This country was founded on, among many other things, the principal of free speech. It's guaranteed in the Constitution, and as I write this, I am exercising my right to freely express myself. I served in the US Navy during part of the Cold War, helping to maintain that right for all Americans.
The right to express one's views freely is not partisan. It matters not one whit which political ideology you adhere to, or even if you don't adhere to any political ideology - you are guaranteed the right to freely express your views, whatever those views may be!
Recently, Rep. Murtha, a veteran of the Vietnam War, expressed his views on the current Iraq War, stating that it was "unwinnable", and that we need to bring the troops home now. Although I do not agree with his views at all, he still has the right to express those views. Clifford D. Mays also disagrees with those views, and asks some pointed questions of the Honorable Mr. Murtha.
Questions that I, as a fellow veteran, would really like to see addressed by you, Rep. Murtha.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
The Internet to remain in US control - for now
As reported here, the recently completed UN summit in Tunisia left control of the Internet in the hands of the US and ICANN, the California based not-for-profit organization. But, the UN isn't finished with it's desire to wrest control of the Internet from the US, as they set up the Internet Governance Forum to explore ways to accomplish that goal.
Amazingly enough, US legislators understand the importance of maintaining US control over the Internet, as the House unanimously passed a resolution regarding this issue, with the Senate also having a resolution before it, sponsored by Sen. Ron Coleman (R-Minn).
I posted about this issue earlier here, and here.
Amazingly enough, US legislators understand the importance of maintaining US control over the Internet, as the House unanimously passed a resolution regarding this issue, with the Senate also having a resolution before it, sponsored by Sen. Ron Coleman (R-Minn).
I posted about this issue earlier here, and here.
A new tax on hybrid autos coming?
As reported here, a new transportation study commissioned by the US Chamber of Commerce suggests that taxing hybrid and other fuel efficient autos may be on the horizon, to make up for a projected shortfall in the national transportation budget.
Okay, let me get this straight. Everyone wants our dependency on foreign oil dealt with, and the auto makers have created various types of new fuel efficient vehicles, including the hybrids, as a short term answer to that problem, with the government encouraging people to buy these new vehicles to use less fuel, right? Well, people are buying these vehicles, and in high enough volumes that some auto makers are having problems keeping up with the demand. So now, with more of these fuel efficient vehicles on the road using less gas, that means that the feds are getting less money from the federal gas tax, right? What to do, what to do? Oh, I know! Create a new tax on the hybrid, and other fuel efficient cars! That's the ticket! Yeah!
Yes, impose a new tax on those vehicles. Go ahead. See what happens. Remember the luxury tax on new boats, and the result of that tax? Many boat manufacturers went out of business, resulting in many, many lost jobs. Sales volumes of the fuel efficient vehicles will go down as well, as people won't buy them to avoid having to pay the new tax on them, and will instead buy less fuel efficient vehicles that don't have this new tax, thereby maintaining the status quo on our dependency on foreign oil.
Yep. Sounds like a plan to me.
Okay, let me get this straight. Everyone wants our dependency on foreign oil dealt with, and the auto makers have created various types of new fuel efficient vehicles, including the hybrids, as a short term answer to that problem, with the government encouraging people to buy these new vehicles to use less fuel, right? Well, people are buying these vehicles, and in high enough volumes that some auto makers are having problems keeping up with the demand. So now, with more of these fuel efficient vehicles on the road using less gas, that means that the feds are getting less money from the federal gas tax, right? What to do, what to do? Oh, I know! Create a new tax on the hybrid, and other fuel efficient cars! That's the ticket! Yeah!
Yes, impose a new tax on those vehicles. Go ahead. See what happens. Remember the luxury tax on new boats, and the result of that tax? Many boat manufacturers went out of business, resulting in many, many lost jobs. Sales volumes of the fuel efficient vehicles will go down as well, as people won't buy them to avoid having to pay the new tax on them, and will instead buy less fuel efficient vehicles that don't have this new tax, thereby maintaining the status quo on our dependency on foreign oil.
Yep. Sounds like a plan to me.
New conservative PAC formed
As reported here (in almost a panic, I might add), a new conservative PAC - the Constitutional Law PAC - has been formed to back conservative judicial candidates for both the State Supreme Court, and the State Appeals Court. This of course, has the activist libs in a near panic, with predictions of doom and gloom, as they fear that "partisanship" will over rule the so-called "independence" of the courts.
I welcome the new PAC. The State Supreme Court has been in the hands of activist judges who have been legislating from the bench for far too long, and changes are warranted there. The new PAC aims to place people on the bench who are dedicated to adjudicating cases according to existing laws and the State Constitution, rather than creating new laws out of whole cloth, as has been the norm.
I welcome the new PAC. The State Supreme Court has been in the hands of activist judges who have been legislating from the bench for far too long, and changes are warranted there. The new PAC aims to place people on the bench who are dedicated to adjudicating cases according to existing laws and the State Constitution, rather than creating new laws out of whole cloth, as has been the norm.
Jordanian King urges war on militancy
As reported here, King Abdullah II sent a letter to newly appointed Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit, urging war on militants in Jordan in the wake of the recent triple bombings carried out by Zarqawi's Al-Qaida in Iraq.
I'll be watching developments in Jordan closely, to see if indeed the triple bombings there prove to be a tipping point in the war on terrorism in the Middle East.
I'll be watching developments in Jordan closely, to see if indeed the triple bombings there prove to be a tipping point in the war on terrorism in the Middle East.
Lose a KC Council seat, get a job
As reported here, buried in the 2006 King County budget, are not just one, but two newly created jobs for two Council members who lost their seats in the September primary - Carolyn Edmonds (D), who lost to Bob Ferguson (D), and (surprise!), Steve Hammond (R), who lost to Reagan Dunn (R). Both jobs would pay in excess of $80,000.00 per year, and the job descriptions are just a little vague.
Hmmm. I'm not sure what to make of this, exactly, but I guess if you want a high paying job (with little to do) with King County, run for the Council and lose.
Hmmm. I'm not sure what to make of this, exactly, but I guess if you want a high paying job (with little to do) with King County, run for the Council and lose.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Truth AND Consequences
A while ago I talked a little about a TV program called Truth OR Consequences. (The MC of that show just recently died at the age of 92.) I have been thinking along those lines again after being in the presence of some young people who rant about the truthfulness of the President and his administration. I have to admit that trying to show the facts of things and supporting various ideas and concepts with information seem to be ignored with the basic sentiment that "that doesn't feel right so I don't believe it." Actions have consequences. Try dropping a stone into a quiet pond without producing some sort of ripples. (Shucks, try picking up a rotten piece of formerly edible vegetable material without getting the yuck squished out on you.) Words and ideas have consequences as well. One of the most effective ways to lie is to tell only the part of the truth that you want to tell without adding the rest. I was amazed at how effective this type of approach seemed to be for the re-election of Ron I-never-met-a-tax-increase-I-didn't-like Sims. One of his ads spoke of how the Republican candidate was going to take money away from Metro as if that were a horrendous idea. Another thought in that same ad spoke of how more roads would be put in by his opponent with a freeway going into a very scenic area that he was standing in. The consequences of continuing to divert money from roads and highways to Metro are evident in the continually lengthened commute times around the Puget Sound area. One of the ideas that is basically behind less roads is that more people will ride the bus and the light rail. Could it be that Ron and his cronies haven't seen the reality of how few commuters use the bus system by choice? The consequences of trying to force people into certain types of transportation choices had made the commute in Seattle a stopping factor in having the Super Bowl here. Ten years ago the main problem was insufficient hotel rooms and a somewhat less than ideal stadium. We have the hotel space now and a beautiful stadium but the transportation problem has gotten worse without the addition of more roads to carry the commuters. The truth is, we need more roads NOT more busses. I still see the double busses carrying less than half the number of passengers that they could at all hours of the day. How many other consequences will become evident in the years to come with the refusal to put money into roads and instead putting money into mass transit schemes that will require ever increasing subsidies to maintain the minimal transport capabilities?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The shenanigans of the Left continue
No links in this post, folks. You want proof of what I'm saying, go look it up on Google or Yahoo.
As the post title says, the shenanigans of the Left continue. First came the attacks on the intelligence of President Bush, with liberals claiming, in effect, that he was as dumb as a stump. Then they changed tactics saying he was more devious than even Machiavelli, then they switched back to saying he was as dumb as a stump. Can't have it both ways.
Then the 2000 election was "stolen" somehow, because people were disenfranchised somehow, which was somehow Bush's fault. The actual fact of the matter there, was incompetence on the part of the elections departments in the Florida counties on providing adequate instructions on how to properly fill out a ballot (the majority of the problems which happened occured in Democrat controlled precincts, somehow), as well as on the part of the voters themselves for not being able to figure out how to properly punch a hole in a piece of paper! How much intelligence does that take?
Then it was the seven minute delay on 9/11, which was explained in a perfectly logical manner. Did the Left accept the explanation? Of course not! Why not? Because it didn't fit in their peculiar little ideogram of the evil Bush.
It's only been getting worse, lately. Remember RatherGate? "Fake, but accurate" documents? Now it's "LeakGate", the case where the Dems are frothing at the mouth to have someone charged with a crime for the "outing" of Valerie Plame - who outed herself years before all this stuff with Robert Novak started.
Recently we got to see an obviously digitally enhanced photograph of a note that President Bush was writing, which purportedly was to Dr. Rice, asking about a bathroom break. When that attempt at embarrassing the President fell flat, yet another digitally enhanced picture was released, this time of Dr. Rice, where the shape of her eyes were altered to make her look almost demonic.
And now, the big black "X" superimposed over the face of Vice President Cheney by a supposed "technological error" at CNN during a recent speech. What's next? A revealing picture of the First Lady, Laura Bush in a compromising position, perhaps? (Digitally enhanced, of course, to show her good side.)
The left is determined to play shenanigans, and quite frankly it has become beyond tiresome. Some people need to grow up and become functional adults, and quit acting like spoiled children who are having a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.
I pose a challenge to anyone - anyone! - from the Left who can cite shenanigans such as these perpetrated by a Republican against a sitting Democrat President. I highly doubt that there will be even one instance that anyone can provide. You see, I've been around for awhile, and things like these despicable acts have a tendency to stick in my memory, and I certainly can't recall anything as these despicable acts being done by any Republicans since Watergate!
These despicable shenanigans being perpetrated by the Left against a sitting President must stop!
Aren't there any responsible adults left out there?
As the post title says, the shenanigans of the Left continue. First came the attacks on the intelligence of President Bush, with liberals claiming, in effect, that he was as dumb as a stump. Then they changed tactics saying he was more devious than even Machiavelli, then they switched back to saying he was as dumb as a stump. Can't have it both ways.
Then the 2000 election was "stolen" somehow, because people were disenfranchised somehow, which was somehow Bush's fault. The actual fact of the matter there, was incompetence on the part of the elections departments in the Florida counties on providing adequate instructions on how to properly fill out a ballot (the majority of the problems which happened occured in Democrat controlled precincts, somehow), as well as on the part of the voters themselves for not being able to figure out how to properly punch a hole in a piece of paper! How much intelligence does that take?
Then it was the seven minute delay on 9/11, which was explained in a perfectly logical manner. Did the Left accept the explanation? Of course not! Why not? Because it didn't fit in their peculiar little ideogram of the evil Bush.
It's only been getting worse, lately. Remember RatherGate? "Fake, but accurate" documents? Now it's "LeakGate", the case where the Dems are frothing at the mouth to have someone charged with a crime for the "outing" of Valerie Plame - who outed herself years before all this stuff with Robert Novak started.
Recently we got to see an obviously digitally enhanced photograph of a note that President Bush was writing, which purportedly was to Dr. Rice, asking about a bathroom break. When that attempt at embarrassing the President fell flat, yet another digitally enhanced picture was released, this time of Dr. Rice, where the shape of her eyes were altered to make her look almost demonic.
And now, the big black "X" superimposed over the face of Vice President Cheney by a supposed "technological error" at CNN during a recent speech. What's next? A revealing picture of the First Lady, Laura Bush in a compromising position, perhaps? (Digitally enhanced, of course, to show her good side.)
The left is determined to play shenanigans, and quite frankly it has become beyond tiresome. Some people need to grow up and become functional adults, and quit acting like spoiled children who are having a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.
I pose a challenge to anyone - anyone! - from the Left who can cite shenanigans such as these perpetrated by a Republican against a sitting Democrat President. I highly doubt that there will be even one instance that anyone can provide. You see, I've been around for awhile, and things like these despicable acts have a tendency to stick in my memory, and I certainly can't recall anything as these despicable acts being done by any Republicans since Watergate!
These despicable shenanigans being perpetrated by the Left against a sitting President must stop!
Aren't there any responsible adults left out there?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Islam: A definition
A good friend of mine (who shall remain anonymous at his request), offers up this excellent definition of what Islam really is.
Def: Islam. Grievance developed into hatred enacted as genocidal intolerance.
It all began with grievance over Isaac and Ishmael. The Jews maintain that Abraham's spiritual inheritor was Isaac, the Arabs maintain it was Ishmael. That this is not so, is apparent from what the two sides have developed as an idea of what is spiritual. Who would buy Islam as a religion? Few, except those led by force; whereas the Jews won't give it away.
This slumbering grievance was an accident waiting to happen, and the accident was Mohammed, whose demonic ravings found favour with few, until military force was brought to play by those few. Fertile soil in the Arab consciousness was then found, because it gave them an opportunity to develop a superiority complex in respect of the Isaac/Ishmael issue. However its roots in force, and adoption by force, are the very reason that it neither gains acceptance voluntarily, in the main, and that it is administered by force.
Islam and totalitarianism have become indivisible because over 1500 years they have had no alternative models. Christianity has been taken over by force based models in the past, and remains potentially subject to them in part, but when that happens it is a corruption of religion by the nature of a forceful society. Compare the effect of Christianity on Rome; moderating a violent society into something entirely different. However when we look at the effect of Rome (worldly power) on Christianity, we see that it corrupts and twists it. Christianity does not take secular power without ceasing to be Christianity. Islam does not reject secular power without ceasing to be Islam.
Thus Islam has been continued as hatred of the Jews - and then, because they had a conflict of interest with Christians over Jerusalem, with Christians also - for over a thousand years. Today it is genocidal hatred passed off with a series of 'reasons' which are nothing other than grievances, and those grievances ultimately have no foundation. They are truly jealousy, backed up by lies, formulated into a system of self-justification. There is nothing in Islam of value, rather the glorification of these sins as a modus operandi.
What better example than: two young vandals get killed by entering an electrical sub station. The police have not been around for half an hour. The police are then 'blamed' for chasing them into the sub-station when they were not even there. That they could ever be blamed, is because the Moslem thinks himself above the constraints of other societies, since they deem that the witness of others is of less value in court than their own, and every week in mosques they proclaim the rest of the world to be inferior. Accordingly any attempt to apply the same standard of justice to Moslems as anyone else is met with rage and intolerance; it is 'wrong' because they say it is wrong, and they say it is wrong, because they do not have any value for others. This is the behaviour of those with an unfounded grievance developed into a superiority complex - see above.
They really have no hope of change at all but to utterly believe the nonsense and hatred they are fed on until they try to act it out, and then find themselves crushingly defeated; until their myth of superiority is exposed as so horribly wrong that no one could support it. For this to occur, there must be conflict. That is what is happening today; the inevitable confrontation of delusion with reality, brought on by Moslems themselves, resulting in more and more extreme acts, taking them further and further away from the right to be considered a philosophy or a religion, every day; they are sounding their own death knell. But who confronts reality with delusion, will always do so.
This does not mean that everyone who identifies themselves as a Moslem is utterly evil. Rather, that the influence of Islam on the individual is evil where it diverts from comparable systems of thought and religion. It retains points of contact with Judaism and Christianity. It is where it diverges that the trouble arises. It is a series of self-serving lies grafted onto existing truth. Some buy the lies, some buy the truth; but they are denied its fullness. Others remain inside the appearance of that faith, because they know what will be done to them if they leave; the Koran requires death. But once the illusion is shattered by force, Islam, and not the individual Moslem, will die.
Any questions?
Def: Islam. Grievance developed into hatred enacted as genocidal intolerance.
It all began with grievance over Isaac and Ishmael. The Jews maintain that Abraham's spiritual inheritor was Isaac, the Arabs maintain it was Ishmael. That this is not so, is apparent from what the two sides have developed as an idea of what is spiritual. Who would buy Islam as a religion? Few, except those led by force; whereas the Jews won't give it away.
This slumbering grievance was an accident waiting to happen, and the accident was Mohammed, whose demonic ravings found favour with few, until military force was brought to play by those few. Fertile soil in the Arab consciousness was then found, because it gave them an opportunity to develop a superiority complex in respect of the Isaac/Ishmael issue. However its roots in force, and adoption by force, are the very reason that it neither gains acceptance voluntarily, in the main, and that it is administered by force.
Islam and totalitarianism have become indivisible because over 1500 years they have had no alternative models. Christianity has been taken over by force based models in the past, and remains potentially subject to them in part, but when that happens it is a corruption of religion by the nature of a forceful society. Compare the effect of Christianity on Rome; moderating a violent society into something entirely different. However when we look at the effect of Rome (worldly power) on Christianity, we see that it corrupts and twists it. Christianity does not take secular power without ceasing to be Christianity. Islam does not reject secular power without ceasing to be Islam.
Thus Islam has been continued as hatred of the Jews - and then, because they had a conflict of interest with Christians over Jerusalem, with Christians also - for over a thousand years. Today it is genocidal hatred passed off with a series of 'reasons' which are nothing other than grievances, and those grievances ultimately have no foundation. They are truly jealousy, backed up by lies, formulated into a system of self-justification. There is nothing in Islam of value, rather the glorification of these sins as a modus operandi.
What better example than: two young vandals get killed by entering an electrical sub station. The police have not been around for half an hour. The police are then 'blamed' for chasing them into the sub-station when they were not even there. That they could ever be blamed, is because the Moslem thinks himself above the constraints of other societies, since they deem that the witness of others is of less value in court than their own, and every week in mosques they proclaim the rest of the world to be inferior. Accordingly any attempt to apply the same standard of justice to Moslems as anyone else is met with rage and intolerance; it is 'wrong' because they say it is wrong, and they say it is wrong, because they do not have any value for others. This is the behaviour of those with an unfounded grievance developed into a superiority complex - see above.
They really have no hope of change at all but to utterly believe the nonsense and hatred they are fed on until they try to act it out, and then find themselves crushingly defeated; until their myth of superiority is exposed as so horribly wrong that no one could support it. For this to occur, there must be conflict. That is what is happening today; the inevitable confrontation of delusion with reality, brought on by Moslems themselves, resulting in more and more extreme acts, taking them further and further away from the right to be considered a philosophy or a religion, every day; they are sounding their own death knell. But who confronts reality with delusion, will always do so.
This does not mean that everyone who identifies themselves as a Moslem is utterly evil. Rather, that the influence of Islam on the individual is evil where it diverts from comparable systems of thought and religion. It retains points of contact with Judaism and Christianity. It is where it diverges that the trouble arises. It is a series of self-serving lies grafted onto existing truth. Some buy the lies, some buy the truth; but they are denied its fullness. Others remain inside the appearance of that faith, because they know what will be done to them if they leave; the Koran requires death. But once the illusion is shattered by force, Islam, and not the individual Moslem, will die.
Any questions?
Will Dems filibuster Alito?
As reported here, Sen. Biden is questioning Alito's opinion on the Warren Courts decision on reapportionment, that he (Alito) had over twenty years ago, saying that Alito has some explaining to do regarding that opinion.
That's fine. Question him all you want on that, Sen. Biden. That's your job as a Senator. But, let me ask you some questions, Senator, as I feel that's my job as a tax paying citizen of this country, who also just hapens to be a blogger.
Is there a difference, in your mind, between an opinion and a conviction?
Is it even remotely possible, Sir, that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
Have you ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply, as I highly doubt Senator Biden will ever read this, but maybe I can provide an answer or two to the questions I've asked.
Is it even remotely possible that someone may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
The answer to that is, of course it's possible. We won't know whether Judge Alito actually has changed his opinion on this until January, however.
Have you, Senator, ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
The answer to that is, yes, you probably have, although I can't say for certain (but I'd be willing to bet on it). If that is the case, that you have changed your opinion on something, wouldn't it be fair to say that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion as well?
That's fine. Question him all you want on that, Sen. Biden. That's your job as a Senator. But, let me ask you some questions, Senator, as I feel that's my job as a tax paying citizen of this country, who also just hapens to be a blogger.
Is there a difference, in your mind, between an opinion and a conviction?
Is it even remotely possible, Sir, that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
Have you ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply, as I highly doubt Senator Biden will ever read this, but maybe I can provide an answer or two to the questions I've asked.
Is it even remotely possible that someone may have changed his opinion on reapportionment during the ensuing two decades?
The answer to that is, of course it's possible. We won't know whether Judge Alito actually has changed his opinion on this until January, however.
Have you, Senator, ever changed an opinion on something that you felt strongly about, as you (hopefully) gained some wisdom with age?
The answer to that is, yes, you probably have, although I can't say for certain (but I'd be willing to bet on it). If that is the case, that you have changed your opinion on something, wouldn't it be fair to say that Judge Alito may have changed his opinion as well?
Death threat issued against King of Jordan
As reported here, Zarqawi has issued a death threat against King Abdullah II of Jordan, in an attempt to regain support among the people of Jordan.
Although the message has yet to be verified as actually coming from Zarqawi, the rhetoric is typical of the terrorist, including getting facts of the bombings wrong. At the same time that the message was released, hundreds of thousands of Jordanians were marching in Amman, protesting Zarqawi's actions, and calling him a terrorist and a coward.
As I posted here, I really do think that the attacks are a tipping point - at least in Jordan - with the protests by the Jordanians against Zarqawi bolstering that belief. Only time - and subsequent actions by the terrorists - will tell whether this will become a tipping point in other areas in the region as well.
Although the message has yet to be verified as actually coming from Zarqawi, the rhetoric is typical of the terrorist, including getting facts of the bombings wrong. At the same time that the message was released, hundreds of thousands of Jordanians were marching in Amman, protesting Zarqawi's actions, and calling him a terrorist and a coward.
As I posted here, I really do think that the attacks are a tipping point - at least in Jordan - with the protests by the Jordanians against Zarqawi bolstering that belief. Only time - and subsequent actions by the terrorists - will tell whether this will become a tipping point in other areas in the region as well.
Pass this along
Larry Elder gives us a very good brief history of just which political party has done the most for African Americans in this country. Can you guess which party? I'll give you a hint. It isn't the one you may think it is.
Hat tip: hollie_is_right
Hat tip: hollie_is_right
Washington Farm Bureau launching new initiative
As reported here, the Washington Farm Bureau is launching a new initiative, with the hope of getting it on the 2006 ballot, that would require governments to compensate landowners impacted by regulation on the use of their property, saying this would balance out the effects of land use regulations such as the KC Critical Areas Ordinance.
Of course, the environmentalists are lining up to try to prevent this, saying this would allow anyone to do anything with their property. But, that's just not so. Zoning regulations are already in place to prevent, say, a chemical refinery being built in a residential neighborhood, so that argument, to me at least, is moot. What this new initiative would do is give control over your own property back to you, rather than government telling you what you can, or cannot, do with what you own.
Most people who own property are fully aware of what impacts their use of their property may have on their neighbors, and are smart enough to know what's a good idea, and what isn't a good idea.
Let me put it another way, using as an example something else a large majority of us own - cars. There are laws in place regulating what is acceptable - and what is not acceptable - use of a car. Most people who own a car have the intelligence to abide by those regulations. That's not to say that there are some who don't abide by those regulations, but those who don't - and get caught - face penalties for their unacceptable use of their car. The same idea applies to those who own land. There are acceptable uses for their land, just as there are unacceptable uses, and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to land owners as to their intelligence to know the difference. I think that government should acknowledge this as well, and stop treating people as if they don't have a brain.
Of course, the environmentalists are lining up to try to prevent this, saying this would allow anyone to do anything with their property. But, that's just not so. Zoning regulations are already in place to prevent, say, a chemical refinery being built in a residential neighborhood, so that argument, to me at least, is moot. What this new initiative would do is give control over your own property back to you, rather than government telling you what you can, or cannot, do with what you own.
Most people who own property are fully aware of what impacts their use of their property may have on their neighbors, and are smart enough to know what's a good idea, and what isn't a good idea.
Let me put it another way, using as an example something else a large majority of us own - cars. There are laws in place regulating what is acceptable - and what is not acceptable - use of a car. Most people who own a car have the intelligence to abide by those regulations. That's not to say that there are some who don't abide by those regulations, but those who don't - and get caught - face penalties for their unacceptable use of their car. The same idea applies to those who own land. There are acceptable uses for their land, just as there are unacceptable uses, and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to land owners as to their intelligence to know the difference. I think that government should acknowledge this as well, and stop treating people as if they don't have a brain.
Energetic advocacy group pushes White House agenda
So read the breathless headline for this hit piece about Progress for America, an advocacy group supporting President Bush and the Republican Party.
My question to Glen Justice and Aron Pilhofer is, why don't you do a hit piece on MoveOn and George Soros?
Oh, wait. They wouldn't do that, since MoveOn and Soros voice their sentiments! Silly me!
My question to Glen Justice and Aron Pilhofer is, why don't you do a hit piece on MoveOn and George Soros?
Oh, wait. They wouldn't do that, since MoveOn and Soros voice their sentiments! Silly me!
Sunday, November 13, 2005
And now for something lighter...
Quasimodo was checking on some of his bells in Notre Dame when he noticed one of them was missing its clapper. He removed the bell, took it to his local bell repair shop and was told to come back in a couple of days. When Quasimodo went back to get the bell, the weather was absolutely grand. The sun was shining with only a few clouds in the sky. Many of the citizens were out strolling and enjoying the day. Q was walking carrying the bell and not paying attention to where he was walking. He tripped and fell, rolling down the bank of the river and right into the water. He was able to get up and surprisingly still had hold of the bell. He then burst into song, singing, "I'm Ringin in the Seine, just ringing in the Seine..."
MSM doesn't have to verify source material?
I was listening to the radio and heard something that astonishes me. (Of course, I should not be astonished since I haven't trusted the veracity of the MSM for years.) What I heard was that people in the MSM, New York Times, CBS "News", Washington Post, etc. don't have to verify the "information" they publish as "news" any more, that the stuff needs to be proven false by the critics of the MSM. The primary focus was from a "story" concerning President Bush's final time in the guard and the forged documents from the commander of the guard unit as "reported" by Dan Blather of the CBS "Views". The woman (Mary Mapes) who was being interviewed concerning the forgeries had the absolute gall to state that she would run the story again even knowing the documents were forged since she believed the story to be "essentially true". Whatever happened to journalistic integrity? Whatever happened to rejecting stories that had little if any verification? I guess that those values don't mean much to those whose world view doesn't gibe with what the facts are. Once upon a time the news folks were the rightful watchdogs of the shadier layers of society, sadly no more from many of the MSM. Shades of the yellow journalism "news" papers such as National Enquirer and others.
Bombings in Jordan a tipping point?
As reported here, Jordanians were outraged by the recent bombing attacks in Amman, as protesters took to the streets chanting anti-terrorism slogans, and creating makeshift shrines at the sites of the bombings.
As tragic as these attacks were, perhaps this is the tipping point in the Arab world, waking them up to the fact that al Qaida will stop at nothing - including killing innocent Muslims - in their quest to bring terror to the world.
It is hoped here that this is a wake up call to moderate Arabs, and that they realize the real threat that al Qaida poses, not ony to the West, but to the entire world, and that they will finally, truly, join the fight against global terrorism.
Update: In the aftermath of the terrorist bombings in Amman carried out by Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq, Jordan's King Abdullah II has called for a global fight against terrorism.
Not to try to sound too cynical, Your Highness, but what took you so long to wake up to the threat posed by al-Qaida? America has been calling for a global fight since 9/11/01. Well, I guess the old saying applies here - better late, than never. It's hoped here that you have some influence over your Arab neighbors, and can persuade them to join up in the global war on terrorism, too.
As tragic as these attacks were, perhaps this is the tipping point in the Arab world, waking them up to the fact that al Qaida will stop at nothing - including killing innocent Muslims - in their quest to bring terror to the world.
It is hoped here that this is a wake up call to moderate Arabs, and that they realize the real threat that al Qaida poses, not ony to the West, but to the entire world, and that they will finally, truly, join the fight against global terrorism.
Update: In the aftermath of the terrorist bombings in Amman carried out by Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq, Jordan's King Abdullah II has called for a global fight against terrorism.
Not to try to sound too cynical, Your Highness, but what took you so long to wake up to the threat posed by al-Qaida? America has been calling for a global fight since 9/11/01. Well, I guess the old saying applies here - better late, than never. It's hoped here that you have some influence over your Arab neighbors, and can persuade them to join up in the global war on terrorism, too.
Lessons from France
David Horowitz states in plain language, so that even the dimmest of libs can understand, just what the lessons from the riots in France are - that the Islamofascists want to kill you if you don't subscribe to their cult of death.
Rival groups warring in Iraq
As reported here, according to Knight-Ridder, rival "insurgent" groups are now split, and fighting each other, with Sunni "insurgents" fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq.
al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Zarqawi, is made up mainly of foreign terrorists, and they have recently been targeting Sunni's, due to the Sunni participation in the recent referendum on the Iraqi constitution. This has infuriated the Sunni "insurgents", and apparently they have decided that they are going to fight back.
What does this mean, and should the US somehow try to encourage the Sunni's in this new development?
One thing I think it means is that the "insurgency" against the US and the fledgling Iraqi government is absolutely doomed to failure - regardless of what you read in the MSM - in that, as al-Qaida "exacts revenge" on the Sunni's for their participation in the referendum, the Sunni's may turn to the Iraqi government for assistance against Zarqawi. If this does happen (and I admit this is a big "if"), this would allow the US to concentrate more on al-Qaida in Iraq and Zarqawi, and allow the Iraqi government to turn it's attention to the Sunni "insurgents", to encourage the Sunni "insurgents" to stop fighting against the government, and instead fight against the "foreign fighters".
Whatever does actually happen in the near future, this "fratricide" between the Sunni "insurgents" and al-Qaida in Iraq can only looked upon as a positive development in the on-going fight in Iraq, one that needs to be exploited by the US and the Iraqi government.
al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Zarqawi, is made up mainly of foreign terrorists, and they have recently been targeting Sunni's, due to the Sunni participation in the recent referendum on the Iraqi constitution. This has infuriated the Sunni "insurgents", and apparently they have decided that they are going to fight back.
What does this mean, and should the US somehow try to encourage the Sunni's in this new development?
One thing I think it means is that the "insurgency" against the US and the fledgling Iraqi government is absolutely doomed to failure - regardless of what you read in the MSM - in that, as al-Qaida "exacts revenge" on the Sunni's for their participation in the referendum, the Sunni's may turn to the Iraqi government for assistance against Zarqawi. If this does happen (and I admit this is a big "if"), this would allow the US to concentrate more on al-Qaida in Iraq and Zarqawi, and allow the Iraqi government to turn it's attention to the Sunni "insurgents", to encourage the Sunni "insurgents" to stop fighting against the government, and instead fight against the "foreign fighters".
Whatever does actually happen in the near future, this "fratricide" between the Sunni "insurgents" and al-Qaida in Iraq can only looked upon as a positive development in the on-going fight in Iraq, one that needs to be exploited by the US and the Iraqi government.
Is it time to partition France?
The rioting in France, which has now spread throughout that nation, is beginning to look more and more like an intifada, much as has happened in Israel. So, what is the "solution" to this new intifada? As concerns the French, the only real course of action, as I see it, is appeasement.
And how to accomplish the appeasing of the jihadists? Why, the very same thing that the French, as well as other nations, have demanded of Israel - partition. I say that France has to be partitioned, creating an autonomous region for the jihadists to "live in peace", with Paris as the capitol of the new autonomous state. Why Paris? Why not Paris? After all, many are calling for Jerusalem to be the capitol of the Palestinian state.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, eh?
Hat tip: Littlebee55
And how to accomplish the appeasing of the jihadists? Why, the very same thing that the French, as well as other nations, have demanded of Israel - partition. I say that France has to be partitioned, creating an autonomous region for the jihadists to "live in peace", with Paris as the capitol of the new autonomous state. Why Paris? Why not Paris? After all, many are calling for Jerusalem to be the capitol of the Palestinian state.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, eh?
Hat tip: Littlebee55
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Birthday Greetings
Happy birthday wishes go out to all who are a part - past and present - of the United States Marine Corps, on this the 230th birthday of our nations elite fighting force. May you have many more!
As most of you who have been reading my posts are aware, I'm a veteran of the US Navy. As such, I will occasionally take a teasing jab or two at the Marines - it's a tradition. But I want you all to know this. I am very proud of the Marines - those who are first to fight our country's wars, who unfailingly and unflinchingly go into harms way, so the rest of us may live free.
To those who are a part of the United States Marine Corps, past and present - Semper Fidelis!
As most of you who have been reading my posts are aware, I'm a veteran of the US Navy. As such, I will occasionally take a teasing jab or two at the Marines - it's a tradition. But I want you all to know this. I am very proud of the Marines - those who are first to fight our country's wars, who unfailingly and unflinchingly go into harms way, so the rest of us may live free.
To those who are a part of the United States Marine Corps, past and present - Semper Fidelis!
Monday, November 07, 2005
As Veterans Day nears, some thoughts
I just finished reading a book called, "Hill 488", by Ray Hildreth and Charles W. Sasser (co-author of "One Shot-One Kill"), about a platoon of Recon Marines who made a valiant stand against an estimated battalion's worth of VC/NVA in Vietnam, in 1966.
At the end of the epilogue, the author is speaking many years later with another survivor of that terrible night, Bob Martinez, who said, and I quote:
"You don't have to wait until November to have Veterans Day. Every day of freedom we have is Veterans Day."
As we near Veterans Day this year, I am once again reminded of the sacrifices of the few for the many, so that we may enjoy the freedoms we have today. Without the willing sacrifice of the few, we would not have the freedoms that we do have today, that so many take for granted.
We wouldn't have the freedom of the internet (which some would take away), enabling me to post this entry in my blog, and allowing you to read it - or not.
We wouldn't have the freedom of choosing which political party to support, as we would be told which political party to support, which would in all likelihood be the only political party.
We wouldn't have the freedom of assembly with whomever we chose to assemble together with, for whatever reason.
We wouldn't have the freedom of choosing which form of religion under which to worship God, if we were so inclined to do so. We probably wouldn't be able to worship God if we wanted to.
We wouldn't have the freedom of even turning on a light, as Thomas Edison may not have had the freedom to invent it.
We wouldn't have the freedom of having cell phones, as Alexander Graham Bell may not have had the freedom to invent the telephone.
We wouldn't have the freedom of enjoying many things that we take for granted in our day to day lives, as freedom of thought would be stifled, thereby stifling the new ideas necessary for new inventions, new ways of looking at things, new ways of doing things.
But most of all, we wouldn't have the freedom of enjoying freedom.
As you go about your daily lives, take a moment to reflect on the freedoms that you enjoy (and maybe take for granted - we all do), and if by chance you happen to know, or meet up with a veteran, tell him or her "Thank you!". If you know, or meet up with someone currently in the military, tell him or her "Thank you!" - and let them know why you're thanking them!
Don't be surprised if they respond in a very humble manner (because most of us do when people tell us "Thank you!"). Just smile, and if you are so inclined, give 'em a hug, too.
To all my fellow veterans, and to those of you who are on active duty, or in the Reserves or National Guard - THANK YOU!
Your sacrifice - and being in the military is both a sacrifice and a priveledge - has allowed me to enjoy so many wonderful things in my life, which I never would have without your willing sacrifice. So, my most humble thanks to all of you.
At the end of the epilogue, the author is speaking many years later with another survivor of that terrible night, Bob Martinez, who said, and I quote:
"You don't have to wait until November to have Veterans Day. Every day of freedom we have is Veterans Day."
As we near Veterans Day this year, I am once again reminded of the sacrifices of the few for the many, so that we may enjoy the freedoms we have today. Without the willing sacrifice of the few, we would not have the freedoms that we do have today, that so many take for granted.
We wouldn't have the freedom of the internet (which some would take away), enabling me to post this entry in my blog, and allowing you to read it - or not.
We wouldn't have the freedom of choosing which political party to support, as we would be told which political party to support, which would in all likelihood be the only political party.
We wouldn't have the freedom of assembly with whomever we chose to assemble together with, for whatever reason.
We wouldn't have the freedom of choosing which form of religion under which to worship God, if we were so inclined to do so. We probably wouldn't be able to worship God if we wanted to.
We wouldn't have the freedom of even turning on a light, as Thomas Edison may not have had the freedom to invent it.
We wouldn't have the freedom of having cell phones, as Alexander Graham Bell may not have had the freedom to invent the telephone.
We wouldn't have the freedom of enjoying many things that we take for granted in our day to day lives, as freedom of thought would be stifled, thereby stifling the new ideas necessary for new inventions, new ways of looking at things, new ways of doing things.
But most of all, we wouldn't have the freedom of enjoying freedom.
As you go about your daily lives, take a moment to reflect on the freedoms that you enjoy (and maybe take for granted - we all do), and if by chance you happen to know, or meet up with a veteran, tell him or her "Thank you!". If you know, or meet up with someone currently in the military, tell him or her "Thank you!" - and let them know why you're thanking them!
Don't be surprised if they respond in a very humble manner (because most of us do when people tell us "Thank you!"). Just smile, and if you are so inclined, give 'em a hug, too.
To all my fellow veterans, and to those of you who are on active duty, or in the Reserves or National Guard - THANK YOU!
Your sacrifice - and being in the military is both a sacrifice and a priveledge - has allowed me to enjoy so many wonderful things in my life, which I never would have without your willing sacrifice. So, my most humble thanks to all of you.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
The News From Iraq That's Not Fit To Print
Jeff Jacoby lays out what the most important story from Iraq is - the ratification of the first democratic government charter in the Middle East in history - and compares that to what was reported at the same time by the leftist media as being the most important news from Iraq.
For more good news from Iraq and Afghanistan that the leftist media is not reporting, check out Aurthur Chrenkoff.
For more good news from Iraq and Afghanistan that the leftist media is not reporting, check out Aurthur Chrenkoff.
If the Problem is Muslim Terror
Victor Davis Hanson asks some pertinent questions in this piece, once again proving that he is one of America's pre-eminent thinkers.
Senate shame
Oliver North has some scathing comments directed at the US Senate, that are both warranted, and right on the mark.
For too long now, the Dems have tried every little thing they could to "bring down" a sitting President during a time of war, and each time they have pulled a little stunt such as the closed door meeting, they feed fuel to the terrorists, and dishearten those they say they "support" - the troops in the line of fire. If the Dems really supported the troops, really cared about their safety, they would not engage in stunts such as this.
But of course, they don't care about our troops at all, and they never have, no matter what comes out of their mouths. Their main goal is to bring down President Bush by any means possible. Any other consequence of their actions isn't even of secondary importance to them. It's not even on their radar screens. All they are interested in is regaining power, and the sooner the better, by any means, and it seems as if the Reps are trying to help them achieve their goal. Despicable.
For too long now, the Dems have tried every little thing they could to "bring down" a sitting President during a time of war, and each time they have pulled a little stunt such as the closed door meeting, they feed fuel to the terrorists, and dishearten those they say they "support" - the troops in the line of fire. If the Dems really supported the troops, really cared about their safety, they would not engage in stunts such as this.
But of course, they don't care about our troops at all, and they never have, no matter what comes out of their mouths. Their main goal is to bring down President Bush by any means possible. Any other consequence of their actions isn't even of secondary importance to them. It's not even on their radar screens. All they are interested in is regaining power, and the sooner the better, by any means, and it seems as if the Reps are trying to help them achieve their goal. Despicable.
Cindy for Congress?
Yes, that Cindy. They want her to move to NY, so she can run against "pro-war" Shrillary. Someone has been using too many drugs, methinks.
Hat tip: Hardcoreconservative
Hat tip: Hardcoreconservative
What the Dems said about Iraq and WMD
Glenn Beck has a whole list of qoutes of what the Dems said about Saddam possessing WMD - when they were in control of the White House. It's rather amazing to me how they can "pontificate from on high" about how "wrong" President Bush was (and still is) about the very same subject, and how that "wrongness" has led the US into the "quagmire" of Iraq.
There are really only two main differences from then to now. The Dems are no longer in control of the White House, and, President Bush decided to protect the US (and the rest of the world too, I might add) by acting decisively on the information that was available.
The Dems sat around wringing their hands over Saddam, not doing a thing about him other than to shoot a few ineffectual tomahawks his way, as opposed to the fact that President Bush, acting decisively, removed the tyrant from the world stage, freeing millions of Iraqi's from under the heel of the tyrant.
Hand wringing, and telling a tyrant "Naughty, naughty!" doesn't accomplish anything. Acting decisively on what information was available, toppled a tyrant and freed millions. Tell me truthfully - which way do you prefer? Hand wringing, or acting decisively?
Hat tip: hollie_is_right
There are really only two main differences from then to now. The Dems are no longer in control of the White House, and, President Bush decided to protect the US (and the rest of the world too, I might add) by acting decisively on the information that was available.
The Dems sat around wringing their hands over Saddam, not doing a thing about him other than to shoot a few ineffectual tomahawks his way, as opposed to the fact that President Bush, acting decisively, removed the tyrant from the world stage, freeing millions of Iraqi's from under the heel of the tyrant.
Hand wringing, and telling a tyrant "Naughty, naughty!" doesn't accomplish anything. Acting decisively on what information was available, toppled a tyrant and freed millions. Tell me truthfully - which way do you prefer? Hand wringing, or acting decisively?
Hat tip: hollie_is_right
Washington State Supreme Court at it again
As reported here, the Washington State Supreme Court - as liberal a bunch as there ever was - has created a new "class" of parents in a case of two lesbians whose relationship ended, with one suing the other over visitation rights to a child that was conceived artificially, even though she has no biological ties to the child. The Supreme Court has usurped authority from the state legislature again.
Someone needs to remind the State Supreme Court Justices of what they were supposed to have learned in Civics class about the separation of powers in government.
Someone needs to remind the State Supreme Court Justices of what they were supposed to have learned in Civics class about the separation of powers in government.
Here we go again
As reported here, there were problems again with correctly tabulating the absentee votes in the September primary, with many of the same mistakes made last November, being made again. KC Elections Director Dean Logan is again making excuses to "explain" it all away.
Here we go again.
This Tuesday is Election Day. Are there going to be the same problems again, Dean?
Never mind. I'll answer that for you - probably.
Here we go again.
This Tuesday is Election Day. Are there going to be the same problems again, Dean?
Never mind. I'll answer that for you - probably.
Justice has been served
In a previous post, I spoke about this couple tying up their kids. Well, justice has been served, as the woman received a 4 1/2 year prison sentence, which I think is fair.
KC Elections Department to get outside review
As reported here, this group supposedly will have broad authority to recommend changes in the way elections are run in KC, and "King" Sims says he will honor those recommendations.
Changes are definitely needed, and it is hoped here that positive recommendations will ensue, and be implemented. We'll see.
Changes are definitely needed, and it is hoped here that positive recommendations will ensue, and be implemented. We'll see.
"King" Sims - a gushingly breathless profile
P-I reporter Gregory Roberts positively gushes breathlessly over KC Executive "King" Ron Sims, writing at one point that "Sims' command of even arcane subjects, and especially of those germane to county government, inspires something close to awe."
Sims inspires awe? Oh, please.
With all of the problems King County has had over the past several years just in the Elections Department alone - not to mention the land grab Critical Areas Ordinance - I don't believe that Sims inspires "awe".
C'mon, Gregory - you can do better than that!
Sims inspires awe? Oh, please.
With all of the problems King County has had over the past several years just in the Elections Department alone - not to mention the land grab Critical Areas Ordinance - I don't believe that Sims inspires "awe".
C'mon, Gregory - you can do better than that!
Friday, November 04, 2005
"Global Warming is a 'Fact'", scientists say so.
I have been mulling over the broadly painted and scarcely veiled terror-engendering articles in the Seattle Times a short time ago that covered the horrible news that "global warming is a fact and that humanity is the cause". The approved solution was the signing and implementing of the Kyoto accords by the United States. Our world is in crisis and the mean old US is ignoring the dangers.... Somehow I don't see that we are to blame for every difficulty that happens around the world or even our responsibility in fixing the problems caused by natural disasters, yet we are the ones who jump in first with the most in spite of the attitudes of many of the recipient nations. The large tropical storms and hurricanes that have happened this year was seen as "proof" of global warming by my young liberal friend. I was really surprised that he did not attribute the natural disasters to President Bush. I chose not to argue. We had a lot of work to get done and I didn't think that anything would be accomplished by the conversation. I also am wondering if global warming has anything to do with the increased amount of early cold wintry weather we are experiencing so far this fall. I mean, a foot or more of snow in the Cascades already? If this is global warming the skiers/snowboarders/winter sports folks will probably take more of it. I wonder if the early snow in the mountains is a precursor to a larger amount down in the lower elevations this winter? If so, how does that equate with "warming"? Yes, I know that one or two seasons that are different don't indicate a trend, but maybe that same thought can be applied to the idea of global warming? I remember reading that during the Roman Empire, some of the best wines were from England, a reason to believe that not all warming is bad? One other thought, there are a large number of scientists in the world, many are involved with environmental things. How many of these people were asked and how many were simply ignored if their statements didn't agree with the ones calling for major changes in environmental policies?
"Pavement is forever?"
I was driving into work the other morning when I saw one of the many ridiculous bumper stickers that stand on emotionalism instead of trying to determine if the facts have something different to say. The part that stood out in my mind said that "pavement is forever"... The irony of this is that we were going by an empty parking lot that had at one time several businesses including a grocery store, gas station and a very mini mini strip mall, and is currently surrounded by a chain link fence. Where the buildings were has become filled with a variety of grasses and weeds that have poked up through the pavement. There are a couple of small trees that weren't there about five years ago when the buildings were torn down. The asphalt is still covering over 75% of the property yet is becoming hidden due to the large amount of plant life that has grown up in that area. The asphalt is cracked and broken in many places and where the cracks are there are plants. Hmmm. Just another thought, if pavement really is forever, then how come roads and parking areas have to be fixed all the time and the plants have to be poisoned out of existence????? I used to live in a city that had many trees planted by the sidewalks and the last time I was there, the sidewalks were being replaced in many areas and the trees were being cut down because the tree roots had broken the concrete. Pavement is forever, sure it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)