Monday - August 28, 2006

Monday Morning Editorial

Hillary’s Howl
By Dick Morris

With Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 10-to-1 edge in campaign funding, her complaints about an ad from opponent John Spencer ad reminds one of an elephant howling in pain after having his toe stepped on by a flea. In fact, the Spencer ad, which castigated her record on terrorism, was a clean blow.

In the ad, Spencer criticizes Hillary for voting against the Patriot Act and opposing the National Security Agency policy of wiretapping conversations between Americans and foreigners without first getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That characterization is fair and accurate on both issues.

Clinton, along with nearly every other member of Congress, voted for the Patriot Act right after 9/11. But when the act came up for renewal at the end of last year, she refused to vote to end a Democratic filibuster that killed the chance to extend the legislation. Instead, she backed a compromise to put the issue over until January.

After the Democrats had demonstrated their muscle by showing that they could hold off cloture on the anti-terrorist legislation, the administration and its allies realized they’d have to compromise, and agreed to changes watering down the act. Thus, Hillary joined almost everyone else in eventually voting for renewal, after she’d succeeded in weakening its protections.

The NSA wiretaps? She’s criticized them from the start, insisting that the administration should have to go to the foreign-intelligence court for approval before tapping any phone.

Spencer opens his ad with a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge and says, correctly, that if Clinton had her way on to the Patriot Act and the wiretaps, it would have opened the way for an al Qaeda strike to demolish the bridge.

The plot to blow up the bridge was uncovered in an NSA wiretap that could not have been preceded by a warrant. Federal investigators had no idea what they were looking for when it was discovered or where to look in the first place.

The NSA trolls through millions of phone calls and asks its sophisticated computers to discern patterns that might be suspicious. Apparently, the words “Brooklyn Bridge” (which must not translate well into Arabic) surfaced in one call, and that was enough to alert Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to flood the bridge with cops. (The alert was required by the Patriot Act, which mandates the sharing of such information, formerly limited by bureaucratic jealousy and concern about compromising sources.)

Then the NSA intercepted a call saying that the bridge was “too hot,” obviously from the terrorist. Finally, by interrogating a prisoner in Pakistan (an interrogation allowed by the Patriot Act without an attorney present), the authorities got the name of the plotter and arrested him. Chillingly, the terrorist had full plans for the bridge in his apartment and had correctly identified a spot on the bridge where a well-planted explosive would cause its collapse.

So what’s wrong with Spencer’s ad? Hillary does oppose the NSA’s “warrantless wiretaps.” She did vote against the Patriot Act in December of 2005. And but for the Patriot Act and wiretaps, the Brooklyn Bridge would have been blown up.

Clinton criticizes Spencer for showing Osama bin Laden’s picture in the ad next to hers. If she doesn’t like that, perhaps she should think twice before voting to unilaterally disarm us in the War on Terror.

Posted by The Skipper     on 08/28/2006 at 01:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 21, 2006

Mad Ahmadinejad

Not A Time To Run From Danger
-- by Steve Darnell

Every liberal I have spoken with over the past five years has attempted to compare President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. I realize the majority of liberals are uninformed and too often undereducated, so I think I will assist them with their Hitler analogy.

The real modern-day Hitler currently resides in Iran and is actively trying to gain nuclear capabilities. His name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I like to call him “Mad Ahmadinejad.”

Mad Ahmadinejad is a fun-loving madman who enjoys blogging on the Internet, killing Jews and funding worldwide terrorism. And he just happens to be the current president of Iran.

Below are two quotes from Mad Ahmadinejad that should have the world concerned:

“As the Imam [Ayah Allah Khomeini] said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

Addressing students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point “where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come”.

And liberals think Bush is a madman.

Winston Churchill once said: “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. but if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”

To date, no matter what liberals think, President Bush has not flinched and has reduced the danger of terrorism by half. We have ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan and are currently battling terrorism in Iraq. His domestic surveillance program, which liberals are fighting to eliminate, helped foil the latest terror plot in Great Britain that would have killed thousands of Americans. 

Eliminating the threat of terrorism by half is not good enough, however. It is time for President Bush to confront the other half of the danger that remains in the world: Mad Ahmadinejad.

The United States is now beyond dialog for peace with renegade nations, such as Iran, that sponsor terrorism. President Bush should now strictly enforce the Bush Doctrine. The United States, along with the civilized Western world, needs to end the terrorist threat by bombing back to the fourth century Syria, Iran and any other nation harboring terrorists.

Then the problem will end.

The odds of this happening are slim, however. Thanks to liberals, wars are now fought in a “politically correct way”. Gone are the days when war was settled with massive battles of attrition and the bombing of major cities. 

Warfare has become a politically correct popularity contest, where the rules of engagement are written by the New York Times and public opinion, not the armies involved in the war. Of course, if Hezbollah, Hamas or other terrorist organizations are killing civilians, the rules of engagement are thrown out the window and public opinion is somehow on their side. Israel was taught this lesson during its war with Hezbollah.

Liberals and the mainstream media try to convince Americans on a daily basis that President Bush’s sinking popularity at home and around the world has somehow diminished his effectiveness. Their propaganda seems to be working. Many Americans now question the president’s direction in the war on terror, and his poll numbers are down.

President Bush should not be concerned with his popularity, and he never has been. It is a simple fact of life that the most productive person in the room is normally the most unpopular. Hard-chargers, like the president, who step on toes while getting tasks accomplished are not usually very popular people, but they get the job done. Winston Churchill is a prime example.

President Bush needs to continue using our military might to end terrorism and set his sights on Iran. Forget the negativity oozing from those on the left. After all, liberals would rather appease the terrorists by finding a “feel-good” approach to ending terrorist aggression rather than face the problem. Most liberals would rather run away and let the terrorists continue killing Americans. Calls for immediate withdraw from Iraq by liberals comes to mind.

Appeasement, ceasefires and peace treaties will never defeat terrorism. The only way to end terrorism is by killing terrorists. We should start by eliminating their sponsors in Iran, using “un-politically correct” massive firepower. This is a very simple approach to the problem.  Kill terrorists before they kill us.

Winston Churchill also said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Iran, with Mad Ahmadinejad at its helm, is the current crocodile the world should be concerned with, and the threat should be taken seriously. 

Liberals around the world still insist on feeding the crocodile. Unfortunately Mad Ahmadinejad is hungry and searching for a nuclear weapon.

This is not the time for the United States to flinch. 

_{COPYRIGHT © STEVE DARNELL 2006}

Posted by The Skipper     on 08/21/2006 at 02:08 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - August 17, 2006

Comedy Of Errors

A Comedy of Errors
-- by Michael Reagan

As could be expected, on Wednesday The New York Times rushed into print with a story about the wonderful compassion Hezbollah is showing in helping those in Lebanon’s civilian population who suffered enormous damage during the hostilities between the terrorist group and the Israelis.

Under the banner line “Hezbollah Leads Work to Rebuild, Gaining Stature” the Times exuberantly described the extensive humanitarian efforts Hezbollah is exerting on behalf of the Lebanese people. Wrote the Times: “While the Israelis began their withdrawal, hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage. Men on bulldozers were busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble. Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings are now, just a day after a cease-fire began, fully passable.”

It’s well known that the United States of America is the world’s number-one provider of humanitarian aid – handing out billions to victims of wars and natural disasters in every corner of the globe, but you never see the Times going into spasms of adulation over our generosity. But let a declared enemy of the United States provide a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down to those suffering collateral damage as a result of their actions and the Times gets all gooey with worshipful admiration.

Hezbollah is a humanitarian organization in the same sense as the Mafia is a dispenser of charity and compassion. Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, sounded like the neighborhood Mafia don, offering money for “decent and suitable furniture” and a year’s rent on a house to any Lebanese who lost his home in the month-long war. It was his way of telling the people who their real friends are. It’s not the toothless Lebanese government, he was telling them, but your friendly neighborhood hit men who have your best interests at heart

I think he may have learned the tactic from another mob boss, Al Capone, well known for handing out cash and other goodies to the folks in the neighborhood when he wasn’t beating people to death with a baseball bat or celebrating St. Valentine’s Day by having his enemies machine-gunned to death.

This “Hezbollah-the-good” business is just one aspect of a war that turned into a dark comedy, elevating the status of a group of murderous thugs while humiliating the leadership of what has always been seen as the most-feared military force in the Middle East – the IDF - the Israeli army, which nowadays parades under the politically correct description as a “Defense Force.”

Aside from the fact that the both the IDF’s intelligence capabilities and its strategy were terribly flawed, the whole thing began to assume the appearance of a sick farce when it was learned that among his preparations for the attack on Hezbollah, Israel’s army chief, General Dan Halutz, had reportedly dumped his stock holdings – something I don’t think he learned from studying Karl von Clausewitz.

Tragically, the silliest thing to emerge from the whole farce was President Bush’s comment that Israel had won the engagement with Hezbollah, which is now running freely around most of Lebanon with its fully armed guerillas patrolling the streets in some Lebanese cities, while the IDF licks its wounds after failing to be allowed to disarm the terrorists - which in less politically correct times it could have done with dispatch.

And what could be more ludicrous than a cease fire whose conditions include the stipulation that the Lebanese army, or the United Nations, or a multi-national or just about anybody else around disarm Hezbollah. The Lebanese army says it has no intention of doing so, and the planned multi-national force can’t because it doesn’t exist, and as a result Hezbollah continues to bristle with arms and is probably being supplied with more ordnance from Iran and Syria.

In the meantime, the IDF meanders around the area south of the Litani River waiting for Hezbollah to get out of the area and disarm. I have a suggestion for them: they should take a page out of the Old Testament and march around Lebanon for the next six days and then on seventh day, march around it six more times and blow a horn.

It worked at Jericho, after all.

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

Posted by The Skipper     on 08/17/2006 at 12:53 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Middle-East • Terrorists •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - August 06, 2006

Fred Reed as Tom Sawyer

If you’ve never read a Fred Reed column you are missing one of the great pleasures of the internet. Fred is a curmudgeon with a web page. Here is just a sample of his latest effort, which describes how he amused himself as a kid.

It was a different country then, and the South was a differenter part, warts and all. Nobody much watched us. You could sensible things, like line shotgun shells up on a board and shoot at the primers from fifty feet away with the BB guns. Contrary to what a Yankee might think, this didn’t produce much of a bang because the shell wasn’t confined in a barrel, but it was better than nothing.

I guess things were kind of unsupervised. You couldn’t do it today. You’d need a Caring Adult to be in charge, meaning some tiresome school marm who didn’t think you should make black powder and blow things up. What’s black powder for, then? Tell me that.

Fred’s Column. Don’t miss it.

Fred’s website. I include this because he uses frames.

Posted by Christopher     on 08/06/2006 at 04:34 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

No Peace In Our Time

Ollie North says the Liberal appeasers in the Democratic party need to get a grip and face the undeniable fact that there is no peace in the Middle East, never has been and never will be if we give in to the terrorists’ demands and try to address their grievances by first pulling a “cut and run” from Iraq and also forcing Israel to quit beating up on Hezbollah.

As usual, he’s right on the money. There can be no “peace in our time” as Neville Chamberlain found out in 1939 unless we address the evil head-on. It’s either us or them. Somebody has to lose before it’s over. I’d prefer it be them. Then we might have peace ...

What They Want
By Oliver North
_{Friday, August 4, 2006}

WASHINGTON, D.C.—“What do they want?” It’s a query we hear a lot these days. By “they,” of course, the questioner means the suicide bombers, the masked men in the videotape decapitating a hostage, the goose-stepping, black-clad legions parading with AK-47s. “They” call themselves Hamas, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-Islamiyah, the Mahdi Army or any of a dozen other names for violent terror groups operating with impunity around the world.

Five years ago next month, “they” were al Qaeda—thrust onto center stage aboard four aircraft turned into deadly missiles. This past spring, “they” were Hamas terrorists, firing lethal Qassam rockets from Gaza into neighborhoods in southern Israel. This week, it’s Hezbollah—the Iranian-armed and directed movement in Lebanon that ignited the current round of violence in the Middle East.

Some of the “theys” are Sunni Muslim. Others are Shia. In most of the world they are theological adversaries—with a long sanguinary history of fratricide far bloodier than anything experienced in the Christian schism between Catholics and Protestants. In nearly every case, “they” have foundations in a local grievance, recruit followers by emphasizing perceived wrongs and have charismatic leaders who promote “martyrdom” as a means of making things right.

Regardless of origin—Sunni or Shia—“they” share critical common ground. They all despise Judeo-Christian values, institutions and individuals and are committed to “ridding” Islamic lands of Western “occupation.” They are all “non-state” entities—claiming independence of any government—but rely on support from radical Islamic entities awash in petro-dollars. All carry out attacks with ruthless brutality without regard for their victims. All regard Israel and America as abominations, share the aim of “liberating” Jerusalem and envision a caliphate that extends from Casablanca in the west to Indonesia in the east. This is “what they want.”

Unfortunately, in this era of shallow, “sound-bite” journalism and drive-by “action” coverage, these objectives—routinely specified in the writings, speeches and sermons of radical Islamic political leaders and clerics—are widely ignored by the masters of our mainstream media or dismissed as the ranting of fanatics with few followers. The consequence is a woefully uninformed public—and an electorate so ignorant of reality that western political leaders can promote simplistic solutions like this week’s calls for an immediate cease-fire, intensive diplomacy and the introduction of an international peacekeeping force leading to a negotiated end to the strife.

This theme, repeated in today’s newspapers, magazines, newscasts and political stump speeches, is a minor variation on the kind of thinking that succeeded so brilliantly with Adolf Hitler. He too had written and spoken widely of his aspirations for global domination and ethnic cleansing. Yet, even after he had re-armed and commenced fulfilling his twisted dreams of “purification” and expansion, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was able to proclaim “peace for our time,” after returning from Munich in September 1938. Less than a year later, the Fuhrer plunged the world into a global conflagration. The willful ignorance of weak-willed democratic leaders bent on appeasing evil did not spare their populations then—nor will it today.

Those leading the call for the Israelis to cease their aggression in Lebanon and start immediate talks leading to a broader Middle East peace—all part of the lexicon today—need a healthy dose of reality. There is no “Middle East Peace” to keep.

- More on the appeasers from Ollie at TownHall.com ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 08/06/2006 at 07:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials • Terrorists •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - July 23, 2006

Sunday Editorial

Pat Buchanan’s Senility
by Steve Darnell

At one time I was a big fan of conservative columnist and former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan.  His deep-rooted conservative values inspired me to start writing political columns of my own, echoing his conservative philosophy.

However, things change over time and now the real Patrick Buchanan seems to be making an appearance.  To be frank:  I think Pat has sunk into the bowels of anti-Semitic senility.

Buchanan’s senility started when he left the Republican Party after being handily defeated in the 2000 presidential primaries by George W. Bush.  Instead of bowing out of the presidential race gracefully and backing Bush, he chose to run as a third-party candidate for the Reform Party in the 2000 presidential election.

His apparent goal was to ruin the Bush campaign and hand the election to Al Gore; why else would a conservative Republican suddenly turn his back on fellow conservatives and excommunicate himself from a party he loved?  He knew that he did not have a realistic chance to win the election. Many claim it was out of sheer hatred for the Bush family.  I tend to think that Buchanan is just a big fan of Benedict Arnold.

And as with Benedict Arnold, Buchanan’s traitorous plan backfired.  Bush still won the election, and Buchanan’s brash political play resulted only in ruining the Reform Party.

Buchanan’s columns have reflected his hatred for and apparent vendetta against the Bush family in the years since the election.  His anti-Semitism shows itself in his columns, where he continually bashes Israel and champions the Arab cause in the Middle East. 

In his last opinion column, “No, This Is Not Our War,” Buchanan chastises “neoconservatives” and “hairy-chested warriors” at the Weekly Standard for supporting the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon. Some questions are best left unasked, but what the heck, I will ask it anyway:  When did Buchanan see Bill Kristol’s chest? 

In his column Buchanan attempts to convince readers, in his veiled anti-Semitic writing style, that Israel is the bully of the Middle East and is throwing around its military might with the backing of the United States.  Israel is showing its military might.  Not as a bully but as a nation protecting itself from terrorist aggression.  As for the United States backing Israel:  I guess the word “ally” is not in Buchanan’s vocabulary, unless of course the ally is an Arab country.

Buchanan ponders why Israel is attacking Hezbollah “with the blessing [of] and without a peep of protest from President Bush.” But he fails to ask why President Bush should bother protesting in the first place.  President Bush is simply allowing the “Bush Doctrine” to be carried out by Israel.  Pat must have forgotten that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, not a Catholic youth organization.  Hezbollah must be removed from Lebanon.

Buchanan’s latest column also conveniently fails to mention the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and the indiscriminate firing of Katyusha rockets into major Israeli cities by his heroes serving Hezbollah.

Pat has morphed into a kinder, gentler person since the 2000 elections.  He sticks up for the downtrodden Lebanese civilians who have had all power cut off by Israeli airstrikes and calls the action “an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.”

I think Pat confuses the term “collective punishment” with warfare.  Israel is at war with terrorists who are using Lebanese civilians as human shields.  Even with the most modern surgical strike by Israeli jets there is still the possibility of civilian casualties.  So if anyone is to blame for civilian casualties, it is Hezbollah, not the Israeli military.

He continues describing the despair in Lebanon:  “When summer power outages occur in America, it means a rising rate of death among our sick and elderly, and
women and infants. One can only imagine what a hell it must be today in Gaza City and Beirut.”

Sure, there is suffering.  There is suffering in all wars.  What Buchanan fails to mention is the suffering of the Israelis huddled in bomb shelters and those killed and wounded by Hezbollah rockets.  But why should he be concerned with their suffering.  They are not Christians or Muslims; they are only Jews.

I remember when Patrick Buchanan was at the height of his career, before his traitorous move from the Republican Party.  Liberals despised Pat, accusing him of being a racist and anti-Semitic.  I would stick up for him in political debates against the left in those days.  He was, after all, my hero in the conservative movement.

Now it is hard to believe that Patrick J. Buchanan is taking the side of liberal appeasers and terrorist thugs by protesting Israel’s right to self-protection.

But the worst thing is that for once in my life I must agree with liberals:  I think Patrick J. Buchanan is anti-Semitic.

And that is what really hurts.

http://www.stevedarnell.com
COPYRIGHT © STEVE DARNELL 2006

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 07/23/2006 at 10:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - July 16, 2006

Wake-Up Call For Republicans

THANK GOD! Someone finally said it out loud! Steve Darnell has a new opinion piece out at his website that will rattle your cage. He dares to call Republicans on the carpet and asks if any of you have any guts or cojones at all.

By God, I like this guy and the way he talks. Steve is only expressing what most of us have been thinking and occasionally complaining about here for ages. FIGHT BACK, REPUBLICANS! The Dems are losers and they won’t quit until you stand up and smack the crap out of them. Whooo-hoooo! I love it!

Democrats Sink To New Low
by Steve Darnell

I have been taking a lot of flak from some fellow Republicans lately over the way I am attacking liberals in my columns.  They feel that insulting liberals by calling them wackos or loonies is just “stooping to their level” and should be stopped.

I guess many of my Republican friends prefer the “intellectual” approach to arguments.  Which means to sit back with a smile on your face while being insulted by a liberal.  Once the liberal has finished his or her insults, then and only then, make an intellectual argument about a conservative position.

The only problem is that liberals never finish their string of insults.  They have the staying power of Bill Clinton at an intern convention.

Just watch any debate between a conservative and a liberal politician on CNN or Fox News.  The conservative’s argument can never be heard over all the liberal insults and interruptions.  Sometimes I want to shout at the Republic senator or congressman on television:  “Do something!  Don’t just sit there with a smile on your face!  Fight back!” But of course the Republican never does.

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/16/2006 at 07:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - May 25, 2006

An Epidemic Of Ignorance

Every once in a while I run across an editorial in one of the trade magazines that makes me wish I had written it. Mr. Gottlieb puts into words something that has bothered me for decades as I’ve watched the drama he describes unfold. This epidemic of ignorance is spreading across America and is one of the main reasons why I started this blog.

The fact is I have too much to write about here with all of the “arrogant ignorant” running around today ... and the situation is getting worse and worse every day. Too many people in positions of power are taking advantage of this epidemic to spout off all kind of nonsense, knowing that there are very few people left with enough common sense and intelligence to see through their lies.

I include Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, people of all stripes in those groups. We have become a nation of three kinds of people: (1) those who lie for personal gain, (2) those who are too stupid to know they’re being lied to, and (3) the rest of us. Guess which one of those groups is in the minority ...

The Arrogance Of Ignorance
A new generation of the serenely clueless is
ready, willing and able to destroy your company
_{Jan, 18, 2006}

By Mark Gottlieb (INDUSTRY WEEK)

Your livelihood and your future are both in peril. The threat you face derives not from any external factors that may affect your company. Instead, it comes from your own employees.

The deadliest business hazard of our time is the result of a sea change in the American approach to education that occurred early in the 1970s.

Across the United States, conventional educational standards were tossed out the window, replaced with feel-good theories like “whole-language learning” that emphasized personal fulfillment over the accumulation of hard knowledge.

As a result, we now have two generations of men and women who expect gold stars not for succeeding, but simply for trying.

And, sometimes, merely for showing up. In Great Britain, even primary school students can name all the monarchs of England. How many American children can name the capital of their own state? In India, the study of mathematics is practically a religion. In the United States, how many retail clerks can make change without relying on a calculator?

In Germany, vocational education is a rigorous and honorable pursuit, producing highly qualified workers and tradesmen. In the U.S.A., people actually boast about their inability to deal with anything mechanical. But sheer stupidity is not the greatest danger presented by the current crop of blank slates. It is the arrogance bred of ignorance that constitutes an unparalleled descent into goofiness.

In the long-dead past, incompetents generally recognized their own incapacity and behaved accordingly. Today, every jackass sees himself as a genius, and every fool fancies herself a philosopher. Once, a young colleague at a major firm accosted me in tones of confusion and desperation. “Mark! Mark!” she called as I walked past her office door. “When was World War II?”

I thought at first that she was joking, but, alas, she was not. The deadliest global conflict in human history had somehow escaped her notice. Yet if I had asked if she honestly believed she deserved her B.A. and felt qualified to perform her job, she would have been gravely insulted and likely kicked me until I was dead. Like the pod people of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the arrogantly ignorant appear at first glance as normal as you or me. But beware.

The most profound risk they represent springs not from their cluelessness, but from their inability to recognize their own limitations. Such blind hubris can lead to monumental errors of judgment, grotesque mistakes, and the refusal to accept—despite a mountain of evidence—that the strategy they are pursuing may be leading your organization off a cliff. When people like that are in your employ, it is you, not they, who suffer the consequences.

These days, the arrogance of ignorance is so pervasive that I feel confident in making a small wager: Ten bucks says that the worst offenders will read these words and wonder, “Who is this joker talking about?” If characters like that work for your company—brother, you’re in for a world of hurt.

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/25/2006 at 03:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - February 23, 2006

Counterpoint: The Ports Deal

What is the Big Deal About the Ports?
By Jaguar

The media is screaming, the bloggers are screaming, the congresscritters are screaming. What the heck are they all freaking out about? Well, from what I have seen, the media is claiming that 6 US ports will be taken over and run by a company called DP World, which is owned by the UAE government, or actually, by a holding company that is owned by the UAE.

Congresscritters are running around and yelling about outsourcing our port security. The media is screaming the same thing. Now the bloggers are doing it as well. Our security will be outsourced, our security will be compromised, the UAE hasn’t been cooperative in the war on terror, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

You’d think that we were selling them the ports and everything in them. Like it was going to be New UAE in the US, or some such garbage. What exactly does it all mean? And what is actually going on here?

First off, let’s get this straight; the Port Authorities of each city own the ports. The security is run by the Port Authority, Homeland security and the coast guard.

This will not change, in any way shape or form.

What does that mean? The same security that is in place now, will be in place when DP World manages the terminals in the ports. As a matter of fact, the security will actually be better at the 6 ports. Why? Because homeland security asked DP World to help the ports invest in better security equipment as part of the approval process.

The UAE has been investing in R&D of the technology side of port security for a while. The UAE was the first country to sign on with Homeland security so that ALL containers leaving their ports for the US are inspected before they leave for the US. So, DP World is in an excellent position to be involved in the security upgrades for the ports. But, again, they have no responsibility nor authority in the way security is run at those ports.

What does DP world do? They manage the terminals in the port, NOT the port itself. There is HUGE difference here, and it needs to be made CLEAR. Let’s first look at the company that was originally managing the day-to-day port operations, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Operations, or P&O for short.  They have been managing the day-to-day operations of the 6 ports, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans for the last 10 years or so.

From this website.

P&O Ports is the P&O Group Company responsible for port development and investment, terminal operating and stevedoring activities. Originating with the creation of an Australia-wide stevedoring and terminal operating entity, its first international activity was the 1986 joint venture privatization and management of the Port Kelang container terminal in Malaysia. This project was one of the first privatizations of public port assets undertaken worldwide. Its great success resulted in it becoming an international model for privatization of public facilities.

P&O Ports’ success and experience in privatization was also the foundation for further international investment by P&O, resulting in it being a world leader in port development and operation today. P&O Ports is an international company managing 21 container terminals and has operations in over 85 ports in 19 countries around the world.

DP World decided that they would be interested in buying the full worldwide operations of P&O, and got into a bidding war with a number of companies last August.  Last November, the Committee of Foreign investment OK’d the deal after going over the usual 30 day review period for such dealings.

They found no concerns that would be harmful to the security of the ports or the United States. Why, you may ask? Because the companies that manage the port operations, do not manage the security at the ports, and never have. DP World has also cooperated with the office of Homeland security in other international ports that they manage in order to secure and ensure the safety of containers being shipped to the United States.

OK, so what have we got so far?

First, they will not be doing any security for the ports that they will be managing. None. All security is in the hands of the local Port Authority, Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard.

The Port Authority, who owns the ports (and is usually a government agency, and elected by the citizens of that city) contract out the daily terminal operations of the port, to companies that do that type of management. P&O was an excellent company to have done that, and now DP World has purchased ALL of P&O’s worldwide assets and management divisions, which happens to include the 6 US ports named above.

Second, DP World is indeed owned by the UAE. The UAE has been one of our greatest allies in the Middle East, and around the world, on our continuing war on terror. Of all the Middle Eastern countries they are the smallest security risk and the most trustworthy as evidenced by their cooperation with our continued war on terrorism and signing onto our Homeland Security arrangements at their own ports.

Third, this buyout was approved by the Foreign investment Committee after much research and of course discussions with the company itself. The media has hyped it to a point where it has taken on a life of it’s own, and people are freaking out over pretty much nothing.

What’s the actual bottom line here?

DP World will be in charge of the day-to-day operations of the terminals in the 6 ports of those cities, just as P&O was. The American longshoreman will still load and unload all the ships. The American managers will still be in charge of the day-to-day operations, and security will be handled by the same people that have always handled it. (The Port Authority of each city, Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard.)

What will be different? The payee on the paychecks to those American Longshoreman and those American managers will say DP World instead of P&O.

The profits from those operations will be going to the UAE, instead of the UK.

The ports will be getting some much needed modernization of their security equipment.

That’s it, that’s the bottom line…

So what’s the fuss? What has caused this entire furor over a change in management?

Well, let’s take a peek at a couple of things shall we?

Let’s start with a timeline.

August 2005: DP World gets into a bidding war for the purchase of P&O. A final buyout price of about 6.8 billion dollars is agreed upon as of January 26th 2006.

November 2005: The committee on foreign investment gives the nod to the buyout and for DP world to take over the daily operations at the 6 US ports.

January 2006: Dave Sanborn is nominated to serve as the maritime administrator. He has been an executive of DP world since 2005.

February 15th 2006: Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., a partner with P&O in the US, filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami’s mayor also sent a letter of protest to President Bush.

And today, all the media outlets are having conniption fits and the bloggers are screaming “off with Bush’s head” over this one. OK, so what does this little timeline tell us? This was a done deal 3 months ago, back in November. Media reaction—YAWNER, nonstory.

January, Dave Sanborn is nominated. Media reaction—YAWNER, nonstory. Today? Conniption fit city. What happened? Hmm, Continental filed a suit to block the sale and Miami’s mayor wrote a letter of protest to the president. Hmm, sounds particularly suspicious to me, and another case of the media playing fast and loose with the facts in order to create a fracas and discredit the Bush administration.

And everyone has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. This thing has been done for over 3 months, the nomination was done last month, and now the media is just reporting it, only after a letter of protest from a mayor and a company filed suit?

BTW, 99% of the shareholders agreed to the sale of P&O to DP World. Another case of the crying liberals trying to get a judge to overturn something after the people voted for it. Sorry, I digress.

Tomorrow, they will be saying that Dave Sanborn getting the Maritime administrator position was some sort of payback to DP World for cooperating with Homeland Security. Just watch, it’s going to happen. Here is Dave Sanborns Resume’, just in case you were wondering how he might qualify for this position.

Mr. Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career.  He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Looks pretty darned qualified to me. The media has given this story the legs it needs by playing fast and loose with the facts. They will do the same here. Just watch them. The media has manipulated this thing from the get go, and everyone is falling right in step to their tune. I find it sad, disturbing and very frustrating.

Bin Laden can’t wait to tell everyone how the US hates and distrusts Arabs and that the US is indeed the enemy. The overreaction and lies about this sale and the management of these ports will tell the world exactly that.

The media has played everyone for fools by not telling the WHOLE story or, for that matter, the real story.

For some reason the media has decided that a mayoral letter of protest and a suit to block the sale in US courts is enough to run with the story. (But, they haven’t said a thing about that part, have they?)

Anyone want to tell me why that is?

Onwards…

What story finally just died? Cheney, shooting some poor Republican lawyer, while on a hunting trip. Now the 78 year old lawyer is out of the hospital and all is forgiven. Whoops, the story had legs, and then had them cut out from under them.

Now, along comes this story. The media, trying it again.

The timing looks really strange to me. If any of you understand how the media manipulates the American people, it should look mighty strange to you as well. This whole story is a nonstory. It is nothing but a lot of caterwauling and BS from the usual suspects and the usual media outlets. President Bush is doing the right thing.

This is an executive branch responsibility. The deal is done. The arrangements have been made. Congress sticking it’s fingers into this pie will do nothing more then play into the prejudices that Bin Laden is trying so hard to convince other Arabs that we have.

This deal should be allowed to go through. It will NOT endanger our national security in any way shape or form. It will help with our war on terror. Besides the fact, DP World does an excellent job of running port terminals, as their assets and continued contracts on the worldwide market should prove to you.

Sources:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007999
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june06/ports_2-21.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200602221412.asp
http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHG4G0.html
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18245410%5E1702,00.html

Posted by Jaguar     on 02/23/2006 at 10:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (31) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - February 09, 2006

My Girl

You can’t have her. She’s mine, I tells ya. Stay away from Ann Coulter. I’m gonna marry that woman one day and the rest of you varmints better just suck it up and go look elsewhere. Today, the love of my life talks about cartoons. Guess which ones ....

Calvin and Hobbes—And Mohammed
February 9, 2006
By Ann Coulter
(REALCLEARPOLITICS)

As my regular readers know, I’ve long been skeptical of the “Religion of Peace” moniker for Muslims—for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head. I think the evidence is going my way this week. The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian’s statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, “that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran.”

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever. But three cartoons made political points.

One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying “Stop, stop—we ran out of virgins!”—which I believe was a commentary on Muslims’ predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims’ predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular—oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims’ predilection for violence.

In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence. Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

- More from Ann here ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/09/2006 at 12:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • RoPMA •  
• Comments (21) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 08, 2006

The Blame Game

The Washington Post has decided that neo-con right-wingers in Denmark and theocratic fascists in the Middle East are to blame for all the trouble over “those cartoons”. I think the problem goes back a lot further than that and it actually started with socialists in Europe and Liberals in America about thirty years ago. What say you ... ?

The Uses of Cartoons
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
(WASHINGTON POST)

Extremists and political opportunists across the Muslim world are rushing to exploit the controversy over the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Late to the game but conspicuous in its crudeness is the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which yesterday oversaw a second day of demonstrations outside European embassies while a newspaper it controls announced a contest for Holocaust cartoons. The Taliban is probably behind violent demonstrations in Afghanistan, including one directed at the largest U.S. military base in the country. And the Bush administration has rightly fingered the secular but cynical government of Syria for orchestrating the burning of embassies in Damascus and Beirut.

A clash of civilizations between Muslims and the West is the fondest ambition of al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, from Britain to Indonesia. But it also is a convenient refuge for authoritarian regimes hoping to resist the rising pressure for political liberalization in the Middle East. That explains why Muslim outrage over the original publication of the cartoons in Denmark was patiently cultivated not by Osama bin Laden but by the Egyptian and Saudi governments. According to an account in the Wall Street Journal, Egypt’s ambassador in Denmark worked with local Islamic clerics as they prepared an inflammatory propaganda campaign about the cartoons for dissemination through the Middle East last fall. In December a delegation of the Danish militants was received by senior clerics and government officials in Cairo, where the manufactured outrage contrasts with the quotidian persecution of a Christian minority and publication of anti-Semitic libels in the government-controlled press.

Europeans, too, have participated in the stoking of passions, if for different reasons. The cartoons, whose vulgarity and offensiveness are beyond question, were published as a calculated insult last September by a right-wing newspaper in a country where bigotry toward the minority Muslim population is a major, if frequently unacknowledged, problem. The Danish government depends for support in Parliament on a far-right populist party with an anti-immigrant agenda: Maybe that’s why Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen arrogantly refused to meet with ambassadors from Muslim countries last fall, when the controversy might have been defused.

- More noise from WAPO here...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/08/2006 at 08:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • RoPMA •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 06, 2006

Just Wondering

So I was listening to NPR the other day, and there was an ad sponsorship notice for the show (Weekend Edition, I think) from some organization that “seeks to alliviate the cause and crisis of homelessness” (recalling from memory, but that was the idea).  The thought struck me: They think that it is a better use of resources to sponsor the weekend news on NPR then actaully help a homeless person secure some housing.

How much does an NPR commercial sponsership cost?  Could they have helped a family or two with rent with that money?  Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why running an ad sponsoring an NPR news show would be a better use of funds for such a group.

Just wonderin’ is all.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/06/2006 at 10:41 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (15) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Insult To Hindus?

Jeff Jacoby nails it with this one ...

We Are All Danes Now
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
February 5, 2006
(BOSTON GLOBE)

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ‘’War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.

It didn’t happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don’t lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don’t expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.

But radical Muslims do.

- Read the rest of this here ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/06/2006 at 07:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (19) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - February 05, 2006

They Just Don’t Get It

I have been giving a great deal of thought to the recent kerfuffle over the Danish cartoons that have the entire Muslim world in an uproar. I’ve come to the conclusion that Muslims just don’t get it. This thought came to me while reading an article in the Washington Post today that put it all into a unique perspective.

The WAPO interviewed several American Muslims to get their opinion on the recent riots and embassy burnings in the Middle East. I noticed that every one of the interviewees seemed to be blinded to the hatred and violence being done in the name of their religion.

It’s as if the Muslims, including the educated, well-to-do ones in the US are looking at the world with a “everything is someone else’s fault, we deserve respect” viewpoint. It’s as if to a man and woman they are incapable of looking at themselves as others see them. Here is an example ....

Area Muslims React With Tempered Anger
Some Say Depiction Overstepped Liberties
Sunday, February 5, 2006
(WASHINGTON POST)

Wearing a brown golf cap against the cold drizzle, Rocky Omary stood outside Walima Cafe in Falls Church, where he and about 50 other men of Middle Eastern descent had just watched the Tunisian soccer team take a drubbing from the Nigerians.

That trouncing was bad enough. But Omary had other, more disturbing, insults on his mind: specifically, the recent publication in European newspapers of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

“I’ve been getting a lot of e-mails about it, and I’m distributing them all,” said Omary, a Damascus native who sells real estate in Northern Virginia. “There is a limit to freedom. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Let’s have some respect.”

“Just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should say something,” the teenager said. “If somebody showed a picture of the pope with a bomb on his head, that would cause a great public outcry. Nobody would be talking about freedom of speech.”

Washington area Muslims say they are closely following the furor in Europe and other parts of the world sparked by the cartoons, which first appeared in Denmark and Norway. In interviews yesterday, they expressed anger and hurt feelings. And although they said they recognized the value of freedom of speech, they said the freedom must be matched with respect and responsibility.

“Technically, you have the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell ‘Fire,’ “ said Uzma Unus, 34, a teacher in Sterling who is also vice president of ADAMS. “But is that responsible?”

Yesterday, crowds in Syria set fire to the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish embassies. And, according to a wire report, a radical Islamic preacher in Lebanon demanded that the Danish editor who first printed the cartoons be killed.

Such reactions are “not warranted,” said Robert Marro of Great Falls, who was attending prayers at ADAMS. Europeans could have defused the situation by apologizing instead of staking out a hard-line position of upholding free speech, he said.

“Growing up in America, I’m used to political cartoons, but . . . it’s clear that this just crossed the line,” said Marro, a retired U.S. diplomat. “What would the reaction have been if on Jan. 16, The Washington Post had published a picture of Martin Luther King with gangsta-rap clothing, a crack pipe and a Saturday night special? . . . It would have provoked a storm of outrage.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/05/2006 at 06:32 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • RoPMA •  
• Comments (28) • 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