As reported here, [I]n New Orleans, they aren't shedding a tear over Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's decision not to seek a second term.
Julia Reed of Newsweek, resides in New Orleans, and relates what was contained in two e-mails she recently received. One had to do with some armed robbery crimes that were recently committed, a trend that is on the rise in the Crescent City (Hey, Nagin! What are you doing to fix that, huh? Sorry, I digress.), while the second had to do with the announcement that Governor Kathleen Blanco will not seek a second term. Some excerpts from Ms. Reed's article, with my thoughts occasionally thrown in:
As crimes go in the city with by far the highest murder rate in the nation (96 per every 100,000 people in 2006; more than 40 people overall have been killed so far in 2007), these could actually be viewed as good news-nobody was killed or even shot, after all. But the real good news came in my next e-mail: Gov. Kathleen Blanco announced that she would not seek re-election to a second term. [Emphasis mine]
Blanco, a former high-school business teacher-turned-public servant, elected in 2003 as the first woman governor of Louisiana, became one of the many not-so-happy public faces of Katrina, along with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and FEMA's Mike (Brownie) Brown. In the storm's immediate aftermath, she appeared so disoriented that one press account of her public appearances went so far as to suggest that she seemed "over-medicated." Times-Picayune columnist James Gill reported that "'Me-Maw's tranked' is the word on the street." (Blanco is sometimes nicknamed "Me-Maw" due to her grandmotherly affect.) That general perception was not helped when she was overheard by a CNN producer while still miked, admitting that she hadn't known it was the governor's responsibility to call out the National Guard.
She didn't know it was her responsibility to call out the National Guard? How did she even get elected to the office of Governor in the first place if she didn't know something as elementary as that? What kind of "assistants" does she have, anyway? Did anyone in her office think to give her a nudge, and whisper in her ear that she needed to call out the NG? It appears not, and those people who failed to properly advise her on something as important as this - something any first year civics student would have been able to tell her, if they still taught civics that is - should be fired immediately, and barred from holding any government job in the state.
But wait - there's more!
Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. In neighboring Mississippi, Haley Barbour had convened two special sessions of the legislature before she called for her first one. Louisiana received the first half of the $7.5 billion earmarked for homeowners' reconstruction efforts in December of 2005, and the second chunk in June 2006. The so-called "Road Home" program offers owners of storm-damaged homes up to $150,000 in aid. But so far, bureaucratic hurdles put in place by the state have meant that only 3 percent of the 115,000 families who have applied for help have received it. Worse, the contractor handpicked by Blanco's administration to implement the process stands to make a jaw-dropping $765 million from the job, though it has further slowed progress with computer glitches and Keystone Kops-style mistakes. By contrast, 78 percent of Mississippi's applicants in a similar, but much less bureaucratic, program have received their checks.
Read that first sentence again - Indecision and failure to act have been the hallmarks of her administration. That was true before Hurricane Katrina hit, it was true in the immediate aftermath, and it's obvious it is still true today. For years, Mississippi was the unfortunate butt of a lot of jokes about ... well, about most things that went on in that state, and yet with proper leadership in the form of Gov. Haley Barbour making, and implementing, the hard decisions needed to help the state of Mississippi recover from Hurricane Katrina, 78% of applicants in a similar home recovery/rebuilding program to that in Louisiana have received money to help them rebuild, as opposed to a miniscule 3% of people in Louisiana having received help from the program there. That speaks volumes both for Gov. Barbour, and most loudly against Gov. Blanco. Now here's the kicker.
The irony is that when the program was finally launched last summer-with the official name "Governor Kathleen Blanco's Road Home Program"-critics cried foul, saying that she would get too much political credit for the payouts. Now, of course, she has been given all the blame for the lack thereof.
My question is, why did Blanco wait until last summer to launch this program? Is the legislature in Louisiana so inept that they couldn't get legislation pushed through to get this program off and running as soon as the first installment of federal funds was received? Or, is this just another example of Blanco's indecision and failure to act? Oh, and naming a program after yourself is just bilious, in my opinion, Gov. Blanco. After all, the money didn't come from you, it came from the federal government; you were simply supposed to properly allocate it. You rightly deserve all the blame for the lack of pay outs to those in need. Only 3% of the people eligible for the pay outs because of the hurdles placed in their way by your state government is beyond obscene!
A January poll showed her garnering only 24 percent of the votes in a race against U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, her 2003 opponent, who had 59 percent. Since then, she has dropped 8 more points, and last week in yet another embarrassing blow, HUD charged that the state was breaking federal law by requiring homeowners to wait for a series of reimbursements rather than giving them the option of taking a lump sum.
I must say that Blanco isn't entirely brain dead, as anyone in political office would realize that their re-election prospects with only 16 percent of the state vote are basically slim to none, especially after the state was charged with breaking federal law in making people take incremental payments, without giving them the option of taking a lump sum payment. The state agency responsible for making the pay outs quickly changed the rules, as we'll see in the next excerpt, to make HUD happy, but these missteps did not make the state Democrat Party happy - at all.
Though the State Recovery Authority agreed to change the program to address HUD's concerns, the feedback from the initial HUD announcement had been so negative that the state Democratic Party put strong pressure on Blanco to bow out sooner rather than later, so that it could field a better candidate.
As Ms. Reed goes on to state, no matter who decides to run from either side of the aisle, the prospects for the people of Louisiana are brighter now, than they have been in some time.
Now, if only "Mr. Chocolate" Ray Nagin would learn a lesson from all of this, maybe the prospects for the citizens of New Orleans would be brighter as well.
H/T Nealz Nuze, via Hollie-is-Right
Friday, March 23, 2007
Muslims offer to help 'John Does' sued by imams
As reported here, [l]awyers and a Muslim group say they will defend at no cost airline passengers caught up in a lawsuit between a group of imams and U.S. Airways if the passengers are named as "John Does" and sued for reporting suspicious behavior that got the Muslim clerics booted from a November flight.
The six imams are suing the airline, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the unnamed "John Does" to be named later, for discrimination, saying they were removed from the flight for praying in the airport.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org) -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams.
"It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy has also posted a press release regarding this on their web site, which can be found here.
As those of you who read my blog are aware, I've written many posts about the Islamofascist terrorists that are trying to take us all back to the 8th century as they attempt to recreate their coveted "Caliphate". It is very heartening to see that there are those who are Muslims who reject this way of thinking, and aren't afraid to speak up! (We need to gear from more of you folks.)
To Dr. Jasser and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, I say thank you! Your efforts on behalf, and support, of those who may become targets of CAIR in this blatant attempt at intimidation are very much appreciated by this writer.
H/T Hollie is Right
The six imams are suing the airline, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the unnamed "John Does" to be named later, for discrimination, saying they were removed from the flight for praying in the airport.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org) -- told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams.
"It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy has also posted a press release regarding this on their web site, which can be found here.
As those of you who read my blog are aware, I've written many posts about the Islamofascist terrorists that are trying to take us all back to the 8th century as they attempt to recreate their coveted "Caliphate". It is very heartening to see that there are those who are Muslims who reject this way of thinking, and aren't afraid to speak up! (We need to gear from more of you folks.)
To Dr. Jasser and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, I say thank you! Your efforts on behalf, and support, of those who may become targets of CAIR in this blatant attempt at intimidation are very much appreciated by this writer.
H/T Hollie is Right
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Lights, Camera . . . Candidacy?
Fred Thompson is shaking up the GOP presidential field. And he's not even running yet.
So says John Fund of OpinionJournal in this piece, and I agree with Mr. Fund.
So says John Fund of OpinionJournal in this piece, and I agree with Mr. Fund.
Maliki Speaks Out
As reported here, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER NOURI AL-MALIKI, speaking at last week's international conference in Baghdad, reminded many who needed reminding exactly what is at stake in the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, few people in Europe seem to have heard the message.
The great enemy, Maliki warned, is the ideology of terrorism, which threatens not only Iraq but every decent and peace-loving nation on the planet. "The terrorism that today is trying to kill Iraqis in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul, and Anbar," he said, "is the same as the terror that intimidated the population of Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, attacked the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and hit underground trains in Madrid and London."
In other words, whatever one thinks of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become another front in the war on radical Islam. This faith-based ideology assumes various shapes--Sunni suicide bombers, al Qaeda operatives--yet all pursue the same overriding objective: to turn Iraq into a haven for international terrorism, guided by a militant and murderous vision of Islam.
This is, of course, exactly the argument made by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair--which probably explains why media outlets such as the BBC downplayed Maliki's blunt assessment.
The Iraqi prime minister can be faulted for his handling of security issues and failure to politically unite the country's religious factions. Yet he seems to understand the nature and difficulty of his task, a difficulty that is hard to overstate and greatly complicated by daily acts of barbarism. For a few moments last week--moments that surely offended the sensibilities of political and media sophisticates--Maliki reminded the world that America is not the problem in Iraq or in the Middle East. Terrorism is the problem. And it is the reason Iraq is fighting for its life.
We would do well to remember - and remind the Democrat politicians - that America is not the problem in Iraq, but that terrorism is. Fault Mr. Maliki all you want for his past reliance on Al-Sadr to keep him in power, but know this - he gets it, while the vast majority of Democrat politicians don't have a clue.
The great enemy, Maliki warned, is the ideology of terrorism, which threatens not only Iraq but every decent and peace-loving nation on the planet. "The terrorism that today is trying to kill Iraqis in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul, and Anbar," he said, "is the same as the terror that intimidated the population of Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, attacked the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and hit underground trains in Madrid and London."
In other words, whatever one thinks of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become another front in the war on radical Islam. This faith-based ideology assumes various shapes--Sunni suicide bombers, al Qaeda operatives--yet all pursue the same overriding objective: to turn Iraq into a haven for international terrorism, guided by a militant and murderous vision of Islam.
This is, of course, exactly the argument made by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair--which probably explains why media outlets such as the BBC downplayed Maliki's blunt assessment.
The Iraqi prime minister can be faulted for his handling of security issues and failure to politically unite the country's religious factions. Yet he seems to understand the nature and difficulty of his task, a difficulty that is hard to overstate and greatly complicated by daily acts of barbarism. For a few moments last week--moments that surely offended the sensibilities of political and media sophisticates--Maliki reminded the world that America is not the problem in Iraq or in the Middle East. Terrorism is the problem. And it is the reason Iraq is fighting for its life.
We would do well to remember - and remind the Democrat politicians - that America is not the problem in Iraq, but that terrorism is. Fault Mr. Maliki all you want for his past reliance on Al-Sadr to keep him in power, but know this - he gets it, while the vast majority of Democrat politicians don't have a clue.
Howard refuses withdrawal date
As reported here, AUSTRALIAN Prime Minister John Howard and his Iraqi counterpart Nuri al-Maliki today refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of Australian troops, vowing they will stay in Iraq until "terrorists are defeated".
In a press conference with Mr Howard, Mr Maliki was first to admit he didn't want to see a timeline put on Australian troop withdrawal.
"There has been some progess but we still wish the Australians to remain until we have completely defeated the terrorists," Mr Maliki said.
Mr Howard immediately backed Mr Maliki's view, saying: "We have made progress but there is still work to be done."
"I told (Mr Maliki) that Australia will continue its presence in Iraq to assist in bringing about a situation where the Iraqi people are reasonably able to provide for their own future and for their own security.
"We both agreed that the future lies in collaboration between improved security and reconciliation in the political process."
Fortunately for the Iraqi's, Prime Minister Howard isn't hampered by a Democrat controlled Congress pushing for an early withdrawal of troops!
In a press conference with Mr Howard, Mr Maliki was first to admit he didn't want to see a timeline put on Australian troop withdrawal.
"There has been some progess but we still wish the Australians to remain until we have completely defeated the terrorists," Mr Maliki said.
Mr Howard immediately backed Mr Maliki's view, saying: "We have made progress but there is still work to be done."
"I told (Mr Maliki) that Australia will continue its presence in Iraq to assist in bringing about a situation where the Iraqi people are reasonably able to provide for their own future and for their own security.
"We both agreed that the future lies in collaboration between improved security and reconciliation in the political process."
Fortunately for the Iraqi's, Prime Minister Howard isn't hampered by a Democrat controlled Congress pushing for an early withdrawal of troops!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne Gunter of Canada.com, writing in this piece asks the very pertinent question - "Is it so hard to believe ... that the sun could be causing our current warming ... ?", in light of the fact that the sun is, and has been for about the past 150 years now, very active. Activity which has caused the polar ice caps of Mars to begin melting; a second giant red spot to develop on Jupiter; Triton, Neptune's moon, has experienced melting of it's frozen nitrogen surface, so that now it's atmosphere is becoming more dense; even Pluto has "warmed" from its' usual -233 degrees Celsius to a balmy -230 degrees Celsius.
Now, the last time I checked, the only thing all of these planets really have in common with Earth is that they all orbit around a huge yellow orb, which we call the Sun. There are no SUV's on Mars. There are no factories on Jupiter. There are no coal fired power generating plants on Triton. Other than on Earth, there aren't any people on any of those other planets and moons that are flying through space in orbit around the sun, and yet, according to the global warming alarmists, it is people who are contributing to the warming of planet Earth, through our "destructive activities".
But, if it is people causing the warming of Earth, what then accounts for the warming phenomena happening on the other planets and moons in our solar system? There aren't any people anywhere else, so what is causing it? There is only one possible answer to that question - heightened, and sustained, activity of the Sun.
To say otherwise is foolish beyond belief, as is saying that man's activities here on planet Earth is the sole, and overarching, reason why our climate is changing (which it is, as I have stated numerous times before; Earth's climate always changes - always has, always will - it has never been static).
Is Man having an adverse affect on Earth? In many way, yes. We pollute our air. We pollute our water. We cut down the trees in our rain forests which deplete wildlife habitat, and cause far too much land erosion. Population growth in some parts of our planet is unsustainable (while in other areas, populations are declining) from a resource availability standpoint. Could we do better? Of course we could, and we should.
But to say that Man is the sole cause of "global warming", without taking into consideration any other external factors such as heightened solar activity making a contribution, is not only foolish, but dogmatic in the extreme, Al Gore's opinions notwithstanding.
H/T michaelmichael
Now, the last time I checked, the only thing all of these planets really have in common with Earth is that they all orbit around a huge yellow orb, which we call the Sun. There are no SUV's on Mars. There are no factories on Jupiter. There are no coal fired power generating plants on Triton. Other than on Earth, there aren't any people on any of those other planets and moons that are flying through space in orbit around the sun, and yet, according to the global warming alarmists, it is people who are contributing to the warming of planet Earth, through our "destructive activities".
But, if it is people causing the warming of Earth, what then accounts for the warming phenomena happening on the other planets and moons in our solar system? There aren't any people anywhere else, so what is causing it? There is only one possible answer to that question - heightened, and sustained, activity of the Sun.
To say otherwise is foolish beyond belief, as is saying that man's activities here on planet Earth is the sole, and overarching, reason why our climate is changing (which it is, as I have stated numerous times before; Earth's climate always changes - always has, always will - it has never been static).
Is Man having an adverse affect on Earth? In many way, yes. We pollute our air. We pollute our water. We cut down the trees in our rain forests which deplete wildlife habitat, and cause far too much land erosion. Population growth in some parts of our planet is unsustainable (while in other areas, populations are declining) from a resource availability standpoint. Could we do better? Of course we could, and we should.
But to say that Man is the sole cause of "global warming", without taking into consideration any other external factors such as heightened solar activity making a contribution, is not only foolish, but dogmatic in the extreme, Al Gore's opinions notwithstanding.
H/T michaelmichael
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Via LGF, comes The Great Global Warming Swindle, from the UK's Channel 4. It's a rather long video (requires Adobe Flash Player), at over an hour and a quarter, but it is something worth investing the time in.
H/T Hollie-is-right
H/T Hollie-is-right
Sunday, March 11, 2007
TV Star, Former Senator Fred Thompson Considers '08 Presidential Bid
As reported here, "Law and Order" star and former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson is weighing a bid for the White House in 2008, he told Chris Wallace on "FOX News Sunday."
"I'm going to wait and see what happens," Thompson said. "I want to see my colleagues on the campaign trial, what they say, what they emphasize, whether they can carry the ball next November."
Thompson, 64, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama, said he was pondering a run after former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Tennessee Republicans began drumming up support for his possible Republican candidacy, citing his conservative credentials.
This is a man I would get behind very quickly. Fred Thompson would make an excellent candidate for the Republican Party - much better than that RINO McCain - as well as an excellent President.
This is an exciting prospect, and it's hoped here that Mr. Thompson does throw his hat in the ring.
"I'm going to wait and see what happens," Thompson said. "I want to see my colleagues on the campaign trial, what they say, what they emphasize, whether they can carry the ball next November."
Thompson, 64, who plays district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's drama, said he was pondering a run after former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and other Tennessee Republicans began drumming up support for his possible Republican candidacy, citing his conservative credentials.
This is a man I would get behind very quickly. Fred Thompson would make an excellent candidate for the Republican Party - much better than that RINO McCain - as well as an excellent President.
This is an exciting prospect, and it's hoped here that Mr. Thompson does throw his hat in the ring.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Words of wisdom from a good friend
From time to time, some of my friends come up with some very interesting points to ponder, and what follows is a case in point. Many thanks, Bryan, for your kind permission in allowing me to re-post this here.
I have a LOT of thoughts on the subject of war and peace on Earth, but until now I couldn't quite figure out a way to articulate my driving sentiments on the matters at hand. Rather than waiting for some sort of Divine inspiration to help me along in my quest, I've decided to just throw out a few things in the hopes that something makes sense and starts a dialog.
As always, your mileage may vary...
* If a group of individuals attempt to break into my house and attack members of the household, I don't give a crap about motivations, historical context, what they look like, etc. I will use deadly force in whatever manner is afforded to me in order to defend property and personnel. I expect nothing less from the elected leaders of my country in the face of mortal dangers to our nation.
* Nobody alive was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other carnage or inhumanity prior to World War I. I would appreciate it if we can remember that in all future conversations about assigning blame and culpability for historic hatreds.
* Long after the initial conflicts have ended, American Forces are still in Europe, the Middle East, South Korea, and Japan. It took decades for most of those environments to stabilize to the thriving peaceful governments that they are today. For some reason though, the patience and tenacity to see things through in Iraq doesn't seem to exist. But that hasn't stopped some folks from demanding American intervention in Dafur, not unlike similar calls for action in Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia. I think we all remember how those adventures turned out.
* The hatred of some for the United States Armed Forces (that originates from within this country) is probably linked to the lack of emotional equity in the troops due to the volunteer nature of the service. The folks in uniform are "poor, uneducated, misinformed, easily-manipulated, fascist-supporting, blood-thirsty, knuckle-dragging religious freaks" who probably get off killing brown-skinned people for pay, to hear those critics tell the tale. I don't know what the story would be if there were a mandatory two-year service commitment of all able-bodied citizens at age 21, but you can bet that there would be more political activity among the 18-26 year old crowd. That, and more entry visas to Canada and Europe.
* I want to see an end to "the politically correct war." They tend to last too long, cost too much money, and endanger too many lives of our own armed forces. If American diplomats show up at a foreign embassy and warn of "military consequences" if our words aren't taken seriously, I want those foreign leaders to shake in their boots and have buckets of floppy worry sweat drip from their bodies. Wars should be horrific moments of pure hell that all parties must be willing to avoid whenever possible. But such avoidance should NOT come at the cost of freedom and liberties as expressed in our most sacred documents, and certainly not at the expense of an unwilling group of sacrificial lambs.
* Over half of humanity are governed by oppressive rulers that most likely would not be in place if free and independent elections were held. That said, what obligation to said populations do those of us in the so-called "Free World" owe anyway? Do we say "Sucks to be you!" and move on? If the majority of a specific nation were to cry out for assistance in ousting their brutal leaders, would we intentionally turn a blind eye to them? Could anyone sleep at night with their blinders on and the cries of anguish muffled out by earplugs?
* How far are we willing to go to prosecute the war against Islamic Jihadists and other terrorist groups of international reach? Are nuclear strikes off of the table? When will we know that the conflict is over? Must it end in our lifetimes, or can we punt it down to our kidlings the way that the Cold War was passed on to most of us from the previous mid-century? And what matters more to us - our own noble extinction, or our victory and the ability to write the history books centuries from now? Just askin', folks.
* We can't get humanity into space fast enough, IMHO. The survival of our species depends on some seeds being scattered into earth-orbit colonies, lunar colonies, terra-formed planets, and beyond the solar system. At the moment, my cynical self believes that The Earth That Is won't make it past 2100 in anything that we would recognize today.
If you want to go directly to the source of this post, you can find it here, and if you want to get to know Bryan, you can go here. Tell him I sent you. ;)
I have a LOT of thoughts on the subject of war and peace on Earth, but until now I couldn't quite figure out a way to articulate my driving sentiments on the matters at hand. Rather than waiting for some sort of Divine inspiration to help me along in my quest, I've decided to just throw out a few things in the hopes that something makes sense and starts a dialog.
As always, your mileage may vary...
* If a group of individuals attempt to break into my house and attack members of the household, I don't give a crap about motivations, historical context, what they look like, etc. I will use deadly force in whatever manner is afforded to me in order to defend property and personnel. I expect nothing less from the elected leaders of my country in the face of mortal dangers to our nation.
* Nobody alive was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other carnage or inhumanity prior to World War I. I would appreciate it if we can remember that in all future conversations about assigning blame and culpability for historic hatreds.
* Long after the initial conflicts have ended, American Forces are still in Europe, the Middle East, South Korea, and Japan. It took decades for most of those environments to stabilize to the thriving peaceful governments that they are today. For some reason though, the patience and tenacity to see things through in Iraq doesn't seem to exist. But that hasn't stopped some folks from demanding American intervention in Dafur, not unlike similar calls for action in Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia. I think we all remember how those adventures turned out.
* The hatred of some for the United States Armed Forces (that originates from within this country) is probably linked to the lack of emotional equity in the troops due to the volunteer nature of the service. The folks in uniform are "poor, uneducated, misinformed, easily-manipulated, fascist-supporting, blood-thirsty, knuckle-dragging religious freaks" who probably get off killing brown-skinned people for pay, to hear those critics tell the tale. I don't know what the story would be if there were a mandatory two-year service commitment of all able-bodied citizens at age 21, but you can bet that there would be more political activity among the 18-26 year old crowd. That, and more entry visas to Canada and Europe.
* I want to see an end to "the politically correct war." They tend to last too long, cost too much money, and endanger too many lives of our own armed forces. If American diplomats show up at a foreign embassy and warn of "military consequences" if our words aren't taken seriously, I want those foreign leaders to shake in their boots and have buckets of floppy worry sweat drip from their bodies. Wars should be horrific moments of pure hell that all parties must be willing to avoid whenever possible. But such avoidance should NOT come at the cost of freedom and liberties as expressed in our most sacred documents, and certainly not at the expense of an unwilling group of sacrificial lambs.
* Over half of humanity are governed by oppressive rulers that most likely would not be in place if free and independent elections were held. That said, what obligation to said populations do those of us in the so-called "Free World" owe anyway? Do we say "Sucks to be you!" and move on? If the majority of a specific nation were to cry out for assistance in ousting their brutal leaders, would we intentionally turn a blind eye to them? Could anyone sleep at night with their blinders on and the cries of anguish muffled out by earplugs?
* How far are we willing to go to prosecute the war against Islamic Jihadists and other terrorist groups of international reach? Are nuclear strikes off of the table? When will we know that the conflict is over? Must it end in our lifetimes, or can we punt it down to our kidlings the way that the Cold War was passed on to most of us from the previous mid-century? And what matters more to us - our own noble extinction, or our victory and the ability to write the history books centuries from now? Just askin', folks.
* We can't get humanity into space fast enough, IMHO. The survival of our species depends on some seeds being scattered into earth-orbit colonies, lunar colonies, terra-formed planets, and beyond the solar system. At the moment, my cynical self believes that The Earth That Is won't make it past 2100 in anything that we would recognize today.
If you want to go directly to the source of this post, you can find it here, and if you want to get to know Bryan, you can go here. Tell him I sent you. ;)
YouTube about to become politician friendly
As reported here, [p]oliticians have not cherished most of their YouTube moments, those snippets of candid camera video posted on the popular Internet site.
Now comes a friendlier YouTube politics.
Wednesday, the online video Web site announced the beginning of a voter education initiative that will be an information hub for political candidates to showcase their own videos.
Well, that's interesting. The only question I have is, are registered users of the site going to be able to flag the video's that are put up by the politicians (especially those by Republicans) as "inappropriate", so YouTube yanks them?
It will be interesting to find out, and it is hoped here that this doesn't happen. Guess we'll all find out soon enough, eh?
Now comes a friendlier YouTube politics.
Wednesday, the online video Web site announced the beginning of a voter education initiative that will be an information hub for political candidates to showcase their own videos.
Well, that's interesting. The only question I have is, are registered users of the site going to be able to flag the video's that are put up by the politicians (especially those by Republicans) as "inappropriate", so YouTube yanks them?
It will be interesting to find out, and it is hoped here that this doesn't happen. Guess we'll all find out soon enough, eh?
Baghdad security plan hinders death squads
As reported here, [t]he Baghdad security operation has been under way less than three weeks, but it has already registered a success: a sharp drop in the number of bullet-riddled bodies found in the streets -- victims of sectarian death squads.
The number of bodies found so far this month in Baghdad -- most of them shot and showing signs of torture -- has dropped by nearly 50 percent to 494 as of Monday night, compared with 954 in January and 1,222 in December, according to Associated Press figures.
"The intensive security measures have forced the gunmen to leave Baghdad and quit throwing bodies in the streets," said Kamil Abdul-Nour, a 42-year-old Sunni teacher. "Still, I am afraid that this phenomenon will appear again if the security measures end," he said.
The U.S. military has boosted the number of U.S. troops working with the police -- and Mahdi Army chief Muqtada al-Sadr pulled many of his fighters off the streets under pressure from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his political ally.
Well, well, well. Imagine that. The surge is actually working, with only one new brigade so far. Imagine what will happen when the other brigades arrive in Iraq.
Now, imagine this. What do you think will happen if the surge is stopped by the Democrats, and they somehow make the rest of our troops pull back to the fringes? Do you think the killing will stop? Do you think the Shiite death squads will stop killing Sunni's? Do you think the Sunni's will stop their reprisal killings? Do you think Al Qaida in Iraq will stop killing people in their attempt to destabilize the Iraqi government, and simply "go away"?
I'll tell you what will happen. The killings will continue, and at a pace that you've not seen up until now. The only difference will be that our troops will be less of a target, because they won't be there to stop the killing. Is that really what the Democrats want to see happen? It appears so.
Imagine that.
The number of bodies found so far this month in Baghdad -- most of them shot and showing signs of torture -- has dropped by nearly 50 percent to 494 as of Monday night, compared with 954 in January and 1,222 in December, according to Associated Press figures.
"The intensive security measures have forced the gunmen to leave Baghdad and quit throwing bodies in the streets," said Kamil Abdul-Nour, a 42-year-old Sunni teacher. "Still, I am afraid that this phenomenon will appear again if the security measures end," he said.
The U.S. military has boosted the number of U.S. troops working with the police -- and Mahdi Army chief Muqtada al-Sadr pulled many of his fighters off the streets under pressure from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his political ally.
Well, well, well. Imagine that. The surge is actually working, with only one new brigade so far. Imagine what will happen when the other brigades arrive in Iraq.
Now, imagine this. What do you think will happen if the surge is stopped by the Democrats, and they somehow make the rest of our troops pull back to the fringes? Do you think the killing will stop? Do you think the Shiite death squads will stop killing Sunni's? Do you think the Sunni's will stop their reprisal killings? Do you think Al Qaida in Iraq will stop killing people in their attempt to destabilize the Iraqi government, and simply "go away"?
I'll tell you what will happen. The killings will continue, and at a pace that you've not seen up until now. The only difference will be that our troops will be less of a target, because they won't be there to stop the killing. Is that really what the Democrats want to see happen? It appears so.
Imagine that.
Second court-martial set in Watada case
As briefly reported here, [a] second court-martial is scheduled to begin July 16 for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused to go to Iraq with his Fort Lewis-based Stryker Brigade and spoke out against the Bush administration. The first ended in a mistrial after three days when the judge said he didn't believe Watada fully understood a pretrial agreement he'd signed. If convicted, Watada could be sentenced to six years in prison and be dishonorably discharged. Pretrial motions have been set for May 20 and 21, with the court-martial scheduled to begin the week of July 16.
It is hoped here that things will go right with this trial. We really don't need another "circus" event, although I suspect that Watada's attorney will try to bring up the "illegality" of the war in Iraq again, even though there is nothing illegal about it whatsoever.
It is hoped here that things will go right with this trial. We really don't need another "circus" event, although I suspect that Watada's attorney will try to bring up the "illegality" of the war in Iraq again, even though there is nothing illegal about it whatsoever.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Lieberman May Decide Fate of Iraq
As reported here, [t]he only pro-war senator to caucus with the Democrats may become a Republican.
That's what Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who was defeated in a Democratic primary last summer, is hinting he will do if his old party fiddles with a bill to pay for the troop surge in Iraq.
If Sen. Lieberman does switch parties, that will create a 50 - 50 split, with Vice President Cheney having the deciding, tie-breaking vote. After being defeated in the Connecticut Democrat primary, simply because he supports President Bush where Iraq is concerned, and then winning re-election to the Senate as an Independent, the irony of this just oozes, you know?
Although Sen. Lieberman is a liberal at heart, and I disagree with most of the positions he takes on various issues, I still have a great deal of respect for him, as he stands by his principles, and isn't swayed by the latest poll numbers as so many of our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are.
Senator, if you do decide to switch to the Republican Party, I know that you will be greeted with open arms by many, including me.
That's what Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who was defeated in a Democratic primary last summer, is hinting he will do if his old party fiddles with a bill to pay for the troop surge in Iraq.
If Sen. Lieberman does switch parties, that will create a 50 - 50 split, with Vice President Cheney having the deciding, tie-breaking vote. After being defeated in the Connecticut Democrat primary, simply because he supports President Bush where Iraq is concerned, and then winning re-election to the Senate as an Independent, the irony of this just oozes, you know?
Although Sen. Lieberman is a liberal at heart, and I disagree with most of the positions he takes on various issues, I still have a great deal of respect for him, as he stands by his principles, and isn't swayed by the latest poll numbers as so many of our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are.
Senator, if you do decide to switch to the Republican Party, I know that you will be greeted with open arms by many, including me.
The awakening
James G. Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf and Vietnam wars and son of former Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, states in this piece that [t]he new year so far has good news both for antiwar critics and supporters of our mission in Iraq.
For anti-war critics, the good news was House passage last week of a nonbinding resolution in opposition to President Bush's surge plan. Of course, the House vote was little more than a resolution with bark and no bite, offering no substantive solutions. Also, it runs contrary to the constitutional line between the legislative and executive branches drawn by our Founding Fathers concerning war-fighting powers.
Post-vote assessments by Democrats suggest the resolution represented "a historic victory for the American people." Republicans, meanwhile, suggested it was a defeatist act and a step backward in the war on terrorism. These assessments must be weighed against the good news that came out of Iraq last month but which was apparently ignored by those who supported the resolution.
He then states that (and this is information that you will never read in the NY Times or Washington Post, I might add) [t]he good news story for supporters of the U.S. mission in Iraq was first reported in this newspaper by Oliver North, who traveled to Anbar Province -- an area renowned for its violence. As Mr. North's story strongly suggests, we may, at last, be turning things around there.
Mr. North reported on a meeting of Sunni leaders last June, known as "the Awakening." The Sunnis recognized that not only had al Qaeda managed to take control of their province, but the group had turned its brutality against the tribes, some of whose leaders had been murdered. The meeting resulted in a condemnation of al Qaeda's actions, a declaration of the tribal leaders' solidarity with the coalition and preparation and issuance of a declaration of war against al Qaeda.
Prior to this meeting, only three of 21 tribes in Anbar Province were cooperating with U.S. coalition forces, six were neutral and 12 hostile. Today, the numbers are reversed, with 12 cooperating and only three hostile. This represents a major turnaround and underscores what is key to winning in Iraq -- the Iraqi people finally taking the initiative on their own to be responsible for their security.
Tribes have now sent thousands of young men to join the police. After training, they are immediately assigned to stations within their own tribe's neighborhood to give them a vested interest in maintaining that security. For the six months of July 2006 through January 2007, attacks in Anbar decreased by 38 percent and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by 57 percent -- with 80 percent of IEDs discovered before they could be detonated. (This alone suggests the local population is playing a very active role in sharing intelligence with coalition forces.)
The increased security, in turn, has enabled millions of dollars worth of reconstruction projects to be undertaken, demonstrating to locals the benefits of such cooperation.
The House vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's surge plan was ill-timed. It came just as significant progress is being made in Anbar, bringing some much needed law and order to what was once a lawless Dodge City. Last June, the Sunnis experienced an "Awakening," having come to fully understand the danger posed by al Qaeda and the need to make the commitment to defeat it in Iraq. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany?
Yes, indeed. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany? Surely not until they cease these politically motivated non-binding "resolutions" that affect our troops morale, and embolden the terrorists to simply wait us out as they watch our politicians resolve crumble.
For anti-war critics, the good news was House passage last week of a nonbinding resolution in opposition to President Bush's surge plan. Of course, the House vote was little more than a resolution with bark and no bite, offering no substantive solutions. Also, it runs contrary to the constitutional line between the legislative and executive branches drawn by our Founding Fathers concerning war-fighting powers.
Post-vote assessments by Democrats suggest the resolution represented "a historic victory for the American people." Republicans, meanwhile, suggested it was a defeatist act and a step backward in the war on terrorism. These assessments must be weighed against the good news that came out of Iraq last month but which was apparently ignored by those who supported the resolution.
He then states that (and this is information that you will never read in the NY Times or Washington Post, I might add) [t]he good news story for supporters of the U.S. mission in Iraq was first reported in this newspaper by Oliver North, who traveled to Anbar Province -- an area renowned for its violence. As Mr. North's story strongly suggests, we may, at last, be turning things around there.
Mr. North reported on a meeting of Sunni leaders last June, known as "the Awakening." The Sunnis recognized that not only had al Qaeda managed to take control of their province, but the group had turned its brutality against the tribes, some of whose leaders had been murdered. The meeting resulted in a condemnation of al Qaeda's actions, a declaration of the tribal leaders' solidarity with the coalition and preparation and issuance of a declaration of war against al Qaeda.
Prior to this meeting, only three of 21 tribes in Anbar Province were cooperating with U.S. coalition forces, six were neutral and 12 hostile. Today, the numbers are reversed, with 12 cooperating and only three hostile. This represents a major turnaround and underscores what is key to winning in Iraq -- the Iraqi people finally taking the initiative on their own to be responsible for their security.
Tribes have now sent thousands of young men to join the police. After training, they are immediately assigned to stations within their own tribe's neighborhood to give them a vested interest in maintaining that security. For the six months of July 2006 through January 2007, attacks in Anbar decreased by 38 percent and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by 57 percent -- with 80 percent of IEDs discovered before they could be detonated. (This alone suggests the local population is playing a very active role in sharing intelligence with coalition forces.)
The increased security, in turn, has enabled millions of dollars worth of reconstruction projects to be undertaken, demonstrating to locals the benefits of such cooperation.
The House vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's surge plan was ill-timed. It came just as significant progress is being made in Anbar, bringing some much needed law and order to what was once a lawless Dodge City. Last June, the Sunnis experienced an "Awakening," having come to fully understand the danger posed by al Qaeda and the need to make the commitment to defeat it in Iraq. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany?
Yes, indeed. When will our Congress undergo a similar epiphany? Surely not until they cease these politically motivated non-binding "resolutions" that affect our troops morale, and embolden the terrorists to simply wait us out as they watch our politicians resolve crumble.
Warming delirium
William Rusher states in this piece that [t]he media have recently been blaring what they depict (inaccurately, by the way) as the latest grim warning from the practically unanimous ranks of the world's climatologists concerning global warming. It is time to take two aspirin, lie down and consider the matter calmly.
Yes, indeed, please do, before your heads explode!
Yes, indeed, please do, before your heads explode!
Army refiles charges against Watada
As briefly reported here, the Army has refiled charges against Watada. No trial date has been set yet.
This is good and appropriate, no matter what Watada's lawyer thinks, in my opinion. Hopefully this time, nothing with interfere with the process.
This is good and appropriate, no matter what Watada's lawyer thinks, in my opinion. Hopefully this time, nothing with interfere with the process.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
As reported here, [w]hen politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months' time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains "very likely" as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Some of the key discoveries in climate research that have gone almost unreported are here. Now, why do you suppose these key discoveries go unreported? Could it be that they don't "fit" the theories put forth by those who subscribe to "global warming is caused entirely by man's activities", and that these other factors go against the purported "consensus" that it is "all our fault"?
Seems likely to me, at any rate.
H/T kc-anathema
The small print explains "very likely" as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Some of the key discoveries in climate research that have gone almost unreported are here. Now, why do you suppose these key discoveries go unreported? Could it be that they don't "fit" the theories put forth by those who subscribe to "global warming is caused entirely by man's activities", and that these other factors go against the purported "consensus" that it is "all our fault"?
Seems likely to me, at any rate.
H/T kc-anathema
N. Korea agrees to nuclear disarmament
As reported here, North Korea on Friday asked the chief U.N. atomic inspector to visit four years after expelling his experts and dropping out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - an encouraging sign the reclusive regime is serious about dismantling its weapons program.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offered few details about his upcoming trip, which other agency officials said would likely occur in the second week of March.
Still, his announcement was significant because it signaled the North's willingness to subject its nuclear program to outside scrutiny for the first time since withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty in January 2003, just weeks after ordering nuclear inspectors to leave.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this recent development, but at the same time I'm still wary, considering what the North Korean's have done in the past, which has been to say one thing while secretly doing another.
What was that phrase we used with the Soviets? Oh, yeah. Trust, but verify. If it were up to me, we would go light on the "trust" part, and heavy on the "verify" part.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offered few details about his upcoming trip, which other agency officials said would likely occur in the second week of March.
Still, his announcement was significant because it signaled the North's willingness to subject its nuclear program to outside scrutiny for the first time since withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty in January 2003, just weeks after ordering nuclear inspectors to leave.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this recent development, but at the same time I'm still wary, considering what the North Korean's have done in the past, which has been to say one thing while secretly doing another.
What was that phrase we used with the Soviets? Oh, yeah. Trust, but verify. If it were up to me, we would go light on the "trust" part, and heavy on the "verify" part.
Reform group turned in 2,000 suspicious voter registrations
ACORN is at it again, this time in King County. As reported here, King County elections officials said Thursday that nearly 2,000 potentially fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted before the November election by a local branch of a group that's come under fire across the country.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- or ACORN -- submitted the 1,829 cards by mail, but they arrived after the Oct. 7 deadline for mailing registration forms and were not processed before the election, King County elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan told The Associated Press.
Egan said that once the box was opened, elections officials grew suspicious.
"Our staff quickly noticed where there were hundreds of forms where the signatures were similar," she said. "It appears they were fraudulently completed by a few individuals."
Egan said elections officials immediately contacted the King County Prosecutor's Office, which advised them to do a random sample of the registrations.
The King County Elections Office has had it's problems, detailed here and elsewhere, most notably in the 2004 election where there were multiple errors made, denying Dino Rossi the governorship. It seems that, at least in this case, the folks in the KCEO are on the ball, catching ACORN trying to commit voter registration fraud - again. This is an activity they have tried to do in other states, as well, being caught at this time after time after time. You would think they would have learned their lesson after the first time they tried this and were caught, but apparently not.
Kevin Whelan, spokesman for the New Orleans-based group, said it was eager to work with elections officials.
"If there was anyone working for us who turned in cards that were fake, we want to see them prosecuted," he said.
If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona available for sale, too. Obviously, that statement falls in the "CYA" category.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- or ACORN -- submitted the 1,829 cards by mail, but they arrived after the Oct. 7 deadline for mailing registration forms and were not processed before the election, King County elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan told The Associated Press.
Egan said that once the box was opened, elections officials grew suspicious.
"Our staff quickly noticed where there were hundreds of forms where the signatures were similar," she said. "It appears they were fraudulently completed by a few individuals."
Egan said elections officials immediately contacted the King County Prosecutor's Office, which advised them to do a random sample of the registrations.
The King County Elections Office has had it's problems, detailed here and elsewhere, most notably in the 2004 election where there were multiple errors made, denying Dino Rossi the governorship. It seems that, at least in this case, the folks in the KCEO are on the ball, catching ACORN trying to commit voter registration fraud - again. This is an activity they have tried to do in other states, as well, being caught at this time after time after time. You would think they would have learned their lesson after the first time they tried this and were caught, but apparently not.
Kevin Whelan, spokesman for the New Orleans-based group, said it was eager to work with elections officials.
"If there was anyone working for us who turned in cards that were fake, we want to see them prosecuted," he said.
If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona available for sale, too. Obviously, that statement falls in the "CYA" category.
Possible King County double voting case found
As reported here, [a]n inspection of voter records statewide has turned up a possible case of double voting in the November election in King County, the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed said Tuesday.
The case, which has been referred to King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, could not be resolved by investigators from Reed's Data Integrity Program, an operation that was set up last month to review the statewide voter registration database for evidence of double voting, duplicate registrations or other problems.
Hopefully, charges will be filed. But, wait - there's more!
During 2006, scrubbing the statewide database removed more than 176,000 names from the roll. They included:
The case, which has been referred to King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, could not be resolved by investigators from Reed's Data Integrity Program, an operation that was set up last month to review the statewide voter registration database for evidence of double voting, duplicate registrations or other problems.
Hopefully, charges will be filed. But, wait - there's more!
During 2006, scrubbing the statewide database removed more than 176,000 names from the roll. They included:
- 39,814 duplicate registrations, often created when a registered voter moves to a different county, registers to vote there and fails to cancel the old registration.
- 40,105 dead voters. The statewide database is cross-checked with records from the state Department of Health and the federal Social Security Administration.
- 4,500 illegal registrations of felons, who cannot vote until their rights are restored after they've completed their prison terms and probations. State officials cross-check voter lists with records from the Department of Corrections.
In their failed legal challenge to Chris Gregoire's narrow victory in the 2004 gubernatorial race, Republicans made a big issue of illegal voting by felons. (Although the presiding judge inexplicably didn't see things our way.)
- 91,954 inactive voter registrations (for voters who have not cast ballots in the previous four years) and registrations that voters asked to cancel.
I'd imagine that the local Dems aren't too pleased with these numbers, since that means 176,373 potential Democrat votes will not be cast in the 2008 election.
Oh, too bad.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Obama invokes Lincoln for run
As reported here, Sen. Barack Obama officially announced his presidential candidacy yesterday before thousands of supporters eager to become part of his "new leadership" movement.
"This campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together," Mr. Obama said, standing in front of the building where Abraham Lincoln served in the state General Assembly before he became president.
In a speech that invoked the memories of both Lincoln and Martin Luther King, the junior senator from Illinois acknowledged a "certain audacity" in his selection of the historic backdrop for his announcement and said he recognizes that his campaign is as much about the voters as it is about himself.
That's a mild understatement, as it does take a "certain audacity" for a Democrat to invoke Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, in his announcement speech, even if he was only drawing comparisons between his lack of experience and Lincoln's.
I will say one thing about Sen. Obama. Although he is your typical left leaning Democrat who believes in the government knowing how to run your life better than you do, he is a fresh face on the national political scene, who has eloquence and a certain vibrancy, and may give Hillary a run for her money in the race for the Democrat nominee. He's certainly a better alternative to all the tired retreads such as Clarke, Biden, Kerry, etc. (I know, I know - Kerry hasn't made up his mind yet, but as we all know, that means nothing)
Let the games begin!
"This campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together," Mr. Obama said, standing in front of the building where Abraham Lincoln served in the state General Assembly before he became president.
In a speech that invoked the memories of both Lincoln and Martin Luther King, the junior senator from Illinois acknowledged a "certain audacity" in his selection of the historic backdrop for his announcement and said he recognizes that his campaign is as much about the voters as it is about himself.
That's a mild understatement, as it does take a "certain audacity" for a Democrat to invoke Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, in his announcement speech, even if he was only drawing comparisons between his lack of experience and Lincoln's.
I will say one thing about Sen. Obama. Although he is your typical left leaning Democrat who believes in the government knowing how to run your life better than you do, he is a fresh face on the national political scene, who has eloquence and a certain vibrancy, and may give Hillary a run for her money in the race for the Democrat nominee. He's certainly a better alternative to all the tired retreads such as Clarke, Biden, Kerry, etc. (I know, I know - Kerry hasn't made up his mind yet, but as we all know, that means nothing)
Let the games begin!
Here's another blog you may like
A new addition to our list of links, by Jon Pananas, called Laconic Blog, that he was kind enough to make me aware of. Jon has some very good insights as to what is going on in the world, and two of his posts that I really liked are here and here.
Check out his blog. You'll be glad you did.
Check out his blog. You'll be glad you did.
I'm back
After nearly a month and a half lay off from posting, I'm back.
Several personal issues (mainly related to my real life job) arose, and basically prevented me from devoting the time I feel is necessary to put up what I consider to be note worthy.
I hope to be back to my regular Sunday posting schedule, with more than one or two posts, starting next week, as things have begun to calm down for me of late.
For those folks who have been regular readers of this little blog, I want to say thanks for hanging in there and having patience with me. I will try to be worthy of that in my future posts.
Stay tuned!
Several personal issues (mainly related to my real life job) arose, and basically prevented me from devoting the time I feel is necessary to put up what I consider to be note worthy.
I hope to be back to my regular Sunday posting schedule, with more than one or two posts, starting next week, as things have begun to calm down for me of late.
For those folks who have been regular readers of this little blog, I want to say thanks for hanging in there and having patience with me. I will try to be worthy of that in my future posts.
Stay tuned!
Taxing Profits = Taxing People
Lawrence Kudlow, in this excellent piece, points out the error of Hillary's ways when she said, "The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.", at the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Happy New Year!
I just wanted to wish everyone a healthy, Happy New Year, on this first day of January, 2007.
Iran may reduce ties with U.N. agency
As briefly reported here, Iran's Parliament voted Wednesday to urge the government to re-examine its ties with the U.N. nuclear agency after a Security Council decision to impose sanctions against Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.
The move signaled that Iran was likely to reduce its cooperation with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. Iranian state radio predicted that once the bill came into effect, "the agency will become an ineffective and weak body."
Four days previously the Security Council voted to impose limited sanctions on Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium -- which can produce material for either nuclear reactors or bombs. Iran says its program is only for generating electricity.
So, because the Iranians aren't cooperating with the IAEA, and the UNSC has voted to impose limited sanctions because of that lack of cooperation, Iran's Parliament voted to urge the government to not cooperate with the IAEA?!?! Huh?
The absurdity of this circular reasoning has me both baffled and amused.
The move signaled that Iran was likely to reduce its cooperation with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. Iranian state radio predicted that once the bill came into effect, "the agency will become an ineffective and weak body."
Four days previously the Security Council voted to impose limited sanctions on Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium -- which can produce material for either nuclear reactors or bombs. Iran says its program is only for generating electricity.
So, because the Iranians aren't cooperating with the IAEA, and the UNSC has voted to impose limited sanctions because of that lack of cooperation, Iran's Parliament voted to urge the government to not cooperate with the IAEA?!?! Huh?
The absurdity of this circular reasoning has me both baffled and amused.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Reports: Saddam Hussein executed
As reported here, [t]hree years after he was hauled from a hole in the ground by pursuing U.S. forces, Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court, al-Hurra TV, al-Arabiya and Sky News TV reported.
The deposed president was found guilty over the killing of 148 members of the Shiite population of the town of Dujail after militants tried to assassinate him there in 1982, during Iraq's war with Shiite Iran.
Hopefully, this will put to rest calls by some fools to re-instate the murderer to power, and also hopefully, those who still backed Saddam by committing acts of terror against the Iraqi people and Coalition forces, will see that to continue is really not in their best interests, and they will lay down their arms (a long shot at best, I know).
The deposed president was found guilty over the killing of 148 members of the Shiite population of the town of Dujail after militants tried to assassinate him there in 1982, during Iraq's war with Shiite Iran.
Hopefully, this will put to rest calls by some fools to re-instate the murderer to power, and also hopefully, those who still backed Saddam by committing acts of terror against the Iraqi people and Coalition forces, will see that to continue is really not in their best interests, and they will lay down their arms (a long shot at best, I know).
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Saddam to be hanged by Sunday
As reported here, [f]ormer Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, sentenced to death for his role in 148 killings in 1982, will have his sentence carried out by Sunday, NBC News reported Thursday. According to a U.S. military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, Saddam will be hanged before the start of the Eid religious holiday, which begins this Sunday.
The hanging could take place as early as Friday, NBC’s Richard Engel reported.
The U.S. military received a formal request from the Iraqi government to transfer Saddam to Iraqi authorities, NBC reported on Thursday, which is one of the final steps required before his execution. His sentence, handed down last month, ordered that he be hanged within 30 days.
Of course, his defense lawyers immediately started crying out to world leaders asking that they intervene, and prevent his hand over to Iraqi authorities, on the grounds that he is a prisoner of war. Now, don't get me wrong, but they are just doing their job for their client, and I wouldn't expect them to do anything less. But the thing is, Saddam was tried by the Iraqi courts, for crimes against Iraqi's. He was not tried at the International Tribune court in The Hague. He was tried right there in Iraq, found guilty by the Iraqi justice system, and had his sentence handed down by the Iraqi justice system.
The trial was under the proverbial microscope, and no one outside of his defense lawyers and some on the lunatic fringe had any complaints about how the process went. The verdict and sentence are well within legal bounds, and the Iraqi's are well within their rights to ask the US government to hand him over, so that the sentence can be carried out according to Iraqi law.
That sentence needs to be carried out as soon as it can be arranged.
The hanging could take place as early as Friday, NBC’s Richard Engel reported.
The U.S. military received a formal request from the Iraqi government to transfer Saddam to Iraqi authorities, NBC reported on Thursday, which is one of the final steps required before his execution. His sentence, handed down last month, ordered that he be hanged within 30 days.
Of course, his defense lawyers immediately started crying out to world leaders asking that they intervene, and prevent his hand over to Iraqi authorities, on the grounds that he is a prisoner of war. Now, don't get me wrong, but they are just doing their job for their client, and I wouldn't expect them to do anything less. But the thing is, Saddam was tried by the Iraqi courts, for crimes against Iraqi's. He was not tried at the International Tribune court in The Hague. He was tried right there in Iraq, found guilty by the Iraqi justice system, and had his sentence handed down by the Iraqi justice system.
The trial was under the proverbial microscope, and no one outside of his defense lawyers and some on the lunatic fringe had any complaints about how the process went. The verdict and sentence are well within legal bounds, and the Iraqi's are well within their rights to ask the US government to hand him over, so that the sentence can be carried out according to Iraqi law.
That sentence needs to be carried out as soon as it can be arranged.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Saddam sentenced to hang within 30 days
As reported here, Iraq's highest court rejected Saddam Hussein's appeal Tuesday and said the former dictator must be hanged within 30 days for ordering the killing of scores of Shiite Muslims in 1982.
"From tomorrow, any day could be the day" Saddam is sent to the gallows, the chief judge said. Saddam was condemned to death for his role in the execution of 148 Shiite Muslims from the small northern town of Dujail, after a 1982 assassination attempt.
In upholding the sentence, imposed Nov. 5, the Supreme Court of Appeals also affirmed death sentences for two of his co-defendants, including his half brother. And it said life imprisonment for a third was too lenient and demanded he be given the death penalty, too.
The sooner the better, to rid Iraq and the world of this beast once and for all.
"From tomorrow, any day could be the day" Saddam is sent to the gallows, the chief judge said. Saddam was condemned to death for his role in the execution of 148 Shiite Muslims from the small northern town of Dujail, after a 1982 assassination attempt.
In upholding the sentence, imposed Nov. 5, the Supreme Court of Appeals also affirmed death sentences for two of his co-defendants, including his half brother. And it said life imprisonment for a third was too lenient and demanded he be given the death penalty, too.
The sooner the better, to rid Iraq and the world of this beast once and for all.
Former President Gerald Ford dies at 93
Former President Gerald R. Ford has died.
Rest in Peace, Mr. President.
Rest in Peace, Mr. President.
Monday, December 25, 2006
A Soldiers Silent Night
As we all celebrate the birth of Christ this day with family and friends, we would be well advised to remember those who cannot be home this day with their family and friends. These are the people who are far from home this day, serving our nation by protecting our freedom. This poem is a moving tribute to those who serve.
I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to all those serving in our armed forces, and to wish all of you a Merry (and safe) Christmas.
I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to all those serving in our armed forces, and to wish all of you a Merry (and safe) Christmas.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Election setback for Iran's president boosts Rafsanjani
As reported here, [e]lder statesman Hashemi Rafsanjani, a mercurial cleric who has played both sides of Iran's reformist-conservative divide, is rising again as a key challenger to Iran's president after local elections show deep discontent with the president's hard line.
Last week's elections for local councils in towns and cities were seen as a referendum on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 18 months in office, and final results showed widespread victories for his opponents.
Since taking power, Ahmadinejad has escalated Iran's confrontation with the United States and the West on multiple fronts, in particular drawing the threat of U.N. sanctions for pushing ahead with uranium enrichment in Iran's nuclear program. He has also sparked widespread international outrage for his comments against Israel and casting doubt on the Holocaust.
On Wednesday, a leading newspaper that usually reflects the thinking of many in Iran's conservative clerical leadership said in a blistering editorial that the election results showed it was time for Ahmadinejad to moderate his tone and concentrate on improving the ailing economy.
"The election could be very instructive to those who have been in power," the Jomhuri Eslami editorial said. "Arrogance, disregarding people's economic situation, insulting respected people and high-flying policies were among the elements of the failure of those who could not imagine such a failure."
Let's just hope that the newly elected individuals will be able to exercise their new found political power, and rein in the lunatic, and turn Iran away from the dangerous path he has been leading it down.
I'll be keeping a close watch to see how things develop.
Last week's elections for local councils in towns and cities were seen as a referendum on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 18 months in office, and final results showed widespread victories for his opponents.
Since taking power, Ahmadinejad has escalated Iran's confrontation with the United States and the West on multiple fronts, in particular drawing the threat of U.N. sanctions for pushing ahead with uranium enrichment in Iran's nuclear program. He has also sparked widespread international outrage for his comments against Israel and casting doubt on the Holocaust.
On Wednesday, a leading newspaper that usually reflects the thinking of many in Iran's conservative clerical leadership said in a blistering editorial that the election results showed it was time for Ahmadinejad to moderate his tone and concentrate on improving the ailing economy.
"The election could be very instructive to those who have been in power," the Jomhuri Eslami editorial said. "Arrogance, disregarding people's economic situation, insulting respected people and high-flying policies were among the elements of the failure of those who could not imagine such a failure."
Let's just hope that the newly elected individuals will be able to exercise their new found political power, and rein in the lunatic, and turn Iran away from the dangerous path he has been leading it down.
I'll be keeping a close watch to see how things develop.
Judge: Iran Partly Responsible for 1996 Terrorist Attack
As reported here, [t]he Iranian government is partly to blame for a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia, a federal judge ruled Friday.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth allows the families of the victims of the Khobar Towers bombing to seek $254 million in compensation from the Islamic regime in Tehran.
Though intelligence officials have suspected a link between the Tehran government and the Saudi wing of Hezbollah, which the FBI has accused of carrying out the bombing, Friday's ruling is the first time a branch of the U.S. government has officially blamed Iran for the deaths of Americans in the bombings.
This court takes note of plaintiffs' courage and steadfastness in pursuing this litigation and their efforts to take action to deter more tragic suffering of innocent Americans at the hands of terrorists," Judge Lamberth wrote. "Their efforts are to be commended."
Since this is sure to enrage who Michelle Malkin calls the perpetually outraged, Judge Lamberth is to be commended on having made this ruling, as I'm sure he is fully aware that by doing so (and if he isn't, he should be), he is putting his life at risk at the hands of the perpetually outraged.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth allows the families of the victims of the Khobar Towers bombing to seek $254 million in compensation from the Islamic regime in Tehran.
Though intelligence officials have suspected a link between the Tehran government and the Saudi wing of Hezbollah, which the FBI has accused of carrying out the bombing, Friday's ruling is the first time a branch of the U.S. government has officially blamed Iran for the deaths of Americans in the bombings.
This court takes note of plaintiffs' courage and steadfastness in pursuing this litigation and their efforts to take action to deter more tragic suffering of innocent Americans at the hands of terrorists," Judge Lamberth wrote. "Their efforts are to be commended."
Since this is sure to enrage who Michelle Malkin calls the perpetually outraged, Judge Lamberth is to be commended on having made this ruling, as I'm sure he is fully aware that by doing so (and if he isn't, he should be), he is putting his life at risk at the hands of the perpetually outraged.
U.N. panel OKs curbs on Iran trade
As reported here, [t]he U.N. Security Council voted unanimously yesterday to sanction Iran until it halts efforts to make nuclear fuel, drawing a quick rejection from the Islamist nation and threats of further penalties from the United States.
The resolution calls on governments to "prevent the supply, sale or transfer ... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology" related to Iran's suspect nuclear efforts or missiles.
The four-page resolution also includes an addendum of people, corporations and government bodies whose assets are to be frozen.
In addition, it provides a list of individuals whose international travel is to be "monitored," a concession to Russia, which had objected to a proposed travel ban on officials connected to Iran's nuclear program.
The Bush administration said it would seek further measures against Iran.
"We don't think this resolution is enough in itself. We want the international community to take further action," R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in Washington.
Although this is a good first step in an attempt to get Iran to stop their nuclear enrichment program, which in turn would halt their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, as Mr. Burns stated, it doesn't go far enough thanks to both China and Russia which both have strong economic ties to Iran, and don't want to lose the billions of trade dollars from fully isolating Iran.
Of course, the Iranians pitched a hissy fit over this, saying that it "has not delegated its destiny to the invalid decisions of the U.N. Security Council."
The true effectiveness of this resolution won't be known immediately, of course, as it remains to be seen whether the rest of the world will buy into what the resolution calls for. Hopefully, this won't turn into another "Oil-for-food" situation where countries, corporations, and individuals - with full complicity on the part of several people in the UN - came up with work-arounds to line their pockets with cash in their dealings with Saddam.
I'll be keeping a close eye on this situation.
The resolution calls on governments to "prevent the supply, sale or transfer ... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology" related to Iran's suspect nuclear efforts or missiles.
The four-page resolution also includes an addendum of people, corporations and government bodies whose assets are to be frozen.
In addition, it provides a list of individuals whose international travel is to be "monitored," a concession to Russia, which had objected to a proposed travel ban on officials connected to Iran's nuclear program.
The Bush administration said it would seek further measures against Iran.
"We don't think this resolution is enough in itself. We want the international community to take further action," R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in Washington.
Although this is a good first step in an attempt to get Iran to stop their nuclear enrichment program, which in turn would halt their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, as Mr. Burns stated, it doesn't go far enough thanks to both China and Russia which both have strong economic ties to Iran, and don't want to lose the billions of trade dollars from fully isolating Iran.
Of course, the Iranians pitched a hissy fit over this, saying that it "has not delegated its destiny to the invalid decisions of the U.N. Security Council."
The true effectiveness of this resolution won't be known immediately, of course, as it remains to be seen whether the rest of the world will buy into what the resolution calls for. Hopefully, this won't turn into another "Oil-for-food" situation where countries, corporations, and individuals - with full complicity on the part of several people in the UN - came up with work-arounds to line their pockets with cash in their dealings with Saddam.
I'll be keeping a close eye on this situation.
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'
This is a follow up to my earlier post.
As reported here, Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists.
Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to "senior elected and appointed government officials" who disagree with your opinion."
Lord Monckton then calls upon our two Senators to either withdraw their letter, or resign their Senate seats, and I wholeheartedly agree with his demand. You can read Lord Monckton's letter here (It is a .pdf file, which requires Adobe Reader to view. Get Adobe reader here.)
H/T kc anethema
As reported here, Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists.
Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to "senior elected and appointed government officials" who disagree with your opinion."
Lord Monckton then calls upon our two Senators to either withdraw their letter, or resign their Senate seats, and I wholeheartedly agree with his demand. You can read Lord Monckton's letter here (It is a .pdf file, which requires Adobe Reader to view. Get Adobe reader here.)
H/T kc anethema
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Annan lobs parting shot at Bush foreign policy
As reported here, outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan took his criticism of the Bush administration to the nation's heartland Monday, saying America must not sacrifice its democratic ideals while waging war against terrorism.
In the hometown of President Truman, who helped found the United Nations, Annan said "human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity."
When the U.S. "appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused," Annan told a packed audience at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library.
You want to talk about ideals, Kofi? The editors at the OpinionJournal have something to say about the ideals espoused by you, and your inept or ineffective actions regarding the massacres in Rwanda, Darfur, and Iraq, not to mention the Oil for Food scandal, Tsunami relief, etc., during your tenure at the UN.
Don't be coming here to talk trash about what we do, especially since you tried to oppose what we have been doing nearly every step of the way, ok?
In the hometown of President Truman, who helped found the United Nations, Annan said "human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity."
When the U.S. "appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused," Annan told a packed audience at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library.
You want to talk about ideals, Kofi? The editors at the OpinionJournal have something to say about the ideals espoused by you, and your inept or ineffective actions regarding the massacres in Rwanda, Darfur, and Iraq, not to mention the Oil for Food scandal, Tsunami relief, etc., during your tenure at the UN.
Don't be coming here to talk trash about what we do, especially since you tried to oppose what we have been doing nearly every step of the way, ok?
Top Ten Junk Science Moments for 2006
Steven Milloy of JunkScience has come out with his Top 10 Junk Science Moments for 2006.
H/T Reality Hammer
H/T Reality Hammer
Gregoire: Voters should decide on Viaduct
As reported here, after mulling over the various options for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Governor Gregoire has decided to ... punt.
Gov. Chris Gregoire said [Friday] that the residents of Seattle should decide how to replace the aging and earthquake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Gregoire was expected to announce her decision about what should be done - either replace it with a tunnel or rebuild it. Instead, she called for a city vote between rebuilding the structure or replacing it with a tunnel.
Note to Chris: This is a State highway, not a city highway, which means that the State is responsible for this highway, not the City of Seattle, and that responsibility includes making the decision about whether to replace it with another elevated structure (which would be the wrong decision), or with a tunnel (the right decision). We put you in office to make these kinds of decisions, and this is one of the toughest you would have made to be sure, not to cede your leadership back to the voters.
"I don't believe that, without a vote, either option will move forward," Gregoire said. "We need to hear directly from the people for whom this decision has the most impact."
The earliest a vote will take place will be in April of 2007, which will be over six years since the Nisqually earthquake happened. Now, we will have to wait some more, before something is decided, and due to the shortsightedness of many in Seattle, that will probably be a new Viaduct, rather than a tunnel, simply due to the construction cost difference. The existing Viaduct is a major eyesore - not to mention a disaster waiting to happen - blocking views of one of our biggest tourist attractions - the Seattle waterfront - from most of downtown, and that won't change with a rebuild.
If the tunnel is built, however, this will give us the chance to enhance the waterfront with parks and pedestrian promenades, as well as allow new businesses to be developed to take advantage of the tourists coming to visit the waterfront. The number of tourists visiting a revitalized waterfront would only increase, which would translate into more dollars being pumped into the Seattle economy, and the creation of more jobs.
But, Gregoire wants the citizens to vote on this, instead of showing leadership and making the decision herself.
Note to Chris: In the future, when you decide to punt, make sure we're not having a major storm blow through, ok? You badly shanked this one into the wind.
Gov. Chris Gregoire said [Friday] that the residents of Seattle should decide how to replace the aging and earthquake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Gregoire was expected to announce her decision about what should be done - either replace it with a tunnel or rebuild it. Instead, she called for a city vote between rebuilding the structure or replacing it with a tunnel.
Note to Chris: This is a State highway, not a city highway, which means that the State is responsible for this highway, not the City of Seattle, and that responsibility includes making the decision about whether to replace it with another elevated structure (which would be the wrong decision), or with a tunnel (the right decision). We put you in office to make these kinds of decisions, and this is one of the toughest you would have made to be sure, not to cede your leadership back to the voters.
"I don't believe that, without a vote, either option will move forward," Gregoire said. "We need to hear directly from the people for whom this decision has the most impact."
The earliest a vote will take place will be in April of 2007, which will be over six years since the Nisqually earthquake happened. Now, we will have to wait some more, before something is decided, and due to the shortsightedness of many in Seattle, that will probably be a new Viaduct, rather than a tunnel, simply due to the construction cost difference. The existing Viaduct is a major eyesore - not to mention a disaster waiting to happen - blocking views of one of our biggest tourist attractions - the Seattle waterfront - from most of downtown, and that won't change with a rebuild.
If the tunnel is built, however, this will give us the chance to enhance the waterfront with parks and pedestrian promenades, as well as allow new businesses to be developed to take advantage of the tourists coming to visit the waterfront. The number of tourists visiting a revitalized waterfront would only increase, which would translate into more dollars being pumped into the Seattle economy, and the creation of more jobs.
But, Gregoire wants the citizens to vote on this, instead of showing leadership and making the decision herself.
Note to Chris: In the future, when you decide to punt, make sure we're not having a major storm blow through, ok? You badly shanked this one into the wind.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Holocaust Denial Is No Joke
Anne Applebaum, a columnist for the Washington Post and Slate, and a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, has written an excellent piece regarding the "conference", which began yesterday, dealing with the "validity" of the Holocaust being held in Tehran, Iran. The lunatic running that asylum had his Foreign Ministry set up this "conference", so they could invite Holocaust deniers from around the globe, to enable these despicable people the opportunity to put forth their vile views, and pat each other on the back as they nod their heads in agreement with each other.
Of course, beyond the head nodding and back patting, lies the real underlying reason for this "conference", and that is to de-legitimize the nation of Israel. Israel was established in 1948 by the UN as a direct result of the Holocaust, an event in our world's history that has been documented with billions of words, photographs, eye witness accounts, and by other means, all of which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt - to reasonable thinking people, that is - that the Holocaust really did happen. If they can persuade themselves that the Holocaust did not happen, that will justify to their minds that their ultimate goal of the total annihilation of the Nation of Israel, along with the rest of the Jews in the world is ok. Don't forget that the lunatic running that asylum has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Ms. Applebaum states, [T]he near-destruction of the European Jews in a very brief span of time by a sophisticated European nation using the best technology available was, it seems, an event that requires constant re-explanation, not least because it really did shape subsequent European and world history in untold ways. For that reason alone, the archives, the photographs, and the endless rebuttals will go on being necessary, long beyond the lifetime of the last survivor.
Sadly enough, she's correct.
Update
Iranian leader says Israel will be 'wiped out'
As reported here, the lunatic running the asylum said the following, "The Zionist regime will disappear soon, the same way the Soviet Union disappeared," Ahmadinejad said, according to ISNA, a government-financed news agency. Thus, "humanity will achieve freedom."
Achieve "freedom"? Freedom from what, exactly? Oh, I get it. Freedom from the "Zionist oppressors". Freedom from religious diversity in the elimination of the Jews, which would make one less group you'll have to deal with in your planned take over of the world, in which you plan to make everyone submit to your will or die as you re-establish the "Caliphate".
Well, I think you better guess again.
Although the UN probably won't do anything to stop you from trying to wipe Israel off the map, considering the anti-Israel bias prevalent in that useless entity, Israel certainly won't stand idle when you decide to act on the rhetoric you've been spewing for months now, and the hope here is that the US will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.
Update
Iran Says Pressure From Western Governments Caused Boycott of Holocaust Conference Hosts
As reported here, Iran on Sunday blamed pressure from Western governments and media for the decision by nearly 40 think-tanks to boycott the Iranian institute that hosted last week's Holocaust conference.
The head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Francois Heisbourg, said Saturday that the European and North American research institutes had decided to suspend contact with the Institute for Political and International Studies, a Tehran institute affiliated to the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Last week the IPIS convened a conference that questioned the existence of the Holocaust, provoking an international outcry. The United States, European Union and Israel denounced the conference, whose delegates included well-known Holocaust deniers and David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
Heisbourg issued a statement saying that "through its complicity with the deniers of the absolute evil that was the Holocaust, IPIS has now forfeited its status as an acceptable partner."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini cast doubt on the sincerity of the Western institutes' move on Sunday, telling reporters: "Probably this was decided under pressure from governments and Western media propaganda."
Um, no. The reason your little conference was boycotted - which I applaud - is the simple fact that your conference attempted to "prove" that the Holocaust is a "myth", and not the established fact that it is, so that you could somehow justify your aspirations to "wipe Israel off the map", not because of pressure from Western governments or the media.
Of course, beyond the head nodding and back patting, lies the real underlying reason for this "conference", and that is to de-legitimize the nation of Israel. Israel was established in 1948 by the UN as a direct result of the Holocaust, an event in our world's history that has been documented with billions of words, photographs, eye witness accounts, and by other means, all of which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt - to reasonable thinking people, that is - that the Holocaust really did happen. If they can persuade themselves that the Holocaust did not happen, that will justify to their minds that their ultimate goal of the total annihilation of the Nation of Israel, along with the rest of the Jews in the world is ok. Don't forget that the lunatic running that asylum has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Ms. Applebaum states, [T]he near-destruction of the European Jews in a very brief span of time by a sophisticated European nation using the best technology available was, it seems, an event that requires constant re-explanation, not least because it really did shape subsequent European and world history in untold ways. For that reason alone, the archives, the photographs, and the endless rebuttals will go on being necessary, long beyond the lifetime of the last survivor.
Sadly enough, she's correct.
Update
Iranian leader says Israel will be 'wiped out'
As reported here, the lunatic running the asylum said the following, "The Zionist regime will disappear soon, the same way the Soviet Union disappeared," Ahmadinejad said, according to ISNA, a government-financed news agency. Thus, "humanity will achieve freedom."
Achieve "freedom"? Freedom from what, exactly? Oh, I get it. Freedom from the "Zionist oppressors". Freedom from religious diversity in the elimination of the Jews, which would make one less group you'll have to deal with in your planned take over of the world, in which you plan to make everyone submit to your will or die as you re-establish the "Caliphate".
Well, I think you better guess again.
Although the UN probably won't do anything to stop you from trying to wipe Israel off the map, considering the anti-Israel bias prevalent in that useless entity, Israel certainly won't stand idle when you decide to act on the rhetoric you've been spewing for months now, and the hope here is that the US will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.
Update
Iran Says Pressure From Western Governments Caused Boycott of Holocaust Conference Hosts
As reported here, Iran on Sunday blamed pressure from Western governments and media for the decision by nearly 40 think-tanks to boycott the Iranian institute that hosted last week's Holocaust conference.
The head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Francois Heisbourg, said Saturday that the European and North American research institutes had decided to suspend contact with the Institute for Political and International Studies, a Tehran institute affiliated to the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Last week the IPIS convened a conference that questioned the existence of the Holocaust, provoking an international outcry. The United States, European Union and Israel denounced the conference, whose delegates included well-known Holocaust deniers and David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
Heisbourg issued a statement saying that "through its complicity with the deniers of the absolute evil that was the Holocaust, IPIS has now forfeited its status as an acceptable partner."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini cast doubt on the sincerity of the Western institutes' move on Sunday, telling reporters: "Probably this was decided under pressure from governments and Western media propaganda."
Um, no. The reason your little conference was boycotted - which I applaud - is the simple fact that your conference attempted to "prove" that the Holocaust is a "myth", and not the established fact that it is, so that you could somehow justify your aspirations to "wipe Israel off the map", not because of pressure from Western governments or the media.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Senatorial Blackmail?
From the editors of the OpinionJournal we learn that two Senators, Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have sent a letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Its message: Start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else. As is stated in the OpinionJournal commentary, [a] windfall profits tax is in the air, and we've seen what happens to other companies that dare to resist Congressional intimidation. The letter can be found in its' entirety here, courtesy of the editors of OpinionJournal. It's an eye opener, folks.
Basically what it boils down to is this. Rockefeller and Snowe believe that "global warming" is an indisputable fact, and they are calling on ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerman to discontinue funding organizations that don't hold that view - the "deniers" - as it is hurting the credilbility of the United States in its' foreign affairs. They also go on to state that the tactics ExxonMobil is promoting is similar to that used by "big tobacco".
After reading the letter myself, and getting over my feeling of astonishment, I realized something. Neither of the two Senators really knows what they are talking about, as they continuously use the phrase "climate change", when in reality they mean "global warming (which can be directly attributed to human activity)".
As those of you who have read my blog before, you'll know that I've posted on "global warming" and climate change before. Where climate change is definitely a fact of life here on Earth, "global warming" is an as yet proven theory, espoused mainly by extremist environmentalists, and the scientists who derive the majority of their funding from the extreme environmental organizations.
The climate of the Earth is a constantly changing force of nature. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Our climate is not, and never has been, static. It has always changed, and it always will, and man has no control, or direct influence, over that. So-called "global warming", however, is another thing altogether, has yet to be proven to anyone's satisfaction (including those scientists who advocate for it!), and thus, remains a theory (The easiest way to rebut the fallacy that "global warming" is a "fact", is to ask why your local weatherman can't accurately predict the weather more than a few days in advance. It's because they don't know enough - yet - and our climate is so unpredictable!). So much for "consensus" within the scientific community.
With the two Senators attempting to censor the activities of ExxonMobil in regard to who they can fund, and for what purpose, I think I like this paragraph the best. Every dogma has its day, and we've lived long enough to see more than one "consensus" blown apart within a few years of "everyone knowing" it was true. In recent decades environmentalists have been wrong about almost every other apocalyptic claim they've made: global famine, overpopulation, natural resource exhaustion, the evils of pesticides, global cooling, and so on. Perhaps it's useful to have a few folks outside the "consensus" asking questions before we commit several trillion dollars to any problem. [Emphasis mine]
The environmentalist extremists are wrong on this subject as well, in my opinion, and so are Senators Rockefeller and Snowe in their blatant attempt to blackmail ExxonMobil into doing something they don't feel is right, which is to stop debate.
H/T - specialrpt, posting in quicknews
Basically what it boils down to is this. Rockefeller and Snowe believe that "global warming" is an indisputable fact, and they are calling on ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerman to discontinue funding organizations that don't hold that view - the "deniers" - as it is hurting the credilbility of the United States in its' foreign affairs. They also go on to state that the tactics ExxonMobil is promoting is similar to that used by "big tobacco".
After reading the letter myself, and getting over my feeling of astonishment, I realized something. Neither of the two Senators really knows what they are talking about, as they continuously use the phrase "climate change", when in reality they mean "global warming (which can be directly attributed to human activity)".
As those of you who have read my blog before, you'll know that I've posted on "global warming" and climate change before. Where climate change is definitely a fact of life here on Earth, "global warming" is an as yet proven theory, espoused mainly by extremist environmentalists, and the scientists who derive the majority of their funding from the extreme environmental organizations.
The climate of the Earth is a constantly changing force of nature. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Our climate is not, and never has been, static. It has always changed, and it always will, and man has no control, or direct influence, over that. So-called "global warming", however, is another thing altogether, has yet to be proven to anyone's satisfaction (including those scientists who advocate for it!), and thus, remains a theory (The easiest way to rebut the fallacy that "global warming" is a "fact", is to ask why your local weatherman can't accurately predict the weather more than a few days in advance. It's because they don't know enough - yet - and our climate is so unpredictable!). So much for "consensus" within the scientific community.
With the two Senators attempting to censor the activities of ExxonMobil in regard to who they can fund, and for what purpose, I think I like this paragraph the best. Every dogma has its day, and we've lived long enough to see more than one "consensus" blown apart within a few years of "everyone knowing" it was true. In recent decades environmentalists have been wrong about almost every other apocalyptic claim they've made: global famine, overpopulation, natural resource exhaustion, the evils of pesticides, global cooling, and so on. Perhaps it's useful to have a few folks outside the "consensus" asking questions before we commit several trillion dollars to any problem. [Emphasis mine]
The environmentalist extremists are wrong on this subject as well, in my opinion, and so are Senators Rockefeller and Snowe in their blatant attempt to blackmail ExxonMobil into doing something they don't feel is right, which is to stop debate.
H/T - specialrpt, posting in quicknews
Illegal immigrant sentenced to 5 years for fatal crash
This is why we need effective immigration reform, now.
An illegal immigrant with a history of drug arrests has been sentenced to five years and a month behind bars for the traffic death of a popular community college educator.
The prison term for Marcos Ramos Medina, 35, a twice-deported Mexican national who most recently lived in Portland, was the maximum under state guidelines for vehicular homicide. His criminal record in Portland included possession of cocaine and the sale of heroin for profit, and he also had a federal firearms conviction.
Imagine that. Deported twice before, yet this guy somehow manages to come back into our country, gets high on meth, kills a popular community college educator, and gets sentenced to five years and a month behind bars. And of course, Defense lawyer Jeff West said the verdict would be appealed.
Just another victim of poor economics who acted negligently and/or recklessly in pursuit of economic freedom, or a twice deported illegal engaging in criminal acts that cost a life?
And to think that there are some out there who want to give people like Medina amnesty?
An illegal immigrant with a history of drug arrests has been sentenced to five years and a month behind bars for the traffic death of a popular community college educator.
The prison term for Marcos Ramos Medina, 35, a twice-deported Mexican national who most recently lived in Portland, was the maximum under state guidelines for vehicular homicide. His criminal record in Portland included possession of cocaine and the sale of heroin for profit, and he also had a federal firearms conviction.
Imagine that. Deported twice before, yet this guy somehow manages to come back into our country, gets high on meth, kills a popular community college educator, and gets sentenced to five years and a month behind bars. And of course, Defense lawyer Jeff West said the verdict would be appealed.
Just another victim of poor economics who acted negligently and/or recklessly in pursuit of economic freedom, or a twice deported illegal engaging in criminal acts that cost a life?
And to think that there are some out there who want to give people like Medina amnesty?
Viaduct repair is ruled out
As reported here, [r]epairing Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct would cost $2.3 billion and extend the structure's life about 25 years -- maybe -- according to new estimates released Tuesday by the state.
And though some disagree, state officials say it just isn't worth it.
Sanity prevailing? One would hope so, but we are talking about the State, after all, so you'll forgive me when I say that this won't be the last word on this.
The repair cost estimate, the state maintains, is more than 80 percent of the estimated cost of building a new viaduct, though repairs would not have the same longevity. Cost inflation and risks account for more than 43 percent of the retrofit cost.
"Retrofitting" the 53-year-old viaduct "is possible," but the new study shows the work, while cheaper, might have one-fourth the longevity of a new structure, said the state's viaduct project manager, Ron Paananen. A replacement elevated structure or a tunnel would last 75 to 100 years.
"What this shows is we've appropriately screened (the repair option) out and are narrowing down the alternatives, and basically, we're down to a new elevated structure or a tunnel," Paananen said.
Also Tuesday, the state Department of Transportation released another report from an 11-member panel of engineers that concluded the "relatively narrow difference in costs between ... retrofit and rebuilding weighs heavily in favor of rebuilding."
The new studies continue escalating arguments about the viaduct, which carries about 100,000 vehicles a day on state Route 99 along downtown's west shore. The viaduct sustained minor damage during the 2001 Nisqually Quake, and state engineers maintain it could collapse in another major earthquake.
But retrofit advocates said Tuesday that they'll demand more answers about the latest conclusions. They questioned the earthquake standards that drive up part of the costs and argue that repairs won't require long shutdowns of the highway like a replacement would. They also said the new cost doesn't account for up to $3.4 billion in estimated annual losses to nearby businesses caused by a viaduct shutdown.
So, let me get this straight. Retrofitting the viaduct will cost 80% of the cost of replacing it with either a new viaduct or tunnel, but will only last - maybe - 25 years, while either of the replacement options will last between 75 to 100 years, and the retrofit advocates are concerned about the economic impact to businesses while construction is happening? What about 25 years later, if the viaduct is retrofitted? What then? Do we do it again, at a higher cost than replacing it now? And what if the retrofit doesn't last as long as projected? What then? What if a really big earthquake hits the city, collapsing the viaduct, making your retrofit moot? What then?
We need to replace the viaduct, sooner rather than later, both from the cost and business economic concerns, and for the safety of the people who use the viaduct.
And let me make one thing perfectly clear here. Contrary to what a recent reader thought I was saying when I posted this, I am adamantly opposed to either a retrofit of the existing viaduct or a rebuild of the viaduct, and fully support the tunnel option as the best course of action that we can take.
Sorry, David S., but you obviously haven't been paying attention to what I have said repeatedly here.
And though some disagree, state officials say it just isn't worth it.
Sanity prevailing? One would hope so, but we are talking about the State, after all, so you'll forgive me when I say that this won't be the last word on this.
The repair cost estimate, the state maintains, is more than 80 percent of the estimated cost of building a new viaduct, though repairs would not have the same longevity. Cost inflation and risks account for more than 43 percent of the retrofit cost.
"Retrofitting" the 53-year-old viaduct "is possible," but the new study shows the work, while cheaper, might have one-fourth the longevity of a new structure, said the state's viaduct project manager, Ron Paananen. A replacement elevated structure or a tunnel would last 75 to 100 years.
"What this shows is we've appropriately screened (the repair option) out and are narrowing down the alternatives, and basically, we're down to a new elevated structure or a tunnel," Paananen said.
Also Tuesday, the state Department of Transportation released another report from an 11-member panel of engineers that concluded the "relatively narrow difference in costs between ... retrofit and rebuilding weighs heavily in favor of rebuilding."
The new studies continue escalating arguments about the viaduct, which carries about 100,000 vehicles a day on state Route 99 along downtown's west shore. The viaduct sustained minor damage during the 2001 Nisqually Quake, and state engineers maintain it could collapse in another major earthquake.
But retrofit advocates said Tuesday that they'll demand more answers about the latest conclusions. They questioned the earthquake standards that drive up part of the costs and argue that repairs won't require long shutdowns of the highway like a replacement would. They also said the new cost doesn't account for up to $3.4 billion in estimated annual losses to nearby businesses caused by a viaduct shutdown.
So, let me get this straight. Retrofitting the viaduct will cost 80% of the cost of replacing it with either a new viaduct or tunnel, but will only last - maybe - 25 years, while either of the replacement options will last between 75 to 100 years, and the retrofit advocates are concerned about the economic impact to businesses while construction is happening? What about 25 years later, if the viaduct is retrofitted? What then? Do we do it again, at a higher cost than replacing it now? And what if the retrofit doesn't last as long as projected? What then? What if a really big earthquake hits the city, collapsing the viaduct, making your retrofit moot? What then?
We need to replace the viaduct, sooner rather than later, both from the cost and business economic concerns, and for the safety of the people who use the viaduct.
And let me make one thing perfectly clear here. Contrary to what a recent reader thought I was saying when I posted this, I am adamantly opposed to either a retrofit of the existing viaduct or a rebuild of the viaduct, and fully support the tunnel option as the best course of action that we can take.
Sorry, David S., but you obviously haven't been paying attention to what I have said repeatedly here.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, 1926-2006
As reported here, America has lost a leading light and advocate for freedom, as the former UN Ambassador for the US under President Reagan, has passed away.
Rest in Peace, Jeane. Your voice will be sorely missed.
Rest in Peace, Jeane. Your voice will be sorely missed.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
One last roll call for the survivors of Pearl Harbor attack
December 7th, 1941, a day that will live in infamy, as President Roosevelt characterized it, plunged the United States fully into WWII. On this day, 65 years later, the surviving members of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association are making their final trip back to Pearl Harbor, to remember and honor their fallen comrades.
This, they say, will be their final farewell.
With their number quickly dwindling, survivors of Pearl Harbor will gather today one last time to honor those killed by the Japanese 65 years ago ...
The Association has met every five years since its' inception, and all of the members of the group are now in their 80's and 90's, and most don't expect to live to see the seventieth anniversary. That's the way life is, but I fear that as these brave men pass, the memory of that fateful day will also pass into the pages of history, and out of our consciousness.
That would be a shame, as remembering what happened on December 7th, 1941 reminds us all to be alert to the dangers in this world, and to always be ready to defend the nation, and stand for freedom over tyranny.
Nearly 500 survivors from across the nation were expected to make the trip to Hawaii, bringing with them 1,300 family members, numerous wheelchairs and too many haunting memories.
Memories were vivid of the shocking, two-hour aerial raid that destroyed or heavily damaged 21 ships and 320 aircraft, that killed 2,390 people and wounded 1,178 others, that plunged the United States into World War II and that set in motion the events that led to atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"I suspect not many people have thought about this, but we're witnessing history," said Daniel Martinez, chief historian at the USS Arizona Memorial. "We are seeing the passing of a generation."
The survivors say they have more than horrific memories to offer. "Remember Pearl Harbor" is just the first half of the association's motto; the rest is "Keep America alert."
Tom Brokaw called those who came of age during WWII "The Greatest Generation", which I agree with, and what Mr. Martinez said is also true. We are seeing the passing of this generation. I just hope we don't forget the lessons learned on that fateful day of infamy. As a veteran of the US Navy who was stationed on a ship home ported in Pearl Harbor, this day, and this story especially, is particularly poignant for me.
Remember Pearl Harbor!
This, they say, will be their final farewell.
With their number quickly dwindling, survivors of Pearl Harbor will gather today one last time to honor those killed by the Japanese 65 years ago ...
The Association has met every five years since its' inception, and all of the members of the group are now in their 80's and 90's, and most don't expect to live to see the seventieth anniversary. That's the way life is, but I fear that as these brave men pass, the memory of that fateful day will also pass into the pages of history, and out of our consciousness.
That would be a shame, as remembering what happened on December 7th, 1941 reminds us all to be alert to the dangers in this world, and to always be ready to defend the nation, and stand for freedom over tyranny.
Nearly 500 survivors from across the nation were expected to make the trip to Hawaii, bringing with them 1,300 family members, numerous wheelchairs and too many haunting memories.
Memories were vivid of the shocking, two-hour aerial raid that destroyed or heavily damaged 21 ships and 320 aircraft, that killed 2,390 people and wounded 1,178 others, that plunged the United States into World War II and that set in motion the events that led to atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"I suspect not many people have thought about this, but we're witnessing history," said Daniel Martinez, chief historian at the USS Arizona Memorial. "We are seeing the passing of a generation."
The survivors say they have more than horrific memories to offer. "Remember Pearl Harbor" is just the first half of the association's motto; the rest is "Keep America alert."
Tom Brokaw called those who came of age during WWII "The Greatest Generation", which I agree with, and what Mr. Martinez said is also true. We are seeing the passing of this generation. I just hope we don't forget the lessons learned on that fateful day of infamy. As a veteran of the US Navy who was stationed on a ship home ported in Pearl Harbor, this day, and this story especially, is particularly poignant for me.
Remember Pearl Harbor!
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Speaker Chopp fights viaduct tunnel plan
As reported here, [t]he most powerful lawmaker in Olympia, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, has again put his might behind an effort to sink any plans to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a waterfront tunnel.
"The tunnel is a luxury the taxpayers of Washington cannot afford," Chopp and 29 members of the House Democratic Caucus said in a recent letter to Gov. Chris Gregoire.
So, Frank, I suppose that we can afford the measly few who will be killed when this disaster-waiting-to-happen finally does collapse, either from another earthquake or from the supports just giving way due to the rain we get here washing them away? I also suppose that we who actually live in the area around the viaduct can afford the extra added traffic to the surface streets on a permanent basis that is equivalent to the amount of fans a Mariners and Seahawks game being played every day, would bring in? Let's not forget that the current Viaduct carries approximately 110,000 vehicles per day, ok?
So, Frank, what do you propose? That we simply stick our heads in the sand and hope this problem goes away on its' own? Well, I have news for you, Frank. This problem will go away on its' own, if we don't do something about it now, when the next earthquake happens, and I have some advice for you Frank. You better not be on it when that happens, or you'll end up in the "measly few" category.
"The tunnel is a luxury the taxpayers of Washington cannot afford," Chopp and 29 members of the House Democratic Caucus said in a recent letter to Gov. Chris Gregoire.
So, Frank, I suppose that we can afford the measly few who will be killed when this disaster-waiting-to-happen finally does collapse, either from another earthquake or from the supports just giving way due to the rain we get here washing them away? I also suppose that we who actually live in the area around the viaduct can afford the extra added traffic to the surface streets on a permanent basis that is equivalent to the amount of fans a Mariners and Seahawks game being played every day, would bring in? Let's not forget that the current Viaduct carries approximately 110,000 vehicles per day, ok?
So, Frank, what do you propose? That we simply stick our heads in the sand and hope this problem goes away on its' own? Well, I have news for you, Frank. This problem will go away on its' own, if we don't do something about it now, when the next earthquake happens, and I have some advice for you Frank. You better not be on it when that happens, or you'll end up in the "measly few" category.
The question that just won't die, Part II
Charles Rangel is at it again, speaking about something that he obviously doesn't have any real knowledge about, in calling for the reinstitution of a military draft, as we had during the Vietnam era. I posted about this previously, here. Mr. Rangel's remarks shows that he has not done any real research as to the true demographics of who does enlist in the military.
Mr. Rangel's remarks that only people who have no prospects for a "meaningful career" enlist is outrageously off the mark, and shows exactly what he and his fellow Dems really feel about our military - contempt - and the American Legion wants an apology.
Mr. Rangel tries to show that he has done some research into this by stating that, "[W]e also have done some research with the Department of Defense. And we have found that 26 percent of those killed in action are either African-American or Hispanics.", implying that only poor, uneducated folks are becoming casualties. What Mr. Rangel fails to mention is that only 26% of those killed in action are African-American or Hispanics, meaning that a whopping seventy four per cent of those killed in action are white and other ethnicities.
Mr. Rangel also conveniently ignores data that shows that those who enlist in our all-volunteer military are better educated and better off economically than their peers, instead of what he and Jessie Jackson continue to claim. As Tim Kane states in his article, "According to military data analyzed by the Heritage Foundation, U.S. troops come from wealthier neighborhoods than their civilian peers. In fact, the only underrepresented neighborhoods are those with the lowest incomes.".
Fortunately for our military, and hence our nation's security, there are adults in charge - even in the Democrat camp, amazingly enough - who say that a military draft is both unnecessary, and not even on the agenda. "We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January.
Mr. Rangel's remarks that only people who have no prospects for a "meaningful career" enlist is outrageously off the mark, and shows exactly what he and his fellow Dems really feel about our military - contempt - and the American Legion wants an apology.
Mr. Rangel tries to show that he has done some research into this by stating that, "[W]e also have done some research with the Department of Defense. And we have found that 26 percent of those killed in action are either African-American or Hispanics.", implying that only poor, uneducated folks are becoming casualties. What Mr. Rangel fails to mention is that only 26% of those killed in action are African-American or Hispanics, meaning that a whopping seventy four per cent of those killed in action are white and other ethnicities.
Mr. Rangel also conveniently ignores data that shows that those who enlist in our all-volunteer military are better educated and better off economically than their peers, instead of what he and Jessie Jackson continue to claim. As Tim Kane states in his article, "According to military data analyzed by the Heritage Foundation, U.S. troops come from wealthier neighborhoods than their civilian peers. In fact, the only underrepresented neighborhoods are those with the lowest incomes.".
Fortunately for our military, and hence our nation's security, there are adults in charge - even in the Democrat camp, amazingly enough - who say that a military draft is both unnecessary, and not even on the agenda. "We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January.
N.D. tribe barring church protesters
As reported here, [a] church group that protests at military funerals around the country will be barred from services for an American Indian soldier on a reservation, tribal officials say.
That "group" would be from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., Fred Phelps' bunch of nutjobs who have been going around the country, demonstrating at funeral services of those killed in the war on terror, claiming that the deaths are "God's punishment" for our "evil ways". These "people" are despicable in the extreme.
Tribal leaders passed a resolution Friday that prohibits the group from protesting on the reservation, said Marcus Wells Jr., chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes.
"We will not tolerate any harassment that is intended to provoke ill feelings and violence," he said.
Kudo's to the Three Affiliated Tribes for making this stand.
Rest in Peace Young Eagle.
That "group" would be from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., Fred Phelps' bunch of nutjobs who have been going around the country, demonstrating at funeral services of those killed in the war on terror, claiming that the deaths are "God's punishment" for our "evil ways". These "people" are despicable in the extreme.
Tribal leaders passed a resolution Friday that prohibits the group from protesting on the reservation, said Marcus Wells Jr., chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes.
"We will not tolerate any harassment that is intended to provoke ill feelings and violence," he said.
Kudo's to the Three Affiliated Tribes for making this stand.
Rest in Peace Young Eagle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)