... and claim that Barack Obama doesn't like white people.
Maybe it's because Kentucky overwhelmingly supported John McCain in the 2008 election? Or maybe Obama wants to make sure he has enough power in the White House to crank up the thermostat to orchid-growing levels?
One thing's for sure: If George Bush was still in office, we'd all hear about how ineptly he's handling this situation.
Hope you burned your legs off, a-hole.
The prequel, which is being written by "Battlestar Galactica" executive producer Ronald D. Moore, and helmed by former commercials director Matthijs Van Heijningen, is rumored to be set on a Norwegian camp in the Antarctic, and will chronicle how the Norwegian scientists first unearthed and then tried to eliminate the dreaded shape-shifting alien.
I'll definitely check this out as big a fan as I am of this Carpenter film, but I'd much rather see a sequel. If you've caught this flick, you know that the ending was left WIDE open, leaving MANY questions still hanging about.
From last March: My favorite scene from "The Thing."
Below: One incarnation of The Thing hiding from Kurt Russell and co.
The Bourne Identity actor - who plays CIA agent Jason Bourne in three hit films - said: "He's repulsive. Bond is an imperialist, misogynist, sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people.
"The movies have a formula, they stick to it, and it makes them a lot of money. They know what they are doing and they're going to keep doing it."
Of course they keep doing it, Matt. Just like your millionaire self keeps making movies that -- get this -- hopefully will make money. But that's really what you were doing anyway, right? Try to diss Bond in favor of your [much lamer] Jason Bourne persona?
I tell 'ya what, Matt -- if there really are guys out there like the dudes James Bond has fought and vanquished over the decades, I hope and pray there really is a gent like Bond somewhere to battle and defeat 'em!
Or, to put it another way, "Shut up and act."
Shirley at DE Curmudgeon has the appropriate graphic.
(h/t to SWT.)
Steve Newton at DE Libertarian has some thoughts on what one should do if your kid's teacher allows some of his/her political views escape into the classroom. I've written about this more times than I can count, most recently here and here. The ironic thing about the incident Steve addresses is that it deals with an anti-Joe Biden teacher. Say whaaa ...?? A teacher [supposedly] espousing anti-liberal views in a classroom?? A true rarity!!
Which brings me to what typically we hear about when it comes to political bias in the classroom: Loyal CoR reader Fred Gregory brings me word of a preposterous situation at Elon University. Freshman Joe Malone had a beef with how his "Global Experience" professor dealt with the conservative/Republican point of view:
The textbook for the course, "Democracy's Edge," by Francis Lappe, is an outrageous example of left-wing indoctrination.
Lappe expends gallons of ink hurling invective at Reagan, Bush, "the far right" and its "mean-spirited, ends-justify-means mind set." The "far right," the author claims, opposes "the democratic premise that citizens use government as our tool to provide basic security for ourselves and express solidarity with our neighbors."
To begin with, anyone who suggests that President Bush is a member of the "far right" is ignorant of conservative principles. And second, we can only wonder if Lappe has ever read the Constitution, or any of our founding documents, which say nothing about expressing "solidarity with our neighbors." Obviously, the author's paranoia about conservatives distorts her vision of "the global experience." For Joe Malone, things would only get worse.
Malone's instructor in "The Global Experience" was Stephen Schulman, assistant professor of philosophy, who, in the first week of class, proclaimed that President Bush, upon completion of his term, should be tried for war crimes and convicted by the International Criminal Court. Upon voicing a contrary position -- in a course that allegedly thrives on dialogue and the exchange of ideas -- Joe Malone was scolded and advised to alter his behavior. This exchange was verified by Wendy Warren, a classmate of Malone.
Shortly thereafter, Professor Schulman suggested that his students undertake, as a class project, the gathering of signatures to increase the minimum wage in Greensboro. It would be inappropriate for a "far right" professor to expect his students to gather signatures for tax cuts or to abolish affirmative action; likewise, isn't it inappropriate to expect students to participate in a partisan, progressive cause?
Students were asked to write a "response" to the minimum wage initiative, about which Malone's paper was critical. Although his arguments were valid and his tone respectful (I have read the paper), Professor Schulman, in an e-mail to Malone, declared the paper "unacceptable" because of the author's "overblown statements" and "general tone of distaste." In the same message, Schulman warned Malone that his "behavior in class comes across as borderline hostile to others."
Joe Malone Jr. was charged with "disorderly conduct" and ordered to appear at a hearing before Elon's Honor Board, which found him "responsible," meaning guilty as charged. (He has appealed the decision.) The aforementioned Wendy Warren wrote the board on Malone's behalf and argued that he was "never intimidating" in class. But Malone, she wrote, was "about the only one passionate enough about his beliefs to question Schulman's extremely liberal thoughts and ideas."
Now, this is college, so I personally don't have as much of an issue with a prof spewing his personal views about topics in his class. I do have an issue, 'tho, with the sort of assignments he put out. But that's not the issue. The issue is Schulman's [alleged] reluctance to allow Malone's contrary views to be expressed. In a word, it's ridiculous. It seems Schulman has been thoroughly schooled in that collegiate PC inanity known as "creating a hostile environment" merely when one voices disagreement with the prevailing liberal heterodoxy. (For example, we're witnessing a form of this right now nationally as those who disagree with Barack Obama's and the Democrat Congress's "stimulus" package are dubbed "anti-American" and "unpatriotic.")
I had my share of liberal profs in my undergrad and grad days, but thankfully none of them were anything like this idiot Schulman. Indeed, in one of my grad classes (dealing with student behavior and classroom management) I wrote a lengthy paper pretty much trashing the philosophy of the course and our assigned textbook. It was thoroughly researched and, as such, I got an "A." But the professor wasn't very happy with my views (since she wrote a full page of comments ripping me in return!), but the point is that she allowed me to express my points and didn't penalize me academically or in a disciplinary manner.
The sooner the Schulman's of the college world realize what asses they are, the better off academia will be.
First, Tim Geithner; now, Tom Daschle. WTF??
See this post from earlier today first.
... this headline would read "Judge Gives Stinging Rebuke to Bush." But, since Bush is now gone, it's "Guantanamo judge defies Obama."
The chief judge at the Guantanamo Bay war crimes court Thursday rejected President Obama's call to halt the prosecution of terrorism suspects, ruling that a delay in the case of a Saudi accused in the Cole attack would "not serve the interests of justice."
Army Col. James L. Pohl said the government's request to postpone until May the Feb. 9 arraignment of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri was "not reasonable."
Prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case already had agreed to Obama's request for a four-month suspension in the proceedings to review the military commissions process created under former President Bush.
Besides the misspelling of "Guantánamo" (note the accent, which ya'd think the LA Times, of all papers, would know about ... the NY Times got it right, dammit ... ok, ok, I know it's lame, but as a Spanish teacher ...!!), you might just wonder how in the hell can a judge defy the Commander-in-Chief??
Because Obama's "call," as the Times puts it, was a request, not an order.
This'll be interesting. If I were Obama, I'd make it an order. Abd al Rahim al Nashiri is one of the three folks the US has admitted to waterboarding, and if Obama is as firm against the technique as he claims, then he'd waste no time taking on Col. Pohl.
... it sure would sound a lot better if someone other than a politician said it:
An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.
Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.
"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses."
McCaskill's proposed compensation limit would cover salaries, bonuses and stock options.
The sad reality is that these Wall St. buttholes are no different than you, Ms. McCaskill -- or any other politician. I certainly agree that anyone or anything that accepts federal money thus becomes bound to the whims of the loaner. However, the American public gives our moronic politicians their freakin' money each and every paycheck and with our various purchases, and what do they do with it? Social Security is a mess, Medicare's a mess, the national debt's out of control ... and these self-righteous, smug, hypocritical politicians are the ones who got us into this economic mess in the FIRST PLACE!!
So, pardon me if I don't jump and up and down and scream "AMEN!!" Senator McCaskill. What's the 'ol saying -- "Those who live in glass houses ...?"
First place in the Council category was Mere Rhetoric with NJDC Tool Aaron Keyak Helpfully Illustrates How Liberal Activists Sneeringly Cocoon Themselves In Asinine Arguments And Dishonest Smears.
First place in the non-Council category was [the Colossus-nominated] Spiked Online with After Gaza: what’s behind 21st-century anti-Semitism?
Full results are here.
Our site was down a good portion of the morning and early afternoon. I know you were chomping at the bit to read CoR, so I knocked some heads to get us back up!
We apologize to our millions of readers. ;-)
Check it out -- you'll love it!
Here's one that had me in giggles for several minutes:
But as The Messiah himself might say, "That's not leadership."
Indeed, The Messiah said exactly that a few months ago when addressing global warming:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”
Now to today:
The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.
“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
Guess what -- I like it warm, too. Thus, my thermostat will be set to whatever the hell I like. Got that, Mr. Obama? I might'a felt a bit differently if you practiced what you preached (y'know, you were supposed to be all about "change we can believe in," or some other such ridiculous nonsense), but screw it. Just like Al Gore, you're just another "do as say, not as I do" liberal.
Hell, at least Jimmy Carter practiced what he preached when he told us to turn down the thermostat.
Change Hypocrisy you can believe in."
With all the praise heaped upon George W Bush since Jan. 20, one would think he actually did something positive for the country.
My response is simple: Enough. There was one attempt at a major act of terrorism on this country in the last 200 plus years and it was successful. That’s right: successful, successful during the Bush administration. A president does not get to bookend his administration wherever he wants. He didn’t become president on Sept 12, 2001. Evidence and research clearly reveal that the Clinton anti-terrorism team was far superior to any Bush team. There is no evidence that any other potential attack reached the operational stage or was even aspired to reach that stage after Sept. 11, 2001. So from what were we kept safe? Bin Laden got what he wanted; three thousand dead here and five thousand dead overseas. Safe doesn’t just mean not dead. When you lose your job, your home, your healthcare, your opportunity for a decent education, you are not safe. When you lose your right to privacy and protections afforded by the constitution; you are not safe. Nothing; I mean nothing, good came out of the last eight years.
There 'ya go. George W. Bush, on the job for not even eight months, is entirely cupable for the September, 11 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. And Bill Clinton's team was "far superior" to the Bush team? As a commenter on the letter's page notes, let's see:
1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
1993 - Battle of Mogadishu
1993 - Waco
1995 - Attempted crashing of plane on White House
1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
Yep! That sure is "successful!" Not to mention the opportunity to outright KILL bin Laden, which, well, Clinton sorta didn't take advantage of. That's that "far superior" for 'ya, folks.
The rest is the usual "progressive" talking points prattle, similar to Vanella's previous letter. *Yaaaawwwn*
Stan Lee, Arthur Lieberman and Marvel enterprises are being sued for looting the Estate of Stan Lee Media, Inc. in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection from 2001-2006. Martin Garbus, Esq., on behalf of shareholders of SLMI filed a Shareholder Derivative action on January 26, 2009 in Manhattan federal court claiming 50% percent ownership in such mega-popular Super Hero entertainment franchises as Spider Man, Iron Man and the X-Men.
This order places at issue all of the highly publicized ventures that QED, and its publicly traded parent POW Entertainment, announced in jointly exploiting Stan Lee Media Estate assets including The Drifter and The Accuser with Liberty Media, IDT, Sprint Mobile, Vidiator and the Disney Company, among others. Announcements regarding these relationships based on the assets looted from Stan Lee Media, Inc. were used to promote the publicly traded stock of POW Entertainment (POWN).
This is an extraordinarily victory for the shareholders of Stan Lee Media. If the Court further agrees with the shareholders of SLMI, they will be entitled not only to recover $1 billion dollars plus but also a 50% interest in the future profits that Marvel makes from the Marvel characters created by Stan Lee.
Ouch! I always tended to think the best of Lee; however, his star dwindled quite a bit after reading how former early Marvel partner Jack Kirby, not Lee, was really the creative force behind characters like the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, the Hulk, etc. And now? As Lee might put in a word balloon, "Sheesh ...!"
Here's how much to support our new president, via Big Hollywood:
1. I support him as much as Code Pink supports our troops.
2. I support him as much as N.O.W. supports Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
3. I support him as much as the Hollywood community supported Theo Van Gogh.
4. I support him as much as Nancy Pelosi supports the Catholic Church’s teachings on life.
5. I support him as much as Al Gore supports cutting down on his personal carbon footprint to save the world.
6. I support him as much as John Edwards supports The National Enquirer’s right to publish pictures of his girlfriend and baby.
7. I support him as much as Western gay rights groups support Mehdi Kazemi.
8. I support him as much as the Castro brothers support Oscar Biscet’s right to free speech.
9. I support him as much as Ted Kennedy supports renewable wind energy off the coast of his summer mansion.
10. I support him as much as Bill Clinton supports Hillary’s ambitions for higher office.
11. I support him as much as the National Education Association supports the rights of students and parents to get a quality education over the security of a teacher’s job.
12. I support him just as much as he supports the right of a baby who survives an abortion to not spend its only living moments waiting to die in a storage room.
Delaware's lone rep. to Congress on the stimulus bill (via USA Today):
"... there could be as many as 10 to 15 Republicans supporting the package ... [but] if I had to bet, I would bet zero."
Good on 'ya, Mike!
(h/t: The Corner.)
Gotta love CNN. In an article dealing with the oh-so important news that Cindy McCain will not, repeat NOT, be appearing on "Dancing with the Stars" this season, they include this little tidbit at the end:
Mrs. McCain isn't the first politically-connected individual to be invited to appear on the show: Former vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle reportedly turned down a similar offer last year.
Look, we all know how the MSM feel about Republicans, but can they at least be historically accurate? I mean, I seem to recall that Quayle actually became vice president after the 1988 election!
Here's a screen cap in case CNN realizes their boo-boo.
Will Obama's election mean more black comic book heroes? I wonder, though, why the article glanced over Marvel's first real money-making (and critically acclaimed) film, "Blade," which stars Wesley Snipes as a human-vampire hybrid who battles the nocturnal bloodsuckers. It's an awesome flick which features one of the best action film opening scenes ever. (A linked related article deals with Blade a bit more.)
I wondered too, if the overall premise of the article is to get more black superheroes into the "mainstream" comics audience, why would it mention a group like the "O+Men," a group of HIV-positive characters? That's not exactly "mainstream." That's about as "niche" as you can get. (It's creator does pontificate on the dearth of mainstream black heroes, but his creations seemingly will do little to affect it.)
Related: I wrote a rather lengthy post about minority superheroes almost two years ago.
Dee Dee Myers -- you are INDEED making a statement precisely like John Lennon did when he compared the Beatles to Christ:
Barack Obama is the most famous living person in the history of the world.
I’m not trying to induce an acid flashback to John Lennon’s infamous 1966 comment, “The Beatles are more popular than Jesus.” But whether you measure fame in terms of saturation or sheer numbers, it seems indisputable to me that more people know at least something about the new American president than anyone alive, at this point—or any—in the planet’s existence. (Link.)
That's because you, like the media and the rest of the planet's "progressives," have digested the proverbial Kool Aid, Dee Dee.
Again: People wonder why folks call him The Messiah?
"I'm getting uncomfortable. I'm done. I'm done, I hope you write whatever you want. I don't give a damn." -- Benicio del Toro, who couldn't handle tough questions about his new film (which he co-produced) "Che" about Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
... includes over four billion for -- ready? -- ACORN.
"Even if by some miracle the nations of the world could bring carbon dioxide levels back to those of the pre-industrial era, it would still take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed, scientists said Monday."
That's the first paragraph in an LA Times article today, similar to the front page of today's Wilmington News Journal.
There you have it -- in a mere 50-70 years, industrial man has done what nature couldn't in over four billion: made climate change "irreversible." (This, according to the AP via the News Journal.) Oh, but in this age of meanings meaning different meanings, "irreversible" doesn't mean exactly that. It now means "change that would remain for 1,000 years even if humans stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere immediately." OK, so apparently man has mucked it up for our next 1,000 years. Except that we won't stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere immediately, so maybe it'll be what -- 2,000 years?
But here's the interesting part: thirty-some years ago these same "experts" were warning of a new Ice Age. Since we were given [apparently] phony info then, what do these "experts" expect now? Global warming alarmism is roughly a decade-long phenomenon. Even if we had ceased all CO2 emissions the moment Al Gore had said we were all gonna die from global warming ... we already were too late.
So, why should we all really care, then? It's inevitable now. The "emergency" is over. We'll be all "global warmed" through the year 3000 and beyond.
UPDATE: Dave Burris notes how Al Gore's chicken littleling is slowly unraveling.
Yep. That's what a "true patriot" has recently said about our new commander-in-chief. Gag some more at what John Ridley has to say.
A couple locals are anti-American. Yep, they've come against that 'ol mantra that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." First up is Ralph D. Stampone:
Last Tuesday, we welcomed, Democrat and Republican, our new president. We were filled with euphoria and hope that President Obama would deliver us from the economic morass we find ourselves in and restore our stature in the realm of international relations.
But conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, epitomizing the sore loser, came forward on his show and categorically stateed, “I hope Obama is a failure.”
A huge majority of the American electorate demonstrated that your old, lackluster ideas are passe. When will he and his ilk try to be a loyal opposition instead of slavishly following your outdated ideas?
Indeed. We were "euphoric." Wow, some hyperbole. And Obama won by a "huge majority?" What was it again -- five percent? Five percent is now "huge?" And if Limbaugh is "passe" and his ideas are "outdated," why does he still reign supreme in the world of talk radio?
Next there's Julie Cavalca:
Rush Limbaugh recently stated that he hopes President Obama fails.
This is an appalling stance from such an influential voice, and demonstrates his complete lack of comprehension, as well as calls into question his true patriotism for America.
His partisanship has greatly transcended his desire for this country’s success, and should be treated with repudiation from even his most ardent supporters.
An "appalling stance" from a hardcore conservative ... against a hardcore liberal? And shouldn't Julie praise Limbaugh's patriotism for daring to speak out against Obama?
I wonder: Does Barack Obama wish the Republican Party success? Or would he like to see it fail? Does Barack Obama wish conservatives success? Or would he like to see them fail?
I think we know the answers to these, and thus the ridiculous hypocrisy of folks like Julie, Ralph, the MSM and other Obama worshippers.
That's why we call 'em "Dopey Letters."
At last, it'll be great seeing someone who thinks that their acting prowess and corresponding bank account means that they're smart get smacked down ... hard.
I disagree with Kristol on many things, but he'll wipe the floor with Damon. What, does Matt think he's actually Will Hunting, or what?
University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps has a rather … “unique” take on the presidency and the Constitution. In an otherwise interesting article on executive authority and the stupidity of the length of time it takes for an American president to take office after being elected, Epps then focuses on George Bush’s constitutional “transgressions” (my emphasis):
Under the pen name “Pacificus,” Hamilton wrote a defense of Washington’s power to act without congressional sanction. The first Pacificus essay is the mother document of the “unitary executive” theory that Bush’s apologists have pushed to its limits since 2001. Hamilton seized on the first words of Article II: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” He contrasted this wording with Article I, which governs Congress and which begins, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” What this meant, Hamilton argued, was that Article II was “a general grant of … power” to the president. Although Congress was limited to its enumerated powers, the executive could do literally anything that the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Hamilton’s president existed, in effect, outside the Constitution.
That’s the Bush conception, too. In 2005, John Yoo, the author of most of the administration’s controversial “torture memos,” drew on Hamilton’s essay when he wrote, “The Constitution provides a general grant of executive power to the president.” Since Article I vests in Congress “only those legislative powers ‘herein granted,’” Yoo argued, the more broadly stated Article II must grant the president “an unenumerated executive authority.”
… the most dangerous presidential malfunction might be called the “runaway presidency.” The Framers were fearful of making the president too dependent on Congress; short of impeachment—the atomic bomb of domestic politics—there are no means by which a president can be reined in politically during his term. Taking advantage of this deficiency, runaway presidents have at times committed the country to courses of action that the voters never approved—or ones they even rejected.
… but sometimes a president with little or no political mandate uses the office to further a surprising, obscure, or discredited political agenda. Under these circumstances, what poses as bold leadership is in fact usurpation. The most egregious case arises when a president’s policy and leadership have been repudiated by the voters, either by a defeat for reelection or by a sweeping rejection of his congressional allies in a midterm election. When that happens, presidents too often do what George Bush did in 2006—simply persist in the conduct that has alienated the country. Intoxicated by the image of the hero-president, unencumbered by any direct political check, stubborn presidents in this situation have no incentive to change course.
You may be wondering (as I most certainly was) what Epps thinks about those who vastly “outclassed” George W. Bush in terms of “exceeding” constitutional authority – people like Abraham Lincoln and FDR (whom I bring up quite often when I hear people call Bush the “worst president to ever trash the Constitution,” etc.). Epps doesn’t disappoint. Sort of:
American political commentators tend to think loosely about exertions of presidential authority. The paradigm cases are Lincoln rallying the nation after Fort Sumter, and Roosevelt, about a year before Pearl Harbor, using pure executive power to transfer American destroyers to embattled Britain in exchange for use of certain British bases. Because these great leaders used their authority broadly, the thinking goes, assertions of executive prerogative are valid and desirable.
Certainly there are times when presidential firmness is better than rapid changes in policy to suit public opinion. Executive theorists in the United States often pose the choice that way—steady, independent executive leadership or feckless, inconstant pursuit of what Hamilton called “the temporary delusion” of public opinion. But not all shifts in public opinion are delusive or temporary. An executive should have some independence, but a presidency that treats the people as irrelevant is not democratic. It is authoritarian.
Here, Epps demonstrates plain ‘ol ridiculous partisanship, not to mention intellectual dishonesty. First, he labels George W. Bush as a “runaway president” by the year 2006, claiming that there were no “direct political checks on him.” There weren’t? The election of 2006 saw the House and Senate revert back to Democrat control! How is that not a direct check on Bush’s power as president? The only rational explanation, which Epps doesn’t even cleverly avoid, is simple: The Democrats chose not to check the president. Period.
But more disturbing is Epps forgiveness of Lincoln’s and FDR’s constitutional violations, the former by far engaging in the worst. He merely skates over what these presidents did, stating nebulously that “because these great leaders used their authority broadly,” what they did was … OK? Please, Mr. Epps, define “used their authority broadly.”
Epps is attempting to make the case that what Lincoln and FDR did was “OK” and what Bush was not, because, in his view, Bush didn’t have public opinion on his side. Preposterously, it is only “authoritarian” for a president to violate the Constitution if a chief exec does it against popular will! So, Lincoln unilaterally suspending habeas corpus – though that is a power specifically reserved for Congress – was “OK,” because the polls favored him. Ditto the jailing and exiling of political enemies. FDR violating Congressionally-passed laws regarding the assistance to England, not to mention the incarceration of Japanese-American citizens? Hey, he was popular.
But back to George Bush: It’s telling that Epps uses the benchmark year of 2006 to make his case, such that it is. For, Bush began pushing and utilizing his supposed extra-constitutional authority at the very height of his popularity – back in the days immediately after 9/11. Thus, he really doesn’t differ at all from Lincoln and FDR, does he? When Bush’s poll numbers began plummeting, he lost the mid-term elections (2006). (Interestingly, in contrast, the GOP actually picked up seats in 2002 which was unprecedented.) But, as I noted above, Epps’ claim of Bush’s “authoritarianism” is ridiculous as the Democrat House and Senate did nothing to “rein Bush in,” so to speak.
The Hatemonger's Quarterly on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The Messiah's choice for national intelligence director, Dennis Blair, "insisted that military and intelligence interrogators would follow the same rules (as the Obama-mandated Army Field Manual), but he left open the possibility that techniques beyond the 19 currently approved for military interrogators could be authorized." (Link.)
Mr. Blair also suggested that some interrogation procedures would need to remain secret so potential adversaries could not train to resist them.
“We don’t want to provide open intelligence support for those who are coming after us,” he told members of the Intelligence Committee.
Change. You. Can. Believe. In.
Jane Wingfield of Wyoming is angry -- her doctor's office refused to turn the channel in their office to The Messiah's inauguration!
I did not cancel my Jan. 20th appointment with the nurse in my cardiologist’s office since there is always a cable news channel on the TV in the waiting room.
I planned to enjoy watching the festivities and swearing-in ceremony right there.
Imagine my shock when I learned the doctor (not mine, she wasn’t in the office, but her partner) had turned it to a health channel and refused to let anyone turn it differently.
I was outraged, but there was nothing that I or anyone else could do. The doctor had the remote.
I thought nothing could mar the joy, excitement, and hope, the whole country was experiencing; I was wrong.
*GASP!* Imagine that!
Silly doctor's office -- having the TV tuned to a health channel??
The power assumption is a dangerous thing, Ms. Wingfield. #1, why did you assume that you'd "enjoy" watching the inauguration in a place like a doctor's office? #2, why do you assume "the whole country" was experiencing "excitement, hope," yada yada yada? After all, didn't almost 50% of the country not vote for Obama?
Parents are calling for more men to become teachers because they fear their children lack male role models, research showed yesterday.
Demand is even stronger among single mothers, who told the survey their children had little contact with men in caring roles.
The study found one in six children living with a single mother spends less than two hours a week with a male role model, such as a father figure, relative or teacher.
High schools traditionally have more male teachers than elementary or middle schools. Men I've known that get certified for elementary education usually get snapped up (that's "employed") pretty darn quick.
Men tend to be more ... "direct" with discipline ... not as "touchy feelie" for lack of a better term. I don't it's a stretch to say that more men teaching in the early years would be better for discipline.
(By the way, the guy in the article's photo kinda looks like me...)
“After consultation with counsel to the president,” said Director of the Office of Management of Budget Peter Orszag in a statement, “I hereby waive the requirements of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Ethics Pledge of Mr. William Lynn. I have determined that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver given Mr. Lynn’s qualifications for his position and the current national security situation. I understand that Mr. Lynn will otherwise comply with the remainder of the pledge and with all preexisting government ethics rules.”
What's this? Just The Messiah granting a "waiver" for his Deputy Secretary of Defense -- a waiver from the "sweeping new ethics rules" against lobbyists in his administration.
"Change you can believe in" ... unless The Messiah decides otherwise and it benefits him.
President Barack Obama's choice for top U.S. spy declined on Thursday to call waterboarding "torture," only days after his attorney general nominee condemned the interrogation practice as precisely that.
Retired Adm. Dennis Blair replied cautiously when pressed on the waterboarding question at a hearing on his nomination to be director of national intelligence, of which the CIA is a part.
Not sure how Obama felt about that; nevertheless, Blair said that there would be “no waterboarding on my watch.” But it's just another bit of "wiggle room" on The Messiah's supposed "reversal" of Bush policies.
Hey -- look who won!
First place in the Council category was The Colossus of Rhodey with The entertainment of moral ambiguity.
First place in the non-Council category was Robert Avrech/Big Hollywood with The Real Battle Of Algiers, Part 2.
Full results are here.
... move them to some other overseas detention center??
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. (Link.)
So, if they can be transferred to another US detention facility, what prevents it from being in another country? And if that's the case, why close Gitmo's jail in the first place?
In addition, make note of that "transferred to a third country" line. Can you say "rendition"?
45% of Americans want the prison to remain open. 35% want it closed and 20% either don't know or refused to answer. (Link.)
Shirley has further thoughts.
Robert Reich, the former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor, during a January 7 House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee meeting attended by high-ranking Democrats including Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs [hopefully being created by government spending] not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers." (Source.)
January 7?? Where was the wall-to-wall coverage of this obviously racist statement?
Welcome to the "post-racial" America.
Movie star Susan Sarandon compared President Obama to Jesus. Broadway and film actor Alan Cumming thought of him more like Mahatma Gandhi.
“He is a community organizer like Jesus was,” Sarandon said Tuesday night on the bright blue carpet leading into the Creative Coalition’s 2009 Ball at the Harman Center for the Arts in Chinatown. “And now, we’re a community and he can organize us.”
As opposed to before we were ... what, Mrs. Tim Robbins? (See how neatly this fits into my previous post from today? Before the Age of Obama, patriotism was just soooo passé.)
Cumming was mesmerized with Obama. “He’s like Gandhi or something,” he said. “He’s got that powerful, soulful thing in him.”
“I was there at the Mall,” [Anne] Hathaway explained with a bright smile. “[It was] the feeling of millions of people all there sending positive energy and having hope together.”
Stand-up comedian Jeffrey Ross lightened the mood by commenting as much on the frigid weather as on the mood of the day. “I got the chills literally and figuratively,” he said.
Actress Alfre Woodard got right to the point when it was her turn to speak. “I think we might finally grow up as a nation,” she said.
Really, Ms. Woodard? By treating a man with the feeblest prior experience ever for the toughest job in the world ... as a figure on par with Christ and Gandhi?
... that is, unless, you dissent from The Messiah's program.
Rush Limbaugh -- to whom I listen rarely and when I do it's because I find him at times humorous (not enlightening) -- was roundly castigated yesterday because he said he wanted to see Barack Obama "fail" (my emphasis):
I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
So? Limbaugh despises what [he believes] Obama stands for and will implement, and hopes it doesn't come to pass -- that it'll fail. How is this so detestable, especially coming from a guy who makes his living off of ripping on liberals? And, more to the point -- as the title here asks, "progressives" the last eight years were gleeful in pointing out how patriotic dissent was (is). (In probably the most laughable instance, one of our local moonbats actually says "I hated Bush from the outset, but being an American first and a Democrat second, I never rooted for his failure." This is a ridiculously laughable lie. Someone please explain to me how opining that each and every thing that George Bush did in the last eight years as being a "horrible idea" isn't "rooting for his failure?")
The answer is simple: It is rooting for his failure! You didn't like his policies and his politics so of course you didn't want him to succeed. Such inane bloviating is just trying to meander around the knot "progressives" find themselves in now -- now that they have power, any dissent is henceforth "unpatriotic" or, as our local moonbat goes further, "un-American."
This certainly isn't a new phenomenon. Like the McCarthy era of the 1950s when right-wingers made flagrant use of red-baiting, today, especially in "progressive" academic circles, dissent is quashed via the "speech code," mandatory "sensitivity training" and "diversity seminars." Speech that deviates from the socially [politically correct] norm is "hate speech," or its slightly weaker version, "creating a 'hostile environment.'" But hell, The Messiah's presidential campaign did it itself, using the threat of local law enforcement to clamp down on those who ran political ads it didn't like.
So look -- spare us, "progressives." For the entirety of the last eight years all you did was hope for the president's failure. And in doing so, you said that your dissent was "patriotic." The tables have now turned.
I've already posted that, unlike Limbaugh, I do wish our new president success. Of course, I'll disagree with him on many things, natch, but on those items I'll hope that my view gets proven wrong, and that Obama's works out for the best.
Witness: The Netherlands.
A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Koran a "fascist book," a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March 2008 with his film "Fitna," which juxtaposed Koranic verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.
In 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Koran "the same way we ban 'Mein Kampf."' He said both Adolf Hitler's work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values.
The Amsterdam Appeals Court called Wilders' statements in his film, newspaper articles and media interviews "one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."
Notice it wasn't even "did," but "can." But even if it was "did," it is only speech.
So, we have one reactionary Dutch politician who'll be prosecuted for his speech (and yes, it was nasty and hateful). Meanwhile, all across the Western world, Muslims are marching and protesting against Israel and Jews in general ... carrying placards with statements and uttering epithets that make Wilders' speech seem like a nursery rhyme.
UPDATE: Mark Steyn weighs in:
Last year, The New York Times ran a story (front page, above the fold, gosh) on my troubles with the Canadian "thought police", at the end of which I'm quoted as follows:
"Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."
The latest jurisdiction to get way too "comfortable with the regulation of opinion" is the Netherlands. As Andrew noted below, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal has ordered prosecutors to put the politician and film-maker Geert Wilders on trial for "making anti-Islamic statements".
The Dutch, like the Canadians, think they can maintain social peace by shriveling the bounds of public discourse and bringing what little remains under state regulation. But one notices that the coercive urge, which comes so naturally to Euro-progressives, only goes in one direction. The Swedish Chancellor of Justice shuts down the investigation into the Grand Mosque of Stockholm for selling tapes urging believers to kill "the brothers of pigs and apes" (ie, Jews) because that's simply "the everyday climate in the rhetoric". The masked men marching through the streets of London with placards threatening to rain down another 9/11 on the infidels are protected by a phalanx of Metropolitan Police officers. The PC nellies of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, happy to hound the last neo-Nazi in Saskatchewan posting to the Internet from his mum's basement, won't go anywhere near Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus al-Hayitia, the big-time Montreal imam whose book says infidels are "evil people", Jews "spread corruption and chaos", and homosexuals should be "exterminated".
Instead, the state's response to explicit Islamic intimidation is to punish those foolish enough to point out that intimidation. You don't have to be as intemperate as Minheer Wilders can sometimes be: In the Netherlands even the most innocuous statement can get you into trouble. To express his disgust at Theo van Gogh's murder, the artist Chris Ripke put up a mural outside his studio showing an angel and the words "Thou shalt not kill". But the cops thought this was somehow a dig at the local mosque and so came round, destroyed the mural, arrested the TV news crew filming it, and wiped their tape. The Dutch have determined to commit societal euthanasia, and dislike fellows pointing out it might not be as painless as they've assumed.
“Some troops unhappy about Obama pledge on gays” is a headline on Yahoo News regarding Obama’s planned repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military.
Umm … check out the article author’s name.
An African-American has been elected president. A very liberal African-American has been elected president in a country that still maintains many politically conservative opinions. It is a truly momentous occasion.
Not so fast.
Our ever-race conscious News Journal (unless, of course, it comes to crime reports) says “Race [is] still an issue despite [the] presidency.” Of course! What would we expect from our ridiculously PC local newspaper? I don’t plan on dissecting this silly article in its entirety (it’s too easy, frankly) but let’s take a gander of some of the hi (or is it “low”) lights:
To [Heriberto] Caraballo, the question isn't whether Obama's presidency will change race relations in America. He thinks the change has already begun, thanks to a campaign that brought Americans of all races and ethnicities together.
Did it? Obama ran away with the black vote, but then every Democrat candidate for president has done that in the last half century or so. The percentages of other groups were all that different from that of other candidates either.
Caraballo said, "A lot of people that got together would never have come across each other otherwise, they would have never reached out to another race or class. They didn't even look at it that way, it just served the purpose of trying to get him elected. But as this whole thing has been going for the last four years, change has been happening."
Those who study race relations are a bit more skeptical, however. Perceptions of race and social institutions that perpetuate racism are deeply ingrained, they said, so much so that neither Obama, nor any one person, could never [sic] eradicate them on his own. Add in two wars and an economy in shambles and Obama faces perhaps the highest expectations of any president in recent memory.
Stop right there. Of course “those who study race relations” are skeptical. They have to be, natch. Else, how could they continue to keep “studying” such? Much like the Jesse Jacksons of the world, problems must always continue to persist, however seemingly ridiculous, else the unemployment line will beckon. No, I do not mean by any means to lampoon REAL racial issues and problems. Anyone with only one hemisphere in his/her cranium knows racism and bias still exist. But when once-noble organizations such as the NAACP have to criticize, for example, the dresses that a state’s delegation of women (to the inauguration) are wearing as “reminiscent of slavery days,” what does that say? (The prez of that NAACP chapter has since apologized.)
With all the high expectations for Obama, UD's [Antonia] Randolph said, a real danger exists that anything he does, or does not, achieve during his presidency will be used to create generalizations about all black people.
Sort of like the generalizations that have been created about all Republicans, maybe? Speaking of which …
"There's a danger of people saying, 'Well, show us what you can do as a black person on behalf of the black race,' " Randolph said.
Of course Obama doesn’t represent all black people just like George Bush didn’t represent all white people. But this statement here is, frankly, what drives many folks nutty. It outright contradicts what we hear constantly in the media: that is, it’s commonly accepted that the “black community” is supposed to believe the same things, think alike, and act alike. How often do we see/hear in the media “the black community …”? How many times have we seen the utter and repulsive derision towards black people who “deviate” from what is supposed to be “black?” Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were denigrated in racial terms because they dared to work for [Republican] George Bush. What about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? He was vilified (probably most disgustingly by “journalist” Julianne Malveaux who wished Thomas would get a heart attack by eating lots of bacon and eggs precisely because he “didn’t think like a black person should.” (In other words, he’s conservative.) And Ward Connerly? Etcetera.
29-year-old [Lisa Sadar] isn't sure Obama's presidency will mark the end of race as a prominent issue in American society.
"I don't know if it should. I was brought up in a mixed-race family and grew up around a lot of diversity. I think you've got to celebrate everyone's heritage,"] Sadar said.
Trying to achieve a colorblind society can be dangerous if it comes at the expense of celebrating people's differences rather than trying to combat inequality, [UD’s Antonia] Randolph said.
Again, here we go. Do we or do we not want to keep “race” an issue? What did Dr. King desire – content of character or color consciousness? I don’t believe the quest for colorblindness has ever meant obliterating “one’s heritage” or “celebrating differences.” Even in the days of legal segregation when society was virtually completely dominated by whites, European American immigrants, though desirous of becoming “American,” continued to “celebrate” their roots from the “old countries.” Why would – should – this be any different for African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Latinos? If anything, the “dangerous” part comes from the far-Left when they insist (usually in academic circles) that different races are “inherently different” -- for instance, like blacks “are louder” or “learn differently” merely because they are black, and how different ethnic populations need teachers that “look like them” to learn effectively). How this isn’t as stereotypically asinine as a bigoted red-neck saying that “blacks are naturally pre-disposed to criminal activity” is beyond me. And should be beyond you, too.
"You can't declare racism dead and wash your hands of it," she said. "You can't say, 'Well, racism is over now and thank God for that,' because there are social institutions that run on racism."
Hmm. When can we declare racism dead? Can we ever, since individuals will always exist that are bigoted in some way? Humans are imperfect beings. And what are these social institutions that “run on racism,” Ms. Randolph? I’m genuinely curious.
I for one am glad to welcome our new President. I wish him nothing but the best of fortune and all the blessings that can come from all the Gods that might actually exist.
I am pleased that we've got an African American President. Perhaps now we can get on to the business of being one people. Or perhaps we will have to wait until we have a half-Latina Disabled Lesbian as President before we can do that. But it's a start, and a damn good one.
I am proud to toast President Obama and call him my President. His inauguration speech wasn't up to his usual snuff, and it had a few uncharitable and unbecoming moments, but he's not hired to give a speech. He's hired to lead us.
I am glad that at long last I can post my flags in front of my house without people thinking that I'm some sort of neanderthal reactionary. I am glad that the other half of the political class has finally found it within themselves to be patriots of a sort.
But most of all, above everything else, I'm glad to finally have the other "half" (really like 20% but what a loud obnoxious 20%) stand up and join us in the fight against terrorism and evil.
Anyone who joins the fight to save our culture and our nation is my brother -- and it doesn't matter what was coming out of their mouth last week.
Welcome aboard, lefties. Let's do what needs doing.
... excludes the ending: "Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."
(The Chicago Sun-Times has the complete transcript.)
What -- is ABC throwing a bone to Mike Newdow because he lost his ridiculous lawsuit?
I thought the president's speech was good. Good, but not great. I was astonished at the number of people on the Mall there in DC. Wow.
The Highlight: CNN capturing the various gazes of older African-Americans in DC and around the whole country. It was truly touching. I wonder how many of them thought they'd never see this day happen.
The Lowlight: The poet. WTF?? That was some of the worst poetry -- and poetry reading -- I've ever heard.
Once again, congratulations and best of luck to our new president!
I was intrigued the other day by a recently reprinted column by actor Dirk Benedict. You might remember Dirk best as the “Faceman” from “The A-Team.” But another popular Benedict role was that of “Starbuck” in the original “Battlestar Galactica.” In his article, Dirk takes the “re-imagined” “Battlestar Galactica” (the popular SciFi Channel series) to task for a number of things, not the least of which is its inability to distinguish good from evil:
Witness the “re-imagined” “Battlestar Galactica,” bleak, miserable, despairing, angry and confused. Which is to say, it reflects in microcosm the complete change in the politics and morality of today’s world, as opposed to the world of yesterday. The world of Lorne Greene (Adama), Fred Astaire (Starbuck’s Poppa) and Dirk Benedict (Starbuck). I would guess Lorne is glad he’s in that Big Bonanza in the sky and well out of it. Starbuck, alas, has not been so lucky. He’s not been left to pass quietly into that trivial world of cancelled TV characters.
“Re-imagining”, they call it. “Un-imagining” is more accurate. To take what once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are and who the bad are. That is being “judgmental,” taking sides, and that kind of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original “Battlestar Galactica.”
Indeed, the original 1978 series was created by a Mormon and had its premises largely founded on that religion. It was a spiritual and hopeful show; deadly robotic creations of a dead lizard-like race have virtually wiped out humanity, and Lorne Greene (Commander Adama), along with Benedict and Richard Hatch (Apollo) (among many others) lead a “rag-tag fugitive fleet” to a largely mythical world called “Earth” – the supposed home of a “lost tribe” of humans which left the home worlds of the human Twelve Colonies millennia ago. It was easy to grasp: The robots – “Cylons” – were programmed to kill humans, period. The humans had to avoid them now at all costs, to ensure the very survival of their species. The final episode of the series (it had only lasted one season despite decent ratings) featured a symbolic battle of God vs. Satan, with the Galactica caught in the middle.
Fast forward thirty years. “Battlestar Galactica” has been re-imagined and is one of the most popular shows on television. The premise of the original series has changed quite a bit: The Cylons were actually created by man. Once they became self-aware, they rebelled against their masters and a forty-year war ensued. (To this date the precise origins of the Cylons and why they rebelled remains muddled.) After an armistice, no one heard a peep from the Cylons for decades. Suddenly, they reappeared – and they virtually wiped out the humans’ twelve worlds, killing tens of billions of people. Like the original series, Commander Adama (this time Edward James Olmos), Starbuck (now a female) and Apollo lead a fugitive fleet to the mythical Earth.
There’s just one problem in this re-imagined series: Some of the Cylons are humanoid. And they’ve infiltrated the remnants of humanity on their trek towards Earth.
Along the way we’ve seen – and how – that moral ambiguity of which Dirk Benedict speaks. (For some specific commentary dealing with specific episodes, check out my in-depth reviews of past "Galactica" shows.) The Cylons have just committed genocide on a scale inconceivable, yet in one episode we witness Commander Adama (Olmos) pondering a past secret mission of his during the human-Cylon armistice in which he violated Cylon space. “Was this the trigger that gave the Cylons their excuse?” he wonders. Say what?? A treaty violation justifies the murder of billions??
In another episode, the human fleet discovers a means by which to virtually wipe out all the Cylons that are chasing them. The entire show focuses on the morality of utilizing this means, and the humans ultimately decide not to make use their new-found weapon. Yep – some forty thousand humans remain out of tens of billions, the Cylons are trying to kill this paltry remainder, yet the surviving humans do not want to “lower themselves” by emulating the Cylons’ actions. Yeah. OK.
(Meanwhile, as a side note, while the very survival of the human species hangs precariously on a thread, humans in the fleeing fleet eventually demand a “return of democracy,” including all associated freedoms like freedom of the press and free elections. Somehow the words “drastic emergency situation” seem to have eluded those in the Galactica, not to mention the series’ writers.)
In probably the most ridiculous morally ambiguous stretch of the series, the ending of season two to the beginning of season three showed the humans finally settling upon a suitable planet, seemingly undetectable by the Cylons. Nope. The Cylons suddenly appear in orbit, attack the human settlement, and then occupy it. The humans resort to guerrilla warfare against their conquerors, and bingo – there’s a prodigious verbal scuffle over the “rightness” of utilizing suicide attacks against the Cylons. That’s right, folks – the human species is almost extinct, but there they are debating the morality of survival tactics against an enemy which blew almost every single human being in the universe to atoms.
Sound somehow familiar? Let’s take a gander:
There we have the nation of Israel. Founded after a genocide against the people who now make up the majority of its inhabitants, it was swiftly attacked by an overwhelming force shortly after attaining statehood. Twice more, the vast armies of its surrounding neighbors sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Twice more, just like with that first attack, Israel’s would-be conquerors were vanquished. The people who were destined to possess a state alongside Israel, the Palestinians, thus remained stateless, thanks to those who supposedly fought on their “behalf,” their Arab brethren of the adjacent sovereign states.
In that second major conflict (1967), Israel gained a substantial amount of territory whilst driving back the various Arab armies. It’s held onto some of it until this day, mainly because it wants guarantees of recognition of its right to exist, and a dissolution of things like the Hamas Charter which openly calls for Israel – and Jews everywhere – to be annihilated. Yet, a very large portion of the world demands that Israel "just give back" what it gained -- in a defensive war -- fighting, as it always does, for its very survival. Most recently, this same large portion of the world has cried out in self-righteous indignation about the “horrors” that Israel is inflicting upon the Palestinian people – the same people that would have had a state 60 years ago had they and their Arab brothers accepted what the United Nations (yes, the very same United Nations whose edicts everyone NOW wants countries to follow, most especially Israel) granted in the 1948 Partition Plan – even though Israel 1) is not responsible for the plight of the Palestinians in the first place, and 2) has been enduring ceaseless terrorist activity from the Palestinians, even after unilaterally vacating the Gaza Strip three years ago.
Do you see what I’m getting at? Humans = somehow responsible for their own genocide in “Battlestar Galactica;” Israel = somehow responsible for the Palestinian plight, not to mention practically every other ill in the mid-east. And we’re all supposed to believe these according to “Galactica’s” writers regarding the former; according to the world press regarding the latter. This is the result of our modern age of moral ambiguity. Humanity, because they made a mistake of creating a new type of [machine] life and made use of it as servile labor in "Galactica," thus bears the burden for its own destruction. Israel, because it dared defend itself from a genocide that had the potential to equal that suffered during World War II, must bear the burden of responsibility for the success of that defense.
To put it another way, the world of the morally ambiguous demands the answer: "What have you done do deserve this?"
Israel is attacked time and time again. What did it do to deserve it?
The World Trade Center was attacked on 9/11/2001. What did the U.S. do to deserve it?
Humankind is virtually extinguished in "Galactica." What did it do to deserve it?
The line between good and evil is now blurred ... blurred to such a degree that many more, aside from the most extreme of the extreme, soon will be asking things like what did the Jews do to deserve the treatment befallen upon them by the Nazis? We are seeing such language now in our "free" societies, in the streets full of anti-Israel protests. We're seeing "new histories" which question the judgment of those who fought against the most horrific tyrannies ever witnessed -- those against which we fought in World War II. In a conflict where the defeat of the Allies would have meant the extermination of the Jewish people, the slaughter of myriad other "unpure" races, and the enslavement of the entire globe, our moral ambiguity tells us that our leaders from that time who ordered, for instance, the bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "no worse than Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini" and are "war criminals." The good cannot be distinguished from the bad.
Such a course continued means disaster for any society. For, if no one can make judgments of good and bad (evil), the result logically becomes anarchy. What the individual determines to be "right" is right.
... as always, courtesy of some of the best unintentional entertainment in the DE blogosphere:
Indeed. Because that nasty 'ol George Bush just might somehow -- SOMEHOW!! -- unilaterally repeal the 22nd Amendment, or declare martial law across the land, or ...
I'd be happy if he would just discover a cure for moonbattery before he jets the White House.
... that -- wait for it -- a Democrat representative has already introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment!!
With President-elect Barack Obama set to take the oath of office to begin his first term, one New York Congressman wants to make it possible for him to one day serve a third. Representative Jose Serrano (D) has introduced a bill in the House to abolish the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or ten years in office. (Source.)
Let's see ... we've already seen calls for a national holiday for the guy, putting his likeness on Mt. Rushmore, how Obama will pay for folks' gas and mortgages, how a state's financial woes aren't worth worrying about because Barack is about to become president, and most recently how tomorrow is a "sacred day."
I tell 'ya what. If Obama really can pay for my car's gas, my mortgage, and make Delaware's financial woes disappear, then by ALL MEANS repeal the 22nd Amendment so we can re-elect him for a 3rd term.
Nevertheless, if the next four years prove a disaster, and a Republican wins in 2012, how long will it take Serrano to submit another bill that retracts this one?
Well, you know, the most important thing I think now is that all inaugurals have a certain emotion connected to them. It's a sacred renewal for our country. You feel like America can change suddenly because there's a new president there. But this one has an even more special moment....There's the fact that it's the first African-American being elected as a president....
Which will be so much bigger even than I think we know, when that moment takes place. And there's the fact that he's got literary capabilities. Very few inaugurals are remembered when you think about the speeches, except for the terrible ones like Harding. Mencken said they – it was so horrible that it was glorious. So all those things together make it possible that this is going to be the most exciting in our memory. JFK is exciting after the fact because of the literary moment and because of Camelot that, that came after it. But I'm not sure at the moment that you had people all over the country, as is going to be happening here, in, in little living rooms, in diners, in bars watching this, taking the day as a sacred day.
So says a new CNN poll -- "a figure up sharply from a survey in early 2008."
Well, yeah. A black guy being elected president makes a BIG difference, natch!
... the Dalai Lama:
The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.
"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.
He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.
"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.
He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.
... over at my pal Vic Holtreman's awesome Screen Rant site.
A court in the German capital struck down an administrative ban on Hamas flags, clothing and banners on Friday, but left in place the ban on invoking Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar's call to murder Israeli children worldwide.
The decision paved the way for supporters of the Islamist movement to march in anti-Israeli rallies on Saturday with pro-Hamas paraphernalia.
Which, to me, is a correction application of free speech in a democracy. But then there's this:
During an anti-Israeli demonstration organized by the radical Islamic group, Milli Görüs, which attracted 10,000 protesters last Saturday in Duisburg, two police officers stormed the apartment of a 25-year-old student and his 26-year-old girlfriend and seized Israeli flags hanging on the balcony and inside a window.
The pro-Hamas protesters cheered "Alluha Akbar" as the German police ripped the Israeli flag out of the window.
...When asked if the Duisburg police plan to confiscate Israeli flags from supporters who demonstrate against an anti-Israeli protest slated for this coming Saturday, Ramon van der Maat, a Duisburg police spokesman, told The Jerusalem Post that, "we have to see what is expected" at the protest, adding, "It depends on the situation and one cannot, across the board" say that Israeli flags will be permitted.
So, to recap, Hamas protests and flags = OK; the mere hanging of Israeli flags = No Go, or "Depends on the Situation."
The. Guy. Isn't. Even. President. Yet.
Yet, the ridiculous statements/comparisons/contrasts rock on. This time it's CNN's Soledad O'Brien, who believes Obama is a lot like the pilot who safely brought down that plane in the Hudson River a few days ago (via the recollection of Wolf Blitzer):
I think that airplane that went down, the US Air flight and the pilot -- and Soledad and I were talking about this earlier and she was saying metaphorically in some ways, the pilot of that airplane is very much like Barack Obama -- that he got the plane down safely, but everybody else had to join together to get out of the plane and pull together to get through that adversity. I thought that was an interesting metaphor.
I'm sure you did, Wolf. I'm quite sure you did.
Yeah, let's see -- we have a pilot (Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger), Air Force fighter jet-trained who did the miraculous: successfully landed a commercial airliner in a river located in the most populous city in the country, skimming though the busiest airspace in the country ... and a former state legislator-come US senator (for a few years) who was elected president.
WASHINGTON is suddenly hip again, infused with the heady double-barreled combination of a new crowd of idealistic young political worker bees, who actually believe they can change the world, and the arrival of America's first black president. It's even cool to wave the Stars and Stripes. And in the honeymoon months of the Barack Obama presidency, before the country's marriage to its new president undergoes the usual souring, a trip to the nation's capital is just the ticket. Why, it would almost be unpatriotic not to visit.
Man, why do I even have to go back to work on Tuesday? Won't Obama "take care of it" for me?
"It doesn't matter that the state of Maryland is broke ... as long as Barack Obama is president of the United States!" -- Maryland State Senator Lisa Black.
She made the statement on the same day it was announced that hundreds of state workers were to be laid off.
But big deal! The One will be inaugurated in a couple days!
(h/t: Hot Air.)
No need to comment on this rubber room rant from Wilmington's John Dente. Just shake your head and think, "There really ARE some looney folks out there ..."
The Bush/Cheney/neo-con axis of evil was like a plague that spread, infiltrated, and destroyed the fabric of America.
The once noble medical profession was corrupted by participating in the torture of detainees; the legal profession was used like a sword to justify torture, dissemble and reject the Bill of Rights, and bring trumped up charges against political enemies.
The churches with the insane concept of the end times , yet proclaiming themselves as pro-life cheered as cluster bombs engulfed and consumed women and their babies.
All this while the media not only remained silent but morphed into a propaganda network that supported the atrocities.
Yet this was an administration twice elected by the people throwing into question the very concept of democracy.
In the end George Bush will retire in comfort to Texas, when justice would demand he be arrested, made to answer to American courts for the many violations of American law then be sent off and tried as a war criminal.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Genghis Khan, Tojo and their kind rejoice in hell and wait to be joined by Bush,Cheney and the neo-cons.
Perhaps the financial collapse that these same people brought about is some small measure of justice. but America's moral collapse and Bush's dark legacy is a stain that can never be lifted.
Dopey Letter Runner-Up: Luretia Orazietti of Newark has dubbed Barack Obama -- even though he has yet to serve a single day as our president -- one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history.
(Can't be too harsh on Mrs. Orazietti, though. She's 85 years old.)
Barack Obama says George W. Bush is a "good guy ... who loves his family and loves his country."
Wait -- you mean he's NOT a power-crazed demagogue who had aspirations of becoming a dictator ... who planned to suspend the Constitution ... who desired to jail any American who disagreed with his policies, etc. etc. etc.??? WHOA!!
What a let down, eh chumps?
Delaware Moonbat: "Just heard the Wilmington Train Station event on WDEL and I’m overwhelmed by happiness that this country has a President again."
"Kumbaya, m'Lord ... kumbayaaaahhhhh ... !!!!"
Shooting erupts at 'Notorious' movie is the headline at the (North Carolina) Greensboro News and Record. "Notorious" is a new film about rapper Christopher "Notorious B.I.G." Wallace who was -- surprise! -- killed in a drive-by shooting in 1997.
Greensboro police Lt. James Hinson said, "We can't say whether or not this shooting is in direct relationship to the movie 'Notorious' B.I.G. We just can't say."
How 'bout ... "It's probably a safe bet"?
As [sadly] ridiculous as this story is, ridiculous too is the radio commercial I heard for this flick the other day. It pronounced B.I.G. as "the greatest rapper of all-time" in the "greatest movie event of our age." The former pronouncement is laughable enough, but the latter?? That's cough-up-a-lung material, folks.
UPDATE: More fun! 4 stabbed during after-party for 'Notorious' film!
MSNBC head, Rachel Maddow, say MSNBC is "less political" than Fox.
"We're less about ideology than Fox is," said [MSNBC president Phil] Griffin.
"The idea that there's any equivalency between us and Fox News..." Rachel Maddow said. "Fox is a political experiment. Imagine them having somebody as liberal as Joe Scarborough is conservative doing their whole morning? It doesn't make sense."
In other news, Pope Benedict is Jewish.
UPDATE: Maddow made her claims above ... yet admits to never having seen a FNC show!
And who better to listen to than a blue-collar New Jersey rocker turned multi-millionaire?
Bruce Springsteen has launched an outspoken attack on the Bush administration, accusing the outgoing president of leaving a legacy of ruined lives and broken policies.
The "Born to Run" singer said that the US was now "suffering the consequences" of eight years of rule by a "very radical group of people" who had attempted to undermine the country's democratic values.
Describing President Bush's period in power as a "nightmare" for most Americans, the songwriter said: "We had a historically blind administration who didn't take consideration of the past; thousands of thousands of people died, lives were ruined and terrible, terrible things occurred because there was no sense of real history, no sense that the past is living and real."
In a rare interview, Springsteen said that President-Elect Barack Obama's election represented the triumph of the values and spirit he had attempted to capture in his music.
"His election was an incredible moment for someone who seemed to carry... enormous parts of American history with him. Someone who can reckon with the past, who can live with the past in the present, and move towards the future – that's fabulous," he told Observer Music Monthly, in an article to be published on Sunday.
"And for the country to recognise that was a wonderful moment. This place we've been talking about, singing about ... it's alive. It isn't dead. It exists."
The Boss's next album is tentatively titled "Born to Kumbaya."
Well, ain't really mine ...
(h/t: Paul Smith Jr.)
I had heard this song on Comcast's Music Choice; I finally found the vid on YouTube. The song -- "Tania" -- by Mexico's Fase is an electronica treasure. Lead singer Alma Velsaco's voice is simply delightful.
Tom Hanks says supporters of Proposition 8 are "un-American":
“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them."
I seem to remember the paroxysms of anger and rage "progressives" and liberals would demonstrate when conservatives would accuse them of being "un-American" for their own reasons -- and the fits were mostly justified.
Elsewhere, riding-on-her-dead-husband's-coattails moron Courtney Love enters Liz Allen territory:
Courtney Love claims she's not taking drugs anymore, but you wouldn't know it from comments she made in the Jewish magazine Heeb. Love, whose mother is Jewish but who describes herself as Buddhist, says of ex-husband Kurt Cobain's legacy: "Every time you buy a Nirvana record, part of that money is not going to Kurt's child, or to me, it's going to a handful of Jew loan officers, Jew private banks, it's going to lawyers who are also bankers . . ."
That, or Louie Farrakhan is writing her press statements.
Then there's Oliver Stone, who recently fawned (again) over Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez:
U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone said he sees Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as an energetic, principled champion of change in Latin American and hopes to capture the spirit of his drive to roll back U.S. influence in an upcoming documentary.
"The pure energy of the man is intoxicating," Stone said.
Of course, if Stone lived in VZ and attempted to make a film about Chávez that was, say, similar in tone to Stone's recent "W," he'd probably feel differently. A lot differently.
(h/t: Big Hollywood.)
In today's WaPo, The Messiah said he “will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ... by the end of his first term in office.”
"Change" you can believe in.
UPDATE: Dana Perino mocks The Messiah: "All of a sudden, 'Gosh it's so complicated to close Guantanamo Bay.'"
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with The Hidden Story On Gaza.
First place in the non-Council category was Robert Avrech at Big Hollywood with Learning From the Real Battle of Algiers.
Full results are here.
Rosie O'Donnell on Ann Coulter:
She's angry if you ask me. She's full of rage. When you see someone like that, you have to go back to what happened in their childhood... You don't know what went on in their household. Sometimes people with very controversial views, there is some part of their humanity that you can relate to. Even though they think differently than you do, you can still reach them as a human being, but she's not one of them for me.
On whether Coulter really has extremist views: Yeah, I really do. I don't think it is a show. The passion from which she spews it... It's deep-seeded [sic]. It's bizarre.
1) Why does anybody still care enough to print what Rosie thinks?
2) Is she really that thick that she cannot make the way-too obvious connection??
A sign seen at a Philly Burger King:
Courtesy Shirley over at DE Curmudgeon.
Editors at Televisa, the world's most popular Spanish-language network, were having a lively news meeting in the northern Mexico city of Monterrey when they heard a series of pops followed by a thunderous explosion. Running outside, the editors realized the top breaking news item had come straight to them. The pops were bullets sprayed from Kalashnikov automatic rifles directly into the faÇade of their offices. The blast was from a fragmentation grenade. Next to the debris was a message scrawled on cardboard: "Stop just broadcasting us. Also broadcast the narco politicians," it said.
The Jan. 6 assault on Televisa's offices was the latest in a series of attacks on Mexico's media as the nation writhes in an orgy of drug-related bloodshed. Out of a record 5,300 deaths from beheadings, assassinations and massacres last year, eight of them were murdered Mexican journalists, making Mexico the most dangerous country for their trade in the hemisphere. Furthermore, many reporters in cities on the front lines of the drug war say they are systematically threatened, beaten and offered bribes because of their coverage of organized crime.
The U.S. Joint Forces Command is taking this stuff seriously:
In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. . . .
The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.
... or, "Bill Ayers is a pussy."
... but hardly "green":
The total carbon footprint for the Inauguration will likely exceed 575 million POUNDS of CO2.
It would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to that of the new president’s housewarming party.
But as our perpetual-Obama-apologist-who-says-he's-really-not Perry will most likely spew, "But this is an unprecedented time in history!! What would you expect???"
To which I say, "Bullsh**." The appropriate term, I believe, is called "hypocrisy." Much like what Perry himself usually always engages in.
Of course, this ruling won't assuage cretins like these; nevertheless, a federal court has upheld the right "of the president and Congress to wiretap private international phone conversations and intercept e-mail messages without a court-issued warrant."
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Appeals Court released an unclassified version of an August 2008 ruling that seems to validate President George W. Bush's claim that the government can act without court orders in gathering foreign intelligence.
The Bush administration came under heated criticism three years ago when a National Security Agency's program for warrantless eavesdropping was revealed. In 2007, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which authorized the executive branch to eavesdrop on international communication without court orders. The ruling released Thursday dealt with that law.
An unnamed telecommunications company challenged the constitutionality of the Protect America Act law last year, but the FISA court ruled that Congress acted within its authority when it passed the law.
Now why would a new Democrat Congress, after blasting the CiC relentlessly for his supposed "illegal actions," then grant him what they criticized him for? Not that he (and Congress, for that matter!) needed it anyway, according to this ruling, right?
RACINE, Wis. (AP) -- Racine Mayor Gary Becker was arrested Tuesday for charges involving child pornography and solicitation of a minor, city officials said Wednesday.
Becker, who was first elected in 2003, was arrested on multiple felony counts, including solicitation of a minor, city administrator Ben Hughes told The Journal Times in Racine.
A mayor, huh? I wonder what party he is? Good question. Even the local Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel doesn't mention it.
It only took about one hour ago to "discover" it -- but not until the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... seventh paragraph.
Meryl Yourish details the bashing Jews are taking worldwide.
Where's all the calls for "tolerance" and "restraint?" Not to mention all the news specials about the positive aspects of Judaism?
Oops. Wrong religion.
... so says Bush v. Gore. But wasn't that case NOT supposed to be used as precedent?
At any rate, here's an interesting take:
And what if there is no reliable way to determine in a recount who won, consistent with Bush v. Gore's requirements?
The Constitution's answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
In a sense, a vacancy has already "happened." The U.S. Senate convened on Jan. 6 with only one senator from Minnesota. Still, the seat is perhaps not "vacant," just unfilled. But if the contest proceeding does not produce a clear winner that passes constitutional muster, a special election -- and a temporary appointment by Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- may be the only answer.
Any objective observer has to conclude that the recount in MN was a farce.
So, why aren't all those white correspondents willing to step aside for a minority? (And why not Kurtz, while we're at it?)
The Bush 2005 inaugural was a mere $42.3 million by comparison. And remember the screaming and yelling at that?? "Unseemly." "Wholly inappropriate." The festivities "should be muted – if not cancelled." The argument then was that we were (are) at war.
What has changed? Are we not still at war? And now we have the added mess of our current economic crisis, to boot. So ... almost four times the cost of the Bush inaugural ... a mere four years later??
Have you heard a word of protest from the MSM? Of course not.
More at Newsbusters.
Perhaps best known as the villain from "Star Trek II."
Bad news if 'ya ask me.
Whadd’ya expect? He’s a former ambassador to the UN!
Sir Jeremy Greenstock: Astoundingly, this ornament of the British Great and the Good made a propaganda pitch for Hamas. The claims he made were so patently ludicrous it is hard to believe that any western person, let alone a former senior diplomat, could make them.
First he introduced the much touted analogy between the Arab/Israel conflict and Northern Ireland:
”My colleagues and I have introduced Hamas to senior members of Sinn Fein and they are very interested in the precedent, the example of what happened in Northern Ireland.”
This analogy is absurd and inappropriate for two principal reasons. First, the Northern Ireland ‘peace process’ became possible only when the IRA declared ‘the war is over’ and asked to become part of the political process instead; and that was only because it had been beaten into at least a stalemate by the British Army and concluded that joining the political process was the only way to achieve its goals.* That is patently not the case with Hamas which is waging uninterrupted war.
*Moreover, when the British government talked secretly to the IRA before the IRA declared 'the war is over', the result was a huge escalation in terrorism against Britain.
Even better was this beaut from Greenstock:
They (Hamas) are not intent on the destruction of Israel. That's a rhetorical statement of resistance and not part of their programme.
“Rhetorical statement of resistance?” The Hamas Charter specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, not to mention Jews in general. (You can read the charter here.) But to really get a grip of what Greenstone’s Liz Allen-level asininity is all about, when he invokes the Hamas Charter as a “statement of ‘resistance to the occupation,’” he’s referring to ALL of Israel – not just the West Bank and Gaza – as being “occupied.”
As they say, read the whole thing.
(h/t to The Corner)
"Al Qaeda just didn't feel like it."
That's what talking head Ron Suskind "explained" two nights ago.
Gee, I wonder why?
Did his position “evolve?” But … for progressives, wouldn’t going from pro-gay “marriage” to anti-gay “marriage” be “DEvolution?” (Hot Air asks just this: “Why, precisely, have his views grown more conservative over time?”) The Windy City Times provides an Obama questionnaire from 1996 (via Politico). Check out question #6:
The Messiah has been all over the map on this subject. First, as noted above, he was for gay “marriage” and would fight measures to prohibit them. Then, he was against gay “marriage,” saying that the issue should be left to the states to decide. Then, when California did precisely this – Proposition 8 – he came out against what the voters in the state did. (Um, like, isn’t that “the states deciding?”)
Delaware Libertarian’s Steve Newton has been constantly on The Messiah’s case regarding his campaign/personal views hypocrisy, and this may be the biggest yet. Let’s face it: Obama slid to the right on this issue for the general election – period. If he had stuck with this 1996 position on gay “marriage,” his chances of election on Nov. 4 would have been quite a bit slimmer, I believe. In the Windy City Times article, it notes
The IMPACT marriage question was a bit less direct. It asked if Obama would support a Marriage Resolution being considered at the time, which read in part, “Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who [choose] to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.” Obama responded: “I would support such a resolution.”
Of course, that position is the perfect one for the [liberal] area The Messiah represented in Illinois. Not so much for the country as a whole.
“Change you can believe in.”
56% say the Palestinians are responsible for the Gaza war; only 13% blame Israel.
Regarding the poll, Delaware's own Liz Allen said, "It's just the corporate media, run by Zionists and Zionist sympathizers, that rigged this poll." (No, she didn't really say that. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me one damn bit.)
Who knew? Via Michael Rubin:
A snapshot, translated from Persian, of what — according to an employee of Radio Farda — Iranians from inside Iran are texting into the Prague-based component of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:
—-"As long as they [our government] are helping Lebanon and Palestine, we're not going to have a decent living."
—-"We're soldiers from Jebrani and we dont have enough to eat, but the government is airlifting food and medicine top Gaza."
—- "In my opinion, it would be better if our leaders, together with their supporters, would relocate to Palestine. ... This way we would have peace and quiet in Iran and our economic situation would improve."
—"If Gaza is a real Holocaust, Iran is the real Gaza."
—-"Yes, it's true. [I hear] they want to give part of our salaries to Hamas."
—-"Any other country (apart from Israel) would have done the same a long time ago."
—-"Hamas should be destroyed. This cowardly group is taking cover in hospitals and residential areas. The people of Gaza should help Israel."
—"The clerical regime regime is lying. It was not Israel who started this war."
To quote a certain "Smilin' Stan," "'Nuff said."
Yesterday, myriad news outlets jumped all over a story that started in the Times of London which promoted a study stating that Google searches contribute to global warming:
Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.
While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2. Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”
The Times also tantalizingly stated that “Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres.” Oooooo!
Alas, whether the Times’ [obvious] opinion about global warming is valid or not isn’t the point. The point is that its article was deceptive, misleading, and unnecessarily alarmist. Jason Kincaid of the online journal Tech Crunch delved a bit deeper into the claims made by the Times:
Yesterday an article in The Times of London set the web abuzz over new findings that every Google search contributed 7 grams of CO2 to the atmosphere - half the amount produced when heating a tea kettle (heaven forbid!). I criticized the article for being overly alarmist, with a lack of perspective and possible bias. Google also responded, effectively denouncing the claim.
At the heart of the story was a young physicist named Alex Wissner-Gross, who, according to the article, says “that performing two Google searches uses up as much energy as boiling the kettle for a cup of tea”. This sentence alone was enough to rile up reporters around the globe, and has now been repeated in hundreds of articles worldwide.
Unfortunately, according to Wissner-Gross he never said anything of the sort. For starters, he says he would never refer to any sort of measurement having to do with tea (he’d go with coffee). But his findings have nothing to do with Google as a company, either - they’re concerned with much more generalized stats, like your computer’s rate of CO2 production when you look at a webpage.
Wissner-Gross says that the widely circulated 7 gram/search figure came from some other source (he’s not sure where), and notes that if you read the article carefully it only makes it sound like it’s from his data. He has confirmed that he did make some vague statements regarding Google, including “A Google search has a definite environmental impact” and “Google operates huge data centers around the world that consume a great deal of power.” But the “tea kettle” statistic that has been repeated ad nauseum simply isn’t his. After learning of the misleading story, Wissner-Gross says that he contacted The Times and was assured that it would be fixed by Sunday morning. No corrections have been made.
Another concern I had with The Times article was that it neglected to accurately describe Wissner-Gross’s company, CO2Stats. The startup allows companies to purchase renewable energy to neutralize their website’s environmental impact and get “Green Certified” badges to display on their homepages. Because of this potential conflict of interest, Wissner-Gross’s affiliation with the company should have been described in the article, but was only mentioned in passing. Again, it seems like The Times was at fault here, as Wissner-Gross says that he described the purpose of CO2Stats and his role there in detail, though it seems to have been largely ignored by the reporters in question.
You might wonder if “going back” to ‘ol paper books would help “save the planet” from Google-induced global warming; however, Kincaid notes that “a single book runs around 2,500 grams of CO2, or more than 350 times a Google search.” Heck, even “a single cheeseburger has a carbon footprint of around 3,600 grams - over 500 times larger than a Google search!”
Ah, but before folks like those at the Times jump all over Kincaid’s comparisons for future articles, maybe they ought to check out some recent global cooling news, first.
... most recently here.
I'm just wondering when someone is going to treat Jews like Muslims. Right now there are protests around the world against Israel's defensive military action in occupied Gaza and without exception you will find the protesters attacking (verbally, though sometimes physically as well) Jews as part of the protests.
After the 9/11 terror attacks we were told that we must not condemn Islam and Muslims when we express our anger at the acts of terror. The government bent over backwards to call Islam a "religion of peace" and the media went so far as to embark on a multi-year, gratis public relations campaign to put a positive face on Islam and Muslims (see, e.g., the New York Times).
So I'm just waiting for all of these entities to condemn anyone who would say negative things about Jews in connection with protests against Israel.
In this case, our local "moonbat of moonbats" Liz Allen believes I may be behind some "threats" to her person ... because I have the temerity to call out her nonsense in various blog comments.
Ironically, in the same comment thread, Liz berates the JDL (Jewish Defense League) for intimidating people. But telling people she'll call the FBI because she believes some blog commenter may be threatening her ... isn't.
Such are the cerebral machinations of the moonbat.
I bet it'll still be open after The Messiah's first two years:
President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office. "I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do," Obama said in an exclusive "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," the President-elect explained. "Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up." (Source.)
Based on yesterday's picks, we did pretty good: 3-1. Who really expected Arizona to destroy Carolina like they did, after all??
Best pick: Ravens over the Titans 16-13 (Ravens won 13-10).
Worst pick: Obviously, Carolina beating Arizona 30-20 (Arizona won 33-13).
Bravo to the hometown Eagles who, as I told many a friend around here, by beating the Giants today will go all the way! They will beat Arizona next week (Kurt Warner holds a special place in my heart -- Super Bowl 34 and all -- but hey), and then beat Baltimore in the Super Bowl two weeks after that.
Eagles defeat Cardinals 23-18.
Ravens beat Steelers 16-14.
SUPER BOWL XLIII: Eagles defeat Ravens 20-16.
In addition, Sam Rockwell is apparently playing Tony Stark business rival Justin Hammer.
Senate Democrats tell CIA not to worry about investigations into their methods during the War on Terror.
The Messiah agrees. He expressed his "gratitude for the work and professionalism of intelligence agency employees and promised them pragmatic leadership."
"The state of terrorism - Israel - will be wiped off the planet, Inshallah."
Teheran? Ramallah? Islamabad? No, a speaker at yesterday's demo in Toronto. And, for those who patiently point out that measured criticism of Israeli government policies is not anti-Semitism, check out the lady yelling, "Jewish child, you're gonna f—-in' die!"
This is what happens when "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" (actually, I should say their radical versions) hold sway. Brian Miller demonstrates one version of this nonsense today; the problem with these current [Western] pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel protests is that no one wants to criticize them TOO much because, well, Muslims in Canada are a minority just like Jews are.
Remember -- "tolerance," just like "hate crimes" statutes, are tailor-made for the majority (i.e. those of European decent). If there was a bunch of [white] Catholics protesting Hamas' continued terrorism -- especially using language similar to that found at the protests linked to above -- it's a winning bet that those [in]famous Canadian "human rights" commissions would be all over them like moscas en caca.
UPDATE: More here.
Avi Green over at Four Color Media Monitor dissects the "special issue" of Spider-Man due out next week, which is the first-ever issue of a comic to feature a president-elect on its cover:
I wasn't sure at first just what side Marvel's leftists would take, but now, it looks like any questions about their support for the president-elect have been answered.
Honestly, I think all those claims about Obama being a comic book devotee are greatly exaggerated; from what I read in past news item, it sounded as though he just collects them for their percieved monetary value. As for that fist-bump, don't get me started on how ludicrous it really is.
In addition, Avi points out Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada's nonsense:
"We do our best to be completely non-partisan and treat presidents with respect," Quesada says. "This is not so much a pro-Obama statement but a tip of the hat to having a Spider-Man fan in the White House."
Would McCain have gotten a special issue had he won?
Says Quesada: "If McCain was a Spider-Man fan, I'm sure he would."
To which Avi says, "I'm afraid I've got my doubts about that." Add me to those doubters, Mr. Green -- especially given the lengthy recent history of political bias in Marvel comics, and comics in general. My guess is that if John McCain won the election, we'd see him on this Spidey cover ordering the US military or the CIA to capture the Wall Crawler, and then have him sent to Gitmo. The only "fist bump" we'd see would be between McCain and some CIA interrogator.
Be sure to check out Avi's blog -- he does a terrific job slicing through the modern political B.S. found in comics these days.
Here's CNN's segment on this, including a brief interview with Quesada:
Early game today: Ravens defeat Titans 16-13.
Late game today: Panthers beat Cardinals 30-20.
Early game Sunday: Eagles beat Giants 20-17.
Late game Sunday: Steelers defeat Chargers 20-14.
Via the WaPo:
A New Year's Day CIA strike in northern Pakistan killed two top al-Qaeda members long sought by the United States, including the man believed to be behind September's deadly suicide bombing at a Marriott hotel in the Pakistani capital, U.S. counterterrorism officials confirmed yesterday.
Agency officials ascertained this week that Usama al-Kini, a Kenyan national who was described as al-Qaeda's chief of operations in Pakistan, was killed in the Jan. 1 missile strike, along with his lieutenant, identified as Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, the sources said. Both men were associated with a string of suicide attacks in Pakistan in recent months and also allegedly helped plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa…
Now here's the thing, as Byron York posits:
But I wonder: Where are the protests? If the U.S. had arrested these guys, and made them stand up for long periods of time while being questioned, or turned the air-conditioning way down in the interrogation room, there would be an outcry about their treatment. And yet when the U.S. blows them to bits, out of the blue, with a Hellfire missile fired from an un-manned drone controlled by Americans thousands of miles away, there's not much complaint. Now I'm sure the CIA took great care to make sure it had the right target in the crosshairs, but you can't get a much better definition of "no due process" than a Hellfire missile. Where's the outrage?
Indeed. Which is what I've long argued when this War on Terror began and the "progressives" were apoplectic about granting terrorists more rights and better prison conditions that you or I would enjoy -- just freakin' kill 'em. After all, if this is "war," you try to kill the enemy. We didn't send our soldiers to capture the Nazis or Japanese or North Koreans or Chinese ... so we could put them in jail, give them attorneys, and set them up for trials in American courts. Right?
"Kennedy seen as model for re-entry women" is the AP headline from yesterday. You buyin' it?
With her Camelot pedigree and Park Avenue address, Caroline Kennedy is not exactly the average American woman. But many women identify with her impulse to enter the work force after two decades of child rearing.
Kennedy's bid for the Senate has reignited the "mommy wars" between mothers with careers and those who take a break from paid employment. Like Kennedy, many women face resentment when they return to the work force after raising kids and doing volunteer work.
"She's a Kennedy, but she's a lot like us," was the headline of a Dec. 28 column by Anne Glusker in The Washington Post. "If you strip away the glamour, the name and the money, then Caroline is ... me. And many of my friends."
Oh, is that all? Just the glamour, name and [especially] money!
And there you have it, folks: Kennedy's desire to be named as Hillary Clinton's Senate replacement is mere ... "resentment" for her re-entering the workforce. And, after ... two decades of child rearing?? I wonder how many "everyday" women have the help that Kennedy had in raising her kids.
Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder on terrorists and the Geneva Convention:
One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.
It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.
"Change" you can believe in.
First place in the Council category was The Razor with ‘Physician Shortage’ and the Free Market.
First place in the non-Council category was Ron Rosenbaum.com/Pajamas Media with Some differences between Hamas and the Nazi Party.
Full results are here.
ABC News headline: Destroyed CIA Tapes Probe Heating Up.
Reuters headline: Probe of CIA video destruction winding down.
(Due to a miscommunication first, and then being beaten by 15 minutes getting a post up about the topic, I'm putting this aborted Newsbusters post here at 'ol CoR ...)
ABC News, in its “What Would You Do?” segment, had some actors portray George Bush-infatuated, moronic Texan tourists on the loose in Paris. And they got precisely what I’m sure they wanted (just wait and see):
"Howdy!" shouted Bob to the porter, in a Texas drawl. "Je m'appelle, Bob!" They were dressed in shorts and matching shirts marked: "Paris, Texas" and "Bush '08." Instead of Manolo Blahniks, they wore Crocs. They were loud. They were clueless. And they didn't know the difference between haute cuisine and oat bran. No doubt about it: Our ugly Americans stood out among the well-dressed Parisians.
Indeed. "Bush supporter" has to equal "clueless" and "boisterous," right.
These actors went out of their way to be literally as obnoxious as possible. The “wife” was ridiculously rambunctious at every turn, and the “husband” began singing the “Star Spangled Banner” when their boat left its dock, and actually shouted “George Bush!”(why??) when posing for snapshots. Yeah, sure sounds like a “typical” American to me.
The kicker of the segment was when the "couple" stopped by a local café. After bewildering the other patrons with their ridiculous antics, commentator John Quiñones offers the kicker (on part 2 of the segment, at approx. -04:39 on the video):
QUIÑONES: Apparently not everyone's amused by our couple's t-shirts -- or their politics. This woman is German.
GERMAN WOMAN: This is nearly as if I had a t-shirt: "I Like Hitler," you know?
Bingo. George Bush = Hitler! Perfect! See what I meant about ABC "getting what they wanted?"
But wait -- ABC isn't done yet. We Americans need just the "right" person to advise us on how to act properly when vacationing in Europe. Indeed, we need the counsel of ... Barack Obama! (On part 3 of the segment, at approx. -02:15 on the video.)
QUIÑONES: So how can American in Paris avoid becoming "Ugly Americans?" Well, this expert says it's not just about avoiding those faux pas'...
CLIP OF BARACK OBAMA: When Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe ... and all we can say is "merci beaucoup."
QUIÑONES: Try to speak the language, however crudely. The effort is usually appreciated.
"Expert?" Barack Obama? What foreign languages does he speak, pray tell? What's that? None? In fact, Obama said this personal deficit was "embarrassing."
What about that "obnoxious Texan" George W. Bush? Oh, that's right -- he speaks Spanish.
I’ve done a fair amount of traveling in my time, and I’ve never met idiots like the faux (hey, French!) couple in the story. The worst example I can recall was in San José, Costa Rica. I was standing in line at a popular ice cream joint, and behind me was an [older] American couple from a cruise (taking a few days to travel inland). I got my order and paused to grab a few napkins. The [old, American] woman literally yelled her order to the poor girl behind the counter – y’know, that ‘ol bit about how someone will supposedly “understand” you better if you speak loudly – and when the girl said meekly “No entiendo” (“I don’t understand”), the woman got angry, looked at her husband, and complained “They don’t even speak our language!” That was enough for me (who’s usually way too shy to interject in such instances): “Maybe that’s because you’re in THEIR country, ma’am!” I said.
The woman (and husband) shot me a dirty look, but said nothing. In the meantime, the girl behind the counter had gone to get the manager who knew some English. (That’s the way your average Costa Rican is, after all – very polite and friendly.)
The only other ignoramus I encountered abroad wasn’t American, but [Anglo] Canadian. He was the boyfriend of one of my then-girlfriend’s (now-wife) friends. He was loud, rude and demeaning to practically every “Tico” (slang for “Costa Rican”) he met, especially at clubs and restaurants. They didn’t hang with us anymore after I – politely (really!), mind you – told this guy to calm down and stop being so insulting to the country’s residents. Oh well!
This continuing ABC program will be interesting to watch as they attempt to “uncover” cultural negatives. I wonder if they’ll do an undercover investigation in, say, a typical newsroom so we can all see the “hidden biases” of the assorted reporters and newspeople. That’d sure be interesting, not to mention very revealing. But who in the hell would do it? How could they do it?
Gary Kaminski of Buena Vista thinks the US should be “unbiased and give equal consideration” to both Israel and … Hamas(!!)
The status quo has failed. American policy toward Israel and Palestine has done nothing except prolong the suffering of the Palestinian people and enable Israel to keep an iron grip on the West Bank while at the same time sealing off Gaza and it's 1.5 million residents.
We desperately need a new American approach that is unbiased and gives equal considerations to both sides. Only then will Israel find the courage needed to make the hard decisions that will, ultimately, need to be made.
American policy has failed?? Like President Carter’s successful Camp David Accords which led to peace between Israel and Egypt? Like President Clinton’s attempt to do same between Yassir Arafat and Israel? Regarding the latter, Clinton was only “unsuccessful” because Arafat ultimately balked. In other words, it has been the policy of the Palestinians and that of many of their Arab neighbors (not to mention the UN) which has prolonged the suffering of the Palestinians. Period. If Hamas, Hizbollah and other terror groups would lay down their arms today and recognize Israel’s right to exist, peace would immediately be established, and a Palestinian state would be not far behind.
For the US to have an unbiased approach that gives “equal consideration” to both Israel and the Palestinians (in this case, their leaders Hamas) is beyond insane. Kaminski might as well argue that we should have given “equal consideration” to both the Axis and Allied powers during World War II (before Dec. 7, 1941). After all, the Nazis’ Final Solution is remarkably similar to what is stated in the Hamas Charter.
Dopey Philly News Letter (runner-up): Sal Ferraro of Havertown writes
If you had a friend who was committing suicide, would you try to stop him or help him?
Israel has ignored pleas by our last four presidents asking Israel, in order to gain true peace with their neighbors, to stop building settlements on Palestinian territory. Why are U.S. taxpayers continuing to provide billions of dollars to Israel to be used for their own destruction?
Why aren't American Jews who agree with my views forcefully speaking out in order to save Israel from destroying itself?
Yeah. Sure. If only the Jews stopped building settlements, the Palestinians and other Arab [sovereign] states would immediately cease terrorist activity and recognize the adjacent Jewish state.
And chickens have lips.
Yesterday The Corner’s Jonah Goldberg showed what Canada’s Dr. Mohamed Elmasry said about Israel regarding its actions in Gaza:
Gaza has, in fact, been reduced to a new Auschwitz: the only difference – a nightmarish irony — is that Jews are now playing the role of Hitler’s ruthless SS.
Ironically, Elmasry is the guy who took commentator Mark Steyn to the Canadian “human rights” tribunal because he felt Steyn’s columns were … offensive to Muslims. But then there’s this street protestor in Toronto the other day: “Hitler didn't do a good job.” So far, this gent hasn’t been hauled over to the local court and charged with a hate crime. Which, actually, is a good thing Steyn opines:
By the way, it's good to know that, while my books and columns may be "hate crimes" in Ontario, shouting explicitly genocidal and eliminationist slogans on Toronto's main downtown thoroughfare isn't. Indeed, the city will send a large detachment of police officers to protect your right to do so.
It is always curious to me how, in the Western world outside of the U.S. – where First Amendment-style protections are far less reaching – Jews seem to have far less “hate” protections than virtually any other group (‘cept Anglo white males, natch). And Steyn thinks he knows why this is:
There is a crude arithmetic logic about European antipathy to the Zionist Entity: For your average finger-in-the-windy politician, there is simply no electoral upside in being pro-Israel, and quite a lot of potential downside. If you think Europe is soft on Israel's "right to exist" now, just wait another ten years.
Well, not exactly. But it’s the ‘ol bane of unintended consequences:
That 52-inch, flat-screen television on the family room wall may have a terrific picture, but there's a big drawback: It's an energy hog.
State regulators are getting ready to curb the growing power gluttony of TV sets by drafting the nation's first rules requiring retailers to sell only the most energy-efficient models, starting in 2011.
The consumer electronics industry opposes the regulations, expected to pass in mid-2009, and claims that they could remove some TVs from store shelves and slightly boost sticker prices.
Gee, ‘ya think? Two years to make TVs that meet the standards isn’t a heck of a lot of time in engineering terms. And, of course, people will just shop elsewhere for their plasma sets, like online, in states that have no such regulations.
Interesting to note is what the California Energy Commission cites as “backing” statistics. For instance, they say that
… the standards, once fully in place, would reduce the state's annual energy needs by an amount equivalent to the power consumed by 86,400 homes.
Is that power consumed annually by those 86,400 homes? It’s unclear, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that it is. Then there’s this tidbit:
During a peak viewing time when most sets are on, such as the Super Bowl, TVs in the state collectively suck up the equivalent of 40% of the power generated by the San Onofre nuclear power station running at full capacity.
OK, so? That’s one power plant (in the Union’s most populous state) on one day.
Once the “first tier” regulations come into effect, Californians who purchase the new sets will save – wait for it – an average of a whole … $18.48 per year!! Two years later when the “second tier” regs take hold, you can add on an average additional savings of … $11.76 a year!! Do CA regulators really think these piddly savings will entice folks to pay extra for a energy-saving plasma TV? Seems to me the net effect for consumers is zero, or is most likely a loss for them as it’s likely any price hike in mandated energy-saving TV sets will be greater than eighteen and a half dollars. Consumers will [most likely] save more buying a typical plasma set out of state at a lower cost, despite any energy savings.
Retired CA state worker Sam Ortega is quoted as saying "They should take them off the shelves. We need to monitor our energy. It's good for everybody." Yeah? Well, healthy foods are “good for everybody” too – do we begin mandating that McDonalds and Burger King serve only veggie burgers by 2010? Should we mandate that car manufacturers only design and make the safest cars imaginable so as to decrease crash deaths as much as possible?
Where does the nanny state cease?
The Wall Street Journal details how Democrats were “in the loop” the entire time regarding the CIA's covert antiterror interrogation programs:
Beginning in 2002, Nancy Pelosi and other key Democrats (as well as Republicans) on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were thoroughly, and repeatedly, briefed on the CIA's covert antiterror interrogation programs. They did nothing to stop such activities, when they weren't fully sanctioning them. If they now decide the tactics they heard about then amount to abuse, then by their own logic they themselves are complicit.
The briefings were first available to the Chairmen and ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees. From 2003 through 2006, that gang of four included Democrats Bob Graham and John D. Rockefeller in the Senate and Jane Harman in the House, as well as Republicans Porter Goss, Peter Hoekstra, Richard Shelby and Pat Roberts.
If Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding. And if Democrats thought it was illegal or really found the CIA's activities so heinous, one of them could have made a whistle-blowing floor statement under the protection of the Constitution's speech and debate clause. They'd have broken their secrecy oaths and jeopardized national security, sure. But if they believed that Bush policies were truly criminal, didn't they have a moral obligation to do so? In any case, the inevitable media rapture over their anti-Bush defiance would have more than compensated.
Democrats Harman and Rockefeller did make weak protests – Harman a one-page letter in 2003 where she had some vague “concerns” and “questions” (which was made public in 2008), and Rockefeller who wrote a letter to VP Cheney where he protested warrantless wiretapping … but [literally] kept it in a desk drawer … until the program was revealed publicly. Porter Goss, who was CIA Director from 2004-2006, said, “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." He also noted that some committee members wondered if the CIA was being harsh enough.
Far-left groups that want to investigate and/or indict George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and/or any other administration official might want to keep all this info in mind. It all sort of reminds one of how Democrats were screaming and yelling about how President Bush “lied” us into Iraq (even though the overwhelmingly vast majority of them voted for the use of force there), and later about how Iraq was “a debacle,” and how they’d get us out if they took control of Congress again in 2006 (they never once came even close to cutting off funding to get troops home).
Indeed. Keep all that in mind when you read (if the spelling and grammar doesn't make it unreadable) these Neanderthal-browed lunkheads.
Forty years of Democrat domination led to myriad abuses which ultimately saw the 1994 GOP [Newt] Gingrich-led revolution. Gingrich instituted numerous reforms, including
… opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
But now Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to “go back” to the “good ‘ol times”:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
“Change you can believe in.”
In an astonishing – and preposterous – bit or moral equivalence, Dennis Madeleine of Wilmington thinks the Gaza crisis “requires equal empathy for Hamas’ view”:
In speaking to the latest violence in Gaza in a story last Tuesday, Rabbi Chuni Vogel was quoted as saying, “We in Delaware have to put ourselves in the place of those who are living under the constant threat. It wouldn’t take more than a couple of missiles to hit Delaware, and we would be jumping up and down.”
Fair enough. Mr. and Mrs. Delaware, let’s follow the rabbi’s advice, except let’s put ourselves in the place of the Palestinian. Consider your reaction if you were robbed of your land, house or farm, were forced to live in a refugee camp, or watched as your family was dispersed and destroyed.
Our country fought the British over fewer indignities than those suffered by the Palestinian people at Israel’s hands.
My emphasis. Madeleine might have a point if the Jews (Israelis) were actually responsible for that happening. The original UN partition plan required both Arabs (Palestinians) and Jews to move to different areas as said plan divided the former British Mandate into two countries, one primarily Jewish and one Arab. The land allotted to the Palestinian Arabs was not accepted by them. This was primarily due to the influence of the surrounding sovereign Arab states which did not want a Jewish state as their neighbor. Once again, the Palestinians HAD their state back in 1948 with the original UN plan. After the Arabs attacked the new Israel, much of the land given to the Palestinians by the plan was gobbled up by Egypt and Jordan (namely, the West Bank and Gaza).
How is Israel “responsible” for this? Why wasn’t these lands – as originally planned – given to the Palestinian Arabs? Why did Egypt and Jordan maintain control of these areas? (See here.)
Then, in 1967, the surrounding Arabs states again went to war with Israel. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) won the war in six days (hence the name “Six Day War”) and in the process captured the West Bank , Gaza, and the Sinai Peninsula. (Again, keep in mind who was administering the two former areas prior to 1967; it was NOT Israel.) It’s maintained control over these areas since, including during an additional all-out war with its Arab neighbors in 1973 (the "Yom Kippur War"). Israel had offered the return of the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai shortly after the Six Day War in return for peace – but the Arab countries refused at the  Khartoum Conference.
Now, based on these factual historical events, how anyone can say “at Israel’s hands” when describing the historical neglect of the Palestinians – without even mentioning that of [the much more] prominent role of the Palestinians’ Arab neighbors – is just beyond disingenuous. The only grievance I can even consider that requires empathy towards Hamas (actually, the Palestinians in general) from an Israeli perpective might be the settlements Israel has constructed in the territories (since dismantled in Gaza … and look what that got ‘em).
Have some IDF mistreated Palestinians over the years? Sure. Have some Israeli settlers done same? Yeah. But this is what happens when you’re in a de facto state of war. The simple fact of the matter is that the Palestinians can have a state any time they wish. All they have to do is renounce violence against Israel and Jews in general, and recognize Israel’s right to exist (the complete opposite of which are in the Hamas Charter, by the way). Gaza is – was – already back in their hands. An acknowledgment of peace and Israel's existence would get them most of the West Bank, as well.
As I said, it’s really quite simple.
For the second time in the last three years, Colossus has been nominated for the Weblog Awards! This year the categories (based on blog size) were determined via Technorati's rating system, which puts us in the "Best Up and Coming Blog" category.
Voting begins tomorrow; we'd sure appreciate your vote! (I believe this year we'll be able to embed a voting button right here on Colossus; stay tuned.)
Reuters (via Newsbusters) is reporting that Iran has called on "Islamic countries to cut oil exports to Israel's supporters in response to the Jewish state's offensive in Gaza, the official IRNA news agency reported on Sunday."
Good luck with that. OPEC is cashed strapped, and 1973 (when the last such embargo took place) was a radically different time than today. For one, the sympathy for Hamas/Palestinians isn't at all what it once was.
A classic commercial made from a classic moment:
Courtesy of the always-awesome Soccer Dad.
Is that why the Euro-trash, the media et. al. didn't rant and rave?
I'm really beginning to wonder.
A new £4.7m primary school in Sheffield is facing criticism for dropping the word "school" from its title after governors decided the term had "negative connotations."
The headteacher of Sheffield's Watercliffe Meadow, Linda Kingdon, said the south Yorkshire school, which is due to open on Monday, will instead be called a "place for learning."
"We decided from an early stage we didn't want to use the word 'school'," she told local newspaper the Sheffield Star.
"This is Watercliffe Meadow, a place for learning. One reason was many of the parents of the children here had very negative connotations of school."
Ye gads. What's next?
Along these same [ridiculous] lines, I often joked with my students at how certain subjects over the years have had their monikers changed to a more ... "PC" orientation. For instance, "Shop" is now "Technology Education" (frequently called "Tech Ed") and "Home Economics" is now -- wait for it -- "Family and Consumer Science" (usually dubbed "FCS"). So, in keeping with this meme, a number of years back I "renamed" my class from "Spanish" to the edu-babblish "Acquisition of Indo-Iberian European Language."
About five years ago, one student of mine thought it was such a [hilariously] cool idea that she made a huge banner for the classroom with that title. It's hung in my room prominently every year since.
You may be aware how Marvel is generating their "universe" on the silver screen; that is, their characters will exist in the same continuity. You saw how Samuel L. Jackson appeared at the end of "Iron Man" as well as "The Incredible Hulk;" well, there you have it.
Early buzz for "Iron Man 2" has it that the Spider-Man characters will make their way into Iron Man continuity, in particular Peter Parker's Aunt May. As she suffers from the infirmity of old age, Tony Stark designs a special suit of armor for her to help resist its plight -- and in addition allows her to defend New York alongside her arachnid-powered nephew! She'll be ...
(This Iron Man parody originally appeared in an all-humor edition of What If? -- #34 -- and was drawn by IM creator supreme Bob Layton.)
Who says Marvel Comics don't help?
Six-foot-tall fitness fanatic Torvald Alexander, 38, was wearing a full God of Thunder outfit - complete with flying red cape and tinfoil silver-winged helmet - when he spotted the raider in his front room rifling through a desk.
Mr Alexander, who runs building firm Alexander & Summers in Edinburgh, Scotland, said the burglar threw himself out of a first-floor window of his $350,000 home in the Inverleith area of the city when he opened the door and confronted him.
The man landed on a roof outside the window, which broke his fall, enabling him to escape.
Mr Alexander said: 'As soon as he saw me, his eyes went wide with terror.
'He looked like he had had a few drinks and decided to do a late night break-in, but he hadn't counted on the God of Thunder living here.
'We were both startled but then the instant reaction was that I ran at him and he just jumped straight out of the window.
'I think I would be quite scared if someone looking almost like a gladiator ran at them. (Source.)
Why stop there? Why not up the ante and disguise yourself as a cosmic-powered planet-eater?
(h/t to RwR.)
First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit with Gaza: A Tale Of Selective Morality and Tribal Warfare.
First place in the non-Council category was David Keyes/Commentary with Sderot under Siege.
Full results can be found here; included are many excellent posts/articles dealing with the Gaza situation and the [preposterous] world reaction.
Why he's one of my favorite commentators (my emphasis):
There is something especially nauseating about the latest Middle East war — scenes of worldwide Islamic protests with photos of Jews as apes, protesters (in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida of all places!) screaming about nuking Israel and putting Jews in ovens, parades of children dressed up with suicide vests and fake rockets, near constant anti-Semitic vicious sloganeering, Gaza mosques stuffed with rockets to be used against civilians — all to be collated with creepy Hamas rhetoric about the annihilation of Israel. This is the world in which we now live.
Almost no other issue in recent memory has illustrated the moral bankruptcy of much of the international community. Hamas has no pretensions, like the PA, of being a governing authority; it used violence to rout the PA and then bragged that its charter pledging the destruction of Israel remained unchanged. Israel evacuated Gaza; Gazans in response looted their own infrastructure, alienated both the PA and Egypt,and then sent off more than 6,000 rockets against Israeli civilians, while eagerly becoming a terrorist puppet of theocratic Iran.
Nothing could be more clear: either the fact that a constitutional republic was trying to avoid civilian casualties while a terrorist organization was intent on killing Jewish civilians as it used its own citizens as shields to protect mostly young male terrorists; or the world's craven reaction to all this.
Again all very creepy — the stuff of Tolkien's Mordor. It is now clear that the so-called and much praised "international community," the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annihilation its aim and religious fascism its creed.
Gee, aren't "hate crimes" laws much more stringent in Europe than in the US -- where even hateful speech can get one arrested? Where are the reports of those arrested in Europe (and elsewhere) for all these disgusting displays against Jews?
UPDATE: More on anti-Jewish occurrences taking place right here in the US.
I read this somewhere on the 'net yesterday and I can't recall where it was: When it comes to "proportionality," where is all the "concern" when Israel trades literally hundreds of Palestinian/Arab prisoners for ... a handful of Israelis?
Courtesy of the Israel-based Dry Bones cartoon blog.
To add to this post, here are what I consider to be the worst of Iron Man's various armors over the years: