League of Extraordinarily Conservative Gentlemen

Not a fan of Wikipedia today

2007-03-20T22:58:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I think that Wikipedia's critics can be too harsh. Sometimes I don't. I came across the following entry for the song "Behind Blue Eyes", by The Who. It may be changed by the time you read this, so I'll reproduce the relevant passage here:

Still, the song speaks to the guilt of Europeans stemming from their subjugation of the native peoples in whatever continent they happened to wander into. The title of the song actually begs to speak for the Aryan race and laments the fact that the person behind "blue eyes" is "hated" and "fated to telling only lies" which is a true representation of how the English empire was regarded in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The French poet Henry Rimbaud often wrote of belonging to a sickly race of which he was not proud. This theme of self-loathing is fairly common in poetry and Townshend makes good use of it in this song. He should be applauded for taking such a courageous stance in speaking frankly regarding the unabashed sense of entitlement in the treatment of native peoples. While subjugating native peoples the Europeans still demanded to be catered to, as in the line "...and if I shiver / give me a blanket / keep me warm / let me wear your coat."

If you are curious, here are the lyrics. Think our contributor got a little carried away?

Of course, one of the things that is nice about Wikipedia is the ability to track updates. So looking here, one can see the change history. For the passage quoted above, I see an annotation by the author, "I added an interpretation of the song which speaks across cultures."

Ah, an interpretation. However, in the article it seems to be presented as fact. But isn't that always the message one hears the hyper-multicultural left? "My interpretation is more important than your silly facts."

I'm sure Ward Churchill would approve.

"Hot Economy"

2007-02-14T22:32:00.000-08:00

Several days ago I received in the mail a newsletter from the senator of my district Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D). A few interesting tidbits were found within:

"Thanks to a strong economy and smart budgeting choices during the past two years, we legislators face a rare budget reserve rather than the daunting deficits that were so painfully common following September 11."

And further down:

"We have nearly $2 billion in unexpected, unbudgeted revenue. But we also know that the hot economy behind that reserve is cooling."

So we have an economy that is not only "strong", but "hot"? Am I the only one who cannot recall any democrat ever praising the economy while republicans controlled congress? But with democrats now in the majority, suddenly it seems this is finally okay to talk about. How very interesting.

Election Results

2006-11-08T05:23:00.000-08:00

As I'm sure you've noticed, last night the Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats. Now we can all look forward to a few years of San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

I would be willing to bet that most voters outside of California have no clue just how twisted this woman really is. Like it or not she will now be the poster girl for the Democrats, enabling the rest of America to experience first-hand what we California conservatives already know. I'm hoping it will be a wake-up call, but maybe the American voter really does want people like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton at the helm...

Unfamiliar with California and San FranFreakshow's politics? Two examples from yesterday's election:

1) San Franciscan voters passed Proposition J, officially adopting a policy calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. (When this proposition was authored and put on the ballot, many conservatives got a chuckle out of the fact that should such a wish ever come true, it pretty much translates as a vote for President Hastert. Now, I suspect the San Francisco Leftists take heart knowing their girl will be taking his seat. Democratic Underground must be sizzling at this very moment with rabid moonbats foaming at the mouth in anticipation of impeachment proceedings.)

2) By over 60%, San Franciscans passed Proposition F, requiring all employers in San Francisco to provide their employees paid sick leave.

And you might recall that in November 2005, San Francisco sought and passed a complete ban on handguns. This was later overturned by the courts, but it is indicative of the mentality this city breeds.

In the State of California, voters rejected Proposition 85, which called for the notification of a minor girl's parents before she gets an abortion. Let's get this straight. It's not preventing a minor girl from getting an abortion, has a protection clause for those at risk of parental abuse, yet California defeats it. Hypocrisy at it's height: minors in California need parental consent for just about everything from getting their ears pierced to whether or not they can take an aspirin at school; but should a pregnant 14-year-old need an abortion, why, it must be her right as a woman.

As I write this, I hear there is yet hope for the Senate. Virginia Senator George Allen's race is too close to call so keep an eye on that one.

Maybe the Republicans will hold the Senate. And maybe, just maybe, the next two years President Bush will disover his Veto pen...

Saddam Hussein Sentenced to Death by Hanging

2006-11-05T07:50:00.000-08:00

About damn time, too.

Fox News reports on it here.

"Did They Go Out and Kill and Rape and Sodomize Some Children...?"

2006-10-30T08:10:00.000-08:00

Meet Cindy Sheehan's Supporters

Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward and talk show host for KSFO in San Francisco has been on a book tour for her recently published American Mourning, in which "Peace" mom Cindy Sheehan is scrutinized. As Morgan and Sheehan hail from the same region, Morgan has been very thorough when it comes to chronicling the antics of Sheehan and her ilk.

In an e-mail update from October 27th, Morgan details:

Last night Cindy Sheehan brought her anti-war "Peace Mom" book tour to Fresno, California.

Outside of Cindy's appearance stood a group of pro-troop supporters, fully decked out in red, white & blue and carrying "Support Our Troops" signs. One of them was Robin Butterfield who lost her son in the war on terrorism.

Sheehan's supporters began to verbally attack the patriotic group, culminating in an outburst by one Sheehan supporter who screamed at the woman that her son died protecting other Marines who, "Kill, rape and sodomize children."

This video illuminates the true mentality behind moonbat Sheehan's supporters.

I Left My Heart In San Francisco

2006-10-23T18:20:00.000-07:00

or, what I did for my summer vacation

I've been off the radar all summer long wrapped up in a move from the San Francisco Bay Area to the greater Atlanta area. On top of a 2500-mile relocation, selling a house is no easy task. Especially in the current real estate market cool-down. (The entire selling experience has been so difficult, in fact, now that it's finally over I'm certain that if Dante were alive today, he'd write about a special level of Hell where souls must suffer through selling & buying a house in the State of California.)

While I will miss the pleasant California climate, bountiful sunshine, natural beauty, and Pacific ocean, I can't say that I will miss the leftist moonbats, the over-inflated cost of living, and the resulting PC politics. I'm going to miss the Golden State, but I will not miss the Land of Fruits, Nuts & Flakes.

When told about my upcoming relocation, a liberal friend of mine remarked how he could never live in Atlanta because he imagined it to be "too conservative." Unfortunately, I find this perspective to be common among my numerous acquaintances who have spent their entire adult lives steeping in the leftist groupthink of the West coast. Normally I let little remarks like that slide, but in this case I couldn't help but fire back in an e-mail reply that Georgia has plenty of liberals to keep him comfortable; Atlanta, in particular, being home to such establishments as CNN and the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library. I also took the opportunity to remind him that despite Georgia's conservatives, Atlantans continued to re-elect the demure Cynthia McKinney (although the following week she lost her primary - never fear, Moonbats! Like a bad penny, she has a way of always turning up.) Needless to say, I haven't heard back from this friend since then. To be honest I don't care, either. He falls into the same elitist camp that my lesbian neighbors were so fond of flying the flag for: The only places worth living in are New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and perhaps Portland, OR. Well, they can have it. Although I've only called the Southeast home for roughly three weeks, it's nice to live somewhere more normal for a change - somewhere you don't have to wear Birkenstock sandals, slap a "Bush Lied People Died" bumper sticker on your car, and wear a Che Guevara tee while sporting the footprint of the American Chicken on your person in order to fit in.

A Matter of Faith

2006-10-07T18:08:00.000-07:00

All liberals can now go to this church to worship their new god.

As an atheist, I'd never thought I'd say it, but I like the old god a whole lot better.

A Republican at Burningman

2006-09-09T18:38:00.000-07:00

I was going to write up something to go along with this picture, but I really don't think I can improve upon it.

More or less in poverty?

2006-07-29T07:32:00.000-07:00

House OKs minimum wage increase - via MSNBC.

What does this actually mean? I think that there will be no direct effect on us in the Northwest as our local minimum wages are much higher than the federal minimum. But... we live in an integrated economy.

One thing is for sure, and that is the increase in price levels... which means that my buck fiddie today will be buying significantly less a down the road. The US as a whole has been fairly lucky (or, perhaps it isn't luck at all, but good management of the economy) with low inflation.

Another thing is for sure... in one fell swoop, our number of citizens at poverty level will instantly increase. If price levels change roughly equally to the raise in minimum wage, we will merely be demoting the workforce that is 15 or 20 cents above minimum wage back down to the base. That's unfortunate.

We will also be encouraging 'under the table' employment. As the legal pay rate increases, the incentive for an employer to not report employment, not file taxes, and look for someone who is willing to work illegally goes up. This will actually increase the demand for illegal immigrants. And, since the demand for illegal employment seems mostly endless, I doubt they'll be surfing the correct side of the supply/demand curve that would naturally incrase wages. In order to increase wages in the marketplace, one needs to have a labor shortage.

Locally, this will probably benefit Oregon and Washington. By raising the minimum wage elsewhere in the US, basically, one can view it as reducing the minimum wage in a state where the state minimum wage is higher. This will only make things more competitive, and should be a benefit for regional economy.

My verdict? I see it as a way to buy votes. In all reality, the people who will be effected by this legislation generally don't get the fact that it is a null and void change in their lives. In fact, for the middle class (majority of small business owners) and anyone who likes to travel internationally, the increase in wages will lead to a decrease ability to do business and a decreased value of the Dollar compared to other currencies. Oh, yeah... and it will be a good incentive to ship more jobs overseas.

Aren't the liberals againt shipping jobs overseas?

Several people shot at Jewish Federation in Seattle

2006-07-28T16:55:00.000-07:00

This happened about an hour ago, two blocks from my current location:
Several people shot at Jewish Federation in Seattle

Since it also happens to be two blocks from my apartment, I'm probably not going to be able to head home for a while.

I'm sure the Religion of Peace had nothing to do with it.

React to the Unknown, or Develop flexible coping skills?

2006-07-27T22:11:00.000-07:00

Many conversations I have with Human Caused Global Warming advocates deal with the culminating argument that they believe that global warming is human caused, therefore extreme measures should be levied upon humans to stop the warming. I argue that even though that theory is a bit too simplistic and, in my opinion, not accurate, we are better off spending our efforts developing coping strategies because the reason for climate change is not limited to human causes. I ask them how cutting back on CO2 emissions will combat a surge in energy from the sun.

.This article is by someone who seems to be somewhat likeminded. Oh, he also is a Nobel laureate, and works at a little science laboratory in Europe. He's not a former presidential candidate, actor, newscaster or... well, things that just don't matter... he's a top notch chemist.

Read what he has to say, and think about it. Would you rather be spending all of your money fixing the wrong problem... or would you like to develop various strategies to deal with numerous problems as they arise.

Just think about it. If you do, you just may wonder why the global warming industry refuses to take that approach. One reason might be that the forward thinking first world countries are the likely ones to develop and deploy such measures. This system would probably benefit some sort of government contractor, instead of impose great limitations on citizens of the most productive countries on the planet

Fashion Advice Needed

2006-07-27T20:49:00.000-07:00

Stange as it may seem, I'm going to be attending burning man with some friends this year. Seeing as it is supposed to be all about free expression, I'm going to need some nice conservative t-shirts to spread the message. I really like the stuff at thoseshirts.com. Anybody have any other suggestions?

Some constraints:

1. I'm going to be in tne middle of the desert, so something with a high albedo is mandatory. So as much as I like this one, it won't work.
2. I'm trying to be something less than outright offensive, so as awesome as this is, it's out too.

There's lots of good stuff on cafepress, and I've had good luck with them before. If you have any favorites you want to recommend, please leave a comment.

UNreasonable

2006-07-25T07:24:00.000-07:00

Today, our faithful leader in the world order, Kofi Annan, stated requirements for a UN peacekeeping mission to Lebanon.

This is from memory, so it's a rough quote. He said "in order for peacekeeping forces to arrive, the violence MUST stop."

OK, so, technically, a peacekeeping mission, by definition, would be a mission where peace already exists and must be maintained. So, by this definition, the UN should probably muster a force and deploy to the border between Sweeden and Norway.

Our 'world order' leaders at the UN just don't get it. We need force to battle the backwards ideology of the islamofacists today. If a body is to exist to promote peace worldwide, then it must be willing to not just KEEP the peace, but sometimes, when needed, RESTORE the peace. It appears that the UN is unwilling to do the more difficult, but sometimes necessary mission.

Think of it this way: Our local police forces in the US are charged, basically, with enforcing laws that provide the private citizens with the greatest possibility of having a peaceful life, free from violence and bodily harm. By the UN definition of peace promotion, if a local police officer came up to a domestic dispute between a man and a woman, he should only be able to exert any kind of force IF the couple stops fighting. Can you see it now? The cops episodes would mostly be made up of extended video footage of husbands pummeling their wives.

Now, we all in the west understand that sometimes our police must use force to break up a bad situation. They go through training, and are given a fairly wide array of tools to be able to use the best possible force to dissolve bad situations. Many military forces around the world have a similar set of tools and similar training that is catered to dissolving wars instead of domestic disputes.

History has shown, however, that UN peacekeepign forces are not the blessing that the UN makes them out to be. Perhaps Israel is better off providing their own protection.

Election Year in the State of Washington

2006-07-18T22:38:00.000-07:00

I don't post about local politics nearly enough, so here's one.

Maria Cantwell has started running her first television ads for her Senate reelection bid. It's here if you really want to look at it. But I already watched it so you don't have to!

There are three main points in the ad. So what are they? Foreign policy? Economic strategy for the State of Washington? Initiatives for her next term?

Ha ha, of course not. She talks about how she has opposed Bush, opposed Enron, and opposed those horrible energy companies in general. Wow, that's a seriously compelling platform!

So Maria, if I were to vote for you, what would you actually DO? Besides oppose things, I mean.

Okay, I told myself that I wasn't going to waste time on her site, but I couldn't help but click on National Security. There's some funny stuff there.

Under "Fighting Terrorism":

"Because we face the ongoing threat of terrorism at home and abroad, Maria has fought for increased funding and new technology to keep Americans safe and strengthen our aviation security. Maria has called for increased international cooperation to bring terrorists to justice. And she is pushing for legislation to stop terrorists from using identity theft to enter our country."

"Strengthen aviation security", "International Cooperation", "Legislation"? All of which is to day, more defensive measures. So where exactly is the "fighting" in "fighting terrorism"? Her platform is fighting in the same way that wearing a bulletproof vest is fighting. Which is to say, it isn't. Ooh, more legislation? That'll show Al-Qaeda!

The next two points are "Bringing Our Troops Home" and "Providing Our Troops with the Resources They Need". Hey Maria, I'm confused, why do our troops need more resources if they're just going to be at home?

Finally we have "Ending Violence in Darfur". How does she propose to accomplish this? Simple: "Maria believes that we must rise to this challenge and continue to push for peace in Darfur." Ah! Push for peace! Why didn't I think for that? I'm sure those pesky genocidal Muslim warlords will come around when they see how many troops we have sittin' around at home!

Fun With Movie Reviews

2006-07-16T16:55:00.000-07:00

Here in Seattle, we have this wonderful weekly paper called The Stranger. And while its politics might be pretty much the opposite of those who author this blog, I find completely enjoyable on that level. There's this game I like to play where I go through an issue and count how many pages go by before someone starts badmouthing the president. Let me grab the latest one and see how it goes!

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11. Eleven pages. Wow, that just might be a new record! Usually it's way before that. Anyways, the thing that really caught my eye in this week's issue was an ad towards the back for a cheap looking zombie movie called "Masters of Horror: Homecoming". The tagline is priceless: "Killed in an unjust war, they rise to take vengeance on those who sent them... with their VOTE".

So is this, at long last, the Democrats' new strategy for winning elections - having the dead vote? Remember, it has worked here before.

Anyways, it gets better, for included in the add is a quote from a review of the movie from The Village Voice: "Jaw-dropping... easily once of the most important political films of the era!" Yes, that's right, if you are in the mood for a good political movie, the best you can possibly do is a third rate zombie flick. With this in mind, I would like to declare Bubba Ho-tep to be the definitive Elvis biopic.

Has anyone else noticed the trend among critics, most of who seem to be very liberal, to focus their criticism primarily through the prism of their politics? While that would certainly be reasonable for political works (even zombie films!), it can produce some very strange results for when the work being reviewed isn't really political at all. For example, The Onion A.V. Club usually has decent reviews, but their recent review of the first season DVD of The Wild Wild West: The Complete First Season contains this howler:

"At its core, The Wild Wild West was about how the U.S. would rather demolish rogue states outright than work with them or learn from them."

What? The show, for those of you who have not seen it, is a goofy western, with a dash of science fiction thrown in. Or at least that's what most people probably thought before they realized that it was actually about how the U.S. deals with rogue states. Right.

Liberal Math

2006-05-19T22:46:00.000-07:00

Today at work, a co-worker started spouting today about how the Bush Administration was spending $22,000 a second in Iraq.

I chimed in and said I was skeptical. He firmly stated that he was correct, and could prove it.

So, I returned to my cubicle and popped open the calculator on my workstation's desktop.

$22,000*60 = $1,320,000 per minute

$1,320,000*60 = $79,200,000 per hour

$79,200,0008*24 = $1,900,800,000 per day

So... 1.9 billion dollars per day. The entire DoD budget for each year is roughly $500 billion. At that rate, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines would start starving by sometime around the end of September... And... The special appropriations bills from congress would only last about a month. That's what he was saying... I asked him to do his math, and he refused. In fact, after attempting to use the calculator for a few seconds to do his own calculations... He just shut up.

I told him that the figure was much more likely in the thousands, probably the low thousands, which was not so odd. Many large corporations have much greater per second budgets than the Iraq War... And they aren't even working on keeping 25 million people liberated and free. I offered to show him several earnings statements of large corporations and do the math for him... but he seemed to have lost interest.

So, there you have it folks. Arithmetic is useful. It shuts up liberal idiots!

New Media vs. the Old Media

2006-05-16T00:35:00.000-07:00

Many of you reading this would agree, it's always a kick to watch Michelle Malkin deliver her own special brand of whoop-ass. But did you know she's doing it right on your very own iPod?

Allow me to introduce you to my new favorite web site, Hot Air. One very hot, very professional, and very hip online media outlet.

All the usual topics in current events & politics are covered, often delivered in the form of well-produced video bites. Watch Michelle's Vents on recent issues facing the Minute Men and President Bush's speech on illegal immigration to start. Given the many forms of Hot Air's new media delivery, including video podcasts, I can't be held responsible should you become addicted.

In stark contrast, as if those in the MSM were in competition with each other to prove once and for all what incompetent boobs they truly are, CNN takes the cake once more with yet another screw up on last night's live broadcast speech by the President. Video of what CNN broadcast now archived here on YouTube.

Hm, let me see... If my choices are between the unprofessional, arrogant, disorganized dinosaurs of the Old Media and current, professional & provocative New Media outlets such as Hot Air, then I (and numerous others with access to a keyboard & internet connection) will no doubt flock to the latter.

Rachel Marsden: A Liberal's Glossary

2006-04-25T15:29:00.000-07:00

Gentlemen, start your engines.

Canada's whip-smart conservative pudit, brunette Rachel Marsden, takes on liberals' total obsession with corrupting the English language.

Choice entries include:

Affirmative action: Liberal-sanctioned racism and sexism.
Freedom fighters: Terrorists whose goal is to destroy Western democracy.
Terrorist: George Bush, or anyone who wants to harm "freedom fighters."
United Nations: Impotent, glorified debating club in which defenders of freedom and democracy foot the bill to entertain the musings of dictators and thugs.

Read the whole thing here at the Toronto Sun.

Mike Adams to visit Eugene

2006-04-20T23:18:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Mike Adams' latest column on townhall.com and noticed he is slated to speak at the University of Oregon on May 16th.

Also, a random tidbit to file under the heading "As If There Was Any Doubt"; Madeline Albright can legpress 400 pounds (article here).

Illegal Aliens March

2006-04-10T20:39:00.000-07:00

I got there early, and the marchers hadn't arrived yet.

The moonbats couldn't let a demonstration go on without tagging along. No sir!

This was the only major group of counter-protesters.

Enforce the law? How dare they!

Ah, some pleasant reading material to pass the time.

But I don't want to be in a union. And I'm friends with my boss. We go drinking!

Wouldn't be a Seattle demonstration without an appearance by this little gem.

Ah, the good old days!

Here comes the march.

If I expressed the same sentiment, I'd be a racist.

And another.

George Washington
Born: February 22, 1732
Westmoreland County, Virginia

Swing and a miss!

And why did they have to drag poor Spongebob into this?

Ah, I thought it was about time for old Che to make an appearance.

And giant paper mache heads, of course!

Lots of signs along these lines.

Old physics joke:

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference.

But I somehow doubt these folks wanted to have a discussion of Einstein's theories.

Most of the flags on display were American, but there were still no shortage of these.

If Zeke were rich...

2006-03-22T15:04:00.000-08:00

This post began as a lunchtime conversation yesterday under the category of "crazy things I'd do to annoy hippies in Eugene if I were a rich guy". It was then circulated to some friends, one of which gave the reply "Post It!" so here goes:

Some possibilities:

* I'd offer to give a $50 million dollar endowment donation if I could have permission to create "The Center for the Advancement of Global Warming" on the U of O campus. Then I'd take out ad space on the local channels and run commercials: "Are you tired of having to bundle up each winter? Has Seasonal Affective Disorder got you down? Then support the research of the Center for the Advancement of Global Warming; we're making the day after tomorrow's dream a reality. Our goal of 80 degrees year-round is well within our technological grasp."

Or,

* I'd run a ballot initiative to exterminate Salmon complete with a hachetjob commercial: "Excrement. Semen. Decomposing corpses. Doesn't sound appealing, does it? But you may have swam in them. Spawning Salmon don't seem so cute anymore do they? Vote YES on initiative 53 and help clean up our local waterways."

Or perhaps,

* I'd just donate that $50 million in exchage for permission to establish a Foundation for the Advancement of Traditional, Conservative, Academic Thought (FATCAT). The building housing the Foundation would be a tribute to the military-industrial complex (whatever that means) and would feature, among other things: a Steakhouse restaurant, a "Dead White Men" library, a "Men's Center", and a indoor pistol range. As a jab to the solar-energy freaks, it would have a device which takes electricity and turns it into artifical solar energy (in other words, broad-spectrum lighting run off fossil fuels or a nuclear reactor we managed to smuggle into the nuclear-free zone). The Foundation would invite prominent neocon speakers to give lectures (where, to make them feel at home, we'd throw pies at them), would host Affirmative Action Bakesales, and of course the ever-popular "Re-Take Back The Night From The Women Who Took Back The Night Last Night Night".

Gosh, I hope I get rich!

Help Pave Eugene!

2006-03-21T18:57:00.000-08:00

I hate having to give personal information in order to make a purchase, so when I'm asked what my zip code is, I have a habit of giving the zip code I had in graduate school: 97403 (for Eugene, Oregon). I guess I've made it an unofficial mission of mine to make sure the good folks of Eugene have the highest per-capita rates of Radio Shacks and Old Navies in the US. I invite all others who hate having to give out information when shopping to join me.

Another Seattle Protest

2006-03-19T17:27:00.000-08:00

To celebrate St. Patrick's Day, the local moonbat chapter held another rally in front of the federal building. I was stuck at work for most of the day but I managed to get out at lunch to snap a few photos.

Sorry I didn't invite you along Zeke, but I wasn't really sure if I was going to be able to make it myself. Next time for sure.

There really weren't very many of them. They only occupied the sidewalk and narrow plaza in front of the federal building.

Usually your typical Seattle moonbats will congregate in Westlake Plaza, but this was at the same time as the St. Patricks Day parade, and even moonbats know better than to mess with the Irish.

Socialism is the alternative? Then no thanks!

I wanted to tell these guys about the recent supreme court decision, but I just didn't have the heart.

The cops just looked bored.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Wow, look at all those signatures. Note how they are still using that thoroughly debunked 100,000 figure.

Where do these guys get such killer material?

Heh. It was obvious that someone was trying to build a bloody corpse, but gave up when they realized that grape jelly doesn't actually look anything like blood.

One solitary fellow standing up for the good guys. I thanked him and took his picture.

No Love

2006-03-13T20:46:00.000-08:00

I work in an office that overlooks Westlake Plaza in downtown Seattle. This makes for good entertainment, since quite a few demonstrations take place there.

Last week I heard someone say that there was a demonstration taking place in the plaza. I excitedly ran downstairs where I was disappointed to find that it was only the Free Tibet crowd walking in a circle and chanting.

It's been a while since I saw a demonstration where I actually agreed with the sentiment being expressed, and I couldn't help wanting to grab one of them and yell "Exactly how do you think marching in a circle is going to get China out of Tibet? Don't you realize how silly you all look?"

But the best part was when I related this story to a friend. "No Malkin love for you today" she said.

The State Of The League Address

2006-03-07T23:45:00.000-08:00

Fellow Extraordinarily Conservative Gentlemen and Ladies;

Tonight I am proud to report that our vision is clear, our resolve firm, and the state of the League is strong.

As many of you know, there was a semi-impromptu gathering in Eugene to support and congratulate Daredemo on his academic accomplishment. While those unable to attend were missed; the attending members had a wonderful time. The gathering included the ceremonial consumption of red meat and alcohol.

Further good news concerns our blog: we have passed the year and a half marker, have over 18,000 hits, and are approaching 200 posts. Thanks to all who have been posting, and keep up the good work.

Cheers!

Zeke Wilkins' Soulmate?

2006-03-07T22:05:00.000-08:00

During a recent roadtrip with Duke, the writings of Mike Adams on Townhall.com were mentioned. I thought I had read a few of his articles before, but after talking to Duke I thought I should read more of him. On returning home Sunday night I ended up spending several hours reading posts of his - including a seven part series entitled "Why I don't take feminists seriously".

Could Zeke really have a soulmate? For those interested:

Townhall.com and DrAdams.org

Schools = Sitting Ducks

2006-02-28T23:19:00.000-08:00

In my home town, there was a school shooting. This hometown being right in the middle of rural America, this seems to be a bit of a shock to many. They wonder what we can do to 'keep this from happening again'.... they wonder 'why' a 14 year old boy brings a hand gun to school and shoots another student. Luckily, in this incident, no one died. It was close, but the victim survived.

I firmly believe that one reason why students bring firearms (illegally) to school is because they realize that no one else (except for other illegal firearm carrying students) has a firearm at school. Bringing that one piece to school automatically elevates their power above the rest of the bodies at the school. It is instant power, and that power can be used in an attempt to instantly solve problems.

We can debate until the end of time how we should go about reducing the probability of a student wanting to bring a gun to school or what steps could be taken to scan and search students on a daily basis in order to check the students for banned firearms. There is an easy solution...

Remove the power created by bringing a firearm to school. How? Encourage school faculty to train on how to use and carry firearms in a concealed fashion. Let students know that it is legal, and in fact encouraged for faculty to carry a concealed weapon, but do not let them know who carries. Let school rumors enforce the fact that bringing a firearm to school will not automatically create a power over other people at school.

It's an idea... I think it is one that ought to be looked at. The more we restrict firearm ownership and restrict locations where they may be carried, the more we expand the power created by breaking these rules.

How much do you want to bet that violent crime in San Francisco, with it's new 'gun ban' increases? Criminals will now know that the chances of attacking a 'law abiding citizen' with a gun are nil. It's really a shame.

Rioting Islamists, Cheney, and the White House Press Corps

2006-02-21T14:40:00.000-08:00

Only one of those three subjects listed above is not like the others. You'll have to read columnist Mark Steyn's latest to find out who!

Fortunately, the Washington Post had that wise old bird David Ignatius to put it in the proper historical context: "This incident," he mused, "reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy's delay in informing Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969."

Hmm. Let's see. On the one hand, the guy leaves the gal at the bottom of the river struggling for breath pressed up against the window in some small air pocket while he pulls himself out of the briny, staggers home, sleeps it off and saunters in to inform the cops the following day that, oh yeah, there was some broad down there. And, on the other hand, the guy calls 911, has the other fellow taken to the hospital, lets the sheriff know promptly but neglects to fax David Gregory's make-up girl!

One can only hope others agree with Ignatius' insightful analogy, and that the reprehensible Cheney will be hounded from public life the way Kennedy was all those years ago. One would hate to think folks would just let it slide and three decades from now this Cheney guy will be sitting on some committee picking Supreme Court justices and whatnot.

Add Mark Steyn to your regular reading list. You will thank me for it.

Hornet's Nest

2006-02-20T21:58:00.000-08:00

Just to throw in my two cents on this whole Cartoon jihad...

I've been following this mainly through the unparalleled work found in blogs by Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs. A number of the protests seem to have been manufactured by Danish imams who traveled from Denmark & Europe to the middle east, armed with poor reproductions of the Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons, as well as a few images that had nothing to do with Mohammed but were sold that way to the eager anti-West masses. Call it the Prophet Propaganda Blasphemy Tour. In any case, whatever lit this fuse, Jihadistan has been hopping for weeks now, resulting in numerous deaths as a result of the riots.

Haven't seen what all the hoopla's about? Holy fatwa, Batman - turn off the TV news already and surf: the Danish cartoons - neatly bundled within a nice lesson on the art history of the Prophet Mohammed - are available for your surfing pleasure out at this site.

Clearly, there is simply no shortage worldwide of psychotic islamo-nazis.

Well, well. What have we here?
Iran says it's time to stop the rioting:

Iran backed calls from other Muslim and world leaders Monday for an end to violent protests over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, urging calm after weeks of demonstrations that have left at least 45 people dead in the Muslim world.

In other words, get back to concentrating on wiping Israel off the map, like the good little useful idiots-er, islamists you are...

Not like this is President Ahmadinejad speaking out here. Nope. He prefers lecturing those who will listen on the finer points of antisemitism and Holocaust denial when dabbling in public speaking. Instead, the let's-make-nice talk is coming from Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki while on a trip to EU HQ. (He must be there to stock up on the chocolate.)

But wait. Do I detect an ulterior motive here on the part of the Iranian government?

"We are facing ... angry Muslims all around the world. We have to try our best to avoid any violence," he said. "This is what we are trying to do in Iran. ... So many of our policemen were attacked by angry people on the streets."

Iranians attacking the Iranian police? Well. As every good totalitarian regime knows, we can't have that now, can we?

And now, for the inevitable humorous backlash...

Take that, you humorless jihad-mongers. Ha!

globaloney

2006-02-19T00:18:00.000-08:00

Global warming strikes again!

*cough*

Speaking of global warming hysterics. If you haven't yet read this book, you should. I highly recommend it.

According to a report in the New York Times, even President Bush seems to have enjoyed it. Heh.

Nothing must bring on the wrath of the environmentalists more. Imagine an intelligent, in-depth analysis of current research by someone who, given his vita, should really be in their camp: Hollywood-blockbuster-writing, creative powerhouse Michael Crichton must really chap their collective hides whenever he speaks out.

Crichton's maintained a healthy skepticism of current popular global warming theory/politics for years. It shouldn't surprise detractors that his research finally made it into a best-selling fiction novel. If Crichton's observations are so easy to discount, then why are the environmentalists so worried?

Thoughts on the Riots over a Cartoon

2006-02-09T20:39:00.000-08:00

My optimisim about demcracy in the middle east -- most notably Iraq and Afghanistan -- has been badly shaken lately as the entire Islamic world -- from Indonesia to Morroco seems to be aflame in violent protests over a cartoon published in a Danish newspaper. These demostrations show that there is no sense of proportion in the Islamic world and that the sort of radical Islamic fundamentalism often blamed for such behavior enjoys relatively mainstream support throughout the Islamic world. It is manifestly opposed to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. And without these things, democracy doesn't tend to last.

One of the comments, usually made by pundits on the right, is that the belief that muslims aren't ready for democracy is actually quite racist. However, we in the west have learned to keep our expectations suitably low when in comes to muslim behavoir. And yet they still consistently fail to meet even those lowered expectations for civilized behavoir.

I've come to the conclusion that 99% of muslims give the rest a bad name.

A White-Washed Red Cross?

2005-12-15T00:00:00.000-08:00

A week or so ago, The Washington Post ran an article that the American Red Cross has come under fire by minority groups for being too white. It seems we're damned when we oppress, and damned when we don't!

Among the concerns:

* evacuees felt "herded like cattle"

Okay, I can agree with this one; there is certainly nothing worse than being herded like cattle. Unless of course you include being killed, bled, cut to pieces, cooked and eaten like cattle.

* shelters were set up in white neighborhoods

Nevermind the fact that the largely-black neighborhoods were underwater.

* relief workers wore surgical gloves

I keep trying to tell all you folks that damned "Germ Theory" is just a medical fad. And I'm sure the use of sanitary barriers to prevent disease spreading to relief workers tremendously decreased the Red Cross' capacity to tend to the victims of Katrina.

Sarcasm aside, I have an honest question: how long do minority groups think they can get away with complaining about the humanitarian efforts conducted by charitable organizations in which financial contributors and relief workers of ethnicity are sadly under-represented? How many times can they question the motives and impugn the character of honest, hardworking whites that wish to donate their time or money?

I'd send money to the Red Cross, or even volunteer; if only I weren't white...

Effort

2005-12-14T17:32:00.000-08:00

You've probably seen the demotovational sayings at http://www.despair.com/. They are a fixture in my office, and probably yours too.

I just saw this his one, and it's the best yet:
http://www.despair.com/effort.html

Redeploy?

2005-12-06T07:44:00.000-08:00

Lately, the leftists have been making cries that we ought to re-deploy the troops.

Perhaps they're on to something.

Here's my suggestion:

Redeploy a large number of troops that are in Japan to the Korean DMZ to put pressure on our 'friend' Kim to discontinue his nuclear efforts and to grant his people rights and an improved quality of life.

Redeploy a large number of troops stationed in Germany to the Iraq/Iran and Iraq and Syria borders as an extra push to cease the support of terrorist actions and large scale proscribed weapons development.

Redeploy a large number of troops that are currently stationed and training in the US to the Southern US border and to wild areas on the Northern US border in order to give an instant boost to our border patrols. Develop a plan to place troops there until border patrol officers can be trained and deployed, thus reducing the need for the troops to remain. (this redeployment, especially, would offer a unique training opportunity to our troops. As we now see, our military efforts now deal heavily with the human trafficking on illicit people and substances. In the Middle East, it is terrorists and terror supplies such as bomb making materials. On the US border, it is Illegal immigrants and illicit drugs... And possibly bomb making material. It just makes sense. It would be a 'two benefits for the price of one deployment' operation. It just makes sense...)

As for Iraq, I think we ought to leave some troops there. Sure, there are some insurgent actions there that are proving difficult to suppress, but there is also immense progress there. I have a hard time believing that the Dinar in Iraq would be one of the most stable currencies without our troops there. I have a hard time believing that the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, and infrastructure would continue without the US troops offering expertise and planning, let alone some extra sweat. The wise plan is to let the Commander in Chief run the war as he said he would. We should base our troop level in Iraq on the benchmarks and the need for troops there. We ought not base our troop levels on what stories the AP and Al Reuters decide to cover.

I'm not a religious man, so to speak... but THANK GOD that John Kerry isn't our Commander in Cheif. Where would Iraq be today if he were?

Scientologists to Space Aliens: Take a Left at Albuquerque

2005-11-29T18:52:00.000-08:00

I suppose they have to spend all that money they get from Hollywood somehow...

...snicker...

A Small Cast of Characters

2005-11-26T22:19:00.000-08:00

This Photo Gallery of the mother of the anti-war movement will show how weak this movement really is. Scroll through the 70+ photos and count how many different cast members you see. It really is a small cast for the show. And... I'm not all that sure how some of the photos near the end actually fit under the 'Cindy Sheehan' banner, but they are there none the less.

Don't pass up the gallery. It will not only showcase how the only support that Ms. Sheehan is the people who get their paychecks from media outlets or anti-Bush PACs, but that there are some real world Americans who are getting fed up with the crap spewed by these people, and are standing up for our Commander in Chief.

Info-tainment at its best!

Urban Legends About the Iraq War

2005-11-26T10:34:00.000-08:00

Print THIS out and leave it in the lunchroom at work. It is a really good overview of why the left-mongers are so far off base... and why the MSM is so irresponsible.

C'mon... just do it. It will be good for you. This would make a good series of TV commercials too, especially in the run up to the elections...

Questions not Asked

2005-11-21T18:30:00.000-08:00

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in the past -- used them in a regional war and against his own people -- and UNSCOM was still finding them when they were kicked out of the country in the fall of 1998. After his defeat in the Gulf War, UN inspectors found Saddam Hussein had deployed missiles and artillery shells loaded with anthrax, milled to military grade, and its electrostatic charges eliminated using bentonite.

The Czech interior minister confirmed that Mohamed Atta met with a ranking Iraqi spy Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani -- nominally an Iraqi diplomat in Prague -- on his route to the United States in April of 2001.

A Fort Lauderdale doctor, during the summer of 2001, treated a leg lesion on a patient who would become one of the September 11 hijackers. Later that fall, the doctor concluded the injury was consistent with cutaneous anthrax; experts from the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies concurred.

The anthrax in the mail turned out to be weapons-grade, finely ground, and with electrostatic charges eliminated using bentonite.

Question 1: If Saddam Hussein actually did get rid of all his weapons of mass destruction, why didn't he simply come clean, allow the UN inspectors in unfettered, and thereby remain the unquestioned strongman of Iraq?

Question 2: What became of that portion of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction arsenal which UNSCOM was unable to account for?

Question 3: Where did the anthrax in the mail come from?

Question 4: Why was Mohammad Atta shopping around for a crop duster the summer before 9/11?

Rumsfeld and Cheney take on Democrats trying to rewrite history

2005-11-17T21:01:00.000-08:00

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 1:18 p.m. EST

SEC. RUMSFELD: Good afternoon, folks. A few days ago, President Bush noted that some critics seem to want to rewrite the history of the coalition's involvement in Iraq. It might be useful to take a moment to retrace the actual history.

In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. That law specified 10 findings of Saddam Hussein's violations of international norms and stated, quote, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," unquote. That legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.

In December of that year, 1998, President Clinton ordered military action in response to Iraq's decision to expel the U.N. weapon inspectors. In an address to the nation, he stated, quote, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there's one big difference: he has used them. The international community had little doubt then and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again," unquote.

Justifying President Clinton's decision, then-vice president, Gore, asked, if you allow -- quote, "If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons?" unquote.

The then-secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said, "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face," unquote.

And the then-national security adviser, Sandy Berger, said, "He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983," unquote.

Four years later, in October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force, if necessary, to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq, quote, "Poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States by continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations," unquote. These assessments were echoed by foreign intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and the year 2002.

In early 2004, weapons inspector David Kaye, while acknowledging he had not found weapons of mass destruction, testified that Iraq, quote, "Maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs," unquote. Later that year, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer noted, quote, "Saddam Hussein wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," unquote.

This is the history that brought us to where to we are today. These are simply facts. The times we live in are serious. We're in the midst of a global war that threatens free people across the world, as evidenced by attacks here in Washington, D.C., in New York City, in Bali, London, Madrid, Beslan, Jerusalem, Riyadh, and most recently at a wedding reception in Amman, Jordan. Innocent people -- mothers, fathers, children -- have been murdered by a network of Islamic extremists -- Islamofacists, if you will -- seeking to impose their dark vision on free people. They seek to build in Iraq what they once had in Afghanistan -- a safe haven -- and then to expand throughout the region and beyond. Their terms are not negotiable.

While the American people understandably want to know when our forces can leave Iraq, I believe they do not want them to leave until our mission is accomplished and the Iraqis are able to sustain their fledgling democracy. As the president has said, one cannot set arbitrary deadlines. Timing of the handover of responsibility to Iraqis depends on conditions on the ground. And already some responsibilities are being assumed by the Iraqi security forces. We must be careful not to give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us.

Vice President's Remarks at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute Ronald Reagan Gala
The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:14 P.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much and good evening to all of you. And I'm -- when I heard about your gathering, and since I work just down the street from here I thought I'd drop in and say hello.

Let me thank the good people of Frontiers of Freedom, of course, George Landrith, Kerri Houston, Al Lee, for bringing us all together this evening. And I see many good friends in the room, including current and former office holders, as well.

It's a pleasure to see all of you. I'm sorry we couldn't be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment. (Laughter.) I'll let you think about that one for a minute. (Applause.)

I hope you'll permit me, ladies and gentlemen, to say a few words that were not part of my remarks that I'd planned originally this evening but which concern a matter of great importance to our entire nation.

Most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington back in the late 1960s. I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city. (Applause.)

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that -- made by this Administration and by the previous administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts. (Applause.)

What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures -- conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers -- and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history. (Applause.)

Video of the Day...

2005-11-15T20:19:00.000-08:00

... or something like that. We don't do videos every day, but when one this good comes up, you just gotta see it. I hope this starts playing on some MSM outlets.

Anyway, for your viewing pleasure: A Flock of Flip Flops

Asylum. Inmates. Any Questions?

2005-11-11T21:02:00.000-08:00

As a California resident, my first reaction after learning that all the common-sense measures failed on Tuesday's ballot was one of disbelief. But then, that was short-lived, as I realized it was merely further proof that here in the Golden State, the inmates are truly running the asylum.

Just in case you're lucky enough to not be a California resident or weren't following Governator Arnold's intiatives too closely, Senator Tom McClintock summed up the measures - and the disappointment many felt on Wednesday morning - in his statement on the special election:

I'm not going to pretend that Tuesday's election was anything other than what it was: an unmitigated and stunning defeat of some of the most basic principles of good government ever put to a vote: that government should live within its means; that politicians shouldn't chose who gets to vote for them; that teachers should demonstrate sustained competence before they're granted lifetime tenure; that public employees have a right to decide for themselves what candidates they'll support with their own money; and that parents have a right to know if their teenaged daughter is undergoing an abortion.

Perhaps the most heinous of them all, however, was San Francisco's blatant disregard for the 2nd Amendment in their passing of a complete ban on handguns. If this happens to stand up in court, then residents can expect to be forced to turn over their handguns on April Fool's Day 2006.

Having lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for about five years, it was easy to arrive at the conclusion that the City is indeed the freakshow component of the Circus known as California. Whenever visitors arrive, I take them there to see the sights and marvel at the moonbats that run the place. Where else would you find people who constantly decry the Bush administration as fascists, wax apoplectic about infringements of our rights, yet at the first opportunity they vote to curb one of America's most basic freedoms?

Meanwhile, this weekend there will be a gun show at the Cow Palace. As I marvel at the irony of this event occurring the same week San Franciscans vote to ban guns, I have to wonder... will it be the last one held there?

First "Limosine Liberals", Then "Gulfstream Environmentalsits," and Now This...

2005-11-09T17:02:00.000-08:00

The new fashion these days among society's elites seems to be what I like to call "conspicuous environmentalism." And it's naturally good fun to find examples of hypocrisy among the adherents of conspicuous environmentalism, particularly if they happen to be hyper-wealthy. Analogous to limosine liberals, Michael Crichton has coined the term "Gulfstream Environmentalists."

So for your amusement, consider the case of Larry Page and Sergey Brin -- the two cofounders of Google Inc. According to a story in Friday's Wall Street Journal, the two drive environmentally friendly hybrid vehicles and their company gives employees $5,000 if they buy hybrid gas-electric cars, for example. Mr. Brin also recently invested in a $550-million fund to help finance projects that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. "We've worked very hard to make sure our [net] impact on the environment is positive," Mr. Page says.

However, the duo recently purchased an aircraft for their own personal use. And it's not even a Gulfstream. They bought a Boeing 767!

Flying a used 767 would cost at least $13,000 per flight-hour, compared with $7,850 for a Gulfstream V.

According to the story in the Wall Street Journal, "people in the aviation industry familiar with the planned interior say it will have a sitting area, two staterooms with adjoining lavatories and a shower. Farther aft will be a large sitting-and-dining area. At the rear will be 12 to 16 first-class seats for guests or employees and a large galley." Oh, and of course inflight internet access.

Mr. Page says "part of the equation for this sort of machinery is to be able to take large numbers of people to places such as Africa. I think that can only be good for the world."

Isn't that wonderful.

Five Charged With War Crimes

2005-11-07T17:10:00.000-08:00

Reuters is reporting that five Guantanamo detainees will be charged with war crimes.

Meanwhile, another story details the Supreme Court's decision to consider a case challenging the administration's authority to do just that with War on Terror detainees.

Protest silliness in Seattle

2005-11-02T20:06:00.000-08:00

The group cowgirlup saw in San Francisco was up to the same tricks here in Seattle. Lucky me, they were right outside my office. But I had plenty of opportunity to take some great pictures.

Because students skip class only for the most important of causes.

I wondered where the editorial cartoonists for Pravda had gotten off to.

Nice banner. But what's that on their table?

Heh.

Hmm, lets double check that in the dictionary:

Fascism: n.
Being able to demonstrate peacefully against your government without fear of persecution.

Well I'll be damned!

I take great confort knowing that this young girl's parents have presented her with both sides of the issue and allowed her to come to her own conclusions before the protest.

Sometimes they almost make it too easy.

No no, that's the NEXT protest.

This was in the middle of the speech about how wrong it is to imprison people for crimes they haven't been convicted of.

Make love not war!

Moonbats Can't Wait

2005-11-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

Or, Reason #5,143 Why I Will Never Live in San Francisco County

Oh, how original! There was yet another anti-Bush protest and rally today in San Francisco. As usual, traffic was snarled. Hirsute, odiferous participants ditched school to join in on the fun.

This one was organized by yet another flock of Leftist Moonbat spawn, known as World Can't Wait.

I suggest you spend some time there. Surf around, get to know their organizers. Gather intel on the enemy within. If you are at work, though, be prepared to stifle your laughter, for I guarantee it will be hearty. For these people, Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't just a psychiatric illness. It's a full-blown epidemic. Joe Tougas, the San Francisco component of WCW's Steering Committee, is doing it because he cares:

I care infinitely about the environment, cultural evolution, social justice, and anything that helps us achieve clean air, clean water, and peace--for without those things the human race is doomed. And there can be no greater enemy to clean air, clean water, and peace, than the Bush administration.

(Ah, yes. Be patient, children. Our Lady Sheehan's Church of the Bush Haters' Fellowship is just around the corner...)

WCW tries mightily to be hip. They've hired a graphic designer and armed the minions with colorful banners and signs for the protest. On the web site, the intro mimics a Kanye West rappin' hip-hop jive number. (For all I know, it could actually be West.) In the same breath the vocalist laments war deaths caused by Bush, he decries dwindling abortion rights. Ah-ha! Death in war = Bad, but women murdering their unborn innocent babies unencumbered = Good. Check. (I guess that inconvenient baby could have grown up to be an eeeevil Republican, after all.)

Oh, yes. One more thing. It's always nice to see who has endorsed groups such as this. If I recognize any, they go right to the top of my list of people and places to boycott. Or, for that matter, politicians to oust... as several of them are California assemblymen & assemblywomen or city council members.

No Nukes...

2005-11-02T12:28:00.000-08:00

...For The Mullahs.

Just in case you missed LGF today:

Iranian expatriates hold a different type of anti-nukes rally on the UC Berkeley campus.

"Zombie," a San Francisco bay area blogger who chronicles moonbat activity, reports the usual crowds of anti-war Berserkley-ites were nowhere to be seen.

Perhaps there was just too much common sense present at this rally?

Legislating The Warm Fuzzies

2005-10-26T10:20:00.000-07:00

British banks Halifax and NatWest ban the use of the piggy bank so that they won't offend swinophobic Muslims.

Rome decides to do away with the wicked fish bowl, as well as enforce regular dog walking (as does the city of Turin, forcing owners and their pooches out of the house a minimum of three times per day).

Something tells me the Italian carabinieri should have better things to do than hunt down fish bowl-owning children or ticket those who happen to miss a vigorous day of dog-walking.

With leadership such as this, it is no wonder civilized nations are such easy targets for murderous islamofascists...

Peace through... well... not strength.

2005-10-18T18:54:00.000-07:00

Kofi is flexing his peace keeping muscles again. This time, he has warned the parties in conflict that if they don't start behaving peacefully, then he will remove his peacekeeping troops.

Humph. And people on the left think that GWB lacks brainpower...

OK, so, say you're a parent. Say you have two children that are fighting. Say you're on a road trip, and they keep fighting in the car. Now... say you let your spouse drive so you can sit in the middle to keep them from fighting. (this is where we get to the real analogy... ) If the kids keep trying to fight, would you a)threaten to impose severe punishments if they continue to fight, or b) threaten to leave them alone in the car so they can resume pounding eachother into bloody pulps?

Well, most people would pick option 'a'... but Kofi here, with millions of lives at stake, seems to be threatening an option 'b'. Wow! I'm glad they are the worlds #1 peacekeeping body! I feel much better!

So, perhaps we need to start working on a new UN slogan: The UN, we threaten those who tend to wage ethnic cleansing war with the ability to wage ethnic cleansing war.

Feel free to build and revise. I think we can come up with something really clear.

Oh, and might I offer to the readers to observe which peacekeeping and community building military efforts in the past decade have worked and which have not? I think the best think that happened to the Iraqi people was the UN's UNwillingness to take part in their revolution. If they had, Iraq would be under control of a warlord... even if his name does sound like a mispronounced caffinated beverage.

Bias?

2005-09-10T07:04:00.000-07:00

So... Mr. Brown has gone back to D.C. Seems like a logical step to me... there could be many other events that FEMA might need to assist with managing. It seems reasonable to me that the director would pay attention to the new event, and once the response is established, the command of the extended response would be taken over by an 'event specific leader'...

It makes perfect sense to me, but our Bush Bashing Media sees this as an opportunity. MSNBC, CNN, CBS (not surprisingly), ABC and many others have pitched this as the next best thing to a firing. The whole concept is absurd.

Brown is like the CEO of FEMA. Sure, the CEO of a corporation might get a new idea for a project... and might even dabble with the new project here and then. Say the project really takes off, like an IPOD. Now... will this CEO need to be busy in every IPOD product meeting? Should he be devoting every waking hour, and even some dream time to the IPOD? Perhaps he needs to relocate his house to where the IPOD factory sets. Heck... He should live IN the IPOD factory!

Normal people can see that it is very important, when an organization has one major task to tackle, that the leadership set up and delegate leadership duties so the rest of the organization doesn't shrivle up and die while (or whilst, for you across the pond readers) one product survives.

Regardless of Brown's job performance, it is completely logical that he head back to D.C. and delegate the duties of the Katrina Relief to someone else. This is so logical that it is a non-news story. If anything, it should be a minor, one or two sentences, clarification in a story introducing the new Katrina Disaster Director.

The Big Media's ability to make any story bad... as long as it is connected to the Bush Administration, is very dissappointing. The putrid bias, though, has been stinking for so long that it is just a given to plug one's nose while watching the news. The problem is that so many people don't even smell the stink anymore... they've been around it so long. I think we need to push to get them to officially register as a political party... They act like one.

That's one trait of a true LXCG'er... we can smell rotten news a mile away.

Dangerous Environmentalism

2005-09-08T20:10:00.000-07:00

This article at NRO (if you don't check there often... you should, especially on Fridays... it has something to do with VDH...) looks at the hidden dangers of the emotionally motivated environmental policies pushed by groups like the Sierra Club. Now... don't get me wrong, we need a viewpoint that will look at protecting resources and balancing the protection of the environment and the ability of us humans to go about our daily lives. The opposition to flood control projects is pretty damming to these groups, one might be able to say that the Sierra Club hates... well... the same people our President was accused of hating.

These groups have a history of picking a cause and stonewalling it to death. Look at the Northwest forests for example. We obviously need woodproducts in the US... we build houses and businesses... very little commerce is done under tye-dye tarps out in dirt lots. Environmental groups have put up so many barriers to the industry that the industry has found different markets by importing raw lumber from other places... places where we can impose none of our standards. In the Northwest, clearcuts must be limited to a certain size and must leave a certain number of trees still standing. Studies must be done to make sure a certain rodent doesn't live there in high numbers because a certain non-native species of winged creature eats that rodent. This drastically decreases the efficiency of opperating a logging site. So, instead of the lumber companies just 'dealing' with the regulations, other markets that do not have the same restrictions (South and Central America... and even Canada) are able to be much more competitive and basically have brought or logging to a halt. So... the forests in Oregon are now protected... but what about those in Central America... what about those in Canada. Do those forests not matter? Is the USA in a little bubble where our environment doesn't overlap with others? It seems to me we would have much more control over the impacts of harvesting timber if we would keep regulations at a level that we are still competitive here in the Northwest... and keep higher volumes from transferring to less regulated markets.

Another example would be our power generation. Nuclear power is, hands down, the most containable pollution producing power source we have. A nuclear plant can be built in many places... and all of the dangerous pollution can be contained in neat little boxes. Burning coal, oil, gas, and wood by-product all release pollutants into the air that will eventually end up in our lungs, in our water, in our oceans... everywhere. But, the anti-nuclear lobby has placed a stigma on nuclear power being dangerous beyond usefulness. They say nothing about it only being dangerously polluting if someone really screws up... Other viable sources of energy all have uncontainable pollutants as byproducts regardless of someone screwing up or not.

So... my question is... are they (they = environmental lobby groups) really looking out for the common people, or the common good of the earth? I just dont' see it that way. I think they are looking out for their inner circle and looking out for their organization's existence. If they really cared, they would look for a way to keep timber harvest in the US and research ways to meet our markets needs in the most environmentally friendly ways. They would be pushing for as much nuclear power generation as we can get... and... they would be pushing for proper flood control for our population centers. Just think about all of the resources that would not be needed if we didn't have to rebuild a city for a million people... and just think of the toxins that would not have made it into lakes and rivers and the Gulf of Mexico had NO not flooded.

I get the feeling that some of these groups believe that human existence on earth is not compatible with their ultimate goals. I feel as though they blame my breathing for robbing good old oxygen from the snowy pluver or spotted owl which only makes things worse for the endangered species.

So, I say they can start with a solution to the problems they tell us are severe. They can voluntarily stop breathing. wouldn't that be a good way to help bring an end to 'global warming'??? isn't CO2 a 'leading cause'???

well, be sure to read the NRO article that prompted all of this. It's a little more collected than this rant.

Eye on the Fleet

2005-09-06T22:33:00.000-07:00

Here is a very cool photo gallery by our US Navy. It appears to be continuously updated... and one can download large images to print! How cool is this!

Initally, some sort of insta-guy said they had images of the hurricane relief missions, but I now see that they have much more. Be sure to click through subsequent pages.. and take a look at at least 1% of the images.

Thanks Uncle Sam!

The Nuclear Long Term

2005-09-05T19:41:00.000-07:00

This article opens the eyes about the true dangers of Nuclear Power. Sure... it might hold the potential of a core meltdown and a somewhat large scale contamination... but that is quite small in comparison to the dangers of allowing our energy production to put toxins into the air that we all breathe.

The Anti-Nuclear lobby has long used Chernobyl as an example of why not to use nuclear power... but that reason seems to be... well... decaying.

A True Ally

2005-09-02T21:59:00.000-07:00

Check out this article, that shows a true ally in Japan. So, how much oil is France going to give out of it's strategic reserve? How much oil is Germany going to give out of it's reserve??? For all of the talk back in the campaign about 'abandoning our allies' and needing to 'enlist the help of our allies'... I'm not surprised to see this. It's nice to know that we do have friends out there... and having lived in Japan for some time, it's nice to know that a truly warm and loving population is willing to help.

Thanks, Japan. I really appreciate it.

Edited: It looks as though many countries around the globe, both developed and un-developed, have been helping us in many ways. I thank them all.

Short but wonderful

2005-08-17T21:38:00.000-07:00

I love viral movies. Ford is one of the better companies at using them as part of their marketing package. Usually, they are a cute little story with not much meaning...

This one is different.

Thanks, Ford. That was wonderful.

Emotionally Disabled???

2005-08-14T13:59:00.000-07:00

TimesDispatch.com | Spellings Quiz: Teachers test official

OK. The first paragraph of this article is absolutely ridiculous.

Lisa Hogsett, who teaches emotionally disabled students at Bailey Bridge Middle School in Chesterfield County, is struggling with the federal No Child Left Behind law.

What the hell are 'emotionally disabled' children? Do they get disabled parking passes when they get a license? Do buildings have to be emotionally compatible with their tastes to fit ADA standards? Is it just me, or are the excuses that we make for our children absolutely out of control? Holy Cow!

So, once we get passed labeling children as disabled when they just are emotionally stressed or troubled, we can actually look at what she is saying. (brackets in original document.)

"No matter how many accommodations [my students] get, they simply can't pass the criteria established through No Child Left Behind to ensure my school makes [adequate] yearly progress."

Hogsett would ask if there will be any changes to No Child testing that allows children to be tested according to their current reading level.

Now, President Bush and Congress passed the NCLBA in order to motivate our schools to make progress towards a goal of educating all of our students to a certain standard at a certain date. This instructor wants to make certain exceptions so her students don't need to meet these standards.

Isn't this exactly the problem that got us into the cycle of lowered expectations in the first place? Shouldn't our schools have standards that go beyond the excuses we create for our children? Don't we want to teach our children about the importance of standards, or should we teach our children that instead of hard work, they can instead figure out a way to attach a label to themselves to the point that the standards no longer apply.

Back to the original point... if I were a double amputee, I'd be raging mad at 'emotionally disabled'. If I were someone with advanced MS or Parkinson's, I'd be furious about 'emotionally disabled'.

OK. If you haven't read the whole article by this point... Please do so before I make my last point.

Many of our educators are asking that we not apply these education standards to certain groups of our children. From what I can gather, they would like any child or teenager with emotional distress, language barriers, un-hip clothing, mean older siblings, family problems, school problems, upset stomach, untied shoes, and bad hair to be exempt from the NCLB standards.

So... How many children would that leave to not be left behind? A: Zero.

Let's get real people.

Victor Davis Hanson's Latest

2005-08-13T23:08:00.000-07:00

Victor Davis Hanson on Islamism on National Review Online

Indeed, the latest two-hour training video is little more than cut-and-paste from the Michael Moore Left and hand-me-downs from Euro anti-globalist radicals. Thus America, al Qaeda assures us, "seeks to ravage the entire globe for the interest of corporate companies," and so kills the sons of Islam "in Palestine, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Indonesia, the Caucuses, and elsewhere. "

Apparently about three billion Europeans, Asians, Russians, and Indians have been picking on poor suicide bombers and terrorists, who, in fact, are incognito environmentalists bent on stopping corporate exploitation of Mother Earth.

Read the whole thing... I think what he is trying to say is that our enemy is much more serious about this war than we are... I agree that we need to pay more attention. Our survival may depend on it.

More Gun Fun at the University of Oregon

2005-08-02T18:25:00.000-07:00

Note to reader: Since June 2004 there have been at least three cases of handguns being flashed on campus, and in the light of my lawsuit's dismissal, I've been looking for a way to write an "I told you so" letter to the student newspaper. Below is the letter I submitted, we'll see if it gets published.

-----------

According to DPS safety bulletins, there have been at least three cases of illegal handgun brandishing on or near campus in just over one year. The incident in Klamath hall on June 25th only being the most recent. On April 24th of this year a man assaulted two students in Bean Hall, later returning with a revolver. On June 7th of last year there was an armed robbery between Bean Hall and Graduate Housing.

When I filed my lawsuit against the Oregon University System in an attempt to lift an unjust and illegal rule prohibiting the carrying of licensed concealed handguns, the response was predictable. The OUS and UO administration brought out the standard line: they were concerned about student safety. Student interviews and polls printed in the ODE showed that the majority of students (and I’m sure faculty and staff) felt uneasy about having concealed handguns carried onto campus by lawfully licensed and competent people.

If the campus community was uneasy about handguns carried by law-abiding citizens, I can only imagine the fear that has descended on campus with the revelation that yes indeed, there are already guns on campus- and they are not being carried by licensed, responsible people. The situation worsens with the unsettling realization that the administration is completely impotent when it comes to protecting students and faculty. The truth is that with an open campus anyone is able to smuggle in a handgun without detection- a lesson recently learned by an unnamed staff member.

Three incidents in about a year is hardly a crime wave; and fortunately shots have not been fired- yet. But it is enough to shatter the illusion that mere words on paper can deter irresponsible and criminally-minded outsiders from coming onto campus armed. If the OUS and UO administrations were truly concerned with student safety they would face the fact that the current policy of simply forbidding handguns on campus does not make it a gun-free zone. Furthermore, students and faculty alike would realize that they can only rely on themselves for protection.

I encourage the campus community to exert pressure on the OUS to drop the ban on defensive handguns. Handgun ownership is not about fear, it is about personal responsibility and taking steps to deter crime on campus. Sexual predators might think twice about targeting female students when there is the distinct possibility that they could be facing down the barrel of pistol wielded by a coed. Thieves will go elsewhere when faced with the idea of being confronted by an armed faculty member. There is a very real difference between feeling safe and being safe; a difference the U of O campus beginning to understand. Do not let irrational fears toward handguns dictate a policy which leaves the campus with no way to defend itself.

Complexification

2005-07-23T11:45:00.000-07:00

Complexification | Gallery of Computation is a very cool gallery. Several members of the LXCG are deep into this kind of thing... who knew it could be so beautiful.

Enjoy. (It is absolutely safe for work, though finding this site might reduce your productivity drastically.)

Our 'Unbiased' Media

2005-07-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

I am going to leave a lot of 'un-named' things in this post. The specifics aren't important to the story.

I work at a newspaper. (yes, it's a daily.) I am in the advertising, or as some of us say, the 'capitolist' department of the newspaper. Our bureau is one of the few that does not separate the advertising people from the editorial people by any physical barrier other than an isle. So, there is still a great deal of interaction between both parts of the staff.

When President Bush announced his choice for the vacant supreme court seat, we turned on the TV to watch the press conference live. As we were watching the coverage, I couldn't help but hear a voice from the 'other' side of the building murmering a word that starts with 'bullsh' and ends with 'it' after every statement the President made about his selection. President Bush might say "He is most knowledgable about the law of our great land" and this person would say BS. It became such a solid mantra for this certain staffer that I began to wonder if President Bush had announced the name of his selection's dog, if this certain staffer still would have let the overused word fly. This is probably no surprise to those of you who are skeptical about the biases in the media.

Now, here lies the problem. This person is not a reporter... not a photographer... this person is a layout artist for the paper. The community is a very well balanced political community, probably falling on the conservative side of things by just a bit. The news coverage is fairly balanced as well... well, local stuff is. The problem is that the AP feeds that we get for the paper go through this person. Photo selection for national stories go through this person... basically, much of the communitiy's world news (other than the skewed TV news from the 'big three') goes through this person as well.

I no longer wonder why I haven't seen a flattering photograph of President Bush in our local rag. The person in charge is blinded by hatred so much that the job is no longer correctly done.

Looks like I'm off to visit Instapundit.

We will see if Oliver Stone knows the definition of 'about'...

2005-07-10T16:19:00.000-07:00

Oliver Stone to Direct Film about 9/11

OK, this is about as sane as having Michael Moore direct a film on shaving technique or low fat cooking. We will get the facts as accurately as the CBS Rather memos depicted Bush's service. This movie will be as informative as an electronic readerboard in a power outtage.

I wonder if he will pass the script by his buddy Castro to get his approval before filming.

This is one movie I will not see. Looks like 'Fake but accurate' is going to be the norm of the elite media.

Using Tolerance as a Weapon

2005-05-03T21:37:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting exchange with one of my coworkers today which illustrates how we in the conservative community can use the rhetoric of progressives against them.

During my office hour today, a colleague caught me planning out a response to an article I had read in the student newspaper of the community college I teach at. The author was using the straw-man technique of misrepresenting the position of his opposition (in this case, those who oppose some aspects of stem cell research) and then dismantling the misrepresented arguments. I decided to work on a reasoned response to show that there was an intellectual voice of opposition, when my coworker walked in. Here is a paraphrase of the conversation that took place:

Coworker (CW): You've actually found something worth reading in the student newspaper?

Me (ZW): Actually, worth responding to.

CW: [reading the article's title] "Stem Cell Research a Modern Holocaust?" Oh, boy.

ZW: Yes. While I think that calling stem cell research a Holocaust does nothing productive, I do think this article could have been better written. The author basically believes that there is no reasoned argument to oppose some aspects of the research and calls any attempt to do so "garbage".

CW: [stunned look]

ZW: I think it is important to be intellectually honest and confront the best arguments of the opposition, rather than attempting to brush them off as not worth mentioning. It's not very open-minded or tolerant. It'll be interesting to see if they print my response.

CW: I'm sure they will.

Now, it was a rather brief exchange, but I was able to use three things that progressives pride themselves on (intellectual honesty, open-mindedness, and tolerance) to ellicit an agreement from a progressive coworker that there is a possibility of logical arguments against some forms of stem cell research: a position that moments earlier my coworker would have probably denied.

It is important to realize that I wasn't just saying the above for the sake of mental gymnastics: it really is intolerant, dishonest and close-minded to ignore the arguments of your opposition. Sometimes we as conservatives are handed perfect opportunities to call the bluff of progressives and make them "walk the talk" of open-mindedness. My coworker left my office with two things: an interest in what my response would say, and the uncomfortable feeling that she had just committed herself to a position that she had wanted to avoid. For the time being, that is all we can hope for.

Trivializing Rape

2005-04-17T22:38:00.000-07:00

This past week's edition of The Mast, Pacific Lutheran University's student newspaper, has several articles on rape and sexual assault. The amount of outright falsehoods was staggering. It would have been entertaining if it did not trivialize such a horrific act. For the record, I define rape much like the State of Washington does, as forcible sexual intercourse (penetration) without consent. Let it also be known that I would support making rape a capital crime. However, if the politically correct mob had its way, just about anything offensive with even a hint of sexuality would be redefined as rape. Don't believe me? How about these interesting quotes:

"Before... I would have imagined a big guy penetrating a woman who tries to fight back... Now I see it as any unwanted sexual contact." - Kevin Murphy

"It is not empowering to think it's not rape because it doesn't involve penetration... it is more empowering to define rape as sexual assault of any kind." - Bobbi Hughes

So first off, notice we're talking about this "empowerment" nonsense again. If a woman wants to feel empowered, I suggest she buy a firearm and take the time to learn how to handle it proficiently. Second, according the the above definitions unwanted yet benign things such as unwanted handholding, backrubs, accidental brushes and the like would be rape since they could be construed as "unwanted sexual contact".

All this talk of "redefining rape" and "empowerment" has the effect of trivializing the suffering of women who really have been violently attacked and violated. Let's not mince words: going to a party, having to much to drink, bedding a stranger and then waking up the next morning with regret does not constitute rape! Neither does prank calls of a sexual nature, unwanted touching, or repeated requests for dates or sex. The previous behaviors can range from mildly irritating to assault, but don't play down the horrific experiences of women who truly have been raped, just so irresponsible coeds can feel empowered.

To bolster their position, the PC brigade continues to resort to made-up statistics. In one of the commentaries we are informed:

"One in four college women is a victim of rape during her college career."

Damn, that's a lot of raping going on. They used to tell us "one in for women is raped in her lifetime." Now it seems the percentage is higher, or all that raping is taking place at college. Parents, don't let your daughters receive a college education!

Because I was curious, I took a look at the crime statistics for PLU (which they are required by law to publish). For the years 2001-2003 there were no cases of "non-forcible sexual offenses" and six cases of "forcible sex offenses"; three on campus, three off.

Now, for there to be a one-in-four chance of a woman being raped during her college career, it would mean that during the average year one-sixteenth of the female student body would be raped (I'm assuming four years for a degree, random raping, no repeats). The article points out that rape is underreported at a rate of 16-23% of all rapes. For the sake of argument, let's assume that at PLU rape is reported only 16% of the time. So rounding up, at PLU there is an average of 13 rapes a year. The full-time female student population of PLU is roughly 1840. So the percentage of female students raped each year, using the figures friendliest to the PC argument, is 0.7%, not the 6.25% the doomsayers report. And remember, we're assuming that rape is underreported at PLU, an assumption hard to prove. If we just take the average of 2 rapes a year, we get a rate of 0.1%.

While all the math above is entertaining, it is not the main point. It should be obvious to everyone that the one-in-four figure is completely bogus. If it were true there would be an epidemic of rape, with as Bernard Goldberg puts it, "long lines of ambulances lining up at colleges and universities across the country ready to transport the victims to nearby hospitals."

Again, all the doom and gloom and inflating of dubious rape statistics takes away from the seriousness of real rape and ultimately desensitizes our culture to it. If those who want to redefine rape to mean anything succeed, it will cease to mean something.

Galactica Revisited

2005-04-11T20:36:00.000-07:00

Now that the first season (or first half, depending on how you count) of Battlestar Galactica is over, I thought it time to revisit my earlier post on the series and see how well my expectations had been fulfilled.

In short, it was everything I was hoping for. Us conservatives finally seem to have a science fiction show of our very own. I could gush at length about everything I have an opinion on, but for the purposes of this blog I'll try to keep it at least tangentially political.

One of the great things about the show is the way the crew of the Galactica keep getting into situations where I'm sure I'll be disappointed, then doing something completely unexpected. By which I mean doing the right thing.

In the superb first episode "33", a human (or is it?) ship approaches the fleet with apparent hostile intent. A decision must quickly be made as to how to deal with it. It's easy to imagine a Star Trek captain (choose any except Kirk) putting his crew in danger rather than risk making the wrong call. What do Adama and Roslin do? They destroy the ship before it can harm anyone in the fleet. Good for them. Afterwards there is much agonizing and second-guessing, but the important thing is that they made a hard decision, the right decision, and were forced to live with the consequences. That's what leaders are supposed to do.

In "Flesh and Bone" Starbuck tortures a Cylon spy to get vital information from him. Eventually, Roslin finds them and stops the interrogation. I was all set for her to give a big speech on how terrible this sort of treatment is and how we have to respect the rights of even these genocidal monsters. Instead, she blows him out the airlock. I wasn't sure whether I liked her character before, but this scene ended any doubt.

While I sympathize with the military point of view more than the civilian one on this show, I don't expect the military to be perfect. In "You Can't Go Home Again" Adama puts the fleet (all of humanity, remember) in unnecessary danger to find one missing person. Why does he do it? Because that person is a fighter pilot (Starbuck). She is one of them, and he will do whatever it takes to bring her home. He will not leave a fellow soldier behind.

Bush originally wanted to begin the war against the Taliban a week earlier than actually happened. Why the delay? The military wanted to hold off until search and rescue units we in place in neighboring countries. It takes time to move these units, so we waited, giving the Taliban an extra week to shore up their defenses. This very possibly cost lives in the long run, but we were not going to send our pilots into harm's way until we had a way to help those who were shot down. It heartens and amazes me that the writers of Galactica understand this sort of thing.

"Bastile Day" introduces the character of Tom Zarek (seen again in "Colonial Day"), a terrorist held aboard a prison ship. Some aboard the fleet consider him a hero, while others see him as a butcher. Ah, here we go, I thought, the episode where they trot out the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line. Apollo even has some small amount of respect for Zarek initially. This is where Enterprise would have stayed vague and unjudgemental, displaying to all the blue states just how sophisticated they were. Thankfully, Galactica has no intention of staying neutral. Zarek is shown to be the murderous thug that he is, whose talk of freedom and justice is merely a cover for his own quest for power. Apollo is quickly cured of the notion that there is anything admirable about this man.

This is powerful stuff in its own right, and it ties in nicely with current events. What does this show have to tell us about our own, more down to earth conflicts?

* There are situations where it might be necessary fire on a civilian airliner, no matter how distasteful the notion, to save a greater number of lives.

* If a terrorist has information that could prevent the deaths of a great many innocent people, you do what you have to in order to get it out of him. His 'rights' do not figure into the equation.

* Do not leave a man (or woman) behind. It might not make sense objectively, but that's not the point.

* One man's terrorist is... still just a terrorist, no matter how many misguided souls would tell you otherwise.

One thing that really amazes me is that I'm surrounded by Democrats at work. And yet most of them hate Enterprise and love Galactica in a manner equal to my own. What am I to make of the fact that they see the real world in one way, but when confronted with a similar situation in the form of fantasy, find themselves strongly identifying with the exact opposite viewpoint? Is this a sign that many of them, deep down, are really conservatives who just won't admit it to themselves in the context of reality?

It is going to be a very long wait until new shows resume in July. No doubt I'll have more to add then.

LXCG Futurecast 3000

2005-04-06T01:37:00.000-07:00

To quote a prolific blogger: heh.

"I sensed her soul in agony"

2005-03-30T13:41:00.000-08:00

Well, well. Michael Schiavo's attorney George Felos, the one who seems to think that starving to death results in "a look of beauty and peace", has written a book. Excerpts from the screed, titled Litigation as Spiritual Practice, prove to be extremely revealing:

Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness. As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning. I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, 'Why am I still here - why am I here?' My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.

New Age zeal appears to be nothing new to egomaniacal lawyers. As we might recall, one of them recently ran for public office.

Over the past week I've found it interesting how many are so quick to dismiss those on the right-to-life side of this argument as zealots. In my book, mind-reading and channeling the thoughts of the dead and silent, severely incapacitated individuals is more indicative of zealotry than speaking out in favor of erring on the side of life.

Separated at Birth?

2005-03-26T13:00:00.000-08:00

Scott Peterson and Michael Schiavo

Couldn't resist the "separated at birth" comparison between these two bottom-feeders, so I whipped up this image. (I researched the prices of everything... that is, indeed, how much Peterson paid for the boat.) Striking, the resemblance, don't you agree?

One does have to wonder what Peterson thinks when he watches this Schiavo character out there on TV, achieving what Peterson succeeded in completely botching...

Dancing On A Terrorist-Sympathizer's Grave.

2005-03-15T23:23:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, March 16th, marks the second anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie. Steven Plaut of Front Page Magazine has an article from a year ago (found here) detailing the events surrounding her death as well as her connections to terrorist organizations. The world is truly a better place when evil moonbats such as Ms. Corrie stand in front of earthmovers and have their life crushed out of them and cease to support the random bombing of Israeli children.

Packing a sack lunch. And heat!

2005-03-13T21:48:00.000-08:00

In the latest edition of The Mast, the student paper of Pacific Lutheran University (my alma mater) had an article on the campus weapons policy. Below is the response I submitted for publication:

I recognize that PLU as a private institution has the legal right to ban firearms from campus; and when I'm on campus I comply with the conduct code. But it is important to ask: does this rule accomplish anything? The answer is "no": the university's stance on the concealed carrying of handguns not only fails to accomplish what it sets out to do, it actually causes harm.

First, the weapon policy fails to secure the campus. PLU had a no weapons policy long before the tragic shooting of Professor Halloway. This event, and other weapons violations, illustrate that rules will never protect the PLU campus from violence and weapons. Short of surrounding the campus with razor wire and having everyone entering campus pass through metal detectors, there is little that PLU can do to guarantee the safety of students, faculty and staff. Just as the "dry campus" policy fails to keep alcohol off campus, the anti-firearm policy is impotent to stop anyone from bringing firearms onto campus.

Second, the weapon policy unnecessarily infringes on the right to self defense. PLU prides itself in maintaining an environment welcoming of diversity, free speech and expression, and thoughtful inquiry. Yet when it comes to the issue of self-defense, the university seems closed minded: they require mandatory disarmament while unable to secure the campus from violence. It is immoral to force individuals to remain unable to protect themselves. Since it has been shown that there is a substantial benefit for women who carry handguns concealed, the reluctance of allowing eligible women from carrying seems especially unjust.

Third, the weapon policy actually fosters a criminally friendly environment. By declaring the campus a weapon-free zone, PLU announces to armed criminals that at least initially they will meet little or no resistance. Further, the policy creates a false sense of security and sets a dangerous precedence: that one can depend on others for their safety. Neither the police nor campus security can be personal bodyguards, and it is irrational and irresponsible to believe so.

Given that the current policy is useless; I encourage President Anderson and the Board of Trustees to reconsider allowing eligible faculty, staff, and students to carry handguns concealed. Holders of concealed handgun licenses are, as a group, some of the most responsible citizens around. Licensees take great care to always abide by the law, undergo thorough background checks, and are as competent as law enforcement officers; sometimes more so. In recent years both the Center for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences have announced that they have found a lack of evidence that anti-firearm policies save lives. Rather, it has been shown that areas that allow for the lawful carry of defensive weapons see a reduction in violent crime. It is with all of the above in mind that I call for an honest reassessment of PLU's weapon policy.

Off to the Big City

2005-02-23T20:52:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow morning I'll be making the drive to my new home in Seattle. It should be a lot of fun, although it is a little strange to be moving from one blue state to one that is bluer still. I can console myself with the certainty that my new location will provide a lot of good material for the blog.

On a completely unrelated note, I've finally picked up the comic book that is the namesake for this blog. It's brilliant stuff, and you'll spend hours tracking down all the Victorian literary references.

I promise that it's more fun than I just made it sound.

Will the Real China Please Stand Up?

2005-02-13T13:49:00.000-08:00

Our 'Dear Friend' Kim in the past week as stated something that we all know already... that he has a nuclear weapon. Does this surprise many of us? If it does surprise you, then you need to quit watching the 'Daily Show' as your news source. (it is NOT news...)

The fact that Kim acknowledges something that we already knew does not change things very much. If there is a chance that he might have a weapon, then we must assume he does. When he claims that he actually has one, something that he had been denying for years... can we take his word for it? Nope. We can just keep making the same assumptions that we have in the past based on intelligence and evidence. That's the only thing we can do.

But, China, on the other hand... they must step up and take some action. Even though they oftentimes treat Kim and Co. as an ugly stepchild... they are still China's baby. Much of the nuclear technology is there because of China... North Korea's continued existence can be much attributed to China. So now the burden is on China to bring this issue back to a diplomatic state. China must take a proactive role in bringing the leaders of North Korea back to the bargaining table and must take extreme measures to do so. China must threaten economic sanctions, trade barriers, and military blockades. Even more important, if they threaten something, it must have firm deadlines and the deadlines must be held. China must pull out all of the stops.

Will this happen? Probably not. What we will see, however, is where China truly stands. China is growing into an uncontrollable beast in many ways... we will get to see if yet another facet of the quasi-communist empire can play nice with the other great nations of this planet or if it will fall back to its Stalinist roots and continue to prop up the horrible regime of Kim Jong Il.

Let's hope it's not the latter.

Thoughts On The State Of The Union

2005-02-04T21:14:00.000-08:00

While I watched the State of the Union address Wednesday night I tried taking notes on topics mentioned that I wanted to comment on. Unfortunately due to the fast pace of the speech, the lack of details in many instances, and the scatter-shot manner in which topics were covered I was not able to take copious notes. Rather, I have tried to grade the President on several factors as well as make comments and ask questions below.

Presentation: A-

The President seemed to have done well. I cannot remember many gaffes, be he did say "nu-cu-ler" again, so he's marked down for that. He gracefully resisted the urge to respond to Democratic boos when mentioning the dire situation of Social Security. He cleverly named ideas proposed by Democrats regarding reworking Social Security.

Content: B-

The President was able to discuss some specifics on his idea for the partial, voluntary privitization of Social Security. However, I was disappointed with how the President's immigration policy got short shrift. His proposal for an immigration policy that makes it easier on migrant workers while "resisting amnesty" sounded oxymoronic. The structure in which topics were covered was not at all intuitive to me, and his one-line mention of "a culture of life" seemed more like a token throw-in to pro-lifers rather than a rallying point of his agenda.

Relevence: A-

Despite the shortcomings in content, one area shone through: the elections in Iraq. It was this point that made the whole speech relevent. The power of freedom, the moral value of democracy, and the importance of U.S. actions abroad were perfectly illustrated in the presence of the Iraqi woman whose father had been murdered under Saddam's Baathist regime, and had now been able to participate in Iraqi self-governance.

Questions:

When was the last time a President was booed during a State of the Union address?
Did the Democratic response seem at all apropos?

Congratulations, Iraq.

2005-01-30T20:33:00.000-08:00

"I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.
I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".
-Mohammed and Omar of Iraq the Model

Freedom took a step forward today. Regardless of how complicated staging a vote is in a country such as Iraq, regardless of the statistics behind the election, regardless of who wins... Freedom prevailed today. I feel lucky to be alive and be able to witness so many people tasting for the first time a freedom that my friends and family and I take for granted on a daily basis.

Where are the cries today of 'No blood for OIL!' and 'Bush Lied' from people other than Mr. Chappaquidick and our favorite French looking Vietnam War hero. It doesn't take much decency and logic at all to see how great of a day today is.

Watch out Iran. Watch out Syria. Watch out Egypt. Watch out N. Korea. A force much stronger than the United States' Military is coming to town... Freedom is on a roll.

Welcome to the club, great people of Iraq. Your joy and enthusiasm displayed today has reminded me of how great of a world we live in. The next time I vote, I will be thinking of you... and possibly dipping my finger in a bottle of blue ink.

I Have 'Scores' of Toes!

2005-01-24T20:44:00.000-08:00

If I were to say I had 'scores' of friends... how many would you assume I have?

If I were to say that I have scores of baseball caps in my baseball cap collection... how many would you think I have?

If you were to ask me how many episodes of Seinfeld I've seen... and I replied 'scores!'... how many would you think I've seen?

So, when I opened my MSNBC email this morning to see the headline "Baghdad bomb wounds scores"... I was thinking "uh-oh... another big one!" But, as I read on... well... just see for yourself.

(note: Arrow comes from me, not MSNBC.)

I just had a hard time believing that 'scores' could be a word that properly conveys the number of 'at least 10'. Sure, if X>10, then it is possible for X=80, which would be four score. I just had a hard time believing that this was a accurate representation.

So, I went to dictionary.com and peeked around. This is what I found.

(note: Masking is mine, not Dictionary.com.)

So, I had to wade through all of those first 5 definitions to get to the one pertinent to this subject, which describes a 'score' as 20 units. Even if you take #7, I would assume that if one score is 20, then the plural of score would be more than 20... Abe Lincoln definitely governed more than 47 years after the forefathers did what they did.

Sure, I know that this is nitpicking, but it deals with the standard that the MSM employs today. (Or perhaps the lack...) I just think I would get laughed at if I said I had scores of baseball caps in my collection and people found out it was less than a dozen. This is just a gross exaggeration of the reality of the situation.

On a more serious note, isn't it pretty amazing that these attacks are happening now and people aren't getting killed in each of them? Doesn't that mean that things are working? Sure, it's unfortunate that people are being injured, possibly permanently, but they still have their life and they will still get to experience the freedom that comes with the impending democracy. To me, this is a success story, but the Media just doesn't want to portray that image.

Oh well. Just be sure to take your liberalism goggles. You don't want any of that crap to actually reach your eyes.

Global Warming = More Snow???

2005-01-23T22:44:00.000-08:00

As a skier, if one of the effects of global warming is lower temperatures and more snow... then I say "Bring It On!!" It seems odd to me that if we are getting warmer and warmer, why are we breaking all cold temp records and winter storm records? Riddle me that!

Here is an interesting screenshot from Drudge. Look at the two headlines. (I didn't want to embed the image in the main blog page because of it's size, it's an entire screen's worth. It is absolutely positively safe for work. Click away, my friends...) This is almost as bad as a former VP being the keynote speaker at a global warming conference on the coldest day in decades....

Well, enjoy the pic. It ain't much, but it might be worth a laugh or two.

"US out of the Middle East..."

2005-01-21T13:53:00.000-08:00

I had CSPAN streaming in the background yesterday as the festivities unfolded at the Inauguration. Around lunchtime the President's motorcade, on its way back to the parade viewing stand, quickly passed through a crowd of protesters. CSPAN's cameras of course were there, recording all the silliness. They went through various chants, accusations... They excitedly declared that the president in the process of appointing the first African American woman as secretary of state (not his former opponent who had just voted against her) was against civil rights. As the car went by, one woman remembered that they were supposed to turn their backs to him, and did so while those behind her craned their necks, peering into the limousine with expectant "is he really in there?" looks on their faces. Finally they broke into what seemed to me to be a fittingly honest chant:

US out of the Middle East!
No Justice!
No Peace!
US out of the Middle East...

Exactly -- if we left it is guaranteed there would be no justice or peace. Maybe they're starting to learn.

I got hungry, put down the earphones & went in search for lunch. At the EMU a group was staging an anti Inauguration protest. Without a campus security or police officer, without a brown shirt save those worn by his enthralled audience in sight, a professor was freely giving a speech, claiming repression on par with 1930's era Germany, Italy, and several other fascist regimes (just realized the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia... None of these guys made his list. He probably hasn't gotten to that chapter yet.)

I reached the UO bookstore. A dog had just crapped on the sidewalk next to the UO's pet parasite "Frog". He was giggling loudly, pointing at the offending pile, chanting: "dog shit! dog shit!". Somehow it fit.

Just Watch

2005-01-19T21:39:00.000-08:00

This.

Is this equal rights?

2005-01-17T14:24:00.000-08:00

So this Christmas my brother and fiance' gave us a pleasant, not entirely unexpected, surprise: Look out there's a kid on the way! They both work in the retail industry, but currently only he has medical benefits. They are at this moment in the process of accelerating their marriage plans because it appears his insurance company refuses to include her on his plan unless they were married. This is not entirely a bad thing, except that it appears, had they been the same sex, there would not have been any problem including her at all (not entirely sure what gender pronoun is approprate for this hypothetical case, so we'll just leave it at "her", nod our head, and pretend we understand). Now leaving out the issue of how any sort of procreation could occur between couples of the same gender, why should biologically viable couples be required to obtain government sanction before receiving the same benefit?

Just something that's been percolating in my head on a day ostensibly intended for reflecting on equality...

A Flying Money Pit...

2005-01-16T18:16:00.000-08:00

Airbus is using it's anti-competitive EU muscle to bring out a new behemoth...

Airbus to Unveil Largest Passenger Jet

Look at the last paragraph. Couldn't we just put seats in an An-124 and beat that record? If that won't work, let's revive the 225 and beat them that way.

Thank God for Dirty Harry

2005-01-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

I will kill Michael Moore, says Clint Eastwood

New York, Jan 14 (ANI): Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood while speaking in an awards ceremony in New York said that he would kill 'Fahrenheit 9/11' filmmaker Michael Moore if he ever showed up at his front door with a camera.

With Moore sitting in the audience, Eastwood said, "Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression.

"But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you. I mean it," he added.

The 'City Heat' star, who is a Republican, made the comments at the National Board of Review awards held in New York where he picked up a Special Filmmaking Achievement prize for 'Million Dollar Baby'. According to New York Daily News, Moore, who received a special 'Freedom of Expression' award for his famous anti-Bush documentary, laughed off Eastwood's 'mean comments'.

To Give, Or Not To Give...

2005-01-13T01:17:00.000-08:00

Some interesting thoughts by John Derbyshire on giving aid to Tsunami victims can be found at National Review (here). I'm glad I'm not the only one who has had similar thoughts. Colin Powell recently warned against sending too much money too fast, a possibility I think is more of an inevitability. As Derbyshire points out,

"Our charitable impulses are mediated by, well, our media. We see an orphaned child or a weeping mother on our TV screen, and are moved to pity. Nothing the least bit wrong with that; but the world is full of orphaned children and weeping mothers who never make it to the nightly news."

It just seems a little askew when celebrity-types try to play up their humanitarian role by donating and raising funds for the cause of the month when there were millions dying horrific deaths before the Tsunami that Hollywood has ignored.

Ping?

2005-01-07T23:06:00.000-08:00

For a period of at least an hour this evening, a number of right wing blogs were unreachable for me. Among them were eject eject eject, instapundit, little green footballs, blue eyed infidel, michelle malkin, powerline, and vodkapundit.

Like any good scientist, I required a control group, so I tried a few left leaning blogs, and they all seemed to be functioning normally. A DOS attack perhaps? Everything seems to be back to normal now.

The moonbats love to whine about censorship, so why would I not be surprised to learn that they were behind something like this?

A Hotdog Post

2005-01-07T20:13:00.000-08:00

For those of you not familiar with Zeke Speak, a "hotdog" anything is usually an ungodly mixture of things; in this case opinions, observations and such.

Yes, Washington recount!
Up here in Washington we've had a vote, two recounts, court opinions and hopefully we'll have a revote. Felons, illegal aliens and the deceased turned out in droves to support Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire. So much so that in heavily democratic King County it is reported that 1200 more votes were cast than the total number of registered voters on the county rolls. Some argue that the millions of dollars needed to fund a revote is too high a cost. I argue the opposite: it is money well spent. A revote would settle the election and bring to the forefront the integrity of our system by affecting the pocketbooks of the citizenry; and that is what will really put pressure on the government and both political parties to maintain the honesty and integrity of the system. Hell hath no fury like a populace that has to pay to clean up the mess of a high-profile government snafu.

Libertarian Radicalism
A week or so ago I was listening to a libertarian guest on Sean Hannity's show. The guest was stating that no one should pay taxes, they should be completely voluntary. When asked by Sean how would roads be built and maintained, etc., the guest just reiterated that taxes should really be voluntary contributions. Now, I could be classified as libertarian in some respects (definitely not all), and I know that some on this website have libertarian leanings. But the guest on Hannity's show displayed a trait that I have belittled the radical left for having. That trait is the naive belief in the inherent goodness of people and the possibility of utopia.

The Founding Fathers and most conservatives are astute enough to know that not all is right with the human race. Human government from time to time must use force to promote the greater good. It is so with taxes: leave it to voluntary contribution to provide infrastructure and secure the common defense and very little will be accomplished. The heavy burden of admitting this fact is to walk a fine line between collective good and government abuse. The conservative creedo can be summed up as "as much as needed, and not a penny more". In order to determine what needs to be funded and how much should be raised through taxes we must have a clear picture of the function of government: to provide for the common defense against foreign and domestic enemies, and to preserve the union. It is though these key insights that we can (and must) justify the government's power to levy taxes, and at the same time set rigid limits on that taxation. Alternatives, including the idea of voluntary contribution proposed by radical libertarians, would be (and are) disasterous.

A Tale of Two Worlds, or "Schizophrenic Zeke"
I've always enjoyed pursuing an education. I've also always known the joy and value of "working with your hands". When I went first to college, and then to graduate school I felt an increasing sense that though I talked like an academic, often thought like an academic, and enjoyed the academic lifestyle I was secretly not like them. I had working-class blood in my veins. I did not have an aversion to do manual labor and come home at the end of the day exhausted and sore. I did not have nearly the contempt towards those who made a living doing dirty and unglorified jobs as did my academic peers.

Now that I have graduated with a Masters degree and have bills to pay while I try to start up my career, I find myself working at a hardware store doing exactly the kind of job I saw academics look down on with contempt. For the most part I fit in well. I work hard, talk rough and get along with the other employees. And yet, I feel this increasing sense that though I talk like a laborer and often think like a laborer, I'm secretly not like them. I find myself trapped in the netherealm between the working-class and the academic elite; able to speak both languages, but completely comfortable as neither.

A complaint from Saddam

2005-01-04T10:18:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting article on Debka dated Jan 2 about what Saddam's up to these days, giving some interesting tidbits...

Apparently he has two gripes, one that he supposedly isn't being allowed to shave his beard, the other:

His second complaint was against the Red Cross workers. He wanted their visits stopped because he said they are neither polite nor respectful.

So I guess the Red Cross are assholes to everyone, not just us... Evidently he has also been spending his time composing "poetry":

If you can't be the head, don't be the backside because there is nothing there but a tail.

One supposes it loses a lot in translation...

Mostly off topic, but things are slow around here, so...

2004-12-27T23:21:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, cowgirlup sent me an email lamenting the sorry state of Star Trek Enterprise. Never one to stay out of a conversation regarding science fiction, I wrote the following:

Yes, Enterprise has begun to suck, and political correctness is indeed at the heart of it. The whole point of the show is supposed to be that this is the beginning, when the universe is an untamed and dangerous place. Unfortunately, the writers seem to have forgotten that frontiers are not places where you spend a lot of time sitting around talking about your feelings; you're too busy trying to stay alive.

Some people deride Next Generation as also being too PC, but the difference is that NG had earned it, or rather, the previous series had. Captain Kirk and his contemporaries turned the Klingons into a bunch of pansies, sealed the Romulans up North Korea style inside the neutral zone, and generally tamed the galaxy. When Picard has time to sit around and ruminate about Shakespeare and the like, we can at least acknowledge that his forefathers have earned with their blood the right for him to do so.

The reason this worked was the obvious parallel with contemporary society. My grandfather and his generation went island-hopping in the Pacific to make the world safe enough for my generation to be able watch the television show Survivor take place on those same islands. Even as we whine about the PC aspects of NG, we can't help but identify with them.

So back to Enterprise. The central problem is that this show takes the same liberties with political correctness as NG, without having a nice safe galaxy fairly earned by an earlier (and tougher) generation of explorers in which to do so. We resent the fact that Archer and crew think they have the luxury of acting so damned sophisticated in such a rough neighborhood. The old saying goes that Kirk and Picard wouldn't last a minute in each other's times. Kirk would be court martialed for sexual harassment in about five minutes, and Picard would swiftly have his ass kicked by some very un-PC aliens. Exactly what universe would Archer fit well in? It certainly isn't the one in which he has been placed.

Douglas Adams wrote in one of the Hitchhiker books that all civilizations go through three stages:

Stage 1 - Survival: "What can we eat?"
Stage 2 - Discovery: "Why do we eat?"
Stage 3 - Sophistication: "Where shall we go for brunch?"

It's a good joke, but also surprisingly accurate. The NG universe has clearly evolved to stage three, and in one episode Picard actually does whine to Crusher about the selection at breakfast. Suck it up Jean Luc. If an attractive redhead wants to regularly have breakfast with you, the least you can do is let her choose the menu.

Kirk clearly lives in stage two. Humans have made themselves known and respected, and are busily expanding the twin spheres of influence and knowledge as all aspiring great powers must do. They also have to compete with the Reds, I mean Klingons, who are after the same thing. The food isn't that great just yet, but it is at least plentiful, barring the odd Tribble infestation.

So by all rights, Enterprise should clearly be the stage one entry. Humanity is at the point where it is desperately trying to carve out a place for itself among all the other ambitious species, lest it become merely a footnote in a future printing of the Encyclopedia Galactica. Instead, what we get is Archer (and his dog, his goddamned dog!) eating gourmet meals served to him by a steward in his private mess and having deep conversations with whoever he grants the favor of joining him.

Whoops, suddenly we've jumped ahead to stage three without having gone through stages one or two. Shouldn't that steward instead be down in the engine room doing the 22nd century equivalent of shoveling coal into the engine while the captain dines on C-rations with the other officers? At this point in the game there simply does not exist the luxury of wasting resources like this. When faced with the decision of a waiter or another warrior, which do you think the Klingons would choose? Is it any wonder that we feel so cheated when Archer presumes himself to be a frontier leader?

Addressing pressing social issues in a show like this isn't a bad thing, indeed, some would say it is the strength of Star Trek. The best example is from the original series, where two aliens fight to the death, because one has the left side of his face white and the right side black, while the other has the colors reversed. It seems to the crew of the Enterprise a silly thing to fight over, and the parallels to race relations in the 60s are clear if you think about it. But the show doesn't beat us over the head with the message. Rather, it puts it out there and leaves it to us to figure out. I bet a lot of people have seen that episode numerous times and never realized what it was really about. But that's the point. The effect would be ruined if the message were instead blatantly shoved in our faces.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what Enterprise has done again and again (Voyager is about as equally guilty). They can't just cleverly imply something, they have to spell out in big capital letters over and over again. We feel we are being condescended to, and rightly so.

Before I go to bed, I suppose I need to address what Enterprise has done to the Vulcans. All the previous shows have shown them to be an entirely admirable race. A little smug perhaps, but at least it was well earned. Kirk and Janeway had the right idea, and you'd want a Vulcan on your bridge too. But Enterprise has made the conscious decision to entirely demolish this construct, and make the species into a bunch of lying, condescending, contemptuous assholes. With big breasts. While there has always been plenty of evidence that Vulcans do in fact have a darker side to them, the way Enterprise has gone about showing this is so heavy handed as to be unbelievable. The simple explanation is that the writers of the original series liked the Vulcans. The writers of Enterprise do not. The earlier series has taught us to like the Vulcans, and when the writers now turn on them with this sort of malice, we don't accept it.

I think a lot of Star Trek fans, even those who aren't consciously aware of it, have become turned off to the show for just these reasons. It doesn't matter if the sets and CGI are great, the actors are capable, or even if the writing is good, so long as the crew is fundamentally incompatible with the universe they are supposed to inhabit. It doesn't matter if the message is good when the delivery makes us feel like children being lectured to. It doesn't matter how thoughtfully a sacred cow like the Vulcan race is slaughtered when the audience doesn't want to see it happen in the first place.

This is where the show stands now. Whether or not it can be redeemed, I don't know. Deep Space Nine started off weak, and eventually won me over in a big way. Voyager started off decently, and got worse with almost every passing show. I wouldn't have even kept watching if Seven hadn't shown up when she did.

Wow, I can't believe I wrote this much on a show I don't even like. Guess I hate it more than I thought. Good to know, I suppose.

I think this was more or less on target. Unfortunately, the show never improved, and I long ago stopped watching. Sadly, this left me without a science fiction to watch on television. Stargate never did it for me, and Firefly was gone almost before it started.

Then something wonderful happened. A miniseries revival of Battlestar Galactica was made by the SciFi channel. My expectations had not been high. The original show, for all the rose-colored nostalgia people remember it with, wasn't very good. And how could the same industry that had created the dreadful Enterprise be expected to do better?

But against all expectations, it was good. No, it was great. To summarize for those of you who have not had the pleasure:

Long ago humans fought an indecisive war against the Cylons. In the decades that followed the cease-fire, the danger became remote, and the once feared enemy became more an abstract and half-remembered curiosity than serious threat.

When the Cylons suddenly resumed hostilities, their surprise was complete and devastating. Humanity was not merely defeated, it was nearly exterminated. The crew of the Galactica and a few other ships are all who have survived the holocaust. They are now forced to run from overwhelming Cylon forces, perhaps one day to find the mythical lost colony of Earth.

I have high hopes that Battlestar Galactica will be the anti-Enterprise. Why? The way the series has started will simply demand it. While the Galactica will no doubt face many of the same plot devices we have seen in Enterprise, the nature of their situation will force them to deal with these events in a manner that will hopefully be a little less stomach-churning. Here are what I consider to be the fundamental initial conditions:

Enterprise is stuck with that tired "explore strange new worlds..." nonsense, while the crew of the Galactica is intensely aware that they are running for their lives from an enemy who wishes only to eradicate them. Their mission, above all else, is survival.

Where the eponymous ship in Enterprise is primarily a vessel of exploration, crewed by cartographers, scientists and diplomats, there is no escaping the fact that Galactica is a battleship with a military crew. They are going to see the solutions to their problems in terms of how much firepower they can bring to bear. Given that they are involved in a war, this is not a bad thing, as some would have us believe.

Finally, for the crew of the Galactica, the stakes are simply much, much higher than they ever will be for those aboard the Enterprise. Unwise but politically correct behavior isn't merely going to kill the crew of a single ship; it will doom humanity to extinction. When trouble appears, there will not exist the luxury of stopping to chat and maybe make friends. The more sensible course of action will be to shoot first, then run like hell. If you end up hurting someone's feelings in the process, well too fucking bad.

This isn't to say that Battlestar Galactica will be invulnerable to the usual butchery of Hollywood writers. They've proven themselves far too effective at that for us ever to discount the possibility. But for now, I remain hopeful.

Okay, this is supposed to be a political blog, so I suppose I ought to try to make this little rant at least tangentially relevant to that topic. But you've already seen where I'm going with this, haven't you?

We can choose which of two television shows to watch. Two ships, two captains, two crews. Both share hostile universes with implacable, genocidal enemies.

And we can choose which of two political parties to support. Two platforms, two sets of leaders, two groups of supporters. Both share the same planet with an implacable, genocidal enemy.

Enterprise is written for those who have chosen one way of dealing with such a threat. Will Battlestar Galactica finally be the show for those of us who have chosen the other?

Interesting post Re: DPRK defectors

2004-12-17T14:38:00.000-08:00

... on North Korea zone posted a couple days ago... Interesting picture from inside the DPRK via interviews with some recent defectors. Go take a look.

Rumsfeld

2004-12-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

After having their hopes of removing Bush and Cheney from office squashed a month ago, the left is now working on what they believe to be the next most vulnerable target in the administration, Donald Rumsfeld. This started a couple weeks ago with incessant (and evidently baseless) chatter about his imminent resignation, and continues now with a kerfuffle triggered by a Q & A session Rumsfeld had with the troops in Kuwait on Dec 8. (Completely voluntarily and open to the public. Obvious evidence of how diabolically secretive this administration really is) Here is the full exchange. Note how it ends, which is never reported.

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We've had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we've always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don't we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being – the Army is – I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And its essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip. It's interesting, I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

And General Whitcomb, is there anything you'd want to add to that?

GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I'd be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it's not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we've got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They're not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They're en route out here, I can assure you.

Were I to follow standard debate tactics for the left, I would attempt to defend Rumsfeld by attacking the messenger, and point out say, for example, from Fox News:

The guardsman who questioned Rumsfeld on the vehicle armor, Spc. Thomas Wilson, had consulted earlier with a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter who is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team.

The reporter, Edward Lee Pitts, said he had worked with guardsmen after being told reporters would not be allowed to ask Rumsfeld any questions, Pitts wrote in an e-mail to co-workers sent Wednesday.

...and wondering really how representative the question was of the true situation on the ground. But not being of that political persuasion, I won't do that. Frankly, don't need to. Its a good question, and the [Applause] after it was asked evidences that. Rumsfeld and Gen. Whitcomb did an excellent job of answering it (though again you never see the full answer reported). And I think demonstrated they are fully aware of the problem and are solving it to the best of their ability. I also find it quite interesting that today we see reports coming from the manufacturers saying they now claim they can produce these vehicles faster (imagine that!). For example, from the same Fox News article:

Military officials said Thursday they were working hard to upgrade the armor on Army vehicles in Iraq, with nearly three-fourths of the Humvees in the theater now completed.

Of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection, according to figures provided by the House Armed Services Committee. Armor add-on kits are in production for many of the rest of these vehicles.

By comparison, the military has decided it needs almost 22,000 armored Humvees in the war area. It has 15,334; an additional 4,400 await armor add-ons and the rest have not been delivered to the region.

Those Humvees are being built at the rate of 450 a month. The company armoring them, Armor Holdings Inc., said Thursday it could increase production by 50 to 100 vehicles a month.

Why isn't there more attention directed towards the company? If it had the capability to increase production why didn't it? A local public radio talk show (political leanings you can probably guess) this morning claimed that the company "hadn't been asked" and that it "supposed there wasn't interest". In the unlikely case this has any basis in truth, the management of this company obviously do not follow mass media's gleeful daily reporting of the casualties inflicted by roadside explosive devices. Its more likely if they did ever mention they had this capability before the finger was pointed at them, they were holding out for an exorbitant price. And then we would be undoubtedly be hearing the press yammering for Rumsfeld's head over overcharges in Humvee purchasing.

Also just noticed opinionjournal has a good op-ed today on this. Especially:

When commanders first identified the need for more armored vehicles, in August 2003, production was at 30 per month; it's now up to 450 a month and the plants making armor are running at full capacity.

There you go, case closed. Now go read the whole thing.

Claims of "Fear Mongering" is Fear Mongering

2004-12-08T21:45:00.000-08:00

Since there hasn't been a new post in a while, I'd just like to vent briefly on a topic that was played into the ground during the presidential election: fear mongering. Democrats and radicals love to accuse others of being afraid, or of trying to get others to be afraid. The issue at hand doesn't seem to matter: if a conservative opposes homosexual marriage, then he is afraid of homosexuals, or afraid that he may be one. If a republican is for an agressive stance against terrorism than he is afraid of attacks, or trying to play on other's fear of attacks. I suppose, by that logic, that my opposition to abortion means I'm afraid of "empowered" women.

The preoccupation with fear by leftists is a clear indicator of which side is truly fearful. We conservatives are a hearty stock: a meat-eating, heat-packing, SUV-driving people, not much in need of psychoses and phobias. We don't wake up in fear of homosexuals, terrorists, the hole in the ozone, global warming or our cholesterol levels. Those who try to characterize us as being fearful neither know us nor understand us. Liberals mistake principled opposition with irrational hatred so often because they themselves engage in irrationality.

The most unfortunate aspect of using accusations of fear mongering is that the argument capitalizes on the hearer's fear of being labeled fearful. Thus, it accomplishes exactly what it accuses others of doing. This is yet another example of hypocrisy on the left.

The Register Guard imitates The Vandals

2004-11-27T22:18:00.000-08:00

The Vandals, I Don't Believe in Santa Claus, from Christmas With the Vandals:

The reason I didn't get you anything this year is:

I don't believe in santa clause, his corporate image forced upon the blinded spending masses, to enslave the lower classes with obligatory gifts that serve to cleanse a year of guilt and shame. one token gesture justifies the apathetic, hypnotized. leaving them to be kris kringle's slaves...

Plus I couldn't find a place to park at the mall. Sorry.

The Eugene Register Guard, 11/27/04:

Dan Linn said he's pared back his generosity over the years too, in part to preserve resources, but also because he just doesn't have as much money as he used to.

SI Sportsman of the Year- Vote Tillman!

2004-11-26T22:01:00.000-08:00

Follow this link and vote for Pat Tillman as sportsman of the year. Those who know me may be surprised by this vote... mostly because I am one of Lance Armstrong's biggest fans and I absolutely love his display of atheletic ability and sportsmanship. I love cycling through and through... but this year, there is a better choice.

Pat Tillman deserves your vote because he displayed something beyond sportsmanship. All of the other choices on the ballot showed great skill and determination, but none showed the true meaning of what sport is... just a sport. A true professional sportsman cares about his fans. Pat Tillman cared so much about the public that pays his paycheck that he decided he could serve us better by putting his life on the line in the battlefield rather than by continuing to entertain us a few nights a week.

Lance and Ichiro may have broken records this year. The Sox may have broken the curse... but Pat Tillman gave up the chance to break records in order to protect your family and mine. We owe him this tribute. We owe him much, much more.

Thank you, Pat Tillman. May your name live in the hearts of Americans forever.

2004 CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA

2004-11-20T03:55:00.000-08:00

2004 CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA OK... This seems like science that the left could really attach itself to. I'd imagine that maybe this will be picked up by Al Gore shortly after a movie is made about it.

All I have to say is... wow.

I wonder if a Russian scalar longitudinal EM wave interferometer would make mowing the lawn easier.

More evidence of a DPRK power struggle?

2004-11-19T15:46:00.000-08:00

After following and scrolling down a bit from the link in today's BOTW we see an interesting piece in today's edition of the KCNA's webpage:

Songun Politics to Be Continued in DPRK

Pyongyang, November 18 (KCNA) -- It is the unshakable will of leader Kim Jong Il to defend and accomplish the Korean revolution, started with arms, relying on the armed forces. True to the behests of President Kim Il Sung, he carried forward the leadership based on Songun politics with an inspection of an army unit ten years ago.

When the Korean people were overwhelmed by grief after the President passed away, Kim Jong Il issued an order of the supreme commander of the Korean People's Army on building Chongryu Bridge (second stage) and Kumnung Tunnel No. 2, the first order to implement the President's behests. When inspecting the construction site of the Nyongwon Power Station, he told officials that the behests of the President should be implemented without fail.

He has continued his Songun-based leadership, saying that he should go anywhere, if it is for the implementation of the President's behests, and that doing so is his unswerving will and invariable creed as he took over the chairmanship of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK and the supreme commandership from the President.

Through his uninterrupted inspection of army units he has strengthened the army to be a strong revolutionary army defending the leader at the cost of their lives and an invincible army no enemy can match.

Signal successes have been registered in science and the economy, too.

Typical of them are the launch of artificial satellite Kwangmyongsong No.1, completion of Juche-oriented iron-making methods, successful cloning, construction of the Anbyon Youth Power Station, Youth Hero Highway and Pyongyang-Hyangsan Tourist Motorway, modern chicken farms and fish farms and standardization of co-op fields.

Doesn't this look like some kind of campaign op-ed? It should be noted that DPRK's propaganda dept. is run by KJI's son, who is also the current heir to the throne. Could somebody be trying to make the case that his Dad should keep his head? BTW, I just noticed the last bit here about their claim they've launched a satellite... Googling around finds a lot of DPRK propaganda, a CNN article, and a much better summary on astronautix.com. Ah -- so this was probably that infamous missile launch that dropped hardware in northern Japan 1998...

KJI's depressed too...

2004-11-18T13:38:00.000-08:00

Looks like not all distraught Kerry supporters are in the US... The Times of London has an article on some of the interesting developments in the Demented People's Republic of Korea -- remarking on how Kim Jong-il's depression over the loss of his favorite wife got much deeper upon the reelection of President Bush:

As Japanese envoys tried to persuade the North Koreans last week to rejoin multinational talks, Kim's absence from the scene led to speculation that a debilitating power struggle may have paralysed the ruling clan. This followed the death of Koh Young-hee, a dancer who had provided Kim with an heir apparent to the world's only communist dynasty.

"The loss of this woman was a blow," said a foreign diplomat. "But John Kerry's loss in the US election was a harder one. These are now very worried men."

further down:

Kim's prestige suffered a blow after he gambled and lost on a Kerry victory. The North Koreans played a waiting game through three rounds of nuclear talks in the belief that Kim could cut a better deal with a Democratic administration.

Sounds like he's got a lot of reasons to worry these days... There has been a fair amount of speculation lately that KJI might be losing favor, or that there even has been a coup -- apparently those unfortunate to have been in the DPRK recently have noticed that some of the ever present portraits of KJI have been removed. There was also a report yesterday in the Sankei Shimbun (in Japanese) that there have been groups spreading anti-KJI leaflets around the country. A less detailed English version is here. Apparently there has been a sort of chain letter writing campaign (CIA?), where people have been copying by hand and exchanging notes listing the "10 lies of Kim Il Sung, and Kim Jong Il", to spread rumors about some of the problems with KJI's hagiography. They emphasize for example that KJI was not in fact of the exalted military class, born in Russia -- not Korea, and that he was really descended from rich land owners, all things less than favorable in the eyes of those indoctrinated under the DPRK system...

So while the networks harp on US Marines that have the audacity to kill their enemies, and what the bleeding edge latest is in the Scott Peterson trial, keep your eyes out for what may be the more interesting news in the near future... A very good source to do that is the North Korea zone link on the sidebar here...

An Open Letter To My Democrat Friends

2004-11-12T22:12:00.000-08:00

By now enough time has elapsed for the shock of defeat to begin wearing off and the hysterics and empty promises of mass Democrat migration to Canada can begin. With President Bush garnering the largest number of popular votes of any president in U.S. history and the GOP securing four more Senate seats and increasing the majority in the House of Representatives, Republicans have been given a mandate despite objections otherwise.

I can understand the anger and depression felt by my Democrat friends (I'll try to avoid using the terms "progressive" and "liberal" since Democrats are neither), I would be upset if my candidate had lost. In this time of Democratic mourning there is plenty of speculation as to what went wrong, and how Democrats can be more relevant in the next election. Sadly, most of the advice to Democrats is from other Democrats. So in the spirit of national unity, please allow me to make a few observations:

1) Homosexual Marriage: For now, this is a losing issue for Democrats. As a Republican I oppose gay marriage, but not because I am intolerant and trying to legislate my religious preference on others. While I object to homosexuality on religious grounds, I leave that discussion in church where it belongs, which is why I was unopposed to the decriminalization of sodomy in Texas. I vote against homosexual marriage because I believe that the only legitimate reason our secular government acknowledges the private and often religious practice of marriage is for the economic subsidization of couples to produce and raise offspring as responsible citizens. Since homosexual unions by definition are incapable of producing offspring without the intervention of a third party; we should not codify into law a whole class of marriage that is not capable of producing children. Further, homosexuals as a demographic are more educated and affluent that heterosexuals. We should not divert limited resources away from the only valid reason that secular government should recognize marriage. At the bottom of the issue, this is simply an attempt to further push the homosexual agenda into the mainstream and force acceptance from the public; something the government should not do.

2) Abortion: The country is much more closely split on the issue of abortion, so it is not so much the losing issue that homosexual marriage is. However, it is extremely discordant to hear from the same people that champion women's rights, minority rights, homosexual and transgender rights, Iraqi civilian rights, etc. that fetal life should have no rights. The same people who march down streets with anti-war banners decrying innocent Iraqi deaths, march down those same streets with banners decrying efforts to end the destruction of our society's most innocent and defenseless lives. As long as this double-standard is embraced by the Democratic party and its fringe-group subsidiaries, you will have no moral authority in the eyes of many. It is empirical fact that human fetal life is just that: both alive and human, and therefore worthy of legal protection. This is a case where conservatives are truly more compassionate. And woe to you Democrats who argue for the continuation of abortion based on the properties and abilities (or lack thereof) of the unborn; for you have become what you despise: the final arbiter of the worth of human life.

3) Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Again, this is an issue which seems to be split fairly evenly in the populace. The problem for Democrats, in my mind, is the "cure at all costs" mentality held by most supporters of ESCR. When you are willing to trade human life for medical experimentation that may or may not produce results, you have yielded the moral high ground. Many try to circumvent the issue by asserting, "the fertilized eggs will die anyway," or "they're not wanted,"; but miss the point that we will all die anyway, and some adults are unwanted. How many Democrats would feel comfortable with experimentation on violent felons, or the homeless, or the permanently comatose? In fact, many object to current experimentation on animals. The bottom line with ESCR is that it destroys human life for the potential of a medical cure. Do we want to be that type of society?

4) Religion and Morality: Democrats tend to worry that the religious beliefs of conservatives will find their way into law. They also believe that there is a correlation between religious conviction and stupidity. A few thoughts on this: i) Everyone holds religious and moral beliefs, even if the belief is that religion is stupid and that it is meaningless to talk of morals. ii) The religious beliefs of atheists, agnostics, and non-church affiliated individuals make their way into lawmaking as well. iii) The tendency for conservatives to insert their religious beliefs into law is tempered by the tendency of conservatives to believe in a "hands-off" governmental approach. I can think of no analog for Democrats: when you believe that everything you stand for is completely good, true, pure and just, as well as untainted by any religious or moral content, you Democrats are unequaled in your militancy and hubris. iv) Stupidity is a universal condition; lest Democrats think that religious folk are far dumber than themselves, I suggest they attend an anti-war rally and take an honest and critical look at the people standing around them.

5) Gun Control: This is certainly a losing issue for Democrats. Occasionally dressing up in camouflage and walking through a field with a shotgun will not fool those of us who take firearm ownership seriously. I cannot stress this enough: firearm ownership is a right, not a privilege. When you try to confiscate and legislate firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens you are interfering with the god-given and constitutionally protected right of self-defense. You Democrats work tirelessly to protect convicted murderers from facing justice in the form of capital punishment, and continually foist on our society the thoroughly disproved notion of rehabilitating violent criminals, while demanding that the public remain unarmed and defenseless.

6) Pre-Emptive War: Much akin to gun control is the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. Both deal with self defense. Very few who argue against preemption on a national level would hesitate for a moment to use it on an individual level. How many Democrats would allow themselves to be punched, kicked, stabbed or shot before they began to defend their lives? If a perceived threat exists, it is rational to counter it immediately; and not everyone who strikes first is a bully.

I could go on, but I think the six points above demonstrate how Democrats are losing their relevancy and moral credibility. Having Michael Moore and other radical cronies spew their "America is what's wrong with the world" ideology doesn't help either. So let me end this letter with a suggestion for all of you Moore-loving, America-hating, self-righteous crusaders of the politically correct agenda: move to Canada!

U.N. seeks quick move to Palestinian state

2004-11-11T21:02:00.000-08:00

This Article is so off base that it's almost laughable. The UN Flag flies at half staff? Did the UN flag fly at half staff after he ordered innocent people to be killed? The UN 'seeks quick move to Palestinian state'... Um... I wouldn't say that twenty or thirty or forty some years is a quick move. They had a chance a few years ago to see it happen, but they wouldn't compromise at all and missed their chance. Oh well.... The 'Seattle Post-Intelligencer' might just be more post than intelligence...

He Really Really Really is Dead This Time...

2004-11-10T21:55:00.000-08:00

Looks like Arafat ran out of parts they could say were alive. All the news channels now are looping various tributes to Arafat. This leads me to observe two things:

Independent of all the terrible things Arafat has done, honestly, he really is an ugly bastard. No, really, I am hard pressed to think of a more repulsive looking individual. I am going to eat some dessert after posting this, and will be changing the channel. I just don't want to see that while I'm eating.
I realize its taken a long time for all of his bodily functions to cease, but really how long is the event of someone's death "breaking news"? Its been at least two hours now and several of the cable news channels still have the "breaking news" banner. Unless he is still in the process of dying, (a few scenes from various Loony Tunes cartoons come to mind) I would think it should now just be "news".

That's all -- hopefully they'll get that buzzard planted and somebody will be able to finally make some progress over there...

2004-11-10T21:26:00.000-08:00

A month or so before the election, my grandfather and I made a ten dollar wager on the outcome. So I was feeling pretty good the other day when a letter from him arrived in the mail. First my guy wins the election, now I'm being rewarded for my clairvoyance. This week just keeps getting better!

Inside the envelope was the money, but along with it was a note:

-----------------------------------
To: Dave Caley
From: "Gramps"
Re: Election Payoff

2 Lincolns
Wed, Nov 4, 2004

Leyte, PI
Nov 5, 1944 (60 years ago)
Took a bullet
-----------------------------------

That was two days before FDR would win his fourth term in office. My grandfather was not yet old enough to vote. But his sacrifice ensured that sixty years later his grandson would have the right to do so.

It's nice to get a good dose of humility every so often.

Kerry- The Anti-uniter

2004-11-09T07:14:00.000-08:00

The election is over, yet Kerry still is flip-flopping! How long did this take to go from 'bringing a divided nation together' to 'anti-Bush'? Oh... Who cares. This is the Democratic Party at its best.

Talking to the Left

2004-11-09T00:10:00.000-08:00

Since arriving at LLNL, I've avoided discussing politics with the people in the ajoining offices for the past nearly two months. But today, another new hire arrived, and in the course of realizing we had a mutual acquaintence at Purdue, the conversation slowly decended into the politics of the war on terror and specifically the war in Iraq.

This particular fellow was like so many on the left: He wasn't capable of discussing just one subject. His comments about the present war in Iraq were constantly laced with gratuitous and rhetorical slurs against the United States regarding, for example, the coup which toppled Chilean President Salvador Allende, or the U.S. support for the Contras against the Sandinistas.

In order to keep the discussion on track, I left those extraneous indictments against the United States unanswered.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady, writing in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2003, sets the record straight: "Allende was elected in September 1970 but by the autumn of 1973 a combination of economic incompetence and arrogant abuse of power had destroyed his legitimacy. The country was polarized, paralyzed, fraught with street violence and on the brink of a bloody civil war. This truth is of course anathema to international socialists and communists who have been pumping out propaganda for three decades to deny the failure... Allende's victory in 1970 came with only 36% of the vote. That meant that congress held power over his win. The Christian Democrats who despised Chile's right but clearly distrusted the radicalized leftist agreed to clear his way only if he accepted a 'Statute of Guarantees' to ensure the democracy and the rule of law. Allende consented so as to get into office but he had no intention of containing his militant constituents, backed by Fidel Castro, and their appetite for power... Sharp political divisions helped Allende get and hold power for three years despite his radicalism and his reckless
economics. He cleverly used the law to shield himself while he consolidated that power. There were assaults on the press, extensive nationalization of businesses and a methodical effort to build a shadow army, which produced mounting violence throughout the period. The weapons for his informal army were coming from Cuba, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. By 1973 the country was in shambles and housewives were banging empty pots to protest Allende economics. Early that year the government announced rationing... On May 26 all 14 Supreme Court justices signed a document complaining that 'an open and willful contempt of judicial decisions [by the executive]' threatened an 'imminent breakdown of legality.' On Aug. 22 came the resolution from the Lower House declaring a 'grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order' and placing the responsibility for restoring 'legal paths' with the military. On August 25 the Medical Association asked the president to resign and the Bar Association followed suit on Aug. 31. Yet experts say that more than any one single event it was Allende's proposal for a national education curriculum, a la East Germany, that drove the military to its final decision. The Pinochet dictatorship was difficult for everyone. Yet as Cuba shows it could have been far worse. Chileans went with the lesser of two
evils, broadly supporting an unprecedented military coup to save the country, not only from economic ruin but also from the shackles of communist repression."

And obviously Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas were died in the wool commies. They lost the election held on February 25, 1990 despite, for example, Sandinista mobs attacking supporters of Violeta Chamarro with machetes. And never mind that as soon as Chamarro's victory was sealed, the Contras as an organization disappeared.

Ann Coulter once remarked that "When arguments are premised on lies, there is no foundation for debate. You end up conceding to half the lies simply to focus on the lies of holocaust-denial proportions." Such was the case today....

Massive 30,000-Pound Bomb

2004-11-08T18:10:00.000-08:00

Eglin [AFB] Studying Massive 30,000-Pound Bomb. This is good news, though it may seem confusing to people who don't quite understand what goals the 'lighter and faster' military actually have. I'm glad to see that the administration is actively researching new weapons... This is one that will keep us safe.

Think they might hit it...

2004-11-08T09:26:00.000-08:00

So assuming the image hangs around on the foxnews server, saw the following on their front page:

Maybe its the angle of this photo, but I suspect these guys are going to have a problem when they pull the trigger.

"Join the Iraqi Insurgency! We'll teach you to hit the broadside of a barn from 3 inches away. Once."