Friday, December 30, 2005

Top Ten Most Hated End of the Year LIsts (tm)

I had those lists that are compiled at the end of every year. 1999 was a special kind of hell for me, when the lists went on to cover not just the previous 12 months, but the last 100 years. I had to avoid newspapers, magazine, and tv news shows for about two months.

Anyway, here are my ten MOST hated categories:

10. Top ten movies of they year.

9. Top ten albums of the year.

8. Top ten novels of the year.

7. Top ten food trends of the years.

6, Top ten HOTTEST actresses of the year.

5. Top ten Hottest Actors of the year.

4. Top ten most annoying people of the year.

3. Top ten rising "stars".

2. Top ten new fashions.

1. Top ten new TRENDS.

You know, if I cared about any of the above mentioned lists, I would subscribe to People magazine. But, I think the end-of-the-year ritual I loath the most are the What's Hot/What's Not lists.

So, if you have a list, or a hot/not trend- do me a favor and just shove it up your arse.

Amazing story

I missed the story of ex-Cuban, American War Hero, Pedro Martin when it was originally posted on on Babalu Blog, but saw it here.

If you haven't read it, you definitely need to rectify that situation.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Let's not forget, moral relativism

As we know, there is no thing as a superior religion, culture, or society. Remind yourself over and over as you read this:

In Sweden, according to translator for Jihad Watch, Ali Dashti, “Gang rapes, usually involving Muslim immigrant males and native Swedish girls, have become commonplace.” A few weeks ago she said, “Five Kurds brutally raped a 13-year-old Swedish girl.”

In France, Samira Bellil broke her silence – after enduring years of repeated gang rapes in one of the Muslim populated public housing projects – and wrote a book, In the hell of the tournantes, that shocked France. Describing how gang rape is rampant in the banlieues, she explained to Time that, “any neighborhood girl who smokes, uses makeup or wears attractive clothes is a whore.”

Unfortunately, Western women are not the only victims in this epidemic. In Indonesia, in 1998, human rights groups documented the testimony of over 100 Chinese women who were gang raped during the riots that preceded the fall of President Suharto. Many of them were told: “You must be raped, because you are Chinese and non-Muslim.”

According to a Copehnagen, Islamic mufti and scholar, Shahid Mehdi, women who do not wear a headscarf are asking to be raped. I wonder how the gals at Feministe would view that?

In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf.

And earlier this year Australians were outraged when Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed gave a lecture in Sydney where he informed his audience that rape victims had no one to blame but themselves. Women, he said, who wore skimpy clothing, invited men to rape them.

A few months earlier, in Copenhagen, Islamic mufti and scholar, Shahid Mehdi created uproar when – like his peer in Australia – he stated that women who did not wear a headscarf were asking to be raped

But, I suppose I'm a racist for bringing this up. We are supposed to ignore an elevated statistics in crime among certain populations. It means nothing. Or it is because of oppression. Or some such nonsense.


After 9/11, I was one scared little puppy. Terrorists could be everywhere, and one would never know where the next attack could occur. I feel relatively confident writing that I wasn't the only one feeling this way. In fact, I would place money on it that pretty much 99% of the US population felt exactly as I did. I fantasized that we had the technology found in the film Enemies of the State, where the government could listen-in on every telephone call on the planet, and find the bad guys.

Of course, though, that was not reality. What chance did we have against such a tenacious enemy? But, I hoped that the government had a few tricks up it's sleeve. I didn't need to hear about them, but I slept at night convincing myself that they had technologies that would aid in finding those who dream of mushroom clouds over Manhattan. Certainly everyone, my fellow citizens would be similarly pleased that we had abilities to detect these monsters? Of course, in this belief - I was wrong.

Patriot Act- BAD.
Wiretaps on those in contact with areas known to be affiliated with terrorist activity- illegal.
Radiation Monitoring- a racist plot.

Writes CAIR :

We are concerned that, under this secretive program, our government has overstepped constitutional bounds by intruding on private property without any probable cause or valid court orders, said CAIR National Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar. The targeting of so many Islamic homes, businesses and mosques will inevitably create the impression that American Muslims are considered suspect solely because of their faith.

The IMPRESSION? Because, you know, we have no reason -at all- to fear Muslims in America, right? Would CAIR be happy if we also monitored a few Mormon churches? Heck, we could even throw a Jewish temple into the mix. Because, it's all about appearances, isn't it? Tell me, Joe Public out there - where would YOU like them to monitor? While I'm sure it would please both the ACLU and CAIR if we completely stopped all monitoring, would you sleep better knowing that we'd dodged another bullet aimed at our civil liberties. I mean, cripes, we might turn a city into glass, but we'll be free from government interference up until the moment we get hit by the shock wave.

Fact is, anything Bush, or our current government does, is suspect automatically due to BDS -Bush Derangement Syndrome. And, between the ACLU and CAIR, just about every low enorcement technique aimed at finding bad guys is illegal or a racist plot. Even techniques that used behavior-based profiling is illegal. From Malkin:

As I've noted before, the ACLU has filed suit against Boston Logan Airport officials to prevent them from using behaviorial profiling to detect security threats. The suit stems from a snit fit one ACLU official had when he was asked to produce ID by Boston Logan officials.

If the ACLU has its way, the interrogation methods used by Diana Dean--the Customs Agent whose questioning of a nervous and sweating young, brown-skinned male trying to cross the Washington state-Canada border unraveled al Qaeda's LAX Millenium plot and saved untold innocent lives--would be banned nationwide.

If the ACLU has its way, we'd have no profiling of any kind.


Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Books I got for Christmas

Well, it's just River Rat and me here, but I've got the time, so here goes:

Unhinged:Exposing LLiberals Gone Wild by Michelle Malkin. A surprisingly entertaining book. I've always enjoyed her writing, but for some reason this book had never jumped out at me. I started reading it this morning, and found myself unable to put it down.

Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer. It's as good as I expected. Most of the factoids have appeared elsewhere, but if I come across anything explosive ...

The Complete Amber Chronicles by Roger Zelazny. Science fiction, and not really a gift since I bought it for myself. Someone on the internets recommended it. I'll let you know.

I got one more book, but I'm gonna have to fill you in on that one later.

Local politics

Most of you will have no clue what I'm talking about, but I think it's time for me to turn into a major advocate for Detroit. My line?


Monsters in our streets

My BIL brought this story to my attention. I'll give you a minute to go read.


WTF is wrong with society? Everyone of those kids deserves to be taken out back and shot. YES SHOT. What good can become of a teenager who behaves like this? We would save society a lot of grief, and future criminal behavior, if we just eliminate them now. Additionally, their PARENTS should be held up to ridicule. I want explanations as to why and how they allowed their children to become such monsters. They should be forced to wear t-shirts that say "I suck at being a parent." Or, perhaps, "I raised a morally bankrupt child."

And, yes, I know I am being hyperbolic.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

This is the post ...

... where you list what you got for Christmas. Once everyone gets back from where ever the heck they are?!?

I'll go first:

DVD set of Romantic Movies
Two more Waterford flutes


The Holiday was here. Wish you were merry.

Or something like that.

Personally, I can only handle so much merry making. The house gets messy, and I can't checked my email.

And, in a cryptic shout-out to no one who reads this, but it must be said; women are bitches.

Friday, December 23, 2005


Dang but this is funny.

A question for Leo

What is Figgie pudding, and is it good? I mean, is it actually a Christmas tradition, or is it just some holiday-song sham perpetrated upon us Americans?

Personally, I'm kinda sick of ham and turkey and all those traditional CHRISTmas meals. Since I couldn't find a roast beast, we're going to have Prime Rib. YUM. And, for dessert I am going to attempt some French concoction called "Il Flotante." The French are, after all, good for something; food and wine. They can keep their politics, their feminists, and pretty much everything else.


It is for lines like this that I love Lileks:

It’s like that old saying, first they came for the library records under the Patriot Act and I said nothing, because I didn’t use the library, and so on. You know?

Perhaps you must read it in context. Screedblog rocks.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Christmas with Code Pink

Code Pink has a wonderful Holiday planned for us. Let us begin with a Holiday Carol

War to the World (To the tune "Joy to the World")
War to the world! Don Rumsfeld
declares;Let's go to war for oil!
Arms dealers and oil companies
Will make our foreign policies
And we'll be safe and free!
And we'll be safe and free!
And women and children will all be safe
and free!
We rule the world! With bombs and
So let the war hawks sing!
We'll target all the hospitals
And mosques and pesky journalists
And lie on CNN
And lie on CNN
And NBC and ABC and C-N-N!
War to the world! The empire reigns;
You're with us or against!!
We're good and you are ee-vil
We're good and you are ee-vil
So we'll blow you away
So we'll blow you away
So Merry Christmas, and have a nice

Visit the Code Pink site for many more Holiday Hits, like "We Three Thugs A Tribunal Are", and "The First Bombs Fell." I can feel the spirit spreading.

But, the joy doesn't end there! If you've already finished your shopping, and have a little time for protest, give this a try:

Get a bunch of friends to go with you to each buy a war toy, and then go back to the store later to return them. Create long complaint lines, showing other customers (and hopefully you’ve called the media) why war toys are bad. Talk directly to store owners and managers and ask them to stop selling war toys. Tell them you and your friends are considering no longer shopping at the store if war toys continue to be sold. Make buttons that say, “Say No to War Toys” or “War is Not a Game” and offer them to the employees.

Doesn't that sound like FUN! You can download and make stickers to deface the offensive merchandise; "WARNING: War Toys are not healthy for children", "Surgeon General's Warning: Violent Toys=Violent Boys." Humn, well, I hope they have a lot of those stickers, because my boys have made guns out of leggos, brooms, and wooden blocks.

I thought this suggestions was especially inspired:

Ask your child’s teachers to talk about the negative impact of war toys and start a campaign to ban war toys on the school playground. Suggest a toy exchange for the school, where children turn in their war toys and get some cool, peaceful toy like a hot pink Frisbee. Make it a class project and involve the children in setting it up.

What kid doesn't want a hot pink Frisbee? Yea, that's definitely a winner.

Christmas at Code Pink; yet another opportunity for misguided social activism. Don't they have enough to do with their weekly Walter Reed vigils? And, I'm searching the "Holiday" songs list, and I don't see ONE based on a Kwanza tune. SHAME ON YOU, Code Pink! I'm gonna sick the ACLU on them.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Any opinions?

On the Barrett Report?

Word on the street is that it's release will ruin Hillary's career, so I'm all for it seeing the light of day. Personally, I find it frightening that some "powers that be" (the Clinton Legal team) have been able to totally suppress this thing. Some of my favorite names have been active in making sure this doesn't see the light of day (John Kerry and Carl Levin.) And, if there is nothing to it - liberals should be happy to demonstrate how much money Republicans ($20 million!) have wasted in a "witch hunt."

Tuesday, December 20, 2005


I've been working up a good rant on the kerfuffle regarding Bush supposedly infringing on our civil rights by listening to the phone calls of bad guys. Thankfully, a much better writer than I did one:

In order for me to enjoy the not-getting-my-ass-blown-up lifestyle to which I’ve become accustomed, people who love sending care packages of cash and semtex to post-office boxes in Central Asia have to give up the privilege of making private phone calls to their relatives in Whocaresistan. Is it fair? Of course not. Nothing in life is. But we make the best we can with what we’ve got, and right now that means telling the Islamist sympathizers to sit down and shut up while we go poking through their mail.


So if you want to sit there and tell me, all earnest and shit, that it’s not about politics, that you’re just concerned about the law, that’s fine. You go right ahead. I’ll occupy the time while you’re speaking by sitting here and not believing a word that you say. Because we both know the truth, even though only one of us is willing to speak it aloud. You don’t give two shits about the law. All you care about is the fact that you hate George Bush. You’ve hated him so long, and so fervently, that you’ve totally forgotten why. But that hate remains even though the cause for it is gone, and it colors everything you say and do. So just keep talking, asshole. Keep telling me that you want to see the sitting President of the United States “frog-marched to the hoosegow” for enacting entirely legal measures to defend this country during a time of war, but that the Republicans in Congress were jerks for tainting Saint Clinton’s second term over “just a blow job.” Keep right on, man. Because I know where you’re coming from, and I know what you’re really thinking.

Meanwhile, I’m gonna continue to enjoy those freedoms that the President is acting to defend. You know. Like his oath said he would.

And- if you think Bush has turned all fascist on us, I think you need to research Echelon which was utilized by Bill Clinton for reasons other than crazy-assed-Islamofascists (the actual fascists in this scenario) trying to kill us all.

Really, some days I just sit and wonder what is going through the heads of Democrats. In the effort to convince that Bush is the spawn of Satan, no sacrifice is too great. Even the destruction of our country.

In addendum - so, I was just wondering how Hillary stands on all this? Humn, haven't heard much from her, have you? I wonder why?

For my Socialist friends

NRO has an article on Canadian health (cough cough) care:

Canada’s universal-health-care system has long been a darling of the nanny-state Left. Its stated purpose, jealously touted by swooning cohorts of compassion from coast to coast, is to provide free and equal health care for all, regardless of ability to pay.

In practice, sadly, this high-minded endeavor has hit a few snags. The pesky fetters of reality have imposed stingy budget constraints on the enterprise, while the promise of free service for all has increased the demand for treatment. The Canadian government has thus struggled to treat more patients while spending as sparingly as possible on each of them, causing waiting lists to swell and the quality of care to sag.

Ahhh -I remember fondly the battles with Canadian friends on the superiority of their system. FREE CARE FOR EVERYONE, they'd tell me. Good times.

Monday, December 19, 2005

What media bias? II

Despite claims that there is no media bias, out comes this study from UCLA. Apparently, the media leans left! I know, I was shocked too! But catch this :

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

Note that the above didn't say ALL of Fox News, only Brit Hume's hour. ONE hour, out of 24, for those keeping count. Granted, O'Riley and Hannity are conservative, but those are not NEWS programs (and, even if you want to throw those into the mix, that only adds another 2 hour of conservative news to what is so loudly accused of being a shrill from Conservatives.)

Although Hume's show is right of Center, it is no further "off" the center than the other major medias:

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Also surprising was the finding that the Wall Street Journal leans left as well. Except for the editorial pages, the reporting in the WSJ was found to be left of the average voter.

H/t: InDC

Friday, December 16, 2005

A poll

Cool or scary?

H/t : Memento Moron aka/ Brian

Root causes of "race riots"

Leo has been taking me to task in comments regarding the "race riots" in Australia. So, I pose this question; what are the causes of the race riots in Australia. Or, race riots elsewhere? On the surface, the Australian riots began (so it says) in retaliation for the brutal beating of two white lifeguards on Cronulla Beach. The newspapers state that "white supremacists" retaliated in a mob of 5,000, attacking any youth with a middle eastern appearance. This lead to counter-attacks by Lebanese in several Sydney suburbs.

On the surface, it appears that Aussie's are a racist lot. And, then I come across this and wonder:

I read your garbled and fraudulent accounts of the race riots in Australia.  The riots were not unprovoked "drunk... White... neo-Nazis" riots against innocent Muslims as you claim.

After years of escalating racial violence by Lebanese gangs, including rapes gangs, Australians are finally standing up to Muslim racial supremacists. Lebanese and other Muslims use rape gangs and gang sieges/home invasions of Australian families in order to ethnically cleanse neighborhoods. In a country where all Australians have been disarmed and are not allowed to have guns or large knives, Muslim gangs openly parade arsenals of weapons as the police, afraid of losing their jobs if they show "racism", refuse to protect defenseless Australians.

In a country that has been completely disarmed by gun control, Muslims are heavily armed and many Muslims (including Muslim profesors at the best Australian universities) openly call for the extermination of the Australian "Whites".

The letter does have a hints that perhaps this guy is some sort of white supremacist. I found similar words on a white supremist site, but when I googled the author's name I didn't find a connection. But, there might be one. That doesn't mean there is no truth to what he says.

Now, I don't much about the actual situation in Australia, other than what I've read, but I do know a bit about race riots a bit closer to me; the recent riots in Toledo, Ohio.

The headline read "White Supremacists Riot in Toledo, Ohio", here on ACB News. But that is not what happened; the violence and mayhem was perpetrated by BLACKS protesting the Supremacist's presence. Totally forgotten and never discussed was the reason that the Aryans were there in the first place. They didn't just show up at random. The area of Toledo has been plagued with (black) gang violence and home invasions. Misguided residents were responsible for inviting the protesters (pretty dumb move, which was my opinion at the time.) But totally forgotten was the root cause of the whole kerfuffle. Gang violence (in this case black), and those fed up with it.

Is this what lead to the riots in Australia? Not sure. But, like in the Toledo case, I'm sure we'll never hear about this from the media. "White Supremacists Riot in X" makes a much more PC headline than "Locals Fed Up with race-based gang Violence."

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Religion of Peace Update 2

Four churches in Sydney have been attacked in the last 24 hours by gangs of Lebanese Muslims. A community hall of one of the churches was burned to the ground.

Feel the peace BURN, baby.

Ding ding ding

I think Jeff is right on in this:

But the official party line of the United Nations is — must be — that the right to vote is circumstantial at best. Because the United Nations welcomes member states that recognize no such right. The official position of the government of Syria, just to name one example, is that the people have the right to vote only for candidates that have been approved by the sitting government. The people of Syria, according to their government, have no right to remove the Baath Party from power and replace it with another group of leaders. The Syrian government denies that that right — which we as Americans believe is unalienable — exists.

And yet Syria is a full member of the United Nations and enjoys all the privileges thereof.

It is for reasons such as this that many give the UN no authority, moral or other. If you really want to be frightened, pick up this book: The UN Gang: A memoir of Inccompetence, Corruption, Espionage, Anti-Semitism and Islamic Extremism at the UN Secretariat.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Memo to Kayne West

Whites disproportionately represented among Katrina fatalities. Whites made up 46% of the deaths, while they only compromise 28% of the population. WHY DOES BUSH HATE WHITE PEOPLE?

H/t: File it Under and, WILLisms for the story itself.

Those silly Europeans

Apparently, our friends across the pond are upset that we executed the murderer of four people, Tokkie Williams.

Leaders of Austria's opposition Green Party even called for Mr. Schwarzenegger to be stripped of his Austrian citizenship -- a demand rejected by Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel as "absurd" despite his government's opposition to the death penalty.
    In Graz, Mr. Schwarzenegger's hometown, local Greens said they would file a petition to remove the California governor's name from the city's Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium. A Christian political group suggested it be renamed for Williams.

EXCELLENT IDEA. And they could decorate the inside walls with images of Tokkie's work.

Steal this story

Well, what I really mean is that I totally stole this story from Gail, who borrowed it from No Pasaran:

For anybody genuinely worried about climate change, Montreal is bleak. First, many countries which take the 'moral high ground' in public are quietly the very worst offenders. Hypocritical Canada (Paul Martin was unbelievable in his attack on the US) has seen its emissions rise by 24% (on the Kyoto-base 1990-levels); Japan, which gave the name to the original Kyoto Protocol, by 18%; and the statistics for some of the ever-pious European countries take the breath away - Spain up by 42%, Portugal up by 37%, and merry Ireland and Greece up by 26%. In contrast, the US - the non-ratifier of Kyoto, note - has seen its emissions rise by only 13% (and they have fallen 2% under Bush!). So who is the bad boy?

Wait a MINUTE. How much has George Bush (and the US) been beaten up the last few years over the crappy Kyoto agreement that he refused to sign (although, really - Clinton was the one who originally refused to sign, because even he knew it was a bad deal - but he made last minute overtures on his way out of office just to make him look good, knowing that Bush would refuse it.) How much traction have liberals and moonbats (and Europeans) gotten in their Bush Bash party because the big meanies in America wouldn't play with their enviro-fantasy? PLENTY.

And, lookie lookie at the REAL WORLD. Hey CANADA - clean up your act. Emissions in the Great White North upby 24%? What the hell are you doing up there? It's bad enough that Toronto sends it's garbage (and toxic waste) to Michigan, but now I'm gonna have to start watching what floats across the air over Lake St. Claire.

The best part, of course, is that emissions have fallen by 2% under Bush. ENVIRO PRESIDENT BUSH!!

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

In summation

While not a die-hard supporter of the death penalty, the crowd surrounding Tokkie this last few months is morally confused:

On Sunday, November 13, one week before the “Save Tookie” rally at San Quentin, 14-year old William Cox and a friend were attending a neighborhood carnival when they were gunned down by a man who mistook them for rival gang members. Cox, who was not in a gang, was struck in the chest and died at the scene. That is the evil wrought by Stanley Williams!

Of course Snoop and Danny Glover did not hold a rally for William Cox. His death went unnoticed by the Hollywood commissars of compassion. They were too busy trying to save the life of a cold-blooded killer to notice one more young life snuffed out by gang violence.

That tells you all you need to know about the corrupt vision the Hollywood left has for America.

My sympathy lies with William Cox - who will write no books, nor have movies made of his life.


Sorry for no blogging yesterday, but I spent the entire day in prayer for Tokkie.

Friday, December 09, 2005

Terrorist: exhibit 1

Here is an example that nicely illustrates my definition of a terrorist:

A banned Islamist militant group blamed for a series of bombings in Bangladesh has threatened to kill women, including non-Muslims, if they do not wear the veil, a statement said.

The statement by the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen came hours after Thursday's suicide bomb attack in a northern town that killed at least eight people, the latest of a series of blasts blamed on militant groups in their campaign for an Islamic state.

"Women will be killed if they are found to move around without wearing burqa (veil) from the first day of Jilhaj," the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen said in the statement sent to a Dhaka newspaper office.

Jilhaj refers to the Arabic month beginning early January.

Any questions?

Out ... of coffee ...

... can't ... blog ....

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Back to that ...

I'm back to that idea that not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are muslims. So, without further ado, I give you this:

. Over 100 Koranic verses exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Koran 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly. Jews and Christians are among those to be fought: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

There is no doubt that Muhammad meant such verses literally. Nonetheless, the fact that warfare against unbelievers is not a twisting of Islam, but the Islamic mainstream, and is repeatedly affirmed in the Koran, Hadith, example of Muhammad, and rulings of every school of Islamic jurisprudence, still does not make every Muslim a terrorist.

Why? Because the Koran is in difficult, classical Arabic, and must be read and recited during Muslim prayers in that language only. A surprisingly large number of Muslims have scant acquaintance with what it actually says. This is common to a degree that may surprise non-Muslims.

So is the Koran the Mein Kampf of the totalitarian, supremacist movement of Islamic jihad? If we take seriously the words of the book itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it clearly is their inspiration. Are we to ignore the jihadists' many clear statements on this because they offend contemporary sensibilities? The challenge for peaceful Muslims today is to confront, not to deny, this obvious fact, and to formulate strategies for a large-scale rejection of literalism in the Islamic community in America and worldwide, so that Muslims can coexist peacefully as equals with non-Muslims without the continuing recrudescence of this supremacist impulse.

Can it be done? The odds against it are prohibitive. But we do not do genuine Muslim reformers any favor whatsoever by denying that there is any work they need do with the Koran and Islamic tradition, or by pretending that the source of the problem is other than what it is.

What are we to make of this? While there are many moderate muslims who wish to live peaceful lives, to argue that they are not living the life of a true/pure muslim can be made.

H/t: SondraK

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

A poem for Tokkie

Why you gotta hate?
Why why why
Why you want to gas him?
Why why why
He used to have a fro',
The baddest ass I know,
But now he says he's sorry,
So how 'bout we just let a brother go?*

In the immortal words of Tokkie Williams:

I'll get every one of you Mother fuckers.

*Graphic warning on link

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

The World according to Dean

News from Howard Dean:

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

So, there you have it. Deans says we are going to lose this war. Which means, among other things, that Iraq falls into terrorist's hands. But, hey, failure in Iraq will look good for the Democrats, so full STEAM AHEAD with the DEFEATIST TALK. Elections in Iraq are this month, yet this is the garbage coming out of this man's mouth?

More from Dean:

Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome

Now, this is where I always have a problem. I understand that the Reserves and Guard troops have been stretched thin since 9/11 (due, of course, to Clinton's policies of reducing the military- but THAT rarely gets discussed in this context.) BUT, the "job" of reserve and guard units is to be a fighting force. This is why they train, and why they are PAID. Before anyone signs up for the pay and benifits of a reserve force, they need to think long and hard as to whether or not it actually fits into their life. But, yes they do "belong" in this conflict.

Anyway, to sum up for Howard Dean:

withdrawal=strategic redeployment

Monday, December 05, 2005

Comments, anyone?

From Unbearable Bobness:

It must end one day and know that a U.S.  Army infantryman is not one molecule more a righteous soldier of God than a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a bus full of innocents, sorry, but such religious arrogance is nothing more than a geopolitical folie a deux.

Got that? Suicide bomber. US infantryman. Same.


First, I want you all to share my outrage that my friend Matt's blog (Lone Tree On the Prairie) has disappeared. Matt was on blogger, but if he can't get this fixed (and it's been broken since friday) he'll be leaving. I'm one step closer to taking that step myself. This isn't poetry I write, but it's kinda fun and it really really would crap my day if one day it went poof.

Second - You should all go and vote for File It Under in the Web Blog Awards. Why? Because he has that really funny news banner, that's why. And SECOND, because he is running against Dave from Garfield Ridge, and while he's funny, he has refused to link me, the bastard. It's as simple as that, my friends.

LINK ME, AND GET MY VOTE. This isn't rocket science.

Daily reading

James Robbins in NRO concerning those four kidnapped pacifists in Iraq:

A sensible terrorist political warfare strategy tries to drive wedges into the enemy society by isolating the groups you will never be able to win over and appealing to as wide a base as possible. The Swords of Truth Brigades should not be threatening the CPT team; they should be holding a joint press conference to denounce the Coalition. The way they are behaving is comparable to the North Vietnamese shooting Jane Fonda with a firing squad instead of a camera in 1972. The terrorists really do not know who their friends are. They kidnap humanitarian workers. They target journalists. They bomb the U.N. Lenin must be spinning in his tomb.

Stupid Minute Men.

Day after

I've got the day-after-birthday blas, and don't feel much like blogging. So, don't expect much.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Digging past the headlines

The headline (on the Yahoo homepage) I dug past was this :

US Bases Attacked in Iraq

And what I found was this :

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told reporters that suicide bombings fell to 23 in November, which he attributed to successful U.S.-Iraqi military operations against insurgent strongholds in the Euphrates River valley west of the capital.

"His weapon of choice is suicide bombers," Lynch said of the insurgents. "In the month of November: only 23 suicide attacks; the lowest we've seen in the last seven months, the direct result of the effectiveness of our operations.

In full disclosure, the AP headline is "Bombings in Iraq Fall to Seven-Month Low", which makes the Yahoo headline even more out-of-place. What they found worthy of a front-page splash was really was nothing of the sort. But, don't say the media is biased!

Police Lt. Mohammed al-Obaidi said at least four mortar rounds fell near the U.S. base on the eastern edge of the city, but that there were no reports of casualties. U.S. officials disputed the report and said only one grenade was fired.


You might have heard of attorney
Geoffrey Fieger, or seen him on Foxnews doing legal analysis. But, I'm sure you don't feel the same amusement that I do with this story:

Federal agents raided the law office of Geoffrey Fieger late Wednesday looking for evidence that he laundered $35,000 in campaign contributions to the John Edwards 2004 presidential campaign through his employees.

Fieger is one of those lawyers that sues the big guy, to the extreme financial advantage of the little guy (and his own practice of course - Fieger has SEVERAL very large homes in the bestest communities.) He is a bloodsucker of the worst kind; one who wraps himself in the cloak of Robin Hood. He files 100 million dollar lawsuits against police stations in which a man fleeing was ... shot. 100 Million. Perhaps the family (who filed the suit) should have taught their son not to flee the police, especially after being pulled over, and trying to run OVER a policeman.) 100 Million.

But, my disdain goes further, since in addition to being the type of lawyer that he is, he is also a democrat. So, what excuse does Fieger give for this raid?

“Yeah, right, I want to hear it from them.” Fieger said this morning, charging he’s the victim of Republican conspiracy. “I’m tired of all of this McCarthyism – period.”

Snicker. "Republican conspiracy." I wonder if he said that with a straight face.

Little known fact - Geoffrey is the brother to Doug Fieger lead singer of The Knack.

Woo hoo

I'm a "lowly insect." Can someone please explain how this is better than one of those "crusty crustacean" things? Because it certainly doesn't sound any better.

On fire

Ace is on fire. I hate to quote him, since many read him anyway, but he really puts in words the way I feel on this issue, and have wanted to address.

The Democratic Party and the New York Times (and the whole of the MSM) have a vested political interest in American defeat. They want America to lose. If America loses, Bush loses. If America loses, the Republicans lose. If America loses, the media and the Democratic Party wins. The Democrats take Congress and perhaps the Presidency, the media regains (it thinks) its supposed old reputation as an objective truth teller and National Repository of Wisdom In All Matters.

It's quite true that Bush and the Republicans have a vested political interest in the outcome of this war, too. As has been said too many times to easily count, Bush's Presidency depends on victory. If he wins in Iraq, he will be a successful president; if he is defeated, he will be a debacle.

While there's a selfish interest there, it can't help be noticed that Bush's selfish interest happens to coincide with the national interest. Whereas the Democrats' selfish interest is directly contrary to it.

This ties into the poll numbers, since you and I both know the majority of the population doesn't read beyond the headlines and the sports page. The MSM hates Bush, and thus every day drones on and on about how miserable the entire situation is. Your average person has no idea that there are actually positive things occurring in Iraq (stories that never occur in the headlines, if they can be found in the paper at all.)

I get it that there is a blinding (and irrational) hatred of Bush out there. What I don't get, is that people can't see beyond that hatred to see that what Bush wants SHOULD be wanted be everyone. A stable, democratic Iraq. The end of tyrannies. And vanquishing of terrorists.

Because - does anyone honestly believe that this is about oil? And war profiting? Bill Clinton said this a few years ago and isn't he considered the greatest president ever?:

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

The difference was, Clinton didn't have the balls. Or, they were busy (at the time) doing something else.