"And surely you will pay for your pint,
Monday, December 31, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Both the quantity and quality of my posting has diminshed lately. There's a few reasons for that:
- I have a new job (well, since last May) which sucks up much of what used to be "free time". Not necessarily complaining (yet), nice to get paid close to what my value is, but boy-oh-boy do they extract their pound of flesh.
- somewhat related is that Blogger is one of the few sites that is inaccessible from my office computer; which disallows the old "lunchtime post". It's always been a dangerous game, as I have been in the media business for some time (a tough place for a conservative), but now as a full time employee of one of the major "MSM" outlets, caution in this regard would probably make sense anyway.
-most importantly, my passion has dimished.
Really, am I adding anything new to the dialogue? Lately I have done more "reporting" than analysis; and I always felt that context and analysis is one of the most important functions of the blogosphere (one the MSM sorely lacks). There is plenty to write about, both locally and nationally, and yet I cannot rouse myself to do more of the important work; with multiple links backing up my "thesis statement", or debunking another's false hypothesis. These have been my best read, best linked, and most "meaningful" works (even occasionally drawing responses/rebukes from public officials -sweet!); and I honestly haven't done a good one in a long, long time.
Lately I don't feel I've made a dime's worth of difference (if I ever did!). If I am simply reprinting a news article or someone else's post with a few snarky comments of my own, well... what is the point?
Interestingly enough, my readership has steadily increased while my "inbound links" have steadily decreased. Maybe snark is my forte? If so, then that is a different project altogether...!
So I am taking some time off until I find myself again. I love to write (although I do not have the talent or wit of some), and I will begin posting again. I do not know if it will be here under the guise of The Jerseynut, or if it will be something completely different. I do have many stories I would love to tell (it's been "a wonderful life", for which I thank God) that are not politically related; perhaps I will shutter this old storefront up for good and hang a shingle in another far-off corner of the 'sphere, sitting in the digital equivalent of a rocking chair on the wooden deck of a rural cottage, spinnin' my yarns...or perhaps I will return here, with a more certain and strong voice.
Time will tell.
Special thanks to the 75+ folk who seem to stop by here on a daily basis; I appreciate and honor the respect you have shown me.
I think I'll simply post a picture on top of my final disquisition here, kind of like a test pattern that TV stations used to run when they "signed off" for the evenings. I'll switch it every now and again, just so one may know that I still live in some way, shape, or form. Maybe it'll go off one day and I will start here anew, like a small-town TV station returning to the air at 5AM on a dead morning.
And should I decide to re-appear elsewhere, I promise I will leave at least a hint of a forwarding address...
Thank you. Thank you all, very much.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
When New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram fired boxing commissioner Larry Hazzard last week, it removed another experienced boxing administrator from a sport that sorely needs as much help as it can get.
.... Hazzard was forced out, leaving behind a situation that he believes will be hazardous to the health and safety of boxers and mix martial arts fighters who fight in New Jersey.
The attorney general's office would not comment on why Hazzard was fired. Hazzard was appointed to the newly created New Jersey State Athletic Control Board by Gov. Tom Kean in 1985 and had served at the pleasure of the other governors since. Apparently, Gov. Jon Corzine wasn't too pleased when Hazzard sent him a letter outlining his concerns that his staff had been gutted of experienced people and that had created a situation that was putting boxers in jeopardy.
"We had highly paid indviduals who make $90,000 doing nothing more than inputting data into computers," Hazzard said by telephone from his Edison, N.J., home this past week. "Some of the blunders that were being made are very serious and putting boxers in situations that could lead them to being seriously injured or killed."
Hazzard said he had his lawyer, James Binns, put those concerns in a letter that was sent to Gov. Corzine.
"I asked for some assistance in addressing these issues," Hazzard said. "Instead of addressing the issues that needed to be addressed, they brought me into the office, thanked me for my years of service and let me go."....
Hazzard, who was one of the best referees in the game before moving to the administrative side of boxing, wasn't going to win any contests for Mr. Congeniality. But the New Jersey boxing commission was one of the best in the world under his leadership....
Ah, there's the problem! Not that Corzine had his cronies making almost six-figures doing (a poor job of) data entry, but that New Jersey (gasp!) was the best at something. Why, that might make other states feel bad, and lead to hurt feelings!
So was Corzine's motive vengence, or liberal stupidity? Does it matter? Once again, under his leadership, New Jersey continues to sink into national irrelevance, while becoming a national joke...
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
....And there is another benefit. (Here is where I am really going to make enemies.) Making movies like these or making extreme liberal public pronouncements make you seem like a good guy to yourself, when in your private life you are a miserable, self-serving bastard.
In order to understand how important that is you must never forget that Hollywood is a brutal place. It is just as vicious and competitive as dramatized in TV shows like Entourage, only nowhere near as entertaining. Only the most ambitious and determined survive and, to do that, the chances are you will not come out of the process a nice person. You will step on the backs of your colleagues, mistreat your staff and have generally erratic personal relationships based much more on status and connections than love or genuine affection.
Of course I am overstating to make a point, but I have noticed, in the years I have worked in Hollywood, that, with rare exceptions, the more successful people are, the more wretched they are to others. And those with the most obvious public liberal credentials are often the ones who are the most despicable in their private behavior...
Much of this public liberalism of the excessive knee-jerk variety stems from a form of self-loathing. These same people do not want to be bastards – life just put them in that position. But, at the same time, they do not want anyone to take away what they have – the vast acclaim and fortune – even if deep down they wonder if they are worthy. What to do? What to do?
The solution is to create another self, a kind of mini-me, who goes out and loudly proclaims what a fine liberal humanistic person he or she is- a public projection to obfuscate the private self. Sometimes this results in actual good works, but usually it is basically blather (see Streisand’s website) or dopey showing off like Sean Penn putting in an appearance with Hugo Chavez.
Other times, distorted work emerges like the current group of films no one wants to see.
There is something about this that rings so true (and I do not doubt that Roger will lose some friends over this post) that even the thought of going to another movie makes my stomach churn.
F*ck 'em all. I'm gonna stay home and watch hockey instead...
Sunday, November 11, 2007
How important it is for us to recognize and celebrate our heroes and she-roes! ~Maya Angelou
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag." ~Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC
“The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.” –Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse.” –John Stuart Mill
“No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence.” –Woodrow Wilson
Now sing it with me:
And I'm proud to be an American,
where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
In Paris, on Nov. 7, 1938, a 17-year-old boy, Herschel Grynszpan, distraught over the treatment of his German Jewish parents in Poland, shot and killed the German minor official Herr von Rath. That was the excuse for Kristallnacht two days later.
Thousands of people participated in this horrendous carnage, an organized massacre dictated by Berlin. Not just hoodlums, but ordinary middle-class men and women, neighbors, former friends, smashed windows, looted Jewish shops, burned synagogues, tortured and beat senseless thousands of Jews and the rest sent to concentration camps. In my Vienna, the bloodshed was even greater; hundreds of Jews committed suicide. There it happened on Nov. 9. Austrians had one great regret, that so much needless damage was inflicted on property.
Crystal Night was the beginning of the Holocaust. It sowed the seeds for the Second World War. Had Hitler been stopped at that time, the war and genocide might have been avoided. All these valuable people, Jews who had contributed so much to the world in science, art, music, mores and medicine, could have continued giving their invaluable gifts to mankind.
Europe, it appears has not forgotten - instead, it appears hell-bent on creating a sequel. Check out the fun the Brits are having:
...According to the police, Jews are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than are Muslims.
Every synagogue service and Jewish communal event now requires guards on the lookout for violence from both neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists. Orthodox Jews have become particular targets; some have begun wearing baseball caps instead of skullcaps and concealing their Star of David jewelry.
Anti-Semitism is rife within Britain’s Muslim community. Islamic bookshops sell copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the notorious czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; as an undercover TV documentary revealed in January, imams routinely preach anti-Jewish sermons.
Opinion polls show that nearly two-fifths of Britain’s Muslims believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”; that more than half believe that British Jews have “too much influence over the direction of UK foreign policy”; and that no fewer than 46 percent think that the Jewish community is “in league with Freemasons to control the media and politics.”
But anti-Semitism has also become respectable in mainstream British society. “Anti-Jewish themes and remarks are gaining acceptability in some quarters in public and private discourse in Britain and there is a danger that this trend will become more and more mainstream,” reported a Parliamentary inquiry last year. “It is this phenomenon that has contributed to an atmosphere where Jews have become more anxious and more vulnerable to abuse and attack than at any other time for a generation or longer.”
Of course, like in 1939, the Jews can be blamed for bringing it all on themselves.
Does it matter? When we say "never again", we don't mean it. We just say it, and hope it can be worked out via an international peace conference. If not -and the worst happens - we can always protest to the UN as a last resort....
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Republicans swept the hard-fought races in the 12th Legislative District, where Democratic state Sen. Ellen Karcher conceded to GOP Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck Tuesday night. Beck was outspent almost 6 to 1 by Democrats; the state party poured millions of dollars into the race.
That's bad news for the Democrats, for sure, when folks are ignoring their propoganda and voting with their gut.
Toms River weighs in:
Come January, Republicans will occupy the Toms River mayoral seat and all seven council seats, after they swept the general election Tuesday, according to unofficial results released by the Ocean County Clerk's Office.
The Asbury Park Press makes the point:
It was a sweet night for Republicans in Monmouth and Ocean counties Tuesday.
Republicans won all 18 available seats in the Legislature.
Not to bad for Middlesex, either:
SAYREVILLE — Sayreville Republicans ran away with Tuesday's election, which found incumbent Kennedy O'Brien re-elected to the mayoral post for a third term and the party picking up two, three-year Borough Council seats.
And the Dems were thwarted in Old Bridge as they tried to steal one:
Democrats in Old Bridge have conceded the final council seat they had been disputing into the late hours of Tuesday's elections. The last of three contested at-large township council posts will go to Republican Brian J. Cahill..
And one last gloat about the defeat of Corzine's pet stem-cell initiative:
In rejecting borrowing $450 million to fund stem cell research, New Jersey voters dealt a blow to Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine and supporters who touted the funding as key to finding cures and boosting the state economy.
Corzine spent $200,000 to help run ads supporting the measure that would have funded 10 years of research on embryonic and adult stem cells and he campaigned heavily for it, but 53 percent of voters rejected the spending.
There's a breeze a blowin' thru Jersey, folks...with God's blessing it will only pick up strength.
More here and here....and for a less enthusiastic analysis (but perhaps more realistic?), pull over at the Parkway Rest Stop...
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Last night's results are all yet to be fully tallied, but here's what I like best so far - that at least two of those insane ballot "propositions" look likely to go down. And it's a repudiation of the idiocy of Jon Corzine by the state's voters. To wit:
Gov. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) voted Tuesday at a Hoboken firehouse, and took time to give his agendas a last-minute push.
New Jersey voters are heading to the polls to elect 120 lawmakers to the state Senate and Assembly. They are also taking up the issue of whether the state should borrow millions for open space preservation and stem cell research.
"We can be on the very cutting edge on helping human beings, families, fighting degenerative diseases," Corzine said of the stem cell measure....
Let's see how the governor did with his attempt to use half a billion dollars of New Jersey taxpayer dollars in order to poke a stick in George Bush's eye:
Question 2 - Stem Cell Research -- 4,134 of 6,289 precincts reporting (66%)
No 450,099 - 54%
Yes 381,271 - 46%
And what about his scam to use a tax hike in order to set up...another tax hike? Hmmm, not so well, Guvvie :
Question 1 - Dedicated Use of Taxes -- 4,134 of 6,289 precincts reporting (66%)
No 438,738 - 54%
Yes 377,045 - 46%
And can I be any prouder of my home district? We re-elected one of the best Republican lawmakers in the state with a boffo margin (and kept good folks in the Assembly as well):
State Senate - District 13 -- 109 of 156 precincts reporting (70%)
Joe Kyrillos GOP 18,527 - 63%
Leonard Inzerillo Dem 11,049 - 37%
State Assembly - District 13 -- 109 of 156 precincts reporting (70%)
Samuel Thompson GOP 16,254 - 29%
Amy Handlin GOP 16,712 -29%
Patricia Walsh Dem 12,355 - 22%
Bob Brown Dem 11,422 - 20%
At this juncture, it appears as if the Democrats have not picked up any additional seats locally this year - and yes, that's a win at this point in time in New Jersey. You need to stop the wave before you can turn it back...and with the key '08 elections rushing down upon us, this is as good a time as any to make a stand.
Finally - looks like Corzine's "idiot" statute - or "Voting Rights", to use Orwellian Newspeak - has passed:
Question 4 - Voting Rights -- 4,149 of 6,289 precincts reporting (66%)
Yes 479,368 - 59%
No 328,526 - 41%
Too bad -guess he still gets to vote....
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
As for myself, I am going to vote "no" on all those stupid ballot initiatives; each one is a way to drain more dollars from the taxpayer's pocket (yes, even the sales tax/property tax initiative is a scam; just allows the Legislature to raise taxes elsewhere). As far as "Question 4" - changing the wording of "idiot or insane person" in the voting rights clause - well...I'd like to keep them in. May be able to be used in the future to keep certain far-lefties away from the booth....!
And locally, I gues I'll be voting for unaffiliated Matthew Sulikowski for Mayor of Old Bridge. Met him (and all the mayoral candidates) at the bus stop; while the mainstream party candidates seemed bored while going through the motions of back slapping, Mr. Sulikowski came off as...completely nuts.
Makes him perfectly qualified to hold office in this state, as far as I am concerned.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
This fall Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron are going belly up at the box office after gobbling up too much reality about the Iraq War.
"Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" are already dead in the water, while surveys show that "Lions for Lambs," which opens Friday, is arousing about the same level of interest as you'd expect from "Charles in Charge: The Imax Experience." Meryl Streep stars in two of these movies, in an act of uncontrolled cinematic gorging unseen since "Super Size Me." .
He's got a great review of "Rendition" as well:
Compare it [The Deer Hunter] to "Rendition," which contains all the surprise and excitement of a sixth-grade filmstrip from an Iranian school ("Straight Talk About the Great Satan and You").
A few minutes into the movie, Reese Witherspoon starts asking people, "Where's my husband?" Forty-five minutes later, she's demanding, "Where's my HUSBAND?" An hour after that, she's screaming, "WHEEERE'S MY HUSBAAAAND?"
I used to think that in Hollywood, The Great God of Profits would undoubtably persevere; and overcome all this worthless self-indulgent tripe being vomited out by its perpetually clueless thespian population.
But alas, even as they dangle on the precipice, they see not the great chasm yawning beneath them...watch Robert Redford, in an interview in today's Daily News, question the American public for refusing to take their moral lead from his and his crony's insipid anti-war movies:
"Lions for Lambs" is a movie that raises a lot of issues without offering easy answers. What questions do you hope audiences will be asking when they come out of the theater?
It's absolutely an attempt to provoke, and the issues are not new. But they're used as food for thought to look at the broader, deeper picture of what's happened to us in the past six years. What's happened to the media, to politics, to education? My hope is that people come out of the film thinking about what we've done and what we haven't done about those things.
It's been said that if Hollywood ignores the war, it's got its head in the sand. But none of the movies that deal with Iraq and Afghanistan so far have been successful with moviegoers. Why is that?
If that's true, it would be unfortunate, and it makes its own statement about where the country is. But that speaks to what this film is trying to get us to look at, questions like: Where are we? Are we awake to what's going on at different levels of our society? But if it's a fact that those films haven't been successful, it will make it more difficult to make more of [that kind of] film.
Can any work of art or entertainment awaken people's consciences today?
Some part of me doubts it....
There is no doubt that Redford throws aroud these ugly remarks as his own way to insult the intelligence of the "unenlightened" American people, and solidify his position as an elite...we who know better wear his derision as a mark of honor...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The group 9/11 Families for a Secure America is poised to issue a press release today offering a $1,000 reward to:
"Any American who can get a straight answer out of Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on whether or not she supports New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's (D-NY) plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens."
The release goes on to say:
"The $1,000 reward will be granted in cash to any American who can prompt Senator Clinton to definitively say on record either: I support Governor Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens; or I oppose Governor Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens."
9/11 FSA has been extremely outspoken in his opposition to Spitzer's proposal, with its president, Peter Gadiel, who lost a son to the WTC attack, going so far as to say that Spitzer would "demonstrate abject stupidity and breathtaking disregard for the victims of 9/11 if he hands these powerful IDs to people who sneak across our borders."
More wiggling from the wife of the waffler:
Clinton's campaign said she supports "governors like Governor Spitzer" in trying to address a national problem that she will fix through comprehensive immigration reform when she becomes president. The statement did not say if she supports Spitzer's license plan.
How much of a loser is Governor Spitzer's illegal alien licensing initiative? Let's here from the Senate's loudest mouth:
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer declined to comment on the license plan.
'Nuff said, I'd reckon.
Monday, October 29, 2007
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future....
Well, let's talk about the past, present, and future, OK Ellen? Better yet, I'll let COAPS do it:
Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy).
For the period of June 1 - TODAY, only 1977 has experienced LESS tropical cyclone activity than 2007. For the North Atlantic basin, Tropical Storm Noel is currently too weak to impact any of these results....
You can dig the chart here. Note the tremendous drop in the last two years, right around the time "global warming" alarmists and fame-seeking forecasters declared an inevitable onslaught of Katrina-esque hurricanes fueled by our lust for carbon-emitting energy sources.
Send in the clowns:
May 29, 2006 - Al Gore's new movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," opens with scenes from Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. The former vice president says unequivocally that because of global warming, it is all but certain that future hurricanes will be more violent and destructive than those in the past.
With the official start of hurricane season days away, meteorologists are unanimous that the 2006 tropical storm season, which runs from June 1 through November, is likely to be a doozy...
"Meteorologists are unanimous"? That must mean they're right !
Let me throw it back to Goodman, and the sentences that preceeds her unfortunate "Holocaust" remark:
The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
Well, they were certainly wrong about the hurricanes, Ellen...and 90% ain't 100%. Just ask anyone who's ever played poker....
UPDATE: Of course, you can always Blame Bush !
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The one thing that’s obvious about the things that greenies always seem to find so pressing, urgent, risk-laden, around the corner, and so forth, have far more to do with a need to be liked while they act on their urge to dismantle any available pillar of a civilization they had no part in building.
Suprising, "global warming" is only the analogy in this case - the story here is really on our fabled "ozone hole"; you remember, the one that was so dangerous that we banned a myriad of different chemical compounds in order to prevent it from getting any larger? Turns out, of course that "ozone holes" are common to any planet that has, you know...an atmosphere. To wit: "It seems that they are a feature of planetary rotation rather then a defect..."
....better go back and read it all.
As if a bunch of lit majors could even tell you what ozone even is. All they know is that someone told them that you aren’t allowed to disagree with them.
Yeah. That's why Al Gore refuses to even debate on the subject, you know...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
It doesn't matter how many Oscar winners are in front of or behind the camera--audiences are proving to be conscientious objectors when it comes to this fall's surge of antiwar and anti-Bush films. Both "In the Valley of Elah" and, more recently, "Rendition" drew minuscule crowds upon their release, which doesn't bode well for the ongoing stream of films critical of the Iraq war and the Bush administration's wider war on terror.
"Rendition," which features three Oscar winners in key roles, grossed $4.1 million over the weekend in 2,250 screens for a ninth-place finish. A re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" beat it, and it's 14 years old. . . .Beyond the fiction features, the anti-Iraq war documentary "No End in Sight" (box office: $1.4 million) couldn't capture the indie crowd, beating a swift retreat to DVD next Tuesday despite glowing review.
Brandon Gray, president and publisher of boxofficemojo says audiences seek out movies for inspiration, for laughter and to be moved.
"Many of these recent dramas fail on all those fronts," Mr. Gray says. "They're too heavy handed in their presentation."
Hmmm. Maybe they're not screaming "Bush Lied, People Died" loud enough. Or maybe they should start each feature with a "no blood for oil" chant!
Or maybe folks realize they don't need to pay $10+ to watch poorly written agit-prop...they can just turn on the network news....
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Nothing can be further from the truth, as the following will demonstrate. But hey, I needed a catchy title for this post, all right? Jeez, touch-eee...
So anyway, the main event is Michelle Malkin taking on the lovely and talented Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton...we'll let the Senator go first, as she tries to deflect questions about how such a numerous amount of poor, possibly illegal (certainly undocumented) Chinese immigrants -most of them living in dignified squalor - decided to spend their meager savings on her Presidential campaign; most of them giving up to the maximum legal individual contribution:
"I'm going to keep reaching out to everybody in our country. I want to be a president to everybody," said a defiant Hillary in defense of her indiscriminate fund-raising. "Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American," Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman, told reporters. "We do not ethnically profile donors."
Get it? Question Hillary, and you're a racist. Period. Better learn to obey....
Michelle Malkin will not. She will, eventually, lead the resistance. Here's the smackdown:
If it's "ethnic profiling" to be extra-careful of Chinatown donors who can't speak English, live in dilapidated buildings, have never voted, can't tell Hillary Clinton from Hunan Chicken or simply can't be found, then "ethnic profiling" should be the standard procedure of every campaign.
Incidentally - methinks Hillary has peaked. Like a car with no brakes, rolling downhill, her momentum will carry her to the Democratic presidential nomination. Then she'll run into a strong and unyeilding Republican brick wall - named Rudy Giuliani.
Can't wait to watch. Start poppin' the corn, ma !
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
First, some background if you haven't been following the strange machinations of Pelosi's inept Congress.
A House vote to label the century-old deaths of Armenians as genocide was in jeopardy Tuesday after several Democrats withdrew their support and sounded alarms it could cripple U.S. relations with Turkey.
....at least six Democrats withdrew their sponsorship of the bill ...they feared backlash from Turkey would cut off U.S. access to a critical air base.
"More than half of the cargo flown into Iraq and Afghanistan comes through Incirlik Air Base ...," the lawmakers wrote.
...In response to last week's approval of the resolution by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Turkey recalled its ambassador in Washington back to Ankara for consultations and asked the Bush administration to stop the resolution from passing in a final floor vote.
There are some (many, actually) who feel this is a back door way for Pelosi to force a troop drawdown in Iraq - namely, by engineering an elimination of their key supply route. Krauthammer will address that later, but first, he takes on the San Fran Nan:
How does this work? Pelosi says: "Genocide still exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur." Precisely. And what exactly is she doing about Darfur? Nothing. Pronouncing yourself on a genocide committed 90 years ago by an empire that no longer exists is Pelosi's demonstration of seriousness about existing, ongoing genocide?
Indeed, the Democratic Party she's leading in the House has been trying for months to force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that could very well lead to genocidal civil war. This prospect has apparently not deterred her in the least.
Now here is New Jersey's shame:
"Friends don't let friends commit crimes against humanity," explained Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that passed the Armenian genocide resolution. This must rank among the most stupid statements ever uttered by a member of Congress, admittedly a very high bar.
Er...did some one bother to inform Smith that this genocide occured almost one hundred years ago? That there is likely no one alive in Turkey that took part in this atrocity? That the genocide was actually committed by the Ottoman Empire, an government that allied itself with America's enemies in WW I ?
How embarrassing. I realize that it is tough being an elected Republican in a blue state, and that all sorts of compromises must be made to maintain this position, but it is absolutely unacceptable to put America's soldiers in a position of losing all logistical support mid-war in order to gain brownie points with your constituents. Shame on you, Chris Smith! A Republican should know better...
Finally, we'll go back to Nancy Pelosi; and I'll let Mr. Krauthammer make his final point:
Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer's razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.
From the Washington Post:
When Captain America returns to the pages of his comic book in January, it won't be his star-spangled new duds getting all the attention. Instead it will be what he's wielding in his right hand, the one once reserved for pummeling the jaws of evil. Come next year, he'll be gripping cold, hard steel.
That's right, Captain America will be packing heat.....
Truly, a hero for our times...!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 51% to 40% in an early look at the race for New Jersey’s Electoral Votes....
....Clinton is viewed favorably by 58% of Garden State voters while Giuliani earns positive reviews from 59%.
Yeah, an 11 percentage point lead is undeniably sweet but it's quite early yet (right, Mr. Willie Randolph?), and with both of them sharing equal positive marks a lot may change based on who makes a better case for themselves.
Now this is funny:
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say corruption is the top issue while 36% are more interested in property taxes. However, they don’t have much faith in either political party to address either issue.
Thirty-three percent (33%) say they trust Democrats more on the corruption issue while 29% prefer the GOP. Thirty-three percent (33%) don’t trust either party and 5% are not sure.
On property tax relief, 35% trust Republicans, 34% the Democrats, and 25% say neither.
Being that like some 80% of the corruption arrests in the state have been politicians of the Democratic persuasion, one might think that perhaps the Republicans may have earned the benefit of the doubt in this case. Except in liberal New Jersey, where the Democratic voters tend not to think much at all....
Thirty-four percent (34%) say Governor Corzine is doing a good or excellent job while 30% give him poor marks. In between are 33% who say he’s doing a fair job.
Seems like Corzine's barely held on to his hardcore base (that 34% probably represents the amount of registered voters that are on Corzine's - oops, the state's - payroll). Should the state Republican Party find a worthy candidate to oppose him, our very own Richie Rich may be in a heap 'o trouble down the road...
Monday, October 15, 2007
Anyway - here's what's up:
Counterterrorism officials in New Jersey say they've quietly been cracking down on potential threats without public knowledge, taking aim at an Al Qaeda connection.
Between the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, chemical plants, and its many ports, the Garden State has many vulnerable targets for terrorists. On Monday the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in Newark revealed it has been cracking down on some of Osama bin Laden's associates in northern New Jersey, deporting them or disrupting their activities.
"Investigations of Al Qaeda like activities in the state are not a surprise. We know they do go on all the time," said Richard Canas, New Jersey's Homeland Security Director.
Passaic County Prosecutor James Avigiliano sits on the executive committee of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, also known as the JTTF.
"You cannot protect something 100 percent, but we are vulnerable if we didn't intercept certain things. [that's spying! So un-American! -ed.] But that's the function of the JTTF and intelligence -- to get a line on these things before they happen," Avigiliano said.
Avigiliano can't discuss any specific cases, but said federal authorities have kept a close eye on northern New Jersey. "You know at least four of the bombers who were involved in September 11 came through and had ties in Paterson," he said.
Folks, Richard Canas is on the job! Boy, I feel safer already, knowing a hand-picked Corzine hack is in charge of the state's security:
Investigators are trying to determine if the state's homeland security director tried to get two state workers who helped him move paid for their efforts, according to The Star-Ledger of Newark.
The probe of Richard L. Canas by state prosecutors has led to the suspension, with pay, of his office's chief administrator, Anita Bogdan...
Again, should another deadly attack originate from New Jersey soil (remember 9/11? Corzine doesn't), the governor should be held legally responsible by the federal government, although I honestly do not know if there is a way to do that. Gross negligance? Perhaps...
And where's our gallant governor today? Off proudly directing resources to proudly non-English speaking Latinos of New Jersey...sigh...
You know, America used to be a melting pot. Watch Corzine work the liberal experiment in New Jersey, as he encourages people (via financial incentives) not to integrate, and come see the results...no wonder al-Qaeda licks their chops every time our fool Governor opens his mouth...
New Jersey's Fausta has more details....
Sunday, October 14, 2007
No matter how hard we try, the Washington Post begrudgingly mumbles that -
The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute.
Here's the money quote:
...it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were -- to put it simply -- wrong.
Could have told you that a month ago, ladies.
Now, if I recall, it is a government health care program, and not a new techonological advancement, but the AP seems a bit confused:
Dems vow new bill if S-chip veto stands
"Isn't that sad for America's children?" said Pelosi
Depends on what the S-chip actually does....
The Times hedges its bets:
Israel Struck a Nuclear Project in Syria, Analysts Say
It should probably have read "Israel saves the world, again", but I won't go that far. But this far:
The officials did not say that the administration had ultimately opposed the Israeli strike, but that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat.
The fact that Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabi, and Egypt haven't even raised a peep says a lot more than the "analysts" are telling you...
Is old-school Israeli deterrance back in style?
And from the wacko Guardian in the U.K.:
Al Gore wins Nobel peace prize. And this time, no one can take it away from him
Duh. I already knew he was going to bed clutching the damn thing...
How ideologically rigid are New Jersey's Democrats?
Polls: N.J. voters blase about corruption
New Jersey voters think their politicians are more corrupt than other states and link government corruption to the Democrats, but are no more likely to vote Republican....
So Jersey's Democrats find it preferable to be robbed by their leaders than to vote for a different party....does that make them blase, or stupid?
Give this state five more years of liberal domination, and it's going to look like the post-apocalyptic world of Mad Max...think I'll start accessorizing my car now....
And I can't resist this one, either:
Massive Tag Body Spray Slick Spreading From Jersey Shore
And finally, Reuters reports something accurate, although it hasn't quite happened yet:
Rice sees no breakthroughs on Mideast trip
Hey! I can see the future too! The "peace initiative" does collapse, and Reuters blames....blames....
Israeli demands doom peace
Wait for it...
Friday, October 12, 2007
So Al Gore is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Admittedly, he has to share it with the United Nations’ climate change panel - but, even so, I think we need to declare an international smugness alert.
The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize?
More to the point, can you imagine how enormous his already massive carbon footprint will become once he starts jetting around the world bragging about his new title?
There are so many reasons why Gore shouldn't have won the peace prize for his preachiness....I'd have liked to refer the judges to a ruling by Mr Justice Burton, a High Court judge who has criticised the Government for sending out An Inconvenient Truth to schools without a health warning. The reason? It's full of errors and unsubstantiated claims.
None of which will surprise seasoned Gore-watchers. The man is not, as his enemies maintained when he ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a pants-on-fire liar. He's an exaggerator and a braggart.
But there is a more fundamental objection to awarding Gore the peace prize that goes beyond issues of character. Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed
James Taranto will pick up on that thread:
But if you look at the list of Nobel Peace Prizes, you'll see that in recent years it has often gone to people or organizations whose work, while often worthy, has little to do with the promotion of peace per se.
One reason for this may be that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had reason to be disappointed in the results when it has given awards to more traditional peacemakers.
-In 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize notoriously went to Yasser Arafat (along with Israel's prime and foreign ministers) for signing the Oslo accords--which, far from establishing peace, enabled Arafat to set up a terror statelet in the West Bank and Gaza.
-In 1973, the Nobel went to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Lu Duc Tho for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord--which, far from establishing peace, led to conquest, repression and mass murder in Indochina.
-In 1926, 1930 and 1931 the Nobel Peace Prize went to men involved in the Briand-Kellogg Pact, which "outlawed war." By 1939 it was clear how well that was working out.
When the Nobel Peace Prize was established more than a century ago, wars were largely fought between traditional nation-states over material interests. But the 20th century saw the rise of a series of aggressive ideologies--communism, Nazism, radical Islam--that render old-fashioned notions of war and peace quaint. Determined ideologues cannot be appeased; peace through strength is the only alternative to war.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee rejects strength as well as war--hence its failure to award a Nobel to Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War (Mikhail Gorbachev got one for losing, in 1990), or, say, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for averting armed international conflict in Europe for half a century after World War II.
Taranto is right, of course, and I'll say what he doesn't - the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless, and thus perfect for a hypocrite who jets around the world scaremongering over a crisis that does not even exist.
He is equal to the "illustrious company" that he joins...
Religious fanatics can never be appeased. And the degenerate conditions in the Muslim heartlands only make fanaticism more virulent.
But we never learn. There are many in our own country who insist that, if only we didn't annoy Allah's assassins, we wouldn't have any problems with them. We just need to "respect their culture."
No matter that their culture is murderously intolerant, criminally vicious toward women and deadly not only to those of other faiths but even to fellow believers who don't measure up to the absolutist doctrines of the fanatics. If only we made nice, the world would live in harmony. All those suicide bombers are our fault.
Well, the historical fact is that the world has never lived in harmony. Never. Peace has never prevailed across the planet.
It would be lovely, if it were otherwise. But we need to deal with the facts we face today and the factual patterns of history...Our Western cult of negotiations produces no lasting successes for the simple reason that those ablaze with lethal faith never hesitate to break deals with unbelievers the moment they find it useful to do so.
Somebody want to show this to the UN?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Today marks the 50th anniversary of her crowning achievement, Atlas Shrugged - a fictional work of philosophy unequaled in the half-century since. Despite Rand's awkward prose and tendency towards ninety-page monologues, it stands as an intellectual masterpiece.
Rand did not just say "greed is good", she said selfishness is moral, and necessary. So very un-PC! Yet the only way to understand it is to "read it all" - all 1,100+ pages of it. Still selling over 150,000 copies a year, it is perhaps even more relevant today then when first published back in 1957.
In today's WSJ (subscriber only, alas), David Kelly writes of Rand's novel, and her capitalist heroes:
....the deeper reasons why the novel has proved so enduringly popular have to do with Rand's moral defense of business and capitalism. Rejecting the centuries-old, and still conventional, piety that production and trade are just "materialistic," she eloquently portrayed the spiritual heart of wealth creation through the lives of the characters now well known to many millions of readers. Hank Rearden, the innovator resented and opposed by the others in his field...struggled for 10 years to perfect a revolutionary metal alloy that he hoped would make him a great deal of money. Dagny Taggart is a gifted and courageous woman who leads a campaign -- not to defend France from England on the battlefield, like Joan of Arc -- but to manage a transcontinental railroad and, against impossible odds, to build a new branch line critical for the survival of her corporation. Francisco d'Anconia, the enormously talented heir to an international copper company, poses as an idle, worthless playboy to cover up his secret operations -- not to rescue people from the French Revolution, like the Scarlet Pimpernel -- but to rescue industrialists from exploitation by ruthless Washington kleptocrats.
Economists have known for a long time that profits are an external measure of the value created by business enterprise. Rand portrayed the process of creating value from the inside, in the heroes' vision and courage, their rational exuberance in meeting the challenges of production.
Her point was stated by one of the minor characters of "Atlas," a musical composer: "Whether it's a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one's own eyes. . . . That shining vision which they talk about as belonging to the authors of symphonies and novels -- what do they think is the driving faculty of men who discovered how to use oil, how to run a mine, how to build an electric motor?
The central action of "Atlas" is the strike of the producers, their withdrawal from a society that depends on them to sustain itself and yet denounces them as morally inferior. Very well, says their leader, John Galt, we will not burden you further with what you see as our immoral and exploitative actions. The strike is of course a literary device; Rand herself described it as "a fantastic premise." But it has a real and vital implication.While it is true enough that free production and exchange serve "the public interest" (if that phrase has any real meaning), Rand argues that capitalism cannot be defended primarily on that ground. Capitalism is inherently a system of individualism, a system that regards every individual as an end in himself. That includes the right to live for himself, a right that does not depend on benefits to others, not even the mutual benefits that occur in trade.
This is the lesson that most people in business have yet to learn from "Atlas," no matter how much they may love its portrayal of the passion and the glory possible in business enterprise.
At a crucial point in the novel, the industrialist Hank Rearden is on trial for violating an arbitrary economic regulation. Instead of apologizing for his pursuit of profit or seeking mercy on the basis of philanthropy, he says, "I work for nothing but my own profit -- which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage -- and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner…"
We will know the lesson of "Atlas Shrugged" has been learned when business people, facing accusers in Congress or the media, stand up like Rearden for their right to produce and trade freely, when they take pride in their profits and stop apologizing for creating wealth.
I have been waiting my whole life for a Bill Gates, a Rupert Murdoch to stand in front of the nonproductive politicians of Congress (Rand's villians in Atlas Shrugged) and give Rearden's speech, or Galt's. In Rand's novel, opposition collapses (as well as most of the world) before the one man who dares to speak the truth freely, with no shame or guilt.
Does Rand's hero exist today? The increasingly socialistic bent of the leaders of our ruling parties would be defenseless before him; he would expose their scam. In Rand's novel, most people support the confiscatory policies of the government, thinking they may benefit by the soaking of the rich. Sure, they mouth inanities about "helping the poor", but it is really about helping themselves, as well.
In Atlas Shrugged, this way of thinking essentially destroys the technological ccomplishments of 20th century man, and reduces advanced civilizations to rubble. How sick would Rand be, today, at seeing her dark fictional prophecies come to life?
Oh, to think how she would spit at Hillary...!
Monday, October 08, 2007
The proposal before you: Have we in fact essentially eradicated true poverty in America?
Are there even a thousand really poor people in all of America? Really poor. Dying-on-the-sidewalks-with-open-sores poor?
The so-called poor have cars and cable tv and free medical. They live in America in the 21st century, where school is free and libraries are free and a bus ticket to a better town costs less than a bag of crack. If they're "poor" it's because they were too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on. Jesus had something to say about folks who didn't properly manage their money or other people's, and who squandered free gifts and good will. He told the adulteress to sin no more, not to find herself another baby daddy.
Jesus said "the poor will always be with you" and all the crooked exegesis on earth can't make that line read "you are ordered by Me to eliminate poverty forever using dubious economic theories and your own stubborn yet puny human will power."
Jesus told us to love the poor because he realized it was so damn hard to do. And the poor in His day were REALLY poor. They had no choices, no upward mobility, no capitalism, no education. The Western poor haven't been in that situation for a long time. This isn't Dickensian England.
Mark Steyn, posting on The Corner, follows up:
As Miss Shaidle points out, if you're poor today, it's almost always for behavioral reasons - behavior which the state chooses not to discourage but to reward. Nonetheless, progressive types persist in deluding themselves that there are vast masses of the "needy" out there that only the government can rescue.
An editorial in Canada's biggest-selling newspaper today states:
A total of 905,000 people visited food banks across the Greater Toronto Area in the past year.
The population of Toronto is about two-and-a-half million. Is the Star suggesting one in three citizens of one of the wealthiest municipalities on earth depends on "food banks"? Or is it the same one thousand people getting three square meals a day there? Or ten thousand people swinging by a couple of times a week? And, in that case, how many of them actually "depend" on food banks? Only the Star knows. But the idea that 905,000 Torontonians need food aid is innumerate bunk.
So, in the absence of real need, we've persuaded ourselves that we need to create more and more programs for the middle-class and wealthy.
Could all those crocodile tears that the Democrats shed for the poor really be part of a plan to distract Americans while they pick our pockets, so as to be able to fund their myraid of unnecessary social projects? And could there in fact be no need for these massive social reforms that the Left claims Americans are crying out for; can it all be smoke and mirrors used to trick Americans into turning their nation into something it is not, nor was ever meant to be?
I don't know - certainly I see plenty of Shaidle's "really poor" people every day in New York ; complete with the vacant stares and the open sores that she alludes to. And I feel bad, I do, and I always wish those folks did not have to live the way they do.
But when the Democrats seem to suggest that I may not be allowed to improve my station in life until every poor person (whom I am expected to view as a personal reproach to my own "wealth") reaches what they deem to be a "fair living station", that in fact more of my money must be confiscated in order to achieve that end - well, that gets me really pissed off, not sympathetic. In holding a productive person back so that the non-productive may be given that which they did not earn, well - it seems to be...immoral. A scam, a reverse Ponzi where the bottom eats the top until...what? When eventually the bottom consumes itself?
And what of the moral imperative that Democrats demand that I am supposed to feel in this case?
Well, I'll take my cue from Jesus. The poor will always be with us.
I'll throw 'em a coin and pray for their souls. But I'm not gonna miss my train whilst tending their eternal ills. It is a Sisyphean task, and the JerseyNut doesn't do Sisyphean tasks.
Someone ought to tell the Left that guilt is a rope that can wear thin...