their homes. Over a million people were butchered in Rwanda; thousands die each month in Darfur. The world snoozes. Yet less than 60 are killed in a running battle in Jenin, and suddenly the 1.5 million lost in Stalingrad and Leningrad are evoked as the moral objects of comparison, as the globe is lectured about "Jeningrad."
[…]
The architects of September 11, by general consent, hide somewhere on the Pakistani border. A recent American missile strike that killed a few of them was roundly condemned by the Pakistani government. Although a recipient of billions of dollars in American aid and debt relief, and admittedly harboring those responsible for 9/11, it castigates the U.S. for violating borders in pursuit of our deadly enemies who, while on Pakistani soil, boast of planning yet another mass murder of Americans.
Pakistan demands that America will cease such incursions — or else. The "else" apparently entails the threat either to give even greater latitude to terrorists, or to allow them to return to Afghanistan to destroy the nascent democracy in Kabul. American diplomats understandably would shudder at the thought of threatening nuclear Pakistan should there be another 9/11, this time organized by the very al Qaedists they now harbor.
The list of hypocrisies could be expanded. The locus classicus, of course, is bin Laden's fanciful fatwas. Oil pumped for $5 a barrel and sold for $70 is called stealing resources. Tens of millions of Muslims emigrating to the United States and Europe, while very few Westerners reside in the Middle East, is deemed "occupying our lands." Israel, the biblical home of the Jews, and subsequently claimed for centuries by Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Ottomans, and English is "occupied by crusader infidels" — as if the entire world is to accept that world history began only in the seventh century A.D.
[..]

So take the dependency on oil away from Europe and the United States, and the billions of petrodollars the world sends yearly to medieval regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the other five billion of us could, to be frank, fret little whether such self-pitying tribal and patriarchal societies wished to remain, well, tribal. There would be no money for Hezbollah, Wahhabi madrassas, Syrian assassination teams, or bought Western apologists.
The problem is not just a matter of the particular suppliers who happen to sell to the United States — after all, we get lots of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. Rather, we should worry about the insatiable American demand that results in tight global supply for everyone, leading to high prices and petrobillions in the hands of otherwise-failed societies who use this largess for nefarious activities from buying nukes to buying off deserved censure from the West, India, and China. If the Middle East gets a pass on its terrorist behavior from the rest of the world, ultimately that exemption can be traced back to the voracious American appetite for imported oil, and its effects on everything from global petroleum prices to the appeasement of Islamic fascism.
Without nuclear acquisition, a Pakistan or Iran would warrant little worry. It is no accident that top al Qaeda figures are either in Pakistan or Iran, assured that their immunity is won by reason that both of their hosts have vast oil reserves or nukes or both.
[…]
In the meantime, until we arrive at liberal and consensual governments that prove stable, there will be no real peace. And if an Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria obtains nuclear weapons, there will be eventually war on an unimaginable scale, predicated on the principle that the West will tolerate almost any imaginable horror to ensure that one of its cities is not nuked or made uninhabitable.
Yet if billions of petrodollars continue to pour into such traditional societies, as a result they will never do the hard political and economic work of building real societies. Instead their elites will obtain real nuclear weapons to threaten neighbors for even more concessions, as they buy support at home with the national prestige of an "Islamic bomb." Saddam almost grasped that: had he delayed his invasion of Kuwait five years until he resurrected his damaged nuclear program, Kuwait would now be an Iraqi province, and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well.
In the long-term, democratization in the framework of constitutional government has the best chance of bringing relief. But for the foreseeable future the United States and its allies must also ensure that Iran, and states like it, are not nuclear, and that we wean ourselves off a petroleum dependency — to save both ourselves, the addicts, and even our enemies, the dealers of the Middle East.

Left's Cross

2005-12-22T21:58:00.000-08:00

As you can tell by the lack of blogging, I’ve lost much interest…apathy is a drag.

Even Bush’s domestic spying didn’t draw my ire…. But leave it to Robert Dreyfuss to bring me out of my funk.

I’ve often heard from the Right how the Left is nothing but negative in their out look of life in general. I’ve often thought that was not an untrue statement…but tonight, it became clear just how negative the Left is by Dreyfuss’ column.

They hope all fail…which brings them joy.

French Hypocrisy

2005-11-04T18:05:00.000-08:00

France is getting a taste of what they’ve been fermenting. Moonbat Central leads to a New York Sun article nicely pointing out the hypocrisy of the French. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of folks.

One thing pointed out in the Sun article:

A number of observers of the French scene have looked at population trends and suggested that France is on its way to becoming a Muslim country (one that would, let it be noted, be armed with hydrogen bombs).

Nice thought, eh?

Sharia Justice

2005-11-01T20:56:00.000-08:00

Now, I know the USA is not to be referenced when dealing with humane justice with juveniles. Although I may think 13 – 14 yr olds know right from wrong, I don’t think they should be tried as adults…

That being said, I surely don’t think Sharia law is the answer either…check out the justice for an eight yr old caught stealing bread.

Note: site was shut down due to traffic, but thanks to Orbusmax.

Sad from the land of zombies

2005-10-31T14:17:00.000-08:00

Sad from the land of zombies…

Far Left are just as wacked as the Far Right.

Thanks to Orbusmax

Zionist forewarned

2005-10-27T22:15:00.000-07:00

OK, so tell me again why we shouldn't defend Israel?

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Talk about little penis syndrome . . .

Being the General

2005-10-23T19:16:00.000-07:00

And here I like William Wallace...

King Edward I
You scored 62 Wisdom, 73 Tactics, 52 Guts, and 50 Ruthlessness!

Or rather, King Edward the Longshanks if you've seen Braveheart. You,
like Edward, are incredibly smart and shrewd, but you win at any
costs.... William Wallace died at his hands after a fierce Scottish
rebellion against his reign. Despite his reputation though, Longshanks
had the best interests of his people at heart. But God help you if you
got on his bad side.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 40% on Unorthodox
You scored higher than 60% on Tactics
You scored higher than 41% on Guts
You scored higher than 61% on Ruthlessness

Link: The Which Historic General Are You Test written by dasnyds on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Coptic Troubles

2005-10-23T18:20:00.000-07:00

Another fine entry from Wretchard on the West's perception of Christianity in Egypt.

Young Singers Spread Racist Hate

2005-10-23T17:13:00.000-07:00

This is sad . . . once again, young minds fill with crap. But it’s no different than young rappers spewing sexist, gangsta garbage. This is the same mind set which punishes young bright minds, being ridiculed as Uncle Toms for using their minds.

Presidential Ratings

2005-10-14T12:45:00.000-07:00

I don't really put much faith in polls these days since it seems America is so polarized these days, but I did find this article rather interesting.

Data from six polling organizations in October show an average of 39.5 percent job approval for Bush.

But according to the Gallup Organization, that's a higher mark than the low points for all commanders in chief dating back to Lyndon Johnson in the mid 1960s.

The low points for recent commanders in chief are as follows:

Bill Clinton: 37 percent
George H. W. Bush: 29 percent
Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
Gerald Ford: 37 percent
Richard Nixon: 24 percent
Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent
To find presidents with higher low-point approval ratings than Bush, one has to go back to John Kennedy at 56 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower at 48 percent.

UN controls the WWW

2005-10-06T18:43:00.000-07:00

Sorry for my extended absence. I’ve been burnt on Politics, so I just haven’t had the heart to comment on all the BS.

But I stumbled on this tonight and felt compelled to comment.

[Dave] Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.

Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.

[…]

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
While I find the ‘principle’ of the UN an altruistic ideal, it’s just like Communism. It looks good on paper, but is unmanageable by humans. I cannot imagine the bureaucratic morass the Internet will be imbroiled in if the UN is in control of the WWW.

Cindy's World

2005-09-16T20:09:00.000-07:00

I don't have much use for Cindy Sheehan these days. She's become a cariacture of what she once was. Strata-Sphere has been able to pick up on the latest wackiness coming out of her mouth.

The people in LA who were displaced have nice, if modest homes that are perfectly fine. I wonder why the government made them leave at great expense and uproot families who have been living in their communities for generations.

To save them from the flood waters and storm surge??? Am I close?

After we arrived at Camp Casey III, we took the Veterans for Peace “Impeachment Tour Bus” into New Orleans after stopping at the distribution center to pick up some supplies in Covington.

Sheehan’s Impeach Bush gang took supplies supposedly for those in need in a disaster zone the size of Britain???

Even though Algiers came through Katrina relatively unscathed, our federal government tried to force (mostly successfully) the people out of the community.

Cindy, the Mayor and Governor ordered the evacuation. The Feds just supply the transportation and needed supplies. This women is dense.

They didn’t want to go to the Superdome, because their homes were pretty intact: they wanted to stay and have food and water brought to them.

They wanted door-to-door catering service??? I do too, come to think about it.

When I think of how many other poor neighborhoods are being decimated and made so desperate and hopeless by the failed policies of the Bush administration, it makes me so angry.

Cindy, you are aware a hurricane hit the place - not Bush’s policies???

One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.

Imagine? This woman should never ‘imagine ‘because it simply illustrates that there is a fairly simple mind at work.

When our fellow citizens are told to “shoot to kill” other fellow citizens because they want to stay alive, that is military and governmental fascism gone out of control.

This moonbat is over the edge. I guess she thinks police should not shoot people either - since the National Guard, in these kinds of situations, are being used as police resources. This woman is clueless.

Tens of thousands of families in our country have been devastated because of the incompetence and callousness of our so-called leadership.

Cindy wonders why no one waves the magic wand that puts it all right again, just like on TV. Cindy cannot understand how we could not have stopped the hurricane with our mighty force fields…..

George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.

This women is nuts.

I couldn't agree more.

Katrina

2005-09-05T18:31:00.000-07:00

I’ve been just amazed with all that Katrina has wrought. I’ve been reticent in responding to the devastation and assistance for several reasons. Foremost being, not all the facts were in.

First, I think the primary fault squarely fall on the shoulders of three people: New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and finally FEMA Director Michael D. Brown. All three should be held accountable.

Second, while I think Pres. Bush was 24hrs too slow in his response, I think that had to do with poor information not a ‘lack of compassion’ for the poor.

Finally, this was an absolute embarrassment, an entire breakdown of emergency management. We’ve know for decades the probability of the devastation awaiting New Orleans. So, this is not Bush’s fault. It’s the entire bureaucratic morass which is too be blamed. How can FEMA not have food and water ready? We knew for days the storm was coming.

From WaPo:
Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.
The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.
A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.
Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.
And this from FEMA Director Michael D. Brown:
Brown, a frequent target of New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin's wrath, said Saturday that "the mayor can order an evacuation and try to evacuate the city, but if the mayor does not have the resources to get the poor, elderly, the disabled, those who cannot, out, or if he does not even have police capacity to enforce the mandatory evacuation, to make people leave, then you end up with the kind of situation we have right now in New Orleans."
New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas acknowledged that the city was surprised by the number of refugees left behind, but he said FEMA should have been prepared to assist.
"Everybody shares the blame here," said Thomas. "But when you talk about the mightiest government in the world, that's a ludicrous and lame excuse. You're FEMA, and you're the big dog. And you weren't prepared either."
In Baton Rouge, Blanco acknowledged Saturday: "We did not have enough resources here to do it all. . . . The magnitude is overwhelming."
State officials had planned to turn to neighboring states for help with troops, transportation and equipment in a major hurricane. But in Katrina's case, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida were also overwhelmed, said Denise Bottcher, a Blanco spokesman.
Eu Rota has a good response to some issues brought forth by the anti-Bushies.
The Left in the US seems determined to find any angle (ranging from the irrational to the psychotic) to pin the blame of the devastating Hurricane Katrina on President Bush. They have tried so far: the global warming caused it angle, strike one; not enough Louisiana National Guard troops due to the war in Iraq, strike two; now, Bush cut money earmarked for flood control due to the war in Iraq, hopefully strike three.
It think it boils down to FEMA’s Brown is political crony ill prepared to run this vital office. He must go.

Darfur

2005-08-19T20:44:00.000-07:00

Darfur. What does that mean to you? Or better yet, DOES it mean anything to you?

Here’s an excellent article on what’s happening in Darfur. I was not sold on the Oil for Slaughter version before reading this. I’m still not sold 100%, but David Morse makes an excellent argument.

My belief of the inattentive concern for Darfur, as well as what happened in Rwanda, boils down to pure racism. It may not be an acknowledged racism, but it’s there none the less. Euro-centric folks have always had this paternalistic attitude toward Africa. It was one of the driving factors of the colonialism of Africa in the 19th century. Can you think of another reason for the First World’s lack of concern for the slaughter? Remember the horror of Bosnia? All the while, Rwanda was occurring.

Miscarriage of Justice

2005-08-19T18:44:00.000-07:00

All I can say is Oh My God!!! What in the world just happened?? Two illegal aliens steal into this country, are apprehended by a militia group, and according to them:

The immigrants also said that the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.

Of course, that was after they may have been roughed up a wee bit . . .

Mancia and Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Texas, in March 2003 by Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mancia with a pistol.

But give them the manÂs property?!?!?

The immigrants said the ordeal had left them with post-traumatic stress.

Post-traumatic stress? How do they know it wasn't caused by the "coyotes"?

But still, give them the man's ranch???? They're ILLEGAL after all.

Now, I respect Morris Dees for what he did to the Aryan Nation up in Idaho, but to call this Âpoetic justiceÂ after representing these ILLEGAL immigrants, is a miscarriage of justice

Ted Rall

2005-08-18T11:20:00.000-07:00

I’ve NEVER been a Ted Rall fan. Some of his work is just revolting. However…..this article doesn’t leave me much to argue with and that’s disturbing. I still think he’s an ass.

Shame

2005-08-16T22:04:00.000-07:00

As the few of you know, I’m in the Healthcare business and THIS is why I HATE insurance companies. I truly feel for these folks.

RU-486

2005-08-16T21:33:00.000-07:00

I’ve always been a strong proponent of RU-486 and have NEVER understood Pro-Lifers opposition. I’m not interested in their moral obligation to women; they’re never on good footing with me anyway. But INDC’s got a great (and lengthy) article rebuffing Michelle Malkin’s feeble attempt at demonizing RU-486 on a logical and statistical level. Well done, Bill.

Clintons Fantasy

2005-08-16T20:57:00.000-07:00

I was doing the daily Daou crawl when I came upon this unbelievable nugget from Neal Boortz. I couldn’t believe it at first.

Now, I’ve never been a Clinton basher as I’ve indicated in previous posts. I thought he was alright, but just made some poor choices. Unfortunately, he wasn’t truthful when it came down to “it” and it caused us all grief. But this…

Ex-president Bill Clinton now says he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks – if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the al-Qaida mastermind was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
"I desperately wish that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole," Clinton tells New York magazine this week. "Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."
"I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11," he added. "But it certainly would have complicated it.”
Despite his failure to launch such an attack, Clinton said he saw the danger posed by bin Laden much more clearly than did President Bush.
"I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did," he told New York magazine.

Bush is renowned for neither apologizing nor acknowledging errors – Stubborn Ass!! But please read this and TELL ME Clinton is NOT living in a fantasy world!!! Where as Bush is a stubborn, principled fool, Clinton is an unprincipled and insecure fool. His credo is “someone like me, please. Anyone?!?”

Moral Vacancy?

2005-08-15T20:07:00.000-07:00

Once again, sorry for the lack of posting. I'm working from home now and having to fight the blahs.

I've been checking out the Daou Report's daily stream as usual. Like quite a few, I''m not overly impressed with Mother Sheehan, but donÂt doubt her right to protest. I just think this is all rather tacky. She's become somewhat of a caricature of herself. I read the newspaper article often quoted by both sides and she did have some rather pleasant comments for Pres Bush which she now recants. But now sheÂs out to embarrass him. Tacky. . .

But what has left me aghast is an article on Leiter Reports from E.L. Doctorow. I'm left almost speechless in its audacity. For Doctorow, profess to "know" what Bush thinks, feels and means in his actions (or inactions). I'm not a big fan of Bush, but this is ridiculous . . .

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

There's more but I just can't... Discourse is lost in America today.

From A to B to G

2005-07-26T19:52:00.000-07:00

I’ve always been intrigued by the Left’s view of America’s actions toward North Korea, especially during Bush’s regime. They seem to lay the sole blame of NK’s nuclear development at the feet of Bush. I find that extremely disingenuous (aka a lie!!) What in the hell do they think their ‘Savoir’ Bill Clinton did for eight years? Keep them in “developmental lock-down”? A Pandora’s Box just waiting for an incompetent boob to unleash to the world? Please….

A nuclear program just doesn’t pop up over night. So this tells the world NK was playing the Clinton Admin as fools, while stringing them along. But don’t try to tell that to the Left. They feel the whole NK development program is the fault of the Bush Admin.

Make no mistake; I’ve never disparaged the Clinton Admin in any of my rants. I thought he was a rather decent President. I didn’t agree with some of his plans, but I thought he was better than Bush I and Carter combined.

So, it was something to stumble upon this article by Sue Raging Roz during my Daou feed this evening. The title was US Backing off on North Korea. And her lead before the NY Times/International Herald Tribune article was:

Are there other fish to fry or is the Bush administration finally clueing in to the complexities of the situation over there?

Yet, the entire block is such a harsh break from the standard US policy (/sarcasm):

BEIJING The six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis opened here Tuesday with the top American negotiator stating that the United States recognized the sovereignty of the North Korean government as a "matter of fact" and had "absolutely no intention" of launching a military attack against the Stalinist regime.

The American envoy, Christopher Hill, also appeared to suggest that the United States would be amenable to a step-by-step process under which North Korean concessions would be met by rewards from the United States and other participants in the talks.

He described the approach as "words for words and actions for actions" - language that seemed to signal a softer line compared with earlier days, when the Bush administration demanded that North Korea must first dismantle its nuclear program before the United States would offer any direct aid or other benefits. Washington has already said it would send 50,000 tons of food aid to North Korea through the United Nations.

So, let me get this straight…. If we play extreme hard ball, we are thought of as evil villains who are unyielding in our own ‘principles’, yet if we show negotiating skills we are thought of as going “soft” on the issue.

Can you say “political pettiness” five times quickly?

Roberts / Scalia / Morality

2005-07-25T21:38:00.000-07:00

What a Trinity!?!?!?
I was doing my daily Daou Report feed this evening. Most of the gak I just skimmed and deleted; far more Left Wing drivel than ususal today. However...I came across an intriguing article which I always find appealing.

Ann Althouse has an article I had to spend half the time reading out loud. It also reminded me why I could only stomach on semester of pre-law.

It seems Jonathan Turley wrote an article which Ann refers to in which Sen. Durbin asked an ambiguous question on how Roberts would react "if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral":

Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself...

Roberts could now face difficult questions of fitness raised not only by the Senate but by his possible colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the court (and a devout Catholic). Last year, Scalia chastised Catholic judges who balk at imposing the death penalty Â another immoral act according to the church: "The choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty."

As mentioned in previous entries, I'm a practicing, not ncecessarily Christian non-Catholic...meaning I attend Catholic chruch every Sunday yet am unable to partake in Communion. Yet I find it fascinating when devout Christians (or any other faith for that matter) choose when to play the faith card against when the Govt or State rules. After all didn't Christ state, 'render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's'.

Yet, here's Scalia's argument on why it's ok to support State rights (yet over turn Federal law) on Choice (vis a vie abortion), yet uphold State execution...How do these jive with his staunch Catholic beliefs???

Capital cases are much different from the other life-and-death issues that my Court sometimes faces: abortion, for example, or legalized suicide. There it is not the state of which I am, in a sense, the last instrument that is decreeing death, but rather private individuals whom the state has decided not to restrain.

One may argue, as many do, that the society has a moral obligation to restrain them. That moral obligation may weigh heavily upon the voter and upon the legislator who enacts the laws, but a judge, I think, bears no moral guilt for the laws society has failed to enact.

My difficulty with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one. I do not believe Â and no one believed for 200 years Â that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would and could in good conscience vote against an attempt to invalidate that law, for the same reason that I vote against invalidation of laws that contradict Roe v. Wade; namely, simply because the Constitution gives the federal government and, hence, me no power over the matter.

With the death penalty, on the other hand, I am part of the criminal law machinery that imposes death, which extends from the indictment to the jury conviction to rejection of the last appeal. I am aware of the ethical principle that one can give material cooperation to the immoral act of another when the evil that would attend failure to cooperate is even greater: for example, helping a burglar to tie up a householder where the alternative is that the burglar will kill the householder.

I doubt whether that doctrine is even applicable to the trial judges and jurors, who must themselves determine that the death sentence will be imposed. It seems to me those individuals are not merely engaged in material cooperation with someone elseÂs action, but are themselves decreeing, on behalf of the state, death.

The same is true of appellate judges. In those states where they are charged with re-weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors and determining de novo whether the death penalty should be imposed, they are themselves decreeing death, whereas in the case of the federal system, the appellate judge merely determines that the sentence pronounced by the trial court is in accordance with law, perhaps the principle of material cooperation could be applied. But as I have said, that principle demands that the good deriving from the cooperation exceed the evil which is assisted. I find it hard to see how any appellate judge could find this condition to be met unless he believes retaining his seat on the bench, rather than resigning, is somehow essential to preservation of the society, which is of course absurd. As Charles de Gaulle is reported to have remarked when his aides told him he could not resign as president of France because he was the indispensable man: ÂMon ami, the cemeteries are full of indispensable men.Â

I pause at this point to call attention to the fact that, in my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply those laws, and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course, if he feels strongly enough, he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty, and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do....

This dilemma, of course, need not be faced by proponents of the living Constitution who believe that it means what it ought to mean. If the death penalty is immoral, then it is surely unconstitutional, and one can continue to sit while nullifying the death penalty. You can see why the living Constitution has such attraction for us judges.

It is a matter of great consequence to me, therefore, whether the death penalty is morally acceptable, and I want to say a few words about why I believe it is....

The Day the Earth Stood Still

2005-07-17T22:01:00.000-07:00

All I can say is OMG!!!

The Seattle Times, a bastion of Liberalism, has seen a great injustice wrought upon the citizens of Washington. An injustice brought upon us by the friends and allies of the Times, yet the Times is willing to call them out...and call them out they did!!!!

In failing to police the Legislature's promiscuous declarations of emergency, the Washington Supreme Court has failed to protect the rights of the people.

[...]

The state constitution gives voters the right of referendum on any new law except for "such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions."

[...]

The purpose of the referendum power is to limit the power of legislators to pass unpopular laws. The emergency clause should allow for a handful of exceptions only. When the Legislature declares emergencies dozens of times in every session Â 98 times this past spring Â it is limiting the people's right to challenge its decisions.

What the state needed from the court was a statement of its own responsibility and a standard for sorting the fake emergencies from the real ones. What we got was a statement that pretty much anything can be an emergency if the Legislature says it is.

Perhaps the people need a constitutional amendment to clarify what is an emergency or require that all declarations of emergency have a two-thirds vote.

This last paragraph is just amazing coming from the likes of the Seattle Times!!

(tip: Orbusmax)

bin Laden and Iraq date to 1998 and VDH Post

2005-07-16T19:20:00.000-07:00

I've never been one of those who was wed to the bin Laden/Saddam threat. I felt while Saddam was a 'threat', it was a contrived association. I had no doubt Saddam harbored and supported terrorism, from Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas to paying blood money for Palestinian suicide bombers. Thanks to Power Line, there's video from ABC News dating back to 1998 which showed a direct link btwn bin Laden and Saddam!! Yet, there's not been a peep about this from ABC or any other 'credible' news site much less the wingnut sites of the Left.

UPDATE: Michael Totten blogs an exact entry!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another fine bit of work from Victor Davis Hanson.

Ever since September 11, there has been an alternative narrative about this war embraced by the Left. In this mythology, the attack on September 11 had in some vague way something to do with American culpability.

Either we were unfairly tilting toward Israel, or had been unkind to Muslims. Perhaps, as Sen. Patty Murray intoned, we needed to match the good works of bin Laden to capture the hearts and minds of Muslim peoples.

The fable continues that the United States itself was united after the attack even during its preparations to retaliate in Afghanistan. But then George Bush took his eye off the ball. He let bin Laden escape, and worst of all, unilaterally and preemptively, went into secular Iraq Â an unnecessary war for oil, hegemony, Israel, or Halliburton, something in Ted KennedyÂs words Âcooked up in Texas.Â

In any case, there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam, and thus terrorists only arrived in Iraq after we did.

That tale goes on. The Iraqi fiasco is now a hopeless quagmire. The terrorists are paying us back for it in places like London and Madrid.

Being in the Puget Sound, I remember the outrage Sen. Murray expressed at the airing of her bit on how bin Laden has done so much for Muslims. There was no 'out of context' possiblitiy since the entire episode was aired. Yet, she cried foul and blamed the 'Right' for trying to 'twist' her words.

Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade.

Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden declared war on America in 1998, citing the U.N. embargo of Iraq and troops in Saudi Arabia; when those were no longer issues, he did not cease, but continued his murdering. He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy and felt empowered by years of appeasement after a series of attacks on our embassies, bases, ships, and buildings, both here and abroad.

And to think we still give so much to so many ungreatful...

Neither bin Laden nor his lieutenants are poor, but like the Hamas suicide bombers, Mohammed Atta, or the murderer of Daniel Pearl they are usually middle class and educated Â and are more likely to hate the West, it seems, the more they wanted to be part of it. The profile of the London bombers, when known, will prove the same.

The poor in South America or Africa are not murdering civilians in North America or Europe. The jihadists are not bombing Chinese for either their godless secularism or suppression of Muslim minorities. Indeed, bin Laden harbored more hatred for an America that stopped the Balkan holocaust of Muslims than for Slobodan Milosevic who started it.

VDH talks about the Western Liberals need for appeasement almost as a guilt complex. Guilt at our own success and affluence.

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism Â Âwar never solved anythingÂ and Âviolence only begets violence.Â Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle Â whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul Â is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse Â and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances. If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature Â a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge.

I still have a Libertairian view on govt and life, but make no mistake - evil is evil in any culture, whether it's West or Muslim. Until the vast majority of decent Muslims take back control of their religion, they do not warrent our pity but should be ashamed.

London Bombings

2005-07-12T22:24:00.000-07:00

I've withheld my thughts on the London Bombings until now...

I was appalled at the MSM incesent carping of 'no arrests yet'. Is it the US media approach to have immediate results or what?? I guess this is the price we pay for entertainment.

But Scotland Yard has done their due dilegence with identifiying the lost souls.

But the most telling line was from the Times of London:

The four were captured on CCTV cameras at King’s Cross Thameslink station, laughing together and carrying rucksacks, minutes before they set off for their targets at 8.30am on July 7.

So much for the innocent young boys who didn't know what they were doing!

Wretchard the Cat

2005-07-10T19:25:00.000-07:00

My favorite web site is The Belmont Club. It is THE most insightful blog I've come across on both sides of the isle. The knowledge and vision is unsurpassed.

Today, Wretchard outed himself. I hope this was the correct decision. I feel his anonymity allowed him to truly speak the truth. I hope this will not affect his muses.

Another Episode in the War between Christendom and Islam

2005-07-09T22:27:00.000-07:00

Bruce Thorton pens an insightful article at Victor Hansen's site on what we perceive of the Islamofacists' jihad.

Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called "moderates", those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights, who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam.

[...]

Yet listen to a respected historian in a conservative magazine: Muslim holy wars (jihads), as taught in the Koran, were first and foremost a personal inner struggle for moral purity and only secondarily a war against infidels. So all those Muslim armies that conquered the Christian Near East, North Africa, Egypt, Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, all that plunder, slaughter, rape, enslavement, kidnapping, and destruction were only the 'secondary' jihad. How could such blindness to the obvious, masquerading as sophisticated 'tolerance',not arouse contempt in the minds of our adversaries? They tell us over and over that they are waging jihad in order to establish the global hegemony of Islam, and we tell ourselves that these Muslims don't understand their own religion. Millions and millions of Muslims all over the world cheer for the jihadists and support them materially and psychologically, millions idolize bin Laden and celebrate the murder of Westerners, but we tell ourselves that they are a minority of confused souls whose minds have been addled by poverty or autocracy or anger over the Palestinians.

[...]

The murderers we call terrorists are traditional jihadists, as much as were the first Islamic armies that swept away the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman civilizations of the Mediterranean. They are not going to be bought off with votes, a free press, more cable channels, Wal-Mart, or any other material good that to us constitutes the good life. They are fighting for a spiritual cause, the establishment of Islam as a global order in fulfillment of the will of Allah, and the reduction of all those who will not become Muslims to dhimmi, inferiors who acknowledge the superiority of Islam and the rightness of their subjection to it.

I really can't disagree with this train of thought. We in the West like to think others have the same thought process as us. We fail to understand all people are not Western-centric and do not have the same values. I draw a loose parallel to language. It's like trying to compare character based Eastern languages (Korean) to alpha based languages in the West. They require different regions of the brain. Thus our values may reside outside of what the Islamofacists will find acceptable to exist on planet Earth... It is OUR choice to live.

Latest Musings

2005-07-08T21:14:00.000-07:00

Wow...That's all I can say for the past week, wow.

First, I was so happy for London to shaft Paris by being awarded the 2012 Olympic Game.

But that was tempered of course by the tragedy in London on July 7th. All I can say is the Islamofacists picked the wrong country this time...this isn't Spain.

But I did see a great article from the Sun documenting the acts of Terror since 1993. The only things missing are the acts of Terror against Israel and India.... What, those acts don't count???

Female Bombers

2005-06-28T21:51:00.000-07:00

I don't know if you've seen the vid of 21-year-old, Wafa Samir al-Biss' failed homicide bombing attempt. I saw a couple of stills, but can't remember the site. But here is an outstanding article by Manuela Dviri on the women who have failed to murder Israelis. She's an amazing author who is a peace activist with street cred. Her son was murdered by Hizbollah rocket in 1998.

It was about midday when a young Palestinian woman from the refugee camp of Jabalya in Gaza approached an Israeli checkpoint clutching a special permit to visit a doctor on the other side of the border.The girl had big, brown eyes and her black hair was tied in a ponytail, but it was the strangeness of her gait that attracted the attention of the security officials at the Erez crossing, the main transit point between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

When a soldier asked her to remove her long, dark cloak, she turned to face him. All her movements were taped by the military surveillance camera at the checkpoint: calmly, deliberately, she took off her clothing, item by item, until she looked like any normal young woman in T-shirt and jeans. It was then that she tried to set off the belt containing 20lb of explosives hidden beneath her trousers. To her horror, she did not succeed. Desperate, she clawed at her face, screaming. She was still alive, she realised. She had failed her martyrdom mission.

What gets me is this chick was willing to blow up the hospital which treated and healed her, but even more disgusting was her desire to kill the innocent:

"My dream was to be a martyr. I believe in death," she said. "Today I wanted to blow myself up in a hospital, maybe even in the one in which I was treated. But since lots of Arabs come to be treated there, I decided I would go to another, maybe the Tel Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. I wanted to kill 20, 50 Jews …''

[...]

And what about babies? Would you have killed babies and children? she was asked. "Yes, even babies and children. You, too, kill our babies. Do you remember the Doura child?"

There are about 30 of these women whose homicide attempts were foiled, aborted or just given up.

Some of them did it to make amends for a relative who was a collaborator, others to escape becoming victims of honour killings, and for the psychologically frail or depressed it was a good way to commit suicide and at the same time become 'heroines'.

Her belief in the 'culture of death' is validated by this last statement - make amends for a collaborator and escape honor killings. I'm still, to this very day, absolutely amazed at their disregard for life...

But wait...

According to the Koran, male martyrs are welcomed to Paradise by 72 beautiful virgins. Ayat, as with many of the women she is incarcerated with, believes that a woman martyr "will be the chief of the 72 virgins, the fairest of the fair".

So, once again in a misogynistic egotism, the women will be the 'chief' whore for the men. I guess having 72 men service on woman would be more like rape. Oh wait, that happens here on earth.

I just don't get it. What kind of religion is this??? A religion of death...

Freedom and Liberty

2005-06-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

My favorite blog site, The Belmont Club, by Wretchard has, as always, an interesting entry on Republican's usurping Jeffersonian freedom from the idealistic Democrats. He references an article by Michael Ignatieff in the New York Times .

Although Ignatieff plainly wants to see freedom spread, one of the sources of his unease is the role of God, or something like it, in the missionary endeavor. How much better it would be, he seems to ask, if any claims to universality or transcendence could be kept out it. Then we could bring the Europeans and the Canadians in on it.

This is where I personally have a problem with the Conservative wing of the Republican party. I'm not religious by any means, in fact I would describe myself (as in previous posts) as more of a spiritual philosopher attuned to Zen Buddhism. So when I hear the politicos talking about religion, I'm VERY concerned. Don't get me wrong. I don't give a sh*t about the Ten Commandments or even pray. Hell, I send my children to parochial school for goodness sakes!! But I do balk at the Righteousness of the Evangelical Right. I've known too many hypocritical pious jerks to swallow their crap without at first fighting my gag reflex.

Political Potpourri

2005-06-27T23:17:00.000-07:00

Miss me? Sorry for the lack of posting, but the better half has pulled a yeoman's duty in assisting her mother in moving from her home of 25 yrs. So, while she's been doing her daughterly duty, I've kept the home front with the progeny.

So to get back up to speed, we'll keep it short and sweet:

>Dick Durbin is an absolute fool - I'm sorry. but to bring up the skeletons of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot even in the SAME BREATH as Gitmo shows NOTHING but partisanship. It is disgusting pure and simple. I may not agree with 40% of what the Bush admin does, but I will never vote again for the Dems if they continue to spew such vitriol.

>Rove's Rant - I'm sorry but did I miss something??? Didn't a large group of 'liberal' Democrats express just the sentiments Rove outlined? Didn't Atrios, Kos and others espouse just that?!?!? What about the wunder candate - Kerry? Please, just because your number two in the Senate, Durbin, makes an Ass of him self, don't think you once again have the moral equivalence....

>Supreme Court... Be afraid, be very afraid....

>So let me get this right. The Govt of 'State's Rights' re: Repubs, is flat out against State's Rights when it doesn't' meet their litmus test. Yet, the SCOTUS somehow, someway deigned in their wisdom to contrive a commercial product of something illegal in all but the most extreme circumstances...Medical Marijuana is a commercial product!?!?? So therefore can be regulated by the Federal Govt. Lord help us if and/or when abortion is overturned and sent back to the states. My guess is fetal material (Stem cells, DNA or hell, placentas) will be considered commercial material, thus regulated by Right-wingnuts.

>But wait, don't think the Right has a lock on the absurd. This next one is brought to us by the Left . . . The Kelo v. New London ruling left me absolutely speechless. . . . So, let's review. If a local govt deems a bit of property best suited for improvement for 'the better good of the local tax base', it can confiscate the property and basically give it to another PRIVATE entity for the purpose of increasing the revenue generated by that property. Does this raise alarms with anyone else? It better, this is one of our Constitutional foundations and it's been decimated by the Courts. This is not like freedom of Choice which is implied; this is a pillar of our Govt which has been ripped out!! I WILL take the extreme example and picture a local govt taking the waterfront/riverfront property and giving them pennies on the dollar, yet how do you compensate the view, the life of these people??

> And finally, SCOTUS decides file sharing is bad, cable sharing is bad but source sharing is required . . . and may women who file restraining orders be double afraid . . . jeez, this is all so frightening.

>But wait, there's more. From the Daou report, I linked to this from the Carpetbagger Report. This last year validates his supposition that Repubs are great at campaigning while the Dems are better at governing. Repubs are better in the Minority while the Dems do a better job in the majority. . . . Sorry, but I'm in agreement. Give me a Dem President and a Repub Congress ANY DAY! ! ! ! !

Iraq’s Jihad: Past as Prologue

2005-06-08T20:24:00.000-07:00

We are now in the middle of a full-blown Jihad, that is to say we have against us the fiercest prejudices of a people in a primeval state of civilization.
Gertrude Bell, Baghdad, Iraq, September 5, 1920

OK, so today is not an original, but pls check out the fascinating reading Gertrude Bell edited by Andrew Bostom. What's that French saying 'the more things change, the more they stay the same...' I don't remember, but it was in a Rush song.

And Yes, I do believe a society of martyrs is primeval. But this does not bode well for the West.

The Horror of Bosnia

2005-06-04T21:36:00.000-07:00

I can not express my disgust with the video I saw of some Serb punks toying with young Bosnians. I've seen many vids that are hard to watch, but not many compare with the gut-wrenching scenes of the impending executions. This almost made me physically ill. . . the anticipation . . . I hope they hang the animals who did this. THIS is what perpetuates the cycle of hate.

I hope they meet the same 'virgins' as the Islamofascits'.

Newscaster vs. Sportscaster

2005-05-17T21:13:00.000-07:00

Keith Olberman was one of my favorite talkin' heads at ESPN until he thought he was bigger than all that. I've tried to watch his Countdown show a couple of times but thought it a bit much.

So, I've not given Olberman much of my time. Until now...

In surfin' today, there was much ado about the Newsweek fiasco. But what caught my eye was the dressing down of Scott McClellan by the media pool during today's briefing. I love the belligerence:
Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?I saw a bit of feed on PBS and just couldn't believe the tone, that was until I read Keith O's blog this evening.

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about media credibility, I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

[...]

Whatever I smell comes from this odd sequence of events: Newsweek gets blasted by the White House, apologizes over the weekend but doesn't retract its story. Then McClellan offers his Journalism 101 outdoor seminar and blasts the magazine further. Finally, just before 5 p.m. Monday, the Dan Rather drama replaying itself in its collective corporate mind, Newsweek retracts.

Im always warning about the logical fallacy the illusion that just because one event follows another, the latter must have necessarily caused the former. But when I wondered tonight on Countdown if it applied here, Craig Crawford reassured me. The dots connect.

[...]

One of the most under-publicized analyses of 9/11 concludes that Osama Bin Laden assumed that the attacks on the U.S. would galvanize Islamic anger towards this country, and they'd overthrow their secular governments and woo-hoo we've got an international religious war. Obviously it didn't happen. It didn't even happen when the West went into Iraq. But if stuff like the Newsweek version of a now two-year-old tale about toilets and Qurans is enough to set off rioting in the streets of countries whose nationals were not even the supposed recipients of the abuse, then werent those members of the military or the government with whom Newsweek vetted the plausibility of its item, honor-bound to say you cant print this?

Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet or has its proxies do it for them.

Thats beyond shameful. Its treasonous.

Sorry, but what ever cred the big O had just went poof . . . and lastly, as proof, Keith goes after NeoCon windmills with this:

Firstly, the principal reporter on the Gitmo story was Michael Isikoff Spikey in a different lifetime; Linda Tripps favorite journalist, and one of the ten people most responsible (intentionally or otherwise) for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Spikey isnt just a hero to the Right the Right owes him.

And larger still, in terms of politics, this isn't well-defined, is it? I mean Conservatives might parrot McClellan and say Newsweek put this country in a bad light. But they could just as easily thump their chests and say See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo! You guys better watch your asses!

Islamic Reaction - a bit much, eh?

2005-05-16T21:30:00.000-07:00

Miss me? Sorry it's been a while, but apathy reigns supreme with today's politics. From DeLay to Reid, I just don't give a rip.

Yet, I couldn't let the latest MSM flap go without comment. I'm not going to spend too much time on this since the fall out has yet to reach its climax. Suffice it to say Newsweek has entered that black hole from which few return. This saddens me since I happen to think Jon Meacham, some type of managing editor at Newsweek, is top notch with history.

So Newsweek acted foolishly by running with a blurb using only a single source, this is not the same as running something in the local rag implicating Uncle Steve with a drunken night of debauchery only to recant with a one liner saying 'oops, Uncle Steve was just cavorting with Aunt Betty in the back seat of the sedan. Sorry." The magnitude is not on the same level. Pls don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those espousing the WOT at every turn. In fact, I question the need to call it the War on Terrorism since we've had the War on Poverty, War of Drugs, et al and ad nausium, for the past 25 yrs. It just diminishes the importance. The WOT is more of a paradigm shift in attitude, one which Newsweek evidently hasn't caught on to.

It's one thing to disagree with whatever party is in power. It's another to willfully offer specious 'evidence' of an act which is inciteful. Yet, the mantel of 'fake but accurate' which we heard resonating from the CBS debacle, seems to be trying to take hold. The Raw Story is citing several detainees as implicating the US in the debasement of the Koran. Yet nothing can be substantiated. I'm sorry, but I don't trust a word those people say (then again I don't trust the govt, so I'm screwed, eh...)

For all the feigned anger emanating from the ME, I say 'screw `em!!'. Where was the outrage at Muslim desecration of the Church of the Nativity in April of 2002? ? ? ? Oh, wait... I think I hear it now. "It wasn't a true Muslim, it was just some fringe people." Please!!!

That same day, "More than 100 Palestinian gunmen...[including] soldiers and policemen, entered the Church of the Nativity on Tuesday, as Israeli troops swept into Bethlehem in an attempt to quell violence by Palestinian suicide bombers and militias."³⁴ The actual number of terrorists was between 150 and 180, among them prominent members of the Fatah Tanzim. As the New York Times put it, "Palestinian gunmen have frequently used the area around the church as a refuge, with the expectation that Israel would try to avoid fighting near the shrine" [emphasis added].³⁵
And in fact this was the case. The commander of the Israeli forces in the area asserted that the IDF would not break into the church itself and would not harm this site holy to Christianity. Israel also deployed more mature and more reserved reserve-duty soldiers in this sensitive situation that militarily called for more agile, standing-army soldiers.³⁶

On the other hand, the Palestinians did not treat it the same way. Not only did they take their weapons with them into the Church of the Nativity and fire, on occasion, from the church, but also reportedly booby-trapped the entrance to the church.³⁷

On April 7, "one of the few priests evacuated from the church told Israeli television yesterday that gunmen had shot their way in, and that the priests, monks and nuns were essentially hostages....The priest declined to call the clergy 'hostages,' but repeatedly said in fluent English: 'We have absolutely no choice. They have guns, we do not.'"³⁸

Christians clearly saw the takeover as a violation of the sanctity of the church. In an interview with CWNews, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's Undersecretary of State and the top foreign-policy official, asserted that "The Palestinians have entered into bilateral agreements [with the Holy See] in which they undertake to maintain and respect the status quo regarding the Christian holy places and the rights of Christian communities. To explain the gravity of the current situation, let me begin with the fact that the occupation of the holy places by armed men is a violation of a long tradition of law that dates back to the Ottoman era. Never before have they been occupied - for such a lengthy time - by armed men."³⁹ On April 14, he reiterated his position in an interview on Vatican Radio.⁴⁰

On April 24, the Jerusalem Post reported on the damage that the PA forces were causing:

Three Armenian monks, who had been held hostage by the Palestinian gunmen inside Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, managed to flee the church area via a side gate yesterday morning. They immediately thanked the soldiers for rescuing them.
They told army officers the gunmen had stolen gold and other property, including crucifixes and prayer books, and had caused damage....
One of the monks, Narkiss Korasian, later told reporters: "They stole everything, they opened the doors one by one and stole everything....They stole our prayer books and four crosses...they didn't leave anything. Thank you for your help, we will never forget it."
Israeli officials said the monks said the gunmen had also begun beating and attacking clergymen.⁴¹

When the siege finally ended, the PA soldiers left the church in terrible condition:

The Palestinian gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity seized church stockpiles of food and "ate like greedy monsters" until the food ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They also guzzled beer, wine, and Johnnie Walker scotch that they found in priests' quarters, undeterred by the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. The indulgence lasted for about two weeks into the 39-day siege, when the food and drink ran out, according to an account by four Greek Orthodox priests who were trapped inside for the entire ordeal....
The Orthodox priests and a number of civilians have said the gunmen created a regime of fear.
Even in the Roman Catholic areas of the complex there was evidence of disregard for religious norms. Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed. "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold," said a Franciscan, the Rev. Nicholas Marquez from Mexico.⁴²

Now, I'm a firm believer in 'two wrongs don't make a right'. But let's get real. We have the word of some 'detainees' versus documented facts. Oh, let's not forget what those Taliban bastards did to the Buddhas in March of 2001!!

So I don't want to hear from the "Muslims in the street" on this one. Newsweek should be held liable for the deaths and suffer the consequenses. It's a shame, but when 'truth' is fabricated for the purpose of making the Administration of the day look bad, MSM and all of us are ill served.
(tips: Daou and LGF)

Sunni Apologist

2005-05-02T00:01:00.000-07:00

Ya know, it never fails.... I'm in a funk and while perusing the blogsphere, come upon some major bullshit.

One of my favorite Sunni apologists, Juan Cole, has a protege, Baghdad Burning, who is quite amazing. She laments her poor life in post-Saddam all the while fretting the life in her view of a 'free Iraq'. It is a view of denial...one were the only perps are the evil Shia. Yet her blindness is enlightening with this piece of work. Where to start in this article? Let's start at the beginning, eh?

The Hostage Crisis...
I'm sure many people have been following the story of the moment in Iraq: Dozens of Shia hostages taken by Sunni insurgents in a town called Medain?

The first time we heard about it was a couple of days ago. I was watching the news subtitles on Arabiya but the subtitle was vague. It went something like this, "Sunni guerrillas capture 60 hostages in Iraqi town and will kill them if all Shia do not leave the town." It said nothing about which town it was, who the guerrillas claimed to be representing and just how the whole incident happened.

But I like the absolute denial:

The whole concept of a large number of Sunni guerrillas raiding the town and taking 60 – 150 of its members (including women and children) was bizarre, frightening and by the second day of the rumor, a little bit suspicious.

People in Baghdad didn't believe it. Most of them waved a hand dismissing the report and said, "They just want to raid Medain." It's a town that has been giving the Americans quite a bit of trouble this last year, a part of the Sunni Triangle . Many attacks were reported to have come from the area, but at the same time, it's not like Falloojeh, Samarra, or Mosul- it's half Shia. It wouldn't be as easy or politically correct to raid. [ed. emphasis!]

OK, here's the rest:

Yesterday, there were actually Shia demonstrators from the town claiming that the rumors were false and the town was peaceful and there was no need for a raid or for door-to-door checks.

The last few days, Iraqi officials have been on television claiming that the whole hostage situation was "under control" and things were going to be sorted out, except that apparently, there's nothing to sort out. There have been no reports of hostages, even from the majority of Shia residents themselves. Someone mentioned that it was possible a couple of people had been abducted, but it had nothing to do with Sunni guerrillas chasing out Shia.

Now, Associated Press is claiming,

"The confusion over Madain illustrated how quickly rumors spread in a country of deep ethnic and sectarian divides, where the threat of violence is all too real."

Uhm, no. Not really. See, this whole thing didn't start out as a rumor. Rumors come to you through actual people- the guy who brings you kerosene spreads rumors, that neighbor next door brings you rumors, the man you get your rations from spreads rumors. This came to us, very decidedly, from a news source. It first made its debut as breaking news and came from an "Iraqi Shia official who wished to remain unnamed". The official should have to answer to the rumor he handed over to the press.

And now…

Shiite leaders and government officials had earlier estimated 35 to 100 people were taken hostage, but residents disputed the claim, with some saying they had seen no evidence any hostages were taken.

We know a lot of our new officials and spokespeople are blatantly lying and it's fine to lie about security, reconstruction and democracy- we've gotten used to it. In fact, we tell jokes about it and laugh about it at family gatherings or over the telephone. To lie about something as serious as Sunni-Shia hostage taking is another story altogether. It's unacceptable and while Sunnis and Shia were hardly going to take up arms against each other over this latest debacle, but it was still extremely worrisome and for people who wish to fuel sectarian violence, it was a perfect opportunity.

We have an Iraqi government that bans news channels and newspapers because they *insist* on reporting about such routine things as civilian casualties and raids, yet the Puppets barely flinch over media sources spreading a rumor as dangerous and provocative as this one.

AND NOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BODIES FROM MADIAN :

Iraq's interim president announced Wednesday the recovery of more than 50 bodies from the Tigris River, saying the grisly discovery was proof of claims that dozens were abducted from an area south of the capital despite a fruitless search by Iraqi forces.

[....]

Terrorists committed crimes there. It is not true to say there were no hostages. There were. They were killed, and they threw the bodies into the Tigris," Talabani told reporters. "We have the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes."
Shiite leaders and government officials claimed last week that Sunni militants had abducted as many as 100 Shiites from the Madain area, 14 miles southeast of Baghdad. But when Iraqi forces moved into the town of 1,000 families, they found no captives, and residents said they had seen no evidence anyone had been seized.

Funk

2005-05-01T17:44:00.000-07:00

Man, the funk continues . . .
I thought after writing the Dowd piece and seeing the POTUS' speach plus the gak on Bolton and DelLay, I would find the fire to pen (tap the keys, I guess now) a few words. No, the malaise runs deep. It is affecting more than the Blog...but I'm trying...man, it hurts.

Apathy

It is painful.

Dotty Dowd

2005-04-22T23:23:00.000-07:00

Ok so I couldn't stay away for that long . . . espcially after reading the esteem able Maureen Dowd's mid-week disjointed rantings. This one is particularly fractured. She starts with network anchors:

In the free fall of TV news, ABC's attempt to create a successor for Ted Koppel's "Nightline" will go down as one of the most hilariously embarrassing moments.

One show tested recently, according to reports, was set in a nightclub. It had white tablecloths, candles, a jazz quintet, a live audience at little tables and - this is not a joke - faux fog.

We've gone from the fog of war to the fog of news.

Then moves on to her habitual Rupert reflection:

In Washington last week, Rupert Murdoch echoed Mr. Moonves in giving the American Society of Newspaper Editors some bad news about young people in the age of the Internet, blogging and cable news:

"They don't want to rely on the morning paper for their up-to-date information. They don't want to rely on a god-like figure from above to tell them what's important. ... They certainly don't want news presented as gospel."

She has special antipathy for the new Pope. I'm particularly amazed (OK, not really) at her reaction and those on the editorial staffs of the major newspapers. They've already passed judgment. Talk about Christian . . .

The white smoke yesterday signaled that the Vatican thinks what it needs to bring it into modernity is the oldest pope since the 18th century: Joseph Ratzinger, a 78-year-old hidebound archconservative who ran the office that used to be called the Inquisition and who once belonged to Hitler Youth. For American Catholics - especially women and Democratic pro-choice Catholic pols - the cafeteria is officially closed. After all, Cardinal Ratzinger, nicknamed "God's Rottweiler" and "the Enforcer," helped deny Communion rights to John Kerry and other Catholic politicians in the 2004 election.

The only other job this pope would be qualified for is "60 Minutes" anchor.

OK, let's take a look at this last bit. She first takes a swipe at the cardinals by slammin' them for voting for "the oldest pope since the 18th century". Just like a Lib to use agism to make her point. But she's not done, the Spanish Inquistion was abolished in the early 19th century: "In 1965, the P.R.-sensitive Pope Paul VI rebranded the Inquisition as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith...Paul VI even revoked its ability to ban books, leaving the Inquisition toothless and largely irrelevant going into the 21st century." This doesn't stop her from implying something evil.

I think she especially guilt of the sin of omission when she invokes the Hitler Youth card. She should continued... all youths in Bavaria were required to join the Hitler Youth and of course she omits the fact Ratzinger deserted Hitler's army! But I guess the specifics can be omitted if it's necessary to make a point...

Finally, I don't seem to remember Sen. Kerry being denied communion, so I don't know how "the Rottweiler" could be condemned for this. I've more to say on this, but I'll need to file that in another post.

What would be a Dowd post with out the obligatory Bush-bash:

President Bush has also long acted as if he channeled the voice of God...Mr. Bush's more subtle obeisance to the evangelical right is no longer enough. Puffed up with its electoral clout, the Christian right now wants politicians to genuflect openly.

Just when I think 'what the hell' when it comes to the Media, I stumble across a work of art such as this...

The Light is Dim

2005-04-21T20:27:00.000-07:00

I seem to have lost the light... so posting will be thin until I can rekindle it. Sorry.

Nepotism

2005-04-13T22:08:00.000-07:00

I know Dave suggested I go Global in my pursuing of life, but I just can't let go of the DeLay mess. SFGate.com has done some research on paying family members as employees of behalf of congressional members.

_ House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas: Wife and daughter were paid more than $500,000 since 2001 for working for DeLay's campaign and political action committees.

_Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman: Son Matthew received about $34,000 and daughter Rebecca about $36,000 for working on the senator's 2004 presidential campaign.

_ Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.: Nephew Todd Reichert was paid $3,000 last year, plus several hundred dollars for mileage, for serving as driver.

_ California Democratic Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark: Wife Deborah earns $2,400 a month for serving as campaign consultant.

_ Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.: Wife Arlene Willis serves as congressional chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000.

_ Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.: Wife Laurie Stupak earned about $36,000 annually the past two years as the finance director for her husband's campaign.

_ Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio: Wife Elizabeth was paid about $1,730 a month during his 2004 campaign. She has worked as a campaign consultant for him since the 2001 election cycle.

_ Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif.: Cousin Ken Costa made about $45,000 for serving as a co-campaign manager last year.

_ Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah: Three college-age children worked on his campaign last year. Emily was paid $5,425, Jane $9,508 and Laura $17,766.

_ Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.: Sister-in-law Sharon Davis has been his campaign treasurer since 1994,and daughter Libby Davis was his campaign coordinator in the last half of 2004. Libby Davis was paid about $2,334 a month; Sharon Davis was paid about $1,000 a month for bookkeeping last year.

_ Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, employs his wife, Kathy, as his campaign manager. She was paid $21,791 over four months, including a $7,500 bonus last November.

_ New York Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop: Daughter Molly was paid $46,995 as his 2004 campaign's finance director.

_ California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Wife Rhonda Carmony makes $40,000 a year as his campaign manager.

Now there are examples here of spouses performing legitimate functions, but man it still smells so bad. Just because it's legal doesn't me it's right. How is nepotism handled in the Corporate world? It's not tolerated. Why should it be acceptable in our legislature?

Slow Time

2005-04-10T21:02:00.000-07:00

Sorryfor the lack of blogging. Many factors responsible for this but nothing major.

First, I'm just tired of most political crap., but what's new. Most politicians are whores no matter what party, from DeLay to Harkin to Boxer to Santorum.

Second, this crap on Schaivo. I've never been so disgusted with people's action regarding an issue before. I was disgusted in the fact it became a Media Event and even more so when Congress decided to get involved.

Finally, I bought my first hand held game - - a new Sony PSP. My son has a Nintendo DS as gift from SC, but I finally broke down an purchased the new multi media PSP. It's GREAT!!! So I lost myself in it.

Well, I've moved my office to my home now that the Lab has moved to downtown Seattle, so I may have an opportunity to get back in the groove...we'll see.

Death Watch Deux

2005-04-03T18:35:00.000-07:00

OK, now that we've gotten the death watches out of the way, life can go on. . . At least for awhile. Although, I'll be interested in the upcoming Conclave. Now the Real Politicks (sic) begin! ! !