Orson Scott Card, over at the The Ornery American, has written an excellent essay regarding the absolute hoax that "global warming" is, citing how climate data was manipulated by Michael Mann to fit his preconceived notions on what should be the results, rather than on the actual data, which produced the [in]famous "Hockey Stick" graph.
It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.
H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer
Sunday, April 22, 2007
A matter of perspective
From time to time, friends will pop up with something that I feel needs to be passed along, and the following fits that bill. Please note - I did a tiny bit of editing to make this easier to read, but it essentially remains word for word the work of the original author.
Please read and don't think Republican or Democrat.
A Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, two thirds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the analytical thinker that I am, I started thinking,' what are we so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it's the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it's the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean, safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of us unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of being thankful we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The
president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this days after 9-11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go, and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads, and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the
corner?
The media know this, and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife. But if he did? Insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the corrupt evil media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY.
Amen to that!
H/T michaelmichael
Please read and don't think Republican or Democrat.
A Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, two thirds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the analytical thinker that I am, I started thinking,' what are we so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it's the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it's the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean, safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of us unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of being thankful we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The
president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this days after 9-11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go, and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads, and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the
corner?
The media know this, and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife. But if he did? Insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the corrupt evil media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY.
Amen to that!
H/T michaelmichael
Reid calls war 'lost,' angers Republicans
As reported here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.
Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to make peace.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Don't you just love it when elected Democrat officials think they're the next incarnation of General George S. Patton? Reid is basing his assessment of the outcome of the war, and the effectiveness (or in his view, the lack thereof) of the surge on one day. One day! Imagine what he would have been saying on Dec. 7th, 1941!
Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats do not support the troops, and have been proving it time after time after time by rushing to declare the surge strategy - which they all clamored for! - "isn't working", so therefore, the "war is lost".
Senator, your "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little act has grown wearisome in the extreme. Stop it, already, will ya? Sheesh!
Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to make peace.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Don't you just love it when elected Democrat officials think they're the next incarnation of General George S. Patton? Reid is basing his assessment of the outcome of the war, and the effectiveness (or in his view, the lack thereof) of the surge on one day. One day! Imagine what he would have been saying on Dec. 7th, 1941!
Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats do not support the troops, and have been proving it time after time after time by rushing to declare the surge strategy - which they all clamored for! - "isn't working", so therefore, the "war is lost".
Senator, your "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little act has grown wearisome in the extreme. Stop it, already, will ya? Sheesh!
Former Clinton backers defect to Obama camp
As reported here, [a]s Sen. Hillary Clinton seeks to reassemble the Democratic money machine her husband built, some of its major fundraisers already have signed on with Sen. Barack Obama.
Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.
At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.
Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)
Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.
At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.
Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)
State lawmakers discuss ending war
As reported here, [t]he (Washington State) Senate was decked in red, white and blue with Democrats and Republicans braced for an emotional debate on the Iraq war that never materialized Thursday.
After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.
They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.
Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.
"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."
He explained why in his floor statement.
Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.
"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."
I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:
1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?
2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?
3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?
Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.
"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.
State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.
Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?
After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.
They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.
Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.
"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."
He explained why in his floor statement.
Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.
"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."
I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:
1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?
2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?
3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?
Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.
"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.
State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.
Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?
Monday, April 16, 2007
At least 33 dead in rampage on Virginia campus
As reported here, at least 33 people are dead in the worst mass shooting incident in US history, at Virginia Tech. The death toll includes the gunman who took his own life according to police. As of yet, no known motive for the shootings has been reported.
This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.
UPDATE
As reported here, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday was a student of the school. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities.
UPDATE II
As reported here, the gunman has been identified as a 23 year old resident alien from S. Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently Cho suffered from acute depression, and wrote dark, disturbing essays and plays. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities, although from my previous sentence one can gather that Cho felt alienated from society for some unknown reason and wanted to lash out, which he did with tragic results.
Again, my heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy.
This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.
UPDATE
As reported here, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday was a student of the school. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities.
UPDATE II
As reported here, the gunman has been identified as a 23 year old resident alien from S. Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently Cho suffered from acute depression, and wrote dark, disturbing essays and plays. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities, although from my previous sentence one can gather that Cho felt alienated from society for some unknown reason and wanted to lash out, which he did with tragic results.
Again, my heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Pratfall in Damascus
As anyone who has either a TV or an internet connection knows, Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) has made another attempt at usurping powers granted by the Constitution solely to the President by trying to substitute her foreign policy for the President's when she went to the Middle East, and spoke to the Syrian thug Basher Assad.
Even the Washington Post is disgusted with her.
Even the Washington Post is disgusted with her.
Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009
As reported here, Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.
The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.
These centrifuges, which are not as yet operational, are located at Natanz in a hardened facility, 70 feet underground. I've posted about this several times in the past, and I have one question for those who think Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes".
Are you willing to bet, not your next paycheck, not your house, car or boat, but your life that Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes"?
I'm not!
H/T specialrpt posting in quicknews
The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.
These centrifuges, which are not as yet operational, are located at Natanz in a hardened facility, 70 feet underground. I've posted about this several times in the past, and I have one question for those who think Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes".
Are you willing to bet, not your next paycheck, not your house, car or boat, but your life that Iran only wants to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes"?
I'm not!
H/T specialrpt posting in quicknews
Friday, March 23, 2007
So Long, Me-Maw
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)