Saturday - July 23, 2005

The Root Of Evil

_{Robert Ariail, The State, South Carolina}

Egypt Bombing

It looks like Al Qaeda will stop at nothing. Egypt was their latest target in a terror bombing today. Eighty-three dead and over 200 injured - mostly Muslims. In the meantime, the Mullahs of the “Religion of Peace” keep preaching jihad and violence in mosques and madrasahs around the world. How much longer will this go on before everyone wakes up and puts a stop to these barbaric acts? And I don’t mean appease the bastards. There is no appeasing them. They want us out of Saudi Arabia, they want us out of Afghanistan, they want us out of Iraq, they want us to release all the prisoners at Gitmo, they want money, they want everything and they want it now. Most importantly, they want all of us to die.

What we have to do is come up with a deterrent but what can we do to these people to convince them that their continued actions will cause even worse damage to them than what they inflict on us? Public executions? Bury them in pig slop? Nuke Mecca? I don’t know. Since they’re targeting their own people in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere, I would ask one question: which countries have not been bombed and why? Maybe Libya, Jordan, Syria and Iran can answer that one ....

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters)—At least 83 people were killed and 200 injured when car bombs ripped through markets and hotels in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Saturday in the worst attack in Egypt since 1981. Shaken European tourists spoke of mass panic and hysteria as people fled the carnage in the early hours, with bodies strewn across the roads, people screaming and sirens wailing.

The regional governor said two car bombs and possibly a suitcase bomb had rocked the resort, popular with divers and European holidaymakers, as well as diplomats who have convened summits of world leaders at Sharm el-Sheikh. One blast tore the front off the Ghazala Gardens Hotel in Naama Bay, the site of most of the resort’s luxury hotels. People were feared trapped in the rubble of the lobby.

A car broke into the hotel compound and exploded in front of the building, South Sinai Governor Mustafa Afifi said. A senior security source in Sharm el-Sheikh said 83 people were killed and 23 people were in critical condition, from among 35 casualties taken to Cairo for treatment. Most of the victims were Egyptians but the Tourism Ministry spokeswoman said seven non-Egyptians were dead, including a Czech and an Italian, and 20 were injured.

The injured foreigners were nine Italians, five Saudis, three Britons, a Russian, a Ukrainian and an Israeli Arab, spokesman Hala el-Khatib told reporters. But the British Foreign Office in London said that eight Britons were injured. A group claiming links to the al Qaeda organization said it carried out the bombings in retaliation for “crimes committed against Muslims,” according to an Internet statement. The statement, which was not carried on major al Qaeda Web sites, was signed by the Abdullah al-Azzam Brigades of the al Qaeda Organization in the Levant and Egypt. It was not possible to authenticate the claim.

Wake Up Call

It’s the weekend, finally. What are you sitting around for? Wake up and get moving ....

   Friday - July 22, 2005

Canadians Have Gone PC Insane

Our neighbors to the North have gone completely, insanely, madly, Barking-Moonbat CRAZY!

(NEWS24.COM)— 20/07/2005 07:45

Montreal - Canadian Miss Universe Natalie Glebova was forced to take off her official sash at a local festival celebrating Thailand when Toronto authorities invoked a law against sexual stereotyping.

The winner of the international beauty competition held in Bangkok in May, Glebova was to open the festival last weekend sporting her official beauty queen’s regalia.

However, city employees invoked a regulation against activities which degrade men and women through sexual stereotypes or exploit their bodies to attract attention.

Bowing to the local law, the 23 year old blue-eyed brunette was made to remove her “Miss Universe” sash, though not without complaint.

“I definitely don’t think that the Miss Universe title is any kind of stereotype or sexual stereotype,” said Russian-born Glebova, a graduate of Toronto’s Ryerson University.

Officials of the Miss Universe organisation were also unhappy.

“It’s a strict reading of the by-laws,” Paula Shugart, president of the organisation, said.

“According to those conditions, a beauty contest cannot even be held in Toronto”, Shugart said.

The Mayor of Toronto later apologized ....

Toronto Mayor David Miller has issued an apology to Miss Universe after the city barred her from opening a festival on municipal property over concerns about sexual stereotyping.

“It’s unfortunate and silly,” said Miller. “It won’t happen again.”

Natalie Glebova was set to open a festival last weekend at Nathan Phillips Square in front of City Hall, but municipal officials told organizers that the recently crowned Torontonian couldn’t perform that duty if she wore her sash or her tiara, or if she was introduced by her title.

They said beauty pageants and beauty queens were banned from the square by a bylaw that prohibits activities deemed to be degrading to men or women through sexual stereotyping.

Miller said it was all a mistake and an overreaction on someone’s part.

“[It’s] certainly not the way I read the bylaw,” he said. “I don’t think it’s appropriate. She should have been allowed to come to City Hall.”

Sympathy For The Devil

James Pinkerton writes at Newsday that the British are being held hostage by violent people and blackmail is the name of the game. Pinkerton thinks the Brits should take a lesson from the US experience of past decades with race warlords ....

The evasive reaction of many British Muslims to the July 7 bombings in London will strike Americans as depressingly familiar. In past decades, explosions of criminal violence in the U.S. were rationalized as the inevitable products of racism and poverty. The solution, Americans were told by their leaders, was more understanding and more government money. Such therapies didn’t work here, and they won’t work there.

The London-based Financial Times provided this bit of clucking context for the four men who killed at least 55 people: “immigrant families ... often carry with them difficult memories of a colonial past that hampers integration.” So you see, society is to blame.

The New York Times joined in from across the Atlantic. One headline read, “Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain’s Muslims.” Were British Muslims angry over the besmirchment of Islam by the suicide bombers? Not at all. The issue burning these Muslims was their hostility to England’s domestic and foreign policies. One young Muslim was prominently quoted, saying, “I don’t approve of what he did, but I understand it.”

That’s the emerging spin from much of the major media: Yes, the bombings were terrible, but we must also understand the terrible problems confronting British Muslims. Which is to say we can’t expect an end to the problem until we solve its perceived historical and sociological “roots.”

A few editorial voices have rejected this implicit linkage - this effort to, in effect, ransom social peace in return for more governmental activism. USA Today, hardly a right-wing paper, observed that Muslim leaders in Britain speak with “ambiguity” on terror issues. As the paper noted, debate over all policies, including the Iraq war, is fair game, but such debate must be “cleaved from the use of terrorism as a tool.”

Perhaps USA Today recognizes what’s happening now in Britain as a kind of replay of what happened in the United States decades ago, when “riot ideology” was dominant in our cities. Urban historian Fred Siegel coined that phrase to describe the implicit threat made by some black leaders: Give us money, or else burn, baby, burn. Many top politicians, white and black, were happy to invoke the threat of riots as a way of extracting more federal money.

The reign of riot ideology was not broken until the 1990s, when, as Siegel observed in an interview, people in both political parties finally wised up. But today, Siegel continued, the British, not learning from the American experience, have fallen into the same trap - handing out money to noisy hustlers who threaten violence otherwise. Yet the result is more violence, not less. As he noted, the government-funded storefront community center in Leeds proved to be an “incubator” for the July 7 bombers.

The Founding Fathers & The Supreme Court, Part II

This is the second of a two-part series. Part I was posted this morning.

“Advice and Consent”. We hear a lot about that whenever an opening comes up for the Supreme Court, however it also applies to ambassadors and Cabinet members too. The framers of the Constitution gave a lot of thought as to how to appoint non-elected officers to positions of power within the Federal government. As noted in the Federalist Papers, they decided against giving Congress the power to do it by themselves for the simple reason that committees of men rarely agree and partisan bickering would probably result in compromises that would not put the best qualified people in those positions.

For that reason, they decided to give the power to nominate people to these positions to the Executive branch. The key word here is “nominate”. This allows the President to choose who, in his best judgement, is the best qualified to serve. At the same time, the Founding Fathers decided to throw in a check on this power by making it a process where the President was advised by the Senate as to possible choices and the President’s nominee had to have the consent of the Senate. This was done, as explained by Alexander Hamilton, to keep the President from appointing political hacks, friends, relatives, et. who were unqualified. Here is the text of Article II, Section II of the Consitution relating to this process ....

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

There you go. Notice there is one word missing from that text that you have heard a lot of lately .... filibuster. To put it bluntly, a “filibuster” is an invention by partisan political hacks whereby the Senate never actually gives its consent but simply avoids voting on the issue of consent by talking each other to death. The Founding Fathers never foresaw this devious tactic whereby one group of Senators could postpone a vote on consent indefinitely by simply talking and talking and talking. The Founding Fathers evidently had faith in the American people such that they would never elect any idiots stupid enough to be this venal and partisan in their appointed duties. That is because the Founding Fathers were all good men of solid character and ethics. They could never imagine any group of maggots ever gaining enough power within the Senate to bastardize the process in this manner. I’ll let Alexander Hamilton explain their views on the appointment of Supreme Court judges to give you a little insight into their thinking ....

On why the appointment should be done by one man, the President ....

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: ``Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.’’ This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

---

On the reasoning behind requiring the consent of the Senate ....

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

---

So you see, the whole idea was to give the President power to appoint but the Senate has the power to vote up or down to confirm the appointment. This keeps the President honest and allows for a more dynamic process that would reasonably put the best people in the offices where they were needed, such as the Supreme Court. Refusing to vote on the President’s choice by holding the appointment up in committee or blocking a vote in the Senate by reading from Dr. Seuss books is outside the pale. The act of filibuster is a travesty and an affront to the original intent of the Constitution and its authors.

Personally, I like most the way Hamilton concludes his treatise on the appointment process by discussing the better nature of man ....

To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of universal venality in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory. It has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most corrupt governments.

Though it might therefore be allowable to suppose that the Executive might occasionally influence some individuals in the Senate, yet the supposition, that he could in general purchase the integrity of the whole body, would be forced and improbable. A man disposed to view human nature as it is, without either flattering its virtues or exaggerating its vices, will see sufficient ground of confidence in the probity of the Senate, to rest satisfied, not only that it will be impracticable to the Executive to corrupt or seduce a majority of its members, but that the necessity of its co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate.

Source: The Federalist Papers, No. 76 - The Appointing Power of the Executive, From the New York Packet. Tuesday, April 1, 1788.

On This Day In History

Exactly two years ago today, Uday and Qusay Hussein got their asses shot all to pieces in a gunfight with US forces ....

(BBC) [22-July-2003]—The United States says the two sons of Saddam Hussein, Uday and Qusay, have been killed by US troops in Iraq. The bodies of the two men were identified after 200 American soldiers, backed by helicopters, stormed a house in the northern city of Mosul following a tip-off from an Iraqi informant.

The operation in Mosul lasted over four hours. US troops came under fire as they entered the villa in the northern part of Mosul, and the Americans responded with rocket fire from helicopter gunships.Uday and Qusay were among the most influential and most feared figures in Saddam Hussein’s regime. Reports of their deaths were welcomed with celebrations on the streets of Baghdad, and gunfire erupted across the city as weapons were fired into the air.

Qusay, 36, was being groomed as Saddam Hussein’s heir, and controlled key areas of the country’s security. Uday, 39, ran large sections of the media. He was known for his extreme brutality and for the extravagance of his playboy lifestyle. The two men have been on the run since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime three months ago.

The Iraqi who apparently tipped off the US military stands to gain at least part of two rewards placed on the heads of Uday and Qusay, each with £15 million (£9.4m). The two were second and third on America’s most-wanted list of the top 55 Iraqis involved in Saddam Hussein’s administration.

---

This day was especially bad for asshat criminal types. Exactly 71 years ago, John Dillinger got whacked outside a Chicago theater by the G-Men ....

Chicago, July 22, 1934—John Dillinger, America’s Public Enemy No. 1 and the most notorious criminal of recent times, was shot and killed at 10:40 o’clock tonight by Federal agents a few seconds after he had left the Biograph Theatre at 2,433 Lincoln Avenue, on Chicago’s North Side.

One bullet penetrated the head and another the chest of the desperate outlaw. He died as he was being taken to the Alexian Brothers Hospital. The body was later removed to the county morgue, where the identification of Dillinger was made positive.

According to Melvin H. Purvis, chief of the investigating forces of the Department of Justice in Chicago, and leader of the band of sixteen men who had waited for more than two hours while the desperado viewed his last picture show, Dillinger attempted to put up a fight.

“He saw me give a signal to my men to close in,” Chief Purvis said. “He became alarmed and reached into a belt and was drawing the .38-callibre pistol he carried concealed when two of the agents let him have it. Dillinger was lying prone before he was able to get the gun out and I took it from him.”

The Founding Fathers & The Supreme Court, Part I

This is the first of a two-part series. Part II will be posted this afternoon.

Over the course of the last week, I decided to do a little research on the Supreme Court. I noticed that several of the members here are involved in a discussion regarding term limits as it relates to SCOTUS. I determined to get a grasp of what the Founding Fathers had to say about the issue as they were debating how to setup the Court in the new Constitution they were drawing up. We all know and understand the original intent was to establish a federal government with three distinct branches: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. These three branches were to divide power among them in such a way that there were checks and balances incumbent on each that allowed none of them to exercise absolute power. In designing the new government, the Founding Fathers gave a great deal of thought to the Judicial branch and looked at previous forms of government including Britain, France, Rome, Greece, Babylon, etc. They decided on a completely independent judiciary which was something new. They also decided to elevate Supreme Court justices above the political process by making them permanent positions. As always, the best source is The Federalist Papers and Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius, took the matter to the people with the following arguments ....

---

On the division of powers and the responsibilities of each branch of the government ....

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

---

On how the Supreme Court expresses the will of the people (via Constitutional interpretation) to override the legislative branch ....

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

---

On why Supreme Court Justices should hold permanent office ....

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.

Source: The Federalist Papers No. 78, The Judiciary Department, From McLEAN’S Edition, New York.

Morning Quiz

Q: What resembles a slimey worm and eats escargot (snails)?

A: A Frenchman?

Well, that too .. but in this case it’s Hyposmocoma molluscivora.

The Enemy Within

_{Cox & Forkum}

   Thursday - July 21, 2005

Minutemen In San Diego

Our buddy Joe, down in New Zealand (formerly of San Diego) is all over a bunch of asshat leftists in San Diego who are angry that the Minutemen are coming to their town. Hell, it seems the ACLU was even there to “observe”. Joe has it covered with plenty of pictures and commentary ....

(BOHEMIAN CONSERVATIVE BLOG)—It’s the same old story, only in a new place. The Minuteman Project arrived in my former hometown of San Diego this past weekend, and the nut-job protestors from the mentally deranged, illigitimate Left were out in force. The seditious agitators, many carrying the banners of SocialistWorker.org and the anarchist flag, turned out in droves at the Campo VFW (private property, btw) where the Minutemen were having a BBQ social while, according to my insider present at the event, there were only 2 sherrif’s deputies present initially (you’ll notice that the media thought there were enough law enforcement present, but that was only after the protestors had been trespassing for quite a while.) Local TV news was present, but no coverage was shown on TV, according to my source. And, despite the title of the news story cited, “Border Watch and Protest Peaceful,” it would have been more accurate if the term “non-violent” was used instead of “peaceful.” According to my source, it was anything but peaceful, at least on behalf of the illigitimi from the Left.

Reserve My Pulitzer Prize

Do you want to find out what your blogging personality is? I just took the quiz and it seems I am the next Ernest Hemingway. I think my next novel will be “The Old Man And The Blogosphere” about a worn out old fart who challenges the blogosphere in a small blog-boat in order to capture a giant troll. It will be an amazing story of human endurance and suffering (with a few chapters about boobies, of course) ....

I took the Blogging Personality Quiz at About Web logs and I am...

The Writer
Words captivate me. And, I like to capture words. Blogging enables me to write often. It also provides a place for me to share what I write with a reading public. I can be funny, inspiring, intelligent, cynical, or morbid. It doesn’t matter what I write about in my blog. It only matters that I write.

Smack Down

Via PowerLine

Here’s how Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who was in London with Tony Blair when the two received word of today’s explosions, responded to a reporter who seemed to think that British participation in Iraq was to blame:

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it’s given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn’t have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq—a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations—when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I’ve cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

You tell ‘em John.

Update: Video of the confrontation can be seen here. Look under “Update II”.

Appalled, I say!

From the “You Can’t Please Everyone” department, the latest story involves a German newspaper which published an edition with a free coupon for a brothel visit. Needless to say, the men were pleased. However ....

(ANANOVA)—A German magazine sold out in a day after offering readers vouchers for a free sex session at a brothel in Austria. Readers of the Freizeit Magazine said they were shocked when they opened the mag to find a full page advert for a brothel in Salzburg. Prostitution is legal in both countries and the ad promised “half an hour free sex with a lady of your choice” for anyone who cut out the coupon and brought it with them on their next visit.

Local woman Vera Hahnen, who regularly buys the lifestyle magazine to find out what’s going on at the weekends, said: “I was appalled by the advert. “The magazine is supposed to be about leisure and entertainment activities, but I don’t find paying women to have sex with them particularly entertaining. The advert is indecent and sexist.”

But the head of the advertising section says he does not understand what all the fuss is about. He said the advertisement was “in no way salacious neither in content nor visually”, and accused complainants of “nitpicking”. Owners of the sex club report a boom in business since running the adverts.

---

---

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner

GNU Terry Pratchett

Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.

---

Sponsor's Links

---

Newsfeeds

 RSS 2.0   Atom 

---

Other ways to BMEWS yourself

Most Recent Posts

• Once Again, The One And Only Post
• Gee, Oops
• The ‘Rona Song
• Follow Me !
• eye candy, high plains edition
• Flowers For Algernon?
• The Death Of NYC?
• Very Funny Officer
• Rhubarb !!!
• Fauci Gets One Right
• toldja so
• Of course she isn’t, but you’re uninformed and intellectually lazy so she’ll get away with it
• Walter White Moved To Holland?
• TLH? Typical Leftist Hypocrites
• Biden Picks Kamala Harris For VP
• Feral Child Killers
• Gohmert (R-TX) Much Improved
• Still Here
• A Dark Ending
• Ospreys are up, is Trump in town?

Humor

---

Donations & Stuff

Buy BMEWS High Quality Stuff!

---

Help Support BMEWS

---

PAYPAL donation button

---

Our Sponsors

Your Ad Here

---

Department Of Information

DAILY READS

• Broderland Beat
  
• Hot Air
  
• Gateway Pundit
  
• Michelle Malkin
  
• Right Wing NEws
  

CONSERVATIVE OPINION

• Neal Boortz
  
• Ann Coulter
  
• Hugh Hewitt
  
• Rush Limbaugh
  

NEWS

• Washington Times
  
• Best Of The Web Today
  
• Media Research Center
  
• Newsmax
  
• Townhall
  
• Weekly Standard
  
• WorldNetDaily
  

MILITARY & IRAQ

• US Central Command
  
• US Army
  
• US Air Force
  
• US Navy
  
• US Marine Corps
  
• US Coast Guard
  
• A Soldiers Blog
  
• Citizen Smash
  
• CPT Patti
  
• Front Line Voices
  
• Iraq 2.0
  
• Iraq The Model
  
• Sgt. Stryker
  

GOVERNMENT

• White House News
  
• White House Press
  
• Dept Of Defense
  
• Dept Of State
  
• Dept Of Homeland Security
  
• National Security Council
  
• CIA
  
• FBI
  
• NASA
  
• US Supreme Court
  
• US House
  
• US Senate
  
• US House Votes
  
• US Senate Votes
  
• RNC News
  
• DNC News
  
• On The Floor
  
• US Government Reference
  
• State Governments
  
• America's Job Bank
  

LINKS

• Inside Louisville

Search For It!

Web BMEWS

This Blog Is Rated

Required Reading

• FAQ For Barking Moonbats
• What Is A Moonbat?
• Why Do Moonbats Bark?
• Our Patron Saint

Acknowledgements

Categories

• Abortion - (17)
• Adventure - (22)
• Advertising - (0)
• Advertising - (9)
• Africa - (102)
• Amazing Science and Discoveries - (121)
• Animals - (249)
  • Cat Blogging - (14)
• Archeology / Anthropology - (83)
• Architecture - (41)
• Art-Photography - (339)
• Awards - (77)
• Battling Brits - (23)
• Big Brother - (53)
• Big Business - (53)
• BIRTHDAY - (7)
• Blog Stuff - (270)
• Border Security - (27)
• Bowling Blogging - (187)
• Bread - (19)
• Bridges - (50)
• Canada - (14)
• Celebrities - (125)
• CHESS - (67)
• CHINA in the news - (45)
• Climate-Weather - (442)
• Colleges-Professors - (70)
• Commies - (212)
• Computers and Cyberspace - (80)
• Crime - (1093)
• CULTURE IN DECLINE - (416)
• Daily Life - (730)
• Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists - (1830)
• Passing on, Death and Disaster - (18)
• Disasters - (7)
• Economics - (362)
• DIVERSITY BS - (119)
• Editorials - (318)
• Education - (342)
• Egypt, Then and Now - (0)
• Environment - (209)
• EUro-peons - (310)
• Eye-Candy - (903)
• Fake News - (1)
• Finance and Investing - (36)
• Family - (38)
• Fine-Dining - (168)
• Food - (15)
• FRANCE - (116)
• Fun-Stuff - (838)
• FREEDOM - (121)
• gardening - (1)
• Gardens and plants - (3)
• Gay Gay Gay! - (56)
• Genocide - (12)
• Government - (395)
• Corruption and Greed - (144)
• Guns and Gun Control - (528)
• Health and Safety - (67)
• Health-Medicine - (320)
• Heroes - (72)
• High Tech - (33)
• Hildabeast - (77)
• History - (345)
• Holidays - (63)
  • Christmas - (15)
• Hollywood - (184)
• Homeland-Security - (41)
• Humor - (1876)
• Illegal-Aliens and Immigration - (502)
• Inflation and High Prices - (16)
• Insanity - (252)
• International - (396)
• Iran - (62)
• Iraq - (175)
• Israel - (81)
• Jack Booted Thugs - (124)
• Judges-Courts-Lawyers - (480)
• Justice - LACK OF - (123)
• Latin-America - (19)
• Literature - (32)
• Love-Marriage - (27)
• Media-Bias - (428)
• Medical - (48)
• Mexico - (11)
• Middle-East - (140)
• Military - (596)
• Miscellaneous - (2383)
• Moonbat Award to: - (15)
• Motorvators - (122)
• MOVIES - (29)
• Music - (117)
• muslims - (364)
• Nanny State - (149)
• Nature - (34)
• New Jersey - (3)
• Neat Inventions - (15)
• News-Briefs - (335)
• No Shit, Sherlock - (47)
• North-Korea - (20)
• NOSTALGIA - (10)
• Obama, The One - (431)
• OBITITUARIES - (48)
• Odd-Strange - (244)
• Oil, Alternative Energy, and Gas Prices - (126)
• Oppression - (34)
• Outrageous - (453)
• Outsourcing - (8)
• OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT - (39)
• pandemic and epidemic diseases - (61)
  • The New Normal - (4)
• Pandemic Pandemonium - (63)
• Paleswine - (74)
• PAT CONDELL - (43)
• Patriotism - (151)
• Personal - (436)
• Philosophy - (70)
• Pirates, aarrgh! - (158)
• planes, trains, tanks, ships, machines, automobiles - (179)
• Politically Correct B.S. - (147)
• Politically-Incorrect - (117)
• Politics - (860)
• Porkbusters - (11)
• Product Safety - (5)
• Racism and race relations - (283)
• REALLY WORTHLESS and PUTRID PEOPLE - (145)
• Religion - (187)
• Republicans - (132)
• RoPMA - (684)
• Russia - (5)
• Sarah Palin - (16)
• Satire - (64)
• Scary Stuff - (76)
• Science-Technology - (257)
• Self-Defense - (35)
• Sex - (106)
• Sharia law - (10)
• Social-Security - (41)
• Space - (41)
• SPOOKS - (9)
• Sports - (170)
• STFU - (0)
• Stoopid-People - (1015)
• Success Stories - (7)
• Super Seniors - (0)
• Talented Ppl. - (22)
• Taxes - (66)
• Television - (55)
• Terrorists - (715)
• The New Conservatives - (45)
• Travelers/Gypsies/Squatters - (130)
• TURD WORLD - (27)
• Typical White People: Stupid, Evil, Willfully Blind - (36)
• Tyrants and Dictators - (94)
• UK - (1715)
• Unions-Labor - (54)
• United-Nations - (136)
• USA - (277)
• War On Terror - (365)
• War-Stories - (218)
• weird stuff - (37)
• work and the workplace - (143)

Monthly Archives

• April 2024
• August 2020
• July 2020
• June 2020
• May 2020
• April 2020
• March 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• August 2016
• July 2016
• June 2016
• May 2016
• April 2016
• March 2016
• February 2016
• January 2016
• December 2015
• November 2015
• October 2015
• September 2015
• August 2015
• July 2015
• June 2015
• May 2015
• April 2015
• March 2015
• February 2015
• January 2015
• December 2014
• November 2014
• October 2014
• September 2014
• August 2014
• July 2014
• June 2014
• May 2014
• April 2014
• March 2014
• February 2014
• January 2014
• December 2013
• November 2013
• October 2013
• September 2013
• August 2013
• July 2013
• June 2013
• May 2013
• April 2013
• March 2013
• February 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• September 2012
• August 2012
• July 2012
• June 2012
• May 2012
• April 2012
• March 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• July 2011
• June 2011
• May 2011
• April 2011
• March 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• August 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004
• June 2004
• January 2004
• Complete Archives
• Category Archives

The Stat Monster

---

---

---

Copyright

All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

You may freely use anything for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute the source. All non-original content must be attributed to the original source. Play fair.

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner or may be authorized or licensed for publication at this site only. Permission to copy, republish or reproduce such material must be obtained from the original copyright owner.

We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

GNU Terry Pratchett