The Islamist group Hamas defended on Friday a suicide bombing that killed four Israelis as "resistance" against Israeli "crimes,"...
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said in a column published on Friday in a British newspaper that "we have every right to respond with all available means" if Israel continues to launch attacks and to impose "sanctions" on Palestinians.
And by "launch attacks" they really mean "if Israel continues to defend itself against our desire to kill Jews."
Criticizing Hamas for failing to soften its line since it won the election, the "Quartet" of Middle East mediators warned the group that direct financial aid to the Palestinian Authority would inevitably be affected.
Yea, that's like me criticizing my dog for not standing up and walking. Hamas has said, loudly and to anyone that would listen (and in English!), that they had no intention of stopping their bloodthirsty ways.
And the EU will not cut aid to Hamas - the only thing the EU excels at is stepping backwards and saying, "now cross this line". Besides, who enjoys a little Jew-killing more than those old pros, the Europeans?
You better believe Israel is going to defend themselves - with Hamas on one side, Hezbollah on the other, and Iran building its nukes, the clock on their very survival is ticking...
Friday, March 31, 2006
Borders Books and Waldenbooks - Good Dhimmis!
Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.
“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.
Well, at least they are being truthful, for whatever the hell that's worth. Certainly a Muslim suicide bombing inside of a Borders might scare away a few customers...or maybe not, knowing the American tendancy for defiance in the face of threats. What's important here are two things:
-These retail outlets are acknowleding that Muslims (extremists? or just "Muslims?) pose a physical threat to their customers based on the reading material they may choose to provide.
- rather than stand up for the freedom of speech, which essentially is the sole reason of a bookstore's existance, they feel it is somehow "safer" to aquiesce to said threat of violence. Seems like Borders and Waldenbooks forgot how many Americans since the mid-1700's have fought and died for the very right they are willing to throw out the window at the first glowering face they encounter...think any of the other fascist groups out there are taking notes? From The Bidinotto Blog; an open letter to Borders:
Your company's craven policy of capitulation in the face of the mere hypothetical threat of terrorism is absolutely appalling -- a complete moral abdication that only encourages those threatening our rights and liberties.
Andrew Sullivan wants a boycott:
Sharia: 1. The West: 0. If you care about freedom of expression, don't buy books from Borders or Waldenbooks. And if you want to draw a lesson from the entire episode, it's obvious: violence against free writers and artists gets results. We have all but invited more.
Tim Blair has a new name for our favorite chickenspit bookstore:
BORDERS BUK-BUK-BUK-BUK-BUK BOOKS!
Blair writes:
English lecturer Elizabeth Preston, said ... “Where is the line between banning a book and banning a group of people from reading? Who is in charge of drawing that line?”
Beats me. Ask Borders.
And at NYU, discussions regarding the cartoons of doom are now limited in size by University decree (hey, isn't the freedom of assembly actually in the Constitution somewhere? And they say it is the conservatives that are trying to turn America into a police state!) in a shocking display of cowardice in the face of a danger to our basic freedoms...Volokh provides common sense to those whom need it:
...most private universities have generally understood their mission as including enriching the intellectual lives of their students and fostering debate among students, including by helping the students spread the message to the broader community....
....But it seems to me that leading universities should be at the forefront of defending speech against those who would suppress it, rather than giving in to the vandals' and thugs' heckler's veto.
Atlas Shrugged was at NYU (and no, the cartoons of doom were not even allowed to be shown) and has photos, links, and great commentary on both this issue and the Borders/Waldenbooks fiasco. I'll end with a telling quote from Atlas as she comments on the panel discussion:
It was painful to watch reasonable men arguing for a fundamental individual right. It was an indication of how far we have fallen.
Makes my stomach hurt.
“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.
Well, at least they are being truthful, for whatever the hell that's worth. Certainly a Muslim suicide bombing inside of a Borders might scare away a few customers...or maybe not, knowing the American tendancy for defiance in the face of threats. What's important here are two things:
-These retail outlets are acknowleding that Muslims (extremists? or just "Muslims?) pose a physical threat to their customers based on the reading material they may choose to provide.
- rather than stand up for the freedom of speech, which essentially is the sole reason of a bookstore's existance, they feel it is somehow "safer" to aquiesce to said threat of violence. Seems like Borders and Waldenbooks forgot how many Americans since the mid-1700's have fought and died for the very right they are willing to throw out the window at the first glowering face they encounter...think any of the other fascist groups out there are taking notes? From The Bidinotto Blog; an open letter to Borders:
Your company's craven policy of capitulation in the face of the mere hypothetical threat of terrorism is absolutely appalling -- a complete moral abdication that only encourages those threatening our rights and liberties.
Andrew Sullivan wants a boycott:
Sharia: 1. The West: 0. If you care about freedom of expression, don't buy books from Borders or Waldenbooks. And if you want to draw a lesson from the entire episode, it's obvious: violence against free writers and artists gets results. We have all but invited more.
Tim Blair has a new name for our favorite chickenspit bookstore:
BORDERS BUK-BUK-BUK-BUK-BUK BOOKS!
Blair writes:
English lecturer Elizabeth Preston, said ... “Where is the line between banning a book and banning a group of people from reading? Who is in charge of drawing that line?”
Beats me. Ask Borders.
And at NYU, discussions regarding the cartoons of doom are now limited in size by University decree (hey, isn't the freedom of assembly actually in the Constitution somewhere? And they say it is the conservatives that are trying to turn America into a police state!) in a shocking display of cowardice in the face of a danger to our basic freedoms...Volokh provides common sense to those whom need it:
...most private universities have generally understood their mission as including enriching the intellectual lives of their students and fostering debate among students, including by helping the students spread the message to the broader community....
....But it seems to me that leading universities should be at the forefront of defending speech against those who would suppress it, rather than giving in to the vandals' and thugs' heckler's veto.
Atlas Shrugged was at NYU (and no, the cartoons of doom were not even allowed to be shown) and has photos, links, and great commentary on both this issue and the Borders/Waldenbooks fiasco. I'll end with a telling quote from Atlas as she comments on the panel discussion:
It was painful to watch reasonable men arguing for a fundamental individual right. It was an indication of how far we have fallen.
Makes my stomach hurt.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Racist Democrat Busted !
We've mentioned the hate-mongering Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney here , and more recently here. Today she headlines Drudge, as the simmering anger that fuels her anti-Semitic rantings bubbles to the surface in mindless rage:
McKinney Allegedly Punches Cop
According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.
Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.
Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.
The officer called out, “Ma’am, Ma’am,” and walked after her in an attempt to stop her.
When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm. Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.
McKinney’s office has not responded to requests for comment.
According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape. Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjurns to arrest her, a source claims." No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.
A statement attributed to McKinney has been released on the Internet, where she allegedly claims to have been harassed by Capitol Hill Police. The statement's writer says that she has been harassed by white police officers she says do not recognize her due to her recently changed hairstyle. "Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers," the statement
It's always about race to a racist, Miss McKinney. Too arrogant, too haughty to turn around as a policeman (saying "Ma'am", not "Hey you!') addresses her...there is no doubt she knew the officer was calling for her; as the rage against whitey built inside her sick mind, she only needed the slightest provocation (a grab on the arm) to whirl around and belt a peace officer with a phone. Hey, McKinney, he was trying to protect you!
Usually the Capitol police will back down in a case like this; even more likely here knowing that the Democratic Congresswoman will try to ignite a race-baiting bonfire to cover the tracks of her own hate crime.
Let's not bow down to Cynthia McKinney's threat; if there really is probable cause she should be arrested, not when Congress adjourns, but immediately, like any other citizen accused of assaulting a police officer.
No double -standards for racist Democrats!
McKinney Allegedly Punches Cop
According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.
Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.
Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.
The officer called out, “Ma’am, Ma’am,” and walked after her in an attempt to stop her.
When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm. Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.
McKinney’s office has not responded to requests for comment.
According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape. Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjurns to arrest her, a source claims." No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.
A statement attributed to McKinney has been released on the Internet, where she allegedly claims to have been harassed by Capitol Hill Police. The statement's writer says that she has been harassed by white police officers she says do not recognize her due to her recently changed hairstyle. "Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers," the statement
It's always about race to a racist, Miss McKinney. Too arrogant, too haughty to turn around as a policeman (saying "Ma'am", not "Hey you!') addresses her...there is no doubt she knew the officer was calling for her; as the rage against whitey built inside her sick mind, she only needed the slightest provocation (a grab on the arm) to whirl around and belt a peace officer with a phone. Hey, McKinney, he was trying to protect you!
Usually the Capitol police will back down in a case like this; even more likely here knowing that the Democratic Congresswoman will try to ignite a race-baiting bonfire to cover the tracks of her own hate crime.
Let's not bow down to Cynthia McKinney's threat; if there really is probable cause she should be arrested, not when Congress adjourns, but immediately, like any other citizen accused of assaulting a police officer.
No double -standards for racist Democrats!
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Brief Blogging Hiatus!
Got a little business trip to Philly for a few days; and I won't lie to you...it's gonna be a breeze - dinners, non-stop expensed alcoholic beverages, a few fancy cigars, a stylin' hotel, zippin' around on Acela trains, and best of all...hockey!
Be back late Wednesday...
Be back late Wednesday...
Oh, Those Liberal Lifestyles!
They would be just plain goofy, if they didn't wish them upon me...first, legal changes to the marriage certificate in same-sex-smooching Spain:
Last year the socialist government of Spain legalized same-sex marriage and adoption. The licensing authorities of that country have now brought their documents into line, replacing the words for “father” and “mother” on Spanish birth certificates with “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” Standing athwart this horrid development crying ¡Alto! is Archbishop Agustín García Gasco of Valencia, who in a pastoral letter blasted the civil authorities for “imposing their ideological instructions to destroy the institution of the family and, with it, society itself.” We wish the archbishop well, and in his support make bold to say: “Our Progenitor A, Who art in Heaven . . .”
Via the Corner, the above is from National Review, and very cute to boot. Nevertheless, if HBO's "Big Love" hasn't convinced you we are balanced on the edge of a slippery slope, nothing will. Speaking of HBO, and also via The Corner, we get more parenting Hollywood-style, this time from "Sex in the City" siren Sarah Jessica Parker:
Sarah Jessica Parker allowed her 3 year-old son (child, also, of Matthew Broderick) to watch parts of Brokeback Mountain. " He said, 'Mama I've been hearing a lot about a movie lately.' I said, 'What movie?' and he said 'Brokeback Mountain. I've heard it's about two cowboys. I would like to watch it tonight.' I didn't want to deny him, because I didn't want to set up some idea about what's bad, because of the subject matter....So we found an 18 minute segment he could watch. The next day he hugged his nanny and he wouldn't let go and he said, 'That is like the two cowboys in Brokeback Mountain!'"
Ah, er, OK...parenting is a difficult thing; far be it for me to critisize the variety of successful styles. But I feel safe saying I would never give Ferris Bueller's gal a recommendation as a babysitter...
And for an classic example of the famed liberal tolerance for those just a little bit different, this is what happens when Christian youth get together to celebrate their faith in San Francisco...from Barking Moonbat:
More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against “the virtue terrorism” of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a “fascist mega-pep rally.”
...Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, [who] told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”
No folks, he wasn't speaking of the counter-demonstration by the cross-dressing "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"; he was talking about Christian children. Nice! Not too judgemental, of little kids no less, are you, Mr. Leno? Your constituancy of cross-dressing trans-gender sexually ambigous perverts must be so proud of you!
And that's about all I can stands - remember, if the Democrats regain the House in 2006, the House Speaker becomes San Francisco's own Nancy Pelosi...and we become progenitors!
Last year the socialist government of Spain legalized same-sex marriage and adoption. The licensing authorities of that country have now brought their documents into line, replacing the words for “father” and “mother” on Spanish birth certificates with “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” Standing athwart this horrid development crying ¡Alto! is Archbishop Agustín García Gasco of Valencia, who in a pastoral letter blasted the civil authorities for “imposing their ideological instructions to destroy the institution of the family and, with it, society itself.” We wish the archbishop well, and in his support make bold to say: “Our Progenitor A, Who art in Heaven . . .”
Via the Corner, the above is from National Review, and very cute to boot. Nevertheless, if HBO's "Big Love" hasn't convinced you we are balanced on the edge of a slippery slope, nothing will. Speaking of HBO, and also via The Corner, we get more parenting Hollywood-style, this time from "Sex in the City" siren Sarah Jessica Parker:
Sarah Jessica Parker allowed her 3 year-old son (child, also, of Matthew Broderick) to watch parts of Brokeback Mountain. " He said, 'Mama I've been hearing a lot about a movie lately.' I said, 'What movie?' and he said 'Brokeback Mountain. I've heard it's about two cowboys. I would like to watch it tonight.' I didn't want to deny him, because I didn't want to set up some idea about what's bad, because of the subject matter....So we found an 18 minute segment he could watch. The next day he hugged his nanny and he wouldn't let go and he said, 'That is like the two cowboys in Brokeback Mountain!'"
Ah, er, OK...parenting is a difficult thing; far be it for me to critisize the variety of successful styles. But I feel safe saying I would never give Ferris Bueller's gal a recommendation as a babysitter...
And for an classic example of the famed liberal tolerance for those just a little bit different, this is what happens when Christian youth get together to celebrate their faith in San Francisco...from Barking Moonbat:
More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against “the virtue terrorism” of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a “fascist mega-pep rally.”
...Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, [who] told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”
No folks, he wasn't speaking of the counter-demonstration by the cross-dressing "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"; he was talking about Christian children. Nice! Not too judgemental, of little kids no less, are you, Mr. Leno? Your constituancy of cross-dressing trans-gender sexually ambigous perverts must be so proud of you!
And that's about all I can stands - remember, if the Democrats regain the House in 2006, the House Speaker becomes San Francisco's own Nancy Pelosi...and we become progenitors!
Monday, March 27, 2006
A Horrific Future, Courtesy of Iran
From Mark Steyn's latest (via LGF); an apocalyptic vision of what the future would be like should Iran's Ahmadinejad get his nukes:
Depending on your own beliefs, Ahmadinejad is either mystical or deranged. In either case, he is exceedingly dangerous. And Iran is just the first. With infinitely accelerated exchanges of information helping develop whole new generations of scientists, extremist countries led by similarly extreme men will be in a position to acquire nuclear weaponry. If nothing is done, we face not proliferation but hyperproliferation. Not just one but many radical states will get weapons of mass extinction, and then so will the fanatical and suicidal terrorists who are their brothers and clients.
That will present the world with two futures. The first is Feynman’s vision of human destruction on a scale never seen. The second, perhaps after one or two cities are lost with millions killed in a single day, is a radical abolition of liberal democracy as the species tries to maintain itself by reverting to strict authoritarianism—a self-imposed expulsion from the Eden of post-Enlightenment freedom.
Can there be a third future? That will depend on whether we succeed in holding proliferation at bay...
There will be no third future, if we wait for the UN to come to a consensus with an unwilling China and Russia, or if we wait for the EU to finish yet another round of cartoonish diplomacy, eagerly playing the buffoons for the amusement of the Islamists.
It is up to us, the hated Americans, to save the world (again, sigh...). Do we have the will? Or has a brutally anti-war media and a disengeneous Democratic party sapped our strength in order to gain a few politcal points? With such a great danger on the horizon, do either of these two liberal organs realize that nothing less than the future of civilization may be at stake? Or is that future less important than a quickie poll-bump one may obtain in the present by taking down our President, our foreign policy, and our troops overseas?
I can't tell you, but ask Hillary, or Russ Feingold, or Teddy Kennedy; this trio seems convinced they have all the answers....
Depending on your own beliefs, Ahmadinejad is either mystical or deranged. In either case, he is exceedingly dangerous. And Iran is just the first. With infinitely accelerated exchanges of information helping develop whole new generations of scientists, extremist countries led by similarly extreme men will be in a position to acquire nuclear weaponry. If nothing is done, we face not proliferation but hyperproliferation. Not just one but many radical states will get weapons of mass extinction, and then so will the fanatical and suicidal terrorists who are their brothers and clients.
That will present the world with two futures. The first is Feynman’s vision of human destruction on a scale never seen. The second, perhaps after one or two cities are lost with millions killed in a single day, is a radical abolition of liberal democracy as the species tries to maintain itself by reverting to strict authoritarianism—a self-imposed expulsion from the Eden of post-Enlightenment freedom.
Can there be a third future? That will depend on whether we succeed in holding proliferation at bay...
There will be no third future, if we wait for the UN to come to a consensus with an unwilling China and Russia, or if we wait for the EU to finish yet another round of cartoonish diplomacy, eagerly playing the buffoons for the amusement of the Islamists.
It is up to us, the hated Americans, to save the world (again, sigh...). Do we have the will? Or has a brutally anti-war media and a disengeneous Democratic party sapped our strength in order to gain a few politcal points? With such a great danger on the horizon, do either of these two liberal organs realize that nothing less than the future of civilization may be at stake? Or is that future less important than a quickie poll-bump one may obtain in the present by taking down our President, our foreign policy, and our troops overseas?
I can't tell you, but ask Hillary, or Russ Feingold, or Teddy Kennedy; this trio seems convinced they have all the answers....
Sunday, March 26, 2006
The Marriage Paradox
Joy Jones writes an essay in today's Washington Post (also the lead op-ed column in today's NY Post) with a title inspired by one of her students, 'Marriage Is for White People'. A few excerts:
The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States...African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent.
My observation is that black women in their twenties and early thirties want to marry and commit at a time when black men their age are more likely to enjoy playing the field. As the woman realizes that a good marriage may not be as possible or sustainable as she would like, her focus turns to having a baby, or possibly improving her job status, perhaps by returning to school or investing more energy in her career.
As men mature, and begin to recognize the benefits of having a roost and roots (and to feel the consequences of their risky bachelor behavior), they are more willing to marry and settle down. By this time, however, many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage to a man who doesn't bring much to the table.
...human nature being what it is, if marriage is to flourish -- in black or white America -- it will have to offer an individual woman something more than a business alliance, a panacea for what ails the community, or an incubator for rearing children. As one woman said, "If it weren't for the intangibles, the allure of the lovey-dovey stuff, I wouldn't have gotten married. The benefits of marriage are his character and his caring. If not for that, why bother?"
It seems like Ms. Jones is vacillitating between bemoaning the state of black marriage and praising the strength of the black woman. Both are indeed proper positions, but nowhere in the article do I see any serious analysis of the byproducts of the single-parenting system.
Ms. Jones seems to speak to the reasons why women choose not to marry and have children out of "wedlock", but where is the concern for the child brought up this way? It is great to "want to have a baby", but is it not also important to think about the conditions he will be raised in? Without a father present most of the time, absent a strong male role model, young men take their cues from other strong males within their reach - sometimes coaches and teachers, other times thugs and gangsters. And while Jones seems to view males as more of a drag on female achievement than as "partners", she does not mention the economic chains placed upon single parents - it becomes impossible to take the promotion that might involve travel and late hours. Realistically, the single parent becomes the one leaving work early to pick up the kids - behavior very few companies will punish, but very few will reward. And how does this now-limited upward economic mobiltiy help the child? Unable to move to a different neighborhood, diminished ability to purchase beyond basics, limited higher education opportunities - all this plays into the suffering of the next generation.
The increasing problems of crime, poverty, and inequality among blacks in America can be traced in some degree to the slow disintergration of the black family. While many make a strong go, with the help of friends, grandparents, and the occasional doting (if absent) father, it can never replicate the economic and familial stability provided by the two-parent household. The great shame is the the Democratic party, long the favorites of the black community, will not address these issues; instead, they slam racism (which while always present, has less and less to do with the problem) and raise taxes to provide funding for programs that have done little to help raise up the black family. If anything, these young families are better off with as much money as they can get in their pockets, and not shortchanged by another "jobs center" that provides less than nothing.
If, as Jones intimates, the issue is really the quality of the male (and I don't buy that 100%; for women, the problem is alway the men!), then political and social leaders need to re-define what makes a man - not the glorification of gangsters, or the demeaning of women and work, or the crass accumulation of material goods - but the power of strong moral values, respect for oneself and others, the honor of a good day's work, and the unmistakeable pride one feels when they can proudly say, "Let me introduce you to my family".
For it is through the realization of these values that one may achieve both the spiritual and monetary rewards that are the benefits of a strong marriage, and a strong family structure.
Ms. Jones seems to feel, in her final paragraph, that marriage is simply "not a good business deal" for women. Well, perhaps they should stop thinking about what is good for only them, before they start having children with the men they seem so disdainful of. Time to step it up, ladies, and get the men into line by letting them know, as a society, what is and is not acceptable behavior. In other societies/subcultures, men work as hard as they can to be as successful as possible in order to attract the highest quality mate. Why shouldn't this philosophy apply to the black community as well? When the proper demands are placed upon men, to fulfill the role they are needed to play within the family/society, you can bet they will respond.
Especially if the love of a good woman is the reward...
The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States...African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent.
My observation is that black women in their twenties and early thirties want to marry and commit at a time when black men their age are more likely to enjoy playing the field. As the woman realizes that a good marriage may not be as possible or sustainable as she would like, her focus turns to having a baby, or possibly improving her job status, perhaps by returning to school or investing more energy in her career.
As men mature, and begin to recognize the benefits of having a roost and roots (and to feel the consequences of their risky bachelor behavior), they are more willing to marry and settle down. By this time, however, many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage to a man who doesn't bring much to the table.
...human nature being what it is, if marriage is to flourish -- in black or white America -- it will have to offer an individual woman something more than a business alliance, a panacea for what ails the community, or an incubator for rearing children. As one woman said, "If it weren't for the intangibles, the allure of the lovey-dovey stuff, I wouldn't have gotten married. The benefits of marriage are his character and his caring. If not for that, why bother?"
It seems like Ms. Jones is vacillitating between bemoaning the state of black marriage and praising the strength of the black woman. Both are indeed proper positions, but nowhere in the article do I see any serious analysis of the byproducts of the single-parenting system.
Ms. Jones seems to speak to the reasons why women choose not to marry and have children out of "wedlock", but where is the concern for the child brought up this way? It is great to "want to have a baby", but is it not also important to think about the conditions he will be raised in? Without a father present most of the time, absent a strong male role model, young men take their cues from other strong males within their reach - sometimes coaches and teachers, other times thugs and gangsters. And while Jones seems to view males as more of a drag on female achievement than as "partners", she does not mention the economic chains placed upon single parents - it becomes impossible to take the promotion that might involve travel and late hours. Realistically, the single parent becomes the one leaving work early to pick up the kids - behavior very few companies will punish, but very few will reward. And how does this now-limited upward economic mobiltiy help the child? Unable to move to a different neighborhood, diminished ability to purchase beyond basics, limited higher education opportunities - all this plays into the suffering of the next generation.
The increasing problems of crime, poverty, and inequality among blacks in America can be traced in some degree to the slow disintergration of the black family. While many make a strong go, with the help of friends, grandparents, and the occasional doting (if absent) father, it can never replicate the economic and familial stability provided by the two-parent household. The great shame is the the Democratic party, long the favorites of the black community, will not address these issues; instead, they slam racism (which while always present, has less and less to do with the problem) and raise taxes to provide funding for programs that have done little to help raise up the black family. If anything, these young families are better off with as much money as they can get in their pockets, and not shortchanged by another "jobs center" that provides less than nothing.
If, as Jones intimates, the issue is really the quality of the male (and I don't buy that 100%; for women, the problem is alway the men!), then political and social leaders need to re-define what makes a man - not the glorification of gangsters, or the demeaning of women and work, or the crass accumulation of material goods - but the power of strong moral values, respect for oneself and others, the honor of a good day's work, and the unmistakeable pride one feels when they can proudly say, "Let me introduce you to my family".
For it is through the realization of these values that one may achieve both the spiritual and monetary rewards that are the benefits of a strong marriage, and a strong family structure.
Ms. Jones seems to feel, in her final paragraph, that marriage is simply "not a good business deal" for women. Well, perhaps they should stop thinking about what is good for only them, before they start having children with the men they seem so disdainful of. Time to step it up, ladies, and get the men into line by letting them know, as a society, what is and is not acceptable behavior. In other societies/subcultures, men work as hard as they can to be as successful as possible in order to attract the highest quality mate. Why shouldn't this philosophy apply to the black community as well? When the proper demands are placed upon men, to fulfill the role they are needed to play within the family/society, you can bet they will respond.
Especially if the love of a good woman is the reward...
Saturday, March 25, 2006
"Peacemakers" ?
The rescued members of the Christian Peacemakers Team are throwing their bodies in front of the Islamist terrorists:
The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday.
The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages.
Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.
The two Canadians kidnapped with Mr Kember - Harmeet Sooden, 32, and Jim Loney, 41 - were said to have been co-operative at first but less so on arriving at the British embassy in Baghdad after being given the opportunity to wash, eat and rest.
Can you imagine the pain of other families, ones who have bretheran held hostage in Iraq, upon hearing that these rescued hostages refuse to provide any information that might help lead to the whereabouts of other prisoners?
Let us be clear - CPT, as well as other leftist activist groups such as Rachel Corrie's ISM, are not peace movements in any way, shape, or form. They are actively aiding and abetting terrorists and Islamist fascists in their goal of overthrowing Western Civilization. If they think they can fool us by using words like "peace", or "solidarity", well, we are just a tad smarter than they think.
Next time, let's leave these rats in their holes; not a single coalition life is worth their rescue.
LGF has a mission statement from CPT back in 1998 here; note how they practically choke on their voluminous anti-semitism...
The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday.
The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages.
Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.
The two Canadians kidnapped with Mr Kember - Harmeet Sooden, 32, and Jim Loney, 41 - were said to have been co-operative at first but less so on arriving at the British embassy in Baghdad after being given the opportunity to wash, eat and rest.
Can you imagine the pain of other families, ones who have bretheran held hostage in Iraq, upon hearing that these rescued hostages refuse to provide any information that might help lead to the whereabouts of other prisoners?
Let us be clear - CPT, as well as other leftist activist groups such as Rachel Corrie's ISM, are not peace movements in any way, shape, or form. They are actively aiding and abetting terrorists and Islamist fascists in their goal of overthrowing Western Civilization. If they think they can fool us by using words like "peace", or "solidarity", well, we are just a tad smarter than they think.
Next time, let's leave these rats in their holes; not a single coalition life is worth their rescue.
LGF has a mission statement from CPT back in 1998 here; note how they practically choke on their voluminous anti-semitism...
Our Favorite Racist; And Hillary as Joan of Arc!
The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson is at it again, with another racist diatribe against black conservatives. Last week, he told us that Condi could never be elected President, because all those dirty white conservatives who claim to love her would revert to their hatin' ways as soon as the voting booth curtain was closed. Today, he knocks Claude Allen, the president's former top domestic policy adviser, recently arrested for what was essentially shoplifting:
So, yes, when Allen was arrested on felony theft charges, my first reaction was smug satisfaction. But then I told myself: Don't hate. The proper reaction is pity, on every level.
I'm sure Mr. Allen appreciates your pity. But here comes the hate anyway:
...since black conservatives with credentials like Claude Allen's are relatively rare, they are in great demand and tend to rise fast. They have to balance their genuine political beliefs against the fact that the Jesse Helmses of the world love to have them around as window dressing so they can say, "Look, I'm not racist; here's this black person on my staff."
Thanks, Eugene! Now whenever I see a prominent black conservative, I know he has not reached his pinnacle due to hard work or principled ideals, but because he/she is nothing more than a token negro, put in place to deflect charges of Republican racism! Just like Condi Rice and Colin Powell, right, Eugene?
One should ask themselves why the Democrats cannot attract strong black leaders like the aforementioned two; the best they can do is parade around Fat Al Sharpton, and ignore his anti-Semitic past (Robinson certainly does). Is it because upwardly mobile minorities of all stripes realize they are better off in the meritocracy of the conservative system, than the eternal mediocrity granted by the victim status bestowed upon them by the Democratic left?
Take a look at black Republicans running for office in 2006; and compare them to likes of Democrats such as Cynthia McKinney and Charles Rangel...whom would you prefer as a representative?
Eugene Robinson, racist punk that he is, claims obliquely that Allen was driven to crime due to "some of the strains and contradictions he had to live with". Mr. Allen may have had problems, but his conservative beliefs were not the cause of them. For Robinson to claim that a black man cannot be a Republican without snapping under the stress shows how far he will reach in an attempt to connive the black population into continuing its stay on the Democratic plantation...
UPDATE: Richard Cohen, also in the Washington Post, applies the same liberal divisive ideology to the polarizing Hillary Clinton:
But for one person to be so loved, so hated, and of such compelling interest -- so much more a celebrity than, say, John McCain -- suggests that more than politics is involved. Like Marie Antoinette, Hillary has emerged as the repository of so many fears, so much dread, such aspirations -- so much good and bad -- that we have to look past her office or her ambitions and suggest, strongly, that something deeply Freudian is at work. It was Freud, after all, who spoke for all men (and many women) by asking, "What do women want?" Now -- some fear, others hope -- we may finally have the answer.
The White House.
So that's it! I always thought I disliked Hillary for her attempts to socialize medicine and child-rearing, to raise taxes with breakfast every morning, and to generally stick her nose into everyone's home to make sure they are living life the Hillary way. But No! I dislike Hillary because she's a women - and because according to Cohen, I'm not capable of forming an opinion independant of my most basest sexist impulses.
Cohen should talk with Eugene Robinson, and lecture him on his Condi-rage - after all, isn't the root cause of Robinson's dismissal of Rice as a candidate his underlying fear of a women President? Doesn't his constant condemnation of Rice (and all black Republicans) speak to Cohen's fear that those whom bash female candidates are women-haters? Or will Cohen offer Robinson a pass, because his misogyny is directed towards a black Republican woman, and not everyone's favorite white Democratic female?
Liberals work so hard on focusing on, and exploiting, the things that may divide us, that it is good sport to watch them create fissures between themselves...
So, yes, when Allen was arrested on felony theft charges, my first reaction was smug satisfaction. But then I told myself: Don't hate. The proper reaction is pity, on every level.
I'm sure Mr. Allen appreciates your pity. But here comes the hate anyway:
...since black conservatives with credentials like Claude Allen's are relatively rare, they are in great demand and tend to rise fast. They have to balance their genuine political beliefs against the fact that the Jesse Helmses of the world love to have them around as window dressing so they can say, "Look, I'm not racist; here's this black person on my staff."
Thanks, Eugene! Now whenever I see a prominent black conservative, I know he has not reached his pinnacle due to hard work or principled ideals, but because he/she is nothing more than a token negro, put in place to deflect charges of Republican racism! Just like Condi Rice and Colin Powell, right, Eugene?
One should ask themselves why the Democrats cannot attract strong black leaders like the aforementioned two; the best they can do is parade around Fat Al Sharpton, and ignore his anti-Semitic past (Robinson certainly does). Is it because upwardly mobile minorities of all stripes realize they are better off in the meritocracy of the conservative system, than the eternal mediocrity granted by the victim status bestowed upon them by the Democratic left?
Take a look at black Republicans running for office in 2006; and compare them to likes of Democrats such as Cynthia McKinney and Charles Rangel...whom would you prefer as a representative?
Eugene Robinson, racist punk that he is, claims obliquely that Allen was driven to crime due to "some of the strains and contradictions he had to live with". Mr. Allen may have had problems, but his conservative beliefs were not the cause of them. For Robinson to claim that a black man cannot be a Republican without snapping under the stress shows how far he will reach in an attempt to connive the black population into continuing its stay on the Democratic plantation...
UPDATE: Richard Cohen, also in the Washington Post, applies the same liberal divisive ideology to the polarizing Hillary Clinton:
But for one person to be so loved, so hated, and of such compelling interest -- so much more a celebrity than, say, John McCain -- suggests that more than politics is involved. Like Marie Antoinette, Hillary has emerged as the repository of so many fears, so much dread, such aspirations -- so much good and bad -- that we have to look past her office or her ambitions and suggest, strongly, that something deeply Freudian is at work. It was Freud, after all, who spoke for all men (and many women) by asking, "What do women want?" Now -- some fear, others hope -- we may finally have the answer.
The White House.
So that's it! I always thought I disliked Hillary for her attempts to socialize medicine and child-rearing, to raise taxes with breakfast every morning, and to generally stick her nose into everyone's home to make sure they are living life the Hillary way. But No! I dislike Hillary because she's a women - and because according to Cohen, I'm not capable of forming an opinion independant of my most basest sexist impulses.
Cohen should talk with Eugene Robinson, and lecture him on his Condi-rage - after all, isn't the root cause of Robinson's dismissal of Rice as a candidate his underlying fear of a women President? Doesn't his constant condemnation of Rice (and all black Republicans) speak to Cohen's fear that those whom bash female candidates are women-haters? Or will Cohen offer Robinson a pass, because his misogyny is directed towards a black Republican woman, and not everyone's favorite white Democratic female?
Liberals work so hard on focusing on, and exploiting, the things that may divide us, that it is good sport to watch them create fissures between themselves...
It's Not Islamophobia When There Really Is Something To Fear
So says Volokh...excerpts:
The striking thing about the Abdul Rahman prosecution — in which an Afghanistan court is considering whether to execute Rahman because he converted from Islam to Christianity — is how Establishment the prosecution is. The case is before an official Afghani court. The death sentence is, to my knowlege, authorized by official Afghani law..
Well, the lousy Jews do the same thing in Israel; killing converts and...what? They don't? They allow Christians and Muslims to live in their lands in peace, and even let homosexuals to hold Knesset seats? Er....more Jew lies!
We're not talking about some rogue terrorist group, or even the government of Iran, which is deliberately and strongly oppositional to the West. We're talking about a country that we're trying to set up as something of a model of democracy and liberty for the Islamic world.
This is telling evidence, it seems to me, that there is something very wrong in Islam today, and not just in some lunatic terrorist fringe...This is deeply dangerous, most obviously to residents of countries in which radical Islamism has broad support, but also to residents of Western countries as well.
Now here is where Volokh gets a bit lost:
We need to call on moderate Muslims to criticize those teachings ...
Moderate whats? Drop me a line when you find one....
Finally:
The accusations of "islamophobia," "defam[ation]," "religious intolerance," and promotion of "religious hatred" strike me as quite damaging to serious, sensible Western consideration of the threat that some strands of Islam in fact pose. There really is something to be afraid of. There are true, not false, criticisms being made of important strands of Islam...
Well, if the PC Left won't allow discussion of what Volokh call "dangerous strands of Islam", then we won't discuss it. Maybe when we are all bowing towards Mecca to say our daytime prayers, we may be allowed to think it....
And maybe, this is where some strong politcal leader should stand up (hello, Mr. President!) and speak the truth to the West, and to Islam...
So says Volokh...excerpts:
The striking thing about the Abdul Rahman prosecution — in which an Afghanistan court is considering whether to execute Rahman because he converted from Islam to Christianity — is how Establishment the prosecution is. The case is before an official Afghani court. The death sentence is, to my knowlege, authorized by official Afghani law..
Well, the lousy Jews do the same thing in Israel; killing converts and...what? They don't? They allow Christians and Muslims to live in their lands in peace, and even let homosexuals to hold Knesset seats? Er....more Jew lies!
We're not talking about some rogue terrorist group, or even the government of Iran, which is deliberately and strongly oppositional to the West. We're talking about a country that we're trying to set up as something of a model of democracy and liberty for the Islamic world.
This is telling evidence, it seems to me, that there is something very wrong in Islam today, and not just in some lunatic terrorist fringe...This is deeply dangerous, most obviously to residents of countries in which radical Islamism has broad support, but also to residents of Western countries as well.
Now here is where Volokh gets a bit lost:
We need to call on moderate Muslims to criticize those teachings ...
Moderate whats? Drop me a line when you find one....
Finally:
The accusations of "islamophobia," "defam[ation]," "religious intolerance," and promotion of "religious hatred" strike me as quite damaging to serious, sensible Western consideration of the threat that some strands of Islam in fact pose. There really is something to be afraid of. There are true, not false, criticisms being made of important strands of Islam...
Well, if the PC Left won't allow discussion of what Volokh call "dangerous strands of Islam", then we won't discuss it. Maybe when we are all bowing towards Mecca to say our daytime prayers, we may be allowed to think it....
And maybe, this is where some strong politcal leader should stand up (hello, Mr. President!) and speak the truth to the West, and to Islam...
Friday, March 24, 2006
Chirac, Off The Deep End...
His socialist worldview having been overtaken by reality, with students rioting in the streets and Islamists clanging at the gates of Paris, it is not surprising that Chirac, having presided over the fall of France, has finally snapped, albiet over a non-issue:
PRESIDENT CHIRAC stormed out of the first session of a European Union summit dominated by a row over French nationalism because a fellow Frenchman insisted on speaking English.
When M Seillière, who is an English-educated steel baron, started a presentation to all 25 EU leaders, President Chirac interrupted to ask why he was speaking in English. M Seillière explained: “I’m going to speak in English because that is the language of business.”
Without saying another word, President Chirac, who lived in the US as a student and speaks fluent English, walked out, followed by his Foreign, Finance and Europe ministers, leaving the 24 other European leaders stunned. They returned only after M Seilière had finished speaking.
The meeting was furnished with full interpretation services, and anyone in the room could speak or listen in any of the 20 official EU languages. Embarrassed French diplomats tried to explain away the walk-out, saying that their ministers all needed a toilet break at the same time....
President Chirac...has led an increasingly eccentric campaign to try to turn back the growing dominance of English in the EU and across the world. French and English are equal official languages in the EU, but the enlargement of the Union has entrenched the dominance of English...
Well, at least France's dying screams will be recorded in French, not English - I guess Chirac can take that dubious honor to his grave with him, as he has accomplished so little else. And while he fiddles...
On Thursday afternoon, as a crowd of as many as 140,000 young people and others prepared to end their march in the large park fronting the gold-domed Hotel des Invalides housing Napoleon's tomb, gangs of hooded and masked youths darted out of side streets, setting cars ablaze, flipping others upside down, breaking store windows and throwing rocks and stones at police and firefighters, according to witnesses.
Riot police broke up the groups of rampaging youths with tear gas as acrid, black smoke filled narrow streets and billowed above the city skyline.
Ah, France in the 21st Century...
PRESIDENT CHIRAC stormed out of the first session of a European Union summit dominated by a row over French nationalism because a fellow Frenchman insisted on speaking English.
When M Seillière, who is an English-educated steel baron, started a presentation to all 25 EU leaders, President Chirac interrupted to ask why he was speaking in English. M Seillière explained: “I’m going to speak in English because that is the language of business.”
Without saying another word, President Chirac, who lived in the US as a student and speaks fluent English, walked out, followed by his Foreign, Finance and Europe ministers, leaving the 24 other European leaders stunned. They returned only after M Seilière had finished speaking.
The meeting was furnished with full interpretation services, and anyone in the room could speak or listen in any of the 20 official EU languages. Embarrassed French diplomats tried to explain away the walk-out, saying that their ministers all needed a toilet break at the same time....
President Chirac...has led an increasingly eccentric campaign to try to turn back the growing dominance of English in the EU and across the world. French and English are equal official languages in the EU, but the enlargement of the Union has entrenched the dominance of English...
Well, at least France's dying screams will be recorded in French, not English - I guess Chirac can take that dubious honor to his grave with him, as he has accomplished so little else. And while he fiddles...
On Thursday afternoon, as a crowd of as many as 140,000 young people and others prepared to end their march in the large park fronting the gold-domed Hotel des Invalides housing Napoleon's tomb, gangs of hooded and masked youths darted out of side streets, setting cars ablaze, flipping others upside down, breaking store windows and throwing rocks and stones at police and firefighters, according to witnesses.
Riot police broke up the groups of rampaging youths with tear gas as acrid, black smoke filled narrow streets and billowed above the city skyline.
Ah, France in the 21st Century...
Released, or Rescued?
Words carry great weight; I am tired of scared diplomats brushing off threats as hyperbole - everytime since 9/11 I hear "Death to America", boy, I believe it...
That's why the play on words taking place on yesterday's rescue by Coalition forces of the Christian Peacemaker Teams is bothering me - you see, according to some, they were not rescued, they were released.
There is a world of difference - Fausta links us to Michelle Malkin's readers, who make some strong points...first, a letter to CPT:
Sisters and Brothers,
I am a Christian living in San Francisco. I support the Iraq War.
Regarding your statement on the release of your fellow Peacemakers: How about giving thanks to the US and British soldiers who rescued your friends from terrorists?
They weren't released by good-hearted terrorists or by international good will . It took the coalition forces to do it. Those forces have also rescued Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal dictatorships that have terrorized and imprisoned millions of people. Setting the captives free can take many forms and I think you could show some gratitude for that.
If you have the faith to love your enemies, you might consider loving your friends and rescuers too.
Reader Bob T. notes moonbat fever at the BBC:
With regard to the former hostages from the "Christian" "Peacemaker" Teams, Britain seems afflicted with "released" vs. "rescued" syndrome. Indeed the only ones who mention the military operation in this article express concern about it, as if the good-hearted kidnappers were about to free them any day. Tony Blair's contribution from a spokeman is dissapointing, and the comment from a former Gitmo detainee is beyond unctuous.
Tony Blair, in the BBC link above, offers the following:
A spokesman for Tony Blair said: "The prime minister is delighted by the news. He is particularly pleased for those released and their families and congratulates everyone involved in the rescue operation."
"Released" indicates kind-hearted, loveable terrorists let them go. That is an improper word to use here. They were found securely bound, then rescued, by a military operation. Rescued from terrorists whom had already murdered one hostage. Using the word release here, whether by CPT, or Tony Blair, or the BBC, is factually changing the story to create a false impression of our enemies, and negate the hard work and risk undertaken by coalition servicemen.
Let us be honest in our assesment of our enemy's motivations and character, and let us not be afraid to praise ourselves for a job well done, even if it had to be conducted at the business end of a gun...
That's why the play on words taking place on yesterday's rescue by Coalition forces of the Christian Peacemaker Teams is bothering me - you see, according to some, they were not rescued, they were released.
There is a world of difference - Fausta links us to Michelle Malkin's readers, who make some strong points...first, a letter to CPT:
Sisters and Brothers,
I am a Christian living in San Francisco. I support the Iraq War.
Regarding your statement on the release of your fellow Peacemakers: How about giving thanks to the US and British soldiers who rescued your friends from terrorists?
They weren't released by good-hearted terrorists or by international good will . It took the coalition forces to do it. Those forces have also rescued Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal dictatorships that have terrorized and imprisoned millions of people. Setting the captives free can take many forms and I think you could show some gratitude for that.
If you have the faith to love your enemies, you might consider loving your friends and rescuers too.
Reader Bob T. notes moonbat fever at the BBC:
With regard to the former hostages from the "Christian" "Peacemaker" Teams, Britain seems afflicted with "released" vs. "rescued" syndrome. Indeed the only ones who mention the military operation in this article express concern about it, as if the good-hearted kidnappers were about to free them any day. Tony Blair's contribution from a spokeman is dissapointing, and the comment from a former Gitmo detainee is beyond unctuous.
Tony Blair, in the BBC link above, offers the following:
A spokesman for Tony Blair said: "The prime minister is delighted by the news. He is particularly pleased for those released and their families and congratulates everyone involved in the rescue operation."
"Released" indicates kind-hearted, loveable terrorists let them go. That is an improper word to use here. They were found securely bound, then rescued, by a military operation. Rescued from terrorists whom had already murdered one hostage. Using the word release here, whether by CPT, or Tony Blair, or the BBC, is factually changing the story to create a false impression of our enemies, and negate the hard work and risk undertaken by coalition servicemen.
Let us be honest in our assesment of our enemy's motivations and character, and let us not be afraid to praise ourselves for a job well done, even if it had to be conducted at the business end of a gun...
A Blogiversary !
So it has been exactly one year since my first post - the so-called “blogiversary”, if you will...
I’ve seen some bloggers practically dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back on this occasion; not quite my style.
But I will say that I started blogging really as a way to get my thoughts on the world as it is (and as it should be) out of my head and onto paper, virtual though it may be. Blogging became a way to vent, more than anything else. I thought I would eventually spend out my frustration, and become bored with writing for an invisible audience, leaving my URL to die on the vine, more a snapshot of a few months in my life than anything else.
Turned out different than I expected, like so much in life…I enjoyed it more than I thought; and what started out as a hobby now borders on an obsession; one that I occasionally need to force myself to walk away from.
Bottom line – nothing’s over; hopefully I’ve just begun (which is a strange thing to say on my 439th post!).
And a big thanks to the thousands upon thousands whom have stopped by to pay a visit; to read, to write, to sneer…I have actually learned from my comments that there are more people than I thought who can respectfully disagree based upon solid argumentation; I’ve enjoyed some of that give and take tremendously; it has broadened me and tempered me.
And thanks to my fellow bloggers (and even Salon.com!) for the occasional link; the fact that I have written something that another would think to recommend is the highest compliment I can think of.
Again, my humble thanks.
Now, back to work…
I’ve seen some bloggers practically dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back on this occasion; not quite my style.
But I will say that I started blogging really as a way to get my thoughts on the world as it is (and as it should be) out of my head and onto paper, virtual though it may be. Blogging became a way to vent, more than anything else. I thought I would eventually spend out my frustration, and become bored with writing for an invisible audience, leaving my URL to die on the vine, more a snapshot of a few months in my life than anything else.
Turned out different than I expected, like so much in life…I enjoyed it more than I thought; and what started out as a hobby now borders on an obsession; one that I occasionally need to force myself to walk away from.
Bottom line – nothing’s over; hopefully I’ve just begun (which is a strange thing to say on my 439th post!).
And a big thanks to the thousands upon thousands whom have stopped by to pay a visit; to read, to write, to sneer…I have actually learned from my comments that there are more people than I thought who can respectfully disagree based upon solid argumentation; I’ve enjoyed some of that give and take tremendously; it has broadened me and tempered me.
And thanks to my fellow bloggers (and even Salon.com!) for the occasional link; the fact that I have written something that another would think to recommend is the highest compliment I can think of.
Again, my humble thanks.
Now, back to work…
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Not Too Biased...
...via Drudge, the MSM has a new stain of shame...
A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. "If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained. The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.
...or perhaps they will view it as a badge of honor. Well, if they just schucked the whole "impartial" charade, maybe items like this wouldn't be newsworthy - would it shock anyone if someone uncovered a Fox News producer's email with some snarky remarks about Hillary? Roger Simon echos the sentiment:
Good Morning America producer John Green is "mortified" that he was caught with his pants down in an email he wrote to others at ABC that President Bush made him want "to puke." Frankly, Green should not be so upset. This is his opinion and he's welcome to it in a free society. The idea that he would be impartial is simply a myth. Last I heard John Green was a human being. Only machines (so far) are impartial. In fact, it's good viewers of ABC are informed of the opinions of those producing the network's shows. It gives those viewers much more ability to evaluate what they are seeing. Thanks, Mr. Green!
My only concern is that there is less and less bringing us together as Americans...Hollywood writes for the paraniod left, the Democrats try to win office by constantly stressing the differences that seperate us, and now the media is splitting into a left/right dichotomy. Will we ever read/watch the same thing as a family again?
UPDATE 945p: Gateway Pundit has transcripts of Donald Rumsfeld humiliating the MSM at a Pentagon briefing; money quotes from the Sec of Def:
"If you believe everything you read in Maureen Dowd, you better get a life."
"I'm rather old fashioned, I like to engage my brain before my mouth."
"Sorry, I have trouble remembering the names of all the "useful LSM idiots"."
Absolutely priceless...!
A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. "If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained. The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.
...or perhaps they will view it as a badge of honor. Well, if they just schucked the whole "impartial" charade, maybe items like this wouldn't be newsworthy - would it shock anyone if someone uncovered a Fox News producer's email with some snarky remarks about Hillary? Roger Simon echos the sentiment:
Good Morning America producer John Green is "mortified" that he was caught with his pants down in an email he wrote to others at ABC that President Bush made him want "to puke." Frankly, Green should not be so upset. This is his opinion and he's welcome to it in a free society. The idea that he would be impartial is simply a myth. Last I heard John Green was a human being. Only machines (so far) are impartial. In fact, it's good viewers of ABC are informed of the opinions of those producing the network's shows. It gives those viewers much more ability to evaluate what they are seeing. Thanks, Mr. Green!
My only concern is that there is less and less bringing us together as Americans...Hollywood writes for the paraniod left, the Democrats try to win office by constantly stressing the differences that seperate us, and now the media is splitting into a left/right dichotomy. Will we ever read/watch the same thing as a family again?
UPDATE 945p: Gateway Pundit has transcripts of Donald Rumsfeld humiliating the MSM at a Pentagon briefing; money quotes from the Sec of Def:
"If you believe everything you read in Maureen Dowd, you better get a life."
"I'm rather old fashioned, I like to engage my brain before my mouth."
"Sorry, I have trouble remembering the names of all the "useful LSM idiots"."
Absolutely priceless...!
Hostages Rescued, U.S. to Blame?
Will the Christian Peacemaker Teams show any gratitude towards the United States for helping to rescue their kidnapped bretheran?
Or, perhaps a better question is, how long will it take for the "CPT" to put out a statement critisizing the United States, despite the fact that our soldiers risked their lives to help rescue people who were in Iraq solely to betray the American cause?
U.S.-led forces freed three Christian peace activists held hostage in Iraq' on Thursday in an operation mounted two weeks after the kidnappers tortured and killed their American colleague.
Canadians Jim Loney and Harmeet Sooden and 74-year-old British pacifist Norman Kember from the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) were snatched in west Baghdad in November.
The tortured body of American Tom Fox was found dumped in the capital two weeks ago.
The four were seized four months ago while driving in a part of western Baghdad known as a haven for Sunni Arab rebels...
Kidnapping? Torture? Captured while in "enemy" territory? Don't forget the "root cause", as per CPT:
"We believe that the root cause of the abduction of our colleagues is the U.S.- and British-led invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Expect more of this at some point today...those blinded by ideology, whether religious or political in nature, will never get thrown off-message by those annoying little things known as facts...
UPDATE 1240P: That didn't take long...although the freed hostages were found "tied up in a house in western Baghdad", we all know whose fault this is:
"We believe the illegal occupation of Iraq by multinational forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq today. The occupation must end," the co-chairman of CPT, Doug Pritchard, told a news conference in Toronto.
Hey, Mr. Pritchard, I have a thought - maybe it is your teams that should leave the country, to avoid being kidnapped and murdered by those you claim to protect. And perhaps the "root cause" of their deaths is your absolute moral blindness towards the evil of these enemies of peace.
Here is their statement in full; while Christian Peacemakers shows disdain for the soldiers that rescued their people, they shower praise upon the people that didn't lift a finger:
We have been especially moved by the gracious outpouring of support from Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Europe, and North America. That support continues to come to us day after day.
Gee, did that Muslim "support" free your captured teams; or was it American and British force of arms that prevented your "Peacemakers" from sharing the fate of Mr. Tom Fox?
I can almost see the Almighty now; covering his eyes and shaking his head...
Update 8PM: From Mark Steyn, some commentary:
The stunted morality of these Christian "Peacemakers" is apparently boundless. They evidently didn't grasp the lesson of their long capture and the murder of their comrade - that, even if you spend weeks on end with them and even if you agree with them, the jihadists still decline to acknowledge even the most basic common humanity. Even though you're objectively on their side, to the jihad you're still "the other". The late Mr. Fox didn't need to acquire Stockholm Syndrome: he was already on the "insurgents''' side. But they killed him anyway.
Yup.
Or, perhaps a better question is, how long will it take for the "CPT" to put out a statement critisizing the United States, despite the fact that our soldiers risked their lives to help rescue people who were in Iraq solely to betray the American cause?
U.S.-led forces freed three Christian peace activists held hostage in Iraq' on Thursday in an operation mounted two weeks after the kidnappers tortured and killed their American colleague.
Canadians Jim Loney and Harmeet Sooden and 74-year-old British pacifist Norman Kember from the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) were snatched in west Baghdad in November.
The tortured body of American Tom Fox was found dumped in the capital two weeks ago.
The four were seized four months ago while driving in a part of western Baghdad known as a haven for Sunni Arab rebels...
Kidnapping? Torture? Captured while in "enemy" territory? Don't forget the "root cause", as per CPT:
"We believe that the root cause of the abduction of our colleagues is the U.S.- and British-led invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Expect more of this at some point today...those blinded by ideology, whether religious or political in nature, will never get thrown off-message by those annoying little things known as facts...
UPDATE 1240P: That didn't take long...although the freed hostages were found "tied up in a house in western Baghdad", we all know whose fault this is:
"We believe the illegal occupation of Iraq by multinational forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq today. The occupation must end," the co-chairman of CPT, Doug Pritchard, told a news conference in Toronto.
Hey, Mr. Pritchard, I have a thought - maybe it is your teams that should leave the country, to avoid being kidnapped and murdered by those you claim to protect. And perhaps the "root cause" of their deaths is your absolute moral blindness towards the evil of these enemies of peace.
Here is their statement in full; while Christian Peacemakers shows disdain for the soldiers that rescued their people, they shower praise upon the people that didn't lift a finger:
We have been especially moved by the gracious outpouring of support from Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Europe, and North America. That support continues to come to us day after day.
Gee, did that Muslim "support" free your captured teams; or was it American and British force of arms that prevented your "Peacemakers" from sharing the fate of Mr. Tom Fox?
I can almost see the Almighty now; covering his eyes and shaking his head...
Update 8PM: From Mark Steyn, some commentary:
The stunted morality of these Christian "Peacemakers" is apparently boundless. They evidently didn't grasp the lesson of their long capture and the murder of their comrade - that, even if you spend weeks on end with them and even if you agree with them, the jihadists still decline to acknowledge even the most basic common humanity. Even though you're objectively on their side, to the jihad you're still "the other". The late Mr. Fox didn't need to acquire Stockholm Syndrome: he was already on the "insurgents''' side. But they killed him anyway.
Yup.
Swiss to Finance Second Holocaust!
The "neutral" Swiss actually term their relationship with Hamas as a "partnership"...how will they defend that partnership when Hamas continues its wholesale slaughter of Israeli civilians? Are they in 50/50 with the terrorists as far as Jew-killin' goes? Just asking is all...via Le Mont De Sisphe:
...got the bad news via Ludovic Monnerat. The Swiss governement considers the terror gang Hamas to be a "partner". While the U.S. and the European Union have put Hamas on their respective terror lists, the Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey tries - once more - to aggrandize herself through questionable means. She was the one who laid down flowers on Arafat's grave, an act which was heavily criticized in Switzerland at the time. Socialist Calmy-Rey is also the one who gave birth to the "Geneva initiative", a project which was supposed to promote peace in that region but which none of the relvant actors in the Middle East ever took seriously. The latest announcement of the Swiss Foreign Ministry relies on "Oslo" and wants to be "pragmatic". Switzerland however seems to be unable to recognize reality: "Oslo" is dead since summer 2000 at the latest. And now one of the worst islamist terrorist groups in the world with a genocidal charta and responsible for hundreds of civilian deads over the last years is being treated as a partner by Switzerland...
And how many flowers has our Socialist Miss Calmy-Rey laid at the graves of Jewish children blown to bits by Arafat's terrorists? Again, just asking...
...got the bad news via Ludovic Monnerat. The Swiss governement considers the terror gang Hamas to be a "partner". While the U.S. and the European Union have put Hamas on their respective terror lists, the Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey tries - once more - to aggrandize herself through questionable means. She was the one who laid down flowers on Arafat's grave, an act which was heavily criticized in Switzerland at the time. Socialist Calmy-Rey is also the one who gave birth to the "Geneva initiative", a project which was supposed to promote peace in that region but which none of the relvant actors in the Middle East ever took seriously. The latest announcement of the Swiss Foreign Ministry relies on "Oslo" and wants to be "pragmatic". Switzerland however seems to be unable to recognize reality: "Oslo" is dead since summer 2000 at the latest. And now one of the worst islamist terrorist groups in the world with a genocidal charta and responsible for hundreds of civilian deads over the last years is being treated as a partner by Switzerland...
And how many flowers has our Socialist Miss Calmy-Rey laid at the graves of Jewish children blown to bits by Arafat's terrorists? Again, just asking...
Battleground Europe
Great article in The American Thinker on why Europe will be the next battleground in the War on Terror:
It appears likely that Europe will be the next major battleground in the Long War.
The Jihadis, following public humiliation on their own home ground, will need a means of proving that they’re still in the game, and Europe is vulnerable. It abuts directly against ancient Muslim homelands at several points, has a substantial and unintegrated Muslim population, has offered active Jihadis sanctuary within its borders, has pursued reckless immigration and security policies, and has supped with the Devil through its open support of Saddam Hussein (paid for with Iraqi oil funds) and Muslim terror organizations such as Al Fatah and Hamas.
And how effective is the European Union oh-so-liberal style of government is this type of situation?
...the European Union, has established itself, in defiance of the experience of the past century, as the kind of managerial superstate proven unfeasible just about everywhere else on earth...meddling in international affairs while attempting to micromanage those of its own citizens, wasting immense amounts of resources on trivial aims, and generating completely avoidable crises to no rational purpose. The EU is about the last form of government capable of leading a fight for survival, but it’s what the Europeans have.
Just great...well, can they defend themselves at all ?
As if this wasn’t enough, Europe has also been functionally debellicized, a word coined by British military historian Micheal Howard meaning “a refusal to consider armed force as a means of settling disputes.”
Anti-bellicism is held more as an unthought conviction, the cliché that “war never solves anything” raised to a rule of behavior.
Such a development may have been necessary to avoid further bloodlettings along the lines of the world wars, but never let it be said that it does not have drawbacks. It was anti-bellicism that lay behind Europe’s shameful lack of response to the crimes of Bosnia and Kosovo during the 90s. While debellicized Europeans talked, thousands were massacred and thriving towns turned into wastelands. Anti-bellicism also explains the Spanish reaction to the March 2004 Madrid train bombings....
I am done with fretting over Europe's decline; spilt milk and all that...but there is a great danger to America here. The last thing I want to see, besides a Europe enslaved under sharia law, is American soldiers being buried in French soil again, because the free nations of the Continent quailed before fascism...again. After saving them in WWII, and defending them for the next half-century, America has become an enabler of the arrogant PC socialism that is eating away at Europe's soul. Better to let them take their beating and hope they emerge victorious (eventually), with a better understanding of the value of freedom and the costs needed to preserve it.
And yet...should the jihadis obtain a strong foothold in Europe, it will only serve as a forward base for attacks on the United States, the Islamist's final foe on the way to global Islamification. And a scorched-earth invasion and battle, not unlike those that ravaged the cities and populations of Europe in the second half of WWII, may be the only way to protect America and free the West from radical Islamofascism. It seems as if no matter what path history takes here, it may be inevitable that America gets drawn into a third world war within Europe...
If that is to be the case, our elected officials need to "stand up" to Europe - let them know loudly and firmly that their kowtowing to Islamist radicals is unacceptable; that their financing of Hamas is in violation of their precious international law, and most importantly, they had better be ready to fight when the time comes.
It appears likely that Europe will be the next major battleground in the Long War.
The Jihadis, following public humiliation on their own home ground, will need a means of proving that they’re still in the game, and Europe is vulnerable. It abuts directly against ancient Muslim homelands at several points, has a substantial and unintegrated Muslim population, has offered active Jihadis sanctuary within its borders, has pursued reckless immigration and security policies, and has supped with the Devil through its open support of Saddam Hussein (paid for with Iraqi oil funds) and Muslim terror organizations such as Al Fatah and Hamas.
And how effective is the European Union oh-so-liberal style of government is this type of situation?
...the European Union, has established itself, in defiance of the experience of the past century, as the kind of managerial superstate proven unfeasible just about everywhere else on earth...meddling in international affairs while attempting to micromanage those of its own citizens, wasting immense amounts of resources on trivial aims, and generating completely avoidable crises to no rational purpose. The EU is about the last form of government capable of leading a fight for survival, but it’s what the Europeans have.
Just great...well, can they defend themselves at all ?
As if this wasn’t enough, Europe has also been functionally debellicized, a word coined by British military historian Micheal Howard meaning “a refusal to consider armed force as a means of settling disputes.”
Anti-bellicism is held more as an unthought conviction, the cliché that “war never solves anything” raised to a rule of behavior.
Such a development may have been necessary to avoid further bloodlettings along the lines of the world wars, but never let it be said that it does not have drawbacks. It was anti-bellicism that lay behind Europe’s shameful lack of response to the crimes of Bosnia and Kosovo during the 90s. While debellicized Europeans talked, thousands were massacred and thriving towns turned into wastelands. Anti-bellicism also explains the Spanish reaction to the March 2004 Madrid train bombings....
I am done with fretting over Europe's decline; spilt milk and all that...but there is a great danger to America here. The last thing I want to see, besides a Europe enslaved under sharia law, is American soldiers being buried in French soil again, because the free nations of the Continent quailed before fascism...again. After saving them in WWII, and defending them for the next half-century, America has become an enabler of the arrogant PC socialism that is eating away at Europe's soul. Better to let them take their beating and hope they emerge victorious (eventually), with a better understanding of the value of freedom and the costs needed to preserve it.
And yet...should the jihadis obtain a strong foothold in Europe, it will only serve as a forward base for attacks on the United States, the Islamist's final foe on the way to global Islamification. And a scorched-earth invasion and battle, not unlike those that ravaged the cities and populations of Europe in the second half of WWII, may be the only way to protect America and free the West from radical Islamofascism. It seems as if no matter what path history takes here, it may be inevitable that America gets drawn into a third world war within Europe...
If that is to be the case, our elected officials need to "stand up" to Europe - let them know loudly and firmly that their kowtowing to Islamist radicals is unacceptable; that their financing of Hamas is in violation of their precious international law, and most importantly, they had better be ready to fight when the time comes.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
From Redstate , a gathering of statistics that any mainstream media outlet could bring to you, but won't, because it destroys the narrative:
On the third anniversay of the Iraq war, the MSM keeps bombarding us with stories and statistics trying to compare this war to the carnage in Vietnam, trying to make us think that US soldiers are dying at an alarming number due to Bush's failures
Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents. This is all simlpy outright lies and distortion.
Taken all together, it is clear to see that the military is actually doing a fine job and suffering very low casualty rates. It also shows that our enemies are not quite as efficient as the MSM and world press would like them to be.
It would seem that Bush and Rumsfield are actually doing a wonderful job in Iraq and, although there have been setbacks, the war is far from the tragedy the press wants us to believe.
The problem is that the facts simply do not matter to the MSM. Tomorrow's headline will declare "One Killed, As Bloodshed Continues Unabated In Iraq". They will quote elected (Democratic) officials declaring a timetable for a pullout; and find those half-dozen war protesters for angry quotes (or hit the speed dial for Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, or Charlie Sheen!).
This is why the media is considered to be traitorous. America is slowly winning a very difficult war with relatively minimal casualities; yet the press works overtime every day to try to force an American surrender. They do not report the whole truth, only the tidbits that fit the "another Vietnam/Bush lied" storyline. They suffer, and we all suffer, from the aposty of America's once mighty media apparatus...
On the third anniversay of the Iraq war, the MSM keeps bombarding us with stories and statistics trying to compare this war to the carnage in Vietnam, trying to make us think that US soldiers are dying at an alarming number due to Bush's failures
Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents. This is all simlpy outright lies and distortion.
Taken all together, it is clear to see that the military is actually doing a fine job and suffering very low casualty rates. It also shows that our enemies are not quite as efficient as the MSM and world press would like them to be.
It would seem that Bush and Rumsfield are actually doing a wonderful job in Iraq and, although there have been setbacks, the war is far from the tragedy the press wants us to believe.
The problem is that the facts simply do not matter to the MSM. Tomorrow's headline will declare "One Killed, As Bloodshed Continues Unabated In Iraq". They will quote elected (Democratic) officials declaring a timetable for a pullout; and find those half-dozen war protesters for angry quotes (or hit the speed dial for Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, or Charlie Sheen!).
This is why the media is considered to be traitorous. America is slowly winning a very difficult war with relatively minimal casualities; yet the press works overtime every day to try to force an American surrender. They do not report the whole truth, only the tidbits that fit the "another Vietnam/Bush lied" storyline. They suffer, and we all suffer, from the aposty of America's once mighty media apparatus...
Our Allies, Our Betters, The French!
Monsieur Chirac, on international diplomacy; although we will apply it further below:
'I have one simple principle in foreign affairs. I look at what the Americans are doing and then do the opposite. That way I can be sure I'm right.'
Meanwhile, state-supported students strike (well, riot, actually) for the right to remain...unemployable. And to this nonsense France will surrender:
PARIS Facing crippling strikes and growing unrest, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin discussed watering down his new labor law with members of Parliament on Tuesday.
While the prime minister has repeatedly refused to withdraw the law, legislators from his governing Union for a Popular Movement said there was a growing consensus that it must be amended to make it more palatable to opponents.
Villepin himself suggested possible changes at a meeting early Tuesday with legislators from his party.
The law gives companies the right to hire people under 26 years old for a two-year trial period, during which they can be fired without cause.
Tens of thousands of high school and university students marched in major cities Tuesday, with some violence breaking out in Paris, where a group of youths smashed the windows and rear- view mirrors of cars along a street behind the Sorbonne.
Hotel workers on the street, rue Gay- Lussac, said fights also broke out between groups of students.
Meanwhile, a man told Agence France-Presse that on Saturday night he saw riot policemen beat a man unconscious during a melee after a protest.
The victim, a 39-year-old postal worker and union member, Cyril Ferez, briefly regained consciousness but then lapsed into a coma, the news agency reported.
Ah, socialism in action...since a job is a human right; getting fired would be a violation of the same, and hence, employers must keep on even the worst employees. Too bad it is completely incompatible with capitalism; that's why the unemployment rates for the under-30 crowd in France is close to 25% . Probably one of the reasons why they have the highest unemployment rate overall, and the slowest growing economy, in virtually the whole European Union. And of course, when in doubt, riot, strike, burn cars - you know, act French!
Not to bright, these French kids:
The young — those most in need of a leg up — heaped scorn on a law intended to help them...
Let us revist Mr. Chirac's quote above - the meat of it, anyway:
I look at what the Americans are doing and then do the opposite. That way I can be sure I'm right.
And how is that working for you, Jacques?
U.S. college graduates are facing the best job market since 2001, with business, computer, engineering, education and health care grads in highest demand, a report by an employment consulting firm showed on Monday.
Ah, Jacques...you certainly delivered to the people what you promised! But...still so sure that you are right?
Story covered tightly at No Parasan! and E-nough!
'I have one simple principle in foreign affairs. I look at what the Americans are doing and then do the opposite. That way I can be sure I'm right.'
Meanwhile, state-supported students strike (well, riot, actually) for the right to remain...unemployable. And to this nonsense France will surrender:
PARIS Facing crippling strikes and growing unrest, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin discussed watering down his new labor law with members of Parliament on Tuesday.
While the prime minister has repeatedly refused to withdraw the law, legislators from his governing Union for a Popular Movement said there was a growing consensus that it must be amended to make it more palatable to opponents.
Villepin himself suggested possible changes at a meeting early Tuesday with legislators from his party.
The law gives companies the right to hire people under 26 years old for a two-year trial period, during which they can be fired without cause.
Tens of thousands of high school and university students marched in major cities Tuesday, with some violence breaking out in Paris, where a group of youths smashed the windows and rear- view mirrors of cars along a street behind the Sorbonne.
Hotel workers on the street, rue Gay- Lussac, said fights also broke out between groups of students.
Meanwhile, a man told Agence France-Presse that on Saturday night he saw riot policemen beat a man unconscious during a melee after a protest.
The victim, a 39-year-old postal worker and union member, Cyril Ferez, briefly regained consciousness but then lapsed into a coma, the news agency reported.
Ah, socialism in action...since a job is a human right; getting fired would be a violation of the same, and hence, employers must keep on even the worst employees. Too bad it is completely incompatible with capitalism; that's why the unemployment rates for the under-30 crowd in France is close to 25% . Probably one of the reasons why they have the highest unemployment rate overall, and the slowest growing economy, in virtually the whole European Union. And of course, when in doubt, riot, strike, burn cars - you know, act French!
Not to bright, these French kids:
The young — those most in need of a leg up — heaped scorn on a law intended to help them...
Let us revist Mr. Chirac's quote above - the meat of it, anyway:
I look at what the Americans are doing and then do the opposite. That way I can be sure I'm right.
And how is that working for you, Jacques?
U.S. college graduates are facing the best job market since 2001, with business, computer, engineering, education and health care grads in highest demand, a report by an employment consulting firm showed on Monday.
Ah, Jacques...you certainly delivered to the people what you promised! But...still so sure that you are right?
Story covered tightly at No Parasan! and E-nough!
Best...Comment...Ever!
From yesterday's post on Charlie Sheen's 9-11 conspiracy fantasies; we get this comment:
Wow, you really are a brainwashed moron. See you in the FEMA camp.
Sweet Jeebus, FEMA runs concentration/re-education camps now? Is that what they are cutting down so many trees in New Jersey to build? What a waste, when we already have Gitmo sitting there at less than full prisoner capacity!
Well, check out the comment that follows, as well - it's the whole 9-11 conspiracy theory laid bare for all of us brainwashed morons. Didn't know it was a plot by the neo-cons, Jews, and an international cabel of bankers? It's all there, with links!
Although much of it is disagreeable to me, I won't delete it because, one, it look like it took some time and like all conservatives, I respect hard work (even in a foolish cause!). Two, because in my little house here speech really is free, unless it is truly hateful. Then again, I cannot guarentee some of those links will not disappear if I don't like where they send me...
To my conspiracy-minded friends, and to Charlie Sheen, I say this: I was there that day. Staring out my window in disbelief as the second plane flew into the Trade Center. Watching, with a sickening feeling, as the towers collapsed.
I am a witness. And like those who suffered the Holocaust and now must hear how it never happened, we must suffer the fools that tell us not to believe our eyes, not to listen to those who bragged of the attack, but to believe them when they say it was all a U.S. government plot. Despite what I saw that day, I am the one that must be wrong ("brainwashed"), because my eyewitness account defies their convoluted theories.
I'll leave you with Daimian Penny's thoughts:
Sheen has every single conspirazoid talking point down...You know the really depressing thing? This is what everyone in Hollywood will believe by 2010.
Wow, you really are a brainwashed moron. See you in the FEMA camp.
Sweet Jeebus, FEMA runs concentration/re-education camps now? Is that what they are cutting down so many trees in New Jersey to build? What a waste, when we already have Gitmo sitting there at less than full prisoner capacity!
Well, check out the comment that follows, as well - it's the whole 9-11 conspiracy theory laid bare for all of us brainwashed morons. Didn't know it was a plot by the neo-cons, Jews, and an international cabel of bankers? It's all there, with links!
Although much of it is disagreeable to me, I won't delete it because, one, it look like it took some time and like all conservatives, I respect hard work (even in a foolish cause!). Two, because in my little house here speech really is free, unless it is truly hateful. Then again, I cannot guarentee some of those links will not disappear if I don't like where they send me...
To my conspiracy-minded friends, and to Charlie Sheen, I say this: I was there that day. Staring out my window in disbelief as the second plane flew into the Trade Center. Watching, with a sickening feeling, as the towers collapsed.
I am a witness. And like those who suffered the Holocaust and now must hear how it never happened, we must suffer the fools that tell us not to believe our eyes, not to listen to those who bragged of the attack, but to believe them when they say it was all a U.S. government plot. Despite what I saw that day, I am the one that must be wrong ("brainwashed"), because my eyewitness account defies their convoluted theories.
I'll leave you with Daimian Penny's thoughts:
Sheen has every single conspirazoid talking point down...You know the really depressing thing? This is what everyone in Hollywood will believe by 2010.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Charlie Sheen Is An Idiot
From the highly dubious prisonplanet.com , we get to share in the wisdom of Charlie Sheen:
Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.
"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.
"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."
Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.
"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."
His "circles", huh? More proof of the soundproof idiotbox of Hollywood psuedo-intellectualism...Sheen, I am not surprised that your "circles" believe in conspiracy theories; the fact that Hollywood believes in nothing means they will also believe in anything. But to continue:
Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11....Sheen said that most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.
Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 110 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage...
So Sheen is a demolition expert? Again, movies are not reality, Charlie, no matter what your Dad and your bro may think. Interesting that Sheen asks us to disbelieve the video footage, the evidence of our own eyes, and instead buy into a convoluted conspiracy theory. What is he, a Scientologist?
Sheen joined others in calling for a revised and truly independent investigation of 9/11.
Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"
Sure Charlie - maybe we can recruit a team of Frenchmen, or Islamists...they would get to the bottom of this!
The sad thing is, as a younger man I met Charlie Sheen on a few occasions (involving the legal scalping of Dodger tickets). He was as polite and friendly as any customer that I ever worked with, and was always ready to take a moment to talk baseball. Compared to some of the other celebrities I had transactions with, he was positively charming.
Doesn't mean that he's not an idiot, though...sorry, Charlie.
A follow up post here
Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.
"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.
"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."
Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.
"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."
His "circles", huh? More proof of the soundproof idiotbox of Hollywood psuedo-intellectualism...Sheen, I am not surprised that your "circles" believe in conspiracy theories; the fact that Hollywood believes in nothing means they will also believe in anything. But to continue:
Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11....Sheen said that most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.
Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 110 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage...
So Sheen is a demolition expert? Again, movies are not reality, Charlie, no matter what your Dad and your bro may think. Interesting that Sheen asks us to disbelieve the video footage, the evidence of our own eyes, and instead buy into a convoluted conspiracy theory. What is he, a Scientologist?
Sheen joined others in calling for a revised and truly independent investigation of 9/11.
Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"
Sure Charlie - maybe we can recruit a team of Frenchmen, or Islamists...they would get to the bottom of this!
The sad thing is, as a younger man I met Charlie Sheen on a few occasions (involving the legal scalping of Dodger tickets). He was as polite and friendly as any customer that I ever worked with, and was always ready to take a moment to talk baseball. Compared to some of the other celebrities I had transactions with, he was positively charming.
Doesn't mean that he's not an idiot, though...sorry, Charlie.
A follow up post here
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The New York Times - Doing Bush's Work?
Maybe I have been to hard on the New York Times all this time...they say all things good and evil serve God's will; maybe the Times, in their effort to defeat America, are actually strengthing it by weakening our enemy's resolve. These thoughts come from UnCorrelated - first, he revists the Times/torture issue:
What the Times and other media outlets have done so successfully is completely muddied the waters on what and what is not torture. That is also at the root of why the torture issue has been gotten far less traction in the Arab world than here--they know what torture is--Americans don't have a clue.
What occured in Abu Ghriab was a program of humiliation...
Now, he posits a double-psych-cross:
One of the well-known impeti to Islamfascist terrorism was the perception that "American is weak", which in the Arab mind means that we are too nice, averse to the hurly-burly of war and more concerned with human rights than with victory. Every bin Laden infomercial hammers home the point that al Qaeda is destined to win because of its iron will (and of course, we will lose because we are sissies...)
Was Abu Ghriab a not-so-subtle signal to the terrorists and Iraqi insurgency that we aren't as nice as widely-believed? Was it calibrated to not actually be torture but allude to the possibility that Americans were doing the "real torture" elsewhere?
Were the eastern European "secret prisons" more of the same? Nobody can seem to find them, but in the genetically conspiratorial Arab mind, the failure of the investigation to turn them up is just more evidence that they do indeed exist.
Creating the impression that the Americans are doing things, bad things, scary things, somewhere in a dark corner has to prey on the minds of anyone the coalition forces capture. If you are familiar with the material on interrogation techniques, the insecurity of not knowing what is going to happen to you is one of the most effective inducements to cooperate with the interrogators. On the other hand, the conviction that the nice Americans won't actually hurt you really makes the whole interrogation process rather pointless.
The real genius of Abu Ghriab is that is allows certain elements in our society to infer torture (like the Times and other anti-administration media), but provides no actual evidence that torture actually occured.
Is it all a big psy-ops game? Seems unlikely; especially if Bush is as stupid as the liberal mythology would have you believe. But, if Bush is as sinister and evil as the liberal mythology would have you believe...well, then somewhere, Cheney and Rove must be laughing...
What the Times and other media outlets have done so successfully is completely muddied the waters on what and what is not torture. That is also at the root of why the torture issue has been gotten far less traction in the Arab world than here--they know what torture is--Americans don't have a clue.
What occured in Abu Ghriab was a program of humiliation...
Now, he posits a double-psych-cross:
One of the well-known impeti to Islamfascist terrorism was the perception that "American is weak", which in the Arab mind means that we are too nice, averse to the hurly-burly of war and more concerned with human rights than with victory. Every bin Laden infomercial hammers home the point that al Qaeda is destined to win because of its iron will (and of course, we will lose because we are sissies...)
Was Abu Ghriab a not-so-subtle signal to the terrorists and Iraqi insurgency that we aren't as nice as widely-believed? Was it calibrated to not actually be torture but allude to the possibility that Americans were doing the "real torture" elsewhere?
Were the eastern European "secret prisons" more of the same? Nobody can seem to find them, but in the genetically conspiratorial Arab mind, the failure of the investigation to turn them up is just more evidence that they do indeed exist.
Creating the impression that the Americans are doing things, bad things, scary things, somewhere in a dark corner has to prey on the minds of anyone the coalition forces capture. If you are familiar with the material on interrogation techniques, the insecurity of not knowing what is going to happen to you is one of the most effective inducements to cooperate with the interrogators. On the other hand, the conviction that the nice Americans won't actually hurt you really makes the whole interrogation process rather pointless.
The real genius of Abu Ghriab is that is allows certain elements in our society to infer torture (like the Times and other anti-administration media), but provides no actual evidence that torture actually occured.
Is it all a big psy-ops game? Seems unlikely; especially if Bush is as stupid as the liberal mythology would have you believe. But, if Bush is as sinister and evil as the liberal mythology would have you believe...well, then somewhere, Cheney and Rove must be laughing...
Anti-War No More?
The media was all geared up for what their leftist operatives told them would be a huge day for anti-war protests; too bad neither the left or the media is in touch with reality...first, the Salt Lake City Tribune:
Anti-war protesters in SLC, elsewhere lament apathy
By the time the war protesters began their march Saturday morning in Salt Lake City, only about 50 people had gathered....The early low turnout was discouraging to some, such as Susan Westergard of Holladay. "There's just about more policemen here than people," said the Democratic candidate for the Utah House of Representatives in District 40...
In Times Square, about 1,000 anti-war protesters rallied outside a military recruiting station, demanding that troops be withdrawn from Iraq.
Police in London said 15,000 people joined a march from Parliament and Big Ben to a rally in Trafalgar Square. The anniversary last year attracted 45,000 protesters in the city.
In Turkey, where opposition to the war cuts across all political stripes, about 3,000 protesters gathered in Istanbul, police said. ''Murderer USA,'' read a sign in Taksim Square. [The "cuts across all stripes" line is editorializing, and obvioulsy false - if it were true, why only 3,000 protestors? - ed.]
One of the biggest protests was in San Francisco, for decades a hub of anti-war sentiment. Police there estimated the crowd gathered outside City Hall at about 6,000 people. Many chanted slogans opposing Bush, and most appeared to hail from a distinctly grayer demographic than that of other protest events. ''There are not enough young people here,'' said Paul Perchonock, 61, a physician...
50 people in Salt Lake City, including a hapless Congressional wannabe? 1,000 in Times Square, New York, the so-called "crossroads of the world"?? If you can only mass 1,000 people in a liberal city of over 8 million, I don't think you have much of a cause.
Of course, there are other reasons - perhaps people, especially the "young people" that Dr. Perchonock laments, realize that this war is a good war, and the right thing to do to safeguard America? Or maybe some of the anti-war heroes, like Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha, are just a little to foul for the average American to stomach? Perhaps people realize we are actually winning this war? Or even if they are anti-war, is it possible they understand that pulling out now would have tragic consequences?
And overseas - only 15,000 in Londonstan? Just 3,000 in Muslim Turkey? Wait, I thought they all hated us...
Speaking of foul, see Cindy Sheehan puff piece here; from San Fran, of course...money quotes:
Sheehan has been severed from much of her old life -- or she has severed it herself. Her marriage, her job, her home. Loss of most of her friends, whom she cannot forgive for voting to re-elect Bush. Loss of her Catholic faith...
...A January Vanity Fair spread featured a photo of Cindy Sheehan, eyes closed, lying on her son's grave: National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg suggested it was "the most shameless, exploitative stunt of the decade."
And Jonah may be underestimating the grossness of her actions...
Anyway, here's the AP shilling for the anti-war movement as well:
The third anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq drew tens of thousands of protesters around the globe, from hurricane-ravaged Louisiana to Australia, with chants of "Stop the War" and calls for the withdrawal of troops.
About 200 war veterans, hurricane survivors and demonstrators gathered Sunday at the Chalmette National Cemetery...
Many of the weekend demonstrations across Australia, Asia and Europe drew smaller-than-anticipated crowds. Only about 200 joined a march Sunday down New York's Fifth Avenue, with signs including: "We the People Need to do More to End the War."...
Anti-war rallies in Japan stretched into a second day Sunday, with about 800 protesters chanting "No war! Stop the war!" and banging drums as they marched peacefully through downtown Tokyo
Protesters also gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia, and at least 1,000 people turned out in Seoul, South Korea, which has the third-largest contingent of foreign troops in Iraq after the U.S. and Britain.
"Tens of thousands"? What, if you add them all together?
I guarentee you there are demostrations every day that draw more than 200, or 800 people, for causes that the AP does not agree with (pro-life, support of the troops, etc.) so it is simply not reported. But 200 for an anti-war protest? Hell, lets make it "tens of thousands"!
It would be interesting to see if the media does any research why anti-war protests have fizzled so...will they explore any of the avenues listed above? Or is the little liberal room so tightly sealed that not a dissenting thought, or fact, can enter?
Anti-war protesters in SLC, elsewhere lament apathy
By the time the war protesters began their march Saturday morning in Salt Lake City, only about 50 people had gathered....The early low turnout was discouraging to some, such as Susan Westergard of Holladay. "There's just about more policemen here than people," said the Democratic candidate for the Utah House of Representatives in District 40...
In Times Square, about 1,000 anti-war protesters rallied outside a military recruiting station, demanding that troops be withdrawn from Iraq.
Police in London said 15,000 people joined a march from Parliament and Big Ben to a rally in Trafalgar Square. The anniversary last year attracted 45,000 protesters in the city.
In Turkey, where opposition to the war cuts across all political stripes, about 3,000 protesters gathered in Istanbul, police said. ''Murderer USA,'' read a sign in Taksim Square. [The "cuts across all stripes" line is editorializing, and obvioulsy false - if it were true, why only 3,000 protestors? - ed.]
One of the biggest protests was in San Francisco, for decades a hub of anti-war sentiment. Police there estimated the crowd gathered outside City Hall at about 6,000 people. Many chanted slogans opposing Bush, and most appeared to hail from a distinctly grayer demographic than that of other protest events. ''There are not enough young people here,'' said Paul Perchonock, 61, a physician...
50 people in Salt Lake City, including a hapless Congressional wannabe? 1,000 in Times Square, New York, the so-called "crossroads of the world"?? If you can only mass 1,000 people in a liberal city of over 8 million, I don't think you have much of a cause.
Of course, there are other reasons - perhaps people, especially the "young people" that Dr. Perchonock laments, realize that this war is a good war, and the right thing to do to safeguard America? Or maybe some of the anti-war heroes, like Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha, are just a little to foul for the average American to stomach? Perhaps people realize we are actually winning this war? Or even if they are anti-war, is it possible they understand that pulling out now would have tragic consequences?
And overseas - only 15,000 in Londonstan? Just 3,000 in Muslim Turkey? Wait, I thought they all hated us...
Speaking of foul, see Cindy Sheehan puff piece here; from San Fran, of course...money quotes:
Sheehan has been severed from much of her old life -- or she has severed it herself. Her marriage, her job, her home. Loss of most of her friends, whom she cannot forgive for voting to re-elect Bush. Loss of her Catholic faith...
...A January Vanity Fair spread featured a photo of Cindy Sheehan, eyes closed, lying on her son's grave: National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg suggested it was "the most shameless, exploitative stunt of the decade."
And Jonah may be underestimating the grossness of her actions...Anyway, here's the AP shilling for the anti-war movement as well:
The third anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq drew tens of thousands of protesters around the globe, from hurricane-ravaged Louisiana to Australia, with chants of "Stop the War" and calls for the withdrawal of troops.
About 200 war veterans, hurricane survivors and demonstrators gathered Sunday at the Chalmette National Cemetery...
Many of the weekend demonstrations across Australia, Asia and Europe drew smaller-than-anticipated crowds. Only about 200 joined a march Sunday down New York's Fifth Avenue, with signs including: "We the People Need to do More to End the War."...
Anti-war rallies in Japan stretched into a second day Sunday, with about 800 protesters chanting "No war! Stop the war!" and banging drums as they marched peacefully through downtown Tokyo
Protesters also gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia, and at least 1,000 people turned out in Seoul, South Korea, which has the third-largest contingent of foreign troops in Iraq after the U.S. and Britain.
"Tens of thousands"? What, if you add them all together?
I guarentee you there are demostrations every day that draw more than 200, or 800 people, for causes that the AP does not agree with (pro-life, support of the troops, etc.) so it is simply not reported. But 200 for an anti-war protest? Hell, lets make it "tens of thousands"!
It would be interesting to see if the media does any research why anti-war protests have fizzled so...will they explore any of the avenues listed above? Or is the little liberal room so tightly sealed that not a dissenting thought, or fact, can enter?
Bush Derangement Syndrome Alert!
Geez, this stuff is the flu of the avain-brained...Leonard Pitts, in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
...I think tomorrow will ask how we could have shrugged off the very real possibility that the president broke the law. I think tomorrow will want to know how we could have meekly and quiescently allowed our civil rights to be abridged. I think tomorrow will be perplexed by our tolerance of obvious incompetence and brazen untruths. I think tomorrow will wonder how we could have turned blind eyes and disinterested ears to mounting evidence that the war in Iraq was predestined and Sept. 11 just a convenient pretext.
When tomorrow calls today to account, some of us want to be able to say, we stood up, called out, were not silent.
Oh, so brave you are!!
Man, this is such college-grade material...is this guy a columnist or a commentor on Kos?
...I think tomorrow will ask how we could have shrugged off the very real possibility that the president broke the law. I think tomorrow will want to know how we could have meekly and quiescently allowed our civil rights to be abridged. I think tomorrow will be perplexed by our tolerance of obvious incompetence and brazen untruths. I think tomorrow will wonder how we could have turned blind eyes and disinterested ears to mounting evidence that the war in Iraq was predestined and Sept. 11 just a convenient pretext.
When tomorrow calls today to account, some of us want to be able to say, we stood up, called out, were not silent.
Oh, so brave you are!!
Man, this is such college-grade material...is this guy a columnist or a commentor on Kos?
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Skirmish in Somilia
The next time the Democrats whine about an immmediate Iraqi pullout, remind them of what happens when vacuums are left in unstable states - like in Bill Clinton's Somolia! From Atlas Shrugs:
Two U.S. Navy warships exchanged gunfire with suspected pirates Saturday off the coast of Somalia, and one suspect was killed and five others were wounded, the navy said.
The suspected pirates were holding what appeared to be rocket-propelled grenade launchers, the navy said. When the suspects began shooting, naval gunners returned fire with mounted machine guns, killing one man and igniting a fire on the vessel.
This descent into centuries-old barbarism is what the world has to look forward to if America should lose its war on terror. And what does it say of the world, if most of them are so voraciously rooting against us?
UPDATE: After reading this list of links at Gateway Pundit; maybe I should re-think my phrase "voraciously...". With the timid crowds at the anti-war rallies Gateway refers to, maybe I should not be confusing the leftist overseas media with the people they claim to be writing for...
More here...
Two U.S. Navy warships exchanged gunfire with suspected pirates Saturday off the coast of Somalia, and one suspect was killed and five others were wounded, the navy said.
The suspected pirates were holding what appeared to be rocket-propelled grenade launchers, the navy said. When the suspects began shooting, naval gunners returned fire with mounted machine guns, killing one man and igniting a fire on the vessel.
This descent into centuries-old barbarism is what the world has to look forward to if America should lose its war on terror. And what does it say of the world, if most of them are so voraciously rooting against us?UPDATE: After reading this list of links at Gateway Pundit; maybe I should re-think my phrase "voraciously...". With the timid crowds at the anti-war rallies Gateway refers to, maybe I should not be confusing the leftist overseas media with the people they claim to be writing for...
More here...
Saturday Morning Racism!
Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post discusses the horrors of a black women running for president as a Republican; and of course it is never about the issues, only about the color of one's skin:
...Even if she [ Rice] secretly does want to run, I think she'd have to be smoking something to believe all those Republicans who've been telling pollsters how peachy it would be to have a black woman at the head of their presidential ticket. This is the party, after all, that built its solid South through coded appeals to whites who felt threatened by the nameless, dark Other.
Then again, you should have seen the rock-star reception she got from an overwhelmingly white crowd last fall when she flipped the coin at a University of Alabama football game.
I think it's inevitable that Rice will eventually enter politics. The question for the Democratic Party will be how black voters react...
...The truth is that nobody knows how voters would respond to a black woman who loyally serves an administration so reviled in the black community.
And would those cheering, white 'Bama football fans check her name when they're in the privacy of the voting booth?
So we learn from Robinson that the Republican Party is built on racism (although why accomplished blacks like Condi and Colin Powell joined this party is not discussed), Republicans are "reviled" by blacks (even thought Bush increased his percentage of the black vote in 2004), and that while white folk may cheer for Condi at a football game, when behind the voting curtain, their natural racist tendencies will take over and force them to vote against Condi, no matter how much they agree with her on the issues, because she's black.
Wow! Thanks for clearing this up for me, Mr. Robinson! I thought I would love to vote for a brilliant woman like Condi - a former Harvard Provost, accomplished musician, national Security Advisor and Secretary of State - to represent me as President of the United States. Now I know that because she is black, I will instead vote for any white moron who passes by, you know, because despite Condi's overwhelming qualifications...she's black.
What a racist punk Robinson is. A classic liberal PC thug; who removes every variable from the equation except skin color, and then uses it to inflame and antagonize. He should be marching and shouting slogans with Farrakhan and Sharpton (and Harry Belefonte!), not afforded space on an op-ed page. At the very least, could the WaPost counter him with a Stanley Crouch, or some other black columnist not full of smothering anger and hatred against whitey?
...Even if she [ Rice] secretly does want to run, I think she'd have to be smoking something to believe all those Republicans who've been telling pollsters how peachy it would be to have a black woman at the head of their presidential ticket. This is the party, after all, that built its solid South through coded appeals to whites who felt threatened by the nameless, dark Other.
Then again, you should have seen the rock-star reception she got from an overwhelmingly white crowd last fall when she flipped the coin at a University of Alabama football game.
I think it's inevitable that Rice will eventually enter politics. The question for the Democratic Party will be how black voters react...
...The truth is that nobody knows how voters would respond to a black woman who loyally serves an administration so reviled in the black community.
And would those cheering, white 'Bama football fans check her name when they're in the privacy of the voting booth?
So we learn from Robinson that the Republican Party is built on racism (although why accomplished blacks like Condi and Colin Powell joined this party is not discussed), Republicans are "reviled" by blacks (even thought Bush increased his percentage of the black vote in 2004), and that while white folk may cheer for Condi at a football game, when behind the voting curtain, their natural racist tendencies will take over and force them to vote against Condi, no matter how much they agree with her on the issues, because she's black.
Wow! Thanks for clearing this up for me, Mr. Robinson! I thought I would love to vote for a brilliant woman like Condi - a former Harvard Provost, accomplished musician, national Security Advisor and Secretary of State - to represent me as President of the United States. Now I know that because she is black, I will instead vote for any white moron who passes by, you know, because despite Condi's overwhelming qualifications...she's black.
What a racist punk Robinson is. A classic liberal PC thug; who removes every variable from the equation except skin color, and then uses it to inflame and antagonize. He should be marching and shouting slogans with Farrakhan and Sharpton (and Harry Belefonte!), not afforded space on an op-ed page. At the very least, could the WaPost counter him with a Stanley Crouch, or some other black columnist not full of smothering anger and hatred against whitey?