Thursday - September 07, 2006

Touché

OK, I am now willing to concede that President Bush’s speech yesterday was a cunning move (no doubt planned by Darth Rove). The Washington Post splashed on page 1 today the headline below and when the WAPO admits that Bush caught his “critics off guard”, you just know the enemy (Liberals & Democrats) are confused.

Dubya has evidently finally decided to fight both enemies in a two front war: against the terrorists and against the Liberals/Democrats. The Donks are now backed into a corner, it seems. It’ll be interesting to see what their reaction is over the next few days. If the WAPO’s reaction is any indicator, look for the Donks and their Leftist minions to have a nervous breakdown trying to figure out what to do next.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is about to undergo a transformation in the Leftist population suffering from the mental disorder. It won’t be pretty. They’re already foaming at the mouth and have been since November, 2000. I expect their rhetoric to descend into nothing less than mindless screeching and lies as a counterattack.

It’s about time Dubya went on the offensive though. He has spent five years trying to make friends with the Donks and gotten nothing but crap in return. Get out your popcorn and drinks, kids. This show is about to get interesting ....

President Shifts Argument, Catches Critics Off Guard
_{(WASHINGTON POST) - Thursday, September 7, 2006}

With a series of forceful speeches on terrorism and a dramatic announcement that he has sent top-tier terrorism suspects to the Guantanamo Bay prison, President Bush this week has demonstrated anew the power of even a weakened commander in chief to set the terms of national debate.

All week, the White House has made plain its desire to refocus the attention of voters this fall away from a troubled and unpopular war in Iraq in favor of Bush’s vision of a worldwide struggle against Islamic radicalism and terrorism. Yesterday, Bush sought to turn a legal defeat at the Supreme Court into a political opportunity.

By challenging Congress to immediately give the administration authority to try notorious al-Qaeda figures such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed by military commissions, he shifted the argument with Democratic critics of national security policies and competence. As Bush framed the choice, anyone against his proposal would be denying him necessary tools to protect American security.

His success in catching much of Washington by surprise showed that a president who polls show has his political back to the wall still has formidable tools: the ability to make well-timed course corrections on policy, dominate the news and shape the capital’s agenda in the weeks before Election Day.

Bush’s moves were partly a concession to those who have complained about secret CIA prisons abroad. Even as he acknowledged the existence of the prison program for the first time, Bush could argue that there are no terrorism suspects now in the CIA program.

At the same time, Bush sought to redefine the issue of CIA detentions from one of civil liberties to one of protecting Americans. He asserted that interrogators had reaped an intelligence bonanza from the questioning of top al-Qaeda leaders such as Mohammed—the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks—and Osama bin Laden deputy Abu Zubaida, and insisted Congress pass a law that would allow such interrogations to continue without legal jeopardy to soldiers and intelligence officers.

“We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives,” he said in his speech in the East Room of the White House.

- More on Bush’s Strategery at the WAPO ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/07/2006 at 04:50 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Blair Departing

If you think things are getting confusing in Washington then you need to go take a look across the pond. Things are getting a mite messy at Number 10 Downing Street. Tony Blair has been hinting that he will step down next year and the mad scramble over who will lead Labour and take over as Prime Minister is already underway

Gordon Brown looks like the likely successor at this point but things got really silly in the last few days as several government aides resigned in a huff after Blair refused to step down as PM immediately. Now Blair is going to have to make an announcement today to settle the mess.

It remains to be seen how this will affect the war on terror. Blair has been Bush’s staunchest ally so far but the next PM in Britain may not be as accomodating. With the mid-term elections coming up over here and the confusion over there, things are probably going to look a lot different this time next year. We’re all about to embark on a six-month long political roller coaster. Hang on tight ...

_{Brian Adcock - The Scotland on Sunday}

---

Britain’s Tony Blair To Respond
To Clamor Over Him Leaving Office
_{LONDON (FOX NEWS) - Thursday, September 07, 2006}

British Prime Minister Tony Blair planned Thursday to respond to the clamor of protest calling for him step down after eight government aides resigned — demanding he set a date to leave office.

Key officials sent strong signals that Blair intended to leave office within a year, as a senior minister urged the party to focus on the likely “energizing, refreshing transition” of the Labour leadership to Treasury chief Gordon Brown.

Pressure for the prime minister to announce a departure date has intensified in recent weeks, fueled by widespread anger at Blair’s handling of last month’s fighting between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants.

Many within Blair’s governing Labour party were furious at his refusal to call for an early cease-fire, a stance critics saw as tacitly allowing Israel to bomb Lebanon for weeks. Blair’s Downing Street office on Wednesday declined to immediately confirm reports that the prime minister intended to make a public statement on his future on Thursday.

But officials acknowledged Blair had decided to use a planned visit to a London school to set out his intentions, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported. Environment Secretary David Miliband — a key Blair ally — said on Thursday that Brown was the only person who should succeed Blair and claimed the party was excited about the prospect of his premiership.

“I would say the transition...the energizing, refreshing transition to Gordon Brown — not to anyone else — is a transition that is about ideas and values more than about dates,” he said in an interview with the leftist New Statesman magazine, published Thursday. Miliband, often mentioned as a potential rival to Brown, said he would not be “a runner nor a rider” in leadership and deputy leadership elections following Blair’s departure.

Eight junior officials said Wednesday they had quit rather than remove their names from a letter demanding that the prime minister step aside. They were among 15 Labour lawmakers who signed the letter, writing that while they supported the centrist direction Blair had taken the party, he was no longer the right man to lead it.

Tom Watson, the most senior of those to resign, quit his post as minister for veterans in the Ministry of Defense. Blair smacked back after receiving Watson’s resignation letter, saying he would have fired Watson if he had not quit himself, and calling his decision to sign the lawmakers’ letter “disloyal, discourteous and wrong.”

While the revolt of low-level officials was unlikely to dislodge Blair from office, it could help force him to speed up his departure, and raised fears that the eventual change of command would be rancorous and messy.

- More on the story at FOX NEWS ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/07/2006 at 04:24 AM   
Filed Under: • EUro-peons •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Straight Talk

Michael Reagan gives us a little straight talk today in this editorial addressing President Bush and the war. Not the war on terror - the war on Bush being waged by Democrats. Michael spells it out plain and straight ... the President needs to start talking to the people at large instead of to the Democrats, most of whom are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

With the mid-term elections just a couple of months away, now is not the time to allow Democrats to get away with ignoring the terrorists and obstructing the protection of the American people - in the name of partisan politics. Dubya, pay attention. You too, America ...

Mike Lester - Rome News-Tribune (GA)

A Little Straight Talk Wouldn’t Hurt
by Michael Reagan

Listening to the Democrats complain Tuesday about the administration’s handling of the nation’s security had me thinking. If, as they charge, the president is using it as a political issue, I really hope he is.

I also thought that President Bush needs to stop preaching to the choir - to his rock hard supporters - and begin to speak to all the American people about just what’s at stake in the war on terror.

He needs to tell Americans flat out exactly where the Democrats stand on national security. They oppose the wiretaps of al Qaeda terrorists communicating with agents and sympathizers in the U.S.; they are opposed to the tracking of the movement of terrorist funds across the globe, they opposed the Patriot Act – all programs that are designed to protect the American people.

He needs to pound home again and again that these programs have kept America safe from other 9/11s for five long years since the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

And he needs to remind the people that should the Democrats win control of the Congress all of these vital programs will be gutted and al Qaeda’s determination to strike at the U.S. homeland will be reinvigorated.

When he speaks about national security the president limits the scope of his audience by addressing his Republican base, which does not need to hear what he has to say about national security. They already know what the score is there. He needs to aim at all of the American people, Democrats and Republicans and those in-between. He has to take the gloves off and punch away, showing how the Democrats’ glaring weaknesses on the issue of national security will put the nation in danger.

For too long now the Democrats have been allowed to peddle the fiction that the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are two different struggles, when even al Qaeda’s top leaders such as bin Laden clearly state the opposite. Even if Harry Reid, Howard Dean and the pitiful Nancy Pelosi can’t recognize that both are part of the same struggle - the war on terrorism - bin Laden and his fellow thugs know that the opposite is true.

The president needs to stress that one reason why America has been spared more 9/11s is that al Qaeda had been forced to concentrate its resources on the insurgency in Iraq. They simply don’t have the resources to fight a two-front war.

Yet the Democrats would like nothing better than to cut and run in Iraq and turn that hapless country into an Islamofascist headquarters for the jihad. Iraq in the hands of al Qaeda would create chaos throughout the Middle East.

Of course they won’t admit that their policy is to abandon the people of Iraq to the mercies of al Qaeda by withdrawing our troops by a date certain. They won’t call their policy a planned withdrawal – they call it a redeployment, suggesting that our troops would be redeployed to another part of the Middle East close by Iraq from where they could re-enter that country if the need arose.

They ignore the fact that not one of the neighboring countries want U.S. troops within their borders. Rep. John Murtha, however, let the cat out of the bag when he suggested redeployment to Formosa, which is just a tad too far away from Iraq, like about 7,000 miles too far. To Democrats it appears as if that’s just a hop, skip and a jump.

The president needs to take the fight to the Democrats. They are not his friends, no matter how much he wishes they were. They are his enemies and he must remind the public exactly where the Democratic party stands and just how much more vulnerable their politically driven policies would make this nation.

Americans need to ask themselves just who they think the President of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the leadership of Hezbollah and Hamas would vote for in Congressional elections on November 7. If you think the answer is all of the above, you better vote for the party they want to lose.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted”. Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/07/2006 at 02:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Politics • Terrorists •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - September 06, 2006

Through The Looking Glass

“Meadow - Sequioa National Forest”
<sub>-by- Jon Sullivan

(Click image for larger version 1024x768 in popup window)</sub>

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/06/2006 at 10:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Al Qaeda Protected By Geneva Conventions?

First of all, I think this stinks to high heaven. Admitting that the CIA is holding prisoners in secret prisons is bad but then to grant these barbaric murderers all the protections of the Geneva Conventions is absolutely Barking Mad™.

So what do we do? Place them in a nice comfy prison somewhere in Arkansas, give them fresh copies of the Quran (unflushed, of course) and allow the Red Cross to deliver cakes, cookies and letters from home? What about permits for Cindy Sheehan and friends to protest outside the prison camp?

I’m sorry, Dubya but I think you have screwed the pooch on this one, ol’ buddy. I am awaiting a decent explanation and you better make it good, sir. The Democrats and Liberals are going to have a field day with this one ...

High Value Detainees Will Be
Given Prisoner Of War Status
_{(ABC NEWS) - September 6, 2006}

ABC News has learned that President Bush will announce that high-value detainees now being held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protections under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

It will be the first time the Administration publicly acknowledges the existence of the prisons.

A source familiar with the president’s announcement says it will apply to all prisoners now being held by the CIA, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh.

The source says there are “about a dozen” prisoners now being held by the CIA. Until now, the U.S. government has not officially acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons.

The Bush administration has come under harsh criticism for its handling of detainees captured in the U.S.-led military campaign to root out al Qaeda terror cells abroad.

Many detainees have been given the legal status of “enemy combatant,” which includes both lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants.

_{(-- Hat tip to Drudge for catching this one so fast --)}

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/06/2006 at 12:39 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • Terrorists •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Bumper Sticker Of The Day

_{Order yours from CafePress today ($4.99)}

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/06/2006 at 12:33 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)

There’s something fishy going on in Washington, DC ... and I don’t mean in our govermnent (although there is plenty of fishiness there as well). No, this fish story is frightening. Male bass are growing eggs and displaying feminine characteristics! Sort of a “Queer Eye For The Finned Guy” kinda thing, dont’cha know.

Since today’s theme seems to be sexual conspiracies (see post below this one) I am downright concerned and am wondering if this is some trick by the Gay-Lesbian-Transexual-Bisexual group (or whatever their name is).  Could they be putting something in the drinking water to make fish come out of the closet? And what happens when we straight males eat those flakey fish? Do we wake up the next morning with large boobies and squeeky voices?

I know I for one am pretty concerned about this evil plot to rob us of our manhood with a biological weapon disguised under an innocent layer of tartar sauce. I demand a federal investigation into this matter. It’s obvious to me that some of our GOP congressmen have shown a severe lack of testicular fortitude lately. Can this be a symptom of an overall plan to “de-nut” our leaders?

The truth is out there ... and I intend to find it. Now, would you please pass me the hush puppies and cole slaw ...

Male Bass Across Region Found to Be Bearing Eggs
Pollution Concerns Arise In Drinking-Water Source
By David A. Fahrenthold
_{(WASHINGTON POST) - Wednesday, September 6, 2006}

Abnormally developed fish, possessing both male and female characteristics, have been discovered in the Potomac River in the District and in tributaries across the region, federal scientists say—raising alarms that the river is tainted by pollution that drives hormone systems haywire.

The fish, smallmouth and largemouth bass, are naturally males but for some reason are developing immature eggs inside their sex organs. Their discovery at such widely spread sites, including one just upstream from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, seems to show that the Potomac’s problem with “intersex” fish extends far beyond the West Virginia stream where they were first found in 2003.

The cause of the abnormalities is unknown, but scientists suspect a class of waterborne contaminants that can confuse animals’ growth and reproductive systems. These pollutants are poorly understood, however, leaving many observers with questions about what the problems in fish mean for the Potomac and the millions of people who take their tap water from it.

“I don’t know, and I don’t think anybody knows, the answer to that question right now: Is the effect in the fish transferable to humans?” said Thomas Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct, which processes Potomac water to provide drinking water for residents of the District, Arlington County and Falls Church.

Jacobus, like others at area utilities, said there was no evidence that tap water taken from the Potomac was unsafe to drink. They said humans should be far less susceptible to the river’s pollution than fish, because people are not exposed constantly to the water, our hormone systems work differently, and our larger bodies should require higher doses of any pollutant to cause problems. As research on the fish continues, other scientists across the region are trying to determine whether Potomac water or mud can affect human cells. This research, including tests at West Virginia University that examine whether cells react as if estrogen or estrogen mimics are present, has not reached any solid conclusions.

The first intersex fish in this area were found three years ago in the South Branch of the Potomac, a tributary more than 200 miles upstream from Washington. In 2004, more abnormal bass were discovered in a section of the upper Potomac near Sharpsburg, Md.

Following up, last fall federal and state researchers caught smallmouth bass in the Shenandoah River in Virginia and in the Monocacy River and Conococheague Creek in Maryland. All three tributaries eventually empty into the Potomac. At the site on the Potomac itself in the District, there are no smallmouth bass, so the researchers examined largemouth bass.

The results were striking, according to Vicki S. Blazer, a fish pathologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. More than 80 percent of all the male smallmouth bass they found were growing eggs, including all of the fish caught at four of the seven survey sites. The intersex condition doesn’t change the fish’s outward appearance but can be detected under a microscope.

At the site in Washington, seven of 13 male largemouth bass showed some kind of unusual feminine characteristic. Six of the seven fish tested positive for a protein used to produce eggs, and three of the seven contained eggs, Blazer said.

- More on the transexual fish at WAPO ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/06/2006 at 10:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Satire • Science-Technology • Sex •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Stop This Fornication!

Bless their little hearts, I know the folks at WorldNet Daily mean well but sometimes they just go over the edge of that precipice way out yonder on the Far Right. I came across this “piece” at the WND site and almost immediately started giggling and humming a song.

You see, my mind instantly drifted back to 1982 and what I thought was a hilarious movie, ”The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas”. I could see Dom DeLuise as Texas television’s “watchdog of sin” singing the Watchdog Report song where the chorus included the line, “Stop this fornication!”. I haven’t stopped laughing since. I want to thank WND for getting my day started off with a good laugh ...

Bunnies Gone Wild!
VW Hops On With Playboy!
Ad campaign based on ‘promiscuity’ and ‘fornication’
_{(WORLDNET DAILY) - September 6, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern}

Volkswagen of America has launched a new advertising campaign about its “Rabbit” vehicle using Playboy “bunnies” and the appeal of “promiscuity” and “fornication.” Guaranteed to get attention, but is it attention the company wants?

“Thinking about purchasing a Volkswagen? Think again,” says a boycott campaign announcement from the American Decency Association. “Will you buy VW? We will not!”

The organization has posted the contact information for the carmaker to encourage people to call, write or use e-mail to express their concerns. “The leadership at VW of America should be embarrassed,” one person who contacted American Decency said.

“We definitely wanted to keep the male promiscuity of the rabbit in there,” said Rob Strasberg, of MDC Partners, the Miami agency working on the ad plan, told Adweek. The Adweek report said a coming television commercial features black-and-white Rabbits driven around in what could be perceived as a mating dance. “The big thought was getting VW to bring the Rabbit back, because we love it. It’s playful and fun. It wasn’t a leap to go from rabbits to fornication and multiplying,” Strasberg said.

The company, which made the boxy hatchbacks called Rabbits during the 1970s and 1980s, is returning the car to the North American market this year and teamed up with the long-time publisher of porn, making a connection between the magazine’s rabbit logo and a logo of a running rabbit for the car. According to promotional materials for the car company, the Volkswagen Rabbit logo “mimics its distant cousin, the official Playboy Rabbit Head logo” in the new ad on the back cover of the September magazine.

The back cover “showcases” models Holly Madison, Bridget Marquardt and Kendra Wilkinson of E! Entertainment Television’s “The Girls Next Door.” It was produced “using special simultaneously shot front and back cover images,” the company said. “The Playboy opportunity was a great chance to unite two famous and iconic brands,” said Kerri Martin, the car company’s director of brand innovation. The television show, which also has been targeted by various issue groups concerned about morality in the United States, claims to give “viewers an inside look at life at the Playboy Mansion.”

- More shameless sexy advertising at WND ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/06/2006 at 09:26 AM   
Filed Under: • Sex •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Hoopla

I have a confession to make - I have never watched the Today Show and the last time I watched CBS Evening News I believe Nixon was President. In fact, my viewing of broadcast television over the last three decades has been limited to the Tonight Show and an occasional sitcom like M*A*S*H or Cheers that caught my fancy momentarily.

Cable TV gave broadcast television its first killing blow back in the 1980’s and now the internet is finishing it off. The fact that there is not much other than mindless drivel on the three major networks nowadays also has a lot to do with it. Throw in lunatic newsmen like Dan Rather and it’s obvious why the networks are dying off.

With all that said, did any of you watch CBS Evening News and the much-hyped debut of “perky, loveable” Katie Couric last night? CBS spent a bundle to try to revamp the evening news and I was wondering if it was successful. Let me know what you think. If no one watched it but the media who report on the media, that will be answer enough.

Meanwhile, there are reports that Mary Mapes is rejoining Dan Rather in his new job down in Texas but hold the phone - Mapes denies it all. You may recall it was Mapes who produced the Rathergate report that got both of them “dismissed” from CBS. In the words of Walter Cronkite, “And that’s the way it is for Tuesday, September 5, 2006. Good night.”

Couric Debuts On Evening News
_{NEW YORK (Reuters) - Tue Sep 5, 2006 8:32pm ET}

Television sweetheart Katie Couric debuted on Tuesday as “CBS Evening News” anchor and the first woman to solo host a newscast on one of the country’s three major broadcast networks.

Following in the footsteps of hard newsmen Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, who separately anchored “CBS Evening News” from 1962 to 2005, Couric’s debut followed three months of hype since she left NBC’s “Today” morning show after 15 years.

Wearing a white jacket and black dress, Couric, 49, began her first program after switching from bubbly morning TV co-host to serious news anchor with an exclusive Taliban interview by CBS’ Afghanistan correspondent.

To ensure viewers stayed tuned in for the half hour, she also teased them with the Vanity Fair magazine cover photo of actor Tom Cruise’s baby Suri but didn’t show it until near the end of the newscast. Her performance on the show—which had a brighter, more modern set and sharper graphics than its predecessor—drew mixed reviews from media analysts.

”I couldn’t help feeling we’re watching a great presentation but on the Titanic,” Professor Paul Levinson, chairman of the Fordham University media department, said after Couric’s first broadcast on the evening news show.

“The band is playing well—the micro components are there—but I don’t think we’re seeing something that’s taking off and sailing into some kind of great, glorious future.”

Levinson said that while he liked some of the newscast’s new segments including snapshots from history and a chance for viewers to air their views, he does not believe the more relaxed format works.

- More from Reuters ...

_{Mike Lester - Rome News-Tribune (GA)}

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/06/2006 at 12:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Celebrities •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - September 05, 2006

Through The Looking Glass

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/05/2006 at 05:15 PM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography • Military •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Anti-Semites At MoveOn.org?

Any blog site that allows comments runs the risk of having comments posted that are beyond the pale, so to speak. I cannot fault Moron.org for what some diseased minds posted in the comments. I can however fault them for the company they keep and the audience they attract. Rabid is one word I would use for their audience. Insane, lunatic, mad, hateful - all words I have used to describe the comments at Moron.org.

You are known by the company you keep, my dear ol’ pappy used to say. On occasion I have deleted comments here (rarely, but I have - so sue me). I do it only to maintain the peace, not to shush some madman or madwoman. That kind of person usually doesn’t last here very long thanks to an intelligent, civil, polite (for the most part) readership (Yeah, I’m sucking up to my readers - so what?). Personal attacks or comments that, in my opinion are out of line, will get any commenter a gentle slap on the wrist. On the other hand, we here have zero tolerance for hate speech. It’s too bad Moron.org isn’t as much of a class act as we are, eh?

HATEFUL ‘MOVE’ VS. JOE LIEBERMAN
SITE’S ANTI-JEWISH SLURS
_{(NEW YORK POST) - September 5, 2006}

A string of anti-Semitic rants about Sen. Joe Lieberman have popped up on the liberal MoveOn.org’s open forum Web site, drawing criticism from the Anti-Defamation League. It’s the latest flap in the contentious race between Lieberman, who is running as an independent to keep his seat in Connecticut, and upstart Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee.

“We recognize that Action Forum is an open forum intended to foster the free flow of ideas,” ADL head Abraham Foxman said in a letter dated Aug. 31 to MoveOn, which supported Lamont in the Democratic primary against Lieberman.

“Nevertheless, since such profoundly offensive content is appearing on a board clearly linked to MoveOn.org, we believe you should assume some responsibility to respond to this hateful content,” Foxman wrote in the letter, which was forwarded by Lieberman’s campaign.

Foxman cited examples from the site’s Action Forum, including “media owning Jewish pigs,” “Zionazis,” a reference to the senator as “Jew Lieberman” and the question, “Why are the Jews so Jew-y?”

Foxman wrote, “Those who allow hate to rear its ugly head under their auspices bear a special responsibility to distance themselves from that hate, and to speak out against it, as loudly as possible.”

Lieberman is one of the country’s best-known Jewish politicians. Foxman and Eli Pariser, executive director of the MoveOn Political Action Committee, couldn’t be reached. But in a statement posted on the MoveOn site Saturday, Pariser condemned the anti-Semitic rants.

“Once in a while - as in any public forum - inappropriate material is posted,” he wrote. “Recently, a few of the thousands of comments that are posted every week contained anti-Semitic language.

“The comments that were posted were abhorrent. We were dismayed to see them, and removed them as soon as they came to our attention 17 days ago.”

He added that most of the comments were not made by MoveOn members and suggested it could be an effort by conservatives to “target” the group, and said any effort to tie the rants to MoveOn was “wrong.”

Lamont aides didn’t immediately return calls for comment.

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/05/2006 at 01:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Outrageous •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Not Newt

Robert Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist takes a look at someone who has been on my radar screen recently as a rising (again?) power in Conservative circles ... Newt Gingrich. Newt seems to be making a comeback with a new book and appearances on all the major talk radio and news shows.

At the same time he quite unexpectedly joined Hillary Clinton (Yargh!) in promoting universal health care. Either my eyes and ears have slipped a gear or Ol’ Newt is gaming the system by sucking up to all sides at once ... in the style of Slick Willie Clinton.

Now he is becoming what I call a chickenhawk. “I say, I say - pay attention here, boy - I’m talking to you” (Foghorn Leghorn) by promoting the war on terrorism but ruling out any military action against the worst threat in the region - Iran. I just don’t know what to make of Ol’ Newt nowadays. I do know that the last time we put someone from Georgia in charge, we got screwed miserably. Say it ain’t so, Newt ... !

Why We Can’t Rely on Newt Gingrich

For the past few months, former Speaker of tthe House Newt Gingrich has positioned himself as a kind of spokesman for the “hawks” on the right, arguing that the current conflict should be regarded as “World War III” and advocating confrontation with Iran. But I have been uncomfortable with Gingrich’s war advocacy, partly because I remember all too well his record as the Republican leader in Congress.

In a book he wrote back in the 1990s, Gingrich explained his basic philosophical outlook, which was an unprincipled, unserious Pragmatism. History, he believes, is a series of disconnected crises and challenges, each requiring a new solution—which could only be provided if a visionary leader stepped up to provide bold action. But the crucial thing is the personal qualities of the leader, not the ideas or principles for which he stands.

This explains the one thing that most bothers me about Gingrich. Every campaign he takes up is not actually about the challenges we face in the world and the actions we need to take; they are about cultivating his self-image as a bold leader. Following his view of history, he wants to be seen as the visionary who steps forward to solve the great problems of the day—but what that problem is, or how we should solve it, is of secondary interest.

And that’s why Gingrich has a tendency to be ineffective as a leader. Every issue is really about him and the role he wants to play—but as for the specific ideas that he champions, it always seems a bit as if he is just playing with those ideas and not really taking them seriously. With his talk about World War III, for example, I have always had the feeling that he is role-playing at being Winston Churchill, not that he has a strong, first-hand grasp of the conflict with Iran.

Sadly, it looks like my low expectations are being met. At a conference for conservative leaders, Gingrich couldn’t resist a little grand-standing publicity seeking—and in the process, he declared that he is against taking military action against Iran. This is accurately described, by the conservative blogger quoted below, as a “fence-straddling” position between military action and the weak diplomacy of Condoleezza Rice.

Newt Gingrich has helped to put the confrontation with Iran at the top of America’s political agenda. But his audition for the role of Winston Churchill is now officially over.

“Gingrich’s Iran Straddle,” Daniel McKivergan, Weekly Standard, September 1

Containment advocates oppose military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, arguing that a strike won’t work, that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is exaggerated, and that Iran can be contained. Others argue that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, that all options should remain on the table, and that a Soviet-like containment policy is full of holes. Then there’s Newt Gingrich. Today’s Washington Times report:

“In an impromptu speech during a Mediterranean cruise that hosted scores of conservative donors and activists, the Georgia Republican expressed unexpected skepticism about prospects of military intervention to halt Iran’s nuclear program….

“‘I am opposed to a military strike on Iran because I don’t think it accomplishes very much in the long run,’ said Mr. Gingrich, who supported the US-led invasion of Iraq and has been a strong defender of Israel.

“‘I think if this regime [in Iran] is so dangerous that we can’t afford to let them have nuclear weapons, we need a strategy to replace the regime,’ Mr. Gingrich said. ‘And the first place you start is where Ronald Reagan did in Eastern Europe with a comprehensive strategy that relied on economic, political, diplomatic, information and intelligence’ means."…

“ ‘I think our position should be that we don’t expect Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be around for very long,’ he said. ‘But we think the Iranians are going to get rid of him. We’re not. But then I would do everything I could to make that possible.’”

Gingrich is pushing what is essentially a “containment plus” strategy. Reagan came into office in 1981; the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Does anyone believe that Iran won’t acquire a nuclear weapon in the next, say, 3-8 years? He’s right that regime change would be desirable, but we have no idea whether the implementation of such a policy would bear fruit before the Ahmadinejad regime acquired a weapon. And even if one harbors doubts about the efficacy of military strikes against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, it’s hard to imagine how foreclosing the option so publicly strengthens the diplomatic hand of those trying to compel Iran’s compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.

- For more, subscribe to The Intellectual Activist Daily

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/05/2006 at 11:22 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Chocolate Chip

“Structural Failure” by Cox & Forkum

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/05/2006 at 03:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - September 04, 2006

Way Too Much Money?

World’s Most Expensive LCD TV

Do you have way too much money and far too few brains? Are you looking for the next big must-have “toy” for the loaded loons? Then we have a deal for you! Now you too can throw away money like Paris Hilton and half the princes in Saudi Arabia do. Without all the angst of actually having anything worthwhile to show for it.

This television set on display at the Berlin consumer- electronics fair IFA costs a cool 100,000 euros (130,000 dollars), organizers said Monday after surveying the expo for the most expensive TV. The LCD panel from Italian maker Keymat Industrie is plated with white gold and studded with 4 grams of diamonds.

Keymat Industries, which said IFA was the first non-Italian fair where the model from its Yalos range was shown, added that US and Saudi buyers had already shown interest. IFA runs until Wednesday so hop on your private jet and get to Berlin to place your order for this “gem”. Supplies are limited. Get yours and be ready when Robin Leach calls to interview you for the next episode of ”Lifestyles Of The Rich And Stupid”.

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/04/2006 at 02:18 PM   
Filed Under: • Odd-Strange •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

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