thoughtomation

thoughtomator is retiring

2007-05-15T23:16:00.000-05:00

I am retiring from blogging and all internet commentary, and politics as a whole.

While I know many have appreciated my unique point of view over the many years that I have used this handle, I have finally had enough of politics. My naivete and innocence are now completely extinct - I know now for certain that there are so few who share my point of view at this point in time that there is no chance that I will see any of my hopes fulfilled.

The world is insane; and in the context of an insane world, it is I who appear crazy to many. I'm tired of fighting uphill all the time. I'm tired of having to explain the fundamentals of what America is in every conversation. I'm tired of all the deniers of Islamic ambition. I'm tired of having to argue with even Republicans that it is not just for the government to confiscate more of my income than was required of a medieval serf, who was considered in his time to be a slave.

Robert Heinlein predicted this state of affairs in Stranger in a Strange Land; this period of time was known as "The Crazy Years". (Read the book if you want to know what happens next.) The wisdom of Jubal Harshaw was never as clear to me as it is now.

It's time to look out for #1. It was a mistake to let my love of my country and my love of life itself to distract me from my personal concerns. Don't make the same mistake I have made all this time. Forget politics - an honest man will never have enough allies in positions of power to make a difference. It is enough to be willing to lay one's life down in defense of that which one loves. I owe the world no more than that.

When reason returns to the national debate, when I perceive that discussing issues with others is no longer a complete waste of my time, perhaps I shall ressurect thoughtomator. Until then, my participation in this conversation brings me only frustration and pain and anguish. I don't need it. Until then, I will cast my ballots unmarked to register my complete dissatisfaction with all politicians, all political parties, and all policies. All my internet links to news and politics sites are already deleted, and I pray I am wise enough to keep it that way.

May God bless America. We are going to need it.

Farewell.

Is no one serious about terrorism?

2007-05-15T21:56:00.000-05:00

written in response to a comment on Redstate.org linked in the title of this post. I'm tired of people who support the administration telling me that not supporting "nation building" is tanamount to surrender to terrorists.

I understand that some people adhere to the party line no matter what. But I have no respect for it.

Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution. A real conservative, not a fake Bush globosocialist "compassionate conservative", understands that that is primary.

By the way, Bush's War on Terror is liberty-destroying BS and I'm glad to have someone like Ron Paul in office fighting for my freedom. Bush himself decried the very sort of "nation-building" that he is engaged in now, back when he was first asking for our votes.

So quit your "surrender" canard. I can tell you are at no real risk of personally suffering a terrorist attack from the lightweight arguments you offer; the worst risk you run by backing these wrongheaded policies is perhaps a minor economic loss. Since it's my neck that's actually on the line, not yours, I'd appreciate if you'd learn something about terrorism and Islam and the principles of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness that make America what it is before you toss more of my hard-earned money into this futile effort while doing nothing that actually lessens my risk of terrorism.

You want to fight a war on terror? Here's how:

1) Call out Islam for the murderous religion of savage barbarians that it is;

2) Control the borders;

3) Engage in a crash program of establishing American independence from Arab oil; and

4) Attack our enemies with overwhelming force until they unconditionally surrender.

If you can't bring yourself to back this program then you should leave the discussion so that adults can deal with serious issues without your interference.

I'm disgusted by all the people who are so blinded by the party line that they can't see how totally ineffective at actually combatting terrorism the administration's policies are.

I vote that the consideration of anti-terrorist policies be restricted to those of us who have actually personally endured Islamic terrorism. The rest of you have no idea what you're talking about and haven't the incentive to take it any more seriously than just another political football. Pizza, anyone?

I survived the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and also 9/11 by the grace of God. Nearly lost both my mother and sister in 9/11, as well, and got to smell the mixture of incinerated human flesh and aluminum for three weeks afterwards. I live just outside DC; my family is in NYC. I've had plenty of incentive to be thinking about this far far longer than you have. This administration is not doing anything that will substantially reduce my risk of suffering another terrorist attack.

Play your frivolous games with someone else's life, not mine.

Ophelia at the DNC

2007-05-11T13:00:00.000-05:00

I found this to be highly amusing. DNC lawyers actually wrote a cease-and-desist letter to a (sort of) conservative political discussion forum with regards to repeating a story from the radio that claimed that Howard Dean advised Kansas Gov. Sebilius how to politicize the tornado damage and blame it on the President.

With all the accusations that fly around in political discussions on the Internet, why would this particular one gain the attention of the lawyers at the DNC?

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Brain teaser

2007-05-08T22:55:00.000-05:00

If you find yourself wanting to tackle a difficult challenge, try to name one policy that is too left wing for the Democrat party to support.

Cable Service Oddity

2007-04-19T00:20:00.000-05:00

Dear Comcast,

It appears that the channel that should be showing NBC has in fact been playing episodes of the Twilight Zone all day. Can you please check the line at your earliest convenience?

Thanks,
t-m

Virginia Tech, Aliens, and Gun Control

2007-04-17T09:44:00.000-05:00

The murders at Virginia Tech have, predictably, brought out the harpies of gun control with a vengeance.

Count on hearing nothing from them on the topic of VT declaring itself an unarmed victim zone, erm, I mean gun-free zone.

The VT campus was the ideal gun control environment; any student caught with a gun on campus would have been, by policy, expelled.

But zero tolerance for guns doesn't do a thing to prevent a criminal from obtaining one illegally, all it does is make sure that good and decent people do not have the tools to defend themselves and others, should something like this occur. One armed citizen could have stopped this in its tracks before it ever got started.

The perp has been identified; he is a foreign national permanent resident alien from South Korea. It must be asked: how did a foreign national in the United States get these guns? According to rumors flying around the 'net, someone claiming to have been the one to have sold the guns to the perp expressed relief that all the paperwork was perfectly in order (and thus, his own butt covered).

Something I do not know, and am very curious to find out, is if it is in fact legal for a foreign national to buy guns here.

On a personal note, I will soon officially be a Virginian. After I convert my driver's license and registration, and sign up to vote, my very next act will be to apply for a concealed carry permit. Then my next act following will be to finally, as a US citizen, for the first time in my life, be able to unashamedly assert my 2nd Amendment rights to self defense. If some foreign national goes on a shooting spree in my neighborhood, I will personally guarantee that he won't get to kill 30 people.

Imus IV: The Corzine Effect

2007-04-14T13:24:00.000-05:00

So, while racing his way at an illegal speed to another Imus-related panderfest, while wearing no seat belt - I am referring to the guy who instituted the practice of the "seat belt checkpoint" in New Jersey, of course - Corzine's (evil, global-warming-causing, baby-eating) SUV was allegedly forced of the road due to the actions of a red pickup driver.

Well, they found the driver of the pickup.

And he's been charged with...? Nothing. Why exactly did they track him down? What was he questioned for?

The driver is referred to as 20 years old, a worker at an Atlantic City casino, and a "special needs" driver. So I guess he wasn't a suitable scapegoat for the Governor's self-inflicted injuries.

This all has me wondering quite a bit, as to whether the "special needs" of the driver include legal permission to be in the United States in the first place. This story, when combined with the official version of events, simply doesn't add up.

The experienced media watcher at this point must consider the two major possibilities to be:

1) The driver is an illegal alien, and the governor being a coddler of illegal aliens will under no circumstances allow this fact to become public; or

2) The whole story about the red pickup was horse manure in the first place.

In either event, Corzine is looking a whole lot less deserving of sympathy than, say, the falsely-accused, media-lynched Duke lacrosse players.

Where's Nancy Grace now that we need someone to ask some hard questions and insist on answers with substance?

Update: It gets even better. Apparently Corzine's vehicle was flashing emergency lights as well. So that's three laws he was breaking, in addition to an additional abuse of power, using taxpayer resources to attend an event that had absolutely nothing to do with the responsibilities of his office.

No wonder they're trying to suppress information about this incident.

Imus III - Meet Terry Moran, ABC News House Racist

2007-04-13T20:09:00.000-05:00

Just read it... it's worse on its own than anything I could add to it.

Will Terry Moran be the next to be Imused? He sure should be, if there's any consistency to the standard that the race hustlers of this country have imposed.

Update: Apparently someone at ABC news is deleting some of the more devastating comments being placed on the blog - things that referred to contacting advertisers and the like as well. Someone is feeling the heat already.

Imus II: The Law of Unintended Consequences

2007-04-13T15:26:00.000-05:00

This Don Imus controversy is getting more and more enjoyable. Suddenly, Imus himself is no longer the sole focus; instead, the long, storied, and explicitly racist history of Sharpton and Jackson now get the stage, as well as the drenched-in-derogation rap industry. Bravo!

What's more, all the fakers in this story are poised to get their comeuppance:

- Media Matters, the self-appointed media censorship group, now is itself under scrutiny, as to the legitimacy of the purpose of their mission, the fact that the people propogating this story are openly paid agitators, and the complete lack of criticism from that group with regards to far worse perpetrators of media degradation, who just happen to be aligned with the politically correct sponsors of the group.

- Jon Corzine, who, while traveling to a forum to pimp these grievances, and in the process of breaking at least two of the laws he is charged with enforcing, encounters an act of God, divine justice, sending him to the hospital and effectively ending his governorship, if not his life. I for one don't believe the injuries are limited to what has been publicly admitted, and I say good - couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

- Hillary Clinton, another individual who has not hesitated to wield the grievance stick, now has to explain why she accepted a fundraiser from a rap industry executive. One sterling example of this gentleman's work features 24 references to the word that white people aren't allowed to say - on one track alone. $800,000 flows to the Hillary campaign... will she weather the storm? Will her media allies bury it? Or will she lose even more ground in the fundraising race to the upstart Obama?

- Sharpton and Jessie J and Louis Farakkhan, whose grossly racist past is now coming back to haunt them. Sharpton in particular is getting it from two sides, now that the Duke lacrosse players have been cleared. Tawana Brawley, and all the racist statements that came from Sharpton as a result, make him look like the lying racist hypocrite he is when either topic is discussed. Hymietown Jackson himself has a lot of explainin' to do, for his extensive Jew-baiting past. Farakkhan - all you need to do is listen to any typical speech by him to realize that the primary bastion of frothing race-hate is the self-appointed black leadership. All three of them have careers that depend on the continuation of racial strife, and all three risk destruction.

Moreover, there are at least two major points that have yet to arise in the public debate, both of which could be potentially devastating to the Lefty culture that has poisoned our nation for so long.

- One of the Rutgers players, in a typical pre-programmed racial grievance statement, declared that this "scarred me for life". That's a little bit extreme, even for a lib to swallow; if something like this is a lifelong scar, you're waaaaaaay too hypersensitive, and perhaps just a bit mentally unstable. In terms of actual lifelong scars, it turns out that these lovely ladies have done quite a bit of self-inflicted wounds in the form of tattoos, which just so happen to be real lifelong scars. I would love to see this unfortunately popular phenomenon be publicly condemned as the self-degradation that it is. You want respect, honey? Then show us you respect yourself.

- It is starting to dawn on people that what Imus said is not at all an uncommon statement; that his chief crime is being a white person saying it. When the Cosbys of the world criticize the rappers for encouraging bad behavior, they get ostracized by the self-appointed leaders of the black community. Perhaps if he'd gotten the message, that it's perfectly OK to criticize those things if it is targeted exclusively at white people, he'd be a hero instead of an outcasQt.

As Drudge loves to say, "developing..."

Don Imus and the End of Rap "Music"

2007-04-12T16:49:00.000-05:00

Now it's official - the thought police have completely put Don Imus out of business, with his radio show gone as well as his TV show. The new sheriff is in town - and he doesn't take kindly to racially charged slurs, especially against black women.

Thank heavens for that!

I've been complaining about the degradation of music for a long time, and (c)rap "music" is at the top of my list of complaints. Since degrading black women is now cause to lose your job, it seems certain that this principle, equitably applied, will put 99% of rap manufacturers out of business. And it couldn't come soon enough for my tastes.

Thanks to Don Imus' inadvertent error, there is hope for the music industry once again.

We all know that the rule against ethnic slurs and degradation of black women will be equitably applied, now don't we? Buh-bye, Tupac wanna-bes, and good riddance.

How to Respond to an Overt Homosexual

2007-03-03T19:51:00.000-05:00

So there I was, chatting with this guy I knew - from his manner and mannerisms - was a homosexual, but since that wasn't the topic, I didn't broach it.

Of course, that doesn't stop them from shoving their perversions down our throats, does it? Of course not. So, during the course of our conversation, he comes out and says, casually yet sans appropriate context, "I'm gay."

Not the first time I encountered one of these deviants, but this time I was prepared. I extended my hand in a warm greeting, inviting him to shake it. He grasps my hand, thinking I'm affirming and approving of his, um... "lifestyle". I lock my hand onto his, and say, casually, with a warm, bright, smile...

"I pick my nose and eat it."

I highly recommend this technique for getting people to keep their disgusting personal habits to themselves.

First!

2007-02-11T13:37:00.000-05:00

"Generalissimo Anna Nicole Smith is still dead"

There. It's been said. Can we move on now?

Giuliani, Democrat?

2007-02-02T11:33:00.000-05:00

So it's been reported that Rudy Giuliani has not yet decided to run as a Republican. The glaring implication is that he may just decide to run as a Democrat. If I were Giuliani, that's just what I'd do.

In his quest to become and remain Mayor of New York City (perhaps the third most difficult executive political office in America, behind Governor of California and President of the United States) Giuliani had to take many positions that resemble the Democrat's rite of initiation: in particular, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and pro-homosexual positions, and in a manner that could not be repudiated, and had a public divorce with his 2nd wife in a particularly ugly fashion - her fault, but that's not going to help him much. In addition, with illegal immigration looking to be the monster issue in the next election, Giuliani does not match up well against most of the other Republican candidates on that issue.

What Giuliani does have going for him on the conservative side of the fence are things like law and order and anti-corruption credentials. As a former prosecutor instrumental to breaking the mob, and mayor instrumental in breaking the education syndicate, he is potentially very attractive to the vast majority of Americans who feel that the federal system is rotten to the core. As a compelling, if not eloquent, speaker, he has the Reaganic ability to supercede the media in delivering his message to the public at large. In terms of law and order, he was at first mocked ruthlessly for his "broken windows" philosophy; the end result was a historic success emulated by cities worldwide.

So the Giuliani situation is thus: to compete as a Republican, he needs to reverse, divert, or suppress strong opinion on four issues many voters - especially Republican voters - feel very strongly about, which are guns, gays, the right to life, and personal integrity, while engineering a transformation on immigration. But if he were to instead compete as a Democrat, he's already on the correct side of the first three,... and the fourth is not an issue for Democrats. As for the last, he'd again be correct for the Democrats rather than making a change of position that no one would believe, anyway. As an urban mayor, he is better positioned than any other candidate to speak to the needs of the large cities where Democrat votes are counted.

Surveying the field, the Republican candidates include two well-funded opponents (McCain and Romney) who are not well-distinguished from Giuliani; indeed, most conservatives view him and Romney as interchangable, though not quite as odious as McCain. So his niche is already occupied - the left-Republican, AKA "RINO" option is well-covered, and as a third candidate he merely splits that sector of the vote with his main rivals. On the right-Republican side are Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter; the last man standing among the three will claim the considerable GOP anti-illegal-immigration vote, and if not Hunter, the anti-corruption vote as well. As a result of all of this, Giuliani is uniquely poorly politically situated for a long term battle through the GOP primary - unlike any other GOP candidate he has competition on every issue that GOP voters care about.

On the Democrat side, however, there is a huge, gaping hole in the field for a conservative Democrat. Hillary claims this title but any inspection of her behavior reveals an orthodox Marxist - in an odd way, her claim is true, but what she is conservative about is Cold War Politboro politics. Obama is nothing more than fluff - watch his numbers drop like a rock, the first time he takes a strong stand on anything - and Edwards is decisively claiming the left of the left.

As a Democrat, Giuliani wouldn't have to answer for his positions on guns and gays; in fact, he'd earn extra credit for taking those stands while a Republican. On the other hand, the fact of the party switch to run would hurt him as a Johnny-come-lately - but this too would be mitigated by the common understanding that a Republican in New York City is a Democrat nationally. (And who would make such a charge, anyway? The political toddlers Obama and Breck Girl? Carpetbagger Hillary?) Such a run is even more inviting when you consider that none of the minor Democrats stand a prayer and all of them bleed votes from the left; Giuliani would give the Democrats a fully vetted, successful political executive, and "America's Mayor", as their candidate, and importantly, someone with an existing cross-party base of support. While nominees typically battle for independent voters, Giuliani could grab a chunk right out of his GOP opponent's base - assuring Democrats of certain victory.

The big objection is that he would have to fight Hillary for it. But he may just be better off in a multi-candidate race against her, than one-on-one in a general election. Moreover, his entry as a Democrat would squeeze Hillary out of her own political niche (the pretense of being a "sober Democrat"), and he just might despise her enough to do it.

Why Nancy Can't Not Blink

2007-01-24T21:30:00.000-05:00

Tardive dyskinesia?

Anyone who saw the video of the State of the Union (SOTU) speech can't help but wonder: what the heck was Nancy Pelosi jacked up on? This woman was blinking so much, her eyelids threatened to fly right off the asphalt. Some are calling it at 80 blinks a minute; I think that's maybe a bit high, but I'm fairly certain it was at least 55-60 in parts. The frame's inclusion of the slow-blinking, Mona Lisa-faced Cheney made Nancy's rapid flutterings even more dramatic.

Now I confess, my first reaction was to think that she was communicating with her Chinese masters in code, with the teething motions for punctuation. But once I realized that I couldn't prove it if it were, I settled in for something a little more reliable: this woman was "high as fuck", to use a random descriptor of a not unfamiliar condition.

Some have posited that her rapid blinking was a sign of deception; and indeed it often is. But if that were a significant factor here, then how is it that she was the only one afflicted in a room full of politicians? It wasn't even her turn to lie, and she couldn't have outdone the President that night if it were.

So I googled a bit for some answers. "drug rapid blink" was my search, and it turned up some very interesting things, including this article on seizures. It also taught me a new word: blepharospasm. (Say that five times fast. Now you've got it too.) It might be Meige's Syndrome - the mouth movements do lend themselves to that explanation - but that condition is exceedingly rare, and she would already have attempted to capitalize on it politically if it were, champion of the helpless and all that, when I ran across this:

In such cases, spasms of the eyelids are accompanied by jaw clenching or mouth opening, grimacing, and tongue protrusion. Blepharospasm can be induced by drugs, such as those used to treat Parkinson's disease. When it is due to antiparkinsonian drugs, reducing the dose alleviates the problem.

So Nancy may have Parkinson's, which is not beyond being a credible explanation. But there is yet another possible explanation: Tardive dyskinesia:

+ TD is a manifestation of chronic neuroleptic toxicity that is often permanent. It is characterized by involuntary repetitive movement of the lips and tongue (buccolingual dysplasia), limbs (choreoathetosis), and eyes (rapid blinking movements).

+ Older women are most susceptible to TD; however, it may occur at any age after 24 months of therapy.

But even better, from NIH:

Tardive dyskinesia is a neurological syndrome caused by the long-term use of neuroleptic drugs. Neuroleptic drugs are generally prescribed for psychiatric disorders, as well as for some gastrointestinal and neurological disorders. Tardive dyskinesia is characterized by repetitive, involuntary, purposeless movements. Features of the disorder may include grimacing, tongue protrusion, lip smacking, puckering and pursing, and rapid eye blinking.

Let's not forget Nancy is from San Francisco. Does Pelosi - our third in line of succession, after a President and Vice President that the Left has been chomping at the bit to see assassinated for years, have a condition that derives from long term use of drugs, to treat an underlying psychiatric condition too severe to reduce the dose? Or is it perhaps just a long term effect of heavy drug abuse? What are the implications of this for the condition of the rest of her brain?

Hello Script Kiddies

2007-01-19T16:43:00.000-05:00

I can't be the only one sick of this stuff:

01/19/2007 08:53:30 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /a1b2c3d4e5f6g7h8i9/nonexistentfile.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:30 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /adxmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:30 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /adserver/adxmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:31 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /phpAdsNew/adxmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:31 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /phpadsnew/adxmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:31 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /phpads/adxmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:31 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /Ads/adxmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:34 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /ads/adxmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:34 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:34 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /xmlrpc/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:34 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /xmlsrv/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:34 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /blog/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:35 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /drupal/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"
"01/19/2007 08:53:35 AM",-,travelmb.propagation.net,"GET /community/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.0"

propagation.net seems to be a hive of script kiddies.

Yahoo Breakdown?

2007-01-13T13:51:00.000-05:00

Something very serious is going on, on the Yahoo! network. Suddenly perfectly normal email - even mail sent from other Yahoo accounts - is getting categorized as bulk, or sometimes not even delivered at all. Outside services are also having trouble sending mail to valid accounts there.

The oddest part is the inconsistency of it. In a yahoo-account-to-yahoo-account exchange of emails, every other email from the other person went into my Bulk folder. From another Yahoo! user, I was receiving normally, and for no reason the latest mail I received from this person went into Bulk as well.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the router breakdown in Vienna, VA yesterday?

As they say on Drudge, "developing..."

Sean Hannity, You Blithering Shill, or How and Where Iraq Was Lost

2007-01-11T17:47:00.000-05:00

Coming back from work today, I was pissed off for other reasons, when I turned on the radio. Normally in the rare instances I do listen to the radio (in my car when I've forgotten the MP3 player or just don't have a mood for music) I listen to conservative talk radio.

So I turn on WMAL and get to listen to Hannity blathering on about how the war in Iraq is vital and how the Democrats are hypocrites and are saying all sorts of terrible things, with the subtext that the Democrats are the ones responsible for the debacle in Iraq.

The Democrats ARE hypocrites and do say all sorts of terrible (and insincere) things, because they are willing to say anything that will get them power. But they cannot be blamed as primarily responsible for our problems in Iraq. They were unhelpful, except to the enemy, but until a few months ago they had control over exactly zero branches of government. The state of Iraq is wholly the responsibility of Republicans, and the failure to acknowledge this (and responsibility for a whole host of other negative things) is the chief reason why they are now a minority in Congress. The GOP had full control over the government for over three years of our involvement in Iraq, and like it or not, they own this puppy.

We lost Iraq directly due to the actions of the Republican government, period. It was lost when instead of acknowledging Islam to be the enemy, which it is, we were told by the President and Commander-in-Chief that Islam is "a religion of peace". No it's not, scumbag, it's a religion of chopping people into little bits, and anyone who studies a lick of history can figure this out.

The war was lost when it was decided that instead of giving close and exclusive inspection to Muslims, who earned such scrutiny with their own words and actions, it was decided that normal Americans would have to endure harassment and violation by security personnel in airports instead.

The war was lost when people started realizing that the President's interest in security is a farce, as he not only allows but encourages millions of Mexicans to invade our nation in direct contravention of his sworn duty. If we won't defend our own borders, what business do we have defending Iraq's?

The war was lost when the standing order was given for National Guardsmen on our border to retreat in the face of an armed force crossing the border. It was lost when people started asking why Americans had to give up liberties for homeland security when the worst violation of homeland security was going on with the approval and encouragement of the President and many in Congress.

The war was lost when it was decided that our soldiers should be something other than the world's best butt-kickers. It was lost when it was decided not to take out the sources of enemy funding and personnel in Iran and Syria. It was lost when our soldiers found that every person shooting at them would get a lawyer and a trial before our guys got to shoot back.

The war was lost when enemy combatants got to prance about for the cameras in Guantanamo rather than being terminated on the battlefield with the extreme prejudice they had earned. It was lost when the same happened to Saddam.

The war was lost when Al-Sadr demonstrated open defiance of the United States and paid no significant price for his actions. It continues to be lost with every breath that odious pig takes.

The war was lost when a Republican President decided his top domestic priority was the enactment of big-government programs and other policies previously found only on the Left. It was lost when a Republican Congress became the most profligate in memory if not in history. It was lost when due to these actions, the coalition that had elected George Bush twice in the face of the most rabid Democrat opposition was shattered by the very officeholders who betrayed promise after promise.

The war was lost because of all these things, and every last one of these decisions was made by a Republican President, a Republican Congress, or both.

So it really doesn't matter, ultimately, what the Democrats did or did not do, because they weren't running the show.

So screw you, Sean Hannity. Some of us actually do care about the defense and future of this nation, and it's because of shills like you who adhere to party line with no critical eye or skepticism whatsoever helped to usher it along. You're just another politically elite a-hole making yourself rich by acting against the clear interest of Americans as citizens and America as a nation.

Nice little XSS worm

2007-01-06T17:27:00.000-05:00

Check out this very interesting set of HTTP requests:

Date Request
1/6/2007 12:48 GET //README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde2//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde3//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde-3.0.5//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde-3.0.6//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde-3.0.7//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde-3.0.8//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /horde-3.0.9//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /mail//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /email//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /webmail//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /newmail//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /mails//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:48 GET /mailz//README HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET //chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /chat//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /phpchat//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /PhpMyChat//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /chatroom//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /chats//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /forum//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /php/phpmychat//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /phpMyChat-0.14.2//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /phpMyChat-0.14.5//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /phpMyChat//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /phpMyChat-0.14.3//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /phpMyChat-0.14.4//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /chat1//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /forums//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /chat2//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /chat3//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:50 GET /community//chat/messagesL.php3 HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:51 GET /cacti//graph_image.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:51 GET /stats//graph_image.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:51 GET //graph_image.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //xmlrpc/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //xmlsrv/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //blog/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //drupal/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //community/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //blogs/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //blogs/xmlsrv/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //blog/xmlsrv/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //blogtest/xmlsrv/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //b2/xmlsrv/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //b2evo/xmlsrv/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //wordpress/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:52 GET //phpgroupware/xmlrpc.php HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //cgi-bin/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //scgi-bin/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //awstats/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //cgi-bin/awstats/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //scgi-bin/awstats/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //cgi/awstats/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //scgi/awstats/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1
1/6/2007 12:54 GET //scripts/awstats.pl HTTP/1.1

Methinks all these enthusiasts for "Web 2.0" technologies have no idea what they are getting into.

If anyone wants an database-drive webserver built on a more conservative philosophy that's not vulnerable to this BS, drop me a line.

Let me be the first to say it

2007-01-02T01:29:00.000-05:00

I think we've just identified the perfect coach for the New York Giants next year - Chris Peterson, head coach of Boise State. Guy prepares his team, has imagination and guts.

So since someone is going to end up suggesting this one, I'm going to claim credit for thinking of it first!

Radical ideas for the New York Giants

2006-12-26T13:24:00.000-05:00

The New York Giants are a sorry lot these days, at 7-8 once again officially a losing team. Amazingly, they may make the playoffs, but I'm sure even the team itself knows that's a one-game event for them this year.

The problems on the field are many: injuries and a sorry lack of execution at nearly all positions. The problems off the field are even greater - communication within the organization is apparently done, these days, through the New York Post.

Since it's now a public issue, let me offer some radical solutions to the Giants' problems.

First, make a plan. I'd say an achievable plan is "to dominate the NFL during the decade starting 2010". Why bring home just one championship? Let's make this worthwhile and bring home a few.

Second, learn it and love it: "rebuilding". This team has a LOT of that to do and should take decisive action with this as the goal. New York wants a team that can win championships and this Giants team is not it.

Third, flush all sources of negativity. This translates into a) firing Coughlin, who likes to say one thing and do another; and b) dealing pretty much every big name on the team for draft picks and prospects.

This brings us to the fourth item, depth. The injuries suffered by the Giants this year exposed that the second string is not able to capably support the first. Moreover, that makes the existing first-stringers' (and the coaches') jobs harder, they spend less time rotated out and resting and have more pressure on each to personally execute. Trading away Eli Manning, Jeremy Shockey, Michael Strahan, and Plaxico Buress should provide a wealth of talent across the board in return.

Fifth, establish an identity. If the New York Giants are going to be the champion team they should be, they will be a running team, not just say they are a running team. If you pass in every important situation and pass often on first and second down, you are not a running team, sorry. If you rush for half a quarter and abandon it after minimal success, you are not a running team. The goal of a running team should be to average 5 yards or better per rush, so that they can reliably make first downs with the rush by the 3rd. The advantage that is gained from being able to do this is enormous - the clock moves, bringing the win closer; the defense rests and refreshes its strength; and turnovers are minimized. To complement such an offense, a strong defensive line and reasonably competent secondary is necessary to prevent an opponent from doing the same.

Let's take a look at some recruiting goals specifically:

a) At QB: If you have only one QB option in this league, you're screwed. The success of backup and rookie QBs around the league this year (Romo, Young, Rivers, Garcia, and on and on down the list) is because the existing starters couldn't perform at a winning level. This year, Eli Manning couldn't perform at a winning level - he should have been pulled in the middle of the Bears game when the season was still salvageable. (To illustrate the depth of the problem, Eli has a good chance to break 20 INTs this year, with 18 so far and a game to go.) But since the Giants have had no other QB to try (apparently Lorenzen and Hasselbeck are listed on the depth chart as a formality alone), what should have been a strong team, even a championship contender, was largely sunk by the personal slump of Eli Manning. Manning or not, Eli is not what he was thought to be when grand concessions were made to draft him, and it's time to prepare to cut losses if necessary.

b) On the lines: Success at the line whether on offense or defense is the heart of football. When it comes December and January and the wind is blowing and there's snow on the field, the teams that win (playoff games and championships) do it through controlling the line of scrimmage. Therefore having strong, reliable, and deep offensive and defensive lines should be the #1 priority in recruiting. The OL has played decently this season, but they've been around a while and some fresh blood - at least 3 new talented young players to serve as backups/rotation players/learners from the veterans are needed. I would look forward to having a completely new offensive line within 4 years, young guys who could have a decade of playing football together to look forward to - imagine how fearsome the teams behind such a line would be! This is a key, key, goal, more important than who is the QB, as behind such a line most any QB could competently get the job done.

The DL got rocked by injuries - it's just bad luck that two Pro Bowl DEs were taken out for much of the season. For the future, getting rid of Strahan while he's still worth something on the market is the best thing to do, given that Kiwanuka played well in his trial under fire. The tackles could be playing better, throwing those positions open to competition and rotation would be helpful both as player incentive and for team stamina during games. A tired defensive line late in a game is a bad bad thing. Start with Umeniyora, Kiwanuka, and Cofield and bring in at least 5 solid guys to back them up. Kiwanuka will have to grow up fast, but I believe he can be depended on to do it, based on the way he has stepped up this season.

c) Offense - other backs - Brandon Jacobs is simply amazing, and what's better, he's young too. This is the guy who will be doing most of the running behind the offensive line we're going to build. Put him through the same regimen that taught Tiki Barber not to cough of the ball - Jacobs is pretty good about that already, but it never hurts to be sure. Jim Finn at FB is one of the few veterans worth keeping, and I would consider cross training him as a tight end, to be 3rd TE on 3 TE sets (an option Giants do not currently possess). It would also be worthwhile to seek a Reggie-Bush style tailback, to give the offense another way to confuse and disrupt an opposing defense.

d) Offense - wide receivers - Amani Toomer was never supposed to be a #1 receiver. He's a solid #2 receiver that was always good enough. Depending on him to be the #1 opened up the opportunity for what should have been a minimally damaging injury to become a critical fault. Trade Plaxico Burress to a team that doesn't mind if he doesn't care. Draft a receiver if any spots are open after linemen are taken care of (which they should be, considering all the draft picks we're getting for the "stars".) None of the other wide receivers are good enough to make the grade, trade them too for draft picks and start anew. Toomer should be used as #2 receiver and veteran teacher for the next few years, and if he develops coaching ability, to receivers coach.

e) Offense - tight ends - Trade Shockey. He ought to be worth a bundle on the market. Draft a good blocker and catcher. Shancoe could be worth keeping around.

f) Defense - linebackers - The Giants are actually doing pretty well at LB; Pierce is fierce and there's up and coming talent. Trade Emmons and bring in a couple of new young guys to refresh competition. Make LBs learn to punt and kick - if any of them end up having any talent at it, it would be like having an extra man on special-teams coverage if you can pull it off. One of them has to have a good leg for kickoffs at the very least.

g) Defense - secondary - Depth at safety is a real problem and should be addressed with draft picks. Backup corners are young and will probably look a lot better given experience, a real running game to give them rest, and a better pass rush. Sam Madison one of the few vets worth keeping.

h) (Offense) Kicking game - Kicker and punter are getting old, it might be a good idea to start the search for a new one for the next decade. Give all players on the team a shot at it and see if any have talent; there are only so many slots on the roster and being able to make the best use of every one is an advantage fitting of a championship team.

Speaking about coaching... Coughlin has to go, a blown opportunity of this magnitude demands accountability at his level. He should resign rather than be subjected to the humililation of being fired. Bring in a low-profile, soft-spoken coach with a demonstrated record of successfully running the ball and being creative in play-calling. After Coughlin, I'd say the rest of the coaches should go too as part of flushing negativity. (If there is a particular one or two that deserve to be held on then of course they should remain.)

So there you go, a plan for making the Giants a championship team.

Well, yes, I may be nobody, but at least I have a plan for it.

Do the Giants?

Bears at Giants 11/12/2006

2006-11-13T13:28:00.000-05:00

This was in my pre-game opinion, the game of the season, a titanic struggle for home-field advantage in the NFC. So I bought a couple of tickets and got seats in the first tier - a great view. Unfortunately, the Giants stopped playing in the second half. I guess it really does matter when two Pro Bowl DEs, a Pro Bowl safety, your leading receiver, and a starting linebacker are all out, especially when your second receiver and a starting cornerback are also hobbling back from injuries. It didn't help having a key lineman breaking a leg in the first quarter, either. Eli Manning played what must have been the worst game of his professional career - the stats say he completed 14 passes. I must have missed the first eight because after the time I got to my seat, midway through the first quarter, he could have completed no more than 6 for the rest of the game.

This was a big-time blown opportunity for the Giants; however, this is tempered by the fact that they simply didn't have their "A" team on the field (due to aforementioned injuries). When you have to start a tackle at DE, you are in desperate straits!

The game was a lot closer than the 38-20 final score indicates; the Giants were leading for the entire first half and part of the second. The Giants' "D" deserves major kudos for an excellent performance, especially under those conditions.

We'll see you in Chicago over the winter, Bears fans. Just remember that next time we'll have the whole team there to play. Turnoversaurus Rex, keep on fumbling!

I had actually driven up from VA to NYC just for this game; it was a horrible drive, with rain the entire way and terrible traffic. What is normally a 3.5-4 hour drive became seven plus (thus I missed part of the first quarter). Afterwards I drove my friend back to the city and then drove all the way back down to VA, for a grand total of 12 hours of driving in one day.

I'm exhausted but it was nice to see my first football game in person.

GOP Loses - Should Conservatives Celebrate?

2006-11-08T12:26:00.000-05:00

I think our chances improved overnight. Even with "our" party controlling all three branches of government, our agenda never made it to the table, except as the subject of an occasional and reluctant symbolic (never substantial) tip of the hat. We got two SCOTUS judges out of the entire six years; while I'm thankful for those two, that they are the entire accomplishment of this government in all that time is incredibly shameful.

In the post-WW2 era, there have been three core reasons to vote GOP:

1) Smaller government/lower taxes
2) Protection of liberty and repeal of restrictions/regulations on it
3) Strong national defense

The outgoing GOP government made a travesty of the first, a mockery of the second, and a farce of the third:

- Spending through the roof. No secret. First act: $1.2 trillion dollar prescription drug program the excesses of which would make LBJ blush.
- One small tax cut five years ago with an expiration date attached is not much of a claim to tax-cutting, not when more and more people are affected by the AMT, something that got no attention under 6 years of GOP governance.
- Demands for sacrifice of personal liberty from citizens, but illegal aliens subject to fewer and fewer restrictions. Did they think people didn't notice?
- Controlling the borders and the passage of human beings across them should have become an immediate national priority before noon on 9/11. This is common sense. Five years later we have a proposal for a fence that may not be a real fence and only covers a third of one of two very long borders anyway... and whether it is funded or not, and whether the funds will be spent on actually building it, those questions are still awaiting answers.
- Iraq. There are a lot of people who completely agree that Saddam needed to be taken out but were never convinced that "nation-building" was a necessary or proper step... and even among those who wanted some measure of nation-building, how many envisioned this?
- Strategically, the best reason to go into Iraq was to use it as a base from which to deal with Syria and Iran; indeed, this was a clinching argument in placing Iraq into the overall framework of the War on Terror. But instead of pressuring those nations, we allow them to pressure us instead, without consequence. We are no longer setting the terms of the conflict according to our needs.
- Who supports the soldier? Is it the one who uses him for political ends, allowing jihadis to take potshots at him from safe havens in Syria, in Iran, and in Iraq itself? Or the one that wants to empower him to get the job done and come home to his family?

Of course the Democrats are evil. They are not ashamed at all and will pretty much tell you so. But this is not an argument to support a GOP that is morphing into a second Democrat party - rather it is an argument to clean house, because we can only get our agenda on the table if we control the GOP. If we support a GOP we don't control, we are simply pushing further into the future the day when we have a representative of and advocate for our views at the national table. First, the GOP must be what we want it to be; only then can it be used as a tool to defeat the Democrats. Without first controlling the GOP there is no gain from defeating the Democrats; a lefty-controlled GOP is just as bad as lefty-controlled Dems (a redundant phrase), and worse in some cases. It is because the Democrats are beyond hope that we cannot allow the GOP to be the same.

So yeah, we got two good SCOTUS judges. But I'll tell you something, and that is that the simple willingness of the legislature to assert its Constitutional prerogative on oversight of the judiciary and the Presidency would have been a hundred times as powerful. The lack of will to do that or to otherwise put themselves out for the people who put them into office translated directly into a lack of will of the people to keep them in office.

NFL Week 9 picks

2006-11-04T09:19:00.000-05:00

This week has some interesting lines. I'll pick:
- Giants (-13) over Houston. Thirteen points is a lot. But Giants are looking like Super Bowl contenders and Houston is losing to Tennessee. Giants play this one at home, the only danger is overconfidence. Against a weak defense like Houston's, Eli & Co. can really rack up the points. While Houston has a pretty good offense, their offensive line isn't up to the task of standing up to this Giants defense, battered as it may be.

Giants have good players even in 3rd and 4th positions all the way down the depth chart. If you think the Giants are good this year, just wait - they are full of talented young players who will only get better over time. Jacobs will pick right up where Tiki left off, and don't be surprised if the Giants pick a good pass-catching RB in the next draft.

- Kansas City (+2) over St. Louis. I wouldn't be surprised if half the fans at this game are from KC; the two cities are not far apart. This will help to moderate the Rams' home field advantage. But mostly I pick the Chiefs because I got burned picking against them two weeks in a row.

- Baltimore (-3) over Cincinnati. Ravens are putting together a complete package; Cincy has issues to sort out.

- Tennessee (+9.5) over Jacksonville. Jax will probably win the game, but Tennessee will keep it close.

- Dallas (-3) over Washington. Tony Romo looks like the real deal. Will he be consistent enough to save their playoff hopes? We'll see. Washington has nothing on them, it is still waiting for its own Tony Romo; while Brunell is not the worst QB in the league, DC can do better.

- Green Bay (+3) over Buffalo. The Pack is on a roll, Buffalo has a QB whose name might as well be Lose-man. These Packers are not a good team, but they don't suck quite as bad as some of the stinkers in the league... stinkers like Buffalo.

- Tampa Bay (+1) over New Orleans. Tampa Bay played the Giants a lot closer than the score indicated; they were two dropped passes (sure scores that should have been caught) away from a tie game. Gruden is smart enough to run extra catching drills. New Orleans' luster is coming off and they have not been playing well recently.

- Atlanta (-5.5) over Detroit. This is more likely to be a blowout than close. Cold weather or not, Atlanta is clicking in the post-Giants aftermath, and they will not play a close game with a bad team.

- Chicago (-13.5) over Miami. Ouch! Could there be a bigger mismatch? Miami won't even get close to matching Arizona's feat of almost beating Chicago.

- Minnesota (-5) over San Francisco. Vikings will be eager to redeem themselves; San Francisco continues to play below professional level football.

- Cleveland (+12.5) over San Diego. The Browns aren't as terrible as their record might indicate. San Diego isn't as good as the hype, in my estimation. Consider this my anti-hype vote of the week.

- Denver (-3!) over Pittsburgh. Super Bowl champs or no, Pittsburgh has simply been playing bad football and has made many mistakes. Denver showed what it was capable of against Indy (which is that given home field advantage, they are almost as formidable a team as the Colts). This is my slam dunk pick for the week. I should put money on it. Steelers won't make the playoffs this year.

- New England (-3) over Indiannapolis. The hardest pick of the week, I really wanted to pick Indy, especially given the points. But I got burned picking against the Pats two weeks in a row, and I can't help but think that Belichik is fully capable of exploiting the Colts' run defense in a way that the Colts can find no answer within 60 minutes. Pats also have a knack for intercepting Manning so I think this week very well will be the end of the Colts unbeaten record for the season.

- Seattle (-7) over Oakland. Oakland gives no compelling reason to believe that they can do well on the road against a decent team. On the other hand, strange things do happen on Monday Night.

NFL Weekend wrapup

2006-10-31T12:42:00.000-05:00

Looks like I got creamed in the afternoon/evening/Monday games, going 1-4, and that only because of a heroic effort by Peyton Manning. Looks like I have to reconsider a few teams - the Patriots, first and foremost, are looking stronger and stronger as the season goes on, and that's largely because of Belichick. Few opposing coaches are good enough to cope with his game plans. Come out with an all-pass offense in an NFL dominated by the running game? That's balls! I've been consistently underestimating KC as well, perhaps they don't suck this year. On the other side of things, I've been overestimating the improvements in Houston and San Francisco, as well as the strength of the Rams. So this week I'm afraid I log a losing record (barely) at 6-7 overall.

There's always next week!

Vonage: Worst Ad Campaign Ever?

2006-10-29T17:48:00.000-05:00

If you haven't seen it yet, just watch an NFL game. "Vonage: One Smart Decision Among Many, Many Stupid Ones." Both the slogan and the commercial carry the same message: "Vonage is for stupid people". Like the Einstein that created that ad campaign, and all the sub-literate morons who approved it and paid to run it.

NFL Sunday Update

2006-10-29T16:33:00.000-05:00

For the early games:

Wins against spread
Giants
Jaguars
Ravens
Packers
Falcons

Losses against spread
Titans
Chiefs
Bears

Once again, 5-3 against the spread going into the afternoon.

NFL Sunday Week 8

2006-10-29T11:00:00.000-05:00

It's a little late to be putting up picks, but since the games haven't yet started, it's all good. Here's my picks against the spread this week:

Giants +9 vs Bucs: Giants
Browns +2 vs Jets: Jets
Titans +3 vs Texans: Texans
Eagles +7 vs Jaguars: Jaguars
Bengals +3.5 vs Falcons: Falcons
Bears +16 vs 49ers: 49ers
Packers +4 vs Cardinals: Packers
Chiefs +6 vs Seahawks: Seahawks
Saints +2 vs Ravens: Ravens
Chargers +10 vs Rams: Rams
Steelers +9 vs Raiders: Steelers
Broncos +3 vs Colts: Colts
Panthers +5.5 vs Cowboys: Panthers
Patriots +2 vs Vikings: Vikings

A few game notes:
Look for Giants to meet up in blowout city today. How can you favor the Browns over any winning team? Texans building a future, Titans building a grave. Always root against the Eagles as a general rule. Falcons learned how to play from the Giants - and they're quick learners. Bears +16 vs. Oakland I still wouldn't take 'em; One freak 45-point game does not an offense make. Hate taking Packers over anyone, but then there's the Cards, who have proven they can lose anywhere, anytime, regardless of the circumstances. Saints are good but not as good as they're made out to be. Rams playing well, Chargers not, 10 points way too much to give there. I would have taken Colts at -3, but if they're giving me +3 then all the better. Cowboys will fall apart completely - morale is totally shot. Vikings show that this isn't the SB year Patriots.

Muslim and Anger II

2006-10-26T09:38:00.000-05:00

Here's a daily sample of my "muslim and anger" Google Alert:

Father and teenage daughter arrested for beating her boyfriend to ...
This is London - London,England,UK
... made several calls to the police - telling 999 staff of their anger that Mr ... The Muslim family, who are originally from Bangladesh, called police about their ...

Our State of Desperation in Iraq (6 Letters)
New York Times - United States
... It can be solved only by Muslim leaders, and right now, that does not seem to be ... We need to admit defeat and the horrible mistake our anger about 9/11 led us ...

Indonesia: The roots of Muslim Christian conflict
Spero News - USA
... Some analysts said the government did not want to invoke public anger in the predominantly Muslim nation by executing the Christians before the 3 Islamist ...

Anger, alienation persist one year after French riots
Lexington Herald Leader - Lexington,KY,USA
... are home mainly to immigrants and French citizens of immigrant origin, many of them Muslim. ... led to it have not changed and any spark could fuel anger at police ...

Readers' Comments Sheik's rape comments anger
Melbourne Herald Sun - Australia
AUSTRALIA'S top Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali should be sacked and deported for comments which essentially excused young Muslim men who committed rape ...
See all stories on this topic

Anger at Al Hilaly's 'uncovered meat' remarks
ABC Science Online - Australia
A senior Muslim cleric has drawn criticism for reportedly preaching that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress and their actions. ...

Benedict Will Face Touchy Issues During Turkey Visit
National Catholic Register - North Haven,CT,USA
... to reach out to Muslims during the trip by conveying the true message of his Regensburg speech, which sparked intense anger in Turkey and other Muslim countries ...

IMRANA: Antâ€™s eye view
CNN-IBN - New Delhi,India
... hot in this blog and vent out my anger but then I was advised by a friend to see it from a logical perspective. He said, 'Do you think, the Muslim Personal Law ...

Voice of sanity in political chatter
Daily Telegraph - Sydney,New South Wales,Australia
... The world is a hotbed of violence and fear because extremists got their anger up and either ... to call it for what it is because it might cost them the Muslim vote ...

This is pretty much the kind of stuff I get every day.

According to supply and demand, the market value of "Muslim anger" is zero - infinite supply, negligible demand outside of the Western press.

Muslim and Anger

2006-10-24T22:04:00.000-05:00

So I thought I'd try a little experiment. I went to Google and signed up for a news alert keyed to the words "Muslim" and "anger". This is a daily digest that contains only news stories that contain those two words.

I've been running it for a few months already. Every day I get a brand new list of stories.

All I've got to say is that if they're going to be that angry anyway, might as well give them a good reason to be angry. Nuke Mecca.

NFL Weekend wrapup

2006-10-24T10:08:00.000-05:00

In the four afternoon games and the Monday Night Football game, I scored 4-1 against the spread, missing only the Oakland win. I should have known better on that one. This brings my record for the week to 9-4, not bad for a first time!

Some notes on the games...

MNF: Giants at Dallas - As I figured ("Giants can and will play into the teeth of the Cowboys' strength and win."), the Giants are playing top-notch pro football right now. They're making a few mistakes, but they aren't letting their opponents take advantage of it. All cylinders are clicking for them; the offense is well-balanced with effectiveness in both the pass and the rush, so an opponent can't shut down one without giving up too much to the other - a lesson that a lot of poor rushing teams around the league ought to be considering. So much for the vaunted "#1 rush defense" of the Cowboys, the Giants rushing game still moved well against the best the league had to offer, two weeks running. At this point I would favor the Giants against Chicago IN Chicago, they are playing that well. The Bears are not the team to beat in the NFC anymore. One thing about the Giants' wins over the past two weeks is that their opponents can't point to any one thing they could have done to turn the game around - both Atlanta and Dallas were reeling not just from getting beat, but from getting beat at their own game at home and coming out of it having no idea what they could have done better. That's the sign of a Super Bowl team, and as long as the Giants play this way they are my favorites to win the championship this year.

Arizona at Oakland - Bad against bad. How do you call a game like that? After the week before, Arizona had shown signs it was ready to be competitive. It just took three steps back. The basic requirement of any team that wants to be competitive in the NFL is that you have to beat bad teams.

Vikings at Seahawks - The Seahawks are a shadow of last year's team, and not only because of the injuries to Alexander and now Hasselbeck. The loss of Hutchinson to the Vikings made all the difference. Lesson here is that the running back is the least important part of a rushing offense; it's all the guys in front of him making the blocks and creating the lanes that are really earning the yards. Moreover, a team that has an effective passing game is even more effective at the run because it has another good option. This game helped to confirm my opinion that Edgerrin James is and always has been a mediocre running back, at best. Anyone can put up good rushing numbers when opponents are mostly playing pass defense.

NFL Sunday update 1

2006-10-22T16:12:00.000-05:00

So far I'm doing all right against the spread. I picked Jets, "Titans" (meant Texans, Titans are Tennessee and don't play today), Pats, Falcons, Bucs correctly, and was wrong on KC, Green Bay, and Cincinnati. 5-3 going into the afternoon games.

NFL Weekend Picks

2006-10-22T09:16:00.000-05:00

Here's my picks against the line:

I'll start with the Jets, giving 3.5 points to the Lions. Home game for the Jets, Lions are awful, Jets are not quite.

Next I'll take the Chargers, giving 5 to the Chiefs. The Chargers have the complete package, Chiefs are not competitive and won't even make it a close game. They'll be lucky not to get blown out yet again.

The Titans will do better than the 9.5 spread against the Jaguars. While their defense is crap, the Titans do have a pretty decent offense. Jacksonville has a solid defense but its offense is mediocre, so I just don't see them running up the score that much. The Titans seem to be slowly improving and are playing at home.

Patriots giving 5.5 to Bills is a hard one to call. Bills aren't bottom dwellers but aren't much better than one. Patriots are playing their usual hard, scrappy, resourceful football, so I'll have to go with them even though they are depleted from their Super Bowl strength on both sides of the ball. Patriots have a chance for a high playoff seed simply because the rest of their division is so weak - they're not going to screw that up on the Bills.

I'll take the Falcons and 2.5 points against the Steelers. The Steelers are not as bad as their record indicates, but are not so good that they should be getting points on the road against a winning team. The Falcons, stunned into humility by utter destruction at the hands of the Giants, will be less overconfident and better prepared to win this one.

Miami gives 5 at home against the Packers, another tough call for me. Both these teams stink. I'm going with Miami simply because they're playing at home, and it's easier for a bad team to fall apart on the road. Miami will show flashes of the good team people expected at the start of the season.

I'll take the Bucs and five points over the Eagles. The Bucs are showing new life and the Eagles are finding ways to lose. Donovan McNabb is playing great but can't alone change Philidelphia's self-destructive streak. Then again, maybe I just hate Philly.

The Panthers will beat the 3 points they give to the Bengals, playing in Cincinnati. The Panthers have been a wrecking ball since Steve Smith's return, and as much as I dislike saying that one player makes that much difference, I think it does to Carolina in this case. Bengals aren't playing their best and won't be competitive in this game.

I take Denver, giving 4.5 to the Browns. Cleveland needs to score some points before I believe they can beat a spread.

I'll take the Colts, giving 9 to the Redskins. That's a lot of points to give, but the Colts have something to prove right now, and the Redskins aren't clicking well.

Vikings are offered 6.5 against the Seahawks, and I'll take the Vikes and the points. Vikings are a decent team that seems to know how to stay in games. Seahawks have been looking weaker and weaker in successive games - it's time for them to break.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not think that this is Oakland's week to win. Contrary to all known sports tradition I will actually take Arizona - on the road no less - and GIVE points, 3 to be precise. Arizona's first 40 minutes on Monday were something to build on. Oakland has nothing to build on.

and finally, I take the Giants and 3.5 points against the Cowboys. These Giants see themselves as Superbowl winners, and based on their play for most of the last two games, I believe it. When the Giants set their mind to something, the only thing that can stop them is the clock. Sure, Cowboys have the league's #1 run defense. But before last week's games, Atlanta had that honor, and the Giants piled up 259 running yards on the ground. Giants can and will play into the teeth of the Cowboys' strength and win.

Time flies

2006-10-17T22:04:00.000-05:00

Has it really been almost a year since I last made a post here? I guess it has. Now I have not one but two kittens, but I cannot blame them for my lack of updating this blog. The reason I have not updated this blog is because I put most of my politics-related thoughts down on Free Republic.

Alas, that is no more. I have done something I had not thought possible, which was to become too politically conservative for even Free Republic to accept. You see, I have judged the GOP, and found it wanting.

I had long placed all my hopes and faith in the GOP, that it would be the vehicle through which America would return to its roots - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet an accounting of six years of unified GOP governance shows that not only have those hopes not been fulfilled, but we have lost even more ground in the meantime.

This is not to say I have any fidelity whatsoever to the Democrats; surely they are today as vile a political party as America has ever seen. But between them and the GOP it has not been a study of contrasts; instead, it has been a race to the bottom. As corrupt as the Democrats have traditionally been and still are, the GOP is doing all it can to match their record.

A brief list of the unacceptable:

- Campaign reform
- Mexico policy
- The midgame forfeit in the War on Terror
- Preservation of the filibuster
- Failure to reform Social Security
- Prescription drugs subsidies
- Pork-barrel spending
- Online gambling ban
- Supplication to the UN
- Sandy Berger's slap on the wrist

That list is just "off the cuff", so to speak. Given that it's late here and I'm pretty tired, there are many important things that aren't on the list. For now, though, it's a good summary.

Which brings me back to my (voluntary, in case anyone was wondering) departure from Free Republic tonight. Free Republic is a revolutionary forum, a ground zero for conservative thought on the Internet. The owner, Jim Robinson, is a good man who has every right to be proud of his historic accomplishment. I too was proud of it, even if just for the minor elements which I contributed, like the ability to link and respond to a specific post.

My role on Free Republic was that of an agitator; whenever possible I would try to put out an alternative way of looking at any given situation, even where I myself did not necessarily believe the alternative was sound. The purpose of this was, like my handle, to move thoughts. It has been the strength of the modern conservative that he can entertain a far wider variety of ideas than can the modern dogmatic leftist, and by doing what I do, my aim was to contribute to that strength of reason by challenging any line of thinking that was even remotely dogmatic. In forcing conservative ideas to be thought through to rebut dissent and alternative opinion, the results were more robust, logical, and relevant than they may have been otherwise - and the serial demolition of the Democrats in three straight elections was the result.

In contrast, the Left tolerates no dissent or alternative opinion whatsoever (just try to talk to one about something that does not align with their belief system). Free Republic's acceptance of my controversial, smart-alecky self was proof that the Right indeed has been the true bastion of actual tolerance of ideas and free thinking.

Alas, my latest idea was a step too far for even that remarkable site.

The newest addition to the thoughtomator household

2005-11-23T01:02:00.000-05:00

I will be bringing this gorgeous lady home in a few weeks... say hello to kitty!

Here's some pics of kitty and her family... she's the one who is awake. Names I've been thinking about are... Sasha, Moria, Taya, Nebula, and Schrodinger.

Here's more kitty goodness:

It's War

2005-10-31T13:29:00.000-05:00

Bring it on, libs.

It's time for a demonstration that in the United States of America, a minority cannot force its views on the majority. No more shall the nation be held hostage to the Fourth Commandment of the Religion of Liberal, and the washed-up, tired-out voice of the Captain of the USS Oldsmobile.
Let the crime that was committed against Robert Bork be avenged.

Alito Akbar!

Many thanks to whoever found the President's spine.

Questions for and about Harriet Miers, Nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America

2005-10-11T21:41:00.000-05:00

What makes Miers a superior choice to the long list of excellent, available, and well-known jurists?

Did Miers have a conflict of interest in accepting a position she was hired (with taxpayer money it should be noted) to fill with someone else?

Do Miers and the President share a conflict of interest in her having served for quite some time as his personal lawyer, one that would not be relevant to an executive branch position but would be relevant if she held the position of Justice of the Supreme Court?

Given that she is currently serving as White House Counsel (in addition to having the previously noted personal conflict of interest), will she have to recuse herself, possibly resulting in an evenly split Court, on cases that may be critical to the survival of the republic? Could she ethically rule on any case in which the federal government was a party?

Will Miers serve the President, or the people?

What were the circumstances of Miers' transition from Al Gore-supporting Democrat to George W. Bush-supporting Republican?

Why would a woman who claims Christianity become the head of an organization dedicated to gambling?

Would Miers have been picked for the seat if she were a man?

Does Miers believe the United States should be governed or guided by foreign systems of justice?

Does Miers support affirmative action?

Does Miers, whom the President professes shares his beliefs, believe in rights for illegal aliens? Does she believe in the sovereignty of the United States?

Joe Citizen

2005-06-26T15:40:00.000-05:00

Government. You may loathe it, but it will diligently take two dollars of every five you make. It will then proceed to take those dollars, waste nine of ten, and assert its right to more.

In 2005, we have officially reached the era of the post-Constitutional government with Kelo v. New London, a remarkable Supreme Court decision which struck down the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The final phrase "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" implies that the only permitted taking of property is for public use. In Kelo the city of New London asserted eminent domain for private use, on the grounds that the anticipation of an increase in tax revenue constituted public use.

The Supreme Court ruled for the city of New London.

I'm particularly unconcerned for the legal reasoning behind this decision. The modern process of legal reasoning has demonstrated that it does not consider itself bound by law, but may rather do as it wishes, insisting the law must then follow. The direct practical effect of this decision is that a government may now take your house to sell to a richer person on the grounds that someone who makes more money than you will pay more in taxes (the exact same reasoning as in Kelo).

The indirect practical effect is that, if this is accepted by the other branches of government, the Supreme Court has arrogated the power to nullify the Constitution.

(to be continued...)

Adventures in Maryland

2005-04-26T08:18:00.000-05:00

I've had a bit of a whirlwind the past few weeks. Three Thursdays ago I accepted an offer to work for Lockheed-Martin in Maryland. Since then I've spent a couple of weeks living with cousins in Bethesda, and as of Sunday I've moved into a place in College Park. Now I've got an 18-minute commute to a really good job and I'm loving the DC area. Thus I've been very very busy and haven't been able to write. But I will!

Starving Mae Magourik

2005-04-08T10:01:00.000-05:00

Okay. Someone explain this one to me. A woman named Mae Magourik is being starved to death in a hospice in Georgia.

She is elderly and has a non-terminal heart condition.

She has been put in a hospice despite the illegality of putting non-terminal patients in such a facility.

She has a written living will that is being ignored.

Her closest relatives all want to see her live.

A granddaughter was given a durable power of attorney over her by a local probate judge.

The granddaughter has ordered her starved to death. Today is day 6 or 7 of the starvation process.

It's all legal, apparently.

How many more of these does it take for people to admit that the rule of law is broken?

What happened to my country?!

The Ten Commandments of the Religion of Liberal

2005-04-07T09:00:00.000-05:00

(updated - new AND improved!)

Following up my previous enumeration of the Tenets of the Religion of Liberal, I have recently discovered in my archaeological explorations, two tablets on which are printed these clear instructions to the adherents of the Religion of Liberal:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before the judge.

2. Thou shalt worship Brad Pitt and Jennifer Lopez, no matter how consistently bad be their movies.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of Kennedy in vain.

4. Remember April 15, and keep it holy.

5. Honor thy government master, that thy days be long and not imprisoned.

6. Thou shalt kill the unborn, the elderly, the brain damaged, and the unpopular.

7. Thou shalt respect the total privacy of sex, regardless of any other crime in progress.

8. Thou shalt steal guns, elections, and as many taxpayer dollars as possible.

9. Thou shalt roll over one more time.

10. Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's wife, thy neighbor's SUV, thy neighbor's house, thy neighbor's job, thy neighbor's children, thy neighbor's Mercedes, thy neighbor's ox, and thy neighbor's iPod.

Did I miss anything?

Site maintenance

2005-04-04T11:02:00.000-05:00

I'm doing a bit of work here and there to make this blog a bit more useful as a nexus of interesting things. To that end I've added a link to Mark Steyn on the sidebar, and if you visit frequently you may see some formatting changes between visits. Feel free to suggest any additions that would serve to improve the experience for visitors (apparently I've been getting a few).

I'll be taking a break from writing about Terri Schiavo, as there's nothing that can be done to save her life now. I'm in wait-and-see mode with regards to the aftershocks of this event, and reserve the right to comment on those in the future.

"Isn't That Bitch Dead Yet?"

2005-03-30T21:42:00.000-05:00

Day 13 of starvation and dehydration at the order of the court.

Ironically, Michael Schiavo's angry-yet-rhetorical question has taken on new meaning.

If Terri Schiavo wanted to die, why isn't she dead yet?

Because of the abuse she has suffered, staying alive is the only way she can express her will on the matter. And express her will she has! People who want to die don't endure this many days of starvation and still cling to life.

I don't want to turn my blog into a Terri Schiavo page, but while this continues there is no other issue that is truly worth writing about. The future of America will be largely determined by her fate, and our reaction to it. Though those who support her husband may gloat, I don't think they truly realize the depth and breadth of revulsion that this slow-motion murder has created. Those who would be satisfied to see her die will forget about this almost immediately. The rest of us will never forget it, and the will of the people will reflect it for a long time to come.

UPDATE 3/31/05:
Day 14: Terri Schiavo died today, having out-survived 6 of the 9 prisoners starved together with Fr. Maximillian Kolbe. I'm still waiting to hear whether her husband was the only one in the room when it happened.

The Schiavo Rift

2005-03-28T17:30:00.000-05:00

Whichever side of this you're on, you have to admit that this is really, really funny.

If you don't think that's funny, try this instead.

The Conspiracy to Murder Terri Schiavo

2005-03-27T15:20:00.001-05:00

From a pulled thread at Free Republic came the inevitable accusation of devolving into conspiracy theory:

They believe her husband, the judges, the lawyers are all in some sort of conspiracy to get rid of her and hide evidence of abuse and murder. It's sad.

My response, reposted for preservation:

It's easy to see how all those individuals, each acting in their own self-interest, could conspire to starve Terri Schiavo to death, if you don't restrict your definition of the word "conspire" to mean a bunch of people in a sealed room poring over a master plan.

The husband wants his wife dead for a variety of reasons none of which have anything to do with her wishes or well-being. This is very easy to establish. Thus he hires a lawyer who will help him attain his goal.

The lawyer has a career of promoting euthanasia. The lawyer is happy to help because it helps him fulfill his own goals. The doctor who diagnosed PVS also has a career in euthanasia and thus too has the professional incentive to pronounce Terri a vegetable.

The hospice is in the business of caring for people who are about to die. The lawyer was on the board of directors of the organization. Furthermore, it has a financial interest in saying its patients are about to die even if that is not true.

The judge accepted a good deal of money from the husband's lawyers in the form of campaign contributions. Furthermore, his own pride is on the line and it is perfectly understandable that in defense of his own self-image he is heavily prejudiced against countermanding one of his own judgements.

The other judges have an interest in the supremacy and illusion of infallibility of the judiciary, and also an interest in that their own rulings are not overturned. Furthermore the other judges in the state will have to work with the judge in question in the future, so there is a business relationship at stake. Thus they are prejudiced to support one of their own, especially after it became a struggle between branches of government.

Amazingly enough, not every conspiracy is conducted by a secret society with the ability to precisely place its agents in the right positions at the moment of truth.

Why the Terri Schiavo case is Important

2005-03-27T08:10:00.000-05:00

It appears that a large number of commentators view the Terri Schiavo case as merely a right-to-life vs. right-to-die case. I believe they are missing the big picture.

There are four major issues involved in this case, not just one; and these are four of the most important political issues in America today. These are what I perceive to be the major issues, and the questions presented by them:

1) The right to life

- Does any part of the government have the right to order a citizen who has been convicted of no crime put to death? From where does this authority originate?

- In the absence of a living will, what should be the assumption - that a person would desire to live, or desire to die?

- Under what conditions should the government allow a citizen to commit suicide, alone or assisted?

- Under what conditions should medical professionals be empowered to decide to prepare for a person's death, and should this ever be permitted for a non-terminal patient? Who decides, and are there any restrictions on the chooser's discretion? In the case of preparing for a patient's death, what means of ending a life are appropriate?

2) The runaway judiciary

- Will the judiciary be permitted to continue to choose which laws it wishes to follow, and which it may choose to ignore?

- Why is there more judicial protection for a convicted death-row inmate than a patient who is deemed to be a candidate for euthanasia?

- Should the judiciary be able to ignore the combined will of the other two branches of government?

- Will legislatures ever consider using the power of impeachment that is the proper check upon the judiciary? If not, who will hold judges accountable for fulfilling their oaths of office? If no one, haven't we then effectively cast off the Constitution as the law of the land, replacing it solely with the discretion of the judiciary?

- Can we continue to claim to be under the rule of law, when the rules are more dependent on which judge is making the decision than on the content and intent of the law?

- Why was a stay pending de novo review of this case considered unreasonable by several different federal courts, despite the fact that failing to issue such a stay rendered the law meaningless?

3) Corruption

- How many conflicts of interest may there be before it is no longer proper to extend the benefit of doubt?

- Should a judge be able to accept a campaign contribution from a lawyer who brings cases before his court?

- Why did every single avenue of relief available to the Schindler family go through the same exact courtroom - doesn't this practice empower corruption?

- Why did Pinellas County DA Bernie McCabe twice shut down investigations into foul play in this case?

- Who ordered that the local police enforce Judge Greer's order, rather than submit to the authority of the state of Florida, and under what statute is such an order legal?

- Were Terri Schivo's medical charts altered as is claimed by three of her professional caregivers?

- Whose responsibility is it to investigate and determine the truth of these questions, and to what extent do the answers matter?

4) The meaning of marriage

- What is a marriage, under the law?

- Can a person claim the privileges of marriage while living in open adultery? While having children with another partner?

- If the answer to the previous two questions is yes, for what reason is the marriage relationship privileged under the law?

- To what extent does a marriage empower a person to make choices for their spouse - should a husband be free to choose to terminate a wife who cannot speak for herself, or vice-versa?

- To what extent does the reasonable suspicion of one spouse imposing its will on the other through violence abrogate the privileges of such a relationship?

There are so many open and difficult-to-answer questions in this case that it should come as no surprise to anyone why this has become one of the most contentious issues of our time, indeed as some say, this generations Roe v. Wade.

There are other questions that have been posed that I can answer right now, with certainty:

Why is the federal government butting into an issue that has been the exclusive business of a state? Doesn't this violate the principle of federalism?

This argument has been oft recited by those who would be comfortable with putting Terri Schiavo to death. To this argument I answer: because of the fundamental inalienable right to life which is explicitly named among the reasons for founding this nation. If this right is not sufficient cause for the federal government to step in, then on what basis does the federal government prohibit the states from legalizing slavery, or racial segregation? Can any other right be guaranteed without an absolute right to live?

If one were to follow the federalism argument to its logical conclusion, then at some point one is asking "Why do we maintain a Union?" Why are we united states, rather than independent, autonomous states?

I find this a most craven time to expound the virtues of federalism. I am a strong federalist myself, yet somehow when articulating matters that should truly concern a federalist - such as the anticonstitutionality of the War on Drugs, or the failures of our public education system - these newfound "federalists" line up squarely on the side of federal control.

Didn't the legal process run its course? Hasn't Terri Schiavo been given due process, and isn't the current situation simply the result of that judicial process?

To this I can simply say, yes, the legal process ran its course, just as it did in Dred Scott. In other words, the judiciary is not infallible and inalienable rights should not be surrendered merely because the judiciary has rendered its judgement otherwise. The result in this case is prima facie evidence of grave deficiencies in our judicial process; rather than rushing to confirm the result out of respect for law, the result should be considered a red light warning us that the process is badly broken.

When an innocent citizen for no reasons other than her disability and the desire of her husband to see her dead can be put to death by a means that would be universally considered a "cruel and unusual" 8th Amendment violation if applied to a convicted criminal, the justice system is not producing the justice it exists to provide to us.

What if Terri Schiavo wants to die?

To this, I answer that there is no proof, or even reasonably credible evidence that she wants to die. Given that there is grave doubt as to her wishes, the only civilized answer is to err by assuming that she wants to live. Otherwise, it's open season on disabled people - the moment they cannot speak for themselves, it becomes legal to kill them.

Furthermore, I do not even find a duly authorized living will to be sufficient to answer this question in a similar case. Had Christopher Reeve been asked whether he wanted to live paralyzed and grievously injured, he may have very well answered while healthy, "no I would not". However, after the injury, there is no doubt that he wanted to live, with every fiber of his being. There is no way to know for sure how one would feel after sustaining a grievous injury. Some may well find themselves quite surprised to learn that they do in fact want to go on living whatever life is still available to them, although they may now boast otherwise. In the case of a brain injury, the very injury itself, or the experience of the injury, may change the person so deeply that they become a new person.

What a nightmare it would be, to find that one wants to live, only to be condemned to euthanasia by a misapprehension of one's former self!

And for all of us, what a nightmare it will be, if we accept the euthanasia of Terri Schiavo, when this case becomes a precedent for industrialized euthanasia of the elderly, infirm, and helpless. Roe v. Wade was about one woman's rights, and inside of a decade there were fetus-killing factories all over America destroying human babies by the millions. No one should have any reason to be surprised when HMOs and government bureaucrats move to euthanize lives they deem unfit for living to keep our current pseudosocialized health care industry financially solvent.

The Case Against Michael Schiavo

2005-03-24T09:58:00.000-05:00

This is an outline of a post that was never completed, from 3/24/2005. I'm putting it up now just in case it is useful in the aftermath - after the travesty of the gravestone, it's clear that this isn't a closed case at all.

The official story of Terri Schiavo's injuries and subsequent health care doesn't add up. The reasons I say this are as follows:

1) The medical records and other testimony that are public are not consistent with the claims of Michael Schiavo and the conclusions of the courts in explaining the origin of Terri Schiavo's injuries.

A) Affidavits of Nurses and Nursing Assistants
1) Carol Sauer Iyer
2) Heidi Law
3) Nora Lynn Wagner
4) Carolyn Johnson

B) Evaluations of doctors
1) Dr. Michael Baden
2) Dr. William Hammesfahr
3) Dr. Alexander T. Gimon
4) Dr. William P. Cheshire

2) Michael Schiavo's statements during the malpractice trial are not consistent with his later statments and behavior.

3) A large number of conflicts of interest are present, casting grave doubt on the fairness of court proceedings.

A) on the part of Michael Schiavo
1) financial
2) marriage (adultery)
B) on the part of Judge Greer
1) campaign contributions
a) contributions of lawyers for Michael Schiavo
C) on the part of George Felos
D) on the part of Hospice Woodside
1) CEO Mary Laybak - board member of Partnership for Caring, an offshoot of the Euthanasia Society of America; membership in Hemlock for Hospice
2) Barbara Sheen Todd - board member
E) on the part of guardian ad litem Dr. Wolfson

4) Substantial errors of law in the process of determining the facts of the case can be documented based on the public record.

A) Errors in determinations of "living will"
B) Errors in determinations of proper guardianship
C) Prejudicial and illegal orders issued by Judge Greer
1) 3/24/05 - illegal prior restraint against FL DCF
D) Errors in other venues
1) 11/03 Judge Baird
2) 3/05 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
E) Errors in judgement by Judge Greer
1) 8/14/01 Denial of medical tests

5) Health care decisions and other actions contributing to injuries and aggravation of existing injuries of Terri Schiavo

A) Denials of Rehabilitation
B) Non-removal of electrodes
C) Non-performance of tests necessary for evaluations
D) Denials of basic health maintenance
E) Enlistment of questionable medical personnel
1) Dr. Stanton Tripodis, who has 5 malpractice suits against him
2) Dr. Ronald Cranford, euthanasia advocate
F) Questionable medical decisions
1) Enlistment in hospice care for 3+ years demonstrates intent to kill
2) withholding of medical information from family 2/93 - ?
3) 9/95 M. Schiavo order to withhold treatment for infection

6) History of violent and coercive behavior of Michael Schiavo

1) Statements by ex-girlfriend Cindy ?

If this keeps happening, I'm going to start picking stocks

2005-03-22T23:27:00.000-05:00

Compare the Washington Post story to my prediction on this post mere days ago.

I posted:

What's the difference between reasoning behind the blind judge's death warrant and the T-4 Euthanasia program? Just a few propaganda pieces, a void being rapidly filled by Million Dollar Baby and MSM media tripe as linked in the headline of this post.

Emphasis added. My blood is running cold right now.

Terri Schiavo's Bone Scan Record Analyzed

2005-03-22T09:50:00.000-05:00

There are many unanswered questions about Terri Schiavo's medical condition. How she sustained her injuries is the foremost of those in my mind, since this is something that has no satisfactory explanation on the record.

CodeBlueBlog, winner of the best medical sciences blog for 2004, granted my request to analyze a peculiar piece of data - Terri's bone scan record, which indicates trauma-induced compression fractures in many parts of her body.

I'll be working on trying to assemble a complete understanding of the origins of her current medical condition, which quite oddly is still unclear even after all these years of litigation.

Big thanks to the doc at Code Blue. I ran across them when I was referred to their previous analysis of what is purported to be her CAT scan.

Death To Terri

2005-03-20T03:09:00.000-05:00

I don't understand how any person of conscience can rationalize deliberately putting to death a living human being who has committed no crime. But there's no mistaking how it could happen - legally, no less - in the perverted system of judicial oligarchy that passes for justice in the United States today.

What's the difference between reasoning behind the blind judge's death warrant and the T-4 Euthanasia program? Just a few propaganda pieces, a void being rapidly filled by Million Dollar Baby and MSM media tripe as linked in the headline of this post.

The frightening part is how obvious it is that a preponderance of the evidence points to foul play.

First, there is still no satisfactory explanation for how she ended up in this condition in the first place. The bulimia story doesn't add up, as there's no evidence of cardiac arrest.

Second, the alleged "living will", that Mrs. Schiavo would not want to continue to live in this damaged state, is supported only by the words of her husband spoken seven years after the fact.

Third, the decision of Mr. Schiavo to end rehabilitative therapy for his wife immediately after winning a large insurance payout.

Fourth, the many statements that she is "vegetative" or in a coma simply don't square with commonly available video footage and testimony of multiple witnesses of the patient herself responding to stimuli, moving her eyes and attempting to speak.

Fifth, the apparent total unwillingness of Judge Greer to entertain the notion that Mrs. Schiavo's condition may improve.

I have an alternative theory.

According to my hypothesis, the current condition of Terri Schiavo is due to some direct action on the part of her husband that caused a cutoff of oxygen to her brain. He wants her dead not out of mercy, but because of the potential benefits for himself, namely a) if she's dead she can't testify against him, or ever let the world know what really happened to her, and b) now that he has a new common-law wife and sired two children by this woman, caring for a crippled ex-wife is a highly inconvenient obstacle to marrying his new wife.

Furthermore, his lawyer, George Felos, is pursuing the case because he has his own agenda for euthanasia activism; and Judge Greer's strange behavior is the direct result of unusually large donations to his campaign from Mr. Felos' law firm.

That's my theory, and it makes a heck of a lot more sense than anything else that has been ventured as an explanation.

The more I learn about this case, the more I feel that "Death to Terri" is properly followed up by "Death to Israel! Death to the Great Satan!".

Bankruptcy Boondoggle

2005-03-10T22:33:00.000-05:00

Successful business requires reasonably consistent rules; without consistency, risk skyrockets. Unless there is a compelling reason to change the rules - and if there is one, it is yet to be articulated - then the conservative (or at least free-market conservative) position is that healthy markets require regulatory stability.

Let's say I'm in the business of selling widgets. Demand is exceeding supply, which presents me with a choice if I want to increase my gross profit. I can either raise the price of a widget, or increase supply to satisfy the excess demand, or some combination of the two. If I want to increase supply, I also need to take into account a capital investment that gets amortized over a period of time, and figure that into the cost of my widget.

If I know the rules of the market and have reasonable assurance that they will remain constant, I can calculate precisely how to increase profits the most, what the price of a widget should be, and how many I should make. I can also determine with precision the timing and size of my new widget factory.

However, if I can't depend on the rules of the market to remain constant, I can't make any calculation at all with precision. I must guess what the rules might be, at least over the period of time I am paying off my capital investment in my widget factory. If the rules change - say, a sudden, punitive tax on widgets is introduced - this can easily turn a profitable, expanding company into a money-losing failure. With no reasonable assurance that no such change in market conditions is likely, expansion becomes a far riskier choice - perhaps so risky that it might not be worth it to build the new factory.

In this way, inconsistency of rules shrinks markets, halts expansion, and drives up risk.

The flip side is also true. If, like the credit card companies (CCCs), our widget company owner decides that his priority is to distribute as many widgets as possible regardless of whether his customers even have the ability to pay for them, by overexpanding in this he not only puts his own widget company on a course towards bankruptcy, but also damages the market for more responsible widget companies who are behaving in a classical capitalist manner, trying to maximize profits.

Now our widget company has screwed itself, since it depended for its expansion on revenues that are not collectible. Other widget company owners breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that the reckless competitor will go out of business and cease distorting the market through oversupply.

Sadly, these other widget companies would be wrong; their reckless competitor, instead of going out of business, gets the government to pay for every widget sold, even when those revenues are uncollectable in the market. Had the other widget companies known from the start that this rule would change, they could have adjusted their strategies accordingly and earned their fair share of the market. Sadly, we've decided to punish the other widget companies for behaving in a classic capitalist rather than a corrupt manner - the corrupt company pockets the profits that only it is eligible to receive from the government, and the responsible ones go home empty-handed.

It is because of shenanigans like this that I am not and will likely never be a Republican. It is unfortunate that there is no less corrupt option on the ballot.

I believe...

2005-03-09T14:00:00.000-05:00

I believe that male homosexuality constitutes an intolerable threat to public health.

I believe that the crusty old men running the Democrat party will keep their iron grip on its throat until they die of old age, and that the power they have accumulated over the decades will permit them to do so easily.

I believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

I believe that Islam is a political ideology more than a religion.

I believe that giving psychoactive medication to children constitutes child abuse.

I believe Thomas Hobbes got it right in Leviathan.

I believe that prohibition is a strategy for national self-mutilation.

I believe that the single largest threat to the American family is divorce.

I believe that the UN is the most corrupt organization ever to exist on the face of the Earth.

I believe that capital punishment has great practical merits and extreme dangers.

I believe that Mexico is willfully engaged in a massive export of population to the United States.

I believe that Europe is due for another continentwide convulsion within the next 10 years.

I believe that at least three members of the Supreme Court are in willful violation of the Constitution and their own oaths of office.

I believe that the three broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times are irremediably left-wing, and that none currently employ any person with the vision and power to reverse their catastrophic collective slide in the market.

I believe the solution to the litigation culture starts by suing public officials mercilessly and endlessly.

I believe that the appointment of Senators by state legislatures was as essential a check/balance in our federal system as is the Presidential veto.

I believe Taiwan, Japan, and Australia must acquire nuclear weapons and missile defenses for their own self-preservation.

I believe that any international body which includes France is de facto impotent.

I believe the most trustworthy nation in the world is Poland.

Why Three-Strikes Laws are Un-American

2005-03-08T12:56:00.000-05:00

In a Constitutional republic, legislatures are constrained by rights they must respect, in this case prohibitions against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and excessive punishment, and so on. A legislature cannot pass any law at all and expect it to stand. Because these 3-strikes laws must inevitably breach the 8th Amendment (or the 14th), they won't remain on the books for long.

The legislatures have a responsibility to make sure crimes are punished; they have failed to do so, in permitting inadequate sentencing for crimes; in frustration the people have supported 3-strikes. While I totally agree with the frustration, it is necessary to make laws in accordance with our Constitution regardless of popular passions; that is what distinguishes a republican people from a democratic mob. If the legislatures did their job and crafted laws which properly punished crime, 3-strikes would be moot because practically everyone who qualified would be serving the time they should have been serving in the first place.

2005-02-14T19:13:00.000-05:00

Democratastrophe, Part Two

In most functional respects, the Democrat party is an influential and resourceful political organization. It is competitive in fundraising; it is fluent and talented in propaganda; and it has solid bases of popular support on local, state, and national levels; it controls many state and local governments, and forms the major opposition in virtually all others within the United States.

While the Democrats have a number of other obvious problems, such as poor accounting, irreconcilable internal conflicts, and an overall lack of fresh ideas to offer the public, I believe the most significant hurdle to any resurgence of the party is its candidate selection process.

If you witnessed, as I did, the selection of John Kerry as the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America, then you can't help but wonder - where's the democracy in the Democrats?

The only qualifications that the current Democratic Presidential Primary process screens for are a) fundraising prowess, b) pro-abortion credentials, and c) telegenic faces.

Where was the debate over whether John Kerry's well-known and highly controversial behavior would be a liability in the general election, especially in wartime? Where was consideration of the fact that he had so few accomplishments in his long tenure in the Senate? Where was the debate over the Democratic approach to the War on Terror, or indeed if the party would even support it? Why did less than half the Democratic voters in the United States get to vote before the choice nominee was a fait accompli? Why do California, or New York, two anchors of Democratic power, never get their say in who the nominee is? Why again, then a new Democratic National Committee Chairman is chosen, is the contest over before anyone ever gets to vote?

It is self defeating. The Democrats ended up with the most indecisive candidate because the Democrats as a party did not think it important enough to decide where to stand on the major issues of the day.

The Democrats need to seriously rethink how to choose candidates, if they want a candidate without mortal flaws, like the aloofness of a pre-2001 Al Gore, or the sordid and checkered history of a John Kerry. Where are the guys who have a real base of popular support who aren't ideologues who act to further marginalize the party? You can't even know who they are for sure, not unless you have a serious discussion of issues and take a blind poll.

And herein lies the problem of the Democrat party. [It is a problem to some extent for the GOP too, but the effects are much worse on the Democrats due to a lack of open debate on the central issues of the day -Ed.]

The current primary process is not a blind poll - and it is not a good simulation of a general election. It is heavily weighted so that the states which vote early have influence, and the later states nearly no influence. Furthermore, there is a large contingent of votes that are in the hands of party elders - insuring that those who broke the process to gain advantage get to keep their positions, and to further corrupt the party.

To this part of the problem, I propose a simple solution - do the entire Democrat primary on ONE day. If Iraqis voting for their first time can handle a hundred choices on their ballots, then I think a loyal Democrat in California deserves more choices than "John Kerry" - a twisted inversion, given that it was not so long ago that Iraqis had only the choice of "Saddam Hussein".

It is time the candidates on the Democrat line in the general election were chosen in a way that truly represents the people the candidates purport to represent. That goes for any party, but for the Democrats today, this deficiency is so severe as to threaten to be fatal. I now find myself often wondering of the fate of the Whig party, and if it collapsed in the same way.

2005-02-14T19:03:00.000-05:00

YAUNS
(Yet Another United Nations Scandal)

UN bashing doesn't get any better than this Mark Steyn piece.

It's a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog faeces and mix 'em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former.

I bow to the master of the written word.

2005-02-12T04:47:00.000-05:00

Finally, a fragment the long-promised study...

Election 2004 Post-Mortem: Analyzing the Democratastrophe

Those who are familiar with my politics know that at my core I am a Hobbesean libertarian, and independent of any political party. My vote should have been as up-for-grabs as anybody's; how is it that a guy like me found himself solidly in the camp of the Republicans? The answer to that question is, in my view, the same as the answer to may of the questions Democrats find themselves asking now. In this article I will go over some of the things Democrats have done and explain them in terms of the message they send to a non-aligned fellow like myself.

Let's start from the beginning of the election cycle.

At the end of the 2000 election, the Democrats made a strong attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America. The strategy went as follows: 1) invent grounds for recounting votes in Democrat counties; 2) get infamously left-wing courts to support such a recount; 3) use the Democrat advantage among officials and personnel in those counties to manufacture enough votes to give the state, and the election, to Al Gore; 4) use the media to intimidate anyone who tried to stop them. I watched it happen play-by-play; anyone who thinks the actuality of what occurred was substantially different than this is deluding themselves. Thanks to the grace of God upon America, they failed. However, this didn't stop them from giving us four years of "selected, not elected" and other permutations that built on the fictions created to swing Florida.

Message: Democrats will do anything to win regardless of law, tradition, or decency.

From the moment the Supreme Court gave the slapdown to the Democrat party's shenanigans, the Left has refused to acknowledge that, as heartbreaking as the loss may have been, election 2000 was played by the rules and fairly won by the GOP. To this day, a very large faction of Democrats still believe that George Bush was not legitimately elected in 2000. Those Democrats who brought that same logic to their analysis of the 2004 election serve as an example, to the more mildly inflicted in that party, of how foolish, bitter, self-serving, and unjust the Democrat claims about 2000 and their follow-up actions and rhetoric look to an average Joe like myself.

Message: Democrats should rule by divine right like the old kings of France. Why even bother with an election?

The Florida Fictions, as I'll refer to them in shorthand, were thrown repeatedly at the President from Election Day 2000, every single day, echoed endlessly by the mainstream media, e.g. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. (hereafter referred to as "Old Media"). Fast-forward to September 2001. After the terror attacks on New York and Washington, the Democrats were able to pause their craven and savage campaign against the President for, oh, maybe ten days total.

Message: Who cares what happens to the USA if the Democrats aren't in charge?

As soon as it was known we were going to attack Afghanistan, the left-wing fiction machine revved back into gear. Was it two weeks after 9/11, or less, that we first saw the word "quagmire" applied to a war that hadn't begun yet? It wasn't almost as if the Democrats wanted us to fail - it was pretty darn clear that they were desperately hoping for the US to fail. Of course, this never reached the fever pitch that it reached in Iraq, but it was certainly loud and clear.

Message: Getting at the President is more important than getting at the terrorists.

Now, after 9/11, most of the country, after a while, took in the new reality - terrorism's ultimate danger was not a bunch of jihadis flying planes into Manhattan, but the potential for an enemy nation to use such people to attack the US in catastrophic ways, without fingerprints pointing to the sponsor state. Forget about chemical and conventional attacks - it is important we stop those, but they are not militarily significant. What is militarily significant is the potential for a biological terror attack, with potential casualties in the hundreds of millions or more; and secondly, a nuclear terror attack, which could kill in the tens of millions and cause many trillions of dollars in physical and economic damage.

Playing defense only is clearly not a solution; at some point the enemy would succeed, unless we were willing to become the most intrusive police state in history, and even then we'd simply be delaying the inevitable. In order to defend America from catastrophic terror, we needed to take the offense, and do it as robustly as possible. Why wait for doom to come, when we have the power to stop it?

2005-02-01T17:13:00.000-05:00

Tenets of the Religion of Liberal:

1 - The U.N. can do no wrong, even when it is openly exposed as conducting the biggest graft operation in history.

2 - Being American is a capital crime, unless you are a devout Liberal breaking the law, in which case, let your conscience be your guide.

3 - Anything conservative is, de facto, 100% the reverse of Absolute Truth

4 - The purest, most innocent act of human will is to kill a human child growing inside of you.

Corollary 4a) There are too many people anyway.

Corollary 4b) Men, being unable to do this, are intrinsically inferior.

5 - If it feels good, do it.

6 - Venting irrational rage at perceived enemies in purposeful spite of civil order feels good. Very, very good, in fact.

7 - The ideal solution to any problem is a government program.

8 - Everything is at all times exactly how you think it is.

Corollary 8a) Irrefutable proof after the fact that you were wrong was put there by time-traveling aliens.

9 - Anything illegal that you would also want to do is okay.

10 - The Clintons are one of us.

2005-01-11T19:37:00.000-05:00

Illuminati

2004-11-10T14:40:00.000-05:00

I've got an article addressing the core reasons why the Democrat party is in such awful shape in the works... it's such an expansive topic, it's taking me some time. Stay tuned!

2004-11-03T13:45:00.000-05:00

He actually conceded.

The first time I've ever been positively impressed by John Kerry.

2004-10-01T21:38:00.000-05:00

Vote fraud

Will the GOP let the Democrats take down a sitting President through voter fraud alone?

It's apparent to me, one who follows the news but not the "mainstream media", that there is an enormous effort on the Left to steal this election through pure vote fraud. Much of it stems from left-wing 527 organizations, especially the ones dedicated to registering new voters.

Here's some of what they're doing:

Today, October 1, 2004, Franklin County, Ohio discovers it has more voters registered than live in the county - 90,000 this year for a county which has grown by 26,000 in population in the past 4 years.

Another thing that has come to light today is Project Vote, an organization that has filed 1 million new registrations this year, getting caught red-handed in blatant violation of election law in Wisconsin. The national director of Project Vote, David J. Leland, was the Ohio Democrat party chairman four years ago when his job was to turn out votes for Al Gore. Of course, you would never know that from his bio at Project Vote, which strangely omits such a prestigous position. The original article is gone, but Google has it cached... for now.

It gets worse and worse and worse and worse and worse the more you read. You don't have to take my word for it... just ask Bill Hobbs, who has been cataloging these incidents.

It's epidemic - and it threatens the very nature of America. It must be stopped, or we will have civil war.

2004-09-18T15:42:00.000-05:00

Patriotism, moveon.org Style

Believe it or not, they are actually airing this ad.

2004-09-05T12:03:00.000-05:00

The Passion of the Independent Voter

On my part, the passion I have, for the side I find myself on this year, derives directly from two indelible experiences I have had. The first was in 1993, when as a 19-year-old kid on the second day of my first corporate job, I escaped the first bombing of the World Trade Center. The second was during and after 9/11, when I became more familiar with the smell of vaporized human flesh than I ever wanted to be.

These experiences, and the study of geopolitics - especially Middle East politics - have impressed upon me what I believe to be the true level of gravity of our situation not only as Americans, but as members of Western civilization as a whole. I firmly believe that there are millions of dedicated jihadis who are willing to die to kill us all - you and me equally. Furthermore, I am not at all confident that a biological or nuclear attack on us is any more inconceivable than the events of 9/11. And if America succumbs to catastrophic terror, the rest of the free world is sure to soon follow.

John Kerry, the Democrat party, and the anti-war crowds do not show any sign of understanding this, of how real it is. This is not a boogeyman designed to distract the people from our true concerns, like the tyrants of the Middle East use Israel. This is not a phantom conjured so that Dick Cheney can get his buddies at Halliburton some big-bucks construction projects. This is our genuine, primary concern as a free people.

Now, I'm politically independent, but that does not mean I do not have an opinion or am available to be persuaded by any argument. I do have an opinion - that the USA is worth defending robustly, and that the lives of US citizens are not for the taking by any tyrant. On 9/11 it was perfectly clear that we experienced an evil that nothing could justify, one that threatened us all through its impersonal malice, one that hated us so much, so irrationally, that it could not be reasoned with or accommodated.

This year, only one candidate understands this. However he may be imperfect, he is defending us well and pledges - very credibly given the record - that he will continue to do so.

Democrats used to understand this.

Zell Miller - the most popular man in Georgia politics in this century - is hard evidence thereof. But not Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, the Clintons, Jimmy Carter, Terry McAuliffe, and the rest of the powers that now be in the Democrat party. They are more interested in their own self-aggrandizement than the health and security of this nation, and it shows, which is why they are now getting their heads handed to them, so to speak.

Given the nature of this jihad, they can only accumulate further enemies over time. They will not stop until we stop them. Others can be very helpful, but there is no one else who can do it without America's firm support. This is a threat of global proportions. The aim of the jihad is to frighten us into appeasing their demands, which quickly escalate into unsatisfiability. This is a decentralized threat; it has no head to cut off and must be defeated in detail. It exists in many pieces - AQ, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other local and global jihadist pan-Islamic group across the globe. They are intricately intwined with each other by a radicalized brand of Islam - Wahabbism. For us to win, each and every one of these groups needs to be shut down.

In the midst of all this, the Democrat party seems to be little more than a vehicle for the personal ambitions of Hillary Clinton; it has very little to lend itself to the needs of America. Running on universal health care just doesn't cut it in the middle of World War IV. Running away from attacks on America itself is not a viable solution.

We tried that in Lebanon; we tried that in 1993 when I escaped the first bombing of the World Trade Center. We tried that with North Korea, and let them go nuclear as a result (thank Clinton and Carter); Russia tried that in Chechnya and Inguishetia; Israel tried it in the territories, we tried for 12 years to do that with Iraq, Serbia tried it in Kosovo, the UN is trying that right now in the Sudan, and every single time it has failed. Every time.

What Bush is doing, what Roosevelt and Truman and Eisenhower did, that worked, and is working. We need to stand together behind the prosecution of this war so that we, and many more people around the globe, will be free from this very clear, very real threat.

There is nothing wrong with dissent itself. It is dissent for its own sake, which I believe is the most well-articulated policy of the Democrat party at this time, which is a danger to our survival. All the gripes you have now will look petty in the face of more 9/11s and the economic dislocation thereof. Bush may not make that easier for you, but jihadists can sure make it a lot harder.

I share your horror at the reality of just how evil men can become. It is hard for a person who has a good heart to understand just how a man - worse, a group of like-minded men - to fly planes full of people into buildings full of other people, or to shoot hundreds of children in the back.

But we must come to terms with the fact of their existence and the very real fate they have planned for all of us. We need to do as much as we can, and do it now, and that is the overriding concern of the Office of the President for the forseeable future. There is only one candidate that sees that, and that candidate deserves my - and your - vote.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions, and blood of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill--

2004-09-01T23:34:00.000-05:00

The GOP convention has already produced several excellent, memorable speeches. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger all score among the best political speeches I have ever heard. But this is too amazing to describe - it must be seen.

Watch the video

The following is the full text of remarks made by Senator Zell Miller, as prepared for delivery.

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.

Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter. Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in- Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man.

I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him. Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

2004-07-25T12:39:00.000-05:00

The Burying of Sandy Burglar

At an earlier age, I suppose I would have been a bit astonished and mystified that the major media outlets (except FOX) in the United States would completely ignore the blatant theft of codeword-classified documents, concerning the most deadly attack on United States soil since the Civil War, by a former National Security Advisor who was also, until the case came to public light, the foreign policy advisor of the Democrat candidate for President, mere months from the quadrennial election.

But that would have been before I was paying attention; indeed, at that time, I was more concerned with racking up my women-seduced score than anything that was happening in politics. At that time, if supporting abortion and redistributionism got me laid, I was all for it.

Now, however, I am a little older and wiser. As I have indicated previously, being a target of the 1993 WTC bombing opened my eyes to politics and the stark reality that this stuff actually does affect me, whether I like it or not. Even though I was a regular newspaper reader since my pre-teens, it was at the beginning of the Clinton administration when I truly understood how different newspaper reporting could be from reality. I was under the naive impression that being a journalist was like being an archaeologist, only in real time. The sight of CNN reporters telling me, in their breathless and compelling manner, things I absolutely knew to be untrue about the attack I had just barely escaped with my life, caused me to ask a few extremely uncomfortable questions:

If reporters could gravely assert these certain untruths without any indication of doubt or allowance that the reality might be otherwise, what else have they been saying that is also completely wrong?
Do journalists willingly misrepresent reality?
Do journalists play favorites, i.e., is the pretense of the journalist being an "objective" observer an outright fraud?
How does a member of a medium's audience tell fact from fiction?
Isn't control over the choice of what to report alone sufficient to change the essential character of reporting from journalism to propaganda?

2004-07-17T03:14:00.000-05:00

If you read only one thing today, you must read this.

2004-07-15T13:48:00.000-05:00

Bye-Bye Whoopi

It's good to see this country hasn't completely lost its sense of decency.

On July 8th, 2004, John Kerry held a fundraiser at which Whoopi Goldberg was a performer. She did the now-infamous comedy act, filled with obscenities and off-color jokes. According to John Kerry, she represents the "heart and soul" of America.

I beg to differ. And so have a heck of a lot of other people.

Last week, Whoopi Goldberg was the spokesman for Slim-Fast. This week, she is not. Did the $1.2 billion dollar overnight drop in the value of Unilever (parent company of Slim-Fast) have anything to do with it? I suspect it did.

Slim-Fast dropped Whoopi like the steaming turd that she is, in response to the launch of a boycott by conservatives against Unilever. Now, her children's show on Nickelodeon is also in the target sights of the conservative boycott brigades.

Some will inevitably attribute this to "intolerance" by conservatives. I think that's correct. It is intolerant, of potty-mouthed disrespect for a President who has not behaved in any way that deserves such disrespect. And that's a good thing.

While "tolerance" may be all the rage, it's plain that too much tolerance is as large a problem, if not larger, than too little. I don't believe anybody should be arrested, or otherwise persecuted or prosecuted for foul language or disrespectful behavior. However, I don't like at all the excess to which previously non-tolerated behavior has come.

Do we really want a country where any person feels free to speak that way at any time, expecting no negative reaction? I sure don't. I don't want children learning this behavior and thinking it acceptable for regular day-to-day interaction with others. I'm not tolerant at all of people with no morals being glorified by a media with no morals influencing kids to have no morals.

While government is not a solution, social pressure is. And it's working, very well. Whoopi Goldberg is just the latest casualty of t hese social boycotts; the most well-known casualty is of course France, which has been socially boycotted for over a year now due to its perfidous behavior in the run-up to the war against Saddam. The French tourism industry, a major pillar of its economy, dropped precipitously as Americans chose other vacation destinations. The French wine industry is now also in dire straits as a direct result of people simply not wanting to subsidize offensive behavior.

Kudos to the boycotters - this is real democracy in action. Whoopi Goldberg does not belong in the role of a company spokesperson, or worse, the host of a children's show, when she brings with her so much offensive baggage. And France does not deserve the dollars of Americans, when its insincere, cynical, and corrupt behavior endangers those very same Americans.

2004-07-12T01:05:00.000-05:00

On the Rights of Palestinian Arabs in the Disputed Territories

In discussing the International Court of Justice's opinion that the Israeli security wall was "illegal", it was asserted to me, in support of that opinion, that the Palestinians had a valid claim to control much of the territory on which the wall was built.

Brushing aside the dubious means by which the ICJ appropriated to itself jurisdiction over the matter, the decision was based on the assertion that the wall violated Palestinian rights.

But the Palestinians don't have the rights to the territories. The ownership of those territories is disputed. Those territories were gained lawfully by Israel in defensive war in 1967 from its Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian neighbors who, along with Iraq, attempted to exterminate it, and nearly succeeded. Israel cannot cede control over these territories and survive, while its neighbors remain hostile. Demanding it do so, or to disarm, or fail to take necessary defensive measures in the face of this unremitting hostility is quite simply futile.

It is not a matter of whether Israel may or may not want to relinquish the territories. Israel simply cannot do so and continue to exist, while Arab hostility continues. There is no solution to Arab hostility - it is generated as a function of the oppression in Arab nations by the various despots and tyrants who rule the Arab world. Thus there is no solution in which Israel can be restricted to the indefensible pre-1967 borders.

The only solution that I see is that the Arabs in the territories must be repatriated into Arab lands, specifically into Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq, whose aggressive acts caused the current condition of the Palestinians. (In defense of Jordan, it too needed to defend itself... from the Palestinians.) While this may be a painful process, it is not at all unprecedented - witness the massive population transfer between India and Pakistan in 1948, as but one of many examples - and it completes the population transfer begun when the Arab states expelled their 900,000 Jews.

I not only find this the only reasonable and logistically possible solution, but also the inevitable one. Land lost in an aggressive war is lost permanently - this has always been the case. (Very recently this principle was applied in Kosovo.) The WB, Golan, and Gaza territories are Israeli territories won rightfully from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt respectively.

Would giving up a claim to the land really help Israel? I don't think so. Israel gave up the Sinai, an important piece of strategic ground, and a territory larger than Israel and the disputed territories combined, to Egypt, as part of a peace deal. Yet Egypt runs anti-Israeli propaganda as part and parcel of its state media service, and runs weapons to the Arabs in the territories, both gross violations of the peace treaty between them.

So if the relatively vast territory of the Sinai can only buy Israel a de-escalation from all-out war with Egypt to a covert one, what sort of security could all the disputed territories buy? Not even close to enough.

And Jews have nowhere else to go. Europe didn't really work out too well, and the Muslim countries won't accept Jews. Israel is the homeland of Jews, a relationship with the land that extends back for thousands of years.

The Arabs are not in a similar position. There are 22 other Arab nations; if each took a mere 50,000 Arabs from the territories, it would be enough. No matter where they lived they would have no fear of being exterminated, excepting by their own tyrants. Arab nations own 99.7% of the Middle East, after all.

I think the lives of Palestinians can only be improved by such a plan. First, they have to be dispersed among the Arab nations, because they have an awful reputation - Jordan massacred them, they took Lebanon to civil war, Kuwait expelled them all. So a distributed repatriation will help remove the false distinction of calling them Palestinians, and they can also learn better habits and ways of live than the poverty and misery that Arafat has brought them in the territories. There is no opportunity for them in Israel - after suicide terror there is no way the Israelis will trust them enough for the Arabs to prosper. Different Arabs, sure, but as Palestinians, no.

Iraq might be a good place to put a lot of them. It is a free country, they could be properly educated and have the benefits of free press, elections, and free markets. There is plenty of space in Iraq, as well, and a lot more water to go around, especially now that the marshes are being restored.

If things go this route, there are a lot of good possibilites for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. I don't see any other outcome that results in anything but a war in which a lot of people die.

2004-07-12T00:49:00.000-05:00

On the Leadership, or lack thereof, of the Palestinian Arabs

In a discussion on beliefnet.com, I encountered the following response in a discussion about the Israel/Arab conflict, about the troubling problem of "innocent" Palestinians who are at the mercy of both the corrupt Palestinian Authority and the Israel Defense Force. It is a very good question, and it defies an easy answer:

"There are plenty of innocent Palestinians who want nothing more than to be left alone so that they can put food on the family table and a roof over their heads. What these people lack is a political leadership who are more concerned about their welfare than they are about the desire to do Israel and Israelis harm."

The problem is that the Arabs who do want to go about their lives peacefully are vastly outnumbered by those who prefer to wallow in misery if it gets them war. The people who want to live in peace need to get out of the territories now before Arafat dies and the Palestinian Civil War begins. They are caught in tragic circumstances; while I would like to see justice done for these people, the leaders of Palestinian society make it impossible. These people, however, are not Israel's responsibility; Israel has a responsibility to its own people.

The important question is: how does a positive change in Palestinian leadership occur? I don't see any sequence of events in which a peace-loving Palestinian becomes the leader. The coming war between the Palestinian factions will almost ensure that the new leader is a corrupt, brutal thug, just like Arafat.

If there is some way in which a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people could be recognized, then it would change the character of the situation completely. Israel would finally have a real representative of the Palestinian people - one accountable to his own people - with whom to negotiate. Good faith could be extended to such a person.

But how is that person going to get into that position? There is no Arab tradition of representative government! And that is the core problem of trying to do justice for the individual Palestinian... they are not represented, therefore there is no way for anyone to truly know what the Palestinian people really want, and what compromises they are prepared to make. Knowing what a dictator like Arafat wants is not the same thing.

If such a leader could be found among the Arabs, it would be a truly wondrous event, and this terrible dispute would be ended in short order. Let me know how I can help them get from here to there! Until then, however, we need to face what is real - that the individual Arab is suffering because of the choices of their leadership, and also because of their own choice not to rise up, depose that leadership, and install new leaders who truly represent them.

Circumstances are sometimes such that you don't have the choice to keep your head down and go about your business. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice. And if the Arabs who want peace do not choose to overthrow their leader and replace him with someone who wants peace, then they must live with the consequences of that decision, however unfair it may seem.

2004-07-09T13:47:00.000-05:00

John Kerry

If the average picture is a thousand words, these pics over at Allahpundit.com score in the millions.

2004-07-02T14:03:00.000-05:00

US Government Warns: Internet Explorer is a security threat

This is not a drill

The particular virus initiated this week inserts JavaScript into certain Web sites. When users visit those sites, it initiates pop-up ads on home and office computers, and allows keystroke analysis of user information. The target is believed to be credit card numbers. CERT estimated that as many as tens of thousands of Web sites may be affected.

My advice, as a 7-year veteran of the computer industry: Stop using Internet Explorer immediately.

I finally switched to Mozilla about a week ago. I don't regret it one bit. I have also been using Mozilla Firefox, which has really been working well for me. If you have been using Internet Explorer, you'll find that you don't really have to re-learn a new program; all the same hotkeys work. For a few partisan Microsoft sites, you may have to switch back to IE. It's not like you can get rid of it, anyway. (Slick Willie Gates made sure of that!)

Firefox has a few nifty touches, besides being much more straightforward to operate and inherently more secure (through less of what I call "Microsoft special sauce", i.e., "integration with the OS"). One, it has a Google search bar built in - I don't need to navigate to the Google home page to do a search. Two, it's got automatic popup blocking (customizable to taste), which means I can (and did) get rid of another memory-resident, on-startup program, my ex-popup killer. Which further means that I've finally achieved my goal of having no TSRs except a the software firewall and virus killer. Okay, systray TSRs on me all the time, but that's Microfraud for you.

I might as well take this opportunity to get a few things off my chest with regards to personal computing. Most of us use Windows computers, for the sheer volume of software availability, and apparent simplicity of use. Though Apple and UNIX-based systems may be technologically superior (heck, no doubt, they are, by quite a bit), Apple doesn't have the software base, and UNIX is too complicated for the bulk of personal users.

I use Windows 98, still. To this day, I cannot name a single advantage of "upgrading" to Win2000, WinME, or WinXP, for my needs, or for the needs of your average home/home office user. Those operating systems have a new interface, but their tighter integration between components is more of a security problem, more of a resource drain, and brings no real benefit.

Let me issue an open challenge: Name one benefit of any post-Win98, Windows OS over Win98. (NT 4.x, 5.x doesn't count - I mean Me, 2000, or XP.) I have been using personal computers for 19 years and I can think of none, but I do want to know what to answer when I am faced with the question in a seniors' center Trivial Pursuit tournament after the usual raucous afternoon round of shuffleboard.

2004-07-02T12:46:00.000-05:00

Saddam Tried to Buy Uranium

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

What liberals don't seem to understand is that it can be downright deadly for the government to reveal all the information it knows during a war. In World War II, this concept was expressed simply as "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Either liberals are too unintelligent to grasp this very basic concept - let the enemy know what you know, and they will figure out how you got it, and kill off or learn to defeat all your intelligence assets - or they actually want to see coalition personnel die.

In this particular case, we knew Saddam was pursuing uranium from Niger. We had a set of declassifiable evidence which was not enough to be considered concrete, smoking-gun proof by the media bias brigade. We also had a classified set of evidence that was more credible, reliable, and thorough.

Yet Joe Wilson, who most certainly knew, both that the uranium story was true, and that the most conclusive evidence thereof had to remain classified, went public on the record and bore false witness against the President of the United States - and without any evidence to back his claim. The Democrat party, seditiously, feted him for his perfidy.

Now the truth has come out. And once again, a left-wing Big Lie, relentlessly hammered into the American consciousness and shouted from the rooftops, has been revealed for the falsehood it always was, as its originators and supporters must have always suspected, given the standard of evidence they demand, for example, on whether or not Saddam had WMDs.

To answer Seymour Hersh's major question, in the article that started it all (linked above under "Big Lie"):

Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program?

I feel fairly confident the answer goes something like "Loose Lips Sink Ships".

2004-07-01T14:38:00.000-05:00

Worst-Targeted Advertisement Ever

My Life by Bill Clinton
$21,00 - you save 40%. Save on other topselling book's too (Affi.)

Free Copy of "My Life"
Read About Hillary & Bill Clinton in "My Life". Get a Free Copy Now!

Appears as a Blogspot ad on top of this blog at the moment.

Let me know when the price gets better than "free".

2004-07-01T14:29:00.000-05:00

Free email address at ummah.com!

That's right folks, I am now thoughtomator-at-ummah.com in addition to my plethora of other internet aliases. I will probably never read it or use it for anything other than humor value, but it was free, and therefore, since I'm a Jew, I am genetically incapable of passing it up.

So sign up! Not only is it free, but every dollar spent running ummah.com is a dollar that doesn't go to explosives, bribes to the French, or to advances in the practical art of tunnel-digging.

Anyway if you get an email from "Ismail Petronowski", you'll know who it is. (Would you put your real name in a Muslim database? I think not!)

2004-06-30T21:15:00.000-05:00

Kenya Believe It?

Warning - if you click on this link, you will never ever be able to erase it from your brain!

2004-06-29T13:38:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton is a Communist

Just in case the San Francisco Chronicle loses this down the memory hole, or anyone should say, in response to the charge of Hillary Clinton being a Communist, take a good long look at what she said today:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Folks, the Berlin Wall is down. D-o-w-n down. It's fallen and it can't get up. So give it up, Marx is dead - and all the Wiccan priestesses and all of Slick Willie's men, they could not put Communism back together again.

2004-06-27T13:48:00.000-05:00

Media Bias, Socialism, and the three-sided war

I have to confess that staying informed in the modern era is a daunting task. The default news sources - the broadcast networks, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times - are wholly unreliable. Every one of them has a culture in which those who do not ascribe to a general neo-Marxist agenda are not permitted to reach positions of power. It is very similar to what has happened to academia - when the hard left attains a measure of power, it exercises that power primarily for the purpose of maintaining control of those institutions, and reserves honors and priveleges for its adherents only. By dominating non-scientific fields they may claim immunity from any test of reason or consistent standard. (See http://www.dradams.org for a real eye-opener as to how this works in practice in the academic domain.) The historically-dominant media outlets are all infected with this ideology, not only nationally, but internationally as well - the BBC (UK) and, CBC (Canada), and CNN also follow the transnational socialist agenda. Other sources with different agendas will also skew their reports in different directions, as well. In a time of so many voices, and far too many dishonest, it has become a crucial survival skill to filter for bias.

Our society has been unconsciously dependent on the myth that news outlets are there to inform us. The truth that we must come to terms with is that this mythical animal, the "objective journalist", doesn't exist, and never did. Each reporter chooses the subjects and point of view that suits his or her own beliefs. Some try to attain some measure of objectivity, and aim only to inform their readers of the facts as best as they are able. Some are outright and unapologetic propagandists, weaving an ideological narrative through every story. This cannot be avoided - it is inherent in the human condition.

The truth is that we are in the middle of World War IV, (WWIII being the Cold War), and that it is a three-sided war. Historians will likely point to November 11, 1979 (Iran hostage crisis) as the date this war started.

The three sides are thus: the free world; the socialist world; and Islam.

Islam, centered in Saudi Arabia, wants to dominate the globe. It has a network of nation-states, 'charity' organizations, financial institutions, weapons suppliers, and other sponsors which, together and independently, work towards the realization of this religious vision. The methods of terrorism are chosen because of the advantages of dirty fighting - they can inflict the most damage, and also provoke appeasement from enemies that do not have the courage to fight them. What we know as human rights have no significance to Islam, thus methods like suicide bombing, beheading, shooting pregnant women in the stomach, amputations, the DC snipers, 9/11, poisoning, etcetera, are ultimately acceptable in pursuit of the greater religious duty.

The free world, whose center of gravity is the USA, wants to remain free. It wants to continue to generate human achievement at its current historically unprecedented pace. However, it cannot remain free if it is subject to the depredations of an aggressive Islam that wishes to subdue it. It has implicitly recognized that the problem is Islam, whether this is publicly admitted or not, because we know that there is no realistic non-Islamic terror threat to the world as a whole. Thus it has embarked on a course of taking the fight to the enemy, using means military, diplomatic, and economic, on the same global scale envisioned by Islam.

And then there is socialism, whose power is strongest in France, Germany, and Belgium, whose vehicles are the EU, the UN, and, sadly, now NATO; socialism simply wants as much power as it can get. Its view of the Islamic war is the one that asks how socialism can benefit. It sees the war against Islam as competition for the resources it wants to expand the welfare state. It excuses the unexcusable and asks, "Why do they hate us?" with no intention of exploring the true answer to that question (religious duty). Socialists in general are as perfectly willing to do violence to truth with equal barbarity as Islam does to human beings. And that's where the Democrat party has lined up.

Because they control the most important media outlets, they can constantly drum a particular point of view into the minds of other Democrats, who then become too intimidated to put voice to the obvious. We then get what I call a suicide bombing of reality by reporters... they destroy their own credibility in order to distort. (For proof thereof, take a look at the trends for NY Times vs. Wall St. Journal, or CNN/MSNBC vs. Fox News.) But since the ideological purpose is served, apparently business failure is of no concern (see Air America, the epitome of this ideology in a media outlet), as long as it keeps people like you too intimidated to give voice to common sense. Using "everybody thinks X about Y" talking-points repetition, and by loudmouth activism, they can dominate a major political party - even though they are, in actuality, outnumbered by the folks with common sense.

2004-06-24T22:54:00.000-05:00

An Open Letter to Santa Fe, NM Councilman David Pfeiffer

Re: 6/26/04 statement by Councilman Pfeiffer

Dear Councilman Pfeiffer,

I'm not a member of your district or even a resident of your state. I'm just a true-blue American in New York City, and one of the people who were in the World Trade Center when it was bombed in February 1993.

I want to thank you for your endorsement of George Bush for a second term. I personally am not registered to any party, nor interested in doing so, but I do vote, and I am enormously concerned about the survival of our country. It brings me no end of relief to hear that Democrats like yourself, and Sen. Zell Miller, understand the fact that our nation is in a real war, fighting for its very survival.

There are no words to express the admiration I have for men in positions of power who have the courage to acknowledge our obligation to ourselves to exercise our right and duty of self-defense. We are not free if we are subject to the whims of barbarians whose behavior knows no limit of cruelty and savagery.

Do not listen to the pleas of cowards who hope that if only they appease Islam, it will not bring more death here. The sum total of those arguments are not worth the life of any single one of the many innocent US civilians who would be sacrificed, should the counsel of fear prevail here. I did nothing to provoke that attempt to kill me in 1993.

I was a 19-year-old kid on his second day at his first real job, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that is the essence of the story of the first time I became an attempted murder victim for the glory of Allah. On 9/11, I was fortunate enough to have been late to an appointment; I would have been beneath the building inside the subway at 9 AM that morning if I had adhered to my planned schedule. This kind of ideologically-motivated mass murder is insane, and failing to act to stop these people in every way possible could with a single failure on our part, cost tens of thousands, perhaps even millions of lives. These people are *not* deterrable like the Soviets were or the Chinese appear to be. They want to die. And they want to take us with them.

If we don't act decisively, they will take us with them. These animals have learned to use mid-20th century weapons of immense destructive potential.

I watched President Clinton do nothing for eight long years. Then I looked out my window and the World Trade Center was gone. (And now I hear him offer excuses. I am not consoled.) I smelled every moment for two long weeks the mix of ash, aluminum, and vaporized human flesh that was once my city, my countrymen, and the embodiment of the collective achievement of humanity. There is not a day I do not feel the empty space in the skyline where the Trade Center used to be.

This is the truth, and it's high time more of our country than just conservatives and Republicans knew it. The outrageously biased major media outlets are doing everything they can to hide it; it depends on people like you to get the rest of the country to understand. We can't afford the unjustified, extremely immature opposition-by-reflex that now dominates the Democrat party - America will pay for this in the lives of its own citizens.

The courage of men like you gives me no end of hope. I can only pray that there are others out there like you who will in the coming months give voice to the truth and let clear-headed reason prevail over cowardice.

Sincerely,

David
New York, NY

2004-05-06T00:54:00.000-05:00

I say one Hebrew prayer, and already I've been labeled by the machine. As good a place as any to sell Unique Israeli Jewelery, I guess. Are they selling to the (theoretical) reader, or to the author? I don't wear much in the way of jewelery. I wear a watch. Never had any sort of ring other than one that an ex-girlfriend used to stake her claim of ownership. I've worn a bracelet in the past, but not for a while. Maybe it's a good product for someone who wears jewelery. I hope they sell a few, and justify the effort Blogger has generously put forth in putting this whole thing together in the first place.

2004-05-05T23:29:00.000-05:00

I'm off and running. Great! Let's get a few things down on 'paper'.

1972: I was born in a suburb of New York City. Although I wasn't quite aware of it at the time, the Vietnam War was in its 11th year, World War III in its 24th. Nixon clobbered McGovern and readied himself for four more years in the White House.

1973: Roe v. Wade decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I quite honestly never expected to live to be 30. In a world where life - even human life - was treated as being so worthless, I was certain that I would never outlive my 20s. From the earliest I can remember, I had always imagined that I would die young, in a global thermonuclear war, as the USSR and USA engaged in a world-destroying 2 hour exchange of missiles. I really did expect that one day I would look up, see a Soviet missile coming out of the sky, and shortly thereafter be vaporized - or worse, die a slow death of radiation poisoning, or be murdered in the world of death, fire, chaos, and desperation that must shortly follow thereafter.

1979: Revolution in Iran precipitates a year-plus international hostage crisis.

1980: Ronald Reagan elected President of the United States with 51% of the popular vote, ousting incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

1984: Democrats offer Mondale. Reagan wins again, this time with 59% of the popular vote.

1988: Democrats offer Dukakis. Vice President George Bush wins with 53% of the popular vote.

1991: World War III ends as the USSR dissolves, the Soviets having finally decided that pointing missiles at us wasn't really paying off for them.

1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States with 43% of the popular vote in a three-way contest with incumbent President George H. W. Bush and businessman Ross Perot.

Having reached the "end of history", I guess there was nothing left to do but ... Party On with Bill the Raging Hormone! (We'll MoveOn.org past the hangover later.) For the record, I voted "Bush" - my first vote for President. Also for the record, I am not and have never been a Republican (nor a Democrat). I don't support the two-party swindle. However, given a choice, I would rather be fooled by a Republican than sodomized by a Democrat. I do understand some people like it the other way around, but that was never to my taste.

February 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City is bombed by radical Islamists. Though a powerful blast killed only 6 people, it was later learned that the bomb was intended to release a cyanide gas, which was incinerated in the detonation.

Personally, I did not appreciate having to walk down 49 flights of stairs not knowing if I was going to live or die. How ironic would that be, anyway? You live your whole life thinking you'll die impersonally from a Soviet nuke, but instead find yourself about to die from an Islamist bomb.

February 1993-January 2001: Some stuff happened, but hey? What does it really matter, anyway? The Party happened, and that's all that mattered... at the time. A few tanks under the command of Attorney General Janet Reno, slaughtering 80 US citizens, men, women, and children alike, in Waco, Texas. And some "Wall" thing about protecting civil liberties, because the FBI and the CIA might talk to each other, I think. Does it matter? Bill plays the sax, check it out - no wonder he gets all the babes!

September 2001: World War IV begins.

2004-05-05T23:00:00.001-05:00

Blessing over the Blog
Baruch Ata Adonai Magen David.

thoughtomation

thoughtomator is retiring

Is no one serious about terrorism?

Ophelia at the DNC

Brain teaser

Cable Service Oddity

Virginia Tech, Aliens, and Gun Control

Imus IV: The Corzine Effect

Imus III - Meet Terry Moran, ABC News House Racist

Imus II: The Law of Unintended Consequences

Don Imus and the End of Rap "Music"

How to Respond to an Overt Homosexual

First!

Giuliani, Democrat?

Why Nancy Can't Not Blink

Hello Script Kiddies

Yahoo Breakdown?

Sean Hannity, You Blithering Shill, or How and Where Iraq Was Lost

Nice little XSS worm

Let me be the first to say it

Radical ideas for the New York Giants

Bears at Giants 11/12/2006

GOP Loses - Should Conservatives Celebrate?

NFL Week 9 picks

NFL Weekend wrapup

Vonage: Worst Ad Campaign Ever?

NFL Sunday Update

NFL Sunday Week 8

Muslim and Anger II

Muslim and Anger

NFL Weekend wrapup

NFL Sunday update 1

NFL Weekend Picks

Time flies

The newest addition to the thoughtomator household

It's War

Questions for and about Harriet Miers, Nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America

Joe Citizen

Adventures in Maryland

Starving Mae Magourik

The Ten Commandments of the Religion of Liberal

Site maintenance

"Isn't That Bitch Dead Yet?"

The Schiavo Rift

The Conspiracy to Murder Terri Schiavo

Why the Terri Schiavo case is Important

The Case Against Michael Schiavo

Top Ten Other Questions Asked by New York Times Reporters

If this keeps happening, I'm going to start picking stocks

Terri Schiavo's Bone Scan Record Analyzed

Death To Terri

Bankruptcy Boondoggle

I believe...

Why Three-Strikes Laws are Un-American

This is not a drill