Alpine Summit

Monday, October 31, 2005

It's About Time!

So Bush finally nominates a "good" person for the SCOTUS. I'm much happier about this guy, though as I said before, I wasn't too concerned about Miers. I didn't think she was a great candidate like Roberts, and after seeing how she splintered the base so much I'm glad she stepped aside so this guy could get the nod.

Lee has his thoughts here. He puts things quite succinctly.

How to translate Bush: “One the most accomplished and respected judges in America” means “He’s not my lawyer, he’s got a clue what he’s doing, and he actually deserves the job I just offered him.” “A deep commitment to justice” means “He’s against abortion.”

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup of the blogosphere as well as her own thoughts here.

Experienced. Well-thought-of by conservative constitutional scholars. Not a diversity/crony pick. Young. This is a nominee the Right can get behind.

More bio/background from Wikipedia (for what it's worth).

She also mentions how it's a good sign Harry Reid doesn't like this guy. I agree whole-heartedly.

Alito seems a lot more like a "Roberts" nomination though a bit more conservative. I'm perfectly fine with that. It's going to drive the libs nuts, but who cares? He may be conservative, but from what I know about him so far he's a principled constructionist. I'm fully expecting to hear about Alito getting a 'C' on law test in high school before hearing about his just constitutional rulings.

UPDATE: Power-Line comments on the ultimate futility of trying to guess Alito's politics based on his circuit court rulings.

This changes once a judge is appointed to the Supreme Court. As a Supreme Court justice, he is entitled to follow his own views on the proper interpretation of the Constitution and of federal statutes. He is not bound to follow the Court's past rulings as a Court of Appeals judge is; instead, he is constrained only by the looser concept of stare decisis, the doctrine that an issue, once decided, should ordinarily not be revisited. Stare decisis is a doctrine that, in principle, is approved of by both liberals and conservatives (historically, more so by conservatives). But everyone agrees there are occasions when the Court should deviate from the usual rule of fidelity to its own past decisions. The Court does, and should, overrule itself when it becomes convinced that an important issue has been wrongly decided. Where liberals and conservatives disagree is not on this principle, but on its application; they have different lists of "wrongly decided" cases. During Judge Alito's confirmation hearing, you will hear Democratic Senators ask for his views on stare decisis and try to lead him to pledge fealty to bulwarks of liberal jurisprudence like Roe v. Wade. But the liberals' enthusiasm for stare decisis is selective.

So, his politics are important because his opinion will be considered legal opinion--not just his opinion on constitutional matters. I can see where a constructionist's views would be scary to liberals.

Also, he talks about stare decisis which is really a relativistic common law doctrine that really gets trumped up by a particular political side when it benefits them. I'm really not concerned with Alito on this because while it is a big factor in Supreme Court decisions, it can be changed anytime and any previous decisions overturned by future cases.


Friday, October 28, 2005

More Liberal Bias

Wednesday, the New York Times published a verbose article on the "grim milestone" and cited a death letter written by Cpl. Jeffery B. Starr, USMC. Here's what the times copied from the letter:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

Well, it seems he resigned himself to death and didn't really care about the cause, right? Well here's what Cpl. Starr's uncle had to say to Michelle Malkin:

Yesterday's New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.

Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey's story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: "If we (Americans) don't do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can."

Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.

He wrote: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what's going on. It would honor Jeffrey's memory if you would publish the rest of his story.

Cpl. Starr believed in what he was doing and :gasp: WANTED to be in Iraq helping others. I have no doubt that his death will be defiled by the left in an attempt to advance their own agenda... oh wait, too late. There's also a letter from June written to the Sand Diego Tribune by Cpl. Starr's uncle. The letter is great except that it's followed by some leftist whining whose author probably celebrated Starr's death the other day.

Getting back to the New York Times, notice how they left out his support for the Iraq war and only focused on how he expected to die. In an article where they use the term "grim milestone," this article is anything but unbiased (journalism, in theory, should not use adjectives FYI).

As an aside, I think it's important to note that it's the blogsophere that again exposes such blatant liberal bias in the MSM.

I really love the business section of the New York Times, but the rest of the paper is worse than toilet paper (at least TP has a use) and because of that, I will never subscribe to it. Plus, the internet is more or less free and far more current than anything in print.


Thursday, October 27, 2005

The "2000" Parties Follow-Up

LGF links to this post on zombietime illustrating (literally) the glee these liberals had. The defense here was that they were "vigils" or otherwise solemn events. The REALITY (unlike the defense) is that these people are happy 2000 soldiers have died because now they can whine about the war even more.

Another question: how can they say "our honored and honorable soldiers" when they're doing the work of eeevil kkkapitalist imperialists? The very nature of their work would be (following that logic) dishonorable. LGF cites Peter Daou who says the following:

I find this rash of posts suggesting that anti-war activists “celebrate” the deaths of American soldiers to be both tragic and telling.

Tragic, because it represents a descent into depraved, gutter-level slander as a form of argumentation, and it is a profoundly un-American approach to a most American of activities: dissent. Telling, because it means these bloggers have nothing left to justify the deaths of Americans in Iraq but desperate and transparent attacks on those who want our troops home.

Dissent is indeed an American activity, mainly because nobody was able to before-hand. However, wishing failure on our troops where their lives depend on succeeding, is indeed patently anti-American; not to mention using the deaths of these volunteers for their own political gain.

Daou assigns a moral equivalence to any kind of dissent and makes no distinction of "good" dissent ("I think the war in Iraq is wrong because of the human and monetary cost with marginal benefit to others") and "bad" dissent ("I hope our troops all come home in body bags because I hate this country--yeearrrrgh!").

Unfortunately, the position of the liberals on this issue is unable to stand up to intellectual and moral scrutiny, so the only way to maintain the criticism is to sacrifice patriotism. Something I find liberals are more than willing to do on just about any international matter in which the United States is involved.

Blackfive has his own response to Daou's column.

Peter quotes another blogger then wraps up by paraphrasing from the blogger:

...Bottom line: If Malkin, LGF, and Blackfive think opponents of the Iraq war are "celebrating" the deaths of American troops, let them answer the basic paradox of their position, namely, how is it that wanting our troops NOT to die is worse than wanting them to remain in the line of fire?

Well, in order to answer this one-sided question, I can't speak for anyone but myself.

Of course, I don't want our troops to die. I've lost three very good friends in this war. I talk to my friend's widow every week. I've had several friends wounded. And I've visited wounded heroes. I've met Iraqis, too.

They aren't numbers to me. That's why I blog. That's why folks like Peter Daou and others on the far left side of the aisle don't want me to have an opinion.

Some things are worth fighting for. A free Iraq is worth fighting for. A free Middle East is worth fighting for. A world free of terrorism is worth fighting for.

My friends believed that, too.

The people that are against a free Iraq are people that don't believe that anything is worth fighting for.

Being a military brat, I have met far too many military personel to see them as just numbers, either. I haven't shared the same experiences as being in a fox hole with someone, but I can't see them as anything but people trying to get through this life just like the rest of us.


Wednesday, October 26, 2005

No. Shame. Whatsoever.

(From: AJ Strata via Michelle Malkin) My answer: As many as it takes, but no more than is necessary to ensure freedom for millions. is a horrible left-wing site that cares nothing for those soldiers, other than the fact that they can use them for political capital. To these people, the honored dead of this country are nothing more to them than pawns for their own anti-American campaign.

Speaking of left-wing whackos, they got some bad news today when the "quagmire" in Iraq produced a ratified constitution with only 4 provinces voting against it. Why is this bad news to them? Because from the outset, they have done nothing but naysay, criticize, and predict utter failure in Iraq because that's what they wanted.

Incidentally, this news story is a great example of liberal bias in the media (again!). Note how it opens with the good news, and then quickly dives into the "this news as the death toll reached 2000 soldiers..." Sure it's news, but it doesn't belong in an article about the ratification of the Iraqi constitution! It's tempering the good news with some bad news just to keep the tone of "quagmire" in the minds of all those reading it. Unfortunately, journalistic spin can't overcome what obvious good news this is.

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's new constitution was formally ratified Tuesday after an overwhelming 79 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of the draft, but the result also revealed the deep sectarian divisions that threaten the country's still precarious future.

The passage of the constitution was accompanied by the passing of another grim milestone: the 2,000th American death in a 2 1/2-year-old war that shows no signs of winding down.

Hours after Iraqi officials in Baghdad confirmed the passage of the constitution the Pentagon announced that Staff Sgt. George Alexander Jr. of Killeen, Texas, had died of wounds suffered in an Oct. 17 roadside bombing in the town of Samarra, bringing to 2,000 the number of American deaths since the March 21, 2003, invasion.

He was also the 30th serviceman to die since the Oct. 15 referendum, an event that U.S. officials hoped would turn the tide of violence and enable American troops to start going home. But the bitter differences evident in the referendum results could also lead to renewed violence, embroiling U.S. forces even more.

In response to the 2000-mark news, and all the parties libs are throwing around the country for this momentous occasion, Lt. Col. Steve Boylan comments thusly:

"I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq," Boylan said in an e-mail. "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."

So if the soldiers, the ones who these whackos are supposedly doing this for, don't like how they're using the honored dead, then who, exactly, are they doing it for? Oh, that's right! Themselves. Michelle Malkin's latest column covers this whole deal in better detail and recaps the whole story using Casey Sheehan's mother as face for this (bowel) movement.

Our cause in Iraq is just; it's helping others in the world, who can't help themselves, learn to help themselves. Those who are against this war are implicitly for the continued torture and oppression of the Iraqi people because they wanted Saddam to stay in power. There is NO (zero, nada, nyet, non) WAY that simple fact can be resolved using a platform of non-violence. Therefore, those against the forceful overthrow of Saddam are also against the democratic elections of a parliament, prime minister, etc. Liberals have been continually proving themselves to be on the wrong side of history, and this is no different.

Now, if only Bush would start acting like the President I re-elected...


Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Al Franken Is An Idiot

Michelle Malkin (AGAIN! That woman never stops!) links to a promo video of Al Franken pushing his latest America-hating screed (a.k.a. "book") where he proceeds to beat up a conservative. Take a look at it and read Michelle's thoughts on the issue... she has tons of linkage on it.

What I don't get is that liberals are always talking about how violence doesn't solve anything, how we're all supposed to be nice, live in peace, and float around like angels as if reality is just something we can all change at will--if only everyone would cooperate. I submit that any liberal who finds this funny in any way, and was opposed to ANY war EVER is a hypocrite. Why? Because this violence (unlike the Iraq or other wars in the past) was purely emotionally-driven and proved absolutely no point. As Michelle says, it's merely cathartic rather than comical.

I also find it interesting that Franken's "conservative" admits to not even reading the book and just being a "right-wing jerk" who only gave the book one star. When Hannity's new book "Deliver Us From Evil" hadn't even been released, liberals were actually organizing to write up bad reviews of the book before it was even released! Quickly browsing through the latest entries, I still see the one-starred reviews starting off with "I'm a moderate..." or "I'm an independent who looks at both sides..." in a pathetic attempt to establish ethos with the reader.

The thing that pushed me towards the conservative movement, other than actually having good ideas, is the fact that conservatives are principled and all around gracious people. They don't stoop to using such tactics to selling a book. You can bet that if they did though, they'd be demonized by everyone in the MSM and perhaps even dropped by their distributor. Liberals always seem to get away with this sort of stupid, childish behavior.


The Bush Man Cometh

Former President George H.W. Bush is coming to speak at my school today with former Senator Al Simpson on the current political state of the country. I'll post an update later tonight on how it went.

I've heard rumors the hippies are going to protest the war etc. I'll no doubt whine about that later too.


Monday, October 24, 2005

Churches and Politics = Oil and Water

Michelle Malkin links to a story about how a Democrat running for govenor has been giving and loaning money to black churches and has thus received the endorsement of the ministers at those churches.

"Blatant quid pro quo-ism," said Democrat Walter Fields, Jr., former political director of New Jersey's NAACP. "We have always had wealthy candidates running for office. What we have never had is that individual wealth being used in such a direct way, and somehow we're supposed to look the other way."

It's nice to see a principled liberal speak out against this. It's quite surprising, actually. I've said before how I think churches should stay out of politics. Their job is to provide for the religious requirements of its congregation. When a church takes an official stance on a political issue, it alienates part of its congregation (theoretically). Plus, Jesus was never concerned with the politics of the day. When asked about a controversial tax, he replied "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's" (Mat 22:21, Mar 12:17, Luk 20:25).

That said, Jesus also didn't like those who used people's faith as a way to make money (Mat 21:12 Mar 11:15, Joh 2:15). For a minister to use his/her position as a religious leader to make money is despicable. I'm absolutely amazed that this would even be going on! I only hope they see that what they are doing is wrong and correct their mistake. Churches all have money problems--to me, that's a good sign.

A church that is more concerned with staying in the black is not following Christ in faith. It's really amazing how a church can completely do the "illogical" thing when it comes to finances, but the lord provides for them anyway. Last week, I heard a sermon from a campus pastor at one of the Christian groups on campus about how his house was built. Several people came out of nowhere to donate their time and materials to have the house built. For example, the tile and tile work in the whole house was free! The pastor didn't have any money to afford a house, but stepped out in faith that the lord would provide, and he did. Such things conflict with my deist view of God, but then I never said I had all the answers either.

The Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council and pastor of St. Matthew's AME Church in Orange, N.J., said black ministers have been making personal endorsements of candidates since 1981. The council does not make endorsements.

The problem with this defense is that the pastors are representatives of the church as a whole. A personal endorsement isn't much different from an official endorsement. Because of that, I think the church should end this practice. It's like the PR guy of a company saying "personally, I think what the company is doing is wrong, but officially I support the view of the company." It isn't the place of the PR guy to use his position to further his own opinion.


Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault

I haven't been too thrilled with the news lately, so I figure I'll blog about my latest gratuitous purchase.

I recently purchased Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault. I really shouldn't have, but I did anyway. I won't bore you with the dramatic details of my constant lack of money, but suffice it to say, I'm going hungry this month for the sake of a piece of software; but I've wanted this game since it came out last year. It's actually worth it, though.

The "Medal of Honor" series has been really great. Pacific Assault starts off on a D-Day landing on Tarawa Atoll where you eventually die. At first, I thought it was a really short-lived game, but then you start two years earlier at boot camp and you go on from there.

The game is actually pretty good. As I said, I really liked the previous MOH games and PA is no different. You play the role of Tom Conolin, a member of the 2nd Raiders. I often wonder how, if the game is anything like how the war actually was, anybody could have gotten through it unscathed. I like how you get to use the heavy weapons more than the previous games. In one part, you actually get a portable medium machine gun which is awesome. Some other guns you get to use are AA cannons of varying models, plane-mounted .50 cal's, and artillery among other things. Speaking of planes, you actually get to fly in dogfights, etc. which is really cool. Right now, I have to sink a japanese carrier and support ship.

A couple of problems I have with the game include not being able to choose your gun. So far, my favorites are the Japanese sniper rifle, the M1 Garand, and the Thompson SMG. The shotgun isn't too bad, either. The BAR isn't too bad (it can shoot down planes) but it runs out of ammo really fast. Plus, it's hard to kill the Japanese. Direct head shots are shaken off and it usually takes a second shot to finish them. The controls are a bit awkward too, but can be reset pretty easily.

MOH:PA isn't the most current WW2 FPS game out there, but it's really cool and a lot of fun. So if you're looking for a new game on the cheap, this would be a good one to get. The latest WW2 FPS I know of that came out is Call of Duty 2. I downloaded the demo for it and though the controls are nice, the gameplay is somewhat awkward.


Friday, October 21, 2005

Mammalian Contradiction

I was watching the history channel last night, and they had a "Modern Marvels" episode about butchers. As they were explaining how this mobile butcher dispatches the cattle, it occured to me that this is perhaps a bit of a distasteful business--at least that aspect of it. I also figured the PETAphiles would take issue with killing the intelligent and majestic cow in a similarly idioticly militant way the Sheehan's and Moore's do with the Iraq war.

What occured to me was that there are so-called "solders" against the Iraq war, right? By the way, I put quotes there because they may, in fact, be imposters seeking ethos for their argument--as per Vietnam protests.

Anyway, I thought to myself: if there is a "soldiers against self defense and preservation " group, is there a "Butchers for PETA" group? I can only imagine.


Thursday, October 20, 2005

Chasing Tail

(Via: Instapundit) According to a USA Today article, women are going to college more than men, and the gap is widening.

As women march forward, more boys seem to be falling by the wayside, McCorkell says. Not only do national statistics forecast a continued decline in the percentage of males on college campuses, but the drops are seen in all races, income groups and fields of study, says policy analyst Thomas Mortenson, publisher of the influential Postsecondary Education Opportunity newsletter in Oskaloosa, Iowa. Since 1995, he has been tracking — and sounding the alarm about — the dwindling presence of men in colleges. . . .

But even as evidence of a problem — a crisis, some say — mounts, "there's a complacency about this topic," McCorkell says.

There has been no outcry, for example, on the scale of a highly publicized 1992 report by the American Association of University Women, How Schools Short-Change Girls, which compiled reams of research on gender inequities.

That study "really ... got people to focus on girls ... (but) there is no big network that protects the needs of boys," says family therapist Michael Gurian, author of the just-published The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life, which argues that elementary and secondary schools aren't meeting the developmental needs of boys.

I'm wondering if some economic theory might not apply here. I know guys are always chasing women, and perhaps the incentive for guys to go to college will change from being academic to evolutionary. If that happens, it would be quite a paradigm change since many girls today are going to college simply to find a guy to marry and settle down. The statistics would then return to equilibrium for college attendance.

I know that if I'm rich in my later years, I'm setting up a college fund for only white males to any university in the country. After all, it's only fair.


Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Oh Give Me Land, Lots of Land

This week's Carnival of the Capitalists features a post by Half Sigma about how the density of a city's population is inversely proportional to its economic efficiency. In other words, the more people there are in a city, the less efficient everyone is.

There are a lot of pro-public transportation liberals who think that we would all be better off if we lived in dense urban environments where we could take public transportation and not have to waste resources driving around in our own individual cars.

Does this make sense from an economics viewpoint? Based on how expensive it is to live in New York City, the answer is a big loud NO.

He doesn't actually give numbers or point to research, but given that prices are so much higher in cities, I'm inclined to agree. He has two theories as to why these inefficiencies occur:


Dense populations create transportational and space inefficiencies.



Densely populated areas attract liberals, who elect liberal politicians who then pass into law economically inefficient liberal politices. Like rent control, wasteful government spending which necessitates high taxes, and all sorts of burdensome regulations which increase the cost of doing business.

Considering the fact that it's pretty much irrefutable that dense areas of the country are decidedly liberal (NYC, LA, Seattle, etc.), I completely agree with theory two--but I don't know if it necessarily contributes to economic inefficiencies. I mean, some of the "added" costs of funding social programs already existed. Some things are just so well-funded, no new taxes are needed. On the other hand, they're still costs not being paid by other cities and towns around the nation, so I guess that much is true.

This is why I like suburban/rural-suburban areas like Laramie, WY. Most people here have a live-and-let-live attitude about things, while it seems to me that people in the city are always looking for ways to poke their nose into your affairs. Not to mention lower cost of living. Unfortunately, given my chosen field of expertise, I'm probably doomed to not only live in a city, but New York City at least once in my life. Such is life I guess.


Monday, October 17, 2005

Forgiveness is A Wonderful Thing

So I've been dealing with a personal demon and didn't even realize why until today; I had wronged a person a couple of years ago and ruined what could have been an amicable parting of the ways. So, I contacted this individual today and not only did they forgive me, but they got baptized a year ago! Talk about crazy weird. I don't think we're friends per se, but we're now at least on friendly terms. It's a wonderful thing, forgiveness.

It's moments like this that assure me there is, in fact, a God and he actually loves me. The Bible says to ask forgiveness for our sins in Jesus' name. I'm amazed that, despite my own mind, I followed the urging of the spirit to contact this person and initiate a long-overdue resolution. Everytime I follow the Bible, even when it goes against my "better" judgement, it turns out 10 times better than I expected it-- in fact, when I expect things to simply go to crap, they go the opposite direction. When I simply trust in God and His wisdom, I never cease to be amazed by Him or His infinite grace.


Good News from Iraq

So Iraq seems to just about have a brand-spanking-new constitution. I don't recall hearing anything about this on the usual news channels; but then, I don't really watch them that much anymore. Indepundit has the juicy parts of the story. He seems to miss something though:

Over all, the nationwide referendum unfolded with remarkably little violence. There were only nine attacks in Baghdad, American military officials said, a small fraction of the usual daily number. One Iraqi civilian was killed in the capital while casting his vote, and a handful of Iraqi soldiers were killed elsewhere.

He doesn't mention (which I think should be mentioned as much and as often as possible) that voting, for Iraqi civillians, is a life-or-death decision. People here in the U.S. don't seem to realize that, I think.

Indepundit concludes with a rhetorical question of whether or not the America-haters (liberal or otherwise) will either try to spin this or just ignore it. I think they'll ignore it since they said this simply wouldn't happen at all. There's no way to spin this without at least acknowledging that they were wrong, and liberals are never akin to doing that.


Friday, October 14, 2005


So last night I went to Cheyenne with my recruiter to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). My unofficial raw score is a 93 out of 99. I know if it were a test in school that's an 'A,' but since I only need roughly a 30 to pass, I'm not quite sure how the grading scheme goes. The recruiter said my score is "good" for what I'm aiming for though, so ROCKIN'!

Anyway, that's the latest from my efforts to join the officer ranks of the Army. I still need to finish my "Essential Information for Application Worksheet" which involves getting promises from people to write letters of recommendation, proof of living in certain areas, specific dates for some speeding violations, and other such things. There's also the 2-page essay I have to write about "why I want to be an Army officer" which shouldn't be too difficult.

Going a bit off-topic here: Dadmanly, thanks for the kind words and suggestions. I checked out the 98C you recommended and I would actually be more interested in intelligence analysis than intel gathering. My sister is trying to get into the Army now, and that's more up her alley.

Oh! After the test, the recruiter took us (I was with one other guy) to dinner which was pretty cool--FREE FOOD! It was a mini-celebration since he's getting the college money he wanted and I'm (still) competitive for OCS. We went to a place called Culver's which has awesome fast food. If you ever run into one, don't miss the opportunity to go. They also have custard!


Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Again, With the Liberal Bias

Shamalama links to an AP story about Miers owning a gun.

AUSTIN, Texas – Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, who once owned a .45-caliber revolver, is not licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas. State officials refused Monday to reveal whether she has ever been licensed.

Miers' brother gave her the Smith & Wesson handgun when he was worried about her living alone in Dallas. Judge Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, a longtime friend of Miers', has said she kept the gun for a long time.

It's interesting, because all the article says is she owned the gun--not that she carried it around with her. This is a perfect example of how the MSM spins and distorts a story to make it sound like there was wrongdoing or some kind of improper conduct. Not to mention the subject matter. Luckily, they do mention the distinction:

A person in Texas can own a gun without a concealed handgun license. Texas is one of 43 states that allow concealed weapons, and more than 230,000 residents are registered under the law.

This is probably shocking and disturbing in the mind of a liberal, and since a liberal wrote this (most likely), figured it would add to the ominous nature of Miers owning a gun. Shamalama's hyperbole was descriptive.

A person who may end up as one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court actually owned a gun! You know, one of those Items Of War that go out, on their own, and kill people.

This is also the biggest non-story I've ever seen! Who cares if she owned a gun?! If there was some kind of law broken that involved the gun then that's a different story; but to simply mention that someone owns/owned a gun at some point in history really isn't news-- unless of course, you have a political axe to grind against your political enemies, or wish to fire up opponents.

While I'm on the subject of Miers, I might as well elaborate on why I really don't care about this nomination. While I am a bit upset Bush is picking another crony for a high-level job, I'm utterly convinced that the worst-case scenario is that the Supreme Court remains the way it is since she's replacing Sandra O'Connor--who was thought to be conservative when nominated, but turned out to be liberal on many issues. Best-case scenario: we get more conservatives on the bench and liberal legal battles will fail. Either way, I'm happy.


Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Les Français sont perdants: Part Deux

(Via LGF): So, why did the French oppose the Iraq war? Oh yeah. Money.

PARIS (AFP) - Jean-Bernard Merimee, France’s former representative at the UN Security Council, was taken into custody by a judge investigating corruption linked to the Iraqi “oil-for-food” programme.

Merimee, 68, was being questioned over allegations he may have benefited from oil allocations granted under the programme by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein between 1996 and 2003.

Merimee was France’s UN ambassador from 1991 to 1995. He was then named ambassador to Italy, and from 1999 to 2002 he was a special adviser to UN secretary-general Kofi Annan on European issues.

Five people have already been placed under judicial investigation by judge Philippe Courroye in connection with the “oil-for-food” affair.

They are Serge Boidevaix, former secretary-general at the French foreign ministry; businessman Claude Kaspereit; Bernard Guillet, an adviser to former French interior minister Charles Pasqua; Gilles Munier, head of an Iraqi-French friendship society; and Palestinian journalist Hamida Nana.

4 of the 5 people under investigation for the oil-for-food scandal are, YOU GUESSED IT, French (and one Palestinian... another shocker)! What a surprise. France has not been an ally to the U.S. nor to oppressed people in the world for several years now... at the very least. At most, they've been downright hostile towards these groups, as well as friendly and supportive of the oppressors for the sake of their own pockets.


The Left and "Free Speech"

Dadmanly writes up a good analysis of this leftist at "Seeing the Forest" who's scared because his worldview is losing in the (now) balanced marketplace of ideas. The discussion was touched off by a blackfive post about journalists and the military. Says Blackfive:

At some point, you have to pick sides. Not choosing a side is choosing not to be on our side.


Update 2: For some reason some lefty bloggers are taking the choosing sides statement to mean choosing parties. It's not about choosing parties - it's about the American media supporting the soldier and the war effort. It's not about the media towing the line for Rumsfeld - it's about the media telling the truth about the war and not taking their queues from terrorists. It's not about being Right or Left - it's about making sure the soldiers come home to a grateful nation. It's not about Cindy Sheehan - it's about Casey Sheehan. We have thousands of war heroes. Can you name twenty? Ten? Five?

I've been fed up with the MSM for some time now. Even stories involving rebuilding (the few there are) of Iraq are either prefixed or suffixed by: "...this, as the death toll for American troops reaches..." It makes me sick and Blackfive makes a great point. The leftists though, are more concerned with criticizing America and are decidedly anti-American and anti-troops. Their only hope to not be called out as such is to "muddy the water" with wishy-washy relativism and trying to force a little grey into a decidedly black-and-white issue. Dadmanly's thoughts on the media are similar to mine, and only because I've read several milblogger's sites over the past several months.

It has everything to do with willful ignorance and misreporting of facts on the ground, "ground truth" as we say. We are here, and see what is to be seen every day. Many less reputable (and certainly less honorable) members of the press peddle falsehoods, actively promulgate propaganda from sworn enemies of the United States, hire Terrorist accomplices masquerading as "freelancers," and otherwise seek to turn every news report into a childish exercise of "how can we use this to make Bush look bad?"

Either left leaning commentators like Johnson are too biased to see that for what is is, or they think we (and a majority of your fellow Americans) are too stupid to see it.

If the press will publish bad news, at least just stick to facts. Avoid subjectivity and judgment. Present context. Maintain perspective. Recognize agendas. Don't be a patsy, any fool can tell when something's staged. If some positive news can be included, that would be nice too.

If it weren't for MILBLOGGERS, there'd be no positive voices out there at all. And yet as few as we are, you suggest we should be silenced, and portray us as those who would deny anyone the right to dissent or vocalize their opinion.

What's interesting is that this lefty assumes a republican bias in the military. I guess that's why it's always such an event when someone who actually was in the military (because, as during the vietnam war, many posed as veterans when they had in-fact never left the country in their life), and speaks out against things in which they participated, are at such a premium among the left. I've often wondered if liberals go into the military and become conservative, or if it's primarily just conservatives to begin with who care about this country enough to consider a military career?

Blackfive also has a great link to Mudville Gazette on "comparing some good reporting with those of the staged terrorist stories from the AP."

The problem I think liberals have is that the military disproves their worldview and have for a number of years now; but thanks to the Internet, members of the military are able to show how their worldview is wrong and now want that silenced. Unfortunately for the left, stating facts and perceptions is not against the UCMJ. Actually, it's part of many--if not all--of the jobs in the military to some degree. Leftists are all for free speech--as long as it doesn't conflict with their viewpoints and their worldview... otherwise it's "dangerous." Indeed.


Monday, October 10, 2005

Flip, Flip, Flip

Another slow day on the blogsophere. Sorry to the ones of you who visit regularly. There's really nothing to rant/whine about or comment.

There is a lot of stuff on the Miers nomination which I think is kind of a non-issue for republicans and conservatives to get so upset about, but whatever. It's something I guess. My own thoughts on it are that she seems to be another Bush crony appointee, but at the same time might be a nice addition to the supreme court since she would be able to provide a "non-judge" viewpoint to the bench. Really though, I don't care. Michelle Malkin isn't too happy with it and has a good roundup of why she thinks such things.


Friday, October 07, 2005

Cigarette Beer

Yolo Cowboy talks about a new German invention: beer with nicotine in it. I don't think it gets better than that.

Good heavens, maybe they could add caffeine too. That beer could be called "NightCap" so you can stay awake while driving home drunk.



40 Year Old Virgin on "40 Year Old Virgin"

I've seen "40 Year Old Virgin" twice. I'm sure it would offend the sensibilities of my pentecostal friends here, but I could not stop laughing the first time I saw it, and was only able to get sporadic gulps of air the second time. It was indeed halarious, and I could definitely see myself living a similar lifestyle in 17 years, but my own sensibilities (and history) prohibit it. Anyway, "C" (which I assume stands for Chris or Charles) at Way off Bass reviews "40YOV" as an actual 40 Year Old Virgin. It makes for quite humorous reading. I think the movie broke his mind.

Basically, his two issues were: 1. It sucks being a virgin, and 2. This movie hits too close to home for comfort. Oh, he also needs/wants a woman bad; but not in the way you think. I'm just happy to see such existential revelations coming about in others.


Thursday, October 06, 2005

Catholic Church: Bible is False

My friend sent me this link and it was quite disturbing, and yet another reason why I'm not Catholic; nor am I a subscriber to any specific church under the banner of Christianity.

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

"The Bible is true in some parts, and false in others!" They do go on saying how you aren't to interpret the Bible literally, which I would agree with to some degree. Things like the gospel are eyewitness accounts and ARE literal, but things like Genesis where the stories are inspired of the holy spirit to a prophet, then they obviously aren't literal. Regardless of how you interpret the Bible, that doesn't mean parts of it aren't true.

So how are we to determine what's true and false? Why, just ask the clergy!
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

"The CHURCH must offer..." So, just ask your local Bishop/Priest what you're supposed to believe now and he'll let you know. Sorry to the Catholics out there, but I absolutely cannot get my head around this. The single thing that defines all Christians is the Bible... the HOLY Bible. If parts of it are "false" as the clergy says, then it isn't holy anymore. The article also lists some "true" and "false" statements in the Bible.


Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”


Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

My favorite is the "blood be on our children" quote in the "untrue" column. The Bible says elswhere (OT) that our sins only get passed on to our great grandchildren (4th generation). Not only that, but Jesus, while on the cross, asked God to forgive the Jews for what they did "for they knew not what they did," and if Jesus is asking forgiveness for them, why should we not do the same thing?

So, what's more likely? Errors in the bedrock foundation of Christianity, or our simple inability to interpret it in a holistic way? I'm going to have to go with the "it's us" reason. Also, if you're a good Catholic, you must subscribe to the "infallibility" doctrine and believe this was inspired of the (not-so, anymore) Holy Spirit and therefore undebatable.

While I'm on the "infallibility" thing (which is a HUGE problem I have with the Catholic church), there was this great paragraph in the article:

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

So they do one thing a few centuries back, and the complete opposite today. So were they wrong then or are they wrong now? It doesn't matter; they were wrong at some point and therefore not infallible.

Steve Miller Westland has a great point on this:

This is what happens when humans commit the sin of pride and think they are greater in any way than God.

He's also got a great post on evolution v. creationism which is pretty much the same thing I believe--though much more thought out than I have ever taken it.


Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Hang 'em High

From the "what liberal bias" file comes LTC Ryan speaking about the western media in Iraq (via Gun Guy).

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, “If it bleeds, it leads,” still applies in Iraq, but why only when it’s American blood?

My friend told me that this isn't liberal bias, but that stories similar to opening schools, water treatment plants, or any other host of good news stories would not be of any interest in this country, so why should it be news in Iraq? My response to him is context.

They aren't big stories here because nobody cares. Our lives are really good here in America--yes, even when democrats are in power. Our government is stable, our quality of life is second to none and most of all, our troops aren't risking their lives to build our country from rubble.

Now, throw the terrorists into this equation and you'll see that little girls going to school, or women voting while commonplace here in America, is a life or death decision for these people. You would also see that the troops building all of this infrastructure for the people of Iraq while at the same time maintaining security standards for civillians is nothing short of an amazing feat.

As Gun Guy states: "But here’s the money quote:"

I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for all sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have them turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found it much easier to lure the Arab media to a “non-lethal” event than the western outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could always count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western media ever showed up – ever.

There is something seriously wrong with the media if they aren't even sending someone to look at a potential news story even Al Jazeera is willing to investigate.

Gun Guy finishes his post: "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required. [courtesy of the Emperor Misha]"

As I always end these posts: people who think the MSM isn't liberally biased is either willfully ignorant, or incredibly stupid.