The soldiers of WW2 had Tokoyo Rose; we have Air-America. I don’t have a transcript, but what I heard this morning between approximately 7-720AM EST was as follows:
- America has vastly undercounted the amount of worldwide terrorism in 2004 (previously, mind you, we were “overcounting” it to support our evil war aims).
- Most Americans don’t care about the rest of the world; only America (they pointedly singled out “Christian Conservatives” and that convenient bogeyman, “the far right”). Nevertheless, we all share in the blame as Americans in the rise of worldwide terrorism, since the Iraq war has given terrorists a training ground to use to export terror elsewhere. {this is classic anti-American liberalism – we are to blame for all the world’s problems because we fought back. If only we just listened…}
- The Insurgents are winning! The "Morning Sedition" (appropriate title, at least they know themselves) team claimed that since reporters fear to leave Baghdad, they are unaware of the “fact” that the insurgents are taking over the country town by town (of course, when the media reported chaos in Iraq because terrorists were targeting reporter’s hotels in Baghdad, there was no concern about limited access to the rest of Iraq) and that we have just stopped “engaging” them.
- I turned it off as they were mumbling about some hostage crisis they seemed disappointed wasn’t panning out as truthful http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20050418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050418125931
Well, there you have it, folks…we have accusations of lying by American officials, blaming Americans for all terror attacks worldwide, demanding “apologies” from Americans; and propaganda, completely unverifiable, that the insurgents are winning the war.
This is classic sedition, all right – some may call it treason, as they are certainly giving psychological aid and comfort to the enemy.
I have asked in the past http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/03/air-america-fck-no.html
for people to listen to Air-America, if only to see how truly vile and anti-American it is.
What I wish to do is make a list of public figures that appear on-air with these slimebags, and ask them if they agree with the positions put forth by this network.
I want to see them squirm...
Monday, April 18, 2005
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Sunday Science, w/Ordnance on the Half-Shell !
In recent research stolen from the "Liberal Labs", here's an interesting article
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=1&u=/space/20050330/sc_space/iceagesblamedontiltedearth showing that a natural, recurring change in the degree of tile in the planet's access may be responsible for the occurance of Ice Ages.
The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. But the angle is not constant - it is currently decreasing from a maximum of 24 degrees towards a minimum of 22.5 degrees. This variation goes in a 40,000-year cycle.
Peter Huybers of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have compared the timing of the tilt variations with that of the last seven ice ages. They found that the ends of those periods - called glacial terminations - corresponded to times of greatest tilt.
"The apparent reason for this is that the annual average sunlight in the higher latitudes is greater when the tilt is at maximum," Huybers told LiveScience in a telephone interview.
More sunlight seasonally hitting polar regions would help to melt the ice sheets.
This article indicates we should be entering a new ice age; but as the expected changes are not occuring, human factors (ie: warming) may be a contributing factor. Time to supersize those SUV's, folks, because the ice age will not stop by itself!
Next up is this related study showing that changes in ocean currents were a reaction to, and did not cause, ice ages http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/2005/04_07_05.htm . Here they state as a matter of fact:
Ice ages are driven by changes in the amount of heat that arrives at the poles from the sun.
..which would seem to validate the first article. Maybe enviornmental groups would do better to look at the forest, instead of just focusing on a few trees.
I wasn't kidding about this info being lifted from "the liberal files"; I got them via Crystalinks,
http://www.crystalinks.com/ezine.html , kind of a new-age clearinghouse linking to various events of interest to editor "Ellie". Everything from Earth Science and Sunspot Meters to UFO's over Stonehedge, Ellie has something (including an inspirational message or two) for everyone. Just for giggles, also see:
Stone Age Erotica Found
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050411/sexystatue.html
Conspiracy Page (alright, not as funny)
http://www.crystalinks.com/conspiracy.html
Finally, in the "only in New Jersey" files; the Asbury Park Press reports in an editorial entitled "Ordnance on the Half-Shell" http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050416/OPINION/50416001/1029, they inform us that:
...the Army Corps of Engineers has issued warnings that some processed clamshells were found to contain unexploded World War I-era ordnance from munition dumpings off the Atlantic coast.
Hand and rifle grenades, mortar rounds and even cannon shells were traced back through a trucking outfit to a company that makes canned clams. That company is now scanning incoming harvests of clams with metal detecting equipment.
There's that Homeland Security for you!
UPDATE April22nd: The Glaciers are retreating, but apparently it's more than global warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4471135.stm :
Although higher air temperatures are a factor, they say, the full picture may go beyond just simple global warming...This study demonstrates the enormous importance of gathering long-term data.
I love they way global warming was one of those scientific absolutes among the liberal community; yeah, as if you can figure out global temperature patterns on a four billion year old planet just by saying, "but..but... this is the second straight hot summer!"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=1&u=/space/20050330/sc_space/iceagesblamedontiltedearth showing that a natural, recurring change in the degree of tile in the planet's access may be responsible for the occurance of Ice Ages.
The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. But the angle is not constant - it is currently decreasing from a maximum of 24 degrees towards a minimum of 22.5 degrees. This variation goes in a 40,000-year cycle.
Peter Huybers of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have compared the timing of the tilt variations with that of the last seven ice ages. They found that the ends of those periods - called glacial terminations - corresponded to times of greatest tilt.
"The apparent reason for this is that the annual average sunlight in the higher latitudes is greater when the tilt is at maximum," Huybers told LiveScience in a telephone interview.
More sunlight seasonally hitting polar regions would help to melt the ice sheets.
This article indicates we should be entering a new ice age; but as the expected changes are not occuring, human factors (ie: warming) may be a contributing factor. Time to supersize those SUV's, folks, because the ice age will not stop by itself!
Next up is this related study showing that changes in ocean currents were a reaction to, and did not cause, ice ages http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/2005/04_07_05.htm . Here they state as a matter of fact:
Ice ages are driven by changes in the amount of heat that arrives at the poles from the sun.
..which would seem to validate the first article. Maybe enviornmental groups would do better to look at the forest, instead of just focusing on a few trees.
I wasn't kidding about this info being lifted from "the liberal files"; I got them via Crystalinks,
http://www.crystalinks.com/ezine.html , kind of a new-age clearinghouse linking to various events of interest to editor "Ellie". Everything from Earth Science and Sunspot Meters to UFO's over Stonehedge, Ellie has something (including an inspirational message or two) for everyone. Just for giggles, also see:
Stone Age Erotica Found
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050411/sexystatue.html
Conspiracy Page (alright, not as funny)
http://www.crystalinks.com/conspiracy.html
Finally, in the "only in New Jersey" files; the Asbury Park Press reports in an editorial entitled "Ordnance on the Half-Shell" http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050416/OPINION/50416001/1029, they inform us that:
...the Army Corps of Engineers has issued warnings that some processed clamshells were found to contain unexploded World War I-era ordnance from munition dumpings off the Atlantic coast.
Hand and rifle grenades, mortar rounds and even cannon shells were traced back through a trucking outfit to a company that makes canned clams. That company is now scanning incoming harvests of clams with metal detecting equipment.
There's that Homeland Security for you!
UPDATE April22nd: The Glaciers are retreating, but apparently it's more than global warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4471135.stm :
Although higher air temperatures are a factor, they say, the full picture may go beyond just simple global warming...This study demonstrates the enormous importance of gathering long-term data.
I love they way global warming was one of those scientific absolutes among the liberal community; yeah, as if you can figure out global temperature patterns on a four billion year old planet just by saying, "but..but... this is the second straight hot summer!"
The Evil Agenda of the Pontificating Pundits
We have written much on how, well, totally wrong the media and its so-called experts have been on all matters international. Via Roger Simon, http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/04/the_scowcroftbr.php ,we link to Victor Davis Hanson's essay in NRO, where he dissects and explodes the theories these media-appointed wise men hold so dearly. Mr. Simon believes:
What Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Albright et al really want is the status quo. It is the preservation of the "expertise of the experts" above all. If nothing changes, they remain in place.
Nothing to differentiate them from all of Europe's business/political class, I suppose...maybe that's why they are always whining about "multilateralism" with our European "allies".
Just a few of the bombs Hanson highlights:
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war... He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq.
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.”
Yea, OK, Ms. Albright, I'm sure it was real difficult...(and on a side note, a good friend of mine ran into Ms. Albright in a tony New York haberdashery during the late summer of '04; she was crowing to whomever would listen about how "George Bush's time was up!". Right again, dahling...).
Read it all; this archive piece http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200504150749.asp refers to a WSJ article that refers to the media's ignorance of the facts at hand as simple cowardice. Is that worse than propogating the status quo for continued employment as a talking head, even if it means using the prestige of your name to frighten people? Evil is as Evil does, I guess...
One more from Hanson:
Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
Only if your hatred of George Bush is greater than your love for freedom for the peoples of the world...
What Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Albright et al really want is the status quo. It is the preservation of the "expertise of the experts" above all. If nothing changes, they remain in place.
Nothing to differentiate them from all of Europe's business/political class, I suppose...maybe that's why they are always whining about "multilateralism" with our European "allies".
Just a few of the bombs Hanson highlights:
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war... He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq.
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.”
Yea, OK, Ms. Albright, I'm sure it was real difficult...(and on a side note, a good friend of mine ran into Ms. Albright in a tony New York haberdashery during the late summer of '04; she was crowing to whomever would listen about how "George Bush's time was up!". Right again, dahling...).
Read it all; this archive piece http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200504150749.asp refers to a WSJ article that refers to the media's ignorance of the facts at hand as simple cowardice. Is that worse than propogating the status quo for continued employment as a talking head, even if it means using the prestige of your name to frighten people? Evil is as Evil does, I guess...
One more from Hanson:
Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
Only if your hatred of George Bush is greater than your love for freedom for the peoples of the world...
Saturday, April 16, 2005
European Appeasement and the Iranian People
While Europe bends and scrapes before the hate-filled Mullahs of Tehran, (while patting themselves on the back as "peaceful progressives"), the Iranian people seethe. In today's WaPO, this column http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57772-2005Apr15.html by Elahé Sharifpour-Hicks, speaks the great truth that Europe fears to hear:
The reasons for the failure of Iran's reform movement will be debated by historians, but what is remarkable is the extent to which the West, the rhetoric of the Bush administration notwithstanding, appears prepared to acquiesce in Iran's slide into immovable authoritarianism, precisely the form of governance that Western leaders, led by the Bush administration, have identified as being conducive to the growth of terrorism elsewhere in the region.
"Acquiesce" is a nice word for "Appease", no? Our author is being too polite...
A call for an end to U.S. pressure means acquiescing to the status quo. The broader Middle East is showing ample evidence of the power of clear U.S. rhetoric in favor of freedom and democracy to bring about change
True enough; those who call for the end of US pressure, especially the Europeans, do not want Iran to change. They can make money this way (see Saddam, Cahvez, China, etc.). Now here's the best policy advice I've seen anywhere in the WaPo in years:
The United States should make clear that it is ready to resume dialogue with the Iranian government on the full range of concerns between the two countries as soon as a government that is representative of the wishes of the Iranian people, freely expressed, is in power in Tehran. That does not include a retread version of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, or any of his bloodstained acolytes...In the meantime the United States would do well to maintain its efforts to reach out to the Iranian people over the heads of their government
Are you listening, US State Department? Or are you waiting for an editorial in tommorow's New York Times, promoting continued appeasement and validating your failed point of view?
The reasons for the failure of Iran's reform movement will be debated by historians, but what is remarkable is the extent to which the West, the rhetoric of the Bush administration notwithstanding, appears prepared to acquiesce in Iran's slide into immovable authoritarianism, precisely the form of governance that Western leaders, led by the Bush administration, have identified as being conducive to the growth of terrorism elsewhere in the region.
"Acquiesce" is a nice word for "Appease", no? Our author is being too polite...
A call for an end to U.S. pressure means acquiescing to the status quo. The broader Middle East is showing ample evidence of the power of clear U.S. rhetoric in favor of freedom and democracy to bring about change
True enough; those who call for the end of US pressure, especially the Europeans, do not want Iran to change. They can make money this way (see Saddam, Cahvez, China, etc.). Now here's the best policy advice I've seen anywhere in the WaPo in years:
The United States should make clear that it is ready to resume dialogue with the Iranian government on the full range of concerns between the two countries as soon as a government that is representative of the wishes of the Iranian people, freely expressed, is in power in Tehran. That does not include a retread version of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, or any of his bloodstained acolytes...In the meantime the United States would do well to maintain its efforts to reach out to the Iranian people over the heads of their government
Are you listening, US State Department? Or are you waiting for an editorial in tommorow's New York Times, promoting continued appeasement and validating your failed point of view?
NFL says NO to Mexico!
...Ronnie Mexico, that is.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpZ2NvMjltBF9TAzk1ODYxMDU5BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-falcons-ronmexicojerseys&prov=ap&type=lgns
Note to professional athletes: When engaging in trysts, please sign in with a name too long to fit onto the back of a jersey.
Too funny....
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpZ2NvMjltBF9TAzk1ODYxMDU5BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-falcons-ronmexicojerseys&prov=ap&type=lgns
Note to professional athletes: When engaging in trysts, please sign in with a name too long to fit onto the back of a jersey.
Too funny....
Friday, April 15, 2005
Indeceny Regs? Trust parents, says Bush
The Jersey Nut is not a big fan of government involvement in my television viewing. While I support a ratings system that informs parents of program content, I abhor the whiff of censorship and eye warily any Congressional "investigations" into media products.
The President did a Q&A with the American Society of Newspaper Editors yesterday, and when asked whether he supported extending indecency regulations into cable/satellite, he said the following:
I don’t mind standards being set out for people to judge the content of a show to help parents make right decisions…the government ought to help parents, not hinder them
Now, although the article I am quoting (From Broadcast and Cable; available online via subscription only, hence no link) is titled, Bush Backs Pay and Satellite Indecency Standards, I don’t think that is where he is going here. I believe when he says standards being set out for people to judge the content, he is talking about a ratings-type feature, as he does not mention barring any type of programming. He goes further:
The final edit is a parent turning off the TV. The ultimate responsibility in a consumer-driven environment is for people to say I’m not going to watch it and turn the knob off. That is how to best make decisions and how best to make influences.
This is Bush Classic (and why I love the guy); he is telling ME that he would have the government give me information on programming; but leave the decision on whether or not to view it to ME as well. The free hand of the free market; television, with its emphasis on drawing eyeballs to the product, is possibly the most purely capitalistic enterprise in the country.
Bush knows that; he says:
Look, we’re a free society. The marketplace makes decisions; if you don’t like something, don’t watch it. And presumably, advertising dollars will wither and the show will go off the air, but I have no problems with standards being set to help parents make good decisions
It echoes what Bush said on CSPAN last January, when in a general conversation about television, said the government can –
at times, not censor, but call to account programming that goes over the line.
Perfect. Hands off my TV; but do punish those who provide the wrong content at the wrong time (Nudity during NYPD Blue is fine, but not in 8 Simple Rules…). Granted, that may be a judgment call as well, but investigations of this type should be limited in number and scope. President Bush understands that; he doesn’t want Congress regulating what’s on his TV either.
That’s why he’s The Man.
The President did a Q&A with the American Society of Newspaper Editors yesterday, and when asked whether he supported extending indecency regulations into cable/satellite, he said the following:
I don’t mind standards being set out for people to judge the content of a show to help parents make right decisions…the government ought to help parents, not hinder them
Now, although the article I am quoting (From Broadcast and Cable; available online via subscription only, hence no link) is titled, Bush Backs Pay and Satellite Indecency Standards, I don’t think that is where he is going here. I believe when he says standards being set out for people to judge the content, he is talking about a ratings-type feature, as he does not mention barring any type of programming. He goes further:
The final edit is a parent turning off the TV. The ultimate responsibility in a consumer-driven environment is for people to say I’m not going to watch it and turn the knob off. That is how to best make decisions and how best to make influences.
This is Bush Classic (and why I love the guy); he is telling ME that he would have the government give me information on programming; but leave the decision on whether or not to view it to ME as well. The free hand of the free market; television, with its emphasis on drawing eyeballs to the product, is possibly the most purely capitalistic enterprise in the country.
Bush knows that; he says:
Look, we’re a free society. The marketplace makes decisions; if you don’t like something, don’t watch it. And presumably, advertising dollars will wither and the show will go off the air, but I have no problems with standards being set to help parents make good decisions
It echoes what Bush said on CSPAN last January, when in a general conversation about television, said the government can –
at times, not censor, but call to account programming that goes over the line.
Perfect. Hands off my TV; but do punish those who provide the wrong content at the wrong time (Nudity during NYPD Blue is fine, but not in 8 Simple Rules…). Granted, that may be a judgment call as well, but investigations of this type should be limited in number and scope. President Bush understands that; he doesn’t want Congress regulating what’s on his TV either.
That’s why he’s The Man.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Hillary rages; Media Mum…
I’ve reported about Ms. Clinton’s anti-Republican, anti-Robot rant in this post http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-clinton-and-vast-right-wing.html ,
but the Democratic Media has been mostly silent about it, knowing it would hurt the case they are trying to build to the American public, depicting her as a “centrist” Democrat that would appeal to moderate-right Americans. Down the Memory Hole, right guys?
Well, the NY Post has a good follow up from Deborah Orin,
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/23210.htm where she speculates on why the “moderate” Hillary is morphing into “angry left” Hillary:
Hillary Clinton suddenly morphed into Howard Dean last Saturday when she raged on about election conspiracies and "a brave new world of extremism" — sparking some Dems to wonder if she feels a need to protect her left flank.
From? Maybe from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who's the new darling of the MoveOn far left as Clinton edges to the center on issues like abortion — and is now being touted in some quarters as a dark horse 2008 contender.
Boxer, again! (gag, spit…) – this could be the primary battle that fills every Republican’s heart with glee, one pushing the candidate so far to the left that they emerge from the convention unelectable. This will be obvious to everyone, except the Democratic Media (who will push the women angle to death, labeling all those who disapprove of such a candidate as misogynist or worse) and Chairman Dean. But Deb Orin knows:
She sounded surprisingly shrill. Republicans are saving the tape.
Soon to air on a station near you! You better frown when you see it, male chauvinist pig!
but the Democratic Media has been mostly silent about it, knowing it would hurt the case they are trying to build to the American public, depicting her as a “centrist” Democrat that would appeal to moderate-right Americans. Down the Memory Hole, right guys?
Well, the NY Post has a good follow up from Deborah Orin,
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/23210.htm where she speculates on why the “moderate” Hillary is morphing into “angry left” Hillary:
Hillary Clinton suddenly morphed into Howard Dean last Saturday when she raged on about election conspiracies and "a brave new world of extremism" — sparking some Dems to wonder if she feels a need to protect her left flank.
From? Maybe from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who's the new darling of the MoveOn far left as Clinton edges to the center on issues like abortion — and is now being touted in some quarters as a dark horse 2008 contender.
Boxer, again! (gag, spit…) – this could be the primary battle that fills every Republican’s heart with glee, one pushing the candidate so far to the left that they emerge from the convention unelectable. This will be obvious to everyone, except the Democratic Media (who will push the women angle to death, labeling all those who disapprove of such a candidate as misogynist or worse) and Chairman Dean. But Deb Orin knows:
She sounded surprisingly shrill. Republicans are saving the tape.
Soon to air on a station near you! You better frown when you see it, male chauvinist pig!
Bolton-Bashing continues…
In today’s Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51669-2005Apr13.html liberal apologist Richard Cohen has some things to say regarding George Bush’s nominee to the post of UN Ambassador:
He's nuts.
Of course, the Saddams, Arafats, and Castros of the world are the sane ones, right? As proof, he quotes a very sane and calm California Senator:
…to quote Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he "needs anger management."
Cohen goes on to describe him as:
…abrasive, insolent and so insufferably self-righteous that he cannot allow the possibility of his being wrong.
Sweet Jebus, sounds like the perfect description of a newspaper columnist to me! If I may quote myself http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/democratic-media-flaunts-their.html
All the Media’s columnists, and all the Media’s men, were wrong – about the war, about the president, about the American people, about…everything.
Why do they expect us to heed them now?
The Times’ token conservative, David Brooks, lists the reasons
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/opinion/14brooks.html why we need
a person like Bolton as our man in the United Nations; I’ll just show #4/#5
Fourth, we understand that these mushy international organizations liberate the barbaric and handcuff the civilized. Bodies like the U.N. can toss hapless resolutions at the Milosevics, the Saddams or the butchers of Darfur, but they can do nothing to restrain them. Meanwhile, the forces of decency can be paralyzed as they wait for "the international community."
Fifth, we know that when push comes to shove, all the grand talk about international norms is often just a cover for opposing the global elite's bêtes noires of the moment - usually the U.S. or Israel. We will never grant legitimacy to forums that are so often manipulated for partisan ends.
John Bolton is in a good position to make these and other points. He helped reverse the U.N.'s Zionism-is-racism resolution. He led the U.S. rejection of the International Criminal Court. Time and time again, he has pointed out that the U.N. can be an effective forum where nations can go to work together, but it can never be a legitimate supranational authority in its own right.
Thanks, Mr. Brooks. I would say he is the voice of reason in the sea of insanity at the Times, but they actually printed a letter or two that disagreed with their editorial policy!
It's always amusing to see the editorial board of The Times in high dudgeon.
You may not realize this, but most Americans hold the United Nations in "withering disdain." And why not? The United Nations in its current state is worthy of withering disdain. Its only hope for survival is a complete overhaul, new rules and new leadership (many of us would be more than happy to see the whole sorry mess "scuttled").
None of that can be accomplished if we send the kind of sycophantic representative your editors would choose.
Kyda SylvesterAuburn, Calif., April 13, 2005
Well said, Kyda, well said. And as the Wall Street Journal pointed out in my post that I linked to above,
too many among America's elite lost their nerve when the going got tough… The American people passed the test…
Once again, the wisdom of the American People stand out, towering over their “betters” in the media…
UPDATE 1045AM: It took me a while to get to today's WSJ; but there is a great article
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006556 by Otto Reich entitled
John Bolton vs. the Moral Cowards where he defends himself and Mr. Bolton against attacks by the devious Dems in Congress. Quote to Note:
...regardless of the outcome of the hearings, he has provided another valuable service: he has revealed Senate hearings to be the weapon of choice of vicious and anonymous staffers and their narcissistic bosses to engage in character assassination and ideological vendettas.
Good stuff; read it all !!
UPDATE II 205PM: Today's Robert Novak column also discusses the plot to bring down Bolton http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html ; I like this line~
Only Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) could not restrain herself from declaring how ''outrageous'' it was to put a conservative U.S. representative at the U.N.
He's nuts.
Of course, the Saddams, Arafats, and Castros of the world are the sane ones, right? As proof, he quotes a very sane and calm California Senator:
…to quote Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he "needs anger management."
Cohen goes on to describe him as:
…abrasive, insolent and so insufferably self-righteous that he cannot allow the possibility of his being wrong.
Sweet Jebus, sounds like the perfect description of a newspaper columnist to me! If I may quote myself http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/democratic-media-flaunts-their.html
All the Media’s columnists, and all the Media’s men, were wrong – about the war, about the president, about the American people, about…everything.
Why do they expect us to heed them now?
The Times’ token conservative, David Brooks, lists the reasons
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/opinion/14brooks.html why we need
a person like Bolton as our man in the United Nations; I’ll just show #4/#5
Fourth, we understand that these mushy international organizations liberate the barbaric and handcuff the civilized. Bodies like the U.N. can toss hapless resolutions at the Milosevics, the Saddams or the butchers of Darfur, but they can do nothing to restrain them. Meanwhile, the forces of decency can be paralyzed as they wait for "the international community."
Fifth, we know that when push comes to shove, all the grand talk about international norms is often just a cover for opposing the global elite's bêtes noires of the moment - usually the U.S. or Israel. We will never grant legitimacy to forums that are so often manipulated for partisan ends.
John Bolton is in a good position to make these and other points. He helped reverse the U.N.'s Zionism-is-racism resolution. He led the U.S. rejection of the International Criminal Court. Time and time again, he has pointed out that the U.N. can be an effective forum where nations can go to work together, but it can never be a legitimate supranational authority in its own right.
Thanks, Mr. Brooks. I would say he is the voice of reason in the sea of insanity at the Times, but they actually printed a letter or two that disagreed with their editorial policy!
It's always amusing to see the editorial board of The Times in high dudgeon.
You may not realize this, but most Americans hold the United Nations in "withering disdain." And why not? The United Nations in its current state is worthy of withering disdain. Its only hope for survival is a complete overhaul, new rules and new leadership (many of us would be more than happy to see the whole sorry mess "scuttled").
None of that can be accomplished if we send the kind of sycophantic representative your editors would choose.
Kyda SylvesterAuburn, Calif., April 13, 2005
Well said, Kyda, well said. And as the Wall Street Journal pointed out in my post that I linked to above,
too many among America's elite lost their nerve when the going got tough… The American people passed the test…
Once again, the wisdom of the American People stand out, towering over their “betters” in the media…
UPDATE 1045AM: It took me a while to get to today's WSJ; but there is a great article
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006556 by Otto Reich entitled
John Bolton vs. the Moral Cowards where he defends himself and Mr. Bolton against attacks by the devious Dems in Congress. Quote to Note:
...regardless of the outcome of the hearings, he has provided another valuable service: he has revealed Senate hearings to be the weapon of choice of vicious and anonymous staffers and their narcissistic bosses to engage in character assassination and ideological vendettas.
Good stuff; read it all !!
UPDATE II 205PM: Today's Robert Novak column also discusses the plot to bring down Bolton http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html ; I like this line~
Only Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) could not restrain herself from declaring how ''outrageous'' it was to put a conservative U.S. representative at the U.N.
Really, Madame Senator? Even though the American people voted in a multi-tiered conservative government, you know better than us?
Ewwww; I feel so dirty writing her name twice in one day....
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
CPB and CBC go CRaaaZy !
First up is this story in The New York Times covering the replacement of The Corporation for Public Broadcasting chief executive, Kathleen A. Cox, who had been in the post less than a year, with Kenneth Ferree, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission. Or, in other words, a former Bush administration official! (cue spooky music here). Well, we’ll have none of that! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/business/media/12pbs.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1113354344-U+eFCsAx/NWOry8CHcugcw
Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, said on Monday that during Mr. Ferree's time at the F.C.C., he "seemed to be dismissive of the public interest obligations of broadcasters."
"These staff changes are being played out," Ms. Pingree said in a statement, "in what appears to be an increasingly politically charged environment for public broadcasting, roiled by recent administration and Congressional criticisms of certain of its programming decisions."
She said Mr. Ferree "seems an unlikely choice to steer C.P.B. in a way that would protect public broadcasting's editorial independence and that would ensure that no political or partisan interference mars its deeply important mission of providing substantive news and information to the American public."
Political and partisan interference has long corrupted editorial independence at CPB and marred is so-called mission of providing substantive news. Sorry, Ms. Pingree, your racket may be up. Read the article; Mr. Ferree gives it right back to ‘em…
Now, let’s go north of the border, and see more government funded reporting in action. Via Instapundit http://instapundit.com/archives/022398.php , Angry in the Great White North http://angrygwn.blogspot.com/ prints the response he got from a CBC reporter when he (politely) complained of the bias of a series of reports:
I've got a way for you not to pay for the CBC. Leave Canada.
How DARE we question the wisdom of our Public Television Masters ! Take it the way we dish it out, or leave the country!
Why do I have the feeling that the gent from the CBC speaks for all the folks at CPB as well?
Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, said on Monday that during Mr. Ferree's time at the F.C.C., he "seemed to be dismissive of the public interest obligations of broadcasters."
"These staff changes are being played out," Ms. Pingree said in a statement, "in what appears to be an increasingly politically charged environment for public broadcasting, roiled by recent administration and Congressional criticisms of certain of its programming decisions."
She said Mr. Ferree "seems an unlikely choice to steer C.P.B. in a way that would protect public broadcasting's editorial independence and that would ensure that no political or partisan interference mars its deeply important mission of providing substantive news and information to the American public."
Political and partisan interference has long corrupted editorial independence at CPB and marred is so-called mission of providing substantive news. Sorry, Ms. Pingree, your racket may be up. Read the article; Mr. Ferree gives it right back to ‘em…
Now, let’s go north of the border, and see more government funded reporting in action. Via Instapundit http://instapundit.com/archives/022398.php , Angry in the Great White North http://angrygwn.blogspot.com/ prints the response he got from a CBC reporter when he (politely) complained of the bias of a series of reports:
I've got a way for you not to pay for the CBC. Leave Canada.
How DARE we question the wisdom of our Public Television Masters ! Take it the way we dish it out, or leave the country!
Why do I have the feeling that the gent from the CBC speaks for all the folks at CPB as well?
Must We Burn the UN to Save the UN ?
In a gripping essay in the Washington Post (no, really!), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45304-2005Apr11.html young Peter Dennis, an NYU law student and apparent one-time idealist, tells about life on the ground with a UN peacekeeping mission:
Anyone who was shocked by the most recent revelations of sexual misconduct by United Nations staff has never set foot in a U.N.-sponsored refugee camp. Sex crimes are only one especially disturbing symptom of a culture of abuse that exists in the United Nations precisely because the United Nations and its staff lack accountability.
That’s my problem with the UN – hand over sovereignty to a body headed by unelected officials with no accountability? Wait until the citizens of the European Union see what it is like to live under the dictatorship of the bureaucracy…
I arrived in Sierra Leone as a legal aid worker in the summer of 2003, one year after the release of a damaging report on sexual abuse in U.N. refugee camps in West Africa. Although the report's description of widespread sexual abuse had prompted Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a strongly worded "zero tolerance" policy, I found abuse of a sexual nature almost every day -- zero compliance with zero tolerance, as one investigator was to write. U.N. leaders had simply not expended any effort beyond lip service to carry out this zero tolerance policy.
And that’s why so many love the UN – words and actions can remain cognitively unrelated. Stern decrees take the place of action, giving all the opportunity to say one thing and then do the other. To back up your words with deed, well, maybe we should issue a few more condemnations first, then maybe schedule a meeting…
The Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050411-091452-3595r.htm lays out why Bush nominee Bolton may be the best chance to save this reeking cesspool from itself:
Mr. Bolton is a very vociferous and very smart U.N. critic. In an era when the world body is beset with corruption, peacekeeping malfeasance and weakness (as is evident in the ongoing genocide in Darfur), having a reform-minded ambassador in the mode of a Jeane Kirkpatrick or a Daniel Patrick Moynihan is an inspired choice.
…All of which was lost on Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday...
Mr. Bolton has overseen the implementation of two highly successful non-proliferation treaties; the Security Council resolution opposing Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; and the repeal of the U.N "Zionism is Racism" resolution. The United Nations has a tendency to pass resolutions like that when it is full of ambassadors who do not possess Mr. Bolton's "diplomatic temperament."
Ouch. Funny how while all of these editorial pages are running down Mr. Bolton, they never seem to mention his success in overturning one of the foulest resolutions ever to come out of the UN. Isn’t that exactly the type of leadership we need from our ambassador right now? Is the Democratic Media willfully hiding the truth, wallowing in its liberal anti-Semitism, or just plain dumb? I don't know, maybe someone else has the stomach to dissect today's Times editorial,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/opinion/13wed1.html, because I don't...
I’ll leave it to Rolling Stone’s ex-token conservative PJ O’Rourke to make sense of it all:
... it's important to remember that absurdity is integral to the United Nations. The allies in a war against Nazism founded the UN, which, on the anniversary of Kristallnacht in 1975, passed a resolution declaring 'Zionism is a form of racism' under the auspices of a secretary general, Kurt Waldheim, who was a Nazi.
Anyone who was shocked by the most recent revelations of sexual misconduct by United Nations staff has never set foot in a U.N.-sponsored refugee camp. Sex crimes are only one especially disturbing symptom of a culture of abuse that exists in the United Nations precisely because the United Nations and its staff lack accountability.
That’s my problem with the UN – hand over sovereignty to a body headed by unelected officials with no accountability? Wait until the citizens of the European Union see what it is like to live under the dictatorship of the bureaucracy…
I arrived in Sierra Leone as a legal aid worker in the summer of 2003, one year after the release of a damaging report on sexual abuse in U.N. refugee camps in West Africa. Although the report's description of widespread sexual abuse had prompted Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a strongly worded "zero tolerance" policy, I found abuse of a sexual nature almost every day -- zero compliance with zero tolerance, as one investigator was to write. U.N. leaders had simply not expended any effort beyond lip service to carry out this zero tolerance policy.
And that’s why so many love the UN – words and actions can remain cognitively unrelated. Stern decrees take the place of action, giving all the opportunity to say one thing and then do the other. To back up your words with deed, well, maybe we should issue a few more condemnations first, then maybe schedule a meeting…
The Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050411-091452-3595r.htm lays out why Bush nominee Bolton may be the best chance to save this reeking cesspool from itself:
Mr. Bolton is a very vociferous and very smart U.N. critic. In an era when the world body is beset with corruption, peacekeeping malfeasance and weakness (as is evident in the ongoing genocide in Darfur), having a reform-minded ambassador in the mode of a Jeane Kirkpatrick or a Daniel Patrick Moynihan is an inspired choice.
…All of which was lost on Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday...
Mr. Bolton has overseen the implementation of two highly successful non-proliferation treaties; the Security Council resolution opposing Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; and the repeal of the U.N "Zionism is Racism" resolution. The United Nations has a tendency to pass resolutions like that when it is full of ambassadors who do not possess Mr. Bolton's "diplomatic temperament."
Ouch. Funny how while all of these editorial pages are running down Mr. Bolton, they never seem to mention his success in overturning one of the foulest resolutions ever to come out of the UN. Isn’t that exactly the type of leadership we need from our ambassador right now? Is the Democratic Media willfully hiding the truth, wallowing in its liberal anti-Semitism, or just plain dumb? I don't know, maybe someone else has the stomach to dissect today's Times editorial,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/opinion/13wed1.html, because I don't...
I’ll leave it to Rolling Stone’s ex-token conservative PJ O’Rourke to make sense of it all:
... it's important to remember that absurdity is integral to the United Nations. The allies in a war against Nazism founded the UN, which, on the anniversary of Kristallnacht in 1975, passed a resolution declaring 'Zionism is a form of racism' under the auspices of a secretary general, Kurt Waldheim, who was a Nazi.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Democratic Media Flaunts their Stupidity; Americans sigh, correct them...
We can start today’s trail of stupidity at the Washington ComPost, where Eugene Robinson delivers the secular left’s morning shots at religion http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45306-2005Apr11.html
where he is happy that a:
…truth-telling art exhibit has arrived like a blast of fresh air, just when the pall of religiosity hanging over the city was reaching gas-mask stage.
…I'm talking about religiosity, the ostentatious display of ostensible piety.
Well, thankfully we have Eugene to discern the difference for us, right? Nevertheless, I became concerned when I saw these comments regarding the “pall of religiosity”. Has their been any forced conversions? Has anyone been thrown into stocks in front of the Lincoln Memorial? I certainly hope the media would be reporting these events if they were actually happening... What? This is just more leftist hyperbole? Well, is it any wonder that, as the Time’s Kristoff discovered five minutes ago, that “public support for the news media has all but evaporated”? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/opinion/12kristof.html
Anyway, let’s see what else Eugene can educate us on:
Most Americans seem to see through all the holier-than-thou nonsense. In the Schiavo case, for example, they overwhelmingly disapproved of DeLay's sanctimonious intrusion into a family's private dilemma... And here's more evidence that Americans understand human nature and morality much better than DeLay and the theocrats: In record numbers -- 9,000 the first day alone…
Why is it Americans are smart when they “see through all the holier-than-thou nonsense”; but considered stupid when they vote Republican? And 9,000 people? Dude, I was crushed in-between more people than that on the E train this morning!
And The Parade of Stupidity Just Rocks On! As we noted yesterday,
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-clinton-and-vast-right-wing.html
John Kerry declared that Americans were not smart enough to know when election day was. Too bad John is getting his news from The Onion, and is not smart enough to realize he is disgorging satire as “fact” http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4043.php
MIAMI, FL—With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3…"Minority voters should make their unique voices heard, especially the African-American voting bloc, which is always a major factor in every election," said Florida Republican Party voter-drive organizer Mark Monreal, as he handed out flyers at a community center in the mostly black Miami neighborhood of South Farms. "That's why we put up hundreds of brightly colored banners featuring Martin Luther King Jr. and the 'Vote November 3'
And, of course, the media http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/10/kerry.votes.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest just reports it without doing the slightest bit of fact-checking! Unbelievable.
At least the Wall Street Journal exposes the media for the quislings they are, and shines a light on why so many in 2004 went Republican, in a wonderful article entitled “Those who flinched in the hard times, and those who didn't.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006547
..the U.S. effort nearly came undone: not because of this or that tactical misstep, but because too many among America's elite lost their nerve when the going got tough.
This was a test not of the skill or bravery of the American soldier, but of the home front's willingness to see the war through; a test in which the key to victory wasn't competence but perseverance.
President Bush passed that test. He did so by dint of the very characteristics his critics found so objectionable: his certitude that going to war was the right thing to do; his conviction that Iraqis want to be free. To prevail, Mr. Bush had to wager his Presidency on a course of action that, by the summer of 2004, the chattering classes believed was doomed. [Editor: see http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/george-w-bush-as-ayn-rand-hero.html ]
The American people also passed the test. We don't buy the myth that Mr. Bush bamboozled the public into believing there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11. Still, most Americans understood that, in their respective but parallel efforts, Saddam and Osama bin Laden were both testing America's credibility, which had been diminished during the Clinton years.
The article states that the big question in this war was whether or not Americans can generate the political consensus to sustain involvement in Iraq. Now we know:
Two years later we know the answer to that question is yes, thanks to the fortitude and wisdom of a President, our soldiers and the American public. Maybe next time, our "best and brightest" will show the same character. ("Scare quotes" are mine - ed.)
In other words: All the Media’s columnists, and all the Media’s men, were wrong – about the war, about the president, about the American people, about…everything.
Why do they expect us to heed them now?
UPDATE: If the mainstream media realizes that these robots http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050412/ap_on_hi_te/japan_robot will vote Republican as per Hillary http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-clinton-and-vast-right-wing.html, we’ll be inundated with anti-android stories and editorials in no time…!
where he is happy that a:
…truth-telling art exhibit has arrived like a blast of fresh air, just when the pall of religiosity hanging over the city was reaching gas-mask stage.
…I'm talking about religiosity, the ostentatious display of ostensible piety.
Well, thankfully we have Eugene to discern the difference for us, right? Nevertheless, I became concerned when I saw these comments regarding the “pall of religiosity”. Has their been any forced conversions? Has anyone been thrown into stocks in front of the Lincoln Memorial? I certainly hope the media would be reporting these events if they were actually happening... What? This is just more leftist hyperbole? Well, is it any wonder that, as the Time’s Kristoff discovered five minutes ago, that “public support for the news media has all but evaporated”? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/opinion/12kristof.html
Anyway, let’s see what else Eugene can educate us on:
Most Americans seem to see through all the holier-than-thou nonsense. In the Schiavo case, for example, they overwhelmingly disapproved of DeLay's sanctimonious intrusion into a family's private dilemma... And here's more evidence that Americans understand human nature and morality much better than DeLay and the theocrats: In record numbers -- 9,000 the first day alone…
Why is it Americans are smart when they “see through all the holier-than-thou nonsense”; but considered stupid when they vote Republican? And 9,000 people? Dude, I was crushed in-between more people than that on the E train this morning!
And The Parade of Stupidity Just Rocks On! As we noted yesterday,
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-clinton-and-vast-right-wing.html
John Kerry declared that Americans were not smart enough to know when election day was. Too bad John is getting his news from The Onion, and is not smart enough to realize he is disgorging satire as “fact” http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4043.php
MIAMI, FL—With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3…"Minority voters should make their unique voices heard, especially the African-American voting bloc, which is always a major factor in every election," said Florida Republican Party voter-drive organizer Mark Monreal, as he handed out flyers at a community center in the mostly black Miami neighborhood of South Farms. "That's why we put up hundreds of brightly colored banners featuring Martin Luther King Jr. and the 'Vote November 3'
And, of course, the media http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/10/kerry.votes.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest just reports it without doing the slightest bit of fact-checking! Unbelievable.
At least the Wall Street Journal exposes the media for the quislings they are, and shines a light on why so many in 2004 went Republican, in a wonderful article entitled “Those who flinched in the hard times, and those who didn't.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006547
..the U.S. effort nearly came undone: not because of this or that tactical misstep, but because too many among America's elite lost their nerve when the going got tough.
This was a test not of the skill or bravery of the American soldier, but of the home front's willingness to see the war through; a test in which the key to victory wasn't competence but perseverance.
President Bush passed that test. He did so by dint of the very characteristics his critics found so objectionable: his certitude that going to war was the right thing to do; his conviction that Iraqis want to be free. To prevail, Mr. Bush had to wager his Presidency on a course of action that, by the summer of 2004, the chattering classes believed was doomed. [Editor: see http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/george-w-bush-as-ayn-rand-hero.html ]
The American people also passed the test. We don't buy the myth that Mr. Bush bamboozled the public into believing there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11. Still, most Americans understood that, in their respective but parallel efforts, Saddam and Osama bin Laden were both testing America's credibility, which had been diminished during the Clinton years.
The article states that the big question in this war was whether or not Americans can generate the political consensus to sustain involvement in Iraq. Now we know:
Two years later we know the answer to that question is yes, thanks to the fortitude and wisdom of a President, our soldiers and the American public. Maybe next time, our "best and brightest" will show the same character. ("Scare quotes" are mine - ed.)
In other words: All the Media’s columnists, and all the Media’s men, were wrong – about the war, about the president, about the American people, about…everything.
Why do they expect us to heed them now?
UPDATE: If the mainstream media realizes that these robots http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050412/ap_on_hi_te/japan_robot will vote Republican as per Hillary http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/hillary-clinton-and-vast-right-wing.html, we’ll be inundated with anti-android stories and editorials in no time…!
Monday, April 11, 2005
Hillary Clinton and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy of Doom: The Sequel!
That’s right, Hillary is on to us again! And in her usual uniting, non-partisan way, makes it clear whom we need to fear: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/42469.htm
“We are headed to a brave, new world of extremism, and we need to make clear we're not going there," she told a sellout crowd of 2,000 who paid $100 a head to see her. "We stand against their radical, reactionary right-wing agenda."
Clinton sounded every bit the stumping presidential contender as she slammed the Republicans for driving up the national debt, wrecking overseas alliances and leading the nation on a domestic path "well outside the mainstream."
She lambasted Republican members of Congress as "extras in the movie 'I Robot' " who "mindlessly rubberstamp the agenda of this administration" and want to do "little more than fund the military and build some highways."
I didn’t know robots had a “radical, reactionary, right-wing agenda”…
A “brave new world of extremism”? Would that be your husband, picking candidates by race or gender, not by qualification, in order to fit a doctrine of political correctness?
So "funding the military" is a bad thing? Can we assume that you intend to de-fund it if elected?
How can a Republican President, a Republican-dominated Congress, and a Republican-controlled Senate be “well outside the mainstream” if these are all ELECTED positions?
Wait ! John Kerry can answer that for you!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/10/kerry.votes.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Many voters in last year's presidential election were denied access to the polls through trickery and intimidation, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told a voters' group Sunday.
Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.
"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.
Anyone who could possibly have believed, based on a random leaflet, that there were separate days for separate parties to vote, is too stupid to be allowed into a voting booth.
But then again, that’s whom the Dems are counting on, right?
UPDATE: Speaking of conspiracies; the media still whores it out for the Democrats...Instapundit Glenn Reynolds http://instapundit.com/archives/022351.php opines that:
I think that we'll need to see a few Republicans from somewhere south and west of Connecticut turning on him before it's a real signal.
The Democratic Media Party know this as well, and they are trying sooo hard, as Robert Novack reports today: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak11.html
On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.
Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress.
Times editorial page staffer Tobin Harshaw was quoted as saying:
''we are seeking those who would go on the record or state for the good of the party he (DeLay) should step aside.''
Here's what the Times is playing at:
Would this editorial start a chain reaction of Republican House members abandoning DeLay, much as Democrats turned against Speaker Jim Wright in 1989?
The Times can only hope. They'll keep trying....
“We are headed to a brave, new world of extremism, and we need to make clear we're not going there," she told a sellout crowd of 2,000 who paid $100 a head to see her. "We stand against their radical, reactionary right-wing agenda."
Clinton sounded every bit the stumping presidential contender as she slammed the Republicans for driving up the national debt, wrecking overseas alliances and leading the nation on a domestic path "well outside the mainstream."
She lambasted Republican members of Congress as "extras in the movie 'I Robot' " who "mindlessly rubberstamp the agenda of this administration" and want to do "little more than fund the military and build some highways."
I didn’t know robots had a “radical, reactionary, right-wing agenda”…
A “brave new world of extremism”? Would that be your husband, picking candidates by race or gender, not by qualification, in order to fit a doctrine of political correctness?
So "funding the military" is a bad thing? Can we assume that you intend to de-fund it if elected?
How can a Republican President, a Republican-dominated Congress, and a Republican-controlled Senate be “well outside the mainstream” if these are all ELECTED positions?
Wait ! John Kerry can answer that for you!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/10/kerry.votes.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Many voters in last year's presidential election were denied access to the polls through trickery and intimidation, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told a voters' group Sunday.
Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.
"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.
Anyone who could possibly have believed, based on a random leaflet, that there were separate days for separate parties to vote, is too stupid to be allowed into a voting booth.
But then again, that’s whom the Dems are counting on, right?
UPDATE: Speaking of conspiracies; the media still whores it out for the Democrats...Instapundit Glenn Reynolds http://instapundit.com/archives/022351.php opines that:
I think that we'll need to see a few Republicans from somewhere south and west of Connecticut turning on him before it's a real signal.
The Democratic Media Party know this as well, and they are trying sooo hard, as Robert Novack reports today: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak11.html
On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.
Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress.
Times editorial page staffer Tobin Harshaw was quoted as saying:
''we are seeking those who would go on the record or state for the good of the party he (DeLay) should step aside.''
Here's what the Times is playing at:
Would this editorial start a chain reaction of Republican House members abandoning DeLay, much as Democrats turned against Speaker Jim Wright in 1989?
The Times can only hope. They'll keep trying....
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Chavez's Dream: To Be Saddam of South America!
Thanks primarily to our good friends in the European Union, Venezuela is known to have armed themselves with the following:
10 C-295 transport planes
CN-235 ocean surveillance planes (2?)
8 patrol boats
According to EU Referendum, http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/04/selling-arms-to-dictators.html
this deal was worth 1.3 billion euros to Zapatero’s Spain, that fine protector of democracy and human rights (see Spain’s support for Fidel Castro, selling arms to China, etc.) worldwide.
In addition, Russia has sold them 100,000 AK-47’s; which is more guns than Venezuela has soldiers.
But via Barcepundit, we learn something even scarier:
http://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-else-did-spain-sell-to-venezuela.html
During the first semester of 2004 Spain sold chemical warfare agents and radioactive materials to Venezuela worth €539.603 according to a report entitled "Spanish exports of defence materials and related products and technologies". The report, produced by Spain's Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, was revealed to Europe Press:
…statistics show that Venezuela was the only country under the category "countries to which chemical warfare agents and radioactive materials were sold". Worth noting that the said category includes "biological and nerve agents destined to chemical warfare" of which Venezuela bought €30.374.
…Another €509.229 consisted of "paramilitary and security material" which encompasses "firearms or gas weapons, bombs, grenades, explosives, armoured and all terrain vehicles, water canons, telescopic sights and night vision devices, etc."
This is scary. It is shocking that this has gone virtually unreported. Some thoughts:
-Chavez is trying to set himself up as the powerbroker, through force of arms, of the whole of South America. He is a paranoid dictator with delusions of grandeur (the most dangerous kind), whom Europe is arming to the teeth.
-Chavez has been duped into drawing the wrong lessons from Iraq. He has believed the foreign media’s assertions that war-mongering America is stuck in a quagmire, that we have lost Iraq to the insurgency (hey, just look at the photos! http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/pulitzer-prize-committee-pukes-on.html ), and that we are a weak-willed nation unable to take a few casualties. So infatuated with his own self-importance, and so power-hungry, he is convinced that the US will be knocking on his door next, and is arming himself to fight an Iraq insurgency-type battle. Since the media worldwide is unable to tell the truth about the results of this conflict, Chavez is arming himself for a war that (hopefully) will never happen, using techniques that have failed spectacularly.
-This is the end result of a decade’s worth of anti-Americanism from Europe’s leaders and its lapdogs in the media. Chirac and Shroeder ran campaigns strictly based on anti-Americanism (substitute the word “Jews” for “America” and it could be 1939 all over again) and won, the European media has buttressed this view with unremitting hostility to America and AMERICANS (it’s not just our president, folks); therefore the rise of someone like Chavez is not an accident - it is the natural result, the child, of these actions. Not surprising, then, that Europe would protect and arm their own. Welcome Chavez, the first bouncing baby of the European Left’s anti-Americansim! New allies, no matter how vicious and detrimental to their own people, are welcomed into the New Left’s "Alliance" of Anti-Americanism! The hate of Europe is arising again, and beginning to breed, feeding on its parent’s black bile. Being fed well; the monster begins to stumble about, and grows…
The rank hypocrisy of Europe only festers further; for good measure, Spain is also arming Columbia by selling them C-212 cargo planes; and they are discussing the sales of military helicopters and patrol boats to Colombia as well. Nothing like arming two enemies to the teeth, and then blaming America when tensions erupt, right? What, that hasn’t happened yet? Give it time…
Maybe this time the Europeans will really get lucky and get to see some Weapons of Mass Destruction in action! Of course, it would be their weapons killing our people, but that would serve their subliminal needs, wouldn’t it?
We know what they really want…
10 C-295 transport planes
CN-235 ocean surveillance planes (2?)
8 patrol boats
According to EU Referendum, http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/04/selling-arms-to-dictators.html
this deal was worth 1.3 billion euros to Zapatero’s Spain, that fine protector of democracy and human rights (see Spain’s support for Fidel Castro, selling arms to China, etc.) worldwide.
In addition, Russia has sold them 100,000 AK-47’s; which is more guns than Venezuela has soldiers.
But via Barcepundit, we learn something even scarier:
http://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-else-did-spain-sell-to-venezuela.html
During the first semester of 2004 Spain sold chemical warfare agents and radioactive materials to Venezuela worth €539.603 according to a report entitled "Spanish exports of defence materials and related products and technologies". The report, produced by Spain's Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, was revealed to Europe Press:
…statistics show that Venezuela was the only country under the category "countries to which chemical warfare agents and radioactive materials were sold". Worth noting that the said category includes "biological and nerve agents destined to chemical warfare" of which Venezuela bought €30.374.
…Another €509.229 consisted of "paramilitary and security material" which encompasses "firearms or gas weapons, bombs, grenades, explosives, armoured and all terrain vehicles, water canons, telescopic sights and night vision devices, etc."
This is scary. It is shocking that this has gone virtually unreported. Some thoughts:
-Chavez is trying to set himself up as the powerbroker, through force of arms, of the whole of South America. He is a paranoid dictator with delusions of grandeur (the most dangerous kind), whom Europe is arming to the teeth.
-Chavez has been duped into drawing the wrong lessons from Iraq. He has believed the foreign media’s assertions that war-mongering America is stuck in a quagmire, that we have lost Iraq to the insurgency (hey, just look at the photos! http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/pulitzer-prize-committee-pukes-on.html ), and that we are a weak-willed nation unable to take a few casualties. So infatuated with his own self-importance, and so power-hungry, he is convinced that the US will be knocking on his door next, and is arming himself to fight an Iraq insurgency-type battle. Since the media worldwide is unable to tell the truth about the results of this conflict, Chavez is arming himself for a war that (hopefully) will never happen, using techniques that have failed spectacularly.
-This is the end result of a decade’s worth of anti-Americanism from Europe’s leaders and its lapdogs in the media. Chirac and Shroeder ran campaigns strictly based on anti-Americanism (substitute the word “Jews” for “America” and it could be 1939 all over again) and won, the European media has buttressed this view with unremitting hostility to America and AMERICANS (it’s not just our president, folks); therefore the rise of someone like Chavez is not an accident - it is the natural result, the child, of these actions. Not surprising, then, that Europe would protect and arm their own. Welcome Chavez, the first bouncing baby of the European Left’s anti-Americansim! New allies, no matter how vicious and detrimental to their own people, are welcomed into the New Left’s "Alliance" of Anti-Americanism! The hate of Europe is arising again, and beginning to breed, feeding on its parent’s black bile. Being fed well; the monster begins to stumble about, and grows…
The rank hypocrisy of Europe only festers further; for good measure, Spain is also arming Columbia by selling them C-212 cargo planes; and they are discussing the sales of military helicopters and patrol boats to Colombia as well. Nothing like arming two enemies to the teeth, and then blaming America when tensions erupt, right? What, that hasn’t happened yet? Give it time…
Maybe this time the Europeans will really get lucky and get to see some Weapons of Mass Destruction in action! Of course, it would be their weapons killing our people, but that would serve their subliminal needs, wouldn’t it?
We know what they really want…
Friday, April 08, 2005
Why Does Moby Hate Me?
I’ve been a big fan of Moby’s for some time (more than some people, probably less than others) and his albums always bring me to certain place and time:
Animal Rights – I was living in New York City in a tiny studio; I would play this nonstop as I was preparing to go out and hit the town!
Play – living in rural Illinois at the time; I had a new little Saturn 5- speed stick-shift sports coupe; I would open up the sunroof and the windows and blast this album as I raced freight trains on badly paved roads abutting endless cornfields...
18 – coming out in the spring of 2002; the wounds of 9/11 were still raw; Moby was in NYC at the time and this album reflected a lot of the anguish and loss we all felt. I used to listen to this mix of electro-blue on the bus, my face pressed against the window, staring at the gaping hole in the skyline where my towers once stood…
Hotel – now here’s where we begin…
I think Moby is a brilliant musician and a wonderful songwriter whose lyrics unveil the depths of emotions, both positive and negative, that we know exist within us all but are difficult to express. I have a deep respect for such a talent; as noted above, his music has been a soundtrack to my life.
So why does he hate me?
Moby’s website http://www.moby.com/ is a pretty good one, with a cornucopia of information for the fan and casual observer alike. It is his online journal where he goes into his anti “far right wing” rants. There are a couple of doozies there; I’ll excerpt rather than link directly:
..canada is such a nice place. i really do wish that the northern blue states could be annexed by canada and thus create 'the united states of canada… i mean seriously, can't we just let the red states go off on their own to do whatever it is they want to do, while those of us in the blue states pledge our new allegiance to the u.s of c?… canada is a great place. the people are nice. please, canada, can't you come and save us from ourselves? we'll leave our guns at the door and return like the proverbial prodigal sons that we are..
Moby, I like being an American, even in a blue state. I don’t wish to pledge my allegiance to a different country that has done nothing for us. I don’t wish to forgeo my contitutional right to bear arms, not to mention the freedom of speech that Canada is so trying to squelch http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/04/05/983036-sun.html as it tries to cover-up scandals. So Moby, because we disagee, you insist on running off to Canada, and dragging me along? Don’t I have a say? No? If you say that New Jersey voted 53-47 Kerry, and therefore you are the majority and are taking me to Canada, well, since the country voted for Republican majorities on the Presidential, Senetorial, Congressional, and Gubernatorial levels, why won’t you go along with us? Or if you wish to protest, fine, stay, but don’t excommunicate me for daring to vote how I believed. And don’t forget, outside of the big California cities, it’s a RED STATE, bro…
Now here Moby advocates violent overthrow of the government:
http://www.moby.com/journal?from=40
…north korea has happily proceeded to produce nuclear weapons while we looked the other way and were busy waging a pointless war in iraq… if these were different times there would be an angry mob at the gates of the white house waiting to run the bush administration out of town..
Now Moby, a pointless war? Ask the Iraqis, free from the hell of Saddam Hussein at last, who just voted in a multicultural government (way more multi-culti than anything Clinton ever came up with), and yet he wants mobs to overthow a legitimate election, a government of which over 60 million people voted for. There is a PEACEFUL solution called impeachment, Moby, and if it rose to that level, your Democrats (and the American people) would be calling for it right now.
Anyway, I’m not going to deconstruct hundreds of Moby’s journal entries. My point is that while he has policy differences with the current administration, his cries of “Storm the Gates” and “Move to Canada” do not jive with the peaceful perception that Moby tries to cast around his views. In the above qoute, he seems to advocate facing down North Korea, but could I believe that if Bush attempted it, Moby would not somehow oppose it? What does it say about his loyalty to a nation that helped give him such riches that he fantasizes about moving great clumps of terrirory over to Canada, along with their citizens? There is a tone of outright hostility to Moby’s writings (not with most of his music, though) that give lie to his cultivated image as a peaceful, Zen-like soul who want world peace while listening to the ambiant sounds of Hotel: Disc 2.
Listen, Moby: I am a conservative! I do not agree with everything the leaders of the administration do or say – I question what constitutes “indecency”, I am not an “absolutist” on abortion, and the Terri Schiavo debacle left me very conflicted. But I guess you lump me in with the “far-right” since I do support those in office because overall, their views are closer to mine than the Democrats. Maybe you are not as open-minded as you believe, maybe you are like many liberals who believe free speech is only for opinions that do not veer from their own, and diversity is not permitted in thought, only in race/color/creed.
I hope not. And I will say, on some of the “chatrooms” on Moby’s sight, many of his fans have taken much more center-ground, realistic positions than he has. Maybe, Moby, you should sit down and talk with some of these folks on the right you seem to so openly despise; for there may be more common ground than you believe. After all, isn’t that what you would advocate?
Moby, here’s the question I would have to ask you, should I ever meet you personally:
How so you feel about the fact I love your music and it means so much to me?
Would you want me to throw my albums out?
Or could you find common ground with a fan as different as I am from you?
POSTSCRIPT: My favorite song on Hotel is “Lift Me Up”; which I guess is supposed to be an anti-Bush song ? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050405/ap_en_mu/music_moby_party_2
...dude, did you really expect Kerry to “lift you up”? I just apply the lyrics differently…
Animal Rights – I was living in New York City in a tiny studio; I would play this nonstop as I was preparing to go out and hit the town!
Play – living in rural Illinois at the time; I had a new little Saturn 5- speed stick-shift sports coupe; I would open up the sunroof and the windows and blast this album as I raced freight trains on badly paved roads abutting endless cornfields...
18 – coming out in the spring of 2002; the wounds of 9/11 were still raw; Moby was in NYC at the time and this album reflected a lot of the anguish and loss we all felt. I used to listen to this mix of electro-blue on the bus, my face pressed against the window, staring at the gaping hole in the skyline where my towers once stood…
Hotel – now here’s where we begin…
I think Moby is a brilliant musician and a wonderful songwriter whose lyrics unveil the depths of emotions, both positive and negative, that we know exist within us all but are difficult to express. I have a deep respect for such a talent; as noted above, his music has been a soundtrack to my life.
So why does he hate me?
Moby’s website http://www.moby.com/ is a pretty good one, with a cornucopia of information for the fan and casual observer alike. It is his online journal where he goes into his anti “far right wing” rants. There are a couple of doozies there; I’ll excerpt rather than link directly:
..canada is such a nice place. i really do wish that the northern blue states could be annexed by canada and thus create 'the united states of canada… i mean seriously, can't we just let the red states go off on their own to do whatever it is they want to do, while those of us in the blue states pledge our new allegiance to the u.s of c?… canada is a great place. the people are nice. please, canada, can't you come and save us from ourselves? we'll leave our guns at the door and return like the proverbial prodigal sons that we are..
Moby, I like being an American, even in a blue state. I don’t wish to pledge my allegiance to a different country that has done nothing for us. I don’t wish to forgeo my contitutional right to bear arms, not to mention the freedom of speech that Canada is so trying to squelch http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/04/05/983036-sun.html as it tries to cover-up scandals. So Moby, because we disagee, you insist on running off to Canada, and dragging me along? Don’t I have a say? No? If you say that New Jersey voted 53-47 Kerry, and therefore you are the majority and are taking me to Canada, well, since the country voted for Republican majorities on the Presidential, Senetorial, Congressional, and Gubernatorial levels, why won’t you go along with us? Or if you wish to protest, fine, stay, but don’t excommunicate me for daring to vote how I believed. And don’t forget, outside of the big California cities, it’s a RED STATE, bro…
Now here Moby advocates violent overthrow of the government:
http://www.moby.com/journal?from=40
…north korea has happily proceeded to produce nuclear weapons while we looked the other way and were busy waging a pointless war in iraq… if these were different times there would be an angry mob at the gates of the white house waiting to run the bush administration out of town..
Now Moby, a pointless war? Ask the Iraqis, free from the hell of Saddam Hussein at last, who just voted in a multicultural government (way more multi-culti than anything Clinton ever came up with), and yet he wants mobs to overthow a legitimate election, a government of which over 60 million people voted for. There is a PEACEFUL solution called impeachment, Moby, and if it rose to that level, your Democrats (and the American people) would be calling for it right now.
Anyway, I’m not going to deconstruct hundreds of Moby’s journal entries. My point is that while he has policy differences with the current administration, his cries of “Storm the Gates” and “Move to Canada” do not jive with the peaceful perception that Moby tries to cast around his views. In the above qoute, he seems to advocate facing down North Korea, but could I believe that if Bush attempted it, Moby would not somehow oppose it? What does it say about his loyalty to a nation that helped give him such riches that he fantasizes about moving great clumps of terrirory over to Canada, along with their citizens? There is a tone of outright hostility to Moby’s writings (not with most of his music, though) that give lie to his cultivated image as a peaceful, Zen-like soul who want world peace while listening to the ambiant sounds of Hotel: Disc 2.
Listen, Moby: I am a conservative! I do not agree with everything the leaders of the administration do or say – I question what constitutes “indecency”, I am not an “absolutist” on abortion, and the Terri Schiavo debacle left me very conflicted. But I guess you lump me in with the “far-right” since I do support those in office because overall, their views are closer to mine than the Democrats. Maybe you are not as open-minded as you believe, maybe you are like many liberals who believe free speech is only for opinions that do not veer from their own, and diversity is not permitted in thought, only in race/color/creed.
I hope not. And I will say, on some of the “chatrooms” on Moby’s sight, many of his fans have taken much more center-ground, realistic positions than he has. Maybe, Moby, you should sit down and talk with some of these folks on the right you seem to so openly despise; for there may be more common ground than you believe. After all, isn’t that what you would advocate?
Moby, here’s the question I would have to ask you, should I ever meet you personally:
How so you feel about the fact I love your music and it means so much to me?
Would you want me to throw my albums out?
Or could you find common ground with a fan as different as I am from you?
POSTSCRIPT: My favorite song on Hotel is “Lift Me Up”; which I guess is supposed to be an anti-Bush song ? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050405/ap_en_mu/music_moby_party_2
...dude, did you really expect Kerry to “lift you up”? I just apply the lyrics differently…
Thursday, April 07, 2005
George W. Bush as Ayn Rand Hero?
There has been much consternation, especially in the aftermath of the 2004 election, concerning the issue of “morals” and how they relate to George W. Bush’s re-election. When many of the voters polled after the election cited morality as a key factor in deciding their vote, it suddenly became open season on religion, as most liberal commentators immediately juxtaposed the two together. Since liberal dogma asserts all value judgments are relative and not absolute; a hidebound voter can only base absolute morality upon religious beliefs, right? Thus, W’s backers were religious nuts and W. himself now a dangerous theocrat.
Well, maybe I can give another explanation. While basic morality does have its roots in religion, for many individuals it goes beyond what God may or may not tell us to do. My favorite definition of morality comes from Ayn Rand’s classic opus Atlas Shrugged. When the heroine, Dagny Taggert, asks “What is morality?”, she is given the following answer:
“…Judgment to distinguish right from 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?”
A wonderful definition of morality, supplied by an avid atheist, one which I have carried with me (a believer!) for many years, as I fought to see whatever visions I have had for my personal and professional life realized. But does this definition not describe George W. Bush perfectly? When he made his decision to invade Iraq, the whole world was against him, including probably half of his own nation. He was called horrible names, accused of despicable things, and told his plans would lead to ruination and failure, for himself and his people. “Experts” the world over intoned with great seriousness in media outlets worldwide how wrong this President was, how he was too simple and too stupid to understand the complexities of the world the way they did.
And President Bush stood firm. He refused to back down from distinguishing right from wrong (But…but…it’s not black and white, it’s grey!!!), he had the integrity to stand by his policies (he’s to stubborn and close-minded!!), while realizing the potential price was his political future and place in history.
Well, he was right, as we now know. And he has shown greater morality and courage than all the poll-watching, flip-flopping so-called “leaders” around the globe.
This is where you find morality; with our President. Ayn Rand would be proud. I know I am.
And in a similar vein, I’d like to close this post with another quick excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. As Dagney Taggert is about to begin the first run of her new railroad on tracks made of a new, controversial type of steel, a reporter shouts:
“…Tell me, Miss Taggert - what’s going to support a seven-thousand-ton train on a three-thousand ton track?”
“My judgment!” she replied.
Well, maybe I can give another explanation. While basic morality does have its roots in religion, for many individuals it goes beyond what God may or may not tell us to do. My favorite definition of morality comes from Ayn Rand’s classic opus Atlas Shrugged. When the heroine, Dagny Taggert, asks “What is morality?”, she is given the following answer:
“…Judgment to distinguish right from 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?”
A wonderful definition of morality, supplied by an avid atheist, one which I have carried with me (a believer!) for many years, as I fought to see whatever visions I have had for my personal and professional life realized. But does this definition not describe George W. Bush perfectly? When he made his decision to invade Iraq, the whole world was against him, including probably half of his own nation. He was called horrible names, accused of despicable things, and told his plans would lead to ruination and failure, for himself and his people. “Experts” the world over intoned with great seriousness in media outlets worldwide how wrong this President was, how he was too simple and too stupid to understand the complexities of the world the way they did.
And President Bush stood firm. He refused to back down from distinguishing right from wrong (But…but…it’s not black and white, it’s grey!!!), he had the integrity to stand by his policies (he’s to stubborn and close-minded!!), while realizing the potential price was his political future and place in history.
Well, he was right, as we now know. And he has shown greater morality and courage than all the poll-watching, flip-flopping so-called “leaders” around the globe.
This is where you find morality; with our President. Ayn Rand would be proud. I know I am.
And in a similar vein, I’d like to close this post with another quick excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. As Dagney Taggert is about to begin the first run of her new railroad on tracks made of a new, controversial type of steel, a reporter shouts:
“…Tell me, Miss Taggert - what’s going to support a seven-thousand-ton train on a three-thousand ton track?”
“My judgment!” she replied.
Race Riots Rock Paris; France to Surrender?
I first reported this story in this post http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/exibit-in-left-wing-failure-france.html titled Exibit A in Left-Wing Failure: France 2005. Saw this follow up story today http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/446loxwa.asp?pg=1 which had a little more detail about who made up the rioters:
...the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground...
...[Luc] Colpart, who is active in anti-racist causes, confirmed that "these were racial assaults," and the attackers used "far-right slurs, violent and racist."
Of course, the French Intellectual {oxymoron alert!} sees it differently:
...most left-wing organizations and individuals [said] that the violence was an expression of class struggle, a clash between rich and poor.
Hey Chirac! Maybe you should listen to this intellectual:
FR D RIC ENCEL, PROFESSOR OF international relations at the prestigious Ecole Nationale d'Administration in Paris and a man not known for crying wolf, recently stated that France is becoming a new Lebanon. The implication, far-fetched though it may seem, was that civil upheaval might be no more than a few years off, sparked by growing ethnic and religious polarization.
It has already begun:
Beneath the radar are other incidents, seemingly petty, yet telling, such as one I happened to witness in a Paris department store a few months back. A woman was pushing her baby in a stroller down an aisle. Behind her was a well-dressed, prosperous-looking Arab woman in a hurry. Suddenly the Arab woman pushed the mother, saying, "Move, dirty Frenchwoman" ("Dégage, sale française"). The familiar epithet "dirty Jew" is apparently being extended for more general use.
Will the French wake up? Unlikely...
Will the U.S. save their back-stabbing, cheese-eating asses again? Also unlikely....
Maybe, Jacques, you should try bowing and scraping a little harder to your new masters. It's done wonders so far!
...the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground...
...[Luc] Colpart, who is active in anti-racist causes, confirmed that "these were racial assaults," and the attackers used "far-right slurs, violent and racist."
Of course, the French Intellectual {oxymoron alert!} sees it differently:
...most left-wing organizations and individuals [said] that the violence was an expression of class struggle, a clash between rich and poor.
Hey Chirac! Maybe you should listen to this intellectual:
FR D RIC ENCEL, PROFESSOR OF international relations at the prestigious Ecole Nationale d'Administration in Paris and a man not known for crying wolf, recently stated that France is becoming a new Lebanon. The implication, far-fetched though it may seem, was that civil upheaval might be no more than a few years off, sparked by growing ethnic and religious polarization.
It has already begun:
Beneath the radar are other incidents, seemingly petty, yet telling, such as one I happened to witness in a Paris department store a few months back. A woman was pushing her baby in a stroller down an aisle. Behind her was a well-dressed, prosperous-looking Arab woman in a hurry. Suddenly the Arab woman pushed the mother, saying, "Move, dirty Frenchwoman" ("Dégage, sale française"). The familiar epithet "dirty Jew" is apparently being extended for more general use.
Will the French wake up? Unlikely...
Will the U.S. save their back-stabbing, cheese-eating asses again? Also unlikely....
Maybe, Jacques, you should try bowing and scraping a little harder to your new masters. It's done wonders so far!
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Mainstream Media Aids, Abets Jew-Bashing!
The New York Times, in the form of a "correction”, admits malfeasance in its methods of obtaining the Columbia University “see no evil” report:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
…The article did not disclose The Times's source for the document, but Columbia officials have since confirmed publicly that they provided it, a day before its formal release, on the condition that the writer not seek reaction from other interested parties.
Under The Times's policy on unidentified sources, writers are not permitted to forgo follow-up reporting in exchange for information. In this case, editors and the writer did not recall the policy and agreed to delay additional reporting until the document had become public. The Times insisted, however, on getting a response from the professor accused of unacceptable behavior, and Columbia agreed.
So the Times agreed not to interview the students who had been the victims of this racist assault, but asked Columbia to bend the rules to allow them to interview the one professor who had been singled out in the report. Why did they accept this data with preconditions? Why did they ask for a waiver to speak with the perpetrator and not the students? Which Columbia officials provided the Times with this report? Would the Times have even printed this confession had Columbia not disclosed it first?
Basically, the Times worked hand in hand with the anti-Semites at Columbia to publish an inflammatory report with the understanding that the party most affected by the ruling would not be allowed to comment on it.
“Did not recall the policy”?
Yeah, OK, and I’ve got a bridge I can sell ya…
And in a related atrocity, this link(via LGF), by an eyewitness, gives a nauseating close-up of rabid Jew-baiting, masked as “liberal thought”, in Ward Churchill’s appearance at Berkley:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15321_Ward_Churchill_at_UC_Berkeley&only=yes
The most upsetting think about this story? At the end of his post, click on the links to various Bay Area media outlets that covered the event. Hours and hours of vicious anti-Semitic tirades witnessed by print and television reporters, and NOT ONE STORY MENTIONS IT AT ALL!
The media, so liberal in its bias, knows that if it reports the truth, the cover of these so-called “progressives” will be blown. And the media will not do this to their allies.
So they simply do not report it; and thereby allow this hatred to gain legitimacy as it festers like an open wound.
Somebody must shine a light here. This compliance with evil cannot be countenanced.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
…The article did not disclose The Times's source for the document, but Columbia officials have since confirmed publicly that they provided it, a day before its formal release, on the condition that the writer not seek reaction from other interested parties.
Under The Times's policy on unidentified sources, writers are not permitted to forgo follow-up reporting in exchange for information. In this case, editors and the writer did not recall the policy and agreed to delay additional reporting until the document had become public. The Times insisted, however, on getting a response from the professor accused of unacceptable behavior, and Columbia agreed.
So the Times agreed not to interview the students who had been the victims of this racist assault, but asked Columbia to bend the rules to allow them to interview the one professor who had been singled out in the report. Why did they accept this data with preconditions? Why did they ask for a waiver to speak with the perpetrator and not the students? Which Columbia officials provided the Times with this report? Would the Times have even printed this confession had Columbia not disclosed it first?
Basically, the Times worked hand in hand with the anti-Semites at Columbia to publish an inflammatory report with the understanding that the party most affected by the ruling would not be allowed to comment on it.
“Did not recall the policy”?
Yeah, OK, and I’ve got a bridge I can sell ya…
And in a related atrocity, this link(via LGF), by an eyewitness, gives a nauseating close-up of rabid Jew-baiting, masked as “liberal thought”, in Ward Churchill’s appearance at Berkley:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15321_Ward_Churchill_at_UC_Berkeley&only=yes
The most upsetting think about this story? At the end of his post, click on the links to various Bay Area media outlets that covered the event. Hours and hours of vicious anti-Semitic tirades witnessed by print and television reporters, and NOT ONE STORY MENTIONS IT AT ALL!
The media, so liberal in its bias, knows that if it reports the truth, the cover of these so-called “progressives” will be blown. And the media will not do this to their allies.
So they simply do not report it; and thereby allow this hatred to gain legitimacy as it festers like an open wound.
Somebody must shine a light here. This compliance with evil cannot be countenanced.
Pulitzer Prize Committee Pukes on America
...Oh, boy, the JerseyNut is riled now. I just got a gander at the winners of the Pulitzer prize winners for "photojournalism". Take a drink, then take a look http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/breaking-news-photography/works/ at the winners. Virtually each one an anti-American portrait, taken out of context to make our heroic men and women overseas look either brutal, defeated, or terrified. The worst of the lot is one of a jihadi, taken profile style, with a resolute face, a bandalier criss-crossing his chest, and a dove on his soldier. Photos of Americans depict cowering, weeping, fallen soldiers, and prison confrontations.
Wretchard says it clearly: http://www.wretchard.com/blogs/the_belmont_club/default.aspx
Since news by definition shows the truth one would expect the insurgency so lovingly depicted in these AP photos to have triumphed. But since that never happened and prospects grow dimmer by the day..
I thought about this for a while - could these judges actually be rooting for terrorists who are killing innocent men, women and children in order to reinstate a tyrant who killed innocent men, women and children? Could they really be fawning over them so?
No, I decided. My conclusion is that they hate America so much that they will side with the lowest, vilest members of society just in order to poke a stick in our eyes. They are rooting for 21st century fascists to reign terror over the Middle East, just so they can escape their own self-loathing and feel superior to us, even if only for a moment.
No matter how many must die.
That is the level of their hate.
I wonder... if the judges got their wish, and America was defeated and the world ruled by Islamists...if do you think there would still be "Pulitzers Prizes" ?
Wretchard says it clearly: http://www.wretchard.com/blogs/the_belmont_club/default.aspx
Since news by definition shows the truth one would expect the insurgency so lovingly depicted in these AP photos to have triumphed. But since that never happened and prospects grow dimmer by the day..
I thought about this for a while - could these judges actually be rooting for terrorists who are killing innocent men, women and children in order to reinstate a tyrant who killed innocent men, women and children? Could they really be fawning over them so?
No, I decided. My conclusion is that they hate America so much that they will side with the lowest, vilest members of society just in order to poke a stick in our eyes. They are rooting for 21st century fascists to reign terror over the Middle East, just so they can escape their own self-loathing and feel superior to us, even if only for a moment.
No matter how many must die.
That is the level of their hate.
I wonder... if the judges got their wish, and America was defeated and the world ruled by Islamists...if do you think there would still be "Pulitzers Prizes" ?
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Columbia Nazis ...March!
The whitewash of Columbia University's Jew-bashing only emboldened the perpetrators, as they declared themselves the victims http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/43922.htm
Days after a Columbia University report dismissed as unfounded Jewish students' complaints of intimidation by faculty, angry professors yesterday called for protections from "McCarthyist" attacks against them.
And they compared themselves, appropriately, to one Ward Churchill:
"We've seen this with Ward Churchill, we've seen this with our colleague Joseph Massad," said history professor Rashid Khalidi, referring to the embattled University of Colorado professor who compared World Trade Center victims to Nazis and the Columbia Middle East instructor singled out in the report for threatening a student who disagreed with him.
So Jew-baiting by racist Arabs is now protected speech. Well, why shouldn't they think that? They were exonerated, right?
But there are always consequences, my friends, always consequences. The result of liberal thought put into action seen here in Manhatten, second only to San Fran for liberal nuttiness - see this article in today's NY Post entitled N.Y. JEWS FACE HATE :
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/43897.htm
Anti-Semitic incidents in Manhattan nearly tripled last year, due to a jump in swastikas being painted and scrawled in apartments and public buildings, a new report has found.
The jump in Manhattan includes a huge 100-square-foot swastika that was painted on the front of the Upper West Side's Temple Shaare Zedek last December.
The Manhattan incidents account for nearly half of the 227 reported throughout the city last year...In all, there was a decline in the state, from 364 to 350, in all kinds of hateful incidents
And finally:
...there is no explanation for the Manhattan increase.
Can I give you an explanation? When a University OK's Anti-Semitism as legitimate policy/speech, all bets are off, all rules are revoked, any base behavior valid.
I work in Midtown; every synagouge has cement barriers to protect them from suicide bombers and usually have policeman, often in riot gear, outside.
Thanks, liberals -do you like the result of your non-judgemental policies? Do you see the result of your marriage to the racist "anti-Zionist" cause?
Actually - I bet they do see it.
And I bet they do like it.
This is the world they want to create.
UPDATE 9PM: Well, if Columbia U. says that Jews are the #1 evil in the world, this vile piece of news follows as a natural..via LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15325_Disgusting_Story_of_the_Day&only=yes , we learn that:
Israeli academics who refuse to condemn the government’s actions in Palestinian territories risk a boycott by the UK’s leading lecturers’ union
Days after a Columbia University report dismissed as unfounded Jewish students' complaints of intimidation by faculty, angry professors yesterday called for protections from "McCarthyist" attacks against them.
And they compared themselves, appropriately, to one Ward Churchill:
"We've seen this with Ward Churchill, we've seen this with our colleague Joseph Massad," said history professor Rashid Khalidi, referring to the embattled University of Colorado professor who compared World Trade Center victims to Nazis and the Columbia Middle East instructor singled out in the report for threatening a student who disagreed with him.
So Jew-baiting by racist Arabs is now protected speech. Well, why shouldn't they think that? They were exonerated, right?
But there are always consequences, my friends, always consequences. The result of liberal thought put into action seen here in Manhatten, second only to San Fran for liberal nuttiness - see this article in today's NY Post entitled N.Y. JEWS FACE HATE :
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/43897.htm
Anti-Semitic incidents in Manhattan nearly tripled last year, due to a jump in swastikas being painted and scrawled in apartments and public buildings, a new report has found.
The jump in Manhattan includes a huge 100-square-foot swastika that was painted on the front of the Upper West Side's Temple Shaare Zedek last December.
The Manhattan incidents account for nearly half of the 227 reported throughout the city last year...In all, there was a decline in the state, from 364 to 350, in all kinds of hateful incidents
And finally:
...there is no explanation for the Manhattan increase.
Can I give you an explanation? When a University OK's Anti-Semitism as legitimate policy/speech, all bets are off, all rules are revoked, any base behavior valid.
I work in Midtown; every synagouge has cement barriers to protect them from suicide bombers and usually have policeman, often in riot gear, outside.
Thanks, liberals -do you like the result of your non-judgemental policies? Do you see the result of your marriage to the racist "anti-Zionist" cause?
Actually - I bet they do see it.
And I bet they do like it.
This is the world they want to create.
UPDATE 9PM: Well, if Columbia U. says that Jews are the #1 evil in the world, this vile piece of news follows as a natural..via LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15325_Disgusting_Story_of_the_Day&only=yes , we learn that:
Israeli academics who refuse to condemn the government’s actions in Palestinian territories risk a boycott by the UK’s leading lecturers’ union
Well, why not? Renounce you government and your race, or be excluded from academic thought in "Great" Britian. Keep letting in those Jihadis, Tony...
Columbia Anti-Semites Declare "No Anti-Semitism at Columbia"
Despite a documentary film depicting raw anti-Isreal sentiment and 'ol fashioned Jew-hatred, a panel of 5 learned and intellectual academics declared there was "no evidence" that professors in the Middle Eastern studies department made public anti-Semitic remarks meant to bully Jewish students.
The five "impartial" panelists have the following credentials:
Two signed a petition demanding Columbia divest from Isreal
One has publicly likened Isrealies to Nazis
One has had complaints brought to his attention regarding anti-Semitism, and pointedly ignored them
The other is the Dean who recruited most of these sc*mbags...
The New York Daily News' Richard Schwartz
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/296220p-253644c.html
has this to say:
It's no surprise that this packed jury concluded all is largely well at Columbia. No self-respecting Jew - or thinking human - should buy it.
Nor should Columbia President Lee Bollinger.
Interesting - poor Mr. Summers at Harvard makes one misunderstood remark about women, and the whole faculty goes into an uproar. Columbia students suffer documented Jew-bashing, and a committee essentially OK's the behavior. Liberal dogma has plenty of room for anti-Semitism disguised as "anti-Zionism", but will overthrow Harvard for the suggestion that a women's brain may be a tad different than a man's. Horrific to think that latest studies http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050403-093741-7287r.htm
show that 88% of college professors are declared liberals (general population # is around 33%).
Then Mr. Schwartz points out something I didn't know:
This isn't Columbia's first brush with anti-Semitism. Between the World Wars, the university rejiggered its admissions criteria to keep many qualified Jewish students out. It took an act of the state Legislature to undo the crime.
Maybe if Columbia got rid of some of these reactionary racist old-school "blame Isreal first" instructors, and replaced them with some of the more foward-thinking Arabs we see coming up in the Middle East over the last year or so (Thanks to Mr. Bush), they may be able to provide their students with the first-rate Middle Eastern Studies department their parents are paying so much money for.
We'll keep an eye on this...
The five "impartial" panelists have the following credentials:
Two signed a petition demanding Columbia divest from Isreal
One has publicly likened Isrealies to Nazis
One has had complaints brought to his attention regarding anti-Semitism, and pointedly ignored them
The other is the Dean who recruited most of these sc*mbags...
The New York Daily News' Richard Schwartz
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/296220p-253644c.html
has this to say:
It's no surprise that this packed jury concluded all is largely well at Columbia. No self-respecting Jew - or thinking human - should buy it.
Nor should Columbia President Lee Bollinger.
Interesting - poor Mr. Summers at Harvard makes one misunderstood remark about women, and the whole faculty goes into an uproar. Columbia students suffer documented Jew-bashing, and a committee essentially OK's the behavior. Liberal dogma has plenty of room for anti-Semitism disguised as "anti-Zionism", but will overthrow Harvard for the suggestion that a women's brain may be a tad different than a man's. Horrific to think that latest studies http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050403-093741-7287r.htm
show that 88% of college professors are declared liberals (general population # is around 33%).
Then Mr. Schwartz points out something I didn't know:
This isn't Columbia's first brush with anti-Semitism. Between the World Wars, the university rejiggered its admissions criteria to keep many qualified Jewish students out. It took an act of the state Legislature to undo the crime.
Maybe if Columbia got rid of some of these reactionary racist old-school "blame Isreal first" instructors, and replaced them with some of the more foward-thinking Arabs we see coming up in the Middle East over the last year or so (Thanks to Mr. Bush), they may be able to provide their students with the first-rate Middle Eastern Studies department their parents are paying so much money for.
We'll keep an eye on this...
Monday, April 04, 2005
Sticky Sandy Berger and the Silence of the MSM
So Sticky Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor and John Kerry’s Campaign Advisor on Foreign Affairs, has plead guilty to a single count of "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.”
Sticky originally took five copies of an “after-action report” -- one during his September 2003 visit to the National Archives and four during his October 2003 trip. When Archives officials contacted him after they realized some documents were missing, he told them about the two copies he had and returned them, along with the handwritten notes he had taken. Originally, he told investigators nothing of the remaining three copies; later he admitted to officials that he then used scissors to cut up three copies that night while at his office.
My question is, how much of our National Security has been compromised? And who, if anyone, did Sticky Sandy show these memos to? Of course, the most logical (and calm-headed) reading of these events is that Sticky stole and destroyed these documents in order to cover up failures in Clinton-era national security in the area of terrorism (and then lied at first about doing so). But a National Security advisor absconding with and shredding sensitive documents concerning an active (9/11 Committee) Congressional investigation should be a pretty big story, right? Especially when he is a policy advisor to a former Presidential candidate?
Well, not in our Mainstream Media! This story has been relegated to “page A14” type of coverage, buried as filler between back-page advertising. No questions have been asked as to possible damage to National Security, or even what exactly may have been in these documents that was so unnerving to Sticky and Bill C. that they had to be stolen and shredded. Now of course, if this were a Republican involved, we would have heard:
-the word “Watergate” applied as often as the media has applied “Vietnam”
-countless editorials crying out “Full Disclosure!”, “Taking Responsibility”, “Republican Obstructionism” as well as endless calls for investigations on who knew what and when...
-concerns about an election “compromised” by the stealing of internal documents
-non-stop coverage, both front-page and broadcast lead-in, on this scandal.
But we get none of this, from the media who ran days of front-page stories based on childishly forged documents, and who spilled tons of ink on the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson affair, which was “criminal” until it turns out that the media’s sources were in danger of being indicted (by an investigation they themselves championed).
No comments either on the ridiculously light punishment Sticky will receive…only a three year suspension of National Security Clearance - why not PERMANENT? A $10K fine? (easily affordable to a Clintonite) And no prison time? Geez, Martha Stewart must have had one really sh*tty lawyer…
Nevertheless, in every article I’ve read on Sticky Sandy, there has been a number of quotes from supporters saying “he’s a good guy”, it was a “honest mistake”, and expressing hope that this incident “doesn’t harm his reputation”. NOT ONE QUOTE showing disgust, outrage, or even a dissenting opinion! No attempt at being “evenhanded” when it is one of your own, right boys?
No, the Mainstream Media is trying its best to flush this story down the Memory Hole (they’re probably desperately PhotoShopping some torture pics as we speak). Otherwise, they may have to own up to the fact that every negative tag they spent a whole election cycle trying to pin on Republicans is actually true of their dear Democratic party. They can’t do that; even in the face of facts they cannot overcome their cognitive dissonance, so they bury it, like a paranoid buries evidence of his instability. They want us to forget, because they need to forget…
Don’t let them. Please.
Sticky originally took five copies of an “after-action report” -- one during his September 2003 visit to the National Archives and four during his October 2003 trip. When Archives officials contacted him after they realized some documents were missing, he told them about the two copies he had and returned them, along with the handwritten notes he had taken. Originally, he told investigators nothing of the remaining three copies; later he admitted to officials that he then used scissors to cut up three copies that night while at his office.
My question is, how much of our National Security has been compromised? And who, if anyone, did Sticky Sandy show these memos to? Of course, the most logical (and calm-headed) reading of these events is that Sticky stole and destroyed these documents in order to cover up failures in Clinton-era national security in the area of terrorism (and then lied at first about doing so). But a National Security advisor absconding with and shredding sensitive documents concerning an active (9/11 Committee) Congressional investigation should be a pretty big story, right? Especially when he is a policy advisor to a former Presidential candidate?
Well, not in our Mainstream Media! This story has been relegated to “page A14” type of coverage, buried as filler between back-page advertising. No questions have been asked as to possible damage to National Security, or even what exactly may have been in these documents that was so unnerving to Sticky and Bill C. that they had to be stolen and shredded. Now of course, if this were a Republican involved, we would have heard:
-the word “Watergate” applied as often as the media has applied “Vietnam”
-countless editorials crying out “Full Disclosure!”, “Taking Responsibility”, “Republican Obstructionism” as well as endless calls for investigations on who knew what and when...
-concerns about an election “compromised” by the stealing of internal documents
-non-stop coverage, both front-page and broadcast lead-in, on this scandal.
But we get none of this, from the media who ran days of front-page stories based on childishly forged documents, and who spilled tons of ink on the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson affair, which was “criminal” until it turns out that the media’s sources were in danger of being indicted (by an investigation they themselves championed).
No comments either on the ridiculously light punishment Sticky will receive…only a three year suspension of National Security Clearance - why not PERMANENT? A $10K fine? (easily affordable to a Clintonite) And no prison time? Geez, Martha Stewart must have had one really sh*tty lawyer…
Nevertheless, in every article I’ve read on Sticky Sandy, there has been a number of quotes from supporters saying “he’s a good guy”, it was a “honest mistake”, and expressing hope that this incident “doesn’t harm his reputation”. NOT ONE QUOTE showing disgust, outrage, or even a dissenting opinion! No attempt at being “evenhanded” when it is one of your own, right boys?
No, the Mainstream Media is trying its best to flush this story down the Memory Hole (they’re probably desperately PhotoShopping some torture pics as we speak). Otherwise, they may have to own up to the fact that every negative tag they spent a whole election cycle trying to pin on Republicans is actually true of their dear Democratic party. They can’t do that; even in the face of facts they cannot overcome their cognitive dissonance, so they bury it, like a paranoid buries evidence of his instability. They want us to forget, because they need to forget…
Don’t let them. Please.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Diversity at The Washington Post !
Liberals love diveristy in superficial things like color and nationality, but not in thought. Consider today's entries on the editorial pages in today's Washington ComPost:
A Failure of Policy, Not Spying (Ashton B. Carter)
Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers (By Michael Kinsley)
The Heat Is On the GOP (By David S. Broder)
Add in another anti-Iraq story by Jim Hoagland as well for icing...No intellectual bias here though, right folks?
Thank God for Will's essay on baseball The Old Ballgame Still Has Its Grip ...a tonic for the bile that oozes out of this rag...
A Failure of Policy, Not Spying (Ashton B. Carter)
Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers (By Michael Kinsley)
The Heat Is On the GOP (By David S. Broder)
Add in another anti-Iraq story by Jim Hoagland as well for icing...No intellectual bias here though, right folks?
Thank God for Will's essay on baseball The Old Ballgame Still Has Its Grip ...a tonic for the bile that oozes out of this rag...
Media Bias by the Numbers...
I am linking to this post from The Cassandra Page,
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2005/04/top-10-categories-of-msmdnc-bias.html
which does a wonderful job in breaking down Mainstream Media bias into a dozen different catagories. Cassandra uses the phrase MSM/DNC to illustrate his belief that the two are tied together and essentially working with/for each other; certainly Dan Rather's Memogate, in which CBS producer Mary Maples put her fraudulent sources in touch with the top dogs of the Democratic party, is a clear example. Personally, I think the whole media whitewash of the Sandy Berger affair is an equally offensive example; but I'm gonna get to that, I promise...
One of my faovrite on his list include "The Memory Hole" - I always refer to it as a lack of context; maybe I'm being too kind:
"The tactic here is to forget that certain events occurred and hope that everyone else does also. This tactic requires that the MSM/DNC not only stop talking about some fact, but actually help it to disappear. ..Just before the election, NBC interviewed John Kerry and asked about his military IQ test. Kerry stated that this record was not public (a blatant contradiction of Kerry's story that he has released ALL of his military records). The next day, excerpts of this interview appeared on another NBC program, with the damning admission excised. The actual editing out of inconvenient facts provides a great example of a memory hole maneuver...Usually, we don't have that kind of easy proof. We just have to remember the facts that MSM/DNC doesn't like and document the absence of any recent MSM/DNC reference to those facts. Any time that we can't find a MSM/DNC reference to some serious news item..it is an example of the memory hole at work."
Then we have "The Lie":
"The Lie. Often, but not always, the MSM/DNC will resort to an outright lie. This lie will involve some very specific fact, like a forged memo, false reports of a crowd booing when the crowd actually applauded, false claims that Sandy Berger returned the "original" documents, false attribution of statements to public figures, false charges that American soldiers are targeting journalists, etc. These lies also include preparation of headlines or stories in advance of the actual events, as MSM/DNC did with the Iraqi elections and the death of Terri Schiavo. I have also categorized as lies instances where the MSM/DNC has an agreement with newsmakers that certain facts will be kept hidden. This one is a much closer call (as between a lie and some other kind of atrocity). "
My favorite, though, is the Race Card:
"...A commenter asked about the use of "PC." The MSM/DNC uses the race card in many situations. By pretending to speak for minorities, MSM/DNC is engaging in ventriloquist journalism. MSM/DNC also uses the race card as a smear tactic. When any conservative politician begins to gain acceptance, the MSM/DNC immediately begins a race card/PC attack. When a minority happens to be conservative, such minority conservatism is flushed down the memory hole or, if that doesn't work, results in a necklacing smear."
This is a great piece of work; congratulations, Cassandra! I'm going to refer to them often, and expound on them as I expect nothing in this behavior to change.
Refer to this post http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/guardian-creates-its-own-reality.html , see a great example of The Lie, Opinion as Fact, and Issue Exclusion all together in one outrageous editorial!
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2005/04/top-10-categories-of-msmdnc-bias.html
which does a wonderful job in breaking down Mainstream Media bias into a dozen different catagories. Cassandra uses the phrase MSM/DNC to illustrate his belief that the two are tied together and essentially working with/for each other; certainly Dan Rather's Memogate, in which CBS producer Mary Maples put her fraudulent sources in touch with the top dogs of the Democratic party, is a clear example. Personally, I think the whole media whitewash of the Sandy Berger affair is an equally offensive example; but I'm gonna get to that, I promise...
One of my faovrite on his list include "The Memory Hole" - I always refer to it as a lack of context; maybe I'm being too kind:
"The tactic here is to forget that certain events occurred and hope that everyone else does also. This tactic requires that the MSM/DNC not only stop talking about some fact, but actually help it to disappear. ..Just before the election, NBC interviewed John Kerry and asked about his military IQ test. Kerry stated that this record was not public (a blatant contradiction of Kerry's story that he has released ALL of his military records). The next day, excerpts of this interview appeared on another NBC program, with the damning admission excised. The actual editing out of inconvenient facts provides a great example of a memory hole maneuver...Usually, we don't have that kind of easy proof. We just have to remember the facts that MSM/DNC doesn't like and document the absence of any recent MSM/DNC reference to those facts. Any time that we can't find a MSM/DNC reference to some serious news item..it is an example of the memory hole at work."
Then we have "The Lie":
"The Lie. Often, but not always, the MSM/DNC will resort to an outright lie. This lie will involve some very specific fact, like a forged memo, false reports of a crowd booing when the crowd actually applauded, false claims that Sandy Berger returned the "original" documents, false attribution of statements to public figures, false charges that American soldiers are targeting journalists, etc. These lies also include preparation of headlines or stories in advance of the actual events, as MSM/DNC did with the Iraqi elections and the death of Terri Schiavo. I have also categorized as lies instances where the MSM/DNC has an agreement with newsmakers that certain facts will be kept hidden. This one is a much closer call (as between a lie and some other kind of atrocity). "
My favorite, though, is the Race Card:
"...A commenter asked about the use of "PC." The MSM/DNC uses the race card in many situations. By pretending to speak for minorities, MSM/DNC is engaging in ventriloquist journalism. MSM/DNC also uses the race card as a smear tactic. When any conservative politician begins to gain acceptance, the MSM/DNC immediately begins a race card/PC attack. When a minority happens to be conservative, such minority conservatism is flushed down the memory hole or, if that doesn't work, results in a necklacing smear."
This is a great piece of work; congratulations, Cassandra! I'm going to refer to them often, and expound on them as I expect nothing in this behavior to change.
Refer to this post http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/04/guardian-creates-its-own-reality.html , see a great example of The Lie, Opinion as Fact, and Issue Exclusion all together in one outrageous editorial!
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Rest in Peace, John Paul II
Although not a Catholic, one must respect the man who stood so tall against the evils of Communism (folks forget the Sovet-backed attempt to assasinate him in 1981). Remember that the Solidarity movement against the government of Poland was manned by factory and contruction workers, miners and dockman, all of who had easy access to explosive devices that could have made the revolution into a bloodbath. But the religious nature of these people, of whom John Paul was a leader, did not allow for this (unlike other religious leaders who command the murder of innocents from their mosques), and the revolt remained relatively peaceful.
Being Jewish, I appreciated his visits to various synagouges, as well as finally establishing formal ties with Isreal in 1993, and his visit to the Holy Land (in which he left a note expressing sadness for suffering of the Jews) in 2000. I was less comfortable with his meetings w/Arafat, but compared to someone like Bill Clinton (who met the killer 47 times), the Pope was practically a hardliner.
May the Catholic Church in its wisdom find a leader who can continue his works.
Being Jewish, I appreciated his visits to various synagouges, as well as finally establishing formal ties with Isreal in 1993, and his visit to the Holy Land (in which he left a note expressing sadness for suffering of the Jews) in 2000. I was less comfortable with his meetings w/Arafat, but compared to someone like Bill Clinton (who met the killer 47 times), the Pope was practically a hardliner.
May the Catholic Church in its wisdom find a leader who can continue his works.
The Guardian creates its own Reality !
Today's NT Slimes' editorial page gleefully provides us with a link to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1448590,00.html London Guardian editorial (the header over the NYT link states "Links to newspaper Web sites commenting on issues related to American foreign policy and culture", but they never seem to find one that is not in harmony with the Times' point of view) parrotting the "mend it, don't end it" line of the UNphiles these days. The editorial takes shots at "neo-cons", declares Annan completely vindicated, all the usual European stuff. But this line towards the end, the conclusion of this piece on why the UN is so valuable, is a howler:
"...we must mend, not end, the UN. Not out of misplaced internationalism but out of hard-headed realism.There is no alternative to an organisation that can coordinate the responses of 60 different donor countries, the military assets of 26 countries, and the efforts of hundreds of aid agencies days after the tsunami disaster struck the Indian Ocean. While the second Bush administration gropes for international legitimacy, the battered, creaky leviathan of the UN already has it, and must be allowed to keep it. "
Hmmm...I guess you could call this...a bald-faced lie? The UN co-ordinated nothing; it was American and Austrailan military personnel that were on the ground withing 48 hours providng food, water and medical assistance and saving lives by the hundreds, if not thousands, while UN groups were searching for hotel rooms to "co-ordinate their efforts". If one recalls, British MP Clare Short famously accused the US of trying to "co-op the United Nations" because we were providing relief efforts while they were still talking about it. Process over results, right? Euroweenies and UNphiles would have been happy to see more tsunami victims dead if the US could either be eliminated from the process or somehow held responsible.
And the line about the second Bush administration groping for legitimacy is laughable. Foreign leaders are now lining up all over the world to kiss Condi's ring and Bush's ass, knowing he's here to stay and they (Chirac, Schroeder, Assad) may well not be. Meanwhile, the UN needs the Guardian to warp the truth in order to justify its very existence.
Anyway - the Guardian's strongest rationale for keeping the UN is based on a complete wishful interpetation of reality that bears no resembleance to the facts on the ground. By presenting their case thusly, they really give us all the more reason to doubt the UN and most importantly, the motivation of its backers.
For full information on the UN's criminally incompetent attempts at relief efforts, check this since- discontinued blog, The Diplomad, from a man who was at Tsunami ground zero http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ . It tells you all you need to know (scroll down a bit once you get there) about the true priorities of the UN and its miserable minions.
"...we must mend, not end, the UN. Not out of misplaced internationalism but out of hard-headed realism.There is no alternative to an organisation that can coordinate the responses of 60 different donor countries, the military assets of 26 countries, and the efforts of hundreds of aid agencies days after the tsunami disaster struck the Indian Ocean. While the second Bush administration gropes for international legitimacy, the battered, creaky leviathan of the UN already has it, and must be allowed to keep it. "
Hmmm...I guess you could call this...a bald-faced lie? The UN co-ordinated nothing; it was American and Austrailan military personnel that were on the ground withing 48 hours providng food, water and medical assistance and saving lives by the hundreds, if not thousands, while UN groups were searching for hotel rooms to "co-ordinate their efforts". If one recalls, British MP Clare Short famously accused the US of trying to "co-op the United Nations" because we were providing relief efforts while they were still talking about it. Process over results, right? Euroweenies and UNphiles would have been happy to see more tsunami victims dead if the US could either be eliminated from the process or somehow held responsible.
And the line about the second Bush administration groping for legitimacy is laughable. Foreign leaders are now lining up all over the world to kiss Condi's ring and Bush's ass, knowing he's here to stay and they (Chirac, Schroeder, Assad) may well not be. Meanwhile, the UN needs the Guardian to warp the truth in order to justify its very existence.
Anyway - the Guardian's strongest rationale for keeping the UN is based on a complete wishful interpetation of reality that bears no resembleance to the facts on the ground. By presenting their case thusly, they really give us all the more reason to doubt the UN and most importantly, the motivation of its backers.
For full information on the UN's criminally incompetent attempts at relief efforts, check this since- discontinued blog, The Diplomad, from a man who was at Tsunami ground zero http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ . It tells you all you need to know (scroll down a bit once you get there) about the true priorities of the UN and its miserable minions.
Liberal/Media Mental Illness in a Nutshell...
You may need to register to enjoy this link, but Mr.Martin Peretz hits the nail squarely on the (liberal) head. Absolutely love this:
"...If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about AIDS?"
I hear a version of this daily in the "enlightened" city of New York.
Trust me, they are seething in the Big City, and rage is all they have "left"...
A tip 'o the cap to Pejmanesque http://www.pejmanesque.com/ , who is always worth a read.
"...If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about AIDS?"
I hear a version of this daily in the "enlightened" city of New York.
Trust me, they are seething in the Big City, and rage is all they have "left"...
A tip 'o the cap to Pejmanesque http://www.pejmanesque.com/ , who is always worth a read.
Soft Power Works! Oh, Wait, No... It doesn't....
From the fine blog Let It Bleed,
http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/04/she_died_after_.html
Here's what happens when soft power nations like Canada have their citizens raped, tortured and murdered by terrorist regimes:
"...So, after sitting on that evidence since November, and it having now come to public light, what are they going to do? Nothing.
At a press conference in Toronto yesterday, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew brushed aside the calls for a new approach, saying Canada is already doing all it can to seek justice for Ms. Kazemi.
Okay. Now re-read that again. "Canada is already doing all it can to seek justice". What does that mean?
Economic sanctions by one country alone don't work, Mr. Pettigrew said. And he dismissed the notion of recalling Canada's ambassador. "We need an ambassador there to promote our case," he said."
So what exactly is the Canadian government doing to protest the ravaging of their citizens?
My guess would be bowing and scraping, dhimmi-style...
Maybe time for people to start thinking about dual Canadian-AMERICAN citizenships, you know, for safety's sake...
http://letitbleed.blogs.com/blog/2005/04/she_died_after_.html
Here's what happens when soft power nations like Canada have their citizens raped, tortured and murdered by terrorist regimes:
"...So, after sitting on that evidence since November, and it having now come to public light, what are they going to do? Nothing.
At a press conference in Toronto yesterday, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew brushed aside the calls for a new approach, saying Canada is already doing all it can to seek justice for Ms. Kazemi.
Okay. Now re-read that again. "Canada is already doing all it can to seek justice". What does that mean?
Economic sanctions by one country alone don't work, Mr. Pettigrew said. And he dismissed the notion of recalling Canada's ambassador. "We need an ambassador there to promote our case," he said."
So what exactly is the Canadian government doing to protest the ravaging of their citizens?
My guess would be bowing and scraping, dhimmi-style...
Maybe time for people to start thinking about dual Canadian-AMERICAN citizenships, you know, for safety's sake...
Friday, April 01, 2005
Boston Globe sees doom,death, despair ahead...
A Mr. H.D.S Greenway, writing in today's Globe, tells us that yes, things seem to be going well now, but we should really be AFRAID, as in "reality" all the pieces are in place for a foreign policy collapse! Now, it must take a bright man (after all, he has three initials prior to his last name) to see this headlong rush to defeat in the face of all of our current victory, right? Well, maybe, but if you continue to rely on unsubstantiated or long -discredited canards like HDS does, you can expect to be made to look foolish in short order. Let me take a crack at it! First quote:
"...A dangerous insurgency still inflames the Sunni heartland, and Americans seem to be still in denial about whom they are fighting. I read in one of this country's most respected newspapers recently that the enemy is a mix of Saddam Hussein loyalists, Ba'ath Party irreconcilables, and criminals. Iraqi nationalists, many of whom hated Saddam but hate the occupation just as much, or more, are not even mentioned."
Unsubstantiated assumption is bolded here - where is the proof of this "fact"? It seems farfetched to me that someone with a blood hatred of Saddam Hussein would be hard-pressed to transfer that hatred to those who removed him. Certainly one may expect a resentment of a foreign military force with a prolonged stay, but that is different from joining up with terror gangs, and killing your own countrymen. Is this a logical thought process:?
Iraqi: I hated Saddam, I'm happy he's gone
But - I hate the Americans even more, you know, because...
So - I'm going to join an outlaw group to show my outrage by killing innocent women and children, and maybe knocking off an American soldier in the process
So are Americans in denial about their enemy? Or does HDS need to create an imaginary foe to buttress his negative scenario? Nice try, smart guy, but this guy from Jersey sees right thru you. Let's do another:
"...Iraq is dangerously divided along ethnic and religious lines, and the election did little to bridge this growing gap. In fact, it may have exacerbated it. Sunni Muslim leaders have begun to call openly for attacks against Kurds and Shi'ites."
Nice try, but every poll of Iraqis taken shows little or no concern about ethnic divisions (in fact, when "exit polled" on Jan 31, many took offense at the ethnic questions); they are more concerned about Iraq as a nation. HDS is projecting the racial divisions that the liberals constantly try to exploit here onto the Iraqi people. And if the Sunnis do not vote, they deserve their disenfrachisement. Period.
Lastly:
"Neither the Palestinians nor the Lebanese are strangers to elections, and the success of Mahmoud Abbas and the demonstrations against Syrian interference in Lebanon had more to do with the deaths of Yasser Arafat and Rafik Hariri than with any doctrine of the Bush administration."
No stranger to rigged elections, by Arafat's henchman and Syrian intimidation, you jackass. If you cannot credit Bush, then blame Clinton for constantly treating with these mobsters instead of standing up to them. Since HDS' great intellect seems to have abandoned him, I will point out that as soon as these people have a chance to safely speak their mind, they speak for Western Values - freedom and peace.
Hope we cleared this up for you, HDS!
Link at:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/
articles/2005/04/01/rush_to_optimism_on_middle_east/
UPDATE 445PM: Looks like the Sunnis are on board after all - another liberal media canard shot to hell...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
"...A dangerous insurgency still inflames the Sunni heartland, and Americans seem to be still in denial about whom they are fighting. I read in one of this country's most respected newspapers recently that the enemy is a mix of Saddam Hussein loyalists, Ba'ath Party irreconcilables, and criminals. Iraqi nationalists, many of whom hated Saddam but hate the occupation just as much, or more, are not even mentioned."
Unsubstantiated assumption is bolded here - where is the proof of this "fact"? It seems farfetched to me that someone with a blood hatred of Saddam Hussein would be hard-pressed to transfer that hatred to those who removed him. Certainly one may expect a resentment of a foreign military force with a prolonged stay, but that is different from joining up with terror gangs, and killing your own countrymen. Is this a logical thought process:?
Iraqi: I hated Saddam, I'm happy he's gone
But - I hate the Americans even more, you know, because...
So - I'm going to join an outlaw group to show my outrage by killing innocent women and children, and maybe knocking off an American soldier in the process
So are Americans in denial about their enemy? Or does HDS need to create an imaginary foe to buttress his negative scenario? Nice try, smart guy, but this guy from Jersey sees right thru you. Let's do another:
"...Iraq is dangerously divided along ethnic and religious lines, and the election did little to bridge this growing gap. In fact, it may have exacerbated it. Sunni Muslim leaders have begun to call openly for attacks against Kurds and Shi'ites."
Nice try, but every poll of Iraqis taken shows little or no concern about ethnic divisions (in fact, when "exit polled" on Jan 31, many took offense at the ethnic questions); they are more concerned about Iraq as a nation. HDS is projecting the racial divisions that the liberals constantly try to exploit here onto the Iraqi people. And if the Sunnis do not vote, they deserve their disenfrachisement. Period.
Lastly:
"Neither the Palestinians nor the Lebanese are strangers to elections, and the success of Mahmoud Abbas and the demonstrations against Syrian interference in Lebanon had more to do with the deaths of Yasser Arafat and Rafik Hariri than with any doctrine of the Bush administration."
No stranger to rigged elections, by Arafat's henchman and Syrian intimidation, you jackass. If you cannot credit Bush, then blame Clinton for constantly treating with these mobsters instead of standing up to them. Since HDS' great intellect seems to have abandoned him, I will point out that as soon as these people have a chance to safely speak their mind, they speak for Western Values - freedom and peace.
Hope we cleared this up for you, HDS!
Link at:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/
articles/2005/04/01/rush_to_optimism_on_middle_east/
UPDATE 445PM: Looks like the Sunnis are on board after all - another liberal media canard shot to hell...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Exibit A in Left-Wing Failure: France 2005
This article in Front Page Magazine http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17511 gives a hint of what happens when left-wing horsesh*t actually becomes the law of the land. The result, obvious way beforehand to all but our intellectual superiors:
"...Voices have been warning that the passions unleashed by the virulent anti-Zionism fostered at all levels of French society since the autumn of 2000 would not stop with Zionists and Jews; they would turn against the society as a whole. The warning was majestically ignored. "
Anti-Semitism is just a canary in the coalmine; where it exists, horror and death are soon to follow. Actually, I tried explaining to some folks that the hatred is now morphing into anti-Catholicism ("Christian Right" is the liberal's slur de jour); but all I got was "Right, Wing-Nut...".
So what happens?
"8 March 2005, Place de la République: a thousand young toughs pierced the heart of a student demonstration and unleashed their rage…not against the police but against the “privileged classes” in their own age group—the protesting lycée students. Operating in gangs of ten and twenty, the casseurs (smashers) in brand-name sweat suits swept through the march like pirate ships, zeroed in on their prey, attacked from behind. They threw kids to the ground, gratuitously beating and kicking them, snatching handbags, ipods, wallets, and cell phones. Riot police looking like robots with their thick leather padding stood by as the predators cut through the crowd wielding knives, clubs, and tear gas bombs. "
Read the whole article and watch French and European Civilization teeter on the precipice of its own distortions, lies, and hatreds.
For the British Example, see:
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/03/will-tories-rise-in-britian.html
"...Voices have been warning that the passions unleashed by the virulent anti-Zionism fostered at all levels of French society since the autumn of 2000 would not stop with Zionists and Jews; they would turn against the society as a whole. The warning was majestically ignored. "
Anti-Semitism is just a canary in the coalmine; where it exists, horror and death are soon to follow. Actually, I tried explaining to some folks that the hatred is now morphing into anti-Catholicism ("Christian Right" is the liberal's slur de jour); but all I got was "Right, Wing-Nut...".
So what happens?
"8 March 2005, Place de la République: a thousand young toughs pierced the heart of a student demonstration and unleashed their rage…not against the police but against the “privileged classes” in their own age group—the protesting lycée students. Operating in gangs of ten and twenty, the casseurs (smashers) in brand-name sweat suits swept through the march like pirate ships, zeroed in on their prey, attacked from behind. They threw kids to the ground, gratuitously beating and kicking them, snatching handbags, ipods, wallets, and cell phones. Riot police looking like robots with their thick leather padding stood by as the predators cut through the crowd wielding knives, clubs, and tear gas bombs. "
Read the whole article and watch French and European Civilization teeter on the precipice of its own distortions, lies, and hatreds.
For the British Example, see:
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/03/will-tories-rise-in-britian.html
The Rotteweiler is barking
...about the conviction of a US Army captain of shooting dead a wounded Iraqi (one of al-Sadr's thugs; wait! I mean a "Freedom Fighter"). http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/2005/03/soldier_convict.php
Point here is that this decorated captain put an enemy combatant out of his misery, instead of allowing him to die a certain agonizing death. I guess a battlefield soldier can go to jail for making this decision (with a medic by his side), but Michael Schiavo can be made into a hero. Bottom line, says the Rott, is this type of life and death decisions is best left up to an unelected judge and CANNOT be trusted to the common folk.
Or maybe if the good Captain had only had the good sense to starve him to death...
UPDATE: No jail time, just a dismissal from the armed services...typical imflammatory Reuters headline, though http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050401/ts_nm/iraq_courtmartial_dc
Point here is that this decorated captain put an enemy combatant out of his misery, instead of allowing him to die a certain agonizing death. I guess a battlefield soldier can go to jail for making this decision (with a medic by his side), but Michael Schiavo can be made into a hero. Bottom line, says the Rott, is this type of life and death decisions is best left up to an unelected judge and CANNOT be trusted to the common folk.
Or maybe if the good Captain had only had the good sense to starve him to death...
UPDATE: No jail time, just a dismissal from the armed services...typical imflammatory Reuters headline, though http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050401/ts_nm/iraq_courtmartial_dc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)