Big potluck at work today. Not much energy left for mental function. Must...digest.... Short...post....
Monday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. His speech is reprinted in today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page. Some key points:
Here were some of the results: 63% of people in the news media thought the enterprise would fail. So did 71% of people in the foreign affairs establishment and 71% in academic settings or think tanks. Interestingly, opinion leaders from the U.S. military are optimistic about Iraq by a margin of 64% to 32%. And so is the American public, by a margin of 56% to 37%.
And the Iraqi people are also optimistic. I've seen this demonstrated repeatedly--in public opinion polls, in the turnout for the elections, and that tips to authorities from ordinary Iraqis have grown from 483 to 4,700 tips in a month.
Quitting is not a strategy. Quitting is an invitation to more attacks and more terrorist violence here at home. This is not just an hypothesis. The U.S. withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. We know this. He has said so.
The message retreat in Iraq would send to the free people of Iraq and to moderate Muslim reformers throughout the region would be that they can't count on America. The message it would send to our enemies would be: that if America will not defend itself against terrorists in Iraq, it will not defend itself against terrorists anywhere.
What is needed is resolve, not retreat; courage, not concession. Rather than thinking in terms of an exit strategy, we should be focused on a strategy for success.
Our country is waging a battle unlike any other in history. We are waging it in a media age unlike any that war fighters have ever known. In this new century, we all need to make adjustments--in government and in the media. And change is hard.
But to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we are all Republicans. We are all Democrats. We are all Americans. We are all in this together. And what we do today will not only impact us, but our children and our grandchildren, and the kind of world they will live in.
I encourage you to read the whole thing, because I left out a lot of good points.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Kerry and Dean on Iraq
Senator John Kerry and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean are drinking the Kool-Aid again over the war in Iraq.
Kerry appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer, and Kerry's key quote that's getting all the press is this one, from today's WorldNetDaily:
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," Kerry said Sunday. "Whether you like it or not ... Iraqis should be doing that."
Senator Kerry has a history of hyperbole when it comes to discussing the actions of our troops. Back in 1971, when he said that we had "created a monster" of the US military, he no doubt meant every word. His accusations then were prepared and rehearsed.
This time, I'm sure Kerry will protest that he made a poor word choice in saying our troops are "terrorizing kids" and didn't mean his statement in the way it sounds. I certainly hope he doesn't mean that our troops commit terrorist acts against Iraqi women and children and that the Iraqis should be terrorizing their people instead.
But if Kerry is going to overstate his criticisms of our military's conduct, then perhaps he shouldn't accuse the President of overstating things earlier:
"What I'm saying today is that this administration hyped the evidence, took every opportunity to go down a course that they wanted to go down, and that they did not judiciously parse or share with the Congress doubts that their own intelligence agencies had which they saw and we did not, and that means they misled us and misled the nation," he said.
Kerry is trying to mislead the American people into believing that the war in Iraq is being badly led and badly executed. Now that we're in Iraq, Kerry's misleading statements are over the top.
And so are those of Howard Dean. WorldNetDaily reported today about Dean's interview at WOIA radio station in San Antonio, Texas.
The "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Dean predicted on WOIA.
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam," said Dean.
We can't seem to hear from the Democrats (with the exception of Joe Lieberman) without hearing the "V" word. And Howard Dean kept with that pattern. His solution to the "Vietnam" problem in Iraq is this:
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and it's a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Abu Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops."
Unfortunately, Howard Dean and others of his ilk don't understand the basic facts about the terrorists. We can't get the target off the backs of American troops, no matter where they are. And we can't get the target off the backs of all of the rest of the Americans and all the rest of the world's "infidels." We need to leave our troops where they are and let them kill Zarqawi and his thugs right there in Iraq.
Finally, I find this set of polling results interesting. While most of the questions have results that are opposed to President Bush and his handling of the war, when it comes down to brass tacks, people know what's best (emphasis added).
"If you had to choose, which do you think is the better approach for deciding when the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Iraq: to withdraw U.S. troops only when certain goals are met, or to withdraw U.S. troops by a specific date and stick to that time-table, regardless of conditions in Iraq at that time?" When goals are met: 59% By a specific date: 35% Unsure: 6%
"Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?" Better: 27% Worse: 52% Same: 8% Unsure: 13%
"Do you think Iraq would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?" Better: 20% Worse: 50% Same: 7% Unsure: 14%
Kerry appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer, and Kerry's key quote that's getting all the press is this one, from today's WorldNetDaily:
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," Kerry said Sunday. "Whether you like it or not ... Iraqis should be doing that."
Senator Kerry has a history of hyperbole when it comes to discussing the actions of our troops. Back in 1971, when he said that we had "created a monster" of the US military, he no doubt meant every word. His accusations then were prepared and rehearsed.
This time, I'm sure Kerry will protest that he made a poor word choice in saying our troops are "terrorizing kids" and didn't mean his statement in the way it sounds. I certainly hope he doesn't mean that our troops commit terrorist acts against Iraqi women and children and that the Iraqis should be terrorizing their people instead.
But if Kerry is going to overstate his criticisms of our military's conduct, then perhaps he shouldn't accuse the President of overstating things earlier:
"What I'm saying today is that this administration hyped the evidence, took every opportunity to go down a course that they wanted to go down, and that they did not judiciously parse or share with the Congress doubts that their own intelligence agencies had which they saw and we did not, and that means they misled us and misled the nation," he said.
Kerry is trying to mislead the American people into believing that the war in Iraq is being badly led and badly executed. Now that we're in Iraq, Kerry's misleading statements are over the top.
And so are those of Howard Dean. WorldNetDaily reported today about Dean's interview at WOIA radio station in San Antonio, Texas.
The "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Dean predicted on WOIA.
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam," said Dean.
We can't seem to hear from the Democrats (with the exception of Joe Lieberman) without hearing the "V" word. And Howard Dean kept with that pattern. His solution to the "Vietnam" problem in Iraq is this:
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and it's a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Abu Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops."
Unfortunately, Howard Dean and others of his ilk don't understand the basic facts about the terrorists. We can't get the target off the backs of American troops, no matter where they are. And we can't get the target off the backs of all of the rest of the Americans and all the rest of the world's "infidels." We need to leave our troops where they are and let them kill Zarqawi and his thugs right there in Iraq.
Finally, I find this set of polling results interesting. While most of the questions have results that are opposed to President Bush and his handling of the war, when it comes down to brass tacks, people know what's best (emphasis added).
"If you had to choose, which do you think is the better approach for deciding when the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Iraq: to withdraw U.S. troops only when certain goals are met, or to withdraw U.S. troops by a specific date and stick to that time-table, regardless of conditions in Iraq at that time?" When goals are met: 59% By a specific date: 35% Unsure: 6%
"Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?" Better: 27% Worse: 52% Same: 8% Unsure: 13%
"Do you think Iraq would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?" Better: 20% Worse: 50% Same: 7% Unsure: 14%
Monday, December 05, 2005
Mark Steyn On The Democrats On Iraq
Oh the joy of finding another great Mark Steyn column (HT: WorldNetDaily). This one appeared in Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, came out with a big statement on Iraq last week. Did you hear about it? Probably not. Everyone was still raving about his Democrat colleague, Rep. Jack Murtha, whose carefully nuanced position on Iraq is: We're all doomed unless we pull out by next Tuesday! (I quote from memory.)
Also, the United States Army is "broken," "worn out" and "living hand to mouth." If the reaction to Murtha's remarks by my military readers is anything to go by, he ought to be grateful they're still bogged down in Iraq and not in the congressional parking lot.
It's just about acceptable in polite society to disagree with Murtha, but only if you do it after a big 20-minute tongue bath about what "a fine man" he is (as Rumsfeld said) or what "a good man" he is (as Cheney called him) or what "a fine man, a good man" he is (as Bush phrased it).
Ann Coulter recently devoted an entire column to the "fine man" talk coming out of the Republican Party. Sadly, both Coulter and Steyn are accurate on that point. But that's another topic.
On the Democrats' view of Iraq, Steyn has this to say:
Peter Worthington, the Canadian columnist and veteran of World War II and Korea, likes to say that there's no such thing as an unpopular won war. The Democrat-media alliance are determined to make Iraq an exception to that rule.
There are so many ways of viewing the success or failure of our efforts in Iraq, and darn-near all of them point to success or the promise of soon-to-be-success. On the political side, we have Autonomy, Preliminary Elections, Constitutional Draft, Constitutional Approval, and the coming Elections next week. On the military side, Steyn sums it up this way:
In three-quarters of the country, life has never been better. There's an economic boom in the Shia south and a tourist boom in the Kurdish north, and, while the only thing going boom in the Sunni Triangle are the suicide bombers, there were fewer of those in November than in the previous seven months.
Then there's the spill-over effect on Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Jordan, and even the people in Syria.
But the Democrats can't see victory even if it grabs them by the lapels and shouts in their faces. Instead they want to declare that we've lost ("It's Vietnam all over again!"), take their little green plastic army men, and go home.
The Defeaticrats' loss of proportion is unworthy of a serious political party in the world's only superpower. In next week's election, the Iraqi people will shame them yet again.
I can't wait.
Update:
Wonderful post over at Malott's Blog on this topic. He opens with a line from the movie "Patton:"
"Thirty years from now, when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you, "What did you do in the great World War II," you won't have to say, "Well... I shoveled sh__ in Louisiana."
And then he closes this way:
And when we are asked what role the Democrats, mainstream media, and other members of the anti-war movement played in the struggle, we will recount the attacks on the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war for political gain... the questioning of our morality that saddened the families of soldiers while their loved ones fought so far from home... the way they encouraged our enemies by dividing our country, weakening the resolve of so many... or maybe we will just smile and say, "They shoveled sh__ in Washington."
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, came out with a big statement on Iraq last week. Did you hear about it? Probably not. Everyone was still raving about his Democrat colleague, Rep. Jack Murtha, whose carefully nuanced position on Iraq is: We're all doomed unless we pull out by next Tuesday! (I quote from memory.)
Also, the United States Army is "broken," "worn out" and "living hand to mouth." If the reaction to Murtha's remarks by my military readers is anything to go by, he ought to be grateful they're still bogged down in Iraq and not in the congressional parking lot.
It's just about acceptable in polite society to disagree with Murtha, but only if you do it after a big 20-minute tongue bath about what "a fine man" he is (as Rumsfeld said) or what "a good man" he is (as Cheney called him) or what "a fine man, a good man" he is (as Bush phrased it).
Ann Coulter recently devoted an entire column to the "fine man" talk coming out of the Republican Party. Sadly, both Coulter and Steyn are accurate on that point. But that's another topic.
On the Democrats' view of Iraq, Steyn has this to say:
Peter Worthington, the Canadian columnist and veteran of World War II and Korea, likes to say that there's no such thing as an unpopular won war. The Democrat-media alliance are determined to make Iraq an exception to that rule.
There are so many ways of viewing the success or failure of our efforts in Iraq, and darn-near all of them point to success or the promise of soon-to-be-success. On the political side, we have Autonomy, Preliminary Elections, Constitutional Draft, Constitutional Approval, and the coming Elections next week. On the military side, Steyn sums it up this way:
In three-quarters of the country, life has never been better. There's an economic boom in the Shia south and a tourist boom in the Kurdish north, and, while the only thing going boom in the Sunni Triangle are the suicide bombers, there were fewer of those in November than in the previous seven months.
Then there's the spill-over effect on Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Jordan, and even the people in Syria.
But the Democrats can't see victory even if it grabs them by the lapels and shouts in their faces. Instead they want to declare that we've lost ("It's Vietnam all over again!"), take their little green plastic army men, and go home.
The Defeaticrats' loss of proportion is unworthy of a serious political party in the world's only superpower. In next week's election, the Iraqi people will shame them yet again.
I can't wait.
Update:
Wonderful post over at Malott's Blog on this topic. He opens with a line from the movie "Patton:"
"Thirty years from now, when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you, "What did you do in the great World War II," you won't have to say, "Well... I shoveled sh__ in Louisiana."
And then he closes this way:
And when we are asked what role the Democrats, mainstream media, and other members of the anti-war movement played in the struggle, we will recount the attacks on the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war for political gain... the questioning of our morality that saddened the families of soldiers while their loved ones fought so far from home... the way they encouraged our enemies by dividing our country, weakening the resolve of so many... or maybe we will just smile and say, "They shoveled sh__ in Washington."
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Victor Davis Hanson on Iraq
About a month ago I went to a friend's party and got into extended debate with two of her left-leaning friends. One of them, LF, had said that if I was so sure the Iraqis really wanted us there, I should find a survey of Iraqis conducted by Iraqis to support my contention.
Last week, Senator Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he mentioned just such a survey, saying, "[P]olls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today." I sent Lieberman's column to LF, and another lengthy debate followed, in which LF finally said that he believed the US, Iraq, and the world would have been better off if we had left Saddam in charge in Iraq. At that point I called off the debate, because we could never come to an agreement, being such polar opposites about so fundamental an issue.
In yesterday's National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson's column on Iraq answered so many of LF's arguments, that I almost wonder if Hanson read LF's emails over my shoulder. This paragraph of Hanson's takes many of LF's points head-on:
We took no oil — the price in fact skyrocketed after we invaded Iraq. We did not do Israel’s bidding; in fact, it left Gaza after we went into Iraq and elections followed on the West Bank. We did not want perpetual hegemony — in fact, we got out of Saudi Arabia, used the minimum amount of troops possible, and will leave Iraq anytime its consensual government so decrees. And we did not expropriate Arab resources, but, in fact, poured billions of dollars into Iraq to jumpstart its new consensual government in the greatest foreign aid infusion of the age.
LF prides himself on being an objective, independent thinker, neither left- nor right-leaning, and on making his own assessments without mindlessly spouting anybody else's slogans. But his arguments seem to come right out of moveon.org's talking (screaming?) points.
While those on the left bemoan the Iraq war as an evil perpetrated by an avaricious United States, Hanson's assessment puts Iraq in its proper context:
Instead, what Iraq did is ensure that al Qaeda’s Sunni support is being coopted by democracy. Jordan, the terrorists’ old ace in the hole that could always put a cosmetic face on its stealthy support for radicals, has essentially turned on Zarqawi and with him al Qaeda. Syria is under virtual siege and its border sanctuary now a killing zone. Bin Laden can offer very little solace from his cave. And somehow Islamists have alienated the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Australia, Japan, and increasingly Middle East democracies like those in Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iraq, and reform movements in Lebanon and Jordan.
Decision day is coming when Zarqawi’s bombers will have to choose either to die, or, like a Nathan Bedford Forrest (“I’m a goin’ home”), quit to join the reform-seeking majority. That progress was accomplished only by the war in Iraq, and without it we would be back to playing a waiting game for another 9/11, while an autocratic Middle East went on quietly helping terrorists without consequences, either afraid of Saddam or secretly enjoying his chauvinist defiance.
Hanson's overall message to the Bush Administration is that they need to get the message out about the importance of and the progress in Iraq as often and as visibly as possible, and they can't rely on the MSM to hand that message to the American people on a silver platter.
Too many people have been listening to the poison of the left, because that's all they ever get to hear from the MSM. It's up to people who want the truth to actively seek it out. Read the text of the President's speeches by chekcing in now and then at the White House website, where there are links to his recent speeches. Don't trust the New York Times, the Washington Post, The LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or any of the other Bush-hating newspapers to present the Iraq War fairly. They won't, because they are at war. With the President.
Last week, Senator Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he mentioned just such a survey, saying, "[P]olls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today." I sent Lieberman's column to LF, and another lengthy debate followed, in which LF finally said that he believed the US, Iraq, and the world would have been better off if we had left Saddam in charge in Iraq. At that point I called off the debate, because we could never come to an agreement, being such polar opposites about so fundamental an issue.
In yesterday's National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson's column on Iraq answered so many of LF's arguments, that I almost wonder if Hanson read LF's emails over my shoulder. This paragraph of Hanson's takes many of LF's points head-on:
We took no oil — the price in fact skyrocketed after we invaded Iraq. We did not do Israel’s bidding; in fact, it left Gaza after we went into Iraq and elections followed on the West Bank. We did not want perpetual hegemony — in fact, we got out of Saudi Arabia, used the minimum amount of troops possible, and will leave Iraq anytime its consensual government so decrees. And we did not expropriate Arab resources, but, in fact, poured billions of dollars into Iraq to jumpstart its new consensual government in the greatest foreign aid infusion of the age.
LF prides himself on being an objective, independent thinker, neither left- nor right-leaning, and on making his own assessments without mindlessly spouting anybody else's slogans. But his arguments seem to come right out of moveon.org's talking (screaming?) points.
While those on the left bemoan the Iraq war as an evil perpetrated by an avaricious United States, Hanson's assessment puts Iraq in its proper context:
Instead, what Iraq did is ensure that al Qaeda’s Sunni support is being coopted by democracy. Jordan, the terrorists’ old ace in the hole that could always put a cosmetic face on its stealthy support for radicals, has essentially turned on Zarqawi and with him al Qaeda. Syria is under virtual siege and its border sanctuary now a killing zone. Bin Laden can offer very little solace from his cave. And somehow Islamists have alienated the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Australia, Japan, and increasingly Middle East democracies like those in Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iraq, and reform movements in Lebanon and Jordan.
Decision day is coming when Zarqawi’s bombers will have to choose either to die, or, like a Nathan Bedford Forrest (“I’m a goin’ home”), quit to join the reform-seeking majority. That progress was accomplished only by the war in Iraq, and without it we would be back to playing a waiting game for another 9/11, while an autocratic Middle East went on quietly helping terrorists without consequences, either afraid of Saddam or secretly enjoying his chauvinist defiance.
Hanson's overall message to the Bush Administration is that they need to get the message out about the importance of and the progress in Iraq as often and as visibly as possible, and they can't rely on the MSM to hand that message to the American people on a silver platter.
Too many people have been listening to the poison of the left, because that's all they ever get to hear from the MSM. It's up to people who want the truth to actively seek it out. Read the text of the President's speeches by chekcing in now and then at the White House website, where there are links to his recent speeches. Don't trust the New York Times, the Washington Post, The LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or any of the other Bush-hating newspapers to present the Iraq War fairly. They won't, because they are at war. With the President.
Watching Penguins
I just finished watching March of the Penguins, which I bought Tuesday on DVD. Watching it stirs a longing in me that I don't know what to do with. I watched it with a photographer's eye--the vast landscapes, the rosy glow of sunset coloring walls of ice, the closeup patterns of penguin markings--and it has left me wanting to take my camera and...what? Go to Antarctica? No, not for the winter anyway.
I'm ready for an adventure. I want to escape to someplace photogenic. I want to capture something beautiful, something stunning, and get it on glossy paper, matted and framed. I want to take a road trip--in the car or on a bicycle--and find out-of-the-way places with out-of-the-ordinary people.
But I know the place to start is local. Find the local landmarks and photograph them. Find the local out-of-the-way places and explore them. Find the local out-of-the-ordinary people and write about them. Sell the stories and the photos to the local paper and work up to the big magazines. Do it in my spare time.
Writers write. Photographers take photographs. Travelers travel. I am all of these three.
My blogging takes care of my need to write and to keep up on what's happening in the world. But the rest of it falls by the wayside in favor of working late, trying to catch up on my sleep, and going to the movies after church on Sundays.
I'm not sure where I would go. I'm not sure what I would photograph. I'm not sure what I would write about, but I'd better get off my butt, figure it out, and get started.
I'm ready for an adventure. I want to escape to someplace photogenic. I want to capture something beautiful, something stunning, and get it on glossy paper, matted and framed. I want to take a road trip--in the car or on a bicycle--and find out-of-the-way places with out-of-the-ordinary people.
But I know the place to start is local. Find the local landmarks and photograph them. Find the local out-of-the-way places and explore them. Find the local out-of-the-ordinary people and write about them. Sell the stories and the photos to the local paper and work up to the big magazines. Do it in my spare time.
Writers write. Photographers take photographs. Travelers travel. I am all of these three.
My blogging takes care of my need to write and to keep up on what's happening in the world. But the rest of it falls by the wayside in favor of working late, trying to catch up on my sleep, and going to the movies after church on Sundays.
I'm not sure where I would go. I'm not sure what I would photograph. I'm not sure what I would write about, but I'd better get off my butt, figure it out, and get started.
Friday, December 02, 2005
David Limbaugh on the Democrats
Every day that I'm not swamped by work, I scan through the headlines on WorldNetDaily (they don't mess up their website with big pictures that get in the way of seeing what's going on in the world and hide all the weird-animal-news stories) and read the ones that catch my eye. Then I read through their commentaries. Then I pop over to Hugh Hewitt and then to whatever other blogs I have time for, which I usually don't.
It's lunchtime, and I'm at the WND commentaries (medium-busy workday), and David Limbaugh's column on the President's speech at the US Naval Academy is encouraging on the political front.
The administration, it could be argued, has had a blind spot, even a learning disability, concerning the opposition party's ill will and ruthlessness. When accused of lying about WMD, for example, President Bush barely registered indignation. When Scooter Libby was indicted for misleading the FBI and grand jury, but specifically not for violating either underlying criminal statute for the alleged "outing" of the non-covert Valerie Plame, he ordered ethics training for White House staff rather than proclaiming vindication.
By contrast, the Democrats twisted Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's failure to indict on the underlying crimes as proof that Libby, Cheney and Rove had intentionally "outed" Plame to exact revenge on her husband, Joe Wilson, for attempting to undermine the president's case on Iraqi WMD. It is simply hard to overestimate the opposition's capacity for political chicanery.
The president apparently believed that as long as he was doing the right thing, Democrat leaders would come around, at least on the war for the survival of Western Civilization. But his reliance on their presumed good faith was woefully misplaced, and it has cost him.
OK, that wasn't the encouraging part, but it was necessary (and accurate) background.
At the end of the day, the Democrats are exposed as having no substantive alternative ideas to supplement their brutal assaults against this wartime president. They've even gone so far as to admit, on occasion, that they don't have a plan, much less a superior one, because, in the damning words of Democrat Party leader Howard Dean, it is not their responsibility to have a plan. You just can't make this stuff up.
Limbaugh goes on to describe more of the effects on President Bush's speech. It's worth the time to read it. He ends this way:
Between now and 2006 it will be interesting to see how they scramble and sputter, searching in vain for a coherent war policy. Pay particular attention to the ever-tortured positions John Kerry will adopt and the delightfully painful contortions and fence-straddling Hillary will inevitably engage in between now and 2008.
And all this time you thought Republicans were the ones imploding.
Frankly, the Republicans have been imploding, but I'm hoping that President Bush's speech marks the turnaround for the GOP. While we wait, it'll be fun to watch the left wing of the Democrats go apoplectic.
It's lunchtime, and I'm at the WND commentaries (medium-busy workday), and David Limbaugh's column on the President's speech at the US Naval Academy is encouraging on the political front.
The administration, it could be argued, has had a blind spot, even a learning disability, concerning the opposition party's ill will and ruthlessness. When accused of lying about WMD, for example, President Bush barely registered indignation. When Scooter Libby was indicted for misleading the FBI and grand jury, but specifically not for violating either underlying criminal statute for the alleged "outing" of the non-covert Valerie Plame, he ordered ethics training for White House staff rather than proclaiming vindication.
By contrast, the Democrats twisted Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's failure to indict on the underlying crimes as proof that Libby, Cheney and Rove had intentionally "outed" Plame to exact revenge on her husband, Joe Wilson, for attempting to undermine the president's case on Iraqi WMD. It is simply hard to overestimate the opposition's capacity for political chicanery.
The president apparently believed that as long as he was doing the right thing, Democrat leaders would come around, at least on the war for the survival of Western Civilization. But his reliance on their presumed good faith was woefully misplaced, and it has cost him.
OK, that wasn't the encouraging part, but it was necessary (and accurate) background.
At the end of the day, the Democrats are exposed as having no substantive alternative ideas to supplement their brutal assaults against this wartime president. They've even gone so far as to admit, on occasion, that they don't have a plan, much less a superior one, because, in the damning words of Democrat Party leader Howard Dean, it is not their responsibility to have a plan. You just can't make this stuff up.
Limbaugh goes on to describe more of the effects on President Bush's speech. It's worth the time to read it. He ends this way:
Between now and 2006 it will be interesting to see how they scramble and sputter, searching in vain for a coherent war policy. Pay particular attention to the ever-tortured positions John Kerry will adopt and the delightfully painful contortions and fence-straddling Hillary will inevitably engage in between now and 2008.
And all this time you thought Republicans were the ones imploding.
Frankly, the Republicans have been imploding, but I'm hoping that President Bush's speech marks the turnaround for the GOP. While we wait, it'll be fun to watch the left wing of the Democrats go apoplectic.
Another Abortion Link
Yesterday I posted on the link that's been found between abortions and breast cancer.
Today I saw this article in yesterday's LifeSiteNews (HT: WorldNetDaily), which reports on a study from Finland showing a link between abortion and suicide.
The epidemiological study, published in the European Journal of Public Health, was conducted by Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health (STAKES). The researchers looked at data between 1987 and 2000 on all deaths among women of reproductive age (15 to 49).
While the risk of death from suicide, accidents, and homicide was highest among women who had abortions within the prior year, the risk of death was lowest among women who gave birth within the prior year, who had less than half the death rate of women who had not been pregnant. The risk of death following a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, however, did not significantly differ from the risk of death among non-pregnant women.
There were similar findings in earlier studies in Finland and the United States.
In addition, researchers examining death records linked to medical payments for birth and abortion for 173,000 California women found that aborting women were 62 percent more likely to die than delivering women over the eight year period examined. That study also found that the increase risk of death was most prominent from suicides and accidents, with a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide and an 82 percent higher risk of death from accidental injuries.
Let me emphasize that these deaths are not just directly from abortions gone bad. They are all deaths--suicide, accident, etc.
Previous studies have also linked abortion to higher rates of substance abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, suicidal thoughts, psychiatric illness, relationship problems, and risk-taking behavior, any of which may increase a women's risk of death by suicide or accident.
The women I know who have had abortions didn't die in the year after that. But from the things they've told me and the way they lead (or used to lead) their lives, I know that their first abortion marked a drastic change in their heart, self-respect, and lifestyle. Some went wild and others withdrew into abusive relationships. Both reactions are risky.
Granted, anecdotes are not empirical research, but my friends put a face to the statistics, because they are (or were--some found Christ, who changed their lives around) living out the reality of this research.
Bottom line (again): Don't have abortions (and don't encourage the women in your life to have them), because the risks after the fact are too high.
Today I saw this article in yesterday's LifeSiteNews (HT: WorldNetDaily), which reports on a study from Finland showing a link between abortion and suicide.
The epidemiological study, published in the European Journal of Public Health, was conducted by Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health (STAKES). The researchers looked at data between 1987 and 2000 on all deaths among women of reproductive age (15 to 49).
While the risk of death from suicide, accidents, and homicide was highest among women who had abortions within the prior year, the risk of death was lowest among women who gave birth within the prior year, who had less than half the death rate of women who had not been pregnant. The risk of death following a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, however, did not significantly differ from the risk of death among non-pregnant women.
There were similar findings in earlier studies in Finland and the United States.
In addition, researchers examining death records linked to medical payments for birth and abortion for 173,000 California women found that aborting women were 62 percent more likely to die than delivering women over the eight year period examined. That study also found that the increase risk of death was most prominent from suicides and accidents, with a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide and an 82 percent higher risk of death from accidental injuries.
Let me emphasize that these deaths are not just directly from abortions gone bad. They are all deaths--suicide, accident, etc.
Previous studies have also linked abortion to higher rates of substance abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, suicidal thoughts, psychiatric illness, relationship problems, and risk-taking behavior, any of which may increase a women's risk of death by suicide or accident.
The women I know who have had abortions didn't die in the year after that. But from the things they've told me and the way they lead (or used to lead) their lives, I know that their first abortion marked a drastic change in their heart, self-respect, and lifestyle. Some went wild and others withdrew into abusive relationships. Both reactions are risky.
Granted, anecdotes are not empirical research, but my friends put a face to the statistics, because they are (or were--some found Christ, who changed their lives around) living out the reality of this research.
Bottom line (again): Don't have abortions (and don't encourage the women in your life to have them), because the risks after the fact are too high.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
War On Christmas
Hugh Hewitt has this on his website, and it's great.
My friend Kevin McCullough has launched the send-a-Christmas-card-to-the-ACLU drive. He provides the adress. You provide the card and the Merry Christmas greeting.
I love this idea. Combine that with the plan to shop for Christmas presents only at stores that are celebrating Christmas (not just generic holidays), and we've got a winner.
Merry Christmas, ACLU!
Merry Christmas, everybody!
Update:
Here is Kevin McCullough's commentary in today's WorldNetDaily on his "Merry Christmas, ACLU" suggestion.
My friend Kevin McCullough has launched the send-a-Christmas-card-to-the-ACLU drive. He provides the adress. You provide the card and the Merry Christmas greeting.
I love this idea. Combine that with the plan to shop for Christmas presents only at stores that are celebrating Christmas (not just generic holidays), and we've got a winner.
Merry Christmas, ACLU!
Merry Christmas, everybody!
Update:
Here is Kevin McCullough's commentary in today's WorldNetDaily on his "Merry Christmas, ACLU" suggestion.
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Today's WorldNetDaily reports that Joel Brind, Ph.D., president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute and a professor at Baruch College of the City University of New York analyzed ten different studies on the possible link between abortions and breast cancer. The findings of his analysis were published in the winter edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. This was an update of similar work he did in 1996.
In his essay, Brind addresses 10 separate studies conducted between 1996 and 2005 – studies used by those who deny a link between induced abortion and cancer – pointing out problems with the each study's methodology. He asserts those problems skew the results toward the denial of a causal connection between abortion and breast cancer, also known as the ABC link, making them thoroughly unreliable.
Some of the problems Brind encountered included a study in Denmark, where abortion has been legal since 1939. Although the research for this study included records for thousands of women whose abortions were performed before 1973, the study only based its conclusions on the women who had abortions from 1973 and later.
Another study, in Seattle, only looked at 138 women, which is too small a sample to make accurate conclusions (the smaller the sample, the more likely that the results could be way off the norm). And yet this Seattle study's authors, according to Brind, "were nevertheless unjustifiably unequivocal in their conclusion that their 'results do not support a relation between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence.'"
Brind concludes, from looking at these and other studies that actually do find a link, "that induced abortion is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer." Here's the medical explanation for how abortions create that risk:
The basic biology underlying the ABC link boils down to the fact that breast cancer is linked to reproductive hormones, particularly estrogen. At conception, a woman's estrogen levels increase hundreds of times above normal – 2,000 percent by the end of the first trimester. That hormone surge leads to the growth of "undifferentiated" cells in the breast as the body prepares to produce milk for the coming baby.
Undifferentiated cells are vulnerable to the effects of carcinogens, which can give rise to cancerous tumors later in life. In the final weeks of a full-term pregnancy, those cells are "terminally differentiated" through a still largely unknown process and are ready to produce milk. Differentiated cells are not as vulnerable to carcinogens.
However, should a pregnancy be terminated prior to cell differentiation, the woman is left with abnormally high numbers of undifferentiated cells, therefore increasing her risk of developing breast cancer.
Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, are not generally associated with increased risk, since they generally occur due to insufficient estrogen hormones to begin with.
In spite of research showing the risk, abortion proponents prefer to claim there's no increased risk of breast cancer, and they quote the faulty studies. This is disingenuous at best.
Meanwhile, I have already warned my friends who have had abortions that they are at risk. Some advice: Breast Self-Exam. Regular mammograms. Above all, don't have abortions.
In his essay, Brind addresses 10 separate studies conducted between 1996 and 2005 – studies used by those who deny a link between induced abortion and cancer – pointing out problems with the each study's methodology. He asserts those problems skew the results toward the denial of a causal connection between abortion and breast cancer, also known as the ABC link, making them thoroughly unreliable.
Some of the problems Brind encountered included a study in Denmark, where abortion has been legal since 1939. Although the research for this study included records for thousands of women whose abortions were performed before 1973, the study only based its conclusions on the women who had abortions from 1973 and later.
Another study, in Seattle, only looked at 138 women, which is too small a sample to make accurate conclusions (the smaller the sample, the more likely that the results could be way off the norm). And yet this Seattle study's authors, according to Brind, "were nevertheless unjustifiably unequivocal in their conclusion that their 'results do not support a relation between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence.'"
Brind concludes, from looking at these and other studies that actually do find a link, "that induced abortion is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer." Here's the medical explanation for how abortions create that risk:
The basic biology underlying the ABC link boils down to the fact that breast cancer is linked to reproductive hormones, particularly estrogen. At conception, a woman's estrogen levels increase hundreds of times above normal – 2,000 percent by the end of the first trimester. That hormone surge leads to the growth of "undifferentiated" cells in the breast as the body prepares to produce milk for the coming baby.
Undifferentiated cells are vulnerable to the effects of carcinogens, which can give rise to cancerous tumors later in life. In the final weeks of a full-term pregnancy, those cells are "terminally differentiated" through a still largely unknown process and are ready to produce milk. Differentiated cells are not as vulnerable to carcinogens.
However, should a pregnancy be terminated prior to cell differentiation, the woman is left with abnormally high numbers of undifferentiated cells, therefore increasing her risk of developing breast cancer.
Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, are not generally associated with increased risk, since they generally occur due to insufficient estrogen hormones to begin with.
In spite of research showing the risk, abortion proponents prefer to claim there's no increased risk of breast cancer, and they quote the faulty studies. This is disingenuous at best.
Meanwhile, I have already warned my friends who have had abortions that they are at risk. Some advice: Breast Self-Exam. Regular mammograms. Above all, don't have abortions.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
President Bush on Iraq
It's about time!
President Bush gave a speech this morning at the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. Although he spoke directly to the midshipmen at the Academy, his speech was for us. Here's some of what he had to say to the underclassmen there:
Your service is needed, because our nation is engaged in a war that is being fought on many fronts -- from the streets of Western cities, to the mountains of Afghanistan, the islands of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa. This war is going to take many turns, and the enemy must be defeated on every battlefield. Yet the terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity, and so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.
Our country needs to hear this. The war will eventually stretch from Indonesia, across Africa, to Western Europe and America, because this is where our enemy will strike. The media and the opponents of the President want to believe that pulling our troops out of Iraq will mark the end of the war, but these people are deluded at best. The war will end when the last of the Islamofascists is dead or otherwise unable to fight.
This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory.
[T]oday, we're releasing a document called the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." This is an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing in Iraq, and it is posted on the White House website -- whitehouse.gov. I urge all Americans to read it.
The President gave many examples of the progress in Iraq in just the last year. Here is only one of them:
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army -- with six Iraqi battalions supporting them. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties. Yet in most situations, the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops. This year in TAL Afar, it was a very different story.
The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces -- 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space -- hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block-by-block. To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order -- and reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope.
And here's how President Bush ended his speech:
We will take the fight to the terrorists. We will help the Iraqi people lay the foundations of a strong democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And by laying the foundations of freedom in Iraq, we will lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.
You all are the ones who will help accomplish all this. Our freedom and our way of life are in your hands -- and they're in the best of hands. I want to thank you for your service in the cause of freedom. I want to thank you for wearing the uniform. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
I encourage you to read the whole speech. I encourage you to encourage your friends to read it. The mainstream media can be counted on to either pick out bits and pieces that suit their agenda, or to ignore the speech completely. It will take a lot to counteract the effect the MSM is having on public opinion. But the truth is worth the effort.
Update:
Here is the link to the President's unclassified war strategy.
President Bush gave a speech this morning at the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. Although he spoke directly to the midshipmen at the Academy, his speech was for us. Here's some of what he had to say to the underclassmen there:
Your service is needed, because our nation is engaged in a war that is being fought on many fronts -- from the streets of Western cities, to the mountains of Afghanistan, the islands of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa. This war is going to take many turns, and the enemy must be defeated on every battlefield. Yet the terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity, and so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.
Our country needs to hear this. The war will eventually stretch from Indonesia, across Africa, to Western Europe and America, because this is where our enemy will strike. The media and the opponents of the President want to believe that pulling our troops out of Iraq will mark the end of the war, but these people are deluded at best. The war will end when the last of the Islamofascists is dead or otherwise unable to fight.
This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory.
[T]oday, we're releasing a document called the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." This is an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing in Iraq, and it is posted on the White House website -- whitehouse.gov. I urge all Americans to read it.
The President gave many examples of the progress in Iraq in just the last year. Here is only one of them:
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army -- with six Iraqi battalions supporting them. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties. Yet in most situations, the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops. This year in TAL Afar, it was a very different story.
The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces -- 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space -- hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block-by-block. To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order -- and reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope.
And here's how President Bush ended his speech:
We will take the fight to the terrorists. We will help the Iraqi people lay the foundations of a strong democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And by laying the foundations of freedom in Iraq, we will lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.
You all are the ones who will help accomplish all this. Our freedom and our way of life are in your hands -- and they're in the best of hands. I want to thank you for your service in the cause of freedom. I want to thank you for wearing the uniform. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
I encourage you to read the whole speech. I encourage you to encourage your friends to read it. The mainstream media can be counted on to either pick out bits and pieces that suit their agenda, or to ignore the speech completely. It will take a lot to counteract the effect the MSM is having on public opinion. But the truth is worth the effort.
Update:
Here is the link to the President's unclassified war strategy.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Fighting For Christmas
Christmas is NOT a four-letter word.
But in the same way that people find acceptable words to substitute for offensive language, people have been substituting "Holiday" for "Christmas," and it's not right.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who wrote the excellent book, America's Real War, had a column November 23 in WorldNetDaily, entitled, "Merry Christmas is not offensive!"
Rabbi Lapin is Jewish. He is not a Christian. And he is not offended by the existence of Christmas. Here's how he opened his column:
Well, December is nearly here, which means the dreaded "C word" is upon us. Put politely, "the holiday season" is nearly here. We shall all hear those "Happy Hanukkahs" and "Happy holidays," but rarely a "Merry Christmas." Secular fundamentalism has successfully injected into American culture the notion that the word "Christmas" is deeply offensive. I think we Jews may be making a grievous mistake in allowing them to banish Christmas without challenge.
And here's how he ended it:
As an Orthodox rabbi with an unquenchable passion for teaching Torah and devoting myself to the long-term interests of Judaism and America's Jewish community, I believe we Jews must turn our backs on the secularism that will sink us all. An act of friendship would be welcome. Let us all go out of our way to wish our many wonderful Christian friends – a very merry Christmas. Just remember, America's Bible belt is our safety belt.
Don't forget to read the middle.
At work, they're encouraging attendance at the annual "Holiday Party." And the email they sent out asking for support for Toys for Tots started with these statements: "Here's your chance to share the holiday spirit with local children in need by donating unwrapped toys. The Marine Corps Reserve's Toys for Tots program has been a holiday tradition since 1947."
And what holiday might that be?
Congress (at least the House of Representatives) is finally coming around. Speaker Dennis Hastert has renamed the Capitol Holiday Tree as the Capitol Christmas Tree. It's been called a Holiday Tree since the late 1990s.
"To rename a Christmas tree as a holiday tree is as offensive as renaming a Jewish menorah a candlestick," [president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, Mathew] Staver said.
We talked about this, including the various stores that have instructed their employees to say "Happy Holidays," in our Bible Study class on Sunday. Our teacher had a good suggestion.
When you go into a store to do your Christmas shopping, ask to speak to the manager (a checkout clerk can't be counted on to relay the message). Ask the manager if the store's employees are wishing people "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."
If it's the holiday greeting, then let the manager know how disappointed you are. "Oh, that's too bad. I don't want to buy holiday gifts. I'm doing my Christmas shopping." Then leave the store.
Our teacher expects to do most of his Christmas shopping this year at little boutique shops that wish him "Merry Christmas," rather than at the big stores who are afraid of December's "C word." I may be doing the same.
But in the same way that people find acceptable words to substitute for offensive language, people have been substituting "Holiday" for "Christmas," and it's not right.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who wrote the excellent book, America's Real War, had a column November 23 in WorldNetDaily, entitled, "Merry Christmas is not offensive!"
Rabbi Lapin is Jewish. He is not a Christian. And he is not offended by the existence of Christmas. Here's how he opened his column:
Well, December is nearly here, which means the dreaded "C word" is upon us. Put politely, "the holiday season" is nearly here. We shall all hear those "Happy Hanukkahs" and "Happy holidays," but rarely a "Merry Christmas." Secular fundamentalism has successfully injected into American culture the notion that the word "Christmas" is deeply offensive. I think we Jews may be making a grievous mistake in allowing them to banish Christmas without challenge.
And here's how he ended it:
As an Orthodox rabbi with an unquenchable passion for teaching Torah and devoting myself to the long-term interests of Judaism and America's Jewish community, I believe we Jews must turn our backs on the secularism that will sink us all. An act of friendship would be welcome. Let us all go out of our way to wish our many wonderful Christian friends – a very merry Christmas. Just remember, America's Bible belt is our safety belt.
Don't forget to read the middle.
At work, they're encouraging attendance at the annual "Holiday Party." And the email they sent out asking for support for Toys for Tots started with these statements: "Here's your chance to share the holiday spirit with local children in need by donating unwrapped toys. The Marine Corps Reserve's Toys for Tots program has been a holiday tradition since 1947."
And what holiday might that be?
Congress (at least the House of Representatives) is finally coming around. Speaker Dennis Hastert has renamed the Capitol Holiday Tree as the Capitol Christmas Tree. It's been called a Holiday Tree since the late 1990s.
"To rename a Christmas tree as a holiday tree is as offensive as renaming a Jewish menorah a candlestick," [president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, Mathew] Staver said.
We talked about this, including the various stores that have instructed their employees to say "Happy Holidays," in our Bible Study class on Sunday. Our teacher had a good suggestion.
When you go into a store to do your Christmas shopping, ask to speak to the manager (a checkout clerk can't be counted on to relay the message). Ask the manager if the store's employees are wishing people "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."
If it's the holiday greeting, then let the manager know how disappointed you are. "Oh, that's too bad. I don't want to buy holiday gifts. I'm doing my Christmas shopping." Then leave the store.
Our teacher expects to do most of his Christmas shopping this year at little boutique shops that wish him "Merry Christmas," rather than at the big stores who are afraid of December's "C word." I may be doing the same.
Monday, November 28, 2005
UN Drops The Ball On Darfur
When I went to GodBlogCon05 back in October (here, here, here, here, here), each attendee was given a bag of gifts, and one of those gifts was a book that I ignored until recently. I should have read it sooner, because I love it. It's called God's Blogs: Life From God's Perspective, by Lanny Donoho.
Donoho writes as though God Himself were blogging (except it's in book form, not on the internet), and it has a very personal feel to it. One "post" that I especially liked was on anger. In it, "God" pointed out that He gave us anger so that we could be angry about the things that angered Him.
This article in Friday's The Daily Star, a Lebanese news source, really angered me. And I have no doubt it's a righteous anger.
The EU introduced a draft resolution in the UN General Assembly "expressing concern at Sudan's human rights record." That's not the part that upset me. In fact, I'm impressed that the Europeans are still capable of denouncing evil acts.
The problem came when the 53-member African Union presented a no-action motion, which was passed (by a vote of 85 in favor, 79 against and 12 abstentions), that shut down debate and any vote on the EU's resolution.
The EU draft expressed concern at "the protracted humanitarian crisis in Darfur and the recent upsurge in violence perpetrated by all parties to the conflict."
It also slammed "the continuing climate of impunity in the Darfur region, particularly in the area of violence against women and girls" and the "forced relocation of displaced people, particularly in the peri-urban settlements around Khartoum."
Introducing the draft on behalf of the EU, Britain's UN envoy Emyr Jones Parry said: "There can hardly be a situation of human rights in more urgent need of the world's attention than the situation in Sudan."
"Despite the efforts of the African Union, civilians are still being killed, rape is still widespread and the situation of hundreds of thousands of displaced people remains dire," he added.
The United Nations was started, in large part, to prevent genocide, but instead it has become the chief enabler of human rights abuses and genocide. I've long ago given up hope that it will step up and fulfill its purpose. Wednesday's vote has only confirmed my lack of hope.
We need to tear down the UN building brick by brick, stone by stone, and send the protectors of evil packing. They don't deserve to set foot on free soil.
Then maybe (very tiny maybe) we can start over with only those nations that have proven their devotion to liberty.
Donoho writes as though God Himself were blogging (except it's in book form, not on the internet), and it has a very personal feel to it. One "post" that I especially liked was on anger. In it, "God" pointed out that He gave us anger so that we could be angry about the things that angered Him.
This article in Friday's The Daily Star, a Lebanese news source, really angered me. And I have no doubt it's a righteous anger.
The EU introduced a draft resolution in the UN General Assembly "expressing concern at Sudan's human rights record." That's not the part that upset me. In fact, I'm impressed that the Europeans are still capable of denouncing evil acts.
The problem came when the 53-member African Union presented a no-action motion, which was passed (by a vote of 85 in favor, 79 against and 12 abstentions), that shut down debate and any vote on the EU's resolution.
The EU draft expressed concern at "the protracted humanitarian crisis in Darfur and the recent upsurge in violence perpetrated by all parties to the conflict."
It also slammed "the continuing climate of impunity in the Darfur region, particularly in the area of violence against women and girls" and the "forced relocation of displaced people, particularly in the peri-urban settlements around Khartoum."
Introducing the draft on behalf of the EU, Britain's UN envoy Emyr Jones Parry said: "There can hardly be a situation of human rights in more urgent need of the world's attention than the situation in Sudan."
"Despite the efforts of the African Union, civilians are still being killed, rape is still widespread and the situation of hundreds of thousands of displaced people remains dire," he added.
The United Nations was started, in large part, to prevent genocide, but instead it has become the chief enabler of human rights abuses and genocide. I've long ago given up hope that it will step up and fulfill its purpose. Wednesday's vote has only confirmed my lack of hope.
We need to tear down the UN building brick by brick, stone by stone, and send the protectors of evil packing. They don't deserve to set foot on free soil.
Then maybe (very tiny maybe) we can start over with only those nations that have proven their devotion to liberty.
Senator Specter's Broken Promise
In his column in this week's World Magazine, Hugh Hewitt writes about Senator Arlen Specter's performance as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
One year ago Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was campaigning hard for the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He lobbied fellow Republicans and took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to declare, "I am committed, in word and deed, to prompt action by the Judiciary Committee. Last April, I introduced Senate Resolution 327, a protocol to establish prompt action on all judicial nominees. Specifically, my protocol provides that all nominees will have a Judiciary Committee hearing within 30 days of nomination, a Judiciary Committee vote within 30 days of the hearing, and a floor vote 30 days later." (emphasis added)
This promise convinced Republicans, many of whom were lobbying against Specter's taking the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, to give Specter the go-ahead. But Specter has proven himself faithless.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the deep freeze given the nomination of White House Staff Secretary Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Kavanaugh, originally nominated in July 2003, was not blackballed by the infamous Gang of 14 deal this past spring, but he still languishes in Mr. Specter's committee, just as nominee Terrence Boyle languishes on the floor of the Senate.
The entire machinery of judicial nominations seems to have ground to a halt under Mr. Specter's leadership. The White House demanded December hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court but Mr. Specter held back, and we'll now see relentless attacks until the hearings open the second week of January. The chairman has also dithered on the Patriot Act extension that representatives of the House and Senate worked out in a mid-November compromise.
What's the point of having a committee chairman who won't get the job done? What's the point of letting a RINO do a real Republican's job?
Specter has hung Alito out like a piñata, so the Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces can bash him until the nomination falls apart. And Senate Majority Leader Frist hasn't put any teeth into his leadership that would make Specter get back on the straight and narrow.
Donations to the Senate GOP war chest are way down, and that would include from me. I won't take the chance that my money will go toward re-electing RINOs who will betray the Party that returned them to office.
It's way past time for Senator Frist to grow a spine, because he's going to need it. It's time now for Senator Arlen Specter to be removed from the Chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Frist needs to lead the effort.
One year ago Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was campaigning hard for the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He lobbied fellow Republicans and took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to declare, "I am committed, in word and deed, to prompt action by the Judiciary Committee. Last April, I introduced Senate Resolution 327, a protocol to establish prompt action on all judicial nominees. Specifically, my protocol provides that all nominees will have a Judiciary Committee hearing within 30 days of nomination, a Judiciary Committee vote within 30 days of the hearing, and a floor vote 30 days later." (emphasis added)
This promise convinced Republicans, many of whom were lobbying against Specter's taking the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, to give Specter the go-ahead. But Specter has proven himself faithless.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the deep freeze given the nomination of White House Staff Secretary Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Kavanaugh, originally nominated in July 2003, was not blackballed by the infamous Gang of 14 deal this past spring, but he still languishes in Mr. Specter's committee, just as nominee Terrence Boyle languishes on the floor of the Senate.
The entire machinery of judicial nominations seems to have ground to a halt under Mr. Specter's leadership. The White House demanded December hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court but Mr. Specter held back, and we'll now see relentless attacks until the hearings open the second week of January. The chairman has also dithered on the Patriot Act extension that representatives of the House and Senate worked out in a mid-November compromise.
What's the point of having a committee chairman who won't get the job done? What's the point of letting a RINO do a real Republican's job?
Specter has hung Alito out like a piñata, so the Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces can bash him until the nomination falls apart. And Senate Majority Leader Frist hasn't put any teeth into his leadership that would make Specter get back on the straight and narrow.
Donations to the Senate GOP war chest are way down, and that would include from me. I won't take the chance that my money will go toward re-electing RINOs who will betray the Party that returned them to office.
It's way past time for Senator Frist to grow a spine, because he's going to need it. It's time now for Senator Arlen Specter to be removed from the Chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Frist needs to lead the effort.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
More Iraqis Bombed
Yesterday, the London Telegraph reported on more terrorist bombings in Iraq. Here's how they opened the story:
A suicide car bomber killed dozens of people in an Iraqi town yesterday when he rammed his vehicle into American and Iraqi soldiers as they handed out toys and sweets to children outside a hospital.
But instead of inflicting mass casualties among the soldiers, the bomber's victims were mostly children, medics and patients, killed when the brunt of the blast was taken by the hospital's emergency room, which was wrecked by the explosion.
The town was Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad, and at least thirty people were killed. That evening, up to eleven more people were killed by another attack in a shopping district in the town of Hilla.
Laith Kubba, an Iraqi government spokesman, predicted that the violence would escalate as the Dec 15 elections approached. He also said that Iraqi troops had discovered a car packed with booby-trapped toys to the west of Baghdad.
With each attack that hits civilians--whether they were the targets or not--public opinion in Iraq and the Middle East will turn one more notch against the terrorists, just as it happened in Lebanon after the suicide bombings of the hotels.
As each step of the democratic process in Iraq is reached, and as the military and police forces there are better trained, the terrorists will become more and more alienated from the Iraqi people.
Keep checking back at IraqTheModel for their analysis of the election process and the progress of the war. Mohammed and Omar give the Iraqi's perspective without hype and without the MSM's slanted view of events in Iraq. Mohammed ended his Thursday post this way"
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone and especially to the soldiers who are fighting to defend freedom.
A suicide car bomber killed dozens of people in an Iraqi town yesterday when he rammed his vehicle into American and Iraqi soldiers as they handed out toys and sweets to children outside a hospital.
But instead of inflicting mass casualties among the soldiers, the bomber's victims were mostly children, medics and patients, killed when the brunt of the blast was taken by the hospital's emergency room, which was wrecked by the explosion.
The town was Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad, and at least thirty people were killed. That evening, up to eleven more people were killed by another attack in a shopping district in the town of Hilla.
Laith Kubba, an Iraqi government spokesman, predicted that the violence would escalate as the Dec 15 elections approached. He also said that Iraqi troops had discovered a car packed with booby-trapped toys to the west of Baghdad.
With each attack that hits civilians--whether they were the targets or not--public opinion in Iraq and the Middle East will turn one more notch against the terrorists, just as it happened in Lebanon after the suicide bombings of the hotels.
As each step of the democratic process in Iraq is reached, and as the military and police forces there are better trained, the terrorists will become more and more alienated from the Iraqi people.
Keep checking back at IraqTheModel for their analysis of the election process and the progress of the war. Mohammed and Omar give the Iraqi's perspective without hype and without the MSM's slanted view of events in Iraq. Mohammed ended his Thursday post this way"
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone and especially to the soldiers who are fighting to defend freedom.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Movies Again
It started out with sin.
OK, maybe not quite sin, but those of us Girls who go to the movies decided to skip the Thanksgiving Eve service tonight at church and go to the movies instead. One of my friends had a rough day at work today, and she needed to get out for a while.
We were going to see "Syriana," but it wasn't in our theater yet. One friend will be seeing "Pride and Prejudice" tomorrow, so that was out. The other friend will be seeing "Walk the Line" again tomorrow, so that was out too. I suggested "Zathura," because it sounded safe after we walked out of "Derailed" a couple weeks ago. But it sounded too much like a kid movie to my friends, and one of them suggested "The Ice Harvest," which I hadn't heard or seen anything of yet.
My daughter pulled up the movie times online and clicked through to the trailer, and it had an interesting premise: steal two million dollars from the mob and try not to get killed. Billy Bob Thornton was one of the stars, which made me nervous about the potential Disgusting Factor. One of my friends pointed out that John Cusack usually provided a calming influence on a movie, but she hadn't ever seen "The Grifters," which made me feel nervous about Cusack's movies having the potential Disturbing Factor. Against our Derailed-induced decision to wait for other people to see a movie first, we went.
The first half hour of the movie was not rated R for violence. The language was blue from the get-go. And then the action moved into a strip joint, where the language got worse and there was a lot of focus on the strippers doing what I would imagine is realistic stripper stuff. We walked out, and this time we thought to ask for a voucher to another movie. While we were talking to the guest services person, a family joined us, and not long after that another man turned in his two tickets from the same movie. All together, there were nine people who walked out of "The Ice Harvest" before anything relevant to the plot had even happened, and all of us used words like "disgusting, foul, and revolting" to explain why we were dissatisfied.
This experience reinforced our decision to wait until someone else has seen and enjoyed a questionable movie before we take the plunge.
We should have gone to church.
OK, maybe not quite sin, but those of us Girls who go to the movies decided to skip the Thanksgiving Eve service tonight at church and go to the movies instead. One of my friends had a rough day at work today, and she needed to get out for a while.
We were going to see "Syriana," but it wasn't in our theater yet. One friend will be seeing "Pride and Prejudice" tomorrow, so that was out. The other friend will be seeing "Walk the Line" again tomorrow, so that was out too. I suggested "Zathura," because it sounded safe after we walked out of "Derailed" a couple weeks ago. But it sounded too much like a kid movie to my friends, and one of them suggested "The Ice Harvest," which I hadn't heard or seen anything of yet.
My daughter pulled up the movie times online and clicked through to the trailer, and it had an interesting premise: steal two million dollars from the mob and try not to get killed. Billy Bob Thornton was one of the stars, which made me nervous about the potential Disgusting Factor. One of my friends pointed out that John Cusack usually provided a calming influence on a movie, but she hadn't ever seen "The Grifters," which made me feel nervous about Cusack's movies having the potential Disturbing Factor. Against our Derailed-induced decision to wait for other people to see a movie first, we went.
The first half hour of the movie was not rated R for violence. The language was blue from the get-go. And then the action moved into a strip joint, where the language got worse and there was a lot of focus on the strippers doing what I would imagine is realistic stripper stuff. We walked out, and this time we thought to ask for a voucher to another movie. While we were talking to the guest services person, a family joined us, and not long after that another man turned in his two tickets from the same movie. All together, there were nine people who walked out of "The Ice Harvest" before anything relevant to the plot had even happened, and all of us used words like "disgusting, foul, and revolting" to explain why we were dissatisfied.
This experience reinforced our decision to wait until someone else has seen and enjoyed a questionable movie before we take the plunge.
We should have gone to church.
Talking Turkey
The Lucky Turkeys:
It's a tradition that every year the President grants a pardon to a turkey and his backup, so they will not become anyone's Thanksgiving dinner. Yesterday, as Fox News reported, President Bush pardoned two turkeys, named Marshmallow and Yam.
In years past, turkeys spared in presidential ceremonies were sent to live at a local farm.
"Marshmallow and Yam were a little skeptical about going to a place called Frying Pan Park," Bush said to giggling students from Clarksville Elementary School in Clarksville, Md.
This year, the turkeys, raised by James and Vicki Trites of Henning, Minn., will be honorary grand marshals at Disneyland's Thanksgiving Day Parade.
The turkeys and a handler will be flown first class to Southern California in time for tomorrow's parade.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which in the past has been critical because presidential turkeys have been sent to a working farm rather than an animal sanctuary, praised the decision to send them to Disneyland.
"I don't suppose we could have asked for better than Disneyland and southern California," said Bruce Friedrich of PETA. "They'll have mental and physical stimulation as well as proper care and a nice climate."
It's definitely a banner year when PETA is pleased by something President Bush does. Here's hoping Marshmallow and Yam perform their duties well.
The Unlucky Turkey:
ABC 7 Chicago reported yesterday about a turkey who was not spared this Thanksgiving season. Nevertheless, that turkey went on to help save two people's lives.
Two Good Samaritans helped police rescue an elderly couple from their burning car over the weekend in the western suburbs. One of the heroes used a frozen turkey to shatter the car's windows.
Mark Copsy, of Louisiana until Hurricane Katrina sent him and his family to Chicago to stay with his in-laws, was the frozen-turkey-wielding rescuer.
Copsy and his son were leaving a Northlake grocery store, food in hand, when they saw a car burning on Wolf Road. An elderly couple was trapped in a Buick.
"I kicked the window, it didn't break, so I took the turkey to smash the window," said Mark Copsy, Good Samaritan.
Another Good Samaritan, Michael Carpanzano, ran back into the store and grabbed a fire extinguisher, which he emptied on the flaming car.
John Brani, 89, was trapped in the driver's seat.
"I put the driver in a bear hug and yanked on him twice and took him out the driver's side window," said Officer Michael Willner, Northlake Police Department.
His 90-year-old wife, Juliana Brani, was in the passenger's seat and another officer helped save her.
The rescued couple is still hospitalized in critical condition from their burns. Saving them was a joint effort: two Good Samaritans, two police officers, and one frozen turkey.
So, is there life after death for turkeys? Sort of.
It's a tradition that every year the President grants a pardon to a turkey and his backup, so they will not become anyone's Thanksgiving dinner. Yesterday, as Fox News reported, President Bush pardoned two turkeys, named Marshmallow and Yam.
In years past, turkeys spared in presidential ceremonies were sent to live at a local farm.
"Marshmallow and Yam were a little skeptical about going to a place called Frying Pan Park," Bush said to giggling students from Clarksville Elementary School in Clarksville, Md.
This year, the turkeys, raised by James and Vicki Trites of Henning, Minn., will be honorary grand marshals at Disneyland's Thanksgiving Day Parade.
The turkeys and a handler will be flown first class to Southern California in time for tomorrow's parade.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which in the past has been critical because presidential turkeys have been sent to a working farm rather than an animal sanctuary, praised the decision to send them to Disneyland.
"I don't suppose we could have asked for better than Disneyland and southern California," said Bruce Friedrich of PETA. "They'll have mental and physical stimulation as well as proper care and a nice climate."
It's definitely a banner year when PETA is pleased by something President Bush does. Here's hoping Marshmallow and Yam perform their duties well.
The Unlucky Turkey:
ABC 7 Chicago reported yesterday about a turkey who was not spared this Thanksgiving season. Nevertheless, that turkey went on to help save two people's lives.
Two Good Samaritans helped police rescue an elderly couple from their burning car over the weekend in the western suburbs. One of the heroes used a frozen turkey to shatter the car's windows.
Mark Copsy, of Louisiana until Hurricane Katrina sent him and his family to Chicago to stay with his in-laws, was the frozen-turkey-wielding rescuer.
Copsy and his son were leaving a Northlake grocery store, food in hand, when they saw a car burning on Wolf Road. An elderly couple was trapped in a Buick.
"I kicked the window, it didn't break, so I took the turkey to smash the window," said Mark Copsy, Good Samaritan.
Another Good Samaritan, Michael Carpanzano, ran back into the store and grabbed a fire extinguisher, which he emptied on the flaming car.
John Brani, 89, was trapped in the driver's seat.
"I put the driver in a bear hug and yanked on him twice and took him out the driver's side window," said Officer Michael Willner, Northlake Police Department.
His 90-year-old wife, Juliana Brani, was in the passenger's seat and another officer helped save her.
The rescued couple is still hospitalized in critical condition from their burns. Saving them was a joint effort: two Good Samaritans, two police officers, and one frozen turkey.
So, is there life after death for turkeys? Sort of.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Mark Steyn on Zarqawi
Hugh Hewitt read some of Mark Steyn's latest column on his radio show today, but he didn't read the whole thing (or if he did, I didn't hear it all). And what was most compelling for me was at the end.
Mark Steyn is my favorite columnist, and I've been reading his work since shortly after 9/11. Today, his column for the London Telegraph looked at the word on the "Arab Street" about Lebanon-born, Iraq-based al-Qaeda terrorism leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It's not a good word.
On Friday, 200,000 Jordanians took to the streets to denounce al-Zarqawi as a coward and the enemy of Allah. So Mark Steyn asks:
Did they show that on the BBC? Or are demonstrations only news when they're anti-Bush and anti-Blair? And look at it this way: if the "occupation" is so unpopular in Iraq, where are the mass demonstrations against that? I'm not talking 200,000, or even 100 or 50,000. But, if there were just 1,500 folks shouting "Great Satan, go home!" in Baghdad or Mosul, it would be large enough for the media to do that little trick where they film the demo close up so it looks like the place is packed. Yet no such demonstrations take place.
We have a war going on, one that Zarqawi is pushing outside of Iraq--perhaps because the war inside Iraq is getting tougher for him. And yet the Democrats keep talking "exit strategy."
In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter's easier. Just say, whoa, we're the world's pre-eminent power but we can't handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don't mind we'd just as soon get off at the next stop.
Demonstrating the will to lose as clearly as America did in Vietnam wasn't such a smart move, but since the media can't seem to get beyond this ancient jungle war it may be worth underlining the principal difference: Osama is not Ho Chi Minh, and al-Qa'eda are not the Viet Cong. If you exit, they'll follow. And Americans will die - in foreign embassies, barracks, warships, as they did through the Nineties, and eventually on the streets of US cities, too.
Mark Steyn gets it. The media-darling Democrats don't. There's a war on, and the stakes couldn't be higher. We must keep fighting until we win. No. We must keep fighting until we absolutely destroy those who have declared themselves our enemy.
Mark Steyn is my favorite columnist, and I've been reading his work since shortly after 9/11. Today, his column for the London Telegraph looked at the word on the "Arab Street" about Lebanon-born, Iraq-based al-Qaeda terrorism leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It's not a good word.
On Friday, 200,000 Jordanians took to the streets to denounce al-Zarqawi as a coward and the enemy of Allah. So Mark Steyn asks:
Did they show that on the BBC? Or are demonstrations only news when they're anti-Bush and anti-Blair? And look at it this way: if the "occupation" is so unpopular in Iraq, where are the mass demonstrations against that? I'm not talking 200,000, or even 100 or 50,000. But, if there were just 1,500 folks shouting "Great Satan, go home!" in Baghdad or Mosul, it would be large enough for the media to do that little trick where they film the demo close up so it looks like the place is packed. Yet no such demonstrations take place.
We have a war going on, one that Zarqawi is pushing outside of Iraq--perhaps because the war inside Iraq is getting tougher for him. And yet the Democrats keep talking "exit strategy."
In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter's easier. Just say, whoa, we're the world's pre-eminent power but we can't handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don't mind we'd just as soon get off at the next stop.
Demonstrating the will to lose as clearly as America did in Vietnam wasn't such a smart move, but since the media can't seem to get beyond this ancient jungle war it may be worth underlining the principal difference: Osama is not Ho Chi Minh, and al-Qa'eda are not the Viet Cong. If you exit, they'll follow. And Americans will die - in foreign embassies, barracks, warships, as they did through the Nineties, and eventually on the streets of US cities, too.
Mark Steyn gets it. The media-darling Democrats don't. There's a war on, and the stakes couldn't be higher. We must keep fighting until we win. No. We must keep fighting until we absolutely destroy those who have declared themselves our enemy.
Bob Woodward's Sin
The AP reported yesterday about a statement by the Washington Post's ombudman, Deborah Howell. Howell said that Bob Woodward, the Watergate reporter hero, committed a "deeply serious sin" by not telling his editor at The Washington Post that a top Bush administration official had told him the name of a CIA officer.
Let me get this straight. The Washington Post considers it a "deeply serious sin" when a reporter doesn't tell his editor that he has key information in a Grand Jury investigation. And they consider it a "mistake" that Woodward talked about the Plame investigation on Larry King and NPR without disclosing that he already knew about the CIA leak.
But where's the outrage from the WaPo about Woodward's having withheld his knowledge from the grand jury and the special prosecutor? Where's the outrage at Woodward's silence likely having led to the indictment and resignation of a member of the administration? The crickets are chirping while we wait for the WaPo to be upset at the misdirection of justice.
And what was so important that Bob Woodward needed to keep his mouth shut so tightly for so long? He said he had been working on a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and he did not want to be subpoenaed by a special prosecutor investigating the leak of Plame's name.
Oh, of course. Keeping your book a secret trumps justice. He didn't want to be subpoenaed, because then parts of his book might have been leaked to the press. Oh, that's OK, then. I'm sure Scooter Libby understands completely. I'm sure Vice President Cheney doesn't mind losing Libby as his aide at all. I'm sure special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't think it would have made any difference in his investigation.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald portrayed Libby as the first government official to have shared Plame's name and her work at the CIA. But the Post reported that Woodward, who achieved fame for his reporting on the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration, may have been the first reporter to learn about Plame in mid-June of 2003, before the Novak column ran.
The mainstream media is disgusting in its self-centered, ego-centric self-absorption. The Washington Post should fire Woodward, and Patrick Fitzgerald should throw him in the slammer. It would give Woodward more time to work on his book.
Let me get this straight. The Washington Post considers it a "deeply serious sin" when a reporter doesn't tell his editor that he has key information in a Grand Jury investigation. And they consider it a "mistake" that Woodward talked about the Plame investigation on Larry King and NPR without disclosing that he already knew about the CIA leak.
But where's the outrage from the WaPo about Woodward's having withheld his knowledge from the grand jury and the special prosecutor? Where's the outrage at Woodward's silence likely having led to the indictment and resignation of a member of the administration? The crickets are chirping while we wait for the WaPo to be upset at the misdirection of justice.
And what was so important that Bob Woodward needed to keep his mouth shut so tightly for so long? He said he had been working on a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and he did not want to be subpoenaed by a special prosecutor investigating the leak of Plame's name.
Oh, of course. Keeping your book a secret trumps justice. He didn't want to be subpoenaed, because then parts of his book might have been leaked to the press. Oh, that's OK, then. I'm sure Scooter Libby understands completely. I'm sure Vice President Cheney doesn't mind losing Libby as his aide at all. I'm sure special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't think it would have made any difference in his investigation.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald portrayed Libby as the first government official to have shared Plame's name and her work at the CIA. But the Post reported that Woodward, who achieved fame for his reporting on the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration, may have been the first reporter to learn about Plame in mid-June of 2003, before the Novak column ran.
The mainstream media is disgusting in its self-centered, ego-centric self-absorption. The Washington Post should fire Woodward, and Patrick Fitzgerald should throw him in the slammer. It would give Woodward more time to work on his book.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Chicago Mayor Daley Admires China's Schools
WorldNetDaily reported today that Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley has called for Chicago's school system to become more like China's schools.
Mayor Richard Daley says he wants the city's public schools to move to a six-day school week.
Children, he says, need more time in the classroom, a longer school year and earlier exposure to foreign languages to compete in the global market.
Daley said when he visited China, he found that children there learn English before they reach the equivalent of 8th grade, spend more days in school each week and don't have a summer break.
Eighth grade! My kids learned English before they even started school.
Mayor Daley has a few screws loose. I find it hard to believe that he doesn't understand that this is China. They're COMMUNISTS! They "compete in the global market" by using child labor, prisoner labor, and other types of forced labor at rock-bottom pay rates.
Is this the kind of future that Daley aspires to for his children and grandchildren?
When leaders within the Democrat party start pushing communist practices as the ideal, it makes Michelle Malkin's latest book title, Unhinged, seem like an understatement.
Mayor Richard Daley says he wants the city's public schools to move to a six-day school week.
Children, he says, need more time in the classroom, a longer school year and earlier exposure to foreign languages to compete in the global market.
Daley said when he visited China, he found that children there learn English before they reach the equivalent of 8th grade, spend more days in school each week and don't have a summer break.
Eighth grade! My kids learned English before they even started school.
Mayor Daley has a few screws loose. I find it hard to believe that he doesn't understand that this is China. They're COMMUNISTS! They "compete in the global market" by using child labor, prisoner labor, and other types of forced labor at rock-bottom pay rates.
Is this the kind of future that Daley aspires to for his children and grandchildren?
When leaders within the Democrat party start pushing communist practices as the ideal, it makes Michelle Malkin's latest book title, Unhinged, seem like an understatement.
Movie Weekend
I went to the movies--twice--this weekend. Saturday, I took my daughter (who no longer works at the movie theater) to see "Harry Potter." If you love Harry Potter, you'll love installment four. My daughter loved it. I enjoyed it too. My only criticism would be that it didn't convey the same sense of the events taking place over an entire school year that the earlier movies had. But that's a tiny point and didn't detract from the movie.
Sunday, The Girls saw "Walk the Line," and we all loved it. Before this movie came out, I had thought Johnny and June had been married their whole lives, so I learned a lot. The point that stood out for me, like in the movie "Ray," was how big an impact parents can have on their children, good or bad.
This weekend's movie-going was way better than last week, when we saw "Derailed" and left about halfway through. We weren't at our usual theater, and the one we went to was creepy. The seats weren't comfortable, the clientele was less savory than we were accustomed to, and the commercials they played while we waited for start time were risque.
And then the movie started. My friend had really wanted to see "Derailed" because the trailer made it look like a suspense thriller. But the trailer kept all the suspense and didn't leave any for the movie. It was an uncomfortable exercise in watching a bored man make stupider and stupider decisions (Hadn't the character ever watched TV??? If he had, he would have known what to do). And then the movie got foul, and so we left.
The next night we talked to someone who sat through the whole movie, and she told us how it ended, which was what I had already figured out. And that means the "plot twist" was horribly obvious, because I never try to figure out a movie. I just let it happen.
So we'll be sticking with the good theater, and on the movies we aren't sure about, we'll wait until we hear from someone normal that it's a good one before we head off to see them.
Sunday, The Girls saw "Walk the Line," and we all loved it. Before this movie came out, I had thought Johnny and June had been married their whole lives, so I learned a lot. The point that stood out for me, like in the movie "Ray," was how big an impact parents can have on their children, good or bad.
This weekend's movie-going was way better than last week, when we saw "Derailed" and left about halfway through. We weren't at our usual theater, and the one we went to was creepy. The seats weren't comfortable, the clientele was less savory than we were accustomed to, and the commercials they played while we waited for start time were risque.
And then the movie started. My friend had really wanted to see "Derailed" because the trailer made it look like a suspense thriller. But the trailer kept all the suspense and didn't leave any for the movie. It was an uncomfortable exercise in watching a bored man make stupider and stupider decisions (Hadn't the character ever watched TV??? If he had, he would have known what to do). And then the movie got foul, and so we left.
The next night we talked to someone who sat through the whole movie, and she told us how it ended, which was what I had already figured out. And that means the "plot twist" was horribly obvious, because I never try to figure out a movie. I just let it happen.
So we'll be sticking with the good theater, and on the movies we aren't sure about, we'll wait until we hear from someone normal that it's a good one before we head off to see them.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Deuce Four Returns Home
I was going to post about the whole Democrat/Republican Senate response to the war in Iraq, and what Congressman Murtha said about Iraq and our country's leadership, which revealed how completely unhinged Murtha is.
But then I grabbed a sandwich at one of the sandwich shop chains and went through an entire ordeal trying to get them to understand English, and I decided to post about that instead.
But while I was eating my sandwich, which dripped all over my hands so I couldn't type, I read Hugh Hewitt's site, which had a link to Michael Yon's post on the return of Deuce Four stateside, which settled the question of what my post should cover.
If you haven't read Michael Yon, you should. He's been embedded with the Army's Deuce Four unit and sending back dispatches from Mosul and the work this unit did there. His writing is vivid and conveys a profound respect and love for these men.
In today's post, Yon describes the return-home party, which included Bruce Willis as a guest. It's a good recap of who these soldiers are, and by extension who all of our soldiers are.
We are at war, and good men's lives are on the line. Take some time to read some of Michael Yon's other dispatches (linked on the right in his post) and get to know the caliber of men who are fighting to defend us and to help strengthen Iraq's fledgling liberty.
Update:
While you're reading about Iraq, don't miss Mohammed and Omar's blog, Iraq the Model, where they tell you what's going on from an Iraqi's perspective. And that perspective is in favor of what the US is doing in their country.
But then I grabbed a sandwich at one of the sandwich shop chains and went through an entire ordeal trying to get them to understand English, and I decided to post about that instead.
But while I was eating my sandwich, which dripped all over my hands so I couldn't type, I read Hugh Hewitt's site, which had a link to Michael Yon's post on the return of Deuce Four stateside, which settled the question of what my post should cover.
If you haven't read Michael Yon, you should. He's been embedded with the Army's Deuce Four unit and sending back dispatches from Mosul and the work this unit did there. His writing is vivid and conveys a profound respect and love for these men.
In today's post, Yon describes the return-home party, which included Bruce Willis as a guest. It's a good recap of who these soldiers are, and by extension who all of our soldiers are.
We are at war, and good men's lives are on the line. Take some time to read some of Michael Yon's other dispatches (linked on the right in his post) and get to know the caliber of men who are fighting to defend us and to help strengthen Iraq's fledgling liberty.
Update:
While you're reading about Iraq, don't miss Mohammed and Omar's blog, Iraq the Model, where they tell you what's going on from an Iraqi's perspective. And that perspective is in favor of what the US is doing in their country.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Humiliation Helps
Work is really doing a number on my blogging time!
I saw a whole lot of articles yesterday that caught my eye. Did I save them? No.
There were two stories in particular that were in the same vein. One woman had an ex-boyfriend set a mattress on fire against her apartment door, because she was seeing another man. In the time since the fire, she and the arsonist got married. She figured he must have really loved her to do something that drastic.
The other story was about a woman who married a man who had beat the carp out of her earlier.
Loser women with a death wish. Ugh! Don't get me started.
But one story I saw yesterday, and didn't save, popped up this morning on AOL News when I booted up. It's about a girl whose mother humiliated her. Great story, but boy oh boy, does it show how far the psychological professionals have strayed from good old common sense. (Truth-in-Blogging Note: I have a Bachelors degree in Psychology.)
The AP reported yesterday:
Tasha Henderson got tired of her 14-year-old daughter's poor grades, her chronic lateness to class and her talking back to her teachers, so she decided to teach the girl a lesson.
She made Coretha stand at a busy Oklahoma City intersection Nov. 4 with a cardboard sign that read: "I don't do my homework and I act up in school, so my parents are preparing me for my future. Will work for food."
The result?
Tasha Henderson said her daughter's attendance has been perfect and her behavior has been better since the incident.
Coretha, a soft-spoken girl, acknowledged the punishment was humiliating but said it got her attention. "I won't talk back," she said quietly, hanging her head.
She already has been forced by her parents to give up basketball and track because of slipping grades, and said she hopes to improve in school so she can play next year.
The other result? Psychologists and psycho-wannabe's running amok.
One letter to the editor of The Oklahoman warned that Coretha's parents could be "kill[ing] their daughter psychologically."
A passing motorist called the police to report the incident as psychological abuse, but the police said there was no crime. They turned it over to the Department of Human Services, in case DHS wanted to follow up, but a DHS spokesman said it wouldn't get high priority.
Finally--and this is the one that takes the cake for me--Donald Wertlieb, a professor of child development at the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University, warned that such punishment could do extreme emotional damage. He said rewarding positive behavior is more effective.
"The trick is to catch them being good," he said. "It sounds like this mother has not had a chance to catch her child being good or is so upset over seeing her be bad, that's where the focus is."
Oh please! Raising children in this culture is a war. Parents have to fight against the entertainment, fashion, music culture and all the peer pressure that comes with it. There is a time and place for Quiet Diplomacy, and there's a time for Shock and Awe.
These critics of Tasha Henderson's successful attempt to bring her daughter around seem to believe that Tasha hadn't already tried all the rest of the options. They think that a parent can reward good behavior while letting the child keep on going to heck in a handbasket, and everything will be fine. That's psychobabble at its worst.
Tasha's Shock and Awe campaign did the trick in only an hour and a half, and now Coretha is on the road to responsibility and success in life. Way to go, Tasha!
I saw a whole lot of articles yesterday that caught my eye. Did I save them? No.
There were two stories in particular that were in the same vein. One woman had an ex-boyfriend set a mattress on fire against her apartment door, because she was seeing another man. In the time since the fire, she and the arsonist got married. She figured he must have really loved her to do something that drastic.
The other story was about a woman who married a man who had beat the carp out of her earlier.
Loser women with a death wish. Ugh! Don't get me started.
But one story I saw yesterday, and didn't save, popped up this morning on AOL News when I booted up. It's about a girl whose mother humiliated her. Great story, but boy oh boy, does it show how far the psychological professionals have strayed from good old common sense. (Truth-in-Blogging Note: I have a Bachelors degree in Psychology.)
The AP reported yesterday:
Tasha Henderson got tired of her 14-year-old daughter's poor grades, her chronic lateness to class and her talking back to her teachers, so she decided to teach the girl a lesson.
She made Coretha stand at a busy Oklahoma City intersection Nov. 4 with a cardboard sign that read: "I don't do my homework and I act up in school, so my parents are preparing me for my future. Will work for food."
The result?
Tasha Henderson said her daughter's attendance has been perfect and her behavior has been better since the incident.
Coretha, a soft-spoken girl, acknowledged the punishment was humiliating but said it got her attention. "I won't talk back," she said quietly, hanging her head.
She already has been forced by her parents to give up basketball and track because of slipping grades, and said she hopes to improve in school so she can play next year.
The other result? Psychologists and psycho-wannabe's running amok.
One letter to the editor of The Oklahoman warned that Coretha's parents could be "kill[ing] their daughter psychologically."
A passing motorist called the police to report the incident as psychological abuse, but the police said there was no crime. They turned it over to the Department of Human Services, in case DHS wanted to follow up, but a DHS spokesman said it wouldn't get high priority.
Finally--and this is the one that takes the cake for me--Donald Wertlieb, a professor of child development at the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University, warned that such punishment could do extreme emotional damage. He said rewarding positive behavior is more effective.
"The trick is to catch them being good," he said. "It sounds like this mother has not had a chance to catch her child being good or is so upset over seeing her be bad, that's where the focus is."
Oh please! Raising children in this culture is a war. Parents have to fight against the entertainment, fashion, music culture and all the peer pressure that comes with it. There is a time and place for Quiet Diplomacy, and there's a time for Shock and Awe.
These critics of Tasha Henderson's successful attempt to bring her daughter around seem to believe that Tasha hadn't already tried all the rest of the options. They think that a parent can reward good behavior while letting the child keep on going to heck in a handbasket, and everything will be fine. That's psychobabble at its worst.
Tasha's Shock and Awe campaign did the trick in only an hour and a half, and now Coretha is on the road to responsibility and success in life. Way to go, Tasha!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Bird Flu Treatment
I can't believe Hugh Hewitt missed this one, considering he's been following the avian flu news pretty closely.
It's an article from the November 13 London Telegraph, describing a treatment that has been found for the H5N1 avian flu: Sauerkraut. If you're in Asia, the treatment is kimchi.
Scientists believe that the traditional recipe, which is made from chopped cabbage that is fermented for at least a month, contains a bacteria that may combat the potentially fatal disease.
Their findings follow a study in which kimchi - a spicy cabbage dish popular in South Korea and similar to sauerkraut - was fed to 13 chickens infected with bird flu. Just one week later, 11 of the birds showed signs of recovery from the virus.
Prof Kang [Sa-ouk]'s team claims that lactobacillus, the lactic acid bacteria created during the fermenting process, is the active ingredient that could combat bird flu.
According to the article, comsumption of kimchi is up in South Korea, sales of sauerkraut in America are soaring, and even the British--who generally don't eat sauerkraut--are increasing their purchases of the product. All this without much publicity. This might be a good time to buy into sauerkraut futures or something.
A further study on sauerkraut, carried out recently by Polish and American scientists, concluded that the meal might be the reason for the lower breast cancer rate observed among Polish immigrants in America.
It all looks good. I think I might go for a Ruben sandwich for dinner tonight.
It's an article from the November 13 London Telegraph, describing a treatment that has been found for the H5N1 avian flu: Sauerkraut. If you're in Asia, the treatment is kimchi.
Scientists believe that the traditional recipe, which is made from chopped cabbage that is fermented for at least a month, contains a bacteria that may combat the potentially fatal disease.
Their findings follow a study in which kimchi - a spicy cabbage dish popular in South Korea and similar to sauerkraut - was fed to 13 chickens infected with bird flu. Just one week later, 11 of the birds showed signs of recovery from the virus.
Prof Kang [Sa-ouk]'s team claims that lactobacillus, the lactic acid bacteria created during the fermenting process, is the active ingredient that could combat bird flu.
According to the article, comsumption of kimchi is up in South Korea, sales of sauerkraut in America are soaring, and even the British--who generally don't eat sauerkraut--are increasing their purchases of the product. All this without much publicity. This might be a good time to buy into sauerkraut futures or something.
A further study on sauerkraut, carried out recently by Polish and American scientists, concluded that the meal might be the reason for the lower breast cancer rate observed among Polish immigrants in America.
It all looks good. I think I might go for a Ruben sandwich for dinner tonight.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Issues Of Race
La Shawn Barber has an excellent post on the unevenness of the Mainstream Media's coverage of race issues. When whites make racially related statements, the MSM is quick to cover and denounce them. When blacks make racially related statements, the MSM is quick to keep its mouth shut.
In her "Unrelated Update," La Shawn links to Michelle Malkin's post on the media's use of "African-American" to the point of absurdity. Malkin said, "CNN anchor Carol Lin referring to the two French teenagers of Tunisian descent whose death sparked the Paris riots as 'African-American.'" (emphasis in the original)
When the use of "African-American" started, I had two women acquaintances who were black but were British citizens living in the US. I wondered then what we were supposed to call these women: African-British? They certainly weren't Americans. The term, "black," included them. The term, "African-American," excluded them. But the MSM and the African-American leadership didn't seem to care about the exclusion of a number of residents by this choice of name.
But now, due to habit, "African-American" has become so inclusive that even French-Tunisians are included. And so are black Vulcans (see Michelle Malkin's post).
Perhaps the inclusive nature of hyphenated Americans has spread enough that now I can be counted as Asian-American. After all, I'm a quarter Hungarian, and the Hungarians are descended from the Huns, who came from Central Asia, possibly with the Mongol hordes. It makes as much sense as any of the rest of the PC race lingo.
In her "Unrelated Update," La Shawn links to Michelle Malkin's post on the media's use of "African-American" to the point of absurdity. Malkin said, "CNN anchor Carol Lin referring to the two French teenagers of Tunisian descent whose death sparked the Paris riots as 'African-American.'" (emphasis in the original)
When the use of "African-American" started, I had two women acquaintances who were black but were British citizens living in the US. I wondered then what we were supposed to call these women: African-British? They certainly weren't Americans. The term, "black," included them. The term, "African-American," excluded them. But the MSM and the African-American leadership didn't seem to care about the exclusion of a number of residents by this choice of name.
But now, due to habit, "African-American" has become so inclusive that even French-Tunisians are included. And so are black Vulcans (see Michelle Malkin's post).
Perhaps the inclusive nature of hyphenated Americans has spread enough that now I can be counted as Asian-American. After all, I'm a quarter Hungarian, and the Hungarians are descended from the Huns, who came from Central Asia, possibly with the Mongol hordes. It makes as much sense as any of the rest of the PC race lingo.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Bird Flu News
Instapundit has a post Saturday about some of the latest news on the bird flu front (HT: Hugh Hewitt). It doesn't look good.
First, in China it looks as though the virus has spread to pigs, as the Epoch Times reported Friday.
Zoology experts at Hunan Agriculture University say that since pig genes are similar to human genes, and that viruses of many animals can live and mutate in pigs, it becomes dangerous for humans once the virus has been found (sic) its way to pigs.
The second concern is over who is likely to be hardest hit by the virus. Instapundit quotes from an article in Forbes Friday (emphasis added).
Experiments with human cells have found the H5N1 virus can trigger levelsof inflammatory proteins called cytokines and chemokines that are more than 10 times higher than those that occur during a bout of the common flu.
This massive increase in cytokine and chemokine activity can inflame airways, making it hard to breathe. It also contributes to the unusual severity of the avian flu, which can result in life-threatening pneumonia and acute respiratory distress.
"This is basically a cytokine storm induced by this specific virus, which then leads to respiratory distress syndrome," [director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Michael T.] Osterholm said. "This also makes sense of why you tend to see a preponderance of severe illness in those who tend to be the healthiest, because the ability to increase the production of cytokines is actually higher in those who are not immune-compromised. It's more likely in those who are otherwise healthy."
It's possible the bird flu won't amount to much. It's possible the mutations will remain within the bird community, or maybe just the birds and the pigs. It's possible the disease won't become as virulent as some are warning about. It's possible.
But we can't afford to take that chance, because it's just as possible that this could be devastating. I've explained it before, but the non-scientific basics are this:
The H and N numbers aren't just arbitrary identification numbers. They indicate the structure of the particular virus, and the same H/N numbers mean the different strains are related. So if there was an outbreak of a strain of H3N2 forty years ago, the people who were exposed to it and survived have antibodies in their systems. If another strain of H3N2 hits next year, even though it's a different virus, the people from forty years ago will be better equipped to fight off the new strain and won't have as severe a reaction as people who have never been exposed to any H3N2 flu.
H5N1 has not been seen since the medical community started identifying flu strains this way, about 1900. So nobody alive today has related antibodies, so everybody is at risk for having a severe reaction--especially healthy people. If this flu mutates into a human-to-human form that spreads with casual contact or through airborne means, we're in trouble.
The best we can hope for is that H5N1 becomes a much-hyped non-event.
First, in China it looks as though the virus has spread to pigs, as the Epoch Times reported Friday.
Zoology experts at Hunan Agriculture University say that since pig genes are similar to human genes, and that viruses of many animals can live and mutate in pigs, it becomes dangerous for humans once the virus has been found (sic) its way to pigs.
The second concern is over who is likely to be hardest hit by the virus. Instapundit quotes from an article in Forbes Friday (emphasis added).
Experiments with human cells have found the H5N1 virus can trigger levelsof inflammatory proteins called cytokines and chemokines that are more than 10 times higher than those that occur during a bout of the common flu.
This massive increase in cytokine and chemokine activity can inflame airways, making it hard to breathe. It also contributes to the unusual severity of the avian flu, which can result in life-threatening pneumonia and acute respiratory distress.
"This is basically a cytokine storm induced by this specific virus, which then leads to respiratory distress syndrome," [director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Michael T.] Osterholm said. "This also makes sense of why you tend to see a preponderance of severe illness in those who tend to be the healthiest, because the ability to increase the production of cytokines is actually higher in those who are not immune-compromised. It's more likely in those who are otherwise healthy."
It's possible the bird flu won't amount to much. It's possible the mutations will remain within the bird community, or maybe just the birds and the pigs. It's possible the disease won't become as virulent as some are warning about. It's possible.
But we can't afford to take that chance, because it's just as possible that this could be devastating. I've explained it before, but the non-scientific basics are this:
The H and N numbers aren't just arbitrary identification numbers. They indicate the structure of the particular virus, and the same H/N numbers mean the different strains are related. So if there was an outbreak of a strain of H3N2 forty years ago, the people who were exposed to it and survived have antibodies in their systems. If another strain of H3N2 hits next year, even though it's a different virus, the people from forty years ago will be better equipped to fight off the new strain and won't have as severe a reaction as people who have never been exposed to any H3N2 flu.
H5N1 has not been seen since the medical community started identifying flu strains this way, about 1900. So nobody alive today has related antibodies, so everybody is at risk for having a severe reaction--especially healthy people. If this flu mutates into a human-to-human form that spreads with casual contact or through airborne means, we're in trouble.
The best we can hope for is that H5N1 becomes a much-hyped non-event.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Which Middle Earth Race Are You?
I am a Numenorean.
I love quizzes--the ones that aren't for a grade. And this one is great. It's quick without being obvious which answers to pick to get you the "good" result.
Take the quiz here and learn which Middle Earth race you are. (Hat Tip: Hugh Hewitt)
I love quizzes--the ones that aren't for a grade. And this one is great. It's quick without being obvious which answers to pick to get you the "good" result.
Take the quiz here and learn which Middle Earth race you are. (Hat Tip: Hugh Hewitt)
Friday, November 11, 2005
Tinfoil Helmets
Nerd humor is priceless.
National Business Review reported Thursday on a "study" out of MIT from back in February of this year. A few guys at MIT took a serious look at the effectiveness of tinfoil helmets to resist mind control by aliens and governments. The abstract of the study reads:
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.
The experimenters, Ali Rahimi, Ben Recht, Jason Taylor, and Noah Vawter, tested three different helmet designs. These were the Classical (shaped close to the head), the Fez (a cylinder), and the Centurion (a high Mohawk look). All three designs amplified, rather than reduced, the frequencies used by the government and by cell phones.
The researchers concluded, "We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings." Indeed. Perhaps a followup study can look at the innovative design used in the movie "Signs."
The National Business Review's review of the study includes this astute assessment:
There's only one problem: The humour of the engineers is so deadpan, the findings are likely to be cited ad infinitum in conspiracy and UFO journals.
Oh, we should be so lucky.
National Business Review reported Thursday on a "study" out of MIT from back in February of this year. A few guys at MIT took a serious look at the effectiveness of tinfoil helmets to resist mind control by aliens and governments. The abstract of the study reads:
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.
The experimenters, Ali Rahimi, Ben Recht, Jason Taylor, and Noah Vawter, tested three different helmet designs. These were the Classical (shaped close to the head), the Fez (a cylinder), and the Centurion (a high Mohawk look). All three designs amplified, rather than reduced, the frequencies used by the government and by cell phones.
The researchers concluded, "We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings." Indeed. Perhaps a followup study can look at the innovative design used in the movie "Signs."
The National Business Review's review of the study includes this astute assessment:
There's only one problem: The humour of the engineers is so deadpan, the findings are likely to be cited ad infinitum in conspiracy and UFO journals.
Oh, we should be so lucky.
Veterans Day Thanks
Millions have fought in defense of our country and the values she stands for, and so many have given their lives.
My grandfather lied about his age to get into the Army in 1917. He died in 1979 of stomach cancer that resulted from being gassed during World War I. The doctors in 1918 had warned him that cancer would come. He continued to serve, and by World War II was training the troops. After WWII, he was stationed in France for two years, working with the department that was identifying the bodies of our war dead.
My father joined the Navy and served in the Korean War and officially in the Vietnam War, though he didn't see any action in Vietnam. He was a radioman in the submarine service during the Cold War, and he didn't tell any of us (even my mother) until the late 1990s about one time in particular when their sub was in imminent danger of being sunk off the coast of the Soviet Union, and nobody would have been the wiser.
Each veteran--past and present--has stories of courage and sacrifice witnessed or experienced, from the glorious to the mundane. It's an important work that our military does for us. I live and breathe in freedom because of what you and those before you have done.
Thank you. And happy Veterans Day.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Born in the USA
Hugh Hewitt, on his radio show today, asked John Eastman (one of "The Smart Guys") about his proposal to Congress that the citizenship laws be changed, based on the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The first paragraph of Section 1 of this amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
John Eastman is a professor of law at Chapman University, as is Hugh Hewitt. The other "Smart Guy," Erwin Chemerinsky, is a professor of law at Duke University (Hugh's list of regular guests, linked above, is out of date for Erwin, who used to be at USC).
Now to the issue: John reads this paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment with more emphasis on the second clause (" and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") than most people currently give. He cited case law on the air that's beyond my memory to repeat here, but his point was that some of the earliest rulings on challenges to this amendment came down on the side of determining where the person was subject to jurisdiction.
For instance (my "for instance," not John's), if a British family is visiting Disneyland and the pregnant mother goes into labor prematurely and has her baby in an Anaheim hospital, that baby will go home with his family to England, where he will be subject to the laws of the UK, not of the US. According to John, that baby should not be given American citizenship, since he does not meet the full criteria for being granted citizenship. And also according to John, Congress has the power to change the citizenship laws to clarify that the Disneyland baby would not qualify for US citizenship. This change would only need a statute from Congress, not another constitutional amendment, since the wording is already in the constitution.
In a rare moment, Hugh and Erwin come down on the same side of an issue, disagreeing with John over (I believe) both the constitutionality of John's proposal and the wisdom of it.
I can't speak to the constitutionality question, but then Hugh, Erwin, and John are all constitutional law professors and they almost never agree with each other either. But as Hugh said during the Harriet Miers debate, the Constitution isn't that hard to read and understand.
I'm with John on this one. It has always baffled me why we should give citizenship to babies born en route from one country to another. Or why we should dangle such an enticing carrot as "anchor babyhood" to encourage people to come here illegally. Of course the anchor baby issue requires the cooperation of the immigration folks who give naturalized-citizenship priority to the families of citizens. But the combination of instant citizenship and immigration priority draws people here illegally who might not otherwise come.
John's point is that these concerns can be addressed by Congress without having to resort to a constitutional amendment. And it sounds as though the House will be taking up the issue soon (as Congresspeople, not normal people, measure "soon"). It's about time!
The first paragraph of Section 1 of this amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
John Eastman is a professor of law at Chapman University, as is Hugh Hewitt. The other "Smart Guy," Erwin Chemerinsky, is a professor of law at Duke University (Hugh's list of regular guests, linked above, is out of date for Erwin, who used to be at USC).
Now to the issue: John reads this paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment with more emphasis on the second clause (" and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") than most people currently give. He cited case law on the air that's beyond my memory to repeat here, but his point was that some of the earliest rulings on challenges to this amendment came down on the side of determining where the person was subject to jurisdiction.
For instance (my "for instance," not John's), if a British family is visiting Disneyland and the pregnant mother goes into labor prematurely and has her baby in an Anaheim hospital, that baby will go home with his family to England, where he will be subject to the laws of the UK, not of the US. According to John, that baby should not be given American citizenship, since he does not meet the full criteria for being granted citizenship. And also according to John, Congress has the power to change the citizenship laws to clarify that the Disneyland baby would not qualify for US citizenship. This change would only need a statute from Congress, not another constitutional amendment, since the wording is already in the constitution.
In a rare moment, Hugh and Erwin come down on the same side of an issue, disagreeing with John over (I believe) both the constitutionality of John's proposal and the wisdom of it.
I can't speak to the constitutionality question, but then Hugh, Erwin, and John are all constitutional law professors and they almost never agree with each other either. But as Hugh said during the Harriet Miers debate, the Constitution isn't that hard to read and understand.
I'm with John on this one. It has always baffled me why we should give citizenship to babies born en route from one country to another. Or why we should dangle such an enticing carrot as "anchor babyhood" to encourage people to come here illegally. Of course the anchor baby issue requires the cooperation of the immigration folks who give naturalized-citizenship priority to the families of citizens. But the combination of instant citizenship and immigration priority draws people here illegally who might not otherwise come.
John's point is that these concerns can be addressed by Congress without having to resort to a constitutional amendment. And it sounds as though the House will be taking up the issue soon (as Congresspeople, not normal people, measure "soon"). It's about time!
Marine Corps Birthday
Happy Birthday, Marine Corps!
230 years and still strong.
Thanks for all you do.
We love you!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
CIA Leak Investigation Called For
Hugh Hewitt links to this brief post at The American Spectator, from earlier today. Fox News now has a fleshed-out story.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert are circulating a letter calling for a congressional leak investigation into the disclosure of secret U.S. interrogation centers abroad.
It's about dang time!
"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks," stated the letter, which Hastert's office said the House speaker had signed. There was no immediate word on whether Frist had given it his signature.
Compare the stakes involved in leaking this kind of information with the stakes involved in Valerie Plame's name getting in the papers. Absolutely no comparison. And yet, the Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces haven't let the Plame Blame Game stop for a minute.
When it comes to questions of national security, the Dems and the MSM simply cannot be trusted.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert are circulating a letter calling for a congressional leak investigation into the disclosure of secret U.S. interrogation centers abroad.
It's about dang time!
"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks," stated the letter, which Hastert's office said the House speaker had signed. There was no immediate word on whether Frist had given it his signature.
Compare the stakes involved in leaking this kind of information with the stakes involved in Valerie Plame's name getting in the papers. Absolutely no comparison. And yet, the Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces haven't let the Plame Blame Game stop for a minute.
When it comes to questions of national security, the Dems and the MSM simply cannot be trusted.
Lunar Scam in China
Many people are familiar with the Nigerian Scam. I had heard about it on Clark Howard's radio show before they took him off the radio stations I listen to here in Southern California. And then two weeks after Clark talked about it, I got an actual Nigerian Scam letter in the mail. It was too exciting!
But we don't hear much about scams coming out of China. Most of the concerns people have are related to forced/cheap labor and repressive policies. Since China loosened up its economy just a little, however, allowing a measure of capitalism, rogue capitalists have started doing what rogues everywhere do. They're ripping people off.
The AP reported yesterday about a scam that's out of this world. The Beijing Lunar Village Aeronautics Science and Technology Co. sold land on the moon, including mineral rights up to nearly two miles below the lunar surface. They issued certificates verifying the "authenticity" of the buyer's purchase, and were able to sell a total of 49 acres to 34 different buyers at a price of about $37 an acre. Then the Chinese government shut them down.
While this company's actions are reprehensible, their ingenuity is impressive. But I guess they have to go to the moon, since they don't have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell.
But we don't hear much about scams coming out of China. Most of the concerns people have are related to forced/cheap labor and repressive policies. Since China loosened up its economy just a little, however, allowing a measure of capitalism, rogue capitalists have started doing what rogues everywhere do. They're ripping people off.
The AP reported yesterday about a scam that's out of this world. The Beijing Lunar Village Aeronautics Science and Technology Co. sold land on the moon, including mineral rights up to nearly two miles below the lunar surface. They issued certificates verifying the "authenticity" of the buyer's purchase, and were able to sell a total of 49 acres to 34 different buyers at a price of about $37 an acre. Then the Chinese government shut them down.
While this company's actions are reprehensible, their ingenuity is impressive. But I guess they have to go to the moon, since they don't have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Lefty Party
I went to a friend's party Friday, after a grueling day of work and after trying to fight off a headache all day and not quite managing. My friend's Lefty Friend was going to be there, and LF had even asked if I would be there. Every time we've met, we've talked politics and had a really good time.
But this time, there was a new element in the mix. My friend's Dutch Roommate, a lefty Chemistry professor, was also there, and DR and LF have met and hit it off well, so they teamed up on me when I wasn't quite feeling up to the fight.
It's always interesting to find out which issues the Left sees as the most important. For LF and DR, it was Global Warming and by extension, the environment. Iraq wasn't important at all, because we only went there to line the pockets of President Bush's corporate friends (he has an MBA, so that proves he's a corporate guy). And besides, Bush isn't a scientist, because everyone knows that having an MBA does not qualify a president to be making the crucial scientific decisions that have to be made. I don't know how LF and DR think Bill Clinton's or Al Gore's or
John Kerry's law degree qualified them to make scientific decisions, but I didn't think to ask.
At one point, DR asked me what I thought was most important, and I said the war against Islamofascism. He took offense on behalf of Islam, and I had to tell him, "I didn't say 'Islam.' I said 'Islamofascism,'" and DR calmed down after that.
Later, LF asked me in a slightly different way what I thought was most important, and I said the judiciary, because we're fighting a non-violent civil war, and the war front is the court system (HT: Dennis Prager for the "civil war" terminology).
Both LF and DR were stunned that I could think anything was more important than the environment. They ganged up on me to get me to understand what kind of bully the US
is, by invading other countries, forcing our political agenda on them, and expecting them not to resent it. Of course they resent it, just as we would resent China invading us for our natural resources. What we need to do is stay completely out of other countries' business.
I pointed out that Saudi Arabia invited us in back in Gulf War days, and when they recently asked us to leave, we left. No overstaying our welcome. That wasn't enough to convince them, because they said the opinion polls show that Iraqis don't like having us there. LF said that if I could find an Iraqi-conducted opinion poll where the Iraqis actually liked having us there, then he'd concede the point. I haven't looked for a poll yet.
The conversation turned back to Global Warming, and when I hesitated, DR pounced. He declared that all the hurricanes this year were caused by Global Warming. I told him that the people at the National Hurricane Center had said on the air that the hurricanes were absolutely NOT caused by global warming, but DR disagreed. I suppose that the NHC spokesman's scientific credentials disintegrated the moment President Bush took office.
DR, along with LF and my friend, stated that Global Warming is absolute fact. There are only a handful of lunatic fringe scientists who don't agree with Global Warming, but they're the ones getting all the press. The threats to the world by Global Warming are very real and imminent. They've found mastadons frozen solid, with undigested food still in the stomach, so don't think the effects of Global Warming will come slowly. It's our duty as a superpower to impress on the other nations of the world what needs to be done to save the environment.
I pressed LF on that last point, and when he said that the US has the right to interfere with other countries, because the environment is too important an issue to ignore, I asked him if that was hypocrisy. He had made such a big deal about our staying out of other countries when the question was freedom, but we could go into other countries over Global Warming. He conceded that point to me.
Great party. I learned a lot about how "normal" lefties view the world, though I didn't make much headway with them. Then again, they didn't make any headway, either. All parties should be this much fun.
But this time, there was a new element in the mix. My friend's Dutch Roommate, a lefty Chemistry professor, was also there, and DR and LF have met and hit it off well, so they teamed up on me when I wasn't quite feeling up to the fight.
It's always interesting to find out which issues the Left sees as the most important. For LF and DR, it was Global Warming and by extension, the environment. Iraq wasn't important at all, because we only went there to line the pockets of President Bush's corporate friends (he has an MBA, so that proves he's a corporate guy). And besides, Bush isn't a scientist, because everyone knows that having an MBA does not qualify a president to be making the crucial scientific decisions that have to be made. I don't know how LF and DR think Bill Clinton's or Al Gore's or
John Kerry's law degree qualified them to make scientific decisions, but I didn't think to ask.
At one point, DR asked me what I thought was most important, and I said the war against Islamofascism. He took offense on behalf of Islam, and I had to tell him, "I didn't say 'Islam.' I said 'Islamofascism,'" and DR calmed down after that.
Later, LF asked me in a slightly different way what I thought was most important, and I said the judiciary, because we're fighting a non-violent civil war, and the war front is the court system (HT: Dennis Prager for the "civil war" terminology).
Both LF and DR were stunned that I could think anything was more important than the environment. They ganged up on me to get me to understand what kind of bully the US
is, by invading other countries, forcing our political agenda on them, and expecting them not to resent it. Of course they resent it, just as we would resent China invading us for our natural resources. What we need to do is stay completely out of other countries' business.
I pointed out that Saudi Arabia invited us in back in Gulf War days, and when they recently asked us to leave, we left. No overstaying our welcome. That wasn't enough to convince them, because they said the opinion polls show that Iraqis don't like having us there. LF said that if I could find an Iraqi-conducted opinion poll where the Iraqis actually liked having us there, then he'd concede the point. I haven't looked for a poll yet.
The conversation turned back to Global Warming, and when I hesitated, DR pounced. He declared that all the hurricanes this year were caused by Global Warming. I told him that the people at the National Hurricane Center had said on the air that the hurricanes were absolutely NOT caused by global warming, but DR disagreed. I suppose that the NHC spokesman's scientific credentials disintegrated the moment President Bush took office.
DR, along with LF and my friend, stated that Global Warming is absolute fact. There are only a handful of lunatic fringe scientists who don't agree with Global Warming, but they're the ones getting all the press. The threats to the world by Global Warming are very real and imminent. They've found mastadons frozen solid, with undigested food still in the stomach, so don't think the effects of Global Warming will come slowly. It's our duty as a superpower to impress on the other nations of the world what needs to be done to save the environment.
I pressed LF on that last point, and when he said that the US has the right to interfere with other countries, because the environment is too important an issue to ignore, I asked him if that was hypocrisy. He had made such a big deal about our staying out of other countries when the question was freedom, but we could go into other countries over Global Warming. He conceded that point to me.
Great party. I learned a lot about how "normal" lefties view the world, though I didn't make much headway with them. Then again, they didn't make any headway, either. All parties should be this much fun.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The Left Predicts the Demise of the GOP
I love the people of the Left. They're so sincerely earnest. And Common Dreams is quickly becoming one of my favorite lefty sites.
Common Dreams published a column today by David W. Orr, which is a sequel to his column published in January of this year. Both are titled, "The Imminent Demise of the Republican Party," Parts 1 and 2."
I'm not sure how Orr defines "imminent," but the dictionary says, "about to occur." If the demise of the GOP was imminent back in January, I'm not sure what happened. Last time I looked, they were still around.
Part 1 has some stunning analysis of the state of the GOP and its prospects:
Following the election of 2004, much has been made of the weaknesses of the Democratic Party, even its possible end. But it has escaped the notice of our blow-dry television pundits and political observers alike that the Republican Party, in the full blush of triumph in control of all the branches of government and large sections of the media, stands on the edge of certain extinction.... The question is not whether it will survive as presently constituted, but what else will be destroyed as it collapses in ruin and ignominy, sooner than later.
Orr lists ten "rules" of the Republican Party that are a series of things they deny, including my favorite: "Deny the necessity for civil discourse, honesty, and transparency in the conduct of public life, thereby holding the citizenry in contempt and promoting a spirit of meanness. "
Let me emphasize that last statement. It's the Republicans who are promoting a spirit of meanness in our country.
The Republican Party has chosen to deny social, ecological, cultural, religious, and economic realities which are unavoidably complicated, complex, diverse, ironic, and paradoxical. Instead they have chosen to make their own simplistic, ideological, and chauvinistic fantasy world that has little affinity for law, science, a free and independent press, fairness, true security, ecological sustainability, and the accountability that is requisite for genuine democracy.
This is the complete list of the Democrat talking points. But that was January.
Today's column is much more ferocious in its condemnation of the GOP:
[The Republican Party] forged an alliance between Southern racists, the extreme Christian right, big business, neo-conservatives, and a group of right-wing financiers willing to invest billions over several decades to build ideologically driven think tanks and a nation-wide media echo chamber to mislead the public and return the country to the world of the Robber Barons of the 19th century. They played the public for fools, covering their tracks with patriotic and religious rhetoric and devising ruinous policies too complex to be widely understood. But, driven by an extremist ideology and directed by ruthless leadership, radical Republicans will fall victim to overreach and its own particular kind of blindness. The recent legal difficulties of Lewis Libby, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and Jack Abramoff are only the tip of the iceberg. Other revelations are coming about the fabrication of the reasons for the mistaken war in Iraq. Still others will show a pattern of corruption and fraud at a scale for which we have no national precedent. Perhaps it is only a sign of hubris, but more likely it is growing evidence that the national Republican Party, having marginalized its wiser leaders and tossed good judgment overboard became a criminal enterprise given to deception and mendacity in order to cover grand theft at a national scale, all on behalf of something called their "base." But its mounting legal difficulties and decline in recent polls are evidence of deeper causes that will soon bring the entire enterprise to ruin.
Orr spells out the course of action that the Left needs to be prepared to take as soon as the GOP collapses. It's a fast track to a European-style socialist utopia. Read both parts of Orr's prophecy, because it reveals the unvarnished mindset of the Left. Fascinating and disturbing at the same time.
Common Dreams published a column today by David W. Orr, which is a sequel to his column published in January of this year. Both are titled, "The Imminent Demise of the Republican Party," Parts 1 and 2."
I'm not sure how Orr defines "imminent," but the dictionary says, "about to occur." If the demise of the GOP was imminent back in January, I'm not sure what happened. Last time I looked, they were still around.
Part 1 has some stunning analysis of the state of the GOP and its prospects:
Following the election of 2004, much has been made of the weaknesses of the Democratic Party, even its possible end. But it has escaped the notice of our blow-dry television pundits and political observers alike that the Republican Party, in the full blush of triumph in control of all the branches of government and large sections of the media, stands on the edge of certain extinction.... The question is not whether it will survive as presently constituted, but what else will be destroyed as it collapses in ruin and ignominy, sooner than later.
Orr lists ten "rules" of the Republican Party that are a series of things they deny, including my favorite: "Deny the necessity for civil discourse, honesty, and transparency in the conduct of public life, thereby holding the citizenry in contempt and promoting a spirit of meanness. "
Let me emphasize that last statement. It's the Republicans who are promoting a spirit of meanness in our country.
The Republican Party has chosen to deny social, ecological, cultural, religious, and economic realities which are unavoidably complicated, complex, diverse, ironic, and paradoxical. Instead they have chosen to make their own simplistic, ideological, and chauvinistic fantasy world that has little affinity for law, science, a free and independent press, fairness, true security, ecological sustainability, and the accountability that is requisite for genuine democracy.
This is the complete list of the Democrat talking points. But that was January.
Today's column is much more ferocious in its condemnation of the GOP:
[The Republican Party] forged an alliance between Southern racists, the extreme Christian right, big business, neo-conservatives, and a group of right-wing financiers willing to invest billions over several decades to build ideologically driven think tanks and a nation-wide media echo chamber to mislead the public and return the country to the world of the Robber Barons of the 19th century. They played the public for fools, covering their tracks with patriotic and religious rhetoric and devising ruinous policies too complex to be widely understood. But, driven by an extremist ideology and directed by ruthless leadership, radical Republicans will fall victim to overreach and its own particular kind of blindness. The recent legal difficulties of Lewis Libby, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and Jack Abramoff are only the tip of the iceberg. Other revelations are coming about the fabrication of the reasons for the mistaken war in Iraq. Still others will show a pattern of corruption and fraud at a scale for which we have no national precedent. Perhaps it is only a sign of hubris, but more likely it is growing evidence that the national Republican Party, having marginalized its wiser leaders and tossed good judgment overboard became a criminal enterprise given to deception and mendacity in order to cover grand theft at a national scale, all on behalf of something called their "base." But its mounting legal difficulties and decline in recent polls are evidence of deeper causes that will soon bring the entire enterprise to ruin.
Orr spells out the course of action that the Left needs to be prepared to take as soon as the GOP collapses. It's a fast track to a European-style socialist utopia. Read both parts of Orr's prophecy, because it reveals the unvarnished mindset of the Left. Fascinating and disturbing at the same time.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Scotland
My 2005 calendar is A Picture-A-Day(R) Wall Calendar of Great Britain, and today I remembered to flip it to November. This month has pictures of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
I've been to England, Ireland, and Scotland before, but not to Northern Ireland or Wales. And I've enjoyed the pictures of the other months, seeing so many places I haven't visited yet but would love to see sometime. But this month's pictures are stirring a yearning in my heart in a way that England's pictures didn't.
There's a certain wildness to Scotland, a wind that whips across heathered hills. Even on the sunniest and stillest of days, the weathered land whispers a promise of gale storms coming, of a chill and a downpour and a reason to spend the day indoors by a fire, sipping a cup of tea.
My calendar reminds me of the month I spent there--before children--bicycling on nearly deserted roads. It reminds me of rugged cliffs at the ocean's edge, of castle ruins on the Isle of Skye that once belonged to distant ancestors, of turbulent clouds and reflecting ponds and stone-built walls and cottages.
I ache as I look at the scenes of November. And I long to check airfares and look at the vacation schedule here at work and pick a time to go. But it wouldn't be long enough. Only a week to explore new islands and smell the earthy scent of peat and feel the wind bring color to my cheeks, only to have to come back home again.
Not long enough by a long shot.
I've been to England, Ireland, and Scotland before, but not to Northern Ireland or Wales. And I've enjoyed the pictures of the other months, seeing so many places I haven't visited yet but would love to see sometime. But this month's pictures are stirring a yearning in my heart in a way that England's pictures didn't.
There's a certain wildness to Scotland, a wind that whips across heathered hills. Even on the sunniest and stillest of days, the weathered land whispers a promise of gale storms coming, of a chill and a downpour and a reason to spend the day indoors by a fire, sipping a cup of tea.
My calendar reminds me of the month I spent there--before children--bicycling on nearly deserted roads. It reminds me of rugged cliffs at the ocean's edge, of castle ruins on the Isle of Skye that once belonged to distant ancestors, of turbulent clouds and reflecting ponds and stone-built walls and cottages.
I ache as I look at the scenes of November. And I long to check airfares and look at the vacation schedule here at work and pick a time to go. But it wouldn't be long enough. Only a week to explore new islands and smell the earthy scent of peat and feel the wind bring color to my cheeks, only to have to come back home again.
Not long enough by a long shot.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Hollywood and Normal America
"Jarhead" opens this Friday, and I probably won't go to see it.
Now, I go to the movies darn near every weekend, usually with The Girls after church, and sometimes with my daughter, who works at the movie theater. But when I see trailers for movies that look as though they want to tell me a Message, my hackles go up. Because Hollywood mangles almost every message they try to convey.
Not only do I go to the movies, though, I also buy the good ones on DVD. And on the "We Were Soldiers" DVD Special Features, General Hal Moore says that he saw movie after movie on the Vietnam War, and "Hollywood got it wrong every damn time." When he was approached by Randall Wallace for permission to make Moore's book into a movie, Moore didn't want to give his permission. It wasn't until Wallace sent Moore a copy of the script of "Braveheart" which was being filmed at the time, that Moore gave his OK on the condition that the studio didn't switch directors to someone besides Wallace. About his movie, Moore said, "They finally got it right."
The idea of Hollywood getting it wrong all the time is what makes me hesitant to see a lot of movies. I avoid all the lefty union-screaming movies (think: "Norma Rae") and the feminist-propaganda movies like the plague. No sense in paying Hollywood to beat me over the head with leftist claptrap.
When a movie looks like it could be good, but it also could be a left-swinging two-by-four coming upside my head, I'll wait to see it until after I hear from normal people that it's safe to watch. That's what I did with "North Country." Somebody at work said he thought it was good and didn't feel hit over the head with Message, so my friends and I saw it Saturday. It was good, and even though it covered a topic that could have been right-bashing, it wasn't, and for that I'm glad.
So I'm going to wait on "Jarhead." AOL News has an article today about the story behind making this movie, and it's not very encouraging.
Though it is seen through the eyes of eager Desert Storm soldiers, there are virtually no battle scenes in Jarhead. The movie takes no stand for or against the conflict. Some soldiers want out of the military. Others are desperate to stay.
Indeed, the men of Jarhead's platoon run the political gamut. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Swofford, a third-generation enlistee who quickly comes to regret his decision to join the military.
The main character is the carrier of a book/movie's message. So the Message of "Jarhead" is: You'll regret joining the military.
[Iraq] hasn't been easy terrain for filmmakers. The FX television show Over There, Steven Bochco's series based on the current Iraq war, is expected to be canceled because of poor ratings.
Funny, the blogs I read when "Over There" started said that the show was the Left's stereotypes of the Vietnam War, only in dirt instead of jungles. Of course Vietnam in the desert won't get good ratings.
The problem isn't Iraq. The problem isn't even Vietnam. The problem is that anti-military left-wingers are making movies about the military. The problem is guys like this, quoted in the AOL article (emphasis added):
"The Iraq war has entered an uncertain phase of undetermined length," says Kevin Hagopian, a film historian and professor at Penn State University. "No matter how supportive these dramas may be toward the American troops ... these dramas simply remind Americans of all political stripes that we're in a military quagmire."
These dramas are not supportive toward the American troops. And we're not in a quagmire. Jeez!
My church has lots of military, including some Marines, and we love these men and women and their families. And I want to see movies that show that same respect for what these people do and give themselves to. So I'll listen for Michael Medved's review of "Jarhead" and for Emmett of the Unblinking Eye's review. If both reviews aren't wholehearted endorsement of the movie, I'm not going.
Every time Hollywood makes a movie that trashes our military, I'll be sure not to give them one thin dime in support of that movie. And when they manage to make a movie that truly supports our military (like "We Were Soldiers"), I'll go see that movie in the theaters and then buy it on DVD, because I want to give them my own Message.
Now, I go to the movies darn near every weekend, usually with The Girls after church, and sometimes with my daughter, who works at the movie theater. But when I see trailers for movies that look as though they want to tell me a Message, my hackles go up. Because Hollywood mangles almost every message they try to convey.
Not only do I go to the movies, though, I also buy the good ones on DVD. And on the "We Were Soldiers" DVD Special Features, General Hal Moore says that he saw movie after movie on the Vietnam War, and "Hollywood got it wrong every damn time." When he was approached by Randall Wallace for permission to make Moore's book into a movie, Moore didn't want to give his permission. It wasn't until Wallace sent Moore a copy of the script of "Braveheart" which was being filmed at the time, that Moore gave his OK on the condition that the studio didn't switch directors to someone besides Wallace. About his movie, Moore said, "They finally got it right."
The idea of Hollywood getting it wrong all the time is what makes me hesitant to see a lot of movies. I avoid all the lefty union-screaming movies (think: "Norma Rae") and the feminist-propaganda movies like the plague. No sense in paying Hollywood to beat me over the head with leftist claptrap.
When a movie looks like it could be good, but it also could be a left-swinging two-by-four coming upside my head, I'll wait to see it until after I hear from normal people that it's safe to watch. That's what I did with "North Country." Somebody at work said he thought it was good and didn't feel hit over the head with Message, so my friends and I saw it Saturday. It was good, and even though it covered a topic that could have been right-bashing, it wasn't, and for that I'm glad.
So I'm going to wait on "Jarhead." AOL News has an article today about the story behind making this movie, and it's not very encouraging.
Though it is seen through the eyes of eager Desert Storm soldiers, there are virtually no battle scenes in Jarhead. The movie takes no stand for or against the conflict. Some soldiers want out of the military. Others are desperate to stay.
Indeed, the men of Jarhead's platoon run the political gamut. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Swofford, a third-generation enlistee who quickly comes to regret his decision to join the military.
The main character is the carrier of a book/movie's message. So the Message of "Jarhead" is: You'll regret joining the military.
[Iraq] hasn't been easy terrain for filmmakers. The FX television show Over There, Steven Bochco's series based on the current Iraq war, is expected to be canceled because of poor ratings.
Funny, the blogs I read when "Over There" started said that the show was the Left's stereotypes of the Vietnam War, only in dirt instead of jungles. Of course Vietnam in the desert won't get good ratings.
The problem isn't Iraq. The problem isn't even Vietnam. The problem is that anti-military left-wingers are making movies about the military. The problem is guys like this, quoted in the AOL article (emphasis added):
"The Iraq war has entered an uncertain phase of undetermined length," says Kevin Hagopian, a film historian and professor at Penn State University. "No matter how supportive these dramas may be toward the American troops ... these dramas simply remind Americans of all political stripes that we're in a military quagmire."
These dramas are not supportive toward the American troops. And we're not in a quagmire. Jeez!
My church has lots of military, including some Marines, and we love these men and women and their families. And I want to see movies that show that same respect for what these people do and give themselves to. So I'll listen for Michael Medved's review of "Jarhead" and for Emmett of the Unblinking Eye's review. If both reviews aren't wholehearted endorsement of the movie, I'm not going.
Every time Hollywood makes a movie that trashes our military, I'll be sure not to give them one thin dime in support of that movie. And when they manage to make a movie that truly supports our military (like "We Were Soldiers"), I'll go see that movie in the theaters and then buy it on DVD, because I want to give them my own Message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)