Alpine Summit

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Alito FINALLY Confirmed!

The vote was mainly along party lines. 58-42 tells me there are 58 honest seekers of a good justice, and 42 political hacks interested more in playing politics as usual. Yes, this includes Sen. Chaffee from Rhode Island.

I was surprised to see Byrd voted for him, though. I'm not familiar with the other 3 (that's "three") Democrats who voted for Alito, but it's good to see someone from that party honestly looking at finding a suitable replacement for Sandra O'Connor.

I should also say a kudos to all the conservatives who stood up and criticized the Harriet Miers nomination. She was a poor choice for the Supreme Court.


Sunday, January 29, 2006

My Day at the MEPS

(***warning*** Long Post Ahead ***warning***)

As some of you may have known, I went to the Denver MEPS to do my physical for entrance into the Army. First off, I'd like to say that I knew the military affords for lots of great stories for anyone in any branch of the service. I was not aware this was true even before entering. In fact, I didn't think that getting so many stories was possible in the span of 24 hours.

My day started Friday afternoon where I left Laramie with my Recruiter to go to Cheyenne. He was dropping me off with the recruiter there who was going to Denver with a couple of his own people--two girls out of high school. We ended up having to wait on one of those (I'll call her 'K') to get some paperwork filled out. This was about an hour sitting in the recruiting office doing absolutely nothing. After that, we finally were on our way and picked up the other person (I'll call her 'H') at her house.

I was somewhat droopy on the trip to Denver and fell asleep on the south side of Ft. Collins and woke up on the north side of Denver. K and H had to take their ASVAB test that evening at what the recruiter (Sgt. 'B') thought was going to be 6:30 p.m. Turns out the test was at 6:00 p.m. and we pulled up to the MEPS around 5:40. So its fortunate we made it because that would have sucked for them. After Sgt. B dropped them off, he took me to the Red Lion hotel. It's a really nice hotel with REALLY comfortable beds... but no SciFi channel on their TVs.

My roommate’s name was Miguel from Puerto Rico; a really cool guy who was trying to go active from the guard. He was afraid of being over the weight requirements for the physical the next day, so he kept going down to the bar to drink alcohol to dehydrate himself. I'm not sure if it worked, but he ended up getting pretty torn up and was drunk already when I first met him. After meeting, he invited me to go drinking with him and I thought it not best considering the upcoming exams I would be having. So, I stayed and watched TV while he went back down for another round of drinks. I figured he would be back in a short amount of time after having a drink, but he still had not come back to the room by 10 when I went to bed. The thought of him missing the shuttle bus the next morning made me smile a bit. I resolved to not letting that happen though... 'cause I'm a nice guy.

The next morning, I had set my alarm for 3:30 so I could take a shower. Wake up call was at 4:00, breakfast at 4:15 and the shuttle left at 5 a.m. for our 5:30 briefing... one of those "follow the rules so we don't have to yell at you" kind of speeches. Then after that speech, we were given our name tags and told to go to another room for a briefing. There the commander of the MEPS, Maj. Morales, gave us some overall rules (in a much friendlier way) and told us what we could expect for the rest of the day--it was about 6:30 by this time. After he was done, a nurse came in and helped us fill out the main papers we would be toting around for the rest of our medical exam.

The way MEPS is set up for the medical is that you have various stations you need to go to each with a specific purpose: blood/urine testing, vision/hearing testing, physical testing, and interview. After going to each station, you must then visit with the chief medical officer to discuss potential health problems and to get the final "okay" to move on to contracting and swearing in. I was just there for the medical, so after I finished with him I was pretty much done for the day.

My first stop was the interview where the doctor went over all the prior medical info I had provided to my recruiter. A pretty boring process, but they want to know EVERYTHING about your medical history. I even had to put down that I had acne as a teenager. A bit overboard I think, but I guess it helps flag problems later.

Urine testing was next for me where we were given instructions to pee in the cup, and then bring it and our papers to the window without letting go of the cup (we weren't allowed to let the cup leave our hands until they received it). Unfortunately, the instructions were more like "put your papers on the table (there was a table in the bathroom), pee in the cup, then take it to the window." He told us not to wash our hands until he told us to, and he told the first guy up to wash his hands the same time I was coming up, so I thought he was telling me to wash my hands. So I got yelled at for "not following the rules." Luckily, I didn't let go of my pee and therefore didn't have to wait to go again as other had to do.

Next up was the bloodletting, nothing special there, just took my blood. After that was the vision test where I discovered my vision is 20/200 and 20/400 in my left and right eye respectively. I hate having such weak eyes... on the bright side; I got a perfect score on the hearing. Finally after that, I was up to getting the physical.

Waiting with some of the other guys during the physical, we were all nervously laughing about the anal probe and if they would have to do that. We contemplated making signals to others on their way out of the exam to let the rest of us know of our impending doom. Luckily, though, the doctor just told us to bend over and spread our cheeks. I thought it was a little forward. I mean, I would have appreciated some sort of warm up before just diving right in (figuratively speaking).

Also while we were waiting, a guy joining the Marines infantry was wearing a "soldiers of Christ" t-shirt. It was a little corny I thought, but it prompted a little discussion with a guy about Christians joining the military and how it goes against our religion (supposedly) to fight for our country. He was more up for criticizing than listening, and it was escalating a bit so another guy changed the subject to avoid any kind of confrontation. The antagonist guy seemed less aggressive afterwards though, so who knows? Maybe we said something that made him think. It was a cool opportunity and I had been wondering if that sort of opportunity would present itself.

Back to the exam room. After doing the "poke and prod" part of the exam, we were herded en masse into a larger room where we were required to do several range of motion and flexibility tests. The funniest part was having to do these activities in our underwear. It's an interesting experience doing physical activity with other men who are half-naked.

After the tests were over, we put our clothes back on and left the exam room through a door by the waiting area. As I walked out, I noticed another group waiting for their turn with as much nervous anticipation as I had moments before. I walk out smiling and someone goes "another satisfied customer," to which I promptly responded "that’s right!" Then they all started laughing. Next stop: the chief medical officer where my roommate was calling me "L-T." I can't say I didn't like the sound of it, but it was a bit humbling. Anyway, I got a clean bill of health and a "tell your recruiter you passed... NEXT!!"

So that was MY day at MEPS. Unfortunately, one of the girls I came down with, K I believe, had stolen a bottle of nail polish when she was in 7th grade. Because of this, and because Wyoming does not release juvenile records to ANYONE, including the FBI, we had to sit and wait to see if would be able to some way to get those papers in to MEPS. For the next 5 hours, from the time I finished my physical to the time MEPS was getting ready to wind down for the day, I sat in the waiting area watching TV. Because of the rules, I was not allowed to sleep which only added insult to injury. We were expected to leave MEPS at about 12 or 1 p.m. and be on our way back to Cheyenne by that time. Because of K's criminal history, however, we didn't leave until about 3:30.

On our way back to Wyoming, we called my recruiter to see when he would be picking me up from Cheyenne. He informed us that he was in Greeley and it would be about an hour or so to get to Cheyenne. After we got back to Cheyenne, he wasn't there yet and so called him again where he informed us he was still in Greeley. Not only was he an hour from Cheyenne, but even if he had left that minute (which he didn't seem ready to do) it would have been another 2 hours before I would get home. The time was about 5:30 now and the sun had gone down. Luckily, Sgt. B offered to take me to Laramie and I was able to get back in town at about 7:00 after he had taken care of a few things before leaving.

So that was my day at the MEPS. I spent the rest of the day unwinding and watching TV with my girlfriend (and drinking beer--after all, I deserved it). I finally went to bed at about 1 a.m. Sunday officially ending my day at the MEPS. Overall: enjoyable, but not really "fun."

After going to the MEPS, I feel I have lost some of the fear and apprehension I had about joining the military. To see other regular guys like me doing the same thing was comforting. It was a very dynamic group of people and I certainly hope to see many of them again in my military career (IF I have a military career). The next thing I need to do after this is get my picture taken and go before the board of review to see if I'm officer material. Then we'll know for sure if I have a future in the United States Army.


Saddam's Version of Dragonball

In this episode, Saddam shouts insults to the court and carries on like a lunatic. Will the judge administer tight control? Will Saddam emerge triumphant from the battle with the new government? And what of his brother? Find out on this weeks episode of Saddam's Trial!

Joking aside, I want to know what made people on the left think that a guy saying things like this could have ever been dealt with in a diplomatic way?

"For 35 years, I administered your rights," Saddam replied, referring to his time in power."

Seriously, I want to know. That's not all though: Saddam has many other colorful characters around him to keep us entertained.

First, co-defendant Barzan Ibrahim, who is Saddam's half-brother and former intelligence chief, was dragged out of the room by guards after he stood and called the court "the daughter of a whore." Saddam shouted "down with traitors" and "down with the Americans.

"Then Abdel-Rahman, a Kurd, threw out a defense attorney for arguing with him. The rest of the defense team stormed out in protest as the judge shouted after them, "Any lawyer who walks out will not be allowed back into this courtroom."

Could any serious person think a regime acting absolutely like spoiled children could ever be trusted to obey the rules and not vindictively persue ways to destroy other nations? Not only that, but can anyone say with a straight face that Saddam and these jokers knew what was best for Iraq and its people? I'm going to hazard a guess and say no.


Friday, January 27, 2006

Carter Calls for Terrorist Funding

Jimmy Carter, the horrid president who raised taxes on oil during an oil shortage, can now be given credit for openly advocating the funding of a known terrorist organization. Yes folks, after calling the war in Iraq "unjust," he is now praising and advocating for an organization determined to kill Jews.

"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.

As some of you may know, Hamas won the election in Palestine recently and Carter was all but too happy to congratulate them. Carter, for whatever reason, decided to advocate funding for these terrorists. Now, I've known Carter to be an impotent President for some time now, but I am absolutely shocked at this perspective coming from any American President. In fact, I'd be shocked if even Clinton said this too; and he refused taking bin Laden when given the chance 3 times.

Many people seem to think that now that there is a democratically elected government in Palestine, it's somehow morally "good." I think we can simply acknowledge that terror and murder is the will of the people of that country and treat it appropriately. Just because a government is democratically elected does not mean it isn't a terrorist government. Many on the left seem to forget (or not realize) this.

My point is Carter's positions have been, and still are, detrimental and dangerous to this country as well as the other civilized nations in the world. Also, as an aside, the AP version of this story notably leaves out this little quote by Carter for some reason... oh, THAT media bias.

More at: Jawa Report and Stop the ACLU


Thursday, January 26, 2006

Foreign Object Detected!

This weekend I will be going to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Denver for my medical physical to see if my body is military material. I expect lots of weird tests.

The cool part about this is I get to stay in a hotel overnight in Denver with all expenses paid! I'm not even in the military yet, and it's paying off. It'd be nice to have a laptop with an internet connection, but whatever. I'll be able to catch Battlestar Galactica, and the Stargates.

What I think is the biggest part about going to Denver is the fact that it's going to be one more step towards the military and for whatever reason, this trip is making the prospect of being in the Army all that more real for me. I'm not sure what to expect, but it's scary and exciting at the same time.

More to follow.


Gender Discrimination in Schools

A student at a Boston school is suing because of gender discrimination against boys. It's actually a really interesting article and I encourage you to read it all.

As for assignments, she said, one teacher expects students to type up class notes and decorate their notebooks with glitter and feathers.

''You can't expect a boy to buy pink paper and frills to decorate their notebooks," Little said.

I can't say I'm surprised about this sort of thing. It has been known that boys and girls learn in very different ways. Boys are more utilitarian in their learning: the "read a book, take a test" approach which is, for historical reasons, the "traditional" approach. Girls on the other hand learn in a relational environment; the "read a book and discuss it with people and do an art project describing it" approach. For a couple of decades now, educators for whatever reason, have been taking the "feminine" approach to learning as the "superior" approach to learning. Even when I was in elementary/middle/high school, I remember girls getting preferential treatment and doing far better than boys. I think this case is a little blown up, though.

Among Anglin's allegations: Girls face fewer restrictions from teachers, like being able to wander the hallways without passes, and girls are rewarded for abiding by the rules, while boys' more rebellious ways are punished.

Granted, rewarding people for doing what they're supposed to be doing is pretty stupid. But, punishing people for doing what they AREN'T supposed to be doing is perfectly fine. I guess his bigger issue is the girls are not punished when they misbehave, though I wasn't getting that from how the article was written.

Other societal forces have painted the success or failure of girls as dependent on being around boys. "If boys are around, their aggressiveness and willingness to take risks discourages girls to do better in school." I think that's complete crap and completely antithetical to wanting every student to succeed. Anyway, my point is, this attitude has led to an artificial suppression of males in schools because, in the minds of the faculty, they are leveling the playing field.

This is a great example of why gender-segregated schools are a good idea. A school that has classes for males and classes for females only would be able to tailor itself to the natural learning processes of the students instead of having to choose between two different types. The issue that arises with that though is that the students would then lack the social ability to operate socially with the opposite sex which is detrimental to the student in a very non-academic way. My solution? Offer gender-only classes for the primary courses (English, Math, Science, History, or general "core" classes) and have classes be integrated for other things (PE, Music, Art, etc.). That way, students are exposed to the opposite sex in social situations, but their core education is improved.


Wednesday, January 25, 2006

ACLU... Fighting for the Rights of Non-Citizens

(Via: LGF) The ACLU is suing the government because they won't allow a man named Tariq Ramadan into the country.

Ramadan was blocked from accepting a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame when his visa was revoked in August 2004 because of a provision of the Patriot Act, said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney.

The way this is worded, it makes you think the patriot act created a crack that just arbitrarily revoked Ramadan's visa for no reason. Then we learn about Ramadan's past, no thanks to the AP reporter writing this story (can anyone say 'bias?'). In fact, the story reads more like a letter of recommendation for Ramadan, and condemnation for the U.S. government, rather than a serious objective news piece.


Multilateralism is Better?

I got this story from Lee at RTLC. Some murderers were running to Canada to escape American justice. In the process, they charged the Canadian border guards with guns. So what did these brave Canadian DHS counterparts do? They ran away. What's worse is that this is actually what they're supposed to do.

A police chase that closed the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver, ended in the arrest of two men wanted in California on murder charges following a shootout.

The incident on Tuesday night temporarily closed the Canada-U.S. border crossing, and caused dozens of Canadian guards to walk off the job, fearing for their safety.


CBC News has learned that when unarmed Canadian border guards found out the murder suspects were coming their way, they left their posts at two crossings along the B.C. border: the Peace Arch crossing at Douglas, which was closed for a while, and the Civic Highway Truck Crossing, to which traffic from Douglas was diverted.


A spokeswoman with Canada Border Services says the guards have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger.

This story begs the question: what exactly are they guarding? I mean, they aren't allowed to have guns (taking the "force" out of "enforce") and they are allowed to abandon their posts, what good are they as "guards enforcing the border?" Of course, the criminals were caught, but it was despite Canada, not because of Canada. As usual, the Americans stepped up to get the job done.

Officials credit a brave deputy sheriff for stopping the pair, who were considered armed and dangerous.

This incident makes me wonder why we should trust our security--at all--to other countries. Why should we place our trust in these other countries when their policies are so wreckless and encouraging to our enemies?


Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Abortion March... in January

Zombie Time put up an awesome photo essay of a pro-life march in San Francisco. Check it out... I liked the anarchist who couldn't understand the bill of rights, and the cops who drove right into a crowd trying to block the march especially. HA! There's a lot more though... code pinkos fleeing for their lives, and anarchists being accosted by police. Don't forget to check out who won! It makes me want to crash a protest (or counter-protest depending on the situation).


Finally an Honest Liberal

(Via: Michelle Malkin) For once, I'm glad to see a liberal walking the talk. Plenty of people on the left have said "I oppose the war, but I support the troops." Presumably because "opposing the troops" is assumed (correctly) by all to be un-patriotic. As I've pointed out many times in the past, this is entirely dishonest. I'm glad to see a liberal actually acknowledge his loathing for any kind of selfless service to one's country, and his own selfishness.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

If only more on the left were as honest as this guy. Michelle Malkin says Stein is the insufferable one in her post. With all due respect, Michelle, I think this is exactly the kind of honesty we need more of from the left in this country to illustrate it's true fundamental beliefs.

Of course, I'm wondering why our soldiers would need those services he's saying we should give to the troops if we never plan on using them. If we never use our troops, they would have no need for any of those services and, indeed, no reason to be in the military. I'm guessing he wants us to take care of those who have sacrificed for him, but do it in a grudging way.

UPDATE: Power Line has a copy of a transcript from a radio show interviewing Stein, lest we think (as some left blogs are claiming) that this is just humorist hyperbole. Taking an honest adherence to the left's viewpoint leads to these conclusions. So I guess they (lefties) are arguing that he is not honest, but just being funny. I guess people on the left would find the truth worth mocking for comedic value.


Monday, January 23, 2006

Media Bias a Myth?

I have maintained for some time now that media bias isn't just on the side of how they present the news, but also on what stories they choose to present in the first place. Tom Alday points out a story here about operation Red Bull--a perfect example of this.

For more than two weeks, Iraqi Army soldiers and U.S. Marines with 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, conducted sweeps along the Euphrates River shore to disrupt terrorist operations in the area.

The battalion-wide Operation Red Bull consisted of Iraqi soldiers and U.S. Marines in the “Triad” area of Haditha, Haqlaniyah and Barwana searching more than 20 kilometers of shoreline. The search revealed 75 weapons caches terrorists planned to use during attacks in the region.


Also helping the Marines and Iraqi soldiers were citizens who took a stand against the insurgent operations in the community. Many civilians provided information to disrupt insurgents so their community can be safe from terrorist attacks like the one in Barwanah, where numerous innocent children were killed or wounded from an insurgent mortar round.

It goes on and on. Read the story and then see if you can guess why the MSM isn't reporting this. It's obviously news-worthy, but doesn't fit the picture trying to be painted by these cloak-and-dagger activists of a dismal failure where everyone there hates us.

Tracked back from Common Folk Using Common Sense.


Never What You Thought It Was

Remember that guy from Florida that went to Iraq on a whim and "didn't tell" his parents? Well it turns out his father was involved with terrorism back in the 80's and he was actually able to get to Iraq through his dad's "political connections." One thing that stood out from this piece is where the author quotes an e-mail Hassan sent to his friends before he left.

Like Chalabi, Dr. Hassan has a dubious past and unsettling ties to Iran. But what about the propaganda? That's where his son Farris comes into the picture. Before leaving for Iraq, the Young Republican sent out an e-mail to friends that began: "There is a struggle in Iraq between good and evil, between those striving for freedom and liberty and those striving for death and destruction... Those terrorists are not human but pure evil."

This begs the question: who exactly does he think are the 'terrorists' and who does he think are the 'freedom fighters?' He never seems to answer this and it actually looks like he keeps it purposefully ambiguous when talking about the fighters in Iraq. Then there's the issue of how trustworthy he is.

"With each group of persons I immersed myself, I changed my persona," he told interviewer Rita Cosby. "When I was with Christians, I told them that I was a Lebanese Christian, an American Christian, and my name was Jason.

"And when I met with the Hezbollah leader... I told [him] that I work for a school newspaper and that I wanted to show Americans that Hezbollah is, in fact, a good organization that's fighting for the Shiite people in Lebanon."

So the kid's a chameleon and, apparently, a born liar. I wonder what role he was playing while immersed with Rita Cosby. Oh yeah, it was the idealistic rich American boy who played hooky from school to promote democracy.

The problem with having a reputation as a liar is that people will not only not believe what you are saying is true, but you are essentially in a "guilty until proven innoceent" situation--especially when you openly admit to meeting with terrorists.

More here, here, and here.


Saturday, January 21, 2006

History Repeats Itself Again

Victor Hanson talks in a recent NR column about the choices open to us on Iran. Hanson argues that our choices are either bad or worse. There are no good options right now. One thing that sticks out is his argument adressing the problem of being "multilateral" in dealing with Iran.

The political heat would mount hourly, as Russia, China, and Europe all would express shock and condemnation, and whine that their careful diplomatic dialogue had once again been ruined by the American outlaws. Soon the focus of the U.N. would not be on Iranian nuclear proliferation, or the role of Europe, Pakistan, China, and Russia in lending nuclear expertise to the theocracy, but instead on the mad bomber-cowboy George Bush. We remember that in 1981 the world did not blame the reckless and greedy French for their construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam Hussein, but the sober Israelis for taking it out.

Hanson makes a point here. His example is the 1981 airstrikes, but even more recently I recall all the "cowboy" rhetoric from people around the world about Bush without so much as a "tsk, tsk" to Hussein's genocidal and terrorist enabling regime (or that it was even a good thing it was no longer in power). We later discover that the leaders of many of these nations actually had quite a bit of money to lose and weren't about to support a country biting the hand that was feeding them.

This is why multilateralism is so dangerous in this day and age. With nuclear proliferation becoming a serious problem, and countries around the world more interested in placating terrorists, I'm amazed a nuclear bomb hasn't gone off in a major city yet!

I predict the politics will play out in a similar fashion as in Iraq and America will have to step in with the military to pull everyone's butts out of the fire at the 11th hour only to be condemned once again for removing yet another regime with a track record of gross human rights violations and terrorist enabling actions.

UPDATE: After reading a few more pieces on Iran, I am reminded of the perspectives I see the left taking so many times regardless of the conflict these days: "don't attack them, they haven't done anything bad yet," or "they aren't a threat," followed by "we need to negotiate." Then later: "don't attack them, they're too much of a threat," or "the body count will be too high," follwed by: "we need to negotiate!" It boggles the mind.


Friday, January 20, 2006

Terrorist Enabler Comes to Campus

Angela Davis, a former black panther, spoke the other day on my campus for the MLK "days of dialogue," which is ironicly named because it mostly involves ramming liberal perspectives down the rest of our throats (where is the Q&A session?). I didn't bother to go because, quite frankly, I really don't like the smell of patchouli oil and unwashed bodies.

Davis, lacking any real meaning for her life for the past 40 years or so (read: old hippie) started spewing the typical "Bushitlerhalliburton" diatribe we have come to expect from the intellectually weak.

Speaking in the jam-packed Yellowstone Ballroom of the University of Wyoming Union as part of the observance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, Davis challenged the audience to preserve King’s "legacy of bold action for the cause of justice and peace."

The rights of American citizens are endangered by "the so-called war on terrorism... the policy of global war" and the use of torture, Davis said.

The policy of capital punishment, which has taken the lives of two inmates in California prisons in a little more than a month, leads to "an assembly line of torture and death," Davis added.

The United States under the Bush administration has become "a great purveyor and exponent of violence in the world," Davis said.

On the issue of crime and punishment, she said, "Historic racism is very much alive today and probably more obvious in our prison system than anywhere else."

Saying that most prison in prison are functionally illiterate, she said that "imprisonment becomes a way of disappearing people in he false hope of disappearing the problem they exemplify."

She said Americans have too often accepted the idea that "the eradication of racial laws from the books is tantamount to the elimination of racism."

"We have been basically persuaded that we should not talk about racism," Davis said.

She also argued that security is being used as a pretext for violations of the rights of American citizens.

Her talk was interrupted a number of times by applause from the audience.

Such intellectually dishonest spewing of crap is regarded as "speaking out against injustice" as read the headline in the Branding Iron (my school paper) today. I could go through each of these points, but I have to respond to the one about "eliminating racial laws" and how that will end racism.

The actual argument that escapes this giant of intellectual mice is that making continual racial distinctions is detrimental to a social outlook of seeing people without color. Instead of being just a person, people (namely self-pitying minorities) have to be a black person or asian person or native-american person. By referring to yourself (or others) as someone different, or as some kind of in group, you are making everyone else an out-group and, in fact, being racist. The end result of this is that people are going to see you as different. With regard to laws, the problem is making a racial distinction within the laws rather than making race-neutral laws. For example, affirmative action leads to race quotas in hiring practices. Not that that's what the law says, but that's how it is implemented by employers. Perhaps a well intentioned piece of legislation, but in reality harmful to the job market and to well-qualified people who are denied a job because of the color of their skin (usually whites).

Anyway, I didn't see anything but liberal/left wing activities and no "dialogue" on the issues. It just goes to show you that even on conservative campuses like mine, liberal control can still be found. I am glad to see, though, that my college (Business) did not sponsor this horrid week of events.

UPDATE: I failed to mention that the Branding Iron's commentary was by a conservative who actually did attend. She did a pretty good job of exposing Davis' absurd and intellectually dishonest comments, so good on her!


Thursday, January 19, 2006

Osama Wants a Truce

Osama wants a truce between us evil western imperialist powers and his holy warriors. I have two words for that: too bad. As Kurt Russell says in the movie "Tombstone," called down the thunder, well now you got it, from now on I see a red sash, I kill the man wearing it. So run you cur. And tell the other curs the law is coming. You tell 'em I'm coming! And Hell's coming with me you hear! Hell's coming with me!

When it comes to defending this country from those who would target and murder our innocent, there are no time outs. Osama's reasoning behind this is that he doesn't want to fight us on "Muslim" land. Isn't that the whole reason we're there; to take the fight to the terrorists?

As Glenn Reynolds says: "I guess that "intelligence failure" in Pakistan must have been even more successful than we thought." Indeed.

Also, what was that talk about "quagmire," liberals? Anyone? Hello? Yeah, that's what I thought. Michelle Malkin has some good quotes about this latest good news like this one from McClellan in a press conference:

The president is fully committed to doing everything within his power to prevent attacks and defeat the terrorists. We are taking the fight to enemy and now we are working to advance freedom and democracy to defeat their evil ideology. And we are winning. Clearly al Qaeda and the terrorists are on the run. And that is why it is important that we do not let up, that we do not stop until the job is done. And this is what we will do.

As Michelle says: "no rest for the vigilant."


Obama Ordered to Support Clinton

I wanted to link to this story because it further illustrates a point I made a couple of days ago. Democrats take substantively damaging positions toward those they claim to support and then trot out anyone they can find in their party to defend them. In this case, Hillary made an obviously racist comment and who do we see defending her? A black man in the party. Democrats' policies on war are detrimental to the military, and who do we see defending them? A veteran in their party. If anything showed a bankruptcy in their views, this would be it. It's all about image to these people, and it needs to be about action and principles--something the Democrats have had neither of for many years now.


Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Hillary's Agricultural Perspective

Hillary Clinton talked about how congress is being "run like a plantation."

Sen. Hillary Clinton on Monday blasted the Bush administration as "one of the worst" in U.S. history and compared the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to a plantation where dissenting voices are squelched.

Tonight on O'Reilly, Al Sharpton tried to get us to dismiss her comments as simply illustrating a point. Considering Democrats' abysmal record on actually advancing civil rights, I don't think she really has room to imply a bunch of beer-bellied good 'ol boys are lording over the country.

The fact of the matter is that Clinton could have used any number of examples to get her viewpoint through to people. This was a calculated comment to help bolster the view of Republicans as a party full of whites who don't care about blacks. When you look at the record of what Democrats have said and what they have done, you can plainly see that their objective is not to help blacks gain economic and social equality, but to keep them dependent on the government so they can keep getting reelected.

My question is why aren't liberals more honest about these 'outrages?' Trent Lott makes some rhetorical nice comments about a man turning 100 years old, and is labeled a racist! Hillary Clinton makes directly and obviously racist claims against the Republicans, she skates by without incident. Unbelievable.


Assisting Cowardice

An article on was posted by Lee at Right-Thinking where he wrote "I gotta side with the lefties on this one," about assisted suicide. The primary argument he makes is that we should allow them to end their lives with dignity and that we have no right to stop it. He makes a moral justification for their choice which is odd because it's a libertarian viewpoint("government shouldn't tell us what to do")--and that political philosophy makes no moral distinctions other than "government=bad."

In the comments section of the post, Lee writes this in response to my view that this is, in fact, cowardice and thus undeserving of dignification.

I don’t think cowardly has anything to do with it, Quicksilver. I think there comes a point when someone who is lying in a bed in agonizing pain, laying in a pool of their own piss and sh** because they can’t control their bowel movements, waiting and waiting for a natural death, to be able to say, “I’m ready to go.” And when they make that decision, to be able to go with dignity.

He makes a couple of points here and I'll go through them one at a time. First, he makes the claim that those in agonizing pain should be allowed to end their lives. Where is the line drawn for this? I guess only those about to die who are in agonizing pain have the moral authority to end their own lives. This seems like a double standard to me. Where does it end? "Well this child has arthritis and will live a good 70 years in pain, so why not let them end their lives now?" The article mentions the law gives a 6 month timetable, which is obviously an arbitrary number. It's morally repugnant to me and a sign of cowardice simply giving up because they're uncomfortable and therefore undignified.

Lee then contends that maintaining socially acceptable behavior (not wetting the bed) should be a caveat for wanting to end one's own life. "They can't go to the bathroom like a normal person anymore, so let's let them die!" Again, this seems pretty weak. When you take that argument on its own, we should then allow teenagers who have not been able to get potty trained or those with non life-threatening ailments causing incontinence to end THEIR lives. What would we think of someone who wanted to commit suicide because they can't control their bowels? I would think we wouldn't be too understanding--let alone ascribe some kind of moral dignity to the act.

"Letting someone die with dignity" is disingenuous and impossible to justify when talking about assisted suicide. I'm not arguing assisted suicide should be illegal (I'm not sure where I stand), but let's make no mistake: this is not a morally superior, or dignified, thing. If anything, it's like abortion. They should be legal... but don't expect moral justification for the act. I will hold no dignity for a girl wishing to better her life by murdering her child; and likewise, I will hold no level of dignity to those who commit suicide for their own sake.


Tuesday, January 17, 2006

On Pins and Needles

A few years back, England eroded people's ability to own guns in an effort to curb gun crime. The result? It worked, but violent crime went unabated. The simplistic logic of "if there are no guns, there can't be much gun crime" fails to recognize the larger issue of violent crime or the motivations for the crime itself. What happened was that criminals started using other things to commit crimes.

So imagine my shock and dismay that a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country was the scene of a man holding up a store with an "AIDS infected needle."

Investigators said Vinay Patel, 29, owner of Station Liquors on East Water Street, said a man in a dark hooded sweatshirt walked into his store and threatened to stab him with the HIV-infected needle unless he handed over cash.

I would sure like to know how the gun and weapons laws on the books would have prevented this crime? It's fairly obvious that they didn't (or couldn't). Instead, it only served to hinder those who obey the law.


Kennedy: "Oops!"

Yet another example of the "do as I say..." mentality of the rabid left: it's come out that Kennedy has been a member of a men-only organization and subsidizing it for 52 years. This coming after all his bloviating on Alito's membership in CAP.

U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy — who ripped Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for ties to a group that discriminates against women — says he’s going to quit a club notorious for discriminating against women “as fast as I can.”
Kennedy was outed by conservatives late last week as a current member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.
In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”
Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”
He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, “I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can.”

I guess you should, Ted. It's kind of hard to rail against Alito's "sexism" when you implicitly agree with his practices. Another example of liberal elites telling the rest of us how we should be living, and excluding themselves from their own rules. It's funny watching liberals try and hold the moral high ground they never had in the first place.


A Petain in the Butt

I am really sick and tired of liberals playing up Murtha's military record and then complaining that because we (conservatives) disagree with his "let's force our troops to fail" argument we somehow question his patriotism (even though the nature of his argument forces the question). The fact is, this just isn't the case. We argue that his position is damaging to the troops and that his motivations are more political than of genuine concern for the troops; we go on to explain why we think all this, too.

Now, as for the "how DARE we question his patriotism" argument: let's look at another person in history and see if people like Murtha should be immune from any criticism on their patriotism simply because of their past service.

Marshal Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Joseph Pétain (24 April 185623 July 1951), generally known as Philippe Pétain or Marshal Pétain, was a French general and war hero, later Head of State of Vichy France, from 1940 to 1944. Due to his military leadership in World War I, he was viewed as a hero in France, but his actions during World War II resulted in his being convicted and sentenced to death for treason, which was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle. In modern France, he is generally considered a traitor, and pétainisme is a derogatory term for certain reactionary policies.

How DARE the French question his patriotism! Sure, he may have stumped for the Nazi's and betrayed his countrymen, but did they serve in the military?! If they didn't, then they have no right to complain or question his motives. That is, if I took the logical conclusions of the left to its honest ends... but the left rarely does that.

The fact is this argument is merely done to stifle any kind of debate on Murtha's position. Democrats play up Murtha's (and any other Democrat's) record in the military to try and gain ethos among people. They need it given their obvious anti-military positions and/or demagoguery. Just for the record, my friend sent me a list of Republican Senators who have served:

Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Larry Craig (R-ID) [Veterans' Affairs Committee Chair]
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - JAG, Air Force Reserve [Active]
Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - Vietnam
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Dick Lugar (R-IN) [Foreign Relations Committee Chair]
John McCain (R-AZ) - Vietnam
Pat Roberts (R-KS) [Intelligence Committee Chair]
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Ted Stevens (R-AK) [Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair] - WWII
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
John Warner (R-VA) [Armed Services Committee Chair] - WWII, Korea

The reason you hear more about who has served in the military on the Democrat/left side, is because Republicans/conservatives view their military service as doing their job, or simply serving their country. Democrats/liberals see military service, and the military in general, as a political tool that can be used to gain political points with no respect-or really care- for the institution itself. After all, they're the ones effecting 'Bushitler's plan for world domination to benefit the oil companies.'

UPDATE: My friend has sent me a list of the GOP members of the House who served in the military to further smash this retarded "chickenhawk" argument from the left.

Todd Akin (MO)
Rodney Alexander (LA)
Spencer Bachus (AL)
J. Gresham Barrett (SC)
Michael Blirakis (FL)
Sherwood Boehlert (NY)
John Boehner (OH) [Candidate for Majority Leader]
Henry E. Brown, Jr (SC)
Dan Burton (IN)
Steve Buyer (IN) [Veteran's Affairs Committee Chairman] - Active in Army Reserve, Gulf War Howard Coble (NC) - Korea
Michael Conaway (TX)
Tom Davis (VA)
Geoff Davis (KY)
Nathan Deal (GA)
Jimmy Duncan, Jr (TN)
Terry Everett (AL)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ) - Vietnam
Jim Gibbons (NV) - Vietnam
Wayne Gilchrest (MD) - Vietnam
Paul Gillmor (OH)
Louie Gohmert (TX)
Virgil Goode (VA)
Ralph Hall (TX) - WWII
Doc Hastings (WA) [Ethics Committee Chair]
David Hobson (OH)
Duncan Hunter (CA) [Armed Services Committee Chair] - Vietnam
Henry Hyde (IL) [International Relations Committee Chair] - WWII
Darryl Issa (CA)
Bill Jenkins (TN)
Sam Johnson (TX) - Vietnam
Walter B. Jones (NC)
Pete King (NY) [Homeland Security Committee Chair]
Mark Steven Kirk (IL) - Panama
John Kline (MN) - Vietnam, Gulf War?
Joe Knollenberg (MI)
Jim Kolbe (AZ) - Vietnam
Ron Lewis (KY)
John Linder (GA)
Gary Miller (CA)
Charlie Norwood (GA) - Vietnam
Tom Osborne (NE)
Butch Otter (ID)
Ron Paul (TX)
Steve Pearce (NM) - Vietnam
John E. Peterson (PA)
Joe Pitts (PA) - Vietnam
Ted Poe (TX)
Jim Ramstad (MN)
Ralph Regula (OH)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Thomas Reynolds (NY) [NRCC Chair]
Harold Rogers (KY)
Mike Rogers (MI) [Candidate for Majority Whip]
Joe Schwarz (MI) - Vietnam
John Shadegg (AZ) [Candidate for Majority Leader]
Don Sherwood (PA)
John Shimkus (IL)
Rob Simmons (CT) - Vietnam
Mike Sodrel (IN)
Cliff Stearns (FL)
Dave Weldon (FL)
Edward Whitfield (KY)
Roger Wicker (MS)
Joe Wilson (SC)
Heather Wilson (NM)
Frank Wolf (VA)
C.W. Bill Young (FL)
Don Young (AK)

Also, he gave these quick statistics:
Of the 108 House members who served, 69 are GOPers, 39 are Dems. 64% are Republican.

Out of 231 Republicans, 69 have served, or 30%.
Out of 202 Democrats, 39 have served, or 19%.

In the Senate 31 served in the military. 17 are GOPers and 14 are Dems. 55% are Republican.

Out of 55 Republicans 17 have served, or 31%.
Out of 44 Democrats and 1 Ind., 14 have served, or 32%.

Also note: 2 of 3 candidates for Majority Leader are vets; the Chairs of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, VA, and Intel Committees in the Senate are all vets; the Chairs of the Armed Services, IR, VA, and Homeland Security Committees in the House are all vets.


Sunday, January 15, 2006

Pornography Homework

A teacher in Ohio withdrew an assignment that required his students to download pornography off the Internet. Why would he do this, you say?

Superintendent Jeff Lampert said that although the teacher's apparent goal _ to discuss the harmful effects of pornography _ was well- intentioned, he agreed with parents that the assignment was inappropriate for 14- and 15-year-old freshmen at Brooklyn High.

So let me get this straight: you want to discuss how pornography can be harmful by having your under-age students look at it? Does this make any sense to anyone? I think this teacher should not only be fired, but should be brought up on several charges of attempting to corrupt a minor. The assignment itself admits to porn's "harmful effects," so why not?

Sadly, this is what passes for education these days. I really want to know what the class subject is that justifies showing age 18+ pornographic material to 14 year olds. Not only that, but ecourages said 14 year olds to seek it out.


Friday, January 13, 2006

Academic Freedom on Colleges

For all their barking about "free speech" and "censorship," liberals still try to stifle the expression of views with which they don't agree. I subscribe to an e-mailing list from Eagle Forum, a conservative group that often points out the latest idiocy of the left. Anyway, in their e-mail this week, they had this story:

DePAUL UNIVERSITY, Chicago, IL-January 6, 2006 — After Critics and pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), DePaul University has lifted a ban on "propaganda" that was created in direct response to the student protest of professor Ward Churchill's appearance on campus.

"The revocation of the 'propaganda' ban is a step in the right direction for DePaul," said FIRE Interim President Greg Lukianoff. "Yet DePaul's disregard for freedom of expression reaches far beyond this one policy. The true test will be how DePaul reacts the next time students attempt to express dissenting opinions."

DePaul's College Republicans (CRs) opposed the university's invitation to Churchill to lecture and lead a student workshop last October. The CRs were careful to follow administrative rules by submitting fliers, they had produced to distribute in protest for approval. The administrator's response to this show of cooperation? They first tried to mislead the CRs into believing the event had been cancelled and when that didn't work they claimed that these fliers baring Churchill's own statements were propaganda and could not be distributed. The students rejected the claims and posted the fliers anyway which led to a formal warning. The entire controversy led to an "addition" to the policy stating that posters could be used only to promote events, not to protest them.

After being contacted by the CRs, F.I.R.E. sent a letter to the administration warning that the constant change in policy gave "administrators the unfettered power to censor student speech at will."

"The revocation of the 'propaganda' ban is a step in the right direction for DePaul," said FIRE Interim President Greg Lukianoff. "Yet DePaul's disregard for freedom of expression reaches far beyond this one policy. The true test will be how DePaul reacts the next time students attempt to express dissenting opinions." (F.I.R.E., 01/06/06)

You can find the link to the whole documentation by FIRE here. They put this in the "win" column, but I think this illustrates quite nicely a far more common trend than most academics are willing to admit.

The FIRE is a pretty cool organization. It's roots are in the left if I recall, and originally concentrated on oppression of leftist views being stifled. I'm glad to see, though, that their cause has become less political and more rights-based. They have great documentation on examples of speech being stifled on campuses all over the country. On the right side (heh) of the main page, you can find your school and see how it rates with FIRE.


Thursday, January 12, 2006

Today's "Howler"

LGF cites a great "howler" of MSM bias today.

Olmert told Bush that Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas must "take steps against terrorism and disband the terrorist organisations because otherwise there can be no progress with an administration in which there are terrorist organisations as members," a statement said.

Israel and the United States both regard Hamas, responsible for the majority of attacks during a five-year Palestinian uprising, as a terrorist organisation despite its embrace of the democratic process.

Stating the obvious is something one cannot do enough of, it seems, when Europe or the left is concerned. That doesn't ever stop them from condemning who they want though. The fact that HAMAS is a terrorist organization has nothing to do with how they decide which terrorists to lead them.

This line was (not so) skillfully inserted into the article to try and paint the Israelis and America as hypocrites. The leftist author of this article, though, shows his perspective by making the assumption that the test for whether or not a nation is a terrorist nation is whether or not it is a democracy. In reality, the test is whether or not they advocate, and practice, the slaughter of innocent people.

This is exactly why people need to take news stories with a grain of salt and continually sift through an article for the facts.


"Outraged" Democrats

I have said in the past that liberals are malcontents. Just look at the vitriol with which they attack people who disagree with them. So I found this pretty disingenuous at best.

The Pentagon has been under heavy political fire in the wake of recent reports concerning a secret study that found that up to 80 percent of Marines who died in Iraq from upper body wounds could have survived if they had body armor to protect their sides and shoulders. The study prompted outrage from Democrats on Capitol Hill, including from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who attributed the problem to the Bush Administration's "incompetence."

Clinton is trying to come off as, like several Democrats have tried and failed in the past, supportive of the troops. Unfortunately, their views of wanting the troops to abandon their mission, lauding the round number deaths in Iraq as a "milestone," and preferring Saddam Hussein over an elected government in Iraq have shown them to be otherwise. Granted, not all Democrats feel this way, but enough of them do to justify this characterization or at least render the party impotent.

Clinton is blaming Bush for this as if he had anything to do, personally, with buying armor for troops. The fact she's even pointing the finger instead of offering a solution to this non-problem, suggests this is merely another political maneuver. After all, who would argue troops have enough (or too much) armor? Perhaps the troops? True to Democrat/liberal form, troops in harm's way are viewed as a political tool rather than something to get behind as Americans. Oh, and speaking of incompitence with regard to armor... perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


Standardized Tests for Judicial Nominees

The WaPo blog "Campaign for the Supreme Court" has this account of the hearings on Alito.

Schumer, his time running out, showed little patience to sit and listen to Alito's rather lengthy answers, which tend to be drawn out and utterly neutral explanations of methods of analysis: how he would approach a case, rather than how he would decide it.

Schumer then tried a kind of multiple choice approach: "Judge, I'm going to give you two interpretations of the Commerce Clause....Which one is closer to your view of the Commerce Clause?"

The great thing for Schumer is that a question like that is easily a loaded one. "Mr. Alito, which of these is closer to your view on punching pregnant women? That is it a good thing to do, or that it is an acceptable thing to do?" No matter how he answers within the confines of an acceptable answer, he's saying exactly what Schumer wants him to say. I think Alito is smarter than to fall for such an obvious trick.


Female Crash Test Dummy to "Hit" the Market

Bad puns notwithstanding, this sounds pretty cool. I wonder if they will find out any substantive changes we can make to vehicles by using female dummys. Perhaps car companies will have to make entirely customizable, and changeable, cabins for cars. Soon we'll see couples arguing about leaving the car in a certain configuration the way they fight over the toilet seat! I can't wait.


Toothless Liberals... Reporting for Duty

True to form, John Kerry simultaneously condemned Iran's breaking of the U.N. seals on their nuclear equipment and urged us to do nothing about it.

"Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government but the entire international community," Kerry told reporters in the southern Indian technology hub of Hyderabad during a visit to India.


"If all diplomatic channels fail, we have no choice but to take the issue before the international body," Kerry, a strong proponent of nuclear non-proliferation, said.

"Dangerous" referring the United States and "silly" referring the "international community" because that describes who takes this seriously and who really doesn't care about it. If anything is going to be done to actually take action and stop Iran, it's going to be the U.S. or Israel, and military action will be involved. All the while, the "international community" will issue strongly-worded chides against us for doing exactly what they should be thanking us for doing in their country. No problem though, the world will eventually be safe again and the "international community" will try to take credit for it because they wrote a letter. Historically, this is what happens.

Then he says "if all diplomatic channels fail... take it to another diplomatic channel (even though the military is a "diplomatic channel"). So, I am once again thankful Kerry and his "acknowledge the problem, but do nothing" attitude is not in the white house.

By the way, that thing Kerry is doing is not a salute.


Wednesday, January 11, 2006

More Alito stuff

Shamalama (congrats on the new site) comments on how he is seeing the Alito hearings going. I liked the table, it was a great characterization IMO.

Important Issues For U.S. CitizensIssues Samuel Alito Is Being Grilled On During
The Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearings
illegal immigrationabortion
protection of the environment
the homeless
the war in Iraq
the cost of energy (oil/electricity)
homeland security
meaningful and sustained employment
international terrorism
budget deficit
family values
Social Security
welfare abuse
a stable economy
health care
tax burdens

Here's the scenario I see Democrats hoping for:

Kennedy: "Mr. Alito, if someone came to you with a case involving abortion, would you or would you not support that person no matter what?"

Alito: Abortion is wrong as the lord Jesus Christ says and therefore I will not support abortion cases, and I will do my best to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Here's the scenario they're getting:

Kennedy: "Mr. Alito, if someone came to you with a case involving abortion, would you or would you not support that person no matter what?

Alito: "I would weigh the facts of the case against the letter of the law and pay special heed to precident with impartiality, so your question isn't factually specific enough for me to answer."

Kennedy: "bushitlerhalliburtonwarforoil!!!"

I imagine it's driving them nuts that Alito has promised to uphold the existing laws rather than help them make new ones through the judiciary. It's pretty much the only branch left to them to get their ideas enacted since they can't seem to get or keep chairs in elected positions.

Also, it would seem that Alito's knowledge of supreme court cases is quite good. Democrats also seem to be worried about confirming Alito (I think) because Bush will get credit for another slam dunk for Supreme Court justice (nevermind the "air-ball" of Harriet Meirs). Paul says it best with this:

The Democrats are down to perhaps their final play in the Alito confirmation process, and it's going to be a Hail Mary. The Dems, led by Senator Kennedy, are going to rely on Judge Alito's membership in the conservative Princeton alumni group, CAP. But they understand that this approach, in itself, is a loser. Few care whether Alito joined such a group more than 30 years ago or listed it on a resume 20 years ago.

I can't imagine why else they would bring this membership thing up if not to try and smear his name or brand a swastika onto his forehead somehow. They are really reaching on that one and they know it.


Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Wild Times in England

A couple raped a 12-week old baby in England and amazingly, the legal system was able to see past their oppressive nature and condemn these acts as "wrong enough for punishment." Don't be surprised to see protests in the streets for these "victims" of the government. A government imposing itself on people who just happen to have a sexual preference that is not popular.

Sentencing Webster, Judge Findlay Baker said the offences were committed against the "most vulnerable victim - a little baby".

"There are no words to express the abhorrence such offending generates," he added.

So the judge found the acts bad enough (dare I say "wrong?"), but then here's the kicker:

Sentencing French, he said: "You did not shrink away from the acts in which you joined, but looked forward to them."

But he said French was also a victim and had come under Webster's "malign influence" and was to some extent "corrupted by him".

Modern liberal/feminist thought dictates (more or less) that only men can be rapists. So, when a woman is actually involved in a rape, she MUST have been corrupted by the man! Sorry, but she made her own decisions and she is just as culpable and depraved as he is. The only victim in all this is the baby that was violated who I pray won't have to deal with any health issues from this, and thank God is too young to remember it.

Absolutely disgusting. Even in the most heinous depraved acts, the perpetrator is still somehow the victim in England. Unbelievable. This is the fruit relativism bears and I'm afraid it's no good at all.


Monday, January 09, 2006

Alito: End of Day 1

Michelle Malkin (again) has a great post on Ted Kennedy's attack on Alito. I was fully expecting the Democrats to demonize and smear Alito as much as possible; however, steel tempered in the hottest fires are the toughest, so maybe it's a good thing.

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge "Alioto" has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

Democrats must love to eat their words. Malkin has a whole list of counter examples to Kennedy's drunken tirade. Needless to say, Kennedy is full of it.


Bob Filner... Another Republicans Should Love

Bob Filner went to a town hall meeting to placate his base. Filner's website says "California's border congressman." I imagine that refers to his district, but in reality, he's borderline insane.

Smash (a.k.a. Indepundit--see my blogroll) attended along with a few other patriots who asked the hard questions.

SMASH: Congressman, I'd first like to express appreciation and gratitude, as a veteran of the Iraq War, and on behalf of all veterans, for all the important work you've done on Capitol Hill in support of veterans' issues.


SMASH: But I do have a question...

We all want the war to end, and the troops to come home safely -- especially those of us who have been there. But, putting aside for the moment your differences, and the differences of most of those here, with the current administration on the policies that got us to where we are today:

Are you committed to the success of our military in Iraq, or are you resigned to failure?


WOMAN: What's your definition of "success?"

SMASH: I heard a question on the definition of "success," so: a stable, representative government that is capable of protecting itself against threats, without outside assistance.

FILNER: Well, I mean, first of all, let me say I don't, I don't want to be seen as a defender of the previous regime, but that was, I think, the previous regime.

(nervous laughter)

FILNER: Why did we go in? You know, that's what Saddam claimed to have, right? You've got to add some human rights to that, so...

SMASH: Sure, yeah, representative --

FILNER: No, see, you, what you have done, is what I just talked about. That, how the President has gotten away with framing the issue. You framed the issue as "success or failure." And obviously, if you're "failure," you're a -- you're a jerk, right?

...Look, we -- First of all, things can't get much worse than they are now, by the way. They are pretty bad, no matter what Cheney says, no matter what Rumsfeld says. I mean, when you have 200 people killed, you know, in a day --

SMASH: Sir, I've been there --

FILNER: And you know, your brothers and sisters killed, something is wrong. ...And, you know, if we shouldn't have been in there to begin with, then it should not be incumbent on me to try to define getting out.

But I would say, that an international police force, which could keep the peace, it would -- that if we should put that in place at least --

SMASH: Led by whom, sir?

FILNER: The United Nations.


SMASH: But, who provides the troops, sir? ...Every international peace force that's ever been of any substantial size, has been led by the United States. There is no other --

FILNER: Well, you know, it doesn't have to be, because it was in the past. But, the British have shown that they want to put troops in, we've got all kinds of --

SMASH: They're already there, sir.

MAN: One question! C'mon, one question, sit down...

FILNER: No, I say, if they could be part of the United Nations. But, I will tell you, even if U.S. troops were part of a U.N. force, and under -- not under -- that would be a Hell of a lot better than we are now. Because we -- because our presence there, has become part of the problem, probably the major part of the problem. So, until we remove our presence, there is going to be an insurgency.

So, as long as we're there, we're failing, in my opinion.


...Look, if you define success as "democracy," you know, why -- why would you choose Iraq to go anywhere, anyway? I mean, why are we supporting Saudi Arabia, or whatever? So, success can't be "democracy." Success can't be "lack of autocracy," because we support autocrats other places.

Success, it seems to me for these guys, is control of, not only the -- the strategic positioning, but the oil. So, success for me would say, "we don't need your lousy oil." We could start -- we could put -- we can run this whole country off renewable energy, right this minute.


And, we -- we wouldn't even care what happened in Iraq. Like we don't care what's going on in Africa, and we don't care what's going on in Saudi Arabia, we don't care what's going on in all these other nations...


Why do we care what happens in this little nation? One reason --


FILNER: And, so, let's get off oil, and let's care about human rights in their real form, everywhere.

The moonbats were barking that day! Read the whole thing, it's very entertaining especially when they describe how they wiped the pompus holier-than-thou smirk off of the congressman's face and transformed him into a sweating, pale hulk.

I like how he criticizes Smash for "framing the issue." How dare Smash ask substantive questions to the congressman! Filner doesn't have time for those types of questions... he's far too busy smearing the President and playing to the moonbat crowd.


Dean is the Best Thing to Happen to Republicans

That man has done more to hurt the Democratic party while they have been in the minority than any Republican could. Howard Dean, THE number one Democrat, said this:

Republican claims to the contrary, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says no Democrat lawmakers took money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- "not one, not one single Democrat."

Dean, speaking Sunday on CNN's Late Edition, said every person named in the Abramoff payola scandal -- and every person under investigation and/or indicted -- is a Republican.

"Yeeaargghh!" I guess in his being anxious to condemn Republicans, he forgot to mention this. At least the writer of the article was lucid enough (unlike Dean) to point it out.

According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, "Forty of 45 members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients."

Some Democrats have returned or redirected the Abramoff-linked money to charity, but others say they'll keep it because they say the contributions are legitimate.

Dean is living in a fantasy world, and instead of recognizing a problem that members of both parties need to address, he jumps straight to the ad homenim attacks trying to pile it all on the Republicans. More of the same from the Democrats I'm afraid.

Here's another thought: the Democrats who kept the money are arguing that the contributions were legitimate... so where exactly is Dean's moral high ground? Also, will those same Democrats get behind, and defend, the Republicans being investigated? I'm not holding my breath.


Alito: Day 1

The hearings on future justice Alito begin today. The WaPo has an article on the possible lines of attack the democrats will try to angle. It features a few things, and you can read it if you're interested. It will mostly involve an opinon he wrote in the 80's that said there is no constitutional right to an abortion. I tend to agree with that, but that isn't what I found the most interesting from this article. My favorite part was at the very end of the article where they say this:

Commerce and gun control. Alito wrote in a 1996 dissent that Congress did not have the power under the Constitution's commerce clause to pass a law banning possession of machine guns, arguing that there was no evidence the mere possession of such weapons affected interstate commerce.

"He was one of the very few [appellate court judges] to say that the federal government can't regulate machine guns," Schumer said yesterday. The federal government "has regulated machine guns since the days of John Dillinger in 1936."

I found this absolutely amazing that Schumer would use this as an argument against Alito's legal ability. To say the government has been "doing something for a long time" is not an argument for why Alito is wrong (nor that he's in a minority in his views). Remember: slavery was legal for almost a century before it was abolished--segregation almost as long after that. Alito's opinions and decisions are based on the letter of the law, and that's what Democrats are really worried about.


Thursday, January 05, 2006

Banking for Muslims

Saw this on Michelle Malkin's site (I really feel like a parrot, but she's always got the best stuff).

A bank based on Muslim law doesn't strike me as too terrible an idea, but I doubt people would tolerate a similar bank if it catered to Jew-only or Christian-only values. In fact, how long do you suppose it will take for the left to hail this as an advancement in tolerance by business, and condemn traditional banks with their "racist" interest rates?

As long as anyone is able to do business with this bank--Muslim, or non-Muslim--I really don't have a problem with this. Making Islamic membership a requirement to do business is religious discrimination and I would have a problem with that. Otherwise, more power to the bank if they can make money off of serving a market niche.

It might not work simply because of inflation and default risk. Oh, and the occasional off-the-deep-end disgruntled patron driven to suicide bomb the buildings.


Robertson Giving Me a Bad Name... Again

Pat Robertson, after saying that Katrina was God's punishment on a sinful city, has now come out again saying that Sharon's stroke is divine retribution for "Dividing God's land."

As the Israeli prime minister battled for life, Robertson seemed to suggest to viewers on his "700 Club" television show that Sharon was being punished for his policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his.

"You read the Bible, he says, 'This is my land.' And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he's going carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No. This is mine.'"

Sharon is a very old man, and old men are prone to various health problems--some of them leading to these men's death. Robertson is interpreting what he sees here as "God's retribution," rather than the obvious ailment of age this obviously is.

I wonder if anyone will mention how Robertson's death (when it comes) was God's punishment for representing Him as a petty, vengeful, unforgiving and spiteful Lord, not to mention Robertson's pride in claiming knowledge of God's intentions. I can hope, I guess.

Robertson also appeared to suggest former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, murdered in 1995, had also paid the ultimate price for talking peace.

"He was tragically assassinated, and it was terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless, he was dead."

Robertson's latest blast drew immediate condemnation from Israel's ambassador to the United States.

"Such things are very outrageous. I would expect this only from people like (President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad in Iran ... I wouldn't expect it from any of our friends," ambassador Danny Ayalon told CNN.

No kidding. Robertson sounds more and more like a terrorist sympathizing Muslim extremist when he says crass and provacative things like this.

Yet another example of Robertson's pride:

He also suggested voters in a Pennsylvania town should not expect God's help should they face a natural disaster after they ousted a school board which had mandated the teaching of creationism.

He is more or less warning PA residents that God will smite them if they don't adopt the interpretation of the Bible he adheres to. As I've said before, creationism is not a scientific theory! I would no sooner expect art appreciation to be taught in a math class.

Robertson has jumped the shark a while ago and any thinking Christians should really look at his statements with a skeptical eye.


Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Freedom or Security?

A good roundup of the latest leaking of classified information by the left-wing rag: The New York Times. I recommend reading it, but this event has reminded me of yet another debate I have had with my roomate about freedom and security.

My roomate has said that since our constitution enumerates inherent rights on people, we should be doing our best to make sure those rights are not being infringed on anybody (i.e. non-citizen terrorist suspects). I'll leave the torture and cruel treatment debate for another time, but my friend answered it quite well over the break when I presented the argument to him. In short, his premise was "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

This made a lot more sense to me after it was explained, because until then I really couldn't refute my roomate's claims of inherent rights on "all men." What my friend reminded me was that beginning part of "we the people." We live in a world of nation states where our ideals and principles end at our borders. We (meaning the people of this nation) have a view of these rights as being God-given. Foreign fighters are not part of that group of people sharing this belief and are not subject to the responsibilities of the consitution and therefore not subject to its rights.

After all, by my roomate's logic, prisoners should not be denied their God-given right to own guns... and even further, they shouldn't even be locked up! I've always had a problem with his claims in this regard, but never really understood why. I can see his argument, but lacked the understanding of the issue to properly voice my views on the matter.

When our national security is involved, we need to realize that our rights are not the same rights we should be willing to bestow on foriegners. "We the people" means that "all men are created equal" is referring to those who live within American borders under American law. So McCain's Miranda rights for terrorists are wrong-minded according to the constitution, as well as in-state tuition for illegal aliens in California, amnesty programs, trials for illegal combatants, Koran flushing, and on and on. This isn't to say we won't as a people decide to do (or not do) these things, but in terms of the Constitution (and morality), we have no obligation either way.

Since our lives are at stake, I have absolutely no problem with cracking down on, in any way, foreigners within American borders who have no regard for our laws, or terrorists in American custody who have no regard for human life. Our principles on human rights, while influencing the entire rest of the world, are limited to America's citizens and foreigners who have historically obeyed the laws of the country in which they are guests. That is, people acting in good faith to respect this country while residing in it.

When it comes to tapping foreign phone calls, I find it is neither a hinderance to our "right" to privacy, or illegal in any way. In fact, from what I understand, the only way this would be a legal or human rights violation is if the wiretaps were used against an American citizen in court. Make sure to point this out to any liberal friends you might have who whine about this as a reason why Bush should be impeached.