Saturday - February 24, 2007
Attention Span Hyper Disorder (ASHD)
As far as the Celebrity Death Spiral Race is going, Anna Nicole Smith is now officially out of the running, having dropped out early. The current front-runner is Britney Spears who seems more than determined to be next to drop out. Sounds ghoulish, don’t it?
Yet we eagerly sit back and watch the race continue. Who will be next? Who will dig up the juicy details? Will we ever get enough of this bullshit? Yep. Some of us have. I have to admit I lost interest in the Anna Nicole circus the day she died. I didn’t know her personally and I’m afraid I’m one of very few men in this country who does not claim to be the father of her child.
Make no mistake, I regret her passing as I do anyone’s death but our trash voyeurism culture is just too obsessed with these celebrity flameouts. While you sit there clued to the TV set awaiting a verdict on the disposition of Anna’s body, the Mad Mullahs in Iran are plotting your demise. Do you think they will be glued to their TV’s watching every detail of our doom when a suitcase nuke goes off in New York or Los Angeles? Probably. Human nature can be a sick, twisted, morbid, ugly thing at times. As Mr. Spock would say, “Fascinating” ....
Voyeurism Unleashed
-- by Michael Reagan
Listening to the Broward County, Fla. coroner warn that the still-unburied remains of the late Anna Nicole Smith were getting a bit ripe reminded me of one of Ambrose Bierce’s more notorious remarks.
Speaking of a deceased actress in whose lifetime, he noted, was famous for her composure, Bierce, 19th century journalism’s precursor of our beloved Ann Coulter, said that unfortunately, the lady was now “quite decomposed.”
I can’t help but wonder what Bierce would have said about the current media mania concerning the aftermath of Miss Smith’s death, the disposal of her body, and the identity of the father of her last child.
How would he have reacted to the endless television coverage of the trial which is supposed to resolve the question of who will gain possession of her body before it falls apart? And what about the proceeding morphing into a showcase for the dramatic talents of the trial judge, who appears to lust after a career as a male Judge Judy and is accused of using the trial as a screen test?
“He is not as pretty as Judge Judy, but he is cut from the same tooth,’’ Vinnie Politan, co-host of Court TV’s weekday morning show “Bloom & Politan,” told The Miami Herald. “We here at Court TV love him. This is going to put him on the map, and he knows it.”
It is not too much of a reach to say that Broward County Circuit Judge Larry Seidlin has turned the proceedings into something of a circus, where he stars as the high-wire trapeze performer. Nor to note that television has encouraged his theatrics by covering the trial almost from dawn ‘til dusk.
I agree with whoever it was that said his honor is suffering from an advanced case of Itoitis, recalling the jurist in the O.J. Simpson case. Judge Seidlin, however, unlike Judge Ito, is amusing.
Cam Cardow - The Ottawa Citizen
The endless coverage has been so intense that it has all but drowned out the comings and goings of Britney whatsername as she meanders from rehab to rehab having shorn her golden locks and tattooed the nape of her neck in what the media diagnoses as a cry for help. Previous cries, such as her refusal to don underwear and her penchant for making it obvious, have gone unheeded.
Perhaps the only person on this planet who has to be delighted by the media’s continuing focus on the question of the disposal of Miss Smith’s remains is the lovesick astronaut who has all but disappeared from America’s TV screens thanks to the circus in Broward County. Thanks to the trial, we haven’t heard a whisper lately about her having driven 900 miles wearing a diaper, which come to think about it, might suggest an alternative to the undergarments Britney can’t bring herself to wear.
I don’t think people are waking up in the morning desperate to learn what’s going on in a Broward County courtroom. I don’t think they are racing to turn on the TV to see live pictures of the judge and the other actors in this low-interest drama. I don’t think they could care less about who gets the body of a gold-digging stripper who appears to have died of the same drugs which killed her son.
If the public has any interest at all, I think it would be that somebody, anybody, get that corpse in the ground before it turns to dust. In the end, what we have it is a further example of the mass voyeurism which the TV executives think is now afflicting the nation and which they are determined to satisfy.
Today it’s Anna Nicole Smith. Tomorrow it will be some other unfortunate female celebrity—a Britney or Paris, for example—who devoted her life to an orgy of self-destruction and paid the price.
There seems to be an endless supply of them out there.
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 newest book, “Twice Adopted.” E-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. ©2007 Mike Reagan.
Posted by The Skipper
on 02/24/2007 at 11:43 AM
Filed Under: • Celebrities • Editorials •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Tuesday - February 20, 2007
Criminals With Guns?
The editors at the NY SLIMES are deeply concerned. They are worried that you and I are being protected by criminals ... with guns ... in the military. They make out like the Army is just grabbing every murderer, rapist and bank robber off the street, handing them a gun, throwing them in the front lines and forgetting about them.
WRONG! Anyone who has served in the military knows better. To listen to the editors here, you’d think the Army is going to hell thanks to extended tours during the current conflict. I’m so glad the TIMES is looking out for our brave troops but it’s obvious none of them ever served. If they had they’d know that in the military the first thing you learn is discipline. Next is cooperation. Finally, comes responsibility.
Over the course of the last few centuries there have been millions of “bad boys” who redeemed themselves by serving in the military. The ones who don’t shape up are quickly sent packing.
The TIMES seems to think the Army needs to do a better job of selling itself to our young people. That would be the same young people the TIMES and their Liberal readers encourage to hate the military. The TIMES also wants the Army to treat the troops better and ignore logistical needs. Aren’t you glad we have these wonderful military experts at the TIMES to help us straighten out the military? GRRRRRR ....
I have a better solution that is a win-win situation for everyone. Why don’t we establish four-year mandatory service period for all high school graduates. When you graduate from high school you have a choice: (1) enlist in any of the armed services for four years, or (2) sign up for service in the Peace Corps for four years. When your four years of service are complete ... BINGO! ... you are entitled to four years of fully paid college education -or- an equivalent lump sum payment to be used to start a business.
It’ll work, I tell you. The kids who love this country and like the idea of military service get to do what they want and get rewarded for it. The Leftist peaceniks who hate America and despise the military get to help the poor, downtrodden people of the world and get rewarded for it too. Either way, we build generations of individuals who have learned to endure hardship and understand what it means to be of service to our country and the world.
Forget the whining editors at the TIMES, let’s do the right thing by our kids. Teach them to be real ... and reward them for it. This country will be a much better place for it.
Moral Waivers and the Military
(NY TIMES) - February 20, 2007
To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations. Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor have larger enlistment bonuses plugged the gap. So the Army has found itself recklessly expanding the granting of “moral waivers,” which let people convicted of serious misdemeanors and even some felonies enlist in its ranks.
Last year, such waivers were granted to 8,129 men and women — or more than one out of every 10 new Army recruits. That number is up 65 percent since 2003, the year President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. In the last three years, more than 125,000 moral waivers have been granted by America’s four military services.
Most of last year’s Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors, like aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide. But around 900 — double the number in 2003 — were for felonies. Worse, the Army does no systematic tracking of recruits with waivers once it signs them up, and it does not always pay enough attention to any adjustment problems. Without adequate monitoring and counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they are supposed to protect.
There is a long and honorable history of young people who have had minor scrapes with the law joining the military and successfully turning their lives around. But those who have committed more serious crimes, especially those involving weapons, vehicular homicide or sexual abuse, should generally be denied moral waivers. And those who do qualify for waivers should be monitored, counseled and carefully supervised.
The fastest way to drop the rate of moral waivers would be for the Army to rebuild its recently tarnished reputation among less problematic young Americans. That will require an end to involuntarily extended tours of duty and accelerated, multiple redeployments into combat. The military is America’s face to much of the world. It ought to present the best face of American youth.
Posted by The Skipper
on 02/20/2007 at 11:44 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Military •
• Comments (10)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Monday - February 19, 2007
Islam Divided
Every once in a while I run across an editorial that really deserves to be shared, if for no other reason than the educational value it provides. This is one of those and deserves your time in order to better understand the mess we have gotten ourselves dragged into in the Middle East.
Let me make clear to all the BDS sufferers and liberal conspiracy theorists out there that the current administration didn’t drag us into this. That was done by Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Without a doubt, President Bush would probably have been much happier finishing the reading of “My Pet Goat” on 9/11. If you think otherwise, you really need to get a grip.
No, put aside for a minute how we got here and let’s examine what we’re caught in the middle of. Ralph Peters of Real Clear Politics does an excellent job of explaining the complexities of Islam that should serve to enlighten all of us as to the nature of our enemies - and our friends. What Mr. Peters describes below is the schism between the Sunni and Shi’a branches of Islam and the motivations of each in the current conflict.
I want you to read this because Iraq is a microcosm of this division, trapped between the Sunni nations to the West and South and the major Shi’a nation to the East. What is playing out in Iraq now really has nothing to do with us. It’s about them vs. them. Our troops are just trying to keep the noise down and so far we haven’t been doing a very good job of it.
To understand why we have failed so far, we need to understand the deep rift between the two sects struggling for control of Iraq and we also need to acknowledge what worked in the past. This editorial below will serve to give you a better understanding of the two opposing sides in Iraq. As for what worked in the past, all we need to do is look at Saddam Hussein.
Hussein used every trick in the book to control the two groups. Being Sunni, he and his followers brutally oppressed the Shi’a (and the Kurds). He gassed his own people, tortured and slaughtered hundreds of thousands in frequent purges. When that failed, he distracted the internal factions by waging wars with Iran and occupying Kuwait.
Can we use the same tactics to control the factions in Iraq? Of course not. So what do we do? The Democrats here in the US seem to think the best thing to do is throw up our hands, bail out and let them slaughter each other in the bloodbath that surely would follow our withdrawal. I don’t believe that is a viable option either, if for no other reason than the fact that we would suffer incredible damage in the eyes of the world and be seen as impotent and vacillating.
So how do we keep the peace between two factions who have hated each other for over a thousand years? Do we divide the country, as some have suggested? Maybe. The borders in the Middle East are a complete fabrication anyway, arbitrarily drawn up by the British and French after WWI. Perhaps a federal system with three semi-independent “states” for Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds?
That would be my solution. Let them build walls and fences if they want - just keep them apart ... but keep a central government to share oil money equally between the three and deal with the outside world. Let each “state” have their own “national guard” and a “governor” to manage each.
It’s obvious that our current plan to enforce democratic solidarity on these people is going nowhere. Maybe it’s time to let natural forces prevail and divide the country up and everybody go to their own “state” in a manner similar to the division of the Indian subcontinent after WWII.
The worst option would be to let the surrounding countries take bites out of Iraq, with Iran annexing the Shi’a region in the south, Saudi Arabia or Syria annexing the central Sunni region and Turkey annexing the northern Kurdish region. Iraq, as a nation, would effectively disappear.
No matter which option we choose, the decision we make will impact the region for decades to come - for better or worse. Regardless, the administration and Congress needs to look at all the alternatives, decide on a course and stick with it. No more of this partisan bickering and jockeying for position in the next election.
We need statesman who understand the problem and are willing to put aside our internal political divisions and work on a solution that allows us to get out without leaving chaos and murder behind. That is the real lesson we should have taken from Vietnam. We do not want our leaders to once again throw a region to the wolves and watch millions die after we leave. Let’s do the right thing this time ... before time runs out ...
Sunni vs. Shi’a: It’s Not All Islam
-- By Ralph Peters
(FOX NEWS) - Sunday , February 18, 2007
Among the worst members of the it’s-all-a-conspiracy pack are those who insist that every Muslim is in on a vast Jihadi conspiracy to make Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks wear a chador (not a bad idea, aesthetically speaking).
But those most anxious to condemn Islam in its entirety skip over annoying facts: Overwhelmingly, the victims of Islamist terror have been other Muslims; even the Taliban or the Khomeinist regime never rivaled the Inquistion’s ferocity; and Europeans, not Muslims, long have been the heavyweight champions of genocide. All monotheist religions have been really good haters. We just take turns.
But the biggest obstacle to establishing the Caliphate in California is that Shi’a “Islam” never bought into the Caliphate at all. At bottom, it’s a different religion from Sunni Islam. They’re not just different branches of a faith, as with Protestantism and Catholicism, but separate faiths whose core differences are more-pronounced than those between Christians and Jews.
Technically, Sunni militants are correct when they label the Shi’a “heretics.” Persians and their closest neighbors, with long memories of great civilizations, were never comfortable with the crudeness of Arabian Islam, which the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss aptly called “a barracks religion.”
The struggle has never ended between the ascetic, intolerant Bedouin faith of Arabia, with its fascist obsession on behavior, and the profound theologies of Persian civilization that absorbed and transformed Islam. While Shi’ism only prevailed in Persia within the last millennium (nudging out Sunni Islam at last), “Aryan” Islam had long been shaped by Zoroastrianism and other ineradicable pre-Islamic legacies.
Persians made the new faith their own, incorporating cherished traditions — just as northern Europeans made Christianity their own through Protestantism. It’s illuminating to hear Iran’s president rumor the return of the Twelfth Imam, since the coming of that messiah figure is pure Zoroastrianism with no connection to the Koran or the Hadiths.
Even the rhetoric of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, condemning the United States as the “Great Satan” divided the world into forces of light and darkness — Zoroaster again, as well as Mani, the dualist whose followers we know as “Manicheans.” Iranians excitedly deny such pre-Islamic influences — then worship at the ancient shrines of re-invented saints, celebrate the Zoroastrian New Year, and incorporate fire rites into social events.
The Prophet’s attempt to discipline Arabian hillbillies produced a faith ill-fitted to Persia’s complex civilization — or to Mesopotamian Arabs, who despised the illiterate desert nomads. Islam was bound to change as it occupied this haunted real estate.
What we’ve gotten ourselves involved in today is an old and endless struggle between the desert and the city, between civilization and barbarism. Long oppression may have made Shi’ism appear backward, but it’s inherently a richer faith than Sunni Islam. With its End-of-Times vision, founding martyrs and radiant angels, its mysticism and wariness of the flesh, Shi’ism is closer to Christianity than check-list Sunni Islam ever could be.
Further confounding the strategic situation, there are other, parallel struggles within Shi’ism and Sunni Islam. Over the centuries, both faiths developed sophisticated urban classes that are now under assault, as they periodically have been, by intolerant simplifiers preaching the reform-school Islam of seventh-century Arabia.
Simultaneously, there’s been some bizarre cross-fertilization: Usama bin Laden, a Sunni who hates the Shi’a more fiercely than he does Americans, has grafted a Shi’a End-Of-Days vision onto Sunni Islam. Meanwhile, the mullahs who locked down Iran obsess about behavior — a Sunni approach to faith — at the expense of Shi’ism’s tradition of inner luminosity (in the Sunni world, the persecuted Sufis were the mystics).
We’re a fringe player in multiple zero-sum struggles: Persian Zoroastrianism in Muslim garb vs. Bedouin fascism; multiple insurgencies within the Sunni global campaign to re-establish the Caliphate; an interfaith competition to jump-start an apocalypse; an old ethnic struggle between Persians and Arabs; and a distinctly Zoroastrian struggle between good and evil (alert the White House).
Many will reflexively reject this interpretation of Shi’ism and Sunni Islam as two separate faiths with profoundly different inheritances. Blog Bedouins and “scholars” alike will feel threatened. That’s part of our problem: We’re often as close-minded as our enemies. The greatest power in history thinks small.
As I remarked to an Arab-American friend last week, faiths are like bad neighbors — they borrow a great deal, then deny it. There is no such thing as a pure faith today. All have been influenced by their predecessors and peers, by internal evolutions and their historical environments. But even individuals who reject such a view when it comes to their own faith do themselves no favors by refusing to contemplate Islam’s complexity.
What does all this mean to us? First, wherever there are irreconcilable differences, there are strategic opportunities. Second, our insistence on seeing the Middle East through the eyes of yesteryear’s failed statesmen has been disastrous — we need to reinterpret the Muslim world.
Third, we’ve entered a new age when all the great faiths are struggling over their identities. As the religions most-immediately besieged, Shi’ism and Sunni Islam are the noisiest and, for now, the most-violent. But all faiths are in crisis — even as every major faith undergoes a powerful renewal.
In my years as an intelligence analyst, I consistently made my best calls when I trusted my instincts, and I was less likely to get it right when I heeded the arguments around me. Today, those surrounding arguments damn Iran.
My instincts tell me our long-term problem is with Arab Sunnis, whose global aspirations have veered into madness. We have a problem with the junta currently ruling Iran, but not with Persian civilization. Meanwhile, the Bedouin fanaticism gripping so much of the Middle East has no civilization.
Posted by The Skipper
on 02/19/2007 at 05:10 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Iraq • RoPMA •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(1)
Permalink • Saturday - February 17, 2007
Choose Or Lose
Casting the First (Litmus) Stone
-- by Michael Reagan
I don’t know if Diogenes ever found that honest man, but I do know that those Republicans are never going to find the perfect candidate, simply because he does not exist.
Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
The same is true of Rudy Giuliani. On every major issue, he is a solidly conservative and extraordinarily adept executive, but because he backs abortion and some form of gun control, America’s mayor—the hero of 9/11 and the man who did the impossible by cleaning up New York—is all but ruled out as a 2008 candidate.
Not one of the major candidates is free of some real or imagined flaw that offends some conservatives.
This is madness, and if it does not stop, the GOP is going to lose the presidential election in 2008. In the search for the perfect candidate we are going to end up with an imperfect candidate. Keep in mind the truism that agreement with someone on most issues and disagreement on others is seen as normal, but should you agree with someone on every single issue imaginable … well… to put it plainly, psychologists say you’re nuts.
“Is it possible that GOP conservative ranks are this thin?” the letter writer asked. “Has the GOP nothing better to offer? Should not pro-family pro-life voters also want a low taxes and limited government candidate before they vigorously support him?
Increased taxes and expanded government hurts everyone. Was Ronald Wilson Reagan an anomaly and did he represent the values of his party?
“These GOP candidates,” the letter instructed me, “are little better than Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, or [George] H.W. Bush. Did anyone notice they all lost?”
This makes me wonder if anybody can stand up to the litmus test these people are applying to candidates.
Ronald Reagan had one litmus test he applied to candidates. Were they Republicans? If they were he backed them all the way. He would let the party choose the candidate and he would support and vote for the candidate. He didn’t go sniffing around trying to find some flaw in their character or their past. Once nominated, they were his choice.
And nobody was more candid in admitting that he was anything but perfect than my Dad. He knew that like all men, he had his flaws and he spent a lifetime combating them. Had today’s GOP litmus test been seriously applied to him, he could not have passed the test.
The Democrats don’t have litmus tests. If the nominee is a Democrat, they support their candidate all the way, and if they lose it isn’t because they didn’t fight like demons for their man or woman.
If we want to win in 2008, Republicans had better wake up, and quit talking Ronald Reagan and start being like Ronald Reagan.
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 newest book, “Twice Adopted.” E-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. ©2007 Mike Reagan.
Posted by The Skipper
on 02/17/2007 at 12:29 PM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks(1)
Permalink • Thursday - February 15, 2007
Ann Does Obama
Go grab a cup of coffee and sit back while our gal Ann examines Obama-Rama-Ding-Dong (Sha-Na-Na) ... 
Jonathan Livingston Obama
-- by Ann Coulter
(HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE) - 02/14/2007
In announcing his candidacy last week, Obama confirmed that he believes in “the basic decency of the American people.” And let the chips fall where they may! Obama forthrightly decried “a smallness of our politics”—deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, “My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: “There are those who don’t believe in talking about hope.” Take that, Hillary! Most weirdly, he said: “I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this—a certain audacity—to this announcement.”
What is so audacious about announcing that you’re running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you’re officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters. There were about 400 more reporters at Obama’s announcement than Mitt Romney’s, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.
Obama has locked up the Hollywood money. Even Miss America has endorsed Obama. (John “Two Americas” Edwards is still hoping for the other Miss America to endorse him.) But Obama tells us he’s brave for announcing that he’s running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade!
I don’t want to say that Obama didn’t say anything in his announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, “What did he say?” There was one refreshing aspect to Obama’s announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference this week to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby.
- More ...
Posted by The Skipper
on 02/15/2007 at 04:58 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - February 10, 2007
Guest Post: Driving Off
A Very Simple Solution (to many problems)
-- by Scooter
Here we are, with everyone complaining about high gas prices, dependence on foreign oil, outrageous insurance premiums, global warming, drowning polar bears, and sweaty penguins…. Seemingly, everyone and their brother has a solution, whether it is electric or hybrid cars, more funding for public transportation, corn to ethanol, or remembering how to ride a bike.
At face value, each and every one of these taken alone sounds great, until you dig a little deeper. At up to 60 miles (supposedly) per gallon, a hybrid car is great for tooling around town, which is a three fold savings in fuel cost, and CO2 emissions. Has there really been a savings for your wallet when it comes time to replace the batteries due to wear, or an accident? According to my research, replacing the batteries cost between $3600 and $7000; using the low estimate at $2.25/gallon, that is 32,000 miles of driving for my car, at the high end over 62,000 miles.
OK, you saved money on fuel, spared the environment countless tons of carbon and still made it to work on time. But, what happened to those batteries after they were replaced? What about the cost to retrain and reequip the rescue crews to avoid electrocution to extract you from your car? I am sure you feel good about your personal part of saving the environment, but think ahead.
I can’t say enough about public transportation. Nothing like hopping on the bus to get four or five miles down the road. 46 minutes later at my stop, I am only a half a mile from where I need to be. Talk about convenience. My $1.50 bus ride saved me 56 cents in gas and cost me 46 minutes (walk time included).
Tell the people in Mexico now about how great ethanol is. One of their main subsistence foods is now being turned into fuel for the few to burn. Although it is almost never said in the media, after all is said and done, it currently takes more energy to produce ethanol than it gives off; it cannot be transported by pipeline; must be mixed with traditional gasoline, and actually reduces fuel efficiency by up to 15%. Wow, what a miracle.
Now I love to ride my bike. If I could, I would drive it to work, but I just can’t figure out how to carry my table saw, miter saw, two dozen two by fours, three sheets of plywood and my drill on the back. If, however, I had Home Depot deliver all of my supplies, it would only cost me $75. Money well spent since that would have filled my car up more than twice.
Oh wait, I haven’t gotten to my solution – the one that would solve all of these issues. As (I hope) you know, economics is about supply and demand. Prices are set where supply equals demand – too much supply, prices go down; too much demand, prices go up. My solution will reduce demand while increasing public transportation ridership (maybe they will break even someday, but we are all paying taxes for it now), and for those who can, reduce the price of gas. It is actually very simple ...
STOP HANDING OUT DRIVER’S LICENCES TO ANYONE WHO CAN SPELL THEIR OWN NAME!
In this, and every country, driving is not a right; it is a privilege. Stop giving out driver’s licenses to people who can barely drive around the block. Stop handing them out to people who spend more on the sound system than they do on the upkeep of the car, who have enough money to have spinners, but not enough to keep that tailpipe from spewing blue smoke so thick you feel like you are in San Francisco in June; who can afford customize the paint job, but cannot pay for the insurance. This privilege is not only for the privileged; it is for anyone who cares to take the responsibility of wielding a two-ton weapon in a serious manner.
I daresay, that by increasing the training, testing and roadworthiness of the drivers and their vehicles, there would be an immediate 75% reduction in cars on the road. That would have huge economic and environmental effects that everyone could be proud of. Those who made the cut and passed their very strict drivers test would have cheap gas available due to the sudden drop in demand. The idiots who really cannot drive, but can spell their name would be off the road, which would drastically reduce the insurance risk, therefore the premiums. The number of people who utilized public transportation would skyrocket (saving gas and making it self sufficient). There would be a 75% reduction in emissions making the environmentalists happy(ier). Finally, the big oil companies would not make nearly as much profit that, for some reason, pisses off half of the country.
I do realize that the sudden collapse of the oil and automobile industries would be disastrous for the overall economy, but hey if that is the price we have to pay….
Posted by Drew458
on 02/10/2007 at 10:40 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - February 08, 2007
Lost In Space
It is sad. Not scary ... just sad. I actually feel sorry for this woman. She just came unglued and let her emotions get away from her. The paraphernalia she had with her (BB-gun, knife, rubber hose, disguise, pepper spray) demonstrates to me at least a distinct separation from reality. Stress and emotions can do that to you. I have to think though that deep down she knew what she was doing was wrong and she never intended to harm anyone. The whole thing about the diapers just seals the case for temporary loss of anchorage. Her boat lost its rudder, if you will.
Twice in my life I have had the extreme displeasure to become involved with women who went bonkers on me and acted just as bizarrely. One young lady went AWOL from the USAF, drove halfway across the country, managed to work her way past the front gate of the base I had been transferred to and suddenly showed up in the men’s barracks I had been assigned to. All because I had helped her study for her promotion exams. No romance, no sex. It’s just that I may have been the first person who ever tried to help her in her entire life and therein lies a story that I had best keep to myself. I hope she is doing well these days.
The point is you too probably had a similar experience if you’ve lived long enough or you know someone close to you who has. Put a human being under enough stress and throw in a grab bag of emotions and you’ve got a recipe for freaky behavior. The little voice that tells us when we’re full of crap suddenly goes quiet or is drowned out by the roaring passion of the moment. It can happen to any of us. Even the most stable, rock-solid individuals can break under strain. In fact, those are the ones who freak out the worst. Think Hannibal Lector.
No, I don’t think Lisa Marie Nowak is a criminal. I’m just thankful the woman she attacked in Orlando was able to get away safely. Otherwise there’s no telling what Nowak would have done to her with her BB-gun. Nowak’s career is ruined, her marriage is on the rocks and she still faces serious charges. She needs time to heal, get her act back together and get on with her life. It’s time for the media to just go away and let everyone involved sort things out amongst themselves.
Speaking of the media, why is it that they only show up when things go terribly wrong? Is bad news all that matters nowadays? If so, what does that tell us about ourselves, the viewing public, who sit and watch these spectacles daily? Perhaps we all need to step back and decide if maybe we too may be just a little too close to that fine line between “normal” and what lies on the other side. Who knows? ... You may now beam me up, Mister Scott ...
Jeff Parker - Florida Today
NASA Will Review Psychological Screening Process
For Astronauts Following Lisa Nowak’s Arrest
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) – 3:42 p.m. February 7, 2007
The review will look at how astronauts are screened for psychological problems and whether Nowak showed any signs of trouble in her dealings with co-workers. Some recommendations could be issued as early as June, said Deputy NASA Administrator Shana Dale in Washington.
Nowak showed no signs of instability before her arrest Monday on charges that she tried to kidnap and harm a woman she viewed as a romantic rival for the attentions of astronaut William Oefelein, NASA officials said in a Houston news conference.
Nowak was arrested at Orlando International Airport early Monday after she tried to force her way into the car of Air Force Capt. Colleen Shipman, police said. Officers found in Nowak’s car or in her possession a disguise, pepper spray, a BB-gun, a new steel mallet, knife and rubber tubing.
“Folks were shocked and concerned,” said Robert Cabana, deputy director of the Johnson Space Center in Houston. It’s a fact of life that astronauts live in a high-stress environment, not just in the hazard of space but in the offices of Johnson Space Center where astronauts vigorously compete for mission assignments.
Sometimes astronauts, especially those from a military background, compartmentalize their emotions, Cabana said. “It’s a trait we’re taught from the beginning of our training,” he said. During the selection process, astronauts are subjected to two-hour interviews with a psychiatrist and a psychologist and those findings are presented to a review board.
Although there are no formal psychological exams for astronauts flying on shuttles, physicians are trained to look for behavioral problems during their annual physicals, said Dr. Jeffrey Davis, director of space and life sciences at the Johnson Space Center.
The space agency also provides counseling for any employee who seeks it, and some astronauts can get additional sessions for trips to space. No astronaut should feel stigmatized for seeking mental health help, Cabana said. “It doesn’t prevent anybody from future spaceflight assignments or anything else,” he said.
Posted by The Skipper
on 02/08/2007 at 06:28 AM
Filed Under: • Crime • Editorials • Odd-Strange •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - February 07, 2007
Hubris
Every time I hear some reporter or politician here in the US use the phrase “sole remaining superpower”, I want to cringe and I usually have an urge to quickly glance over my shoulder as the hairs on the back of my neck stand up as if expecting some dread evil. Why? Because the prevailing wisdom of 6,000 years of civilization goes like this ... “pride goeth before the fall.”
This is what is known as “hubris”, which is defined as “excessive pride displayed by a character and often taking the form of a boastful comparison of the self to the divine, the gods, or other higher powers - often also resulting in harsh punishment.” It’s that last part that bothers the heck out of me.
I’m reminded of Teddy Roosevelt who didn’t say, “boast loudly and carry a big stick”. No, he said, ”walk softly and carry a big stick.” Leave a light footprint, don’t disturb the other animals but keep the elephant gun handy. That was our Teddy. If he could hear all the boasting about the “world’s only remaining superpower” or the “most powerful military the world has ever seen” he would probably tell us to STFU and keep the noise down - the natives might get restless.
Yes, it is a fact that in terms of actual firepower, technology, manpower and amount of GDP spent on the military there is the United States at #1 and the next 25 countries combined are at #2. A far distant #2 ... but do we need to brag about it? Constantly?
You don’t see our fine troops in the field doing this. They don’t ride through the streets of Baghdad shouting about how good they are or how powerful their tanks are. They know they don’t need to - plus they’ve got a whole hell of a lot more common sense than the reporters and politicians back home. Even worse are the anti-war pacifists who seem to have bought into the whole “we’re a superpower, so nothing can hurt us - therefore we need to leave everyone else alone lest we offend them by making them feel inferior” argument.
That’s really the basis of the whole “human shields - to protect the little people overseas from the US bullies” and the “don’t strike back when we’re attacked - instead we need to try to understand why the little people are so afraid of us” and the “we need to put our massive strength under United Nations control to protect the world full of little people from us.”
And it’s not the anti-war Leftists here in America who have bought into this bulls**t but also several countries overseas. France, which has had a bad case of penis envy since Napolean went down in flames, heads this group of whining weasels. Small countries, full of “little people” in the Third World also are convinced that they face a supreme bully - even if we ignore them and most Americans coudln’t find them on a world map if we tried.
Why? It’s because some people here in the US feel the need to brag and strut across the world stage, scaring the bejeezus out of everyone. And no, I’m not talking about Iraq so don’t bother to use that as an example. The US (and the UN) waited twelve years for Saddam Hussein to disarm and the UN issued a baker’s dozen of resolutions asking him to stop being an asshole. Even when the UN and the US Congress approved action, President Bush gave Hussein a last chance to step down and avoid any bloodshed. He refused. Now he’s six feet under, his armed forces defeated in just a few weeks.
That’s where the “sole remaining superpower” freaks should have begun to notice that we do indeed have the most powerful military on the planet (and probably in the entire solar system, come to think of it) but what everyone failed to remember is that we also have the absolute worst foreign police force ever seen in all of recorded human history.
How can we call ourselves a “superpower” if we can’t police those we’ve whupped? We can’t because even after 250 years we are still incredibly naive when dealing with foreign peoples. Sooner or later we’re going to have to face up to the fact that we can beat the crap out of anyone on the planet but we are wholly incapable of keeping them down or even keeping them quiet. So let’s drop the “superpower” crap, stop trying to police the world and keep the big stick handy behind our back and out of sight. Take a look at the table below and you might realize why we aren’t the 600 lb gorilla we think we are. The Russians haven’t gone away. In fact, they’re re-arming and building more nukes.
Here’s a thought: what if we had invaded Iraq (with United Nations consent and approval) and had just gone in, defeated Saddam’s army, rounded him up, flew him back to New York and placed him on trial by a United Nations tribunal - and - withdrew all troops at that time and told the UN to get together their own “police force” to clean up the mess and stabilize the country? Perhaps France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia and all the other “Monday morning quarterbacks” could have jumped in and proven to us that they too can be “super” if they’d only try. Maybe next time ... ?
| Country | Nuclear Warheads Active / Total |
|---|---|
| United States | 5,735 / 9,960 |
| Russia | 5,830 / 16,000 |
| United Kingdom | < 200 |
| France | 350 |
| China | 130 |
| India | 40-50 |
| Pakistan | 30-52 |
| North Korea | 1-10 |
Posted by The Skipper
on 02/07/2007 at 12:39 PM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Iraq •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - January 28, 2007
My Turn
As I sit here and ponder the weekend’s events, I can’t help but wonder how so many people in our society have become so self-centered and hungry for attention that they will go to any extreme to gain an audience, including making complete fools out of themselves and causing more divisiveness and anger than anyone would have thought humanly possible.
I’m not just talking about Cindy Sheehan. I’m referring to the whole anti-American, multicultural, politically correct crowd of publicity seekers we are afflicted with every day. From where I sit it seems these people aren’t really interested in changing anything or making anything better. It seems to be all about them, not you or me or us.
I see a large crowd of immature narcissists strutting across the media stage with no sense whatsoever of the consequences of their actions. They have something to say and you had just better damn well listen - and shut up while they talk ... and play for the cameras.
I started writing this piece while reading about John Kerry’s comments to the World Trade Organization’s 2007 conference in Davos, Switzerland this weekend. Here is what the Senator had to say:
“Duplicity", “hypocrisy”, “international pariah”? The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was referring to the United States when he made those comments to an international audience in Switzerland. Such language in an international forum is usually reserved for describing hateful, repressive regimes like Nazi Germany.
To make matters worse, he made those remarks while seated next to former Iranian President Sayyed Mohammad Khatami, former leader of what is perhaps the most isolated, anti-semitic, anti-American, rogue regime on the planet - a nation with nuclear ambitions and terrorist agents stirring up trouble all across the Middle East. A nation that is training and equipping Shiite militias in Iraq to kill our troops. And then after making those remarks, he shook hands with Khatami, gave him his autograph (no kidding) and smiled for the cameras before leaving.
Now far be it from me to condemn Senator Kerry for having an opinion about the United States, even such a blatantly negative opinion as this. He is entitled to his opinion just as I am entitled to my opinions ... and my opinion is that America is a great country full of great people and although our government is not perfect and occasionally makes mistakes in dealing with the rest of the world, it’s still a nice place to call “home” - and I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of me or my country.
People here in America today tend to forget that our ancestors or parents came here to get away from the rest of the world. We came here because we didn’t like the way things were going over there. Why should we be concerned about their opinion of us now? They were glad to get rid of us and are only now starting to hate us because we have succeeded so well in building a better society. Our success has reaffirmed the fact that the rest of the world is a screwed up mess and if people are given half a chance to build something better, they can ... and will.
But no, there are still people here in America today who believe we should be ashamed of that success and we should be seeking the forgiveness and approval of the rest of the world. These people like to refer to themselves as “liberal” or “progressive” which is quite odd, considering they are neither. They attempt to force everyone to march in lock step with their politically correct rules and silence any critics with vicious attacks.
This weekend also saw a great gathering of these people in a few cities around the country, numbering in the tens of thousands. While 99% of Americans took time off from work and caught up on chores around the house or just relaxed after a tough week, these people, led by Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn in Washington and Cindy Sheehan and her Code Piink friends in Los Angeles, aired their grievances with the government in front of the news cameras of the entire world.
Once again, I have no problem with these people having their opinions about the war or anything their narrow, little minds can find to disagree with. What I have a problem with is their method of disagreement. Our Constitution guarantees us the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee us wall-to-wall coverage on CNN for the entire world to watch as a small minority makes fools of themselves.
Yes, they are unhappy with the progress in the war on terror. So am I. The difference is I act rationally. There is a major change of plan currently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and I’m willing to give it a chance. If it fails, I will make my disapproval known by mailing my representatives and the administration and even more importantly at the voting booth.
I feel no need to strut and preen before a mob of media cameras because it is not about me. Never has been, never will be. I’m just a small part of a big picture. Senator Kerry and Jane Fonda are entitled to their opinion. I just wish they wouldn’t take their case to the entire world. That only serves to embolden the enemy we face around the world and encourages them to hold out until the will of the American people breaks under the constant pressure of a small percentage of the population with the cooperation of a willing media.
So I say to all these people, let’s keep our disagreements to ourselves. If you really want to end the war then let’s concentrate on winning it. It doesn’t matter anymore whether it is “the right war” or not. What matters is that we’re in it and we have young men and women in harm’s way. Anything that encourages the enemy only results in more of those men and women coming home in coffins.
We can argue about the war after it is won, done and over. For now though, Senator Kerry, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan and those who support and encourage them just need to use a little common sense and stop playing for the cameras. It’s not about them or you or me. It’s about soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas who are our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. Do something to encourage them ... not the enemy.
Posted by The Skipper
on 01/28/2007 at 02:43 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (11)
•
Trackbacks(1)
Permalink • Saturday - January 27, 2007
The Sequel
With the Leftist Moonbats marching on Washington today, I’ve been surfing around cyberspace getting glimpses of their freakish festivities. While doing so I had a hallucinatory experience. I suddenly felt myself transported back in time to 1970. There was Jane Fonda in the middle of a crowd of anti-war protesters, and scrawled signs filling the air with all too familiar slogans and the media trumpeting the deaths of 6 or 10 or 20 US soldiers on the battlefield.
The vision refused to fade away and allow me to return to 2007. Then I realized I had not been time-traveling. This was 2007, not 1970. I suddenly wanted to puke. Literally. The sequel to the Vietnam War was following the same formula. Hollywood knows that for a sequel to be successful it has to follow the same basic formula as the original. What we are seeing now on the big screen is “Vietnam: Part II, The Sandbox”.
There are several significant differences however. First, the Viet Cong never attacked the US directly and never even came close to blowing up any major buildings inside our country. Second, the VC didn’t have billions of petrodollars and a worldwide network of religious fanatics backing them - all they had was their puppet-masters in Moscow. Third, the North Vietnamese had only a local goal - to unite their country, albeit under a communist regime that went against the Truman doctrine of “containment” of communism. On the other hand, radical Muslims and the Wahabbi movement have already spread their poison to several countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and sleeper cells in nearly every major country - including here in the US.
These differences are significant purely for one simple reason: this time the enemy we face is intensely stronger, more dangerous, more ambitious, better financed and more determined to destroy our way of life. In other words, this time we face an escalation by several orders of magnitude of the Vietnam conflict. Yet there are still American citizens who are following the same game plan: “peace at all costs”, “the wrong war”, “bring the troops home NOW”.
These people refuse to believe their own eyes and ears and understand the situation we find ourselves in today is much, much worse that it was in 1970. What is going to happen if/when the next sequel (“Vietnam: Part III, Nuclear Armageddon”) comes to a theater near you. If the escalation continues what will we see? Major cities being wiped off the face of the Earth with nuclear weapons smuggled across our porous Southern border? Millions of Americans wiped out in a terrible instant of blinding hatred?
What will the peaceniks say then? My guess is they will say, “See! We told you this would happen if you went into Vietnam and Iraq?” The murderers will be pardoned in their eyes and all blame will reside with “neo-cons” and whoever is in charge in Washington at the time. Then they will start scheduling another march on Washington even before all the bodies of millions of dead Americans are buried.
This sequel sucks but the peaceniks are still buying tickets. The next one will be a boxoffice bonanza unless we the movie-going (voting) audience decide to force a rewrite of the script. Iraq may already be lost if this screenplay follows the formula. Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard goes into a little more detail below. Grab your buttered popcorn, Raisonets and jumbo Coke and settle in for the rest of the show. I already know how it is going to end but I won’t spoil it for you ...
Not This Time
-- by Fred Barnes
In a word, it was counterinsurgency, and it worked. Now in Iraq, Petraeus has as good a chance of success, starting with the pacification of Baghdad, as Abrams had. And the painful lesson of Vietnam applies in Iraq: Don’t give up when victory is at hand.
Those in Congress who advocate retreat in Iraq refuse to acknowledge this lesson. And they may have their way, whatever Petraeus accomplishes. With their calls for troop withdrawals and fund cutoffs and their antiwar resolutions, they have put America on a slippery slope in Iraq. And we know where it leads: to defeat while victory remains quite possible. This happened in six descending steps in Vietnam, and today’s coalition in Congress of antiwar Democrats and vacillating Republicans has started pushing us down that dangerous slope.
The first step is, when the war goes poorly, public support falls and politicians dramatically increase their criticism. In Vietnam, this occurred after the Tet offensive in 1968. In Iraq, it occurred gradually at first, then rapidly once violence and chaos in Baghdad flared over the last year.
Step two consists of growing criticism of the foreign government that America is supporting. In Vietnam, the target was the government of President Thieu. In Iraq, it’s the elected government of Prime Minister Maliki. Senator Hillary Clinton, for instance, insists Maliki has failed to seek reconciliation between Shia and Sunnis--that is, a political solution. “I do not support cutting funding for American troops, but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions,” she said two weeks ago.
The third step involves resolutions and threats. This week, the Senate will take up resolutions opposing the addition of 21,500 troops to Iraq, a buildup Petraeus says is indispensable to his plan to secure Baghdad. If resolutions fail to force President Bush to begin winding down the war, Senator Joe Biden promises the Senate will take stronger measures. In the Vietnam era, congressional critics passed limits on funding.
The fourth step--the one we’re approaching now in Iraq--would put restrictions on troop deployments. In 1970, the Cooper-Church amendment sought to bar funding for any American troops in Cambodia, a sanctuary for invading forces from North Vietnam. Today, Hillary Clinton would put a cap on the number of American soldiers in Iraq. Webb, echoing many others in Congress, said withdrawals should begin “in short order.”
Step five is the last resort of war opponents: a fund cutoff over the protests of the president. In Vietnam, it came in 1974, after American combat troops had been withdrawn, but with the United States still supporting and funding the South Vietnamese government. What’s striking is how much the congressional majority then resembles today’s antiwar coalition, mostly Democrats but with more than a handful of Republicans. True, only a minority in Congress favors a cutoff today, but that bloc could grow.
Step six: the collapse. In Southeast Asia, it led to the deaths of more than two million people in Vietnam and Cambodia after the Communist triumph. The members of Congress whose actions prompted the collapse expressed no shame or embarrassment for having betrayed allies. And practically no one held them accountable. Their perfidy was greeted with silence.
Posted by The Skipper
on 01/27/2007 at 02:19 PM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Iraq •
• Comments (9)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Spare The Rod
Cam Cardow - The Ottawa Citizen
Spanking the Diaper
-- by Will Durst
Today’s harangue concerns Democratic California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber and her plan to introduce a bill to the legislature (“hello bill,” “hello legislature”) that will make parental spanking a crime if the child is three years or younger, labeling it misdemeanor child abuse. That’s right, “spank your offspring, go to jail” is about to become law. “Neglect to stroke a pony, pay a fine” is on the docket for next year. And the “Polyester Banky Ban”? Still stuck in conference.
Now don’t get me wrong, I understand Ms. Lieber’s motivation. As a card-carrying member of the Mommy Party, she is unable to control her insatiable urge to protect us from ourselves. And she’s seriously anti-child abuse. But then again, aren’t we all? And that’s a good thing. But come on. Do we really need a law here? Aren’t most slaps to the bottom more of a Pavolovian response training exercise anyway? Throw a tantrum, get a smack. Repeat until salivation occurs. Besides, unless It’s full, spanking a diaper is like dropping a dime on a pillow. And when full, it’s an exercise neither the spanker or spankee is likely to forget. Or, more importantly, anxious to duplicate.
I’m curious as to exactly how the honorable Assemblywoman proposes parents discipline their darling nippers in the event they toss the toaster into the tropical fish tank. Perhaps a squirt gun to the back of the head, like you use to keep cats off of furniture? Or temporary exile to a terrarium upholstered in a fetching array of bubble wrap? Or replacing “Teletubbies” with tapes of the last season’s “The Apprentice”? If Donald Trump doesn’t constitute cruel and unusual, I don’t know what does.
Mostly though, what worries me is misdemeanor rug rat abuse creep. How soon before the legislature is asked to outlaw stern looks, unseemly scents and substandard nose nuzzling? All very traumatizing to our miniature progeny. Isn’t the simple act of an adult walking past a crawling moppet sheer intimidation through sizism? Passing a toddler? Get down on all fours, mister. And put that beer in a sippy cup. “A pacifier for all my friends.” Not to mention the booming adult voice has to be a terrifying thing, so infractions of the decibel meter will be financially penalized via a complex geometric formula involving frequency and frequency.
Once you cross the cherub protection threshold, a gibberish translator to protect the little angel’s fragile sense of self esteem—easily compromised by formalized language—seems to be a logical leap. And picking up a wee bairn and thrusting them up towards the ceiling with extended arms or riding them on one’s shoulders? Flagrant reinforcement of an overwhelming sense of powerlessness. All I’m saying here is, it’s a slippery slope, Ms Lieber. One that involves hunching way over and whispering and squirt guns and rampant sheep shearing and grown men sucking on nipples. And who wants that?
Comic, writer, actor, former radio talk show host and tour guide in a cave, Will Durst, is co-author of the “Polyester Banky Ban.” Copyright ©2007 Will Durst, distributed by the Cagle Cartoons Inc. syndicate. Will Durst is a political comedian who has performed around the world. He is a familiar pundit on television and radio. See http://www.willdurst.com for additional information on Will’s performance schedule and listen to his twice-weekly commentaries @audible.com/willdurst. E-mail Will at durst@caglecartoons.com.
Posted by The Skipper
on 01/27/2007 at 07:10 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - January 25, 2007
Grrrrrrl Power
Ahhhh. This will be a good day. I’m sitting here with a nice cup of fresh brewed coffee, clear (but cold) skies outside and a new editorial by Ann Coulter. It doesn’t get any better than that ...
I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore
-- by Ann Coulter
(HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE) - Jan 24, 2007
Speaking of which, the horny hick’s wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she’s running.
As long as we have revived the practice of celebrating multicultural milestones (briefly suspended when Condoleezza Rice became the first black female to be secretary of state), let us pause to note that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, would be the first woman to become president after her husband had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.
According to the famed “polls”—or, as I call them, “surveys of uninformed people who think it’s possible to get the answer wrong”—Hillary is the current front-runner for the Democrats. Other than the massive case of narcolepsy her name inspires, this would cause me not the slightest distress—except for the fact that the Republicans’ current front-runners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Fortunately, polls at this stage are nothing but name recognition contests, so please stop asking me to comment on them. “Arsenic” and “proctologist” have sky-high name recognition going for them, too.
In January, two years before the 2000 presidential election, the leading Republican candidate in New Hampshire was ... Liddy Dole (WMUR-TV/CNN poll, Jan. 12, 1999). In the end, Liddy Dole’s most successful run turned out to be a mad dash from her husband Bob after he accidentally popped two Viagras.
At this stage before the 1992 presidential election, the three leading Democratic candidates were, in order: Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen (Public Opinion Online, Feb. 21, 1991).
Only three months before the 1988 election, William Schneider cheerfully reported in The National Journal that Michael Dukakis beat George Herbert Walker Bush in 22 of 25 polls taken since April of that year. Bush did considerably better in the poll taken on Election Day.
The average poll respondent reads the above information and immediately responds that the administrations of presidents Cuomo, Dole and Dukakis were going in “the wrong direction.”
Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named “Barack Hussein Obama.” Or, as he’s known at CNN, “Osama.” Or, as he’s known on the Clinton campaign, “The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.”
Mrs. Clinton’s acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, “Can a woman be elected president?” This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and ... hmmm, you know, I think that’s it.
Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power—Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry—love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.
It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn’t taken seriously either.
Posted by The Skipper
on 01/25/2007 at 09:19 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Monday - January 22, 2007
Say Goodbye To Clark Kent
Face it. In today’s world Superman and Batman wouldn’t stand a chance. In fact the entire Justice League would have to give up and move to another planet - one less “advanced”. No longer could Clark Kent dash into a phone booth, change clothes and fly off in support of Truth, Justice and The American Way. No, there would be twenty hidden cameras watching and Lois Lane would be viewing the whole costume-change thing on YouTube within twenty minutes.
As for Batman, heck even the kid at Pizza Hut would know about the Bat Cave and all of Bruce Wayne’s millions couldn’t buy him a minute of privacy to tune up the Batmobile. Joker and Riddler would be all over Stately Wayne Manor mere seconds after doing a Google search on “bat”, “crime”, “identity”.
And don’t even get me started on Dr. Robert Bruce Banner. There’s no way anyone could hide something as big and angry as The Incredible Hulk from today’s security cameras and internet databases. Dr. Banner’s e-mail Inbox would be stuffed with solicitations from every anger management course available (and tons of Viagra sales pitches). That much spam would definitely trigger a major angry transformation of the mild-mannered doc and then we’d all be toast.
No, I’m afraid all we’d have left to fight crime is ... Aquaman - and if satellite technology keeps advancing even he will one day be easily spotted with Google Earth Desktop by any fisherman needing a hot tip.
Privacy? What Privacy?
-- By Tom Purcell
“Hello, this is Tom.”
“Happy birthday to you, Tom!”
“Who is this? How did you know it was my birthday?”
“Your birth date is public information—it’s listed on your voter registration card. But that’s not important. What is important is that I’m here to help you.”
“Help me?”
“We feel it’s time for you to upgrade your computer, Tom. It’s taking you forever to surf through the Web sites you visit.”
“You know which Web sites I visit?”
“Of course. Not long ago, America Online got into trouble for releasing such information. We had a good laugh when we learned your favorite search terms are: “Madonna, bikini, before she turned 40.”
“This, sir, is an outrage.”
“We’re just trying to help. Incidentally, that 27-year-old flight attendant you met in the online chat room?”
“What of her?”
“She’s 64 and married.”
“You have no right to --”
“Don’t get excited, Tom. According to the free blood pressure clinic you visited—you remember filling out that card, don’t you?—your blood pressure is awfully high.”
“You know my blood pressure?”
“Of course. There are lots of ways to get that information now. Didn’t you know that security cameras and other devices mounted in public places are now able to check vital signs?”
“My vital signs!”
“Absolutely. Some surveillance systems can identify you by how you walk. And special programs can track your eye movements. Retailers use them to get a better idea of what shoppers are looking for.”
“You can’t be serious.”
“As serious as a heart attack, Tom. Which is why you ought to cut back on the corn chips. Do you really need to eat three bags a week?”
“You track my corn chip purchases?”
“That discount card the grocery store gave you is quite revealing. Incidentally, you forgot to redeem your coupon on the free devil’s food cake. I’ll send another if you’d like.”
“What you’re doing is surely against the law!”
“Law? There are no laws to prevent us from knowing about you. Everything you buy with your credit or debit card is incredibly easy for us to track – and most of the things we do to track you are legal.”
“They are?”
“Yes, and every time you fill out any form, your personal information is stored in computers and shared with goodness only knows who.”
“Without my permission?”
“Of course. And did you know that your Social Security number has more than 40 congressionally approved uses? You can’t drive, vote, apply for a job or open a bank account without revealing that number. That’s a godsend to people like us.”
“But this is immoral!”
“A typical statement from a 44-year-old, single, middle-class Catholic conservative who voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole and Bush.”
“Have you no shame, sir?”
“I’m not the one who is 12 months overdue at the library on ‘How to Win Over Women and Influence Courtship.’”
“I’ll report you to the press.”
“That’s a good one, Tom. The press is eager to criticize the Bush administration for monitoring phone calls and wire transfers, when there are hundreds of other threats to privacy that the press hardly ever talks about.”
“Then Congress must write new laws to protect us.”
“That’s an even better one, Tom. In the electronic global village in which we all now exist, technology is moving so rapidly that no law can keep up with it. The only way you can protect your privacy is to stop giving out ID numbers, stop using computers and stop using your credit cards.”
“I can’t afford that kind of inconvenience.”
“Neither can I, Tom. Which brings us back to the reason I called. I have some products to help you upgrade your computer.”
“There are only two things I want from you: your name and phone number.”
“Sorry, but I can’t give you that information. That information is private.”
Tom Purcell is a humor columnist nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons. For comments to Tom, please email him at Purcell@caglecartoons.com
Posted by The Skipper
on 01/22/2007 at 09:33 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Humor •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Friday - January 19, 2007
The Adults Of Tomorrow
Those of you who have been reading this blog for the last three years probably know there is one subject that is very important to me ... children. I have an undying hatred of child molesters and would be perfectly content to see every one slowly tortured to death in the most painful way imaginable. The very thought that an organization like NAMBLA even exists creeps me out.
I am a firm believer in protecting the children we bring into this world from the insanity, hatred and perversions of our society until they’re old enough to cope with it. If we give them a beautiful childhood maybe they can create a better tomorrow. At least that’s always been my hope.
Perverts who molest children, sell them into slavery or use and abuse them in any manner whatsoever only pass their evil on to another generation like a cancer spreading through society. We sometimes forget that the children of today are the adults of tomorrow and they will be what we teach them to be.
Every time I see pictures of Palestinian children celebrating jihad with their parents or posing with machine guns I get sick to my stomach. Even worse is when I read of a missing child who has been abducted here in our own country. I wonder and worry what that child is going through. The longer I think about it, the angrier I get.
The recent abduction of Ben Ownby here in Missouri and the subsequent rescue of Ben and the discovery of Shawn Hornbeck, who had been abducted four years ago by the same man really, really bothered me. The fact that it all happened within ten miles of where I live really had me on edge.
Then when I read about a judge setting a child molester free or giving them a gentle slap on the wrist I want to scream. You see, like Michael Reagan talks about below, I had a similar experience when I was a young boy. I know what he is talking about. Maybe one day I’ll work up the courage to tell you what I was never able to tell my mother. Maybe.
For now though, I agree with Mike. Leave the boys alone. Let them heal ... and hang that sonuvabitch who kidnapped them. Nothing would make me happier than to get called to jury duty this week. Count on it.
The Reason Why
• by Michael Reagan
All the would-be psychologists on TV and in the press have been speculating wildly, coming up with a myriad of reasons such as a case of the Stockholm syndrome, for example, as to why the youngster did not flee his alleged captivity when he had many opportunities to get away from his alleged kidnapper.
None of these people know what they are talking about. They don’t have the vaguest idea of what goes on in the mind of a young boy who has been sexually abused by an adult, as I assume was the case with Shawn.
I do. Only those who have had that horrific experience can understand what undoubtedly happened to Shawn Hornbeck, and I’m one of them.
When I was eight years old I was sexually abused by a man who ran an after-school day camp. And after that first molestation, I was literally blackmailed into silence by him, making it possible for him to continue to molest me for a year without fear of being exposed.
People who wonder why child victims of sexual abuse remain silent about their experiences have to understand that after that first episode the molester takes ownership of the youngster for a variety of reasons including shame and threats to tell his parents their child is a sexual deviant.
In my case the reason why I didn’t run away although this man was molesting me for a year was simply this: he owned me.
As I wrote in my book, “Twice Adopted,” which I urge parents to buy and read carefully for their children’s sake (you can get it at Amazon.com), “It doesn’t matter if you are molested once or a thousand times; it’s the first incident that does the damage. That first act solidifies the molester’s ownership of you.”
Although I have no way of knowing if Shawn allowed himself to be photographed in a compromising situation as I was, if that was the case with him the molester’s ownership was solidly confirmed.
I allowed my abuser to take nude photos of me much against my will. He used those photos to blackmail me into silence by threatening to show them to my mother. That thought terrorized me. And it was enough to keep me silent.
I thought that if my mother saw those pictures she would know that I was what I then believed myself to be—evil. Another hold a molester has over his victim, you see, is his understanding that his victims come to believe that the molestation is their fault, and their deep shame and guilt ensures their silence.
A lot of people who are now speculating about the reason Shawn Hornbeck failed to flee are implying that he could have escaped countless times. They do not understand that his captivity did not involve being physically shackled and chained, but instead he was mentally imprisoned by fear of the exposure of his shame. He would have seen himself not as an innocent victim of sexual molestation, but as his molester’s partner in it.
That feeling of partnership grows out of the victim’s belief that even if they consider that the first sexual act was the abuser’s fault, they share the blame for all the subsequent acts.
And if there were photographs, as there were in my case, the threat of his parents ever seeing them and believing their son was the real guilty party is terrifying.
From my own experience, I know that it’s easier to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger than it is to tell your mother or your father what some man has done to you.
My advice to all the amateur psychologists telling us what happened to Shawn is to just plain shut up. If you haven’t been there, yourself, you don’t know what you are talking about. Leave the kid alone, he’s been through enough grief.
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. ©2007 Mike Reagan.
Posted by The Skipper
on 01/19/2007 at 03:02 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
Once Again, The One And Only Post
(4 total trackbacks)
Tracked at iHaan.org
Thｅ advantage to having a guide with you is thɑt an expert will haѵe very first hand experience dealing and navigating the river with гegional wildlife. Tһomas, there are great…
On: 07/28/23 10:37
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(3 total trackbacks)
Tracked at head to the Momarms site
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We’ve Been Waiting For
On: 03/14/23 11:20
Vietnam Homecoming
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 广告专题配音 专业从事中文配音跟外文配音制造，北京名传天下配音公司
专业从事中文配音和外文配音制作，北京名传天下配音公司 北京名传天下专业配音公司成破于2006年12月，是专业从事中 中文配音 文配音跟外文配音的音频制造公司，幻想飞腾配音网领 配音制作 有海内外优良专业配音职员已达500多位，可供给一流的外语配音，长年服务于国内中心级各大媒体、各省市电台电视台，能满意不同客户的各种需要。电话：010-83265555 北京名传天下专业配音公司…
On: 03/20/21 07:00
meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
[...] RTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPL [...]
On: 07/17/17 04:28
a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 03:07
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:
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.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
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
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.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
