Seems here that Hillary is doing something right for a change; but my distrust of her calculating persona runs so deep that I am forced to ask, "What's in it for her?".
Pajamas reports:
“On Thursday, February 8, 2007, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will join with Palestinian Media Watch Director Itamar Marcus and Associate Director Barbara Crook, to release a new report detailing the continuing anti-Israel bias in school textbooks produced by the Palestinian Authority.” (Palestinian Media Watch press release)
Roger Simon comments:
...I think it's obvious to most of us that preaching racism in children's texts is a particularly horrifying form of child abuse - it's part of what turns people into suicide bombers.
But I'm especially glad that it is Senator Clinton, a Democratic Party liberal, speaking out for once. People can say it's just because she's running for President and courting the Jewish vote. But she's a politician. That's what she does. And the world situation makes it mandatory that people who describe themselves as liberals begin to own the gravity of the struggle as well and speak out.
Does she understand? Or will she garner Jewish votes, then sell them down the river like 'ol Bill did, courting terrorists and forcing ill-designed "peace" plans onto Israel?
And if she does understand, why has she essentially set a firm pullout date for American forces in Iraq? Someone who grasps the "gravity" that Simon speaks of would know that call is fraught with peril.
I'm curious to see what Mrs. C. is going to do with her Palestinian Media Watch "position", and how she will go about chatising the liberal's favorite terrorists over what Simon rightly considers child abuse. You think you got guts, Senator? Let's see if you can call it as you see it....
วันพุธ, กุมภาพันธ์ 07, 2550
Demonized!
William M. Arkin, the Washington Post's National and Homeland Security expert, is crying foul over the recent onslaught of negative publicity he's attracted due to his rather unflattering commentary on American troops. In a story entitled (with much chutzapah), "Demonization and Responsibility":
I'm trying to make sense of the worldview of those who have responded. For the critics, I have become the enemy and have been demonized. In that process, I have ceased being a person, an individual, or a human being, all essential to justify the campaign to annihilate me. I'm not trying to offer myself up as victim here, nor do I expect the critics to change their view. I'm merely pointing out the process and the implications of the dehumanization.
Mr. Arkin, you're a sad, weak man. Do you want an idea of what dehumanization really is? Look no further than your employer, who has spent seven years giving it to President George W. Bush, working feverishly to turn him into un diablo. And now you claim to suffer? This is what your medium has wrought; you cannot complain when your are tormented by the very beast you set free, and fattened.
Let's review quickly what Arkin said that has caused him to suffer the greatest injustices, by his accounting, since the Crucifixion itself:
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States...
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people."
"We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"
This NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary -- oops sorry, volunteer -- force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it
Arkin here is not under attack by zealots who misunderstand him; in fact, he is understood too well. Thus the revulsion visited upon him. But Arkin does not even have the moral strength to search his soul for what he may have done to so inflame his fellow man - instead, he climbs on the liberal escape rope of victimization; claiming he has been "demonized". Look! How He Suffers So!! Can't you See he is being Oppressed?
Of course, Arkin as a victim is now spared the responsibility for any of the venom being hurled at him. How convenient.
Arkin's tortured "explanation" is almost as bad as his original transgression...well, at least he claims he's going to drop the issue now (can he dig himself any deeper of a ditch at this point anyway?)...Maybe Sean Penn (seen here at al-Jazeera, "supporting the troops") can step in and guest-blog for him next week.....
I'm trying to make sense of the worldview of those who have responded. For the critics, I have become the enemy and have been demonized. In that process, I have ceased being a person, an individual, or a human being, all essential to justify the campaign to annihilate me. I'm not trying to offer myself up as victim here, nor do I expect the critics to change their view. I'm merely pointing out the process and the implications of the dehumanization.
Mr. Arkin, you're a sad, weak man. Do you want an idea of what dehumanization really is? Look no further than your employer, who has spent seven years giving it to President George W. Bush, working feverishly to turn him into un diablo. And now you claim to suffer? This is what your medium has wrought; you cannot complain when your are tormented by the very beast you set free, and fattened.
Let's review quickly what Arkin said that has caused him to suffer the greatest injustices, by his accounting, since the Crucifixion itself:
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States...
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people."
"We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"
This NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary -- oops sorry, volunteer -- force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it
Arkin here is not under attack by zealots who misunderstand him; in fact, he is understood too well. Thus the revulsion visited upon him. But Arkin does not even have the moral strength to search his soul for what he may have done to so inflame his fellow man - instead, he climbs on the liberal escape rope of victimization; claiming he has been "demonized". Look! How He Suffers So!! Can't you See he is being Oppressed?
Of course, Arkin as a victim is now spared the responsibility for any of the venom being hurled at him. How convenient.
Arkin's tortured "explanation" is almost as bad as his original transgression...well, at least he claims he's going to drop the issue now (can he dig himself any deeper of a ditch at this point anyway?)...Maybe Sean Penn (seen here at al-Jazeera, "supporting the troops") can step in and guest-blog for him next week.....
วันอังคาร, กุมภาพันธ์ 06, 2550
“It’s our job to bash the President”
An unabashed moment of truth from the media, delivered (unintentionally, I’m sure) by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. Via Newsbusters, we get a transcript from NPR’s “Inside Washington” on WETA in D.C., this past Friday:
Gordon Peterson: "What do you think, Evan? Are the mainstream media bashing the president unfairly?"
Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --"
Peterson: "But unfairly?"
Thomas: "Mmmm -- I think when he rebuffed, I think when he just kissed off the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, there was a sense then that he was decoupling himself from public opinion and Congress and the mainstream media, going his own way. At that moment he lost whatever support he had."
Newsbusters comments:
The message in that is very simple: the president must never "decouple" himself from the "mainstream media," because they are the key players in maintaining public opinion. Remember, Thomas also believed this "mainstream" media would be worth "maybe 15 points" to John Kerry in 2004, which didn't exactly work out.
Now how about some push-polling by Newsweek? Take a gander at some of these questions:
-- "Do you think President Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by the facts or more by his personal beliefs, regardless of the facts?"
-- "At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?"
Note as well that the “Scooter Libby” trial has virtually disappeared from the media…if it doesn’t hurt the President, it’s not worth reporting, I guess….
What a shame that our media has allowed itself to be reduced to simple partisan attacks and/or cheerleading – I guess the bias is so blatent now that guys like Newsweek’s Thomas now simply acknowledge its existance and try to explain and defend it, rather than argue that it doesn’t even exist. I guess that is progress, in a dark way…
Gordon Peterson: "What do you think, Evan? Are the mainstream media bashing the president unfairly?"
Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --"
Peterson: "But unfairly?"
Thomas: "Mmmm -- I think when he rebuffed, I think when he just kissed off the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, there was a sense then that he was decoupling himself from public opinion and Congress and the mainstream media, going his own way. At that moment he lost whatever support he had."
Newsbusters comments:
The message in that is very simple: the president must never "decouple" himself from the "mainstream media," because they are the key players in maintaining public opinion. Remember, Thomas also believed this "mainstream" media would be worth "maybe 15 points" to John Kerry in 2004, which didn't exactly work out.
Now how about some push-polling by Newsweek? Take a gander at some of these questions:
-- "Do you think President Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by the facts or more by his personal beliefs, regardless of the facts?"
-- "At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?"
Note as well that the “Scooter Libby” trial has virtually disappeared from the media…if it doesn’t hurt the President, it’s not worth reporting, I guess….
What a shame that our media has allowed itself to be reduced to simple partisan attacks and/or cheerleading – I guess the bias is so blatent now that guys like Newsweek’s Thomas now simply acknowledge its existance and try to explain and defend it, rather than argue that it doesn’t even exist. I guess that is progress, in a dark way…
วันจันทร์, กุมภาพันธ์ 05, 2550
...Not if you are trying to sleep tonight....
...this article is a nightmare-inducing, stomach-turner...Beslan, in America:
Mass Slaughter in Our Public Schools: The Terrorists’ Chilling Plan
Probably the last place you want to think of terrorists striking is your kids’ school. But according to two trainers at an anti-terrorism conference on the East Coast, preparations for attacks on American schools that will bring rivers of blood and staggering body counts are well underway in Islamic terrorist camps. ...
“Any place that has given [Islamic terrorists] trouble, they’ve come after the kids,” ...
Muslim religious literature...states clearly that the killing of children not only is “permitted” in Islam but is “approved” by Mohammed, so long as the erpetrators “are striving for the general good” as interpreted by that religion.
He cited instances in Indonesia where girls on their way to school have been beheaded and in other countries where children have been shot, mutilated, raped or burned alive.
Like I said, decide how much sleep you need tonight before you go further...
From American Daughter; via the Girl on the Right...
Mass Slaughter in Our Public Schools: The Terrorists’ Chilling Plan
Probably the last place you want to think of terrorists striking is your kids’ school. But according to two trainers at an anti-terrorism conference on the East Coast, preparations for attacks on American schools that will bring rivers of blood and staggering body counts are well underway in Islamic terrorist camps. ...
“Any place that has given [Islamic terrorists] trouble, they’ve come after the kids,” ...
Muslim religious literature...states clearly that the killing of children not only is “permitted” in Islam but is “approved” by Mohammed, so long as the erpetrators “are striving for the general good” as interpreted by that religion.
He cited instances in Indonesia where girls on their way to school have been beheaded and in other countries where children have been shot, mutilated, raped or burned alive.
Like I said, decide how much sleep you need tonight before you go further...
From American Daughter; via the Girl on the Right...
วันอาทิตย์, กุมภาพันธ์ 04, 2550
The Mossad, Operating in Iran ?
This is an interesting story:
One of Iran's top nuclear scientists, Ardeshir Hassanpour, a professor at the university of Shiraz, has died under mysterious circumstances. Hassanpour's death was announced by Iranian state television, a week late, on Thursday. No reason was given for his death. The scientist was proclaimed the best scientist in the military field in the Islamic Republic in 2003. Hassanpour directed the centre for nuclear electromagnetic studies he had founded in 2005.
He had also co-founded the center for atomic research in Isfahan, the most important in the country, Iranian state television reported.
Last year, Ardeshir Hassanpour was awarded Iran's most prestigious scientific award, the Kharazmi prize.
The Times UK posits a theory:
An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.
Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.
Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor, the US intelligence company, claimed on Friday that Hassanpour had been targeted by Mossad and that there was “very strong intelligence” to suggest that he had been assassinated by the Israelis, who have repeatedly threatened to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb.
Did Hassenpour die from sloppy work with his gasses, or was he knocked off by the Israelis? Hard to tell, as we know the Mossad is to blame for every sparrow that falls in every corner of the globe, but this tale has a ring of truth to it; this is the type of work that the Mossad specializes in.
Although based on the following, it is more than possible that simple sloppiness in the rush to build 'dem nukes could have had a key role in poor Mr. Hassanpour's passing:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce next Sunday — the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution — that 3,000 centrifuges have been installed at Natanz, enabling Iran to move closer to industrial scale uranium enrichment.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency say that hundreds of technicians and labourers have been “working feverishly” to assemble equipment at the plant.
"Feverishly", huh?
Well, geee, I don't know...maybe Israel should be condemned should this story be true, because after all, the Washington Post's cringing chicken de jour, Paul R. Pillar, tells us:
Iran is still several years from acquiring a nuclear weapon...
How malleable (and how well-defined) are Tehran's intentions...?
Well, Paul, they are working "feverishly", as per your precious UN, and have openly declared their ambition to "wipe Israel off the map". That doesn't sound like "years", and their aims are pretty well defined to anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last two years...
Awww...little Pauli's scared, that all, and it is OK for a Holocaust to be perpetuated, as long as we don't get our pretty pink toes burned:
How would Tehran respond to an act of war? What terrorism might it launch against the United States?
Chickensh*t.
Thank God for Israel, and the Mossad.
One of Iran's top nuclear scientists, Ardeshir Hassanpour, a professor at the university of Shiraz, has died under mysterious circumstances. Hassanpour's death was announced by Iranian state television, a week late, on Thursday. No reason was given for his death. The scientist was proclaimed the best scientist in the military field in the Islamic Republic in 2003. Hassanpour directed the centre for nuclear electromagnetic studies he had founded in 2005.
He had also co-founded the center for atomic research in Isfahan, the most important in the country, Iranian state television reported.
Last year, Ardeshir Hassanpour was awarded Iran's most prestigious scientific award, the Kharazmi prize.
The Times UK posits a theory:
An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.
Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.
Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor, the US intelligence company, claimed on Friday that Hassanpour had been targeted by Mossad and that there was “very strong intelligence” to suggest that he had been assassinated by the Israelis, who have repeatedly threatened to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb.
Did Hassenpour die from sloppy work with his gasses, or was he knocked off by the Israelis? Hard to tell, as we know the Mossad is to blame for every sparrow that falls in every corner of the globe, but this tale has a ring of truth to it; this is the type of work that the Mossad specializes in.
Although based on the following, it is more than possible that simple sloppiness in the rush to build 'dem nukes could have had a key role in poor Mr. Hassanpour's passing:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce next Sunday — the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution — that 3,000 centrifuges have been installed at Natanz, enabling Iran to move closer to industrial scale uranium enrichment.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency say that hundreds of technicians and labourers have been “working feverishly” to assemble equipment at the plant.
"Feverishly", huh?
Well, geee, I don't know...maybe Israel should be condemned should this story be true, because after all, the Washington Post's cringing chicken de jour, Paul R. Pillar, tells us:
Iran is still several years from acquiring a nuclear weapon...
How malleable (and how well-defined) are Tehran's intentions...?
Well, Paul, they are working "feverishly", as per your precious UN, and have openly declared their ambition to "wipe Israel off the map". That doesn't sound like "years", and their aims are pretty well defined to anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last two years...
Awww...little Pauli's scared, that all, and it is OK for a Holocaust to be perpetuated, as long as we don't get our pretty pink toes burned:
How would Tehran respond to an act of war? What terrorism might it launch against the United States?
Chickensh*t.
Thank God for Israel, and the Mossad.
Slippery Sloooooooooope....
Hey, giving gay people their own set of civil rights is not a slippery slope to anywhere, you homophobe! It's not as if they are going to have the right to get married or anything crazy like that! Oh.......
Well, the rolling stone down that 'ol slope is picking up speed and material like a thundering avalanche - will this Canadian trend catch on in New Jersey, newest home to judicial-imposed gay marriage? Via Relapsed Catholic, we get the ultimate PC persecution in the name of gay rights:
A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner has told the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal that because his faith “takes first place” in his life, he cannot in conscience perform the ceremony for two homosexual men. In response to a complaint filed against him under the Charter of Rights, Orville Nichols said “I couldn't sleep or live with myself if I were to perform same sex marriages.”
The National Post reports today that Mr. Nichols was cited by two homosexual men in Regina in a formal complaint that his refusal to “marry” them amounts to illegal discrimination...When the two men contacted him, Mr. Nichols told them that he could not perform a same-sex ceremony because it conflicted with his religious beliefs and referred them to another commissioner...
The Saskatchewan Justice ministry has said it will remove all marriage commissioners from office who will not perform the civil ceremony for homosexual partners and is awaiting the outcome of this Human Rights Tribunal case to decide whether to remove Mr. Nichols from the list.
In Canada’s Human Rights Commission system, the person filing the complaint has his entire legal expense covered by the government. The system, says critics, is outside the normal and universally accepted requirements for due process and is increasingly being used by homosexual activists to persecute opponents.
What's next, forcing doctors at gunpoint to perform abortions?
With the government's finger on the trigger, to boot...?
Well, the rolling stone down that 'ol slope is picking up speed and material like a thundering avalanche - will this Canadian trend catch on in New Jersey, newest home to judicial-imposed gay marriage? Via Relapsed Catholic, we get the ultimate PC persecution in the name of gay rights:
A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner has told the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal that because his faith “takes first place” in his life, he cannot in conscience perform the ceremony for two homosexual men. In response to a complaint filed against him under the Charter of Rights, Orville Nichols said “I couldn't sleep or live with myself if I were to perform same sex marriages.”
The National Post reports today that Mr. Nichols was cited by two homosexual men in Regina in a formal complaint that his refusal to “marry” them amounts to illegal discrimination...When the two men contacted him, Mr. Nichols told them that he could not perform a same-sex ceremony because it conflicted with his religious beliefs and referred them to another commissioner...
The Saskatchewan Justice ministry has said it will remove all marriage commissioners from office who will not perform the civil ceremony for homosexual partners and is awaiting the outcome of this Human Rights Tribunal case to decide whether to remove Mr. Nichols from the list.
In Canada’s Human Rights Commission system, the person filing the complaint has his entire legal expense covered by the government. The system, says critics, is outside the normal and universally accepted requirements for due process and is increasingly being used by homosexual activists to persecute opponents.
What's next, forcing doctors at gunpoint to perform abortions?
With the government's finger on the trigger, to boot...?
วันเสาร์, กุมภาพันธ์ 03, 2550
Shrill Shilling at the AP !
Damn it, Jim! Is this the Associated Press, or a GreenPeace propoganda piece?
But the poor research and outright boosterism - for France, and the disdain for - America, makes it hard for me to tell the difference, or how the AP can allow this through the wires with any sense of professional conscious:
46 Nations Back Body to Protect Planet
Well, who can be opposed to "protecting the planet"? Oh, wait, it's coming....
PARIS - Forty-five nations answered France's call Saturday for a new environmental body to slow inevitable global warming and protect the planet, perhaps with policing powers to punish violators.
Absent were the world's heavyweight polluter, the United States...
The charge led by French President Jacques came a day after the release of an authoritative — and disturbingly grim — scientific report in Paris....
Er...a little late to make Chirac a hero, my friends....
Without naming the United States — producer of about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases — Chirac expressed frustration that "some large, rich countries still must be convinced." They are "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts," he said.
So far, it is mostly European nations that agreed to pursue plans for the new organization, and to hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring.
Chirac, 74, is seeking to leave his mark on international affairs before he leaves office, likely in May, though his own environmental record over 12 years as France's president is spotty.
Former Vice President Al Gore, whose Oscar-nominated documentary on the perils of global warming has garnered worldwide attention, cheered Chirac's efforts.
Yawn - France bashes America, while Europe, the only good remaining in the world, pledges to take on global warming; which they will promptly renege on (as will Canada, again), and Al Gore gets praised by liberal "reporters" for supporting "Le Grande Poulet", Jacques Chirac. And this is all news...why, exactly?
Now, for balance, couldn't they have talked about Canada abandoning the Kyoto protocol, and Europe failing to be anywhere near their emmission goals, and Chirac's mentioned (but not detailed) poor enviornmental record? Or how about Al Gore pouring tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as he jets around the world to talk about the poor condition of the atmosphere?
But, ah, what does the truth matter for anyway? After all:
It is time now to hear from the world's policymakers," Tim Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, said Friday. "The so-called and long-overstated 'debate' about global warming is now over."
Is that me being told to shut up, and accept the findings of the UN, like a good little international citizen?
Hmmm....you know, I don't think I'm gonna comply....
But the poor research and outright boosterism - for France, and the disdain for - America, makes it hard for me to tell the difference, or how the AP can allow this through the wires with any sense of professional conscious:
46 Nations Back Body to Protect Planet
Well, who can be opposed to "protecting the planet"? Oh, wait, it's coming....
PARIS - Forty-five nations answered France's call Saturday for a new environmental body to slow inevitable global warming and protect the planet, perhaps with policing powers to punish violators.
Absent were the world's heavyweight polluter, the United States...
The charge led by French President Jacques came a day after the release of an authoritative — and disturbingly grim — scientific report in Paris....
Er...a little late to make Chirac a hero, my friends....
Without naming the United States — producer of about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases — Chirac expressed frustration that "some large, rich countries still must be convinced." They are "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts," he said.
So far, it is mostly European nations that agreed to pursue plans for the new organization, and to hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring.
Chirac, 74, is seeking to leave his mark on international affairs before he leaves office, likely in May, though his own environmental record over 12 years as France's president is spotty.
Former Vice President Al Gore, whose Oscar-nominated documentary on the perils of global warming has garnered worldwide attention, cheered Chirac's efforts.
Yawn - France bashes America, while Europe, the only good remaining in the world, pledges to take on global warming; which they will promptly renege on (as will Canada, again), and Al Gore gets praised by liberal "reporters" for supporting "Le Grande Poulet", Jacques Chirac. And this is all news...why, exactly?
Now, for balance, couldn't they have talked about Canada abandoning the Kyoto protocol, and Europe failing to be anywhere near their emmission goals, and Chirac's mentioned (but not detailed) poor enviornmental record? Or how about Al Gore pouring tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as he jets around the world to talk about the poor condition of the atmosphere?
But, ah, what does the truth matter for anyway? After all:
It is time now to hear from the world's policymakers," Tim Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, said Friday. "The so-called and long-overstated 'debate' about global warming is now over."
Is that me being told to shut up, and accept the findings of the UN, like a good little international citizen?
Hmmm....you know, I don't think I'm gonna comply....
Hillary Clinton: I'll Surrender Iraq to the Insurgents!
Pumping her fists and shouting to the rooftops, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed yesterday to bring an immediate end to the war in Iraq if she's elected president.
"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will," Clinton pledged in a speech to the Democratic faithful as she staked out a new position on the conflict.
The former first lady's pledge to pull the plug on Iraq and bring the troops home came during the Democratic National Committee's annual winter meeting....
No nuancing here! The New York Post also has an editorial today that details her many poll-driven flip-flops on the Iraq War, up to and incuding her statement above:
...didn't she - just two weeks ago - declare that she is "not for imposing a . . . certain withdrawal date" for U.S. troops from Iraq?
Well, January 2009 (at the latest) sure sounds like a "certain withdrawal date."
Welcome to the latest chapter of the longest-running work in progress Washington has ever seen: Sen. Clinton's ever-morphing, "quick, check the polls" position on the Iraq war....
The editorial also refers to this post, where Hillary Clinton refused to question General Petraeus about the war, when given an opportunity...talk about a totally unserious approach about the fundamental problem facing the nation, and the world today...gee, reminds me of another ex-President whom refused to take terrorism seriously....
Of course, the Washington Post describes her appearance at the DNC meeting thusly:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York presented herself as a tough, experienced pragmatist.
Only at the WaPost can a cry to surrender be considered "tough", and "pragmatic". Even this galling, baldfaced lie/flip is considered praiseworthy:
"I want to be very clear about this," she said. "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. . . . If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."
For Clinton, who supported the 2002 resolution authorizing the U.S. invasion and then defended the mission long after the initial combat phase ended, the pledge to stop the war represented another break with Bush's Iraq policies.
The Washinton Post tells us: - It is OK to lie, so long as you are "breaking with Bush's Iraq policies"
Hil and the MSM are entwined in a lover's embrace, but if Hillary was as smart as everyone claims, she would know she was in the embrace of the ultimate widowmaker...The media will yet knock off Hillary, just like they did to one John F. Kerry not too long ago....
More on HC's shennanigans here....
วันศุกร์, กุมภาพันธ์ 02, 2550
Hillary Clinton and Iran: The Truth Comes Out
While the fawning media continues to paint Hillary as tough enough to handle the terror threats from her mortal enemies, her speech yesterday (to a pro-Israel group, to boot) left no doubt about the path she would take:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free.
Clinton said she wasn't sure "anything positive would come out of it" and she didn't know if it was "the smartest strategy to take," but added, "There are a number of factors that I think argue for some attem
pt to do what I have suggested."
She called for a better understanding of how Iran "really functions," warning actions beyond sanctions could increase danger in the region.
"I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran.
Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause, and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate….
Points to ponder:
- there is no such thing as “exhausting all possibilities”. You can always retreat further and further, giving up more and more ground while declaring victory (just ask Neville Chamberlain!).
- Is asking (or forcing) Israel to concede territory to the Palestinians to appease Iran a “possibility”? Why not? What falls under “all possibilities”? If you are banking on world opinion for support, who knows what possibilities are out there? Apparently, they are all on the table for Hillary and the Democrats…
- If this is how Hillary acts in front of a “tough on Iran” crowd (and it is fine, if these are her real feelings, which is always a difficult thing to discern), are her true intentions even more dovish, like her husband’s failed appeasement of North Korea, which allowed them to become a nuclear-armed state run by an immature psychopath? Wonder what she’ll have to say to the really left-of-center crowd…
UPDATE: Oh, Hillary! Here she speaks about the Democrat's plan to confiscate oil company profits. Gee, that'll do wonders for the stock market and 401(k)'s of every middle-class American! But she supports us, just like she supports the troops....
Silent Running puts Hillary's declaration in proper perspective {"Conspiracy to commit theft"}; and uses the "tobacco model" to project gasoline futures...
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free.
Clinton said she wasn't sure "anything positive would come out of it" and she didn't know if it was "the smartest strategy to take," but added, "There are a number of factors that I think argue for some attem
pt to do what I have suggested." She called for a better understanding of how Iran "really functions," warning actions beyond sanctions could increase danger in the region.
"I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran.
Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause, and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate….
Points to ponder:
- there is no such thing as “exhausting all possibilities”. You can always retreat further and further, giving up more and more ground while declaring victory (just ask Neville Chamberlain!).
- Is asking (or forcing) Israel to concede territory to the Palestinians to appease Iran a “possibility”? Why not? What falls under “all possibilities”? If you are banking on world opinion for support, who knows what possibilities are out there? Apparently, they are all on the table for Hillary and the Democrats…
- If this is how Hillary acts in front of a “tough on Iran” crowd (and it is fine, if these are her real feelings, which is always a difficult thing to discern), are her true intentions even more dovish, like her husband’s failed appeasement of North Korea, which allowed them to become a nuclear-armed state run by an immature psychopath? Wonder what she’ll have to say to the really left-of-center crowd…
UPDATE: Oh, Hillary! Here she speaks about the Democrat's plan to confiscate oil company profits. Gee, that'll do wonders for the stock market and 401(k)'s of every middle-class American! But she supports us, just like she supports the troops....
Silent Running puts Hillary's declaration in proper perspective {"Conspiracy to commit theft"}; and uses the "tobacco model" to project gasoline futures...
UPDATE II - 2/3 - Just how many times can one woman flip ? With Hil, it's whenever the heat gets turned up:
"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.
So this is how she speaks to AIPAC, the most influential, hawkish of Jewish influence groups. Above we saw how she spoke to a more dovish one....does this woman hold any conviction, on any issue, at all?
Political High-Pressure System Causing Global Warming?
Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much-awaited report will say that recent global warming was “very likely” caused by human activity — a significant change from an earlier report but less than the “virtually certain” phrase that some had championed.
“Championed”? What is this, science or politics?
The officials also approved language that said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 “more likely than not” can be attributed to man-made warming, according to delegates Leonard Fields of Barbados and Cedric Nelom of Surinam.
In the ‘70’s,incidentally, the same was blamed upon “global cooling” and an impending ice age…
In its last report in 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.
And what changed in the last five years? Where is the mountain of evidence required for scientists to make such a profound judgement shift? The planet is over 4 billion years old; a lot must have happened since 2001…Well? I’m waiting…pardon me for being old fashioned, but can you offer me some some real data? Like comparing the recent rises in temperature to the other, say, 10,000 times is has happened in the Earth's history, and what differentiates this time from historical precedent? And weighty diplomatic pronouncements from pseudo-leaders with European surnames don't count as evidence, incidentally...
Oh, wait – there is evidence, right here:
Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the new report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris. The report's executive summary for policymakers, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday.
So bureaucrats are editing scientist’s work?
And who paid the scientists who are involved in the "editing" process, anyway?
And why do I feel that all those voices whom shriek about political interference in the scientific process will trumpet this study, because it enforces their agenda?
UPDATE: The Corner, yesterday:
Here’s a notable statement from the global warming debate on “Larry King Live” last night. CNN weathercaster Rob Marciano sounded humble: “You know, as weather forecasters, we can't get the five-day forecast right. We're going to bank — put all of the money in the bank on a 50 or 100-year forecast, that is probably the thing that's most concerning, especially to meteorologist that forecast on a daily basis. You know how difficult it is to do that.”
It’s quite a difference from the screen graphic under ABC weathercaster Sam Champion yesterday: “Will Billions Die From Global Warming?” Champion’s betting all his marbles on the United Nations consensus.
Seems like the Democrats can't wait, either....
And more definitive statements from the United Nations , world renown home of logic, reason, and science:
"February 2, 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether (people) are to blame for climate change," Achim Steiner, the head of the U.N. Environment Program, told a news conference.
Great. Manufacture a problem that doesn't even exist, then blame me for it. That's why I have so much respect for you!
“Championed”? What is this, science or politics?
The officials also approved language that said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 “more likely than not” can be attributed to man-made warming, according to delegates Leonard Fields of Barbados and Cedric Nelom of Surinam.
In the ‘70’s,incidentally, the same was blamed upon “global cooling” and an impending ice age…
In its last report in 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.
And what changed in the last five years? Where is the mountain of evidence required for scientists to make such a profound judgement shift? The planet is over 4 billion years old; a lot must have happened since 2001…Well? I’m waiting…pardon me for being old fashioned, but can you offer me some some real data? Like comparing the recent rises in temperature to the other, say, 10,000 times is has happened in the Earth's history, and what differentiates this time from historical precedent? And weighty diplomatic pronouncements from pseudo-leaders with European surnames don't count as evidence, incidentally...
Oh, wait – there is evidence, right here:
Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the new report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris. The report's executive summary for policymakers, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday.
So bureaucrats are editing scientist’s work?
And who paid the scientists who are involved in the "editing" process, anyway?
And why do I feel that all those voices whom shriek about political interference in the scientific process will trumpet this study, because it enforces their agenda?
UPDATE: The Corner, yesterday:
Here’s a notable statement from the global warming debate on “Larry King Live” last night. CNN weathercaster Rob Marciano sounded humble: “You know, as weather forecasters, we can't get the five-day forecast right. We're going to bank — put all of the money in the bank on a 50 or 100-year forecast, that is probably the thing that's most concerning, especially to meteorologist that forecast on a daily basis. You know how difficult it is to do that.”
It’s quite a difference from the screen graphic under ABC weathercaster Sam Champion yesterday: “Will Billions Die From Global Warming?” Champion’s betting all his marbles on the United Nations consensus.
Seems like the Democrats can't wait, either....
And more definitive statements from the United Nations , world renown home of logic, reason, and science:
"February 2, 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether (people) are to blame for climate change," Achim Steiner, the head of the U.N. Environment Program, told a news conference.
Great. Manufacture a problem that doesn't even exist, then blame me for it. That's why I have so much respect for you!
วันพฤหัสบดี, กุมภาพันธ์ 01, 2550
Maybe Some of the Ovens Still Work!
It'll save the Muslims of Europe some time, when they get down to business. And that day is just about upon us:
Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.
The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim."
"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism," said Lewis...
Think he is exaggerating? Think again... from Little Green Footballs:
Attacks on Britain’s Jews have risen to the highest level since records began.
A study published today shows the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents has almost tripled in 10 years, with more than half the attacks last year taking place in London.
The findings prompted the report’s authors to warn of a “wave of hatred” against Jews. The number of incidents increased to 594 last year, up by 31 per cent on the previous year. Violent assaults soared to 112, up by more than a third on 2005.
Who's perpetrating the majority of these attacks, anyway? The linked article seems to insist it is predominantly white males, but why do I find that hard to believe?
Sigh...and so it begins....again.
Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.
The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim."
"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism," said Lewis...
Think he is exaggerating? Think again... from Little Green Footballs:
Attacks on Britain’s Jews have risen to the highest level since records began.
A study published today shows the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents has almost tripled in 10 years, with more than half the attacks last year taking place in London.
The findings prompted the report’s authors to warn of a “wave of hatred” against Jews. The number of incidents increased to 594 last year, up by 31 per cent on the previous year. Violent assaults soared to 112, up by more than a third on 2005.
Who's perpetrating the majority of these attacks, anyway? The linked article seems to insist it is predominantly white males, but why do I find that hard to believe?
Sigh...and so it begins....again.
This is how we do it in San Fran...
...from the proud home, ground-freakin'-zero, of liberal morality, we see the way the leadership conducts itself:
SAN FRANCISCO - Mayor Gavin Newsom apologized Thursday for having a sexual relationship with his former campaign manager’s wife.
“I’m deeply sorry,” Newsom said during a brief news conference at City Hall the day after the aide resigned. Newsom appeared poised but visibly emotional. He spoke for about a minute and left without taking questions.
Newsom acknowledged that he had the affair first reported Wednesday night on the San Francisco Chronicle’s Web site and apologized for what he called “a lapse of judgment.”
“I want to make it clear that everything you’ve read is true and I’m deeply sorry about that,” he said. “I hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk and his family and friends, and that is something I’m deeply sad about and sorry for.”
Tourk served as Newsom’s deputy chief of staff until September, when he became manager of the re-election campaign.
After his wife told him about the affair, Tourk approached the mayor about it, then resigned.
This is what Nancy Pelosi is promising to bring to the rest of America - the morality of the left. This is the behavior that they won't condemn, and refuse to judge. I mean, after all, he did say he was sorry...doesn't that pay all?
Good stuff.
SAN FRANCISCO - Mayor Gavin Newsom apologized Thursday for having a sexual relationship with his former campaign manager’s wife.
“I’m deeply sorry,” Newsom said during a brief news conference at City Hall the day after the aide resigned. Newsom appeared poised but visibly emotional. He spoke for about a minute and left without taking questions.
Newsom acknowledged that he had the affair first reported Wednesday night on the San Francisco Chronicle’s Web site and apologized for what he called “a lapse of judgment.”
“I want to make it clear that everything you’ve read is true and I’m deeply sorry about that,” he said. “I hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk and his family and friends, and that is something I’m deeply sad about and sorry for.”
Tourk served as Newsom’s deputy chief of staff until September, when he became manager of the re-election campaign.
After his wife told him about the affair, Tourk approached the mayor about it, then resigned.
This is what Nancy Pelosi is promising to bring to the rest of America - the morality of the left. This is the behavior that they won't condemn, and refuse to judge. I mean, after all, he did say he was sorry...doesn't that pay all?
Good stuff.
วันพุธ, มกราคม 31, 2550
Guns Don't Kill People; Liberal Policies Kill People !
Uh-oh! An agenda-driven, lobby-funded, anti-gun report has just come out, and you know the media has to jump on it like an un-neutered puppy onto a plush toy...from Arms and the Law:
Yesterday the antigun Violence Policy Center (as in Joyce Foundation is its main income, $400,000 a year) issued a press release focusing on black homicide rates. Chuckle--it's a study of how to pick and choose statistics to get the desired result . Example: the states with the lowest black homicide rates are gunnie South Dakota and Montana. DC is omitted, probably because it would have an astronomical rate -- despite its handgun ban. And its lead target is Pennsylvania, with the study proclaiming it has the highest black homicide rate in the country.
Other oddities I noticed within the report:
Wyoming ranks 19th highest for black homicide rates, despite having only one black fatality in all of 2004.
Vermont ranks even higher, at 12th, with also a mere single black fatality
Idaho ranks 15th, with two black handgun deaths. For shame! And speaking of which...
This insane skewing of statistics to produce a desired result does not deter insane editorials in newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer:
...shamefully, Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of black victims; in 2004, the most recent year statistics are available, Pennsylvania reported 398 homicides with black victims, a rate of 29.5 per 100,000, one-and-a-half times the national rate among black victims, and six times the national rate of all homicides.
Over half- 65 percent - came from Philadelphia. Firearms were the cause of deaths of nearly 90 percent of these.
We can almost hear the sermons that will be delivered from pulpits on this subject come Sunday, especially those in black churches:
Why are young blacks killing each other? (Most of these homicides are intra-racial.)
How dare the blacks look inward! The Philly Inquirer reminds them not to blame themselves for black-on-black violence, but to blame "The Man" instead:
...guns occupy a unique position: They're a problem that can be fixed more quickly, by passing better laws.
Then again, "quick" is no piece of cake when it comes to Congress, either, who is responsible for the outrageously lax gun laws now on the books. Actually, we call to task not only Congress but the National Rifle Association, which breaks into hives at the prospect of any criminal not able to get his hands on as many guns as he wants, whenever he wants them, in the name of Liberty.
"Liberty" for the comman man? Perish the thought!
But who (or what) is actually killing the black men of the Eastern Inner Cities?
I'll help you out; based on something I posted a few weeks back...you see, the federal government is to blame, but not the way the simpletons at the Inquirer think. It is not about lax gun control laws – see those pesky stats above on Montana and South Dakota.
But maybe...just maybe...it has something to do with the fact that the New Jersey Turnpike has now become the major gun-running road on the East Coast, if not the whole damn country. And the police legally cannot do anything to stop it:
Weapons seizures plummet on Turnpike
Uproar on racial profiling spurred State Police shift
Cops and politicians call Interstate 95 the "Iron Pipeline" because it is a popular route for criminals smuggling firearms from the South into Newark and other Northeastern cities where gun violence abounds. A big link in that pipeline is the New Jersey Turnpike, where the State Police used to seize scores of guns every year.
But they don't anymore.
Gun arrests and gun seizures have plummeted on the Turnpike in the last decade, according to data provided by the State Police in response to a request under the Open Public Records Act...
The decline comes at a time when homicides and shootings are on the rise in Newark, the state's largest city, where cops are taking record numbers of firearms off the streets. When those illegal guns are traced to their original sale, the most common source states turn out to be along the I-95 corridor in the South
For many years, troopers made a priority of pulling over Turnpike motorists and searching their cars in hopes of catching drug traffickers and gun runners. That effort was abandoned in 1999, after a state investigation found troopers were stopping drivers based on their skin color, a civil rights abuse known as racial profiling. Under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Police were put under the oversight of federal monitors and forced to change its patrol tactics....
Now Turnpike cops cannot pull over black motorists for fear of persecution by the PC thugs in Congress.
The gun-runners know it, and flaunt it.
And black folk die in droves, especially in Philadelphia, and Newark.
Incidentally, the Turnpike goes right through these cities.
The liberal left is killing blacks with their misguided policies. It’s not “lax gun laws”, it's the handcuffing of the officers that are charged with interdicting illegal weapons - that is the problem here.
Any chance of getting Congress to fix it? Unlikely; seems like they cannot wait to apply this broken writ to National Security as well....
UPDATE 2/1: More Philadelphia stupidity exposed at Blonde Sagacity:
Mayor John Street suggested that the war in Iraq was the cause of the city's gun violence increased.
Yesterday the antigun Violence Policy Center (as in Joyce Foundation is its main income, $400,000 a year) issued a press release focusing on black homicide rates. Chuckle--it's a study of how to pick and choose statistics to get the desired result . Example: the states with the lowest black homicide rates are gunnie South Dakota and Montana. DC is omitted, probably because it would have an astronomical rate -- despite its handgun ban. And its lead target is Pennsylvania, with the study proclaiming it has the highest black homicide rate in the country.
Other oddities I noticed within the report:
Wyoming ranks 19th highest for black homicide rates, despite having only one black fatality in all of 2004.
Vermont ranks even higher, at 12th, with also a mere single black fatality
Idaho ranks 15th, with two black handgun deaths. For shame! And speaking of which...
This insane skewing of statistics to produce a desired result does not deter insane editorials in newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer:
...shamefully, Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of black victims; in 2004, the most recent year statistics are available, Pennsylvania reported 398 homicides with black victims, a rate of 29.5 per 100,000, one-and-a-half times the national rate among black victims, and six times the national rate of all homicides.
Over half- 65 percent - came from Philadelphia. Firearms were the cause of deaths of nearly 90 percent of these.
We can almost hear the sermons that will be delivered from pulpits on this subject come Sunday, especially those in black churches:
Why are young blacks killing each other? (Most of these homicides are intra-racial.)
How dare the blacks look inward! The Philly Inquirer reminds them not to blame themselves for black-on-black violence, but to blame "The Man" instead:
...guns occupy a unique position: They're a problem that can be fixed more quickly, by passing better laws.
Then again, "quick" is no piece of cake when it comes to Congress, either, who is responsible for the outrageously lax gun laws now on the books. Actually, we call to task not only Congress but the National Rifle Association, which breaks into hives at the prospect of any criminal not able to get his hands on as many guns as he wants, whenever he wants them, in the name of Liberty.
"Liberty" for the comman man? Perish the thought!
But who (or what) is actually killing the black men of the Eastern Inner Cities?
I'll help you out; based on something I posted a few weeks back...you see, the federal government is to blame, but not the way the simpletons at the Inquirer think. It is not about lax gun control laws – see those pesky stats above on Montana and South Dakota.
But maybe...just maybe...it has something to do with the fact that the New Jersey Turnpike has now become the major gun-running road on the East Coast, if not the whole damn country. And the police legally cannot do anything to stop it:
Weapons seizures plummet on Turnpike
Uproar on racial profiling spurred State Police shift
Cops and politicians call Interstate 95 the "Iron Pipeline" because it is a popular route for criminals smuggling firearms from the South into Newark and other Northeastern cities where gun violence abounds. A big link in that pipeline is the New Jersey Turnpike, where the State Police used to seize scores of guns every year.
But they don't anymore.
Gun arrests and gun seizures have plummeted on the Turnpike in the last decade, according to data provided by the State Police in response to a request under the Open Public Records Act...
The decline comes at a time when homicides and shootings are on the rise in Newark, the state's largest city, where cops are taking record numbers of firearms off the streets. When those illegal guns are traced to their original sale, the most common source states turn out to be along the I-95 corridor in the South
For many years, troopers made a priority of pulling over Turnpike motorists and searching their cars in hopes of catching drug traffickers and gun runners. That effort was abandoned in 1999, after a state investigation found troopers were stopping drivers based on their skin color, a civil rights abuse known as racial profiling. Under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Police were put under the oversight of federal monitors and forced to change its patrol tactics....
Now Turnpike cops cannot pull over black motorists for fear of persecution by the PC thugs in Congress.
The gun-runners know it, and flaunt it.
And black folk die in droves, especially in Philadelphia, and Newark.
Incidentally, the Turnpike goes right through these cities.
The liberal left is killing blacks with their misguided policies. It’s not “lax gun laws”, it's the handcuffing of the officers that are charged with interdicting illegal weapons - that is the problem here.
Any chance of getting Congress to fix it? Unlikely; seems like they cannot wait to apply this broken writ to National Security as well....
UPDATE 2/1: More Philadelphia stupidity exposed at Blonde Sagacity:
Mayor John Street suggested that the war in Iraq was the cause of the city's gun violence increased.
Wednesday is Haiku day!
President Carter
Still throwing stones at Israel
His intifada.
Thick fog lifts
unfortunately, I am where
I thought I was
Airport lounge
a Muslim man prays toward
the emergency exit
Actually, what we are seeing here are examples of senryū - they tend to be about human foibles while haiku tend to be about nature, and senryū are often cynical or darkly humorous while haiku are more serious...anyway:
The NRA speaks:
They will come for us;
Our rifles like Yellow Stars.
Vote from the rooftops!
All of a sudden
Urge to buy a fifty cal
Grows much more stronger
Mine:
New York Times spreads lies,
Wants to end the war in Iraq.
Alas! It will backfire...
Nancy Pelosi
Thinks she knows best for us all.
Her reign will be short.
John Kerry in Iran,
Bashes his forlorn countrymen.
Just like Jim Carter.
Well, OK, mine kinda suck....
Still throwing stones at Israel
His intifada.
Thick fog lifts
unfortunately, I am where
I thought I was
Airport lounge
a Muslim man prays toward
the emergency exit
Actually, what we are seeing here are examples of senryū - they tend to be about human foibles while haiku tend to be about nature, and senryū are often cynical or darkly humorous while haiku are more serious...anyway:
The NRA speaks:
They will come for us;
Our rifles like Yellow Stars.
Vote from the rooftops!
All of a sudden
Urge to buy a fifty cal
Grows much more stronger
Mine:
New York Times spreads lies,
Wants to end the war in Iraq.
Alas! It will backfire...
Nancy Pelosi
Thinks she knows best for us all.
Her reign will be short.
John Kerry in Iran,
Bashes his forlorn countrymen.
Just like Jim Carter.
Well, OK, mine kinda suck....
วันอังคาร, มกราคม 30, 2550
Tuesday Morality Play
I've been re-reading the great Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a 1167-page epic on the morality of unfettered capitalism, and the immorality of those who feed off of it while contributing nothing to the process. That's simplifying, of course, and the Randites would likely have my head for it (as would Rand herself). But be that as it may; that's not my point...
Rand has a brilliant definition of morality snuggled in on page 177 of my edition; I'd like to share it. She was a fierce atheist, and it is always interesting to see how a "nonbeliever" defines such things, as so many assume that religion can be the only basis for a moral grounding. Religion certainly can be a good place to start (especially Judeo-Christianity!), but it is not the exclusive provider of such, as Rand will prove...
So! here we are, In Atlas Shrugged - Primary protaginist Dagny Taggert sits in a skid row diner, dressed for a business conference she had fled when she discovered its true purpose, and the nature of its participants. Sipping at a cup of coffee, she bandies with the lifeless drifters around her:
"Spirit?" said the old bum. "There's no spirit involved in manufacturing....it doesn't take any morality to turn out a ten-ton truck on an assembly line."
"What is morality?" she {Taggert} asked.
"Judgement to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. But where does one find it?"
On an assembly line!!, Rand would say, where only a ruthless desire to create the best ten-ton truck possible will allow the company, and its employees, to survive.
Nevertheless - I just love Rand's definition.
How many who proudly wear their self-embossed label of "morality" see a truth but have not the courage to act upon it?
How often have we seen someone who obviously recognizes a good, sound idea, but are afraid to support it, knowing and fearing the backlash they would face?
How many persons have abandoned a position, one that they claimed to hold dearly, because they could not fight off the pressure to flip; or, as Rand would say, bacause they lacked the integrity to stand by the good at any price?
How many leaders today cannot distinguish right from wrong, have no vision even to see the truth, but only act upon what is personally expediant for them at the moment?
Rand's definition of morality transcends all religious ones for me - it is easy to say, "Hey, I never killed a man, so I must be a good person". It is harder, so much harder, to live by Ayn Rand's simple one-sentence definition of a "code of life". It is a challenge to face the world and not back down to fear, fate, or the fickle finger of popular opinion.
Perhaps now, in these perilous times, we need a leader that can take Rand's sacred oath, and stand by an idea - the good- and see it through, no matter what the personal consequences. It takes more than religious grounding to make a man moral; it takes an understanding of, and an attempt to live life by, Rand's exacting code...a man that lives by Rand's morality, and is not broken by it, is one that can carry the world...
Rand has a brilliant definition of morality snuggled in on page 177 of my edition; I'd like to share it. She was a fierce atheist, and it is always interesting to see how a "nonbeliever" defines such things, as so many assume that religion can be the only basis for a moral grounding. Religion certainly can be a good place to start (especially Judeo-Christianity!), but it is not the exclusive provider of such, as Rand will prove...
So! here we are, In Atlas Shrugged - Primary protaginist Dagny Taggert sits in a skid row diner, dressed for a business conference she had fled when she discovered its true purpose, and the nature of its participants. Sipping at a cup of coffee, she bandies with the lifeless drifters around her:
"Spirit?" said the old bum. "There's no spirit involved in manufacturing....it doesn't take any morality to turn out a ten-ton truck on an assembly line."
"What is morality?" she {Taggert} asked.
"Judgement to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. But where does one find it?"
On an assembly line!!, Rand would say, where only a ruthless desire to create the best ten-ton truck possible will allow the company, and its employees, to survive.
Nevertheless - I just love Rand's definition.
How many who proudly wear their self-embossed label of "morality" see a truth but have not the courage to act upon it?
How often have we seen someone who obviously recognizes a good, sound idea, but are afraid to support it, knowing and fearing the backlash they would face?
How many persons have abandoned a position, one that they claimed to hold dearly, because they could not fight off the pressure to flip; or, as Rand would say, bacause they lacked the integrity to stand by the good at any price?
How many leaders today cannot distinguish right from wrong, have no vision even to see the truth, but only act upon what is personally expediant for them at the moment?
Rand's definition of morality transcends all religious ones for me - it is easy to say, "Hey, I never killed a man, so I must be a good person". It is harder, so much harder, to live by Ayn Rand's simple one-sentence definition of a "code of life". It is a challenge to face the world and not back down to fear, fate, or the fickle finger of popular opinion.
Perhaps now, in these perilous times, we need a leader that can take Rand's sacred oath, and stand by an idea - the good- and see it through, no matter what the personal consequences. It takes more than religious grounding to make a man moral; it takes an understanding of, and an attempt to live life by, Rand's exacting code...a man that lives by Rand's morality, and is not broken by it, is one that can carry the world...
วันจันทร์, มกราคม 29, 2550
Only in New Jersey, Part 74:
Is the following an example of corrupt stupidity? Or stupid corruption? Or neither; does it just shine a light on the mind-boggling quality of leadership within the state of New Jersey? From an editorial in Sunday's Asbury Park Press; this story is pretty hard to believe:
We're not sure which is more pathetic: a small-town New Jersey mayor begging the Kuwaiti government for a handout or the mayor, now deposed, threatening to send a dead fish to a Press reporter nosing around the story. If you don't know the symbolism behind that threat, pick up a copy of "The Godfather."
Former Lake Como Mayor Lawrence G. Chiaravallo, who was defeated at the polls in November after an eight-year reign, sent a series of letters to the Kuwaiti government starting in 2001 asking whether they would be willing to pony up $750,000 for a new borough hall.
Chiaravallo apparently felt the Kuwaitis owed the U.S., and by extension Lake Como, formerly called South Belmar, a debt of gratitude... Chiaravallo, a former drug company salesman, made his pitch to the Kuwaitis only after his entreaties to Oprah Winfrey and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fell on deaf ears.
The Kuwaiti ambassador actually agreed to meet with Chiaravallo in Washington last summer — likely to get him off his back. By that time, the new borough hall had been built. But Chiaravallo presented a new $3.7 million wish list for a new police building, a new firehouse and a ladder truck. C hiaravallo swears the ambassador didn't throw him out on his ear, and suggests that if he had won re-election, the Kuwaitis might have written out a check.
When the story of Chiaravallo's secret dealings with the Kuwaitis first broke in the Press last month, the newly elected mayor, Michael B. Ryan, said he was "appalled" Chiaravallo would be negotiating with a foreign country to build a police headquarters. He has since modified his views. Last week, he again said he was appalled — but apparently not enough to reject charity from the Kuwaitis if their generosity could be used instead to build a new firehouse or pay down debt....
Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. I wonder, if the Kuwaitis had agreed to pay for the Mayor's wishlist, if he would have done something for them in return if asked - very little is given these days with no strings attached, especially when coming from an Emir's checkbook...
And for futher giggles, read the first comment after the editorial:
What did he do to merit such scorn but look to save the taxpayers of Lake Como, some of their hard earned dollars! He thought outside the box and arrived at almost a great solution to the problem of having a municipal building that was built in the 1950's...
...you scorn the man for intelligent creative thinking! You all deserve what you have gotten! You are incapable of saying thank you, Larry for looking out for our interests! Well-done, Mr. Mayor!!!
Well, even in insanity there is a grain of philosophy...we all do "deserve what you have gotten", by allowing a culture of corruption, deceit, and stupidity to become so ingrained and consequence-free that we simply vote out one lot of criminals and replace them with a different variation on the same theme.
We're not sure which is more pathetic: a small-town New Jersey mayor begging the Kuwaiti government for a handout or the mayor, now deposed, threatening to send a dead fish to a Press reporter nosing around the story. If you don't know the symbolism behind that threat, pick up a copy of "The Godfather."
Former Lake Como Mayor Lawrence G. Chiaravallo, who was defeated at the polls in November after an eight-year reign, sent a series of letters to the Kuwaiti government starting in 2001 asking whether they would be willing to pony up $750,000 for a new borough hall.
Chiaravallo apparently felt the Kuwaitis owed the U.S., and by extension Lake Como, formerly called South Belmar, a debt of gratitude... Chiaravallo, a former drug company salesman, made his pitch to the Kuwaitis only after his entreaties to Oprah Winfrey and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fell on deaf ears.
The Kuwaiti ambassador actually agreed to meet with Chiaravallo in Washington last summer — likely to get him off his back. By that time, the new borough hall had been built. But Chiaravallo presented a new $3.7 million wish list for a new police building, a new firehouse and a ladder truck. C hiaravallo swears the ambassador didn't throw him out on his ear, and suggests that if he had won re-election, the Kuwaitis might have written out a check.
When the story of Chiaravallo's secret dealings with the Kuwaitis first broke in the Press last month, the newly elected mayor, Michael B. Ryan, said he was "appalled" Chiaravallo would be negotiating with a foreign country to build a police headquarters. He has since modified his views. Last week, he again said he was appalled — but apparently not enough to reject charity from the Kuwaitis if their generosity could be used instead to build a new firehouse or pay down debt....
Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. I wonder, if the Kuwaitis had agreed to pay for the Mayor's wishlist, if he would have done something for them in return if asked - very little is given these days with no strings attached, especially when coming from an Emir's checkbook...
And for futher giggles, read the first comment after the editorial:
What did he do to merit such scorn but look to save the taxpayers of Lake Como, some of their hard earned dollars! He thought outside the box and arrived at almost a great solution to the problem of having a municipal building that was built in the 1950's...
...you scorn the man for intelligent creative thinking! You all deserve what you have gotten! You are incapable of saying thank you, Larry for looking out for our interests! Well-done, Mr. Mayor!!!
Well, even in insanity there is a grain of philosophy...we all do "deserve what you have gotten", by allowing a culture of corruption, deceit, and stupidity to become so ingrained and consequence-free that we simply vote out one lot of criminals and replace them with a different variation on the same theme.
Let's keep digging, folks...you know you haven't hit the bottom in Jersey until the ooze starts seeping up between your toes...
วันอาทิตย์, มกราคม 28, 2550
I'll take my truth with a twist of lie, thank you
Big win for American and Iraqi soldiers today, rooting out a large squad of insurgents and terrorists in Najaf, right?
Right?
Well, the New York Times tells the story like this:
...at least 250 people were killed near the city of Najaf on Sunday in what appeared to be one of Iraq’s deadliest battles in years, Iraqi officials said.
For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.
Col. Ali Numaas, a spokesman for the Iraqi security forces in Najaf, said that the fighting stopped just after 10 p.m. and that most of those killed were militants.
This is about as good as winning warfare gets, right?
So why the hell does the Times use the following headline:
U.S. Helicopter Is Shot Down in Iraq Battle
If a 250-2 kill ratio is considered unacceptable, than I think the bar has been raised just a little too high...
Or else the Times is hoping people stop reading after the headline, so they can continue to decry the "bad news coming daily out of Iraq"...
Update January 30th: Gateway Pundit has a follow up on this disgusting behavior....
Right?
Well, the New York Times tells the story like this:
...at least 250 people were killed near the city of Najaf on Sunday in what appeared to be one of Iraq’s deadliest battles in years, Iraqi officials said.
For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.
Col. Ali Numaas, a spokesman for the Iraqi security forces in Najaf, said that the fighting stopped just after 10 p.m. and that most of those killed were militants.
This is about as good as winning warfare gets, right?
So why the hell does the Times use the following headline:
U.S. Helicopter Is Shot Down in Iraq Battle
If a 250-2 kill ratio is considered unacceptable, than I think the bar has been raised just a little too high...
Or else the Times is hoping people stop reading after the headline, so they can continue to decry the "bad news coming daily out of Iraq"...
Update January 30th: Gateway Pundit has a follow up on this disgusting behavior....
C.S. Lewis Speaks Truth from the Grave...
...and we ought to take heed. Lewis, author of the "Chronicles of Narnia" series (and best friend of "Lord of the Rings" creator J.R.R Tolkien), knew the dangers of nanny-state-ism some sixty years back:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Think Europe, think New Jersey, think Hillary Clinton and our San Fran Nanny, Nancy Pelosi....will Lewis' tyranny come to America? Lord knows they are trying, all for our own good, of course, with the media informing us we are nothing short of cave-dwelling Neanderthals (or, God help you, no better than a Bush-voting neocon!) should you dare to think independently, and choose otherwise...
Link via Pejman at his Chequer-Board...
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Think Europe, think New Jersey, think Hillary Clinton and our San Fran Nanny, Nancy Pelosi....will Lewis' tyranny come to America? Lord knows they are trying, all for our own good, of course, with the media informing us we are nothing short of cave-dwelling Neanderthals (or, God help you, no better than a Bush-voting neocon!) should you dare to think independently, and choose otherwise...
Link via Pejman at his Chequer-Board...
วันเสาร์, มกราคม 27, 2550
Saturday Night Teases...
...aw heck, you can go home with them if you want; I won't tell anyone....
Well, the Danes get it, even if no one else does - via the Gates of Vienna:
When democracy let the optimists succeed in classifying the pessimists as xenophobes and Islamophobes, it embarked upon a catastrophic course. And the media who have aided to maintain the illusion bear a particular part of the blame...
Er, it seems like the Swedes can learn a thing or two from Macbeth's kin - this report from the Brussels Journal:
I keep hearing claims that Muslims are the Jews of today, but from my point of view, it looks as if Jews of today are, well, Jews. Jews are suffering attacks across much of Western Europe at rates worse than at any time since the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s, and again, this is largely caused by Muslims.
And from the "Whoops, I did it..." department:
JOHN KERRY does it again. Like Jimmy Carter, he'll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he'll console himself with the approval of America's enemies...
Brittney Spears-Federline weeps...lots of good links and commentary at Instapundit (link above).
Just a headline this time:
"U.S. Kids are Fat and Lazy.”
From Germany, no less....isn't that what Herr Goebbels used to propogate back in the '40's, while trying to discredit the US Army? No, wait - maybe I'm thinking of John Kerry ?
Need a drink yet? They're still serving at the Parkway Rest Stop, where Jim tells us how it is:
If there is a cork in the bottle, it’s a “good one”.
And some philosophy from Homer J. (warning! link not work-safe!):
Just squeeze your rage into a bitter little ball and release it at an appropriate time.
Like that day I hit that referee with a whiskey bottle. 'Member that?
-- Homer Simpson
Shocker! Guess who really, really likes Jimmy Dhimmi Carter's book? Hint: They really, really hate the Jews too! Just like Jimmy!
Carter tells his stories well, presenting them in a delightfully conversational manner...
Yeah, and Hitler gave great speeches, too....
Final tease of the night, and it is just that...from New Jersey, of course:
I killed a hooker.
That's right. Shot her right in the chest, picked up the wad of cash she dropped and was back asleep within my apartment in a few minutes dreaming of Heidi Klum.
Did I feel bad? Not at all, because I needed the money....
Iraq, and the Political Poseurs....
Two different columns in today's Washington Post illustrate the deeply flawed leadership we have in America today. The idea of using a war (or a natural catastrophe, like Katrina) as an opportunity for political posturing and point-scoring was once considered unthinkable, but the Democrat's sheer hatred of George W. Bush allowed them to break down all barriers in their bloodlust to, if not bring him down, at least make him bleed. And if the nation bleeds with him? Well, collateral damage is OK in politics, reasons the Left, just not in warfare...
David Broder gets the stage first:
When Lt. Gen. David Petraeus went before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open session, its members understandably had many questions for the new commander of American forces in Iraq.....
....A few of the questions were naive, self-serving or tangents.....
With one exception. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign.
She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a "Congress [that] was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense, refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground."
From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry "the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future."
Apparently, General Petraeus had a mere four word reply to Hillary's endless harraunge. She followed up with...no futher questions.
Appalling enough that this woman, who dreams of becoming America's commander-in-chief, is playing presidential politics while the most important military officer in the United States waits patiently before her. But doesn't she have the responsibility, as a sitting Senator on this prestigous committee, to ask questions of the General regarding policy, tactics, rules of engagement, and results? Or is it understood that her duty to her constituents in New York has been discharged now that she is running for president?
She can learn from John McCain, who ran out of time before he ran out of questions...Broder has an explanation for her bizarre behavior, one which I find completely plausable:
...Clinton is reverting to the mode of her ill-fated 1993-94 health-care initiative, when she gave members of Congress and other interested folks the impression that she thought she had all the answers -- so please just do as I say.
Well, lemme tell you something...Hillary ain't getting nominated. Do you know one red state that will go blue for Hillary? Yeah, me neither. And if she's so smart, how come she didn't know her husband was rogering the interns?
More on shameful wartime politics from Robert Kagen:
It's quite a juxtaposition. In Iraq, American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad -- the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution everyone claims to want.
Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off.
The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do instead ...
...supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States?
Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous.
Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.
To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to believe it is a problem that can be made to go away...
But that's the same position the Democrats have taken since September 12th, 2001...standing in the rubble of the Pentagon and World Trade Center, they declare: Nothing to see here folks, just move it along! It's just a criminal problem, a quality-of life nuisance! Avert your eyes, it will all go away, so we can talk about the really important issues, like government-based heathcare, oil company profits, and greenhouse gas emmissions....
This posturing by the Democrats is the worst example of leadership failure since Emperor Nero saw the flames, and took to his fiddle....
David Broder gets the stage first:
When Lt. Gen. David Petraeus went before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open session, its members understandably had many questions for the new commander of American forces in Iraq.....
....A few of the questions were naive, self-serving or tangents.....
With one exception. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign.
She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a "Congress [that] was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense, refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground."
From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry "the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future."
Apparently, General Petraeus had a mere four word reply to Hillary's endless harraunge. She followed up with...no futher questions.
Appalling enough that this woman, who dreams of becoming America's commander-in-chief, is playing presidential politics while the most important military officer in the United States waits patiently before her. But doesn't she have the responsibility, as a sitting Senator on this prestigous committee, to ask questions of the General regarding policy, tactics, rules of engagement, and results? Or is it understood that her duty to her constituents in New York has been discharged now that she is running for president?
She can learn from John McCain, who ran out of time before he ran out of questions...Broder has an explanation for her bizarre behavior, one which I find completely plausable:
...Clinton is reverting to the mode of her ill-fated 1993-94 health-care initiative, when she gave members of Congress and other interested folks the impression that she thought she had all the answers -- so please just do as I say.
Well, lemme tell you something...Hillary ain't getting nominated. Do you know one red state that will go blue for Hillary? Yeah, me neither. And if she's so smart, how come she didn't know her husband was rogering the interns?
More on shameful wartime politics from Robert Kagen:
It's quite a juxtaposition. In Iraq, American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad -- the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution everyone claims to want.
Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off.
The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do instead ...
...supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States?
Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous.
Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.
To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to believe it is a problem that can be made to go away...
But that's the same position the Democrats have taken since September 12th, 2001...standing in the rubble of the Pentagon and World Trade Center, they declare: Nothing to see here folks, just move it along! It's just a criminal problem, a quality-of life nuisance! Avert your eyes, it will all go away, so we can talk about the really important issues, like government-based heathcare, oil company profits, and greenhouse gas emmissions....
This posturing by the Democrats is the worst example of leadership failure since Emperor Nero saw the flames, and took to his fiddle....
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)