Goody goody gumdrops! Egypt is threatening to revoke its peace treaty with Israel.
OH PLEASE! Please do!
That would be a savings of several BILLION DOLLARS per year for us here in the good 'ol USA--money that could be much better spent, oh, I dunno, on arming ourselves and the Israelis to the TEETH so we could whip the sorry asses of those lazy fuckers in Egypt and elsewhere in the thankless Godless Middle East!
Fingers crossed over here Mr. Murbarak! Can't wait to see your corrupt regime bite the dust, you pandering bastard you!
Contrast this astounding statement from White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
"Why would it be our war? I mean, it's not on our territory. This is a war in which the United States--it's not even a war. What you have are hostilities, at this point, between Israel and Hezbollah. I would not characterize it as a war."
I know, the movie is long (1 hr. 17 min to be exact) but it's a MUST SEE. It should be required viewing by every American High School History student AND their parents. It should be required viewing by every American law-enforcement official, politician and member of the military as well.
If I were gutsier (and my husband would allow it), I would create a group called Mothers Against Muslim Extremism (MAME for short) whose purpose would be the protection of the Children of the West from the mind-numbing stupidity that teaches them to view all other cultures--as one idiotic mother on my local mommy board said--as "equally wonderful as our own."
I would have my organization tour the nation (and the world) teaching children that a culture that hates you simply for breathing is NOT wonderful at all. A culture that wants to kill for the pure ecstasy of killing, is not beautiful, is not valuable, is not worth saving. I would also teach that our culture does NOT do those things, and should be saved.
I would work hard to make sure every kid over the age of 10 saw that movie. I would make sure they knew exactly who their enemies were, and I'd make sure their parents were hopping mad enough to start demanding from the rooftops that their leaders DO SOMETHING ALREADY!
What the world does NOT need is World War II: The Sequel.
Unfortunately, that appears to be what we're getting, and even the so-called "war monger" Bush doesn't see it for what it is.
Someone ought to tell Hillary "It Takes a Village" Clinton that her "village" isn't doing the job she says it should, and for some reason, doesn't feel bad about that (quel surprise....). Gee, d'ya think it could have anything to do with the Anti-Personal-Responsibility Movement started by her husband, Bill "I did not have "sexual relations" with that woman..." Clinton? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....I wonder (not).
Out of Line: Why We're Reluctant
To Reprimand Other People's Children
July 27, 2006; Page D1
Sara Roberts may be the most mortified teenager in America.Against her will, her mother and stepfather placed a bumper sticker on her car. It asks, "How's My Teen Driving?" and has a toll-free number for motorists to call.
"I don't like it, but my parents say I can't drive without it," says 16-year-old Sara. In her hometown of Highland, Mich., her peers laugh at her sticker.
Sara is a guinea pig for the bumper sticker because her stepdad, Les Ladd, is the entrepreneur developing this teen-surveillance service. Mr. Ladd admits, however, that the concept is a tough sell. He is finding that parents don't want to offend their kids by making them drive with the stickers, or they feel strangers shouldn't be judging their offspring.
This isn't surprising. As a society, we have grown reluctant to reprimand kids -- not just our own, but other people's, too. Yes, in theory, we believe it takes a village to raise a child. But lately, the village feels pressure to keep its collective mouth shut.
To combat the problem, child advocates are trying to bring back the concept of "parents beyond parents." They tout research showing that kids who receive constructive input from an array of adults are less likely to use drugs, lie to parents or commit crimes. Michael Gurian is co-founder of the Gurian Institute in Colorado Springs, Colo., an educational training organization that compiles child-rearing research. He believes problems such as anorexia, depression and chronic stress in children are exacerbated because kids today often live in communities where nobody but their nuclear families seems to care much about them.
I once interviewed radio host Garrison Keillor, who lamented that "adults no longer dare to influence other people's children" by telling them to quiet down or tuck in their shirts. In his novel "Wobegon Boy," Mr. Keillor longs for the era when "you didn't smart off to elders, and if a lady you didn't know told you to blow your nose, you blew it."
But the truth is, today's kids often welcome discipline by outsiders, even if they roll their eyes.
Alana Schemers, 15, tells of inviting a male classmate to her home when her mother wasn't there. A neighbor saw the boy enter the house and called Alana's mother on her cellphone. Within minutes, Alana heard from her mom, who told her the boy had to leave. Alana still likes her neighbor, and sees the wisdom in the woman's decision to butt in. "It could prevent me from doing something stupid in the future," she says.
I met Alana last week in Troy, Mich. She was part of a focus group of teens organized by Mr. Ladd to get input on his bumper stickers. He explained to them that the program -- which is slated to cost $59.95 a year -- could save lives by reining in teens' reckless driving.
Even though Mr. Ladd dangled the prospect of free gas coupons if kids allowed stickers on their cars, many echoed the words of Megan Arnold, 16: "I can't see myself driving with that sticker, but when I have kids, I'll want to know how they're driving."
Too many parents, however, don't want to be told when their kids do something wrong. They are defensive, worrying that any criticism reflects poorly on them. Or they are overprotective, fearing every stranger is a potential predator. Or they are indulgent, thinking they must protect their little darlings' self-esteem.
Dan McCauley, owner of A Taste of Heaven Cafe in Chicago, caused an uproar last fall when he posted the following sign: "Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices." Offended local moms mounted a boycott. Widespread media coverage followed.
Since then, supportive customers have shared with Mr. McCauley tales of their exasperation when they reprimanded other people's kids. One woman told him she was at a Starbucks, and a little girl kept opening artificial sweetener packets and sprinkling them around the room like fairy dust. "Honey, should you be doing that?" the woman asked the girl.
"I beg your pardon!" snapped the girl's mother. "Don't call my daughter 'honey,' and whatever she does is none of your business!"
Mr. McCauley laments such stories. "We have a society now where the assumption is that children should never be addressed," he says. "But we have to keep reminding kids that they're part of a community, sharing space with other people."
Victoria Juster of Long Grove, Ill., serves on her local school board. One day, driving behind a school bus, she saw two preteens hitting and choking each other in the last row. When the bus stopped to drop off students, Ms. Juster asked the driver for permission to board and then addressed the battling kids.
Parents of those students later demanded that she resign from the school board, saying she had no right to get on the bus and reprimand their children. Ms. Juster was later cleared by a school-district investigation.
Today, she stands by what she did. She fondly recalls adults of earlier eras who felt a duty to discipline. As a child, she would visit a friend's home, and if she misbehaved, her friend's mom would make her sit in the corner. Today, she says, if she put a neighbor's kid in the corner, "I'm sure he'd never be allowed back in my house" -- or his parents would call their lawyer.
That mind-set must change, says Mr. Gurian. His institute advises mothers and fathers to share parenting duties by creating a team of five or 10 friends, colleagues, neighbors or fellow parishioners. These people can mentor, admonish and love your children, and you can do the same for theirs.
Kids seem to yearn for this sort of attention. As 15-year-old Joe Cypert put it at the teen focus group: "It would be cool to live in a neighborhood like that."
Write to Jeffrey Zaslow at jeffrey.zaslow@wsj.com
Sounds like a game show! (Yeah, on Hell TV, the network of choice for savvy terrorists everywhere)
Anyway, since no one in the MSM seems to "get" that "negotations" involve making sure each side gets something they WANT, I decided to write a hypothetical script for what it might sound like if Condi Rice went face-to-snout with Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah (what it might sound like, that is, if she were HONEST and not trying hard to pretend that she was talking to a human being and not Satan incarnate).
You see, there's nothing Israel could give Hezbollah (or Hamas for that matter) that it really wants, other than Israel itself, with or without Israeli corpses instead of living citizens (preferably with of course--they dock you virgins in "Paradise" if you fail to actually "kill" the infidels).
Hezbollah didn't start this fight to get a "cease fire." They didn't start it to get territory, other than the territory currently known as Israel. What then could they get out of "negotiating?" What "win" could any negotiator like Condi Rice offer? Prisoner swaps? Anyone who believes that better just go back to their bong and keep smoking. Let's see how that would sound:
Condi: "Mr. Nasrallah, if you would just stop the random, unprovoked, illegal acts of terror you are currently perpetrating in violation of not one, but two UN resolutions, Israel is prepared to offer you several dozen unharmed, well-fed, well-rested members of your organization who--like you--are sworn to spend their lives (literally) pursuing the destruction of Israel.
Of course Mr. Nasrallah, we hope it goes without saying that in exchange for the live bodies of your followers you will also return the dead and (probably) mutilated bodies of the innocent Israeli soldiers you brutally kidnapped two weeks ago. We can assure you, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN and all other potentially interested parties will swarm like starving maggots all over the Israelis to investigate--in full view of the CNN, MSNBC, BBC, SkyNews and Al Jazeera cameras, and with exclusive print rights to the New York Times--the treatment your followers received while incarcerated (and legally represented). At the same time, we promise that these same entities won't as much as fart in your general direction. No need to worry about accusations of war crimes, no sir, we'll reserve the right of the Jew Hating "International Community" to level those at Israel and only Israel.
If you agree to this deal, and promise to honor it until your newly released followers have at least had a chance to shit, shower, change and load their rocket launchers (we figure somewhere in the vacinity of five and a half minutes), Israel will pull its troops out of Lebanon forthwith and return to her status as your target practice for the rest of us blind, deaf and dumb infidels.
Whaddaya say?"
Nasrallah: "Blessings be upon you so that your mangled corpse will rot more quickly in hell after we kill you and everyone who matters to you." "We accept!"
Someone on the left "gets" it.
Blame the terrorists, not Israel
by Alan M. Dershowitz - July 24, 2006
THE HEZBOLLAH and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of ``overreaction," ``disproportionality," and ``violations of human rights." In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.
If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.
It should be obvious by now that Hezbollah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians. That is why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian ``shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities. They regard these human shields as ``Shahids," or martyrs, even if they did not volunteer for the lethal jobs. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of their shields, even if the bullets that kill them come from policemen's guns.Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them -- on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians. Now that some of those who are launching rockets at Israeli cities have announced that they have new surprises in store for Israel that may include chemical and biological weapons, the stakes are even higher. What would Israeli critics regard as ``proportioned" to a chemical or biological attack? What would they say if Israel tried to preempt such an attack and, in the process, killed some civilians? Must a democracy absorb a first strike from a weapon of mass destruction before it fights back?
When are we going to stop sugar-coating this debate and call people who would say that what they really are: ANTI-SEMITES.
I'm sure the left-wing asshats who loathe and detest the President are foaming at the mouth in some kind of mad glee these days, there are so many of THEIR reasons to hate him, so much ammo for their cause (they think).
Whether it's Kim Jong Il and his threats, Iran and theirs, the garden-variety everyday violence in Iraq, or the current rapidly escalating war (I should really say battle) between Israel and the forces of Islamofascism that surround her, the left can easily fill a 24-hour newsday with accusations that Bush really has ruined the world by lifting the rock under which these particular insects live (since, of course, the left inhabits a fantasy world in which simply leaving well-enough-alone would have enabled "peace" between ourselves and our allies and the terrorist elements).
Thing is, they will rapidly run out of steam and their arguments will ring very hollow indeed when it turns out they were right, but for the wrong reasons. When suddenly their laughter turns to screaming, they will very quickly wish he HADN'T listened to their lunatic rantings.
Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the Middle East Quarterly explains why:
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," President Bush declared at his second inauguration.Government-controlled newspapers in the Arab world scoffed at the idea of democracy. Egypt's al-Ahram daily called it "worrying." The United Arab Emirates' al-Bayan wrote that "the slogan of fighting tyranny is just a pompous expression." Many Bush critics in the United States agreed.
Still, democracy took root in what many once dismissed as infertile ground. Lebanon's Cedar Revolution drove out Syrian military occupation. Just a year ago, Lebanon's future looked bright. U.S. diplomatic pressure forced Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak to hold his first contested presidential election. That democracy came to Iraq through war may be unpopular, but it does not cancel the fact that Iraqis went to the polls three times, twice to pick a leader and once to ratify a constitution.
Dissent grew bold. Libyan democracy activist Fathi El-Jahmi publicly challenged Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi to hold elections. Rola Dashti campaigned tirelessly for women's suffrage in Kuwait. Jordanian columnist Salameh Nematt took the call for democracy a step further when, on Nov. 25, 2004, he called on all Arab states to embrace democracy. "It is outrageous and amazing that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place... in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation," he wrote in the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat.
Dissent in the Middle East was no cakewalk. Gadhafi threw El-Jahmi in prison. Both Dashti and Nematt received death threats. An Egyptian court sentenced activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim for his writings about human rights and democracy. But even as they challenged entrenched leaders, dissidents could count on Washington as an ally. Bush defied diplomatic convention and withheld $130 million in aid until Egypt released Ibrahim. Senators lobbied for El-Jahmi's release. The State Department chastised Iran's treatment of its imprisoned civil society activists, and condemned the murder of Lebanese journalists.
No longer. Where just last year, the White House condemned the murder of Lebanese writers, it now remains silent as Libyan security agents kidnap and kill journalists. Hezbollah might not have sparked the latest violence had Washington kept up pressure for its disarmament. El-Jahmi is back in prison. At the Palestinian Authority's request, the State Department banned liberal Palestinian activist Issam Abu Issa from the United States after he blew the whistle on corruption.
Not only adversaries get a free pass. In the face of Bush's reversal, U.S. allies who once considered reform now abandon it. Take Mubarak: In recent months, his regime has imprisoned the opposition candidate, an arson attack has destroyed the opposition headquarters, Mubarak has canceled municipal elections, and his security forces have arrested judges who dared to complain. Last week, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh - who wields absolute power - reversed his decision to step down and now says he will run again. Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali - who won his last election with more than 94 percent of the vote - has waged a wholesale assault on independent civil society. In the midst of a crackdown on journalists and bloggers, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Tunis to meet Ben Ali. Many Tunisians compare the photo of the meeting to Rumsfeld's 1983 handshake with Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Kurdish leader Masud Barzani now casts democracy aside as he builds a personality cult and transforms Iraqi Kurdistan into his own personal fiefdom. Even in democratic Turkey, the White House remains silent as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan refuses to implement supreme court rulings that say he has overstepped his power.
That Bush betrays his rhetoric is tragic. While he once spoke of freedom, he now courts those who oppose it. Fighting terror and supporting reform need not be mutually exclusive. Last year Bush promised, "America will stand with the people that desire a free and democratic Iraq." Now his administration talks of withdrawal, leaving those who put their lives on the line for democracy to wither. Just as his father once called on Iraqis to stand up and fight dictatorship only to abandon them to Saddam's gunships, so too does George W. Bush now abandon Arab freedom-seekers, only on a much larger scale and with far more dire consequences for both Middle Eastern democracy and U.S. credibility.
Let's hope not.
See you on the flip side! Good luck Israel, I'm rooting for the good guys in this fight. Kick some Islamic ASS!
Saw this on a local "mommy" board, and it was too priceless NOT to share. You may have received it over e-mail already from someone (it's making the rounds), but just in case not, it's still worth a read.
For all the children of the 40s, 50s and 60s (and even early 70s, which I was), this is for all of us:
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while
they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna
from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby
cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we
rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took
hitchhiking.
As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster
seats, seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE
actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank koolaid made
with sugar, but we weren't overweight because .
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING !
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we
were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down
the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the
bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no
150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's,
no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or chat rooms..........
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live
in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with
sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we
did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or
rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who
didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!
These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem
solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
If YOU are one of them . . . CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as
kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our
lives for our own good .
And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how
brave (and lucky) their parents were.
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!
I sent that to my Dad, and this was his response:
Reflects my thoughts exactly. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the satellites went down (no tv or cell phones), criminals who prey on children were summarily executed (so children could be safe without constant adult supervision), and there was a shortage of plastics, etc. used to make all the stupid indoor toys. Then kids could play and improvise again (although broom handles would all probably contain large warning labels that using them to hit balls could result in injury from flying glass if the ball were hit through a window).
Read about the Holy See's condemnation of Israel over at Michelle Malkin's site, and all I can say is "Is that a dunce cap on your head your "Holier-than-thou-ness," or are you just glad to see another opportunity for the Catholic church to return to its roots of hating the joooooooos?"
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican on Friday strongly deplored Israel's strikes on Lebanon, saying they were "an attack" on a sovereign and free nation.
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Pope Benedict and his aides were very worried that the developments in the Middle East risked degenerating into "a conflict with international repercussions.""In particular, the Holy See deplores right now the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and assures its closeness to these people who already have suffered so much to defend their independence," he told Vatican Radio.
The LAST thing the "free" Lebanese or their supporters should do is blame Israel for cleaning up the infectious boil of of a terroristic state-within-a-state they allowed to fester on their soil.
It might do the Catholic Church good to remember which is their dog in this fight. Hint: NOT the islamothugs that's for sure! They've stated publicly and unequivocally that it's one of their fondest dreams to return the Vatican to the rubble of yet another civilization conquered by barbarians.
If New York is the terrorists' Kilimanjaro, Vatican City is their Everest. They will not rest until their freak flag flies atop the shattered remains of both places.
Everthing Lashawn Barber writes is brilliant of course, but
There is a growing movement in the United States to mainstream mediocrity and define deviancy down. All cultures, ways of life, or however you want to define the ideals under which we live, are not equal, nor were they meant to be. American culture, for lack of a better term, is far better than any other on earth, including its diverse subcultures.
Among the native-born population, subcultures develop under the influence of American culture. They are dependent on and part of the main culture.
Some groups of foreigners retain part of their culture while assimilating into American culture. Other foreigners retain all of their culture and have no desire to assimilate into American culture. The latter group is a threat to how we live.
In fact, the immigrant of old is quickly becoming a relic. People land on these shores and demand from us that which would have gotten them imprisoned or killed in their home countries. With everyone from homosexuals to Muslims glomming on to the “civil rights” meme, it’s no great surprise that illegal aliens — lawbreakers — have become emboldened to demand “civil rights.”
I put the phrase in quotes because these people don’t want the obligations that come with those rights; they only want the benefits. Illegal aliens who’ve broken our laws take to our streets and demand the protection of our laws. They want to be special, not equal. They don’t want to play by the rules; they want exceptions. But the sword cuts both ways.
Illegal alien protests are only a small example of a much larger problem in the U.S. I don’t know exactly when the seed was planted, but I’d say it began to sprout and flourish in the last 20 years or so. What am I talking about? Diversity, the idea that value exists in differences, as defined by social engineers. There’s nothing valuable or worth celebrating about differences per se. Differences just are. But someone sold the idea that the dominant culture was no better than its subcultures, and that all values were equally valid and “good.” Or that the culture of an African or other third world country was not inferior to American, or Western culture.
Anybody with eyes, ears, heart, and mind knows this is not true. The ideals upon which our country was built are far superior to any other. And yes, the people who dared to dream of such a place and participate in this grand experiment are superior to others in all the ways that count.
[Emphasis mine]
That's an order!
I've sent a post to Alois at Schmaltz und Grieben about Israel's justifiable attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, so there's no point repeating it here.
Suffice it to say
IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME!
I only hope Israel treats this as a real WAR, not just an incursion, not just a police action, not just a rounding up of the usual suspects or a retaliation. I hope they kick some serious islamothug ASS.
Lebanese Christians deserve to be free from Hezbollah threats, they deserve to live free and not as human shields for terrorists.
Palestinian Christians deserve the same, plus the ability to live in something other than the squalor created by those who care more about destroying Israel than about helping their own people.
We need to see what it looks like to fight to WIN. We've forgotten, it seems.
Europe needs to be told in no uncertain terms to fuck-off-and-die if they do or say anything un-supportive about Israel because (as they've already seen), they are NEXT if Israel fails.
The Arab world needs (FINALLY) to lose the ability to use the Palestinians and Lebanese as pawns in their sick game to distract the world from their own tyranny and chicanery .
And Israel deserves to defend itself, to make good on the promise to its people that "never again" would they go willingly to their deaths without a fight.
I pray they will demolish the will as well as the ability of these vermin to terrorize innocents anymore, and I pray just as hard that we will be watching when they do. I pray hardest that we will wake up and realize who the real villains are before that happens so we don't make the mistake of casting the bad guys as the good, and vice versa. Because nothing is more dangerous than pretending your enemy is your friend, especially if the only one who believes the lie is YOU.
Posting will be light to non-existent for a week. We're off on vacation (finally), but with luck I will return refreshed and ready to write on this or any other subject.
In the meantime, please pray for the people of Israel. They are in a fight they can win, let's hope they ignore their critics and DO!
Hat-tip to Alois for this brilliant piece by Ralph Peters.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
--------------------------
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them.
Found this
In Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and various unelected regulatory bodies that pretty much do whatever they please, 2003
THE CURRENT SENTIMENT OF A DIVERSE GROUP OF CARING, COMPASSIONATE, ENLIGHTENED, PROGRESSIVE, AND HUMBLE PERSONS WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD BUT WHO CURRENTLY RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
When in the Course of human (and animal) events, it becomes necessary for one demographic statistical unit to dissolve the political bands which have connected others to it, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's interpreters -- university professors -- entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of peoplekind (and animals) requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these feelings to sound very progressive at cocktail parties, that all people (and animals) are created equal -- unless we are talking about universities, corporations, the military, private golf clubs, Rotary clubs, chess clubs, and dance clubs, where the Government reserves the right to decide who is more equal than others -- and that they are endowed by their government with certain Rights, be they illegal aliens or not, that among these are to live their lives liberated from bad luck, earthly wants, and unhappiness.
That to expand these rights on whim, even when they contradict each other, Governments are instituted among people (and animals), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governors in charge at the time.
That whenever any form of Private initiative becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Government to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government-run enterprises, laying their foundation on such principles and organizing their powers in such form, as to bureaucrats shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness -- that is, of the bureaucrats (and animals). Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, such as those associated with elections or public referenda; and accordingly all experience has shown, that peoplekind (and animals) are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, until Governments come along to solve their problems for them in ways to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object of making a free people independent and self-reliant, evinces a design to get them out from under absolute Despotism, it is the right, it is the duty, of those in Government to throw off outdated notions such as fixed constitutions and abstract principles of individual liberty, and to provide new Guards with a monopoly on gun ownership for their future security -- meaning the security of Government officials (and animals).
Such has been the patient sufferance of these members of Congress, the judiciary, and regulatory bodies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The author of this ditty adds:
Just kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? In celebrating this new Declaration of Dependence, Americans should probably consider changing their holiday traditions a bit. Veggie burgers and chick-pea dogs should be prepared, but only using a solar-powered grill. Marching bands should play gentle ballads and be encouraged to express themselves -- march in any direction they feel like, play if they want to, or just sit down and appreciate diversity. Patriotic speeches should focus on what's deeply, horribly wrong with America, as that is the mark of a true patriot. As for fireworks, applications for their limited use will have to be handled by the appropriate authorities, who are still in the process of convening a search committee to establish a study commission to evaluate a citizen advisory panel's recommendations as to how to process applications to obtain non-violent fireworks, preferably those of native cultures that pay a living wage and respect the dignity of all persons (and animals).AAAAACK!
I don't think that was really an earthquake we had last month, it was just John Locke's body rolling over in his grave.
I just came across some archived HTML documents from my first-ever blog, appropriately titled "Crazy Lady in the Corner." I thought it would be amusing to read some of my early pre-9/11, pre-unemployment, pre-marriage, pre-mommy, pre-stay-at-home-mommy rants. Oh it was amusing alright. And then it was sad, tragic actually. Realizing how funny and articulate I used to be is making me wonder what happened to me? Did I really (as some claim) lose brain cells during pregnancy? Are they gone forever? Or am I just too serious now, too caught up in a world-gone-mad to see the humor, the real humor, in much of what's wrong with the world.
Before 9/11, you could blog about stupid things like conslutting jargon (oopsl, I meant consulting, Freudian slip or typo?), after? I guess you still can, but it just doesn't feel right. Before kids, I could blog about people's stupidity with more laughter than anger, now that I have children, who have to grow up in a world inhabited by so many stupid people, I'm finding it's not so funny.
I don't mean to say there's nothing funny to write about anymore, sure there is, but it's all sardonically funny, ironically funny, tragically funny, at best. At worst it's just plain infuriating, not funny at all.
But I miss the old me a little now. I miss being witty about life's foibles. I miss not taking it all so seriously, and I wonder, can I ever go back there? What would it take?
North Korea? Not scaring me (not yet anyway, maybe if they get some missiles that work, but not yet). Iran? Yeah, scary, definitely scary, but unlike N. Korea, they don't have bombs OR missiles (yet). What scares me is what we are allowing--nay, ENCOURAGING--to happen in our country.
You've heard the arguments, "work no American will do...hardworking, decent people...just want a better life...economy depends on them...contributing more than they take...", there's just one problem: It's all bullshit.
I could cite more examples, but Lashawn does such a nice job of linking to them, why not just link to her! I especially liked what one of her commenters said:
La Shawn:Before yesterday's Mexican election, I was "on the fence" with Bush on some issues.
NO MORE.
50% of Mexican voters supported a Castro wannabe. Are these the people we want to invite into our country with open arms? Does any sane person believe these people will vote Republican?
Who cares anyway? Isn't anyone else galled by the fact that Republicans we voted for have already cast us and our votes aside, as if we were dying or already dead and unable to vote for them ever again? As if we were going to raise our kids to be Democrats or some other voting block they wouldn't need to worry about? Isn't anyone else terrified to be led by people who've thrown in the towel on our country, our culture, our sovereignty at least 30 years prematurely? I mean, no one predicts that hispanics will make up half our population until at least 2030, and by most estimations, if things keep going as they are now, it won't be until 2050, by that time, most of these pathetic politicians will be DEAD, so what do they care who'll be voting THEN? Shouldn't they care who'll be voting in a few months?
But more importantly, if they are soooo concerned about the future, could they worry a little more about the future of the people of this country, not just their party? Are they truly so loyal to their party they care if it's in power after they're dead and gone? Does party trump country? Are their kids and grandkids not Americans, native born and here LEGALLY? Last time I checked, we still didn't allow illegals to run for office, so I sure hope so.
I must be missing something. If the Senate and the President have their way, the illegals here now, and the countless others who would come as a result of their asinine bill, won't be voting the day it passes, and as Lashawn's commenter points out, they aren't likely to vote republican! If they catch on to the notion that Republicans are not known to be the party of social welfare programs and billingual education, they aren't likely to vote GOP. Are they seriously counting on hispanic religiosity and so-called "family values" for votes? I'm pretty sure people who hoof it across a searing desert, or in the back of a stifling truck, or throuh a fetid sewer aren't more concerned with who can and cannot get an abortion than they are with who can and cannot get medicaid or a host of other government hand-outs.
I just don't get why our politicians aren't looking at the following statistics:
- Out of every 10 people in each state, how many are here illegally? You can't look at it nationally, because states with little to offer illegals or non-border states will throw it off, make it look less. Look at Colorado, for example, where 1 in 3 people are illegal aliens, then ask if the people of that state are being well served by their elected officials?
- Out of every 10 school children in each state, how many are here illegally or are anchor kids of illegals who pay no tax to pay for the education they're receiving? Taxpayers should know this number like they know their own name before they ever vote in favor of raising their own taxes on a school bond measure.
- How much of each dollar we pay in taxes goes to pay for providing healthcare to illegal aliens? How much of that ends up reflected in the cost of our own health insurance after hospitals and doctors raise their rates to cover the losses not covered by the government?
- Out of every 10 violent crimes in this country, how many are perpetrated by illegal aliens? How many cild molesters are here illegally? Estimates will do.
- How many cases of TB, measles, polio and other unseen-for-decades diseases are cropping up in urban areas with large illegal populations? Why do legal immigrants have to take elaborate physicals to come here legally, while Senators and the President seem unfazed by the potential for sickness spread by illegals?
Do I need to go on? Why aren't these questions being asked loudly, by more of us? Why aren't we demanding that our lawmakers know the answers, cold, like they know their own names? Why aren't we asking them how they'd feel if their votes didn't count as much as they maybe-votes of some future population of hispanics who may or may not even be eligible to vote, regardless of how they got here (it is still illegal to vote if you're not a citizen, isn't it?)?
We keep arguing about whether we need or don't need these people, or whether it's fair or possible to get rid of them, but what we're not doing is looking at what will happen either way! What if we do need these people, why is that? What will that do to us? I'm sure the South could have convincingly argued it "needed" the slaves, but they were made to do without them just as surely as restaurants, agribusiness, hotels, lawn services, construction contractors and the like could be. It was hard on the South, but they survived, and so could these businesses, and so could the rest of us. Not doing something because it's "hard" will only leave you with other "hard" problems to solve, probably harder ones. Why are we ignoring this?
I admit it.
OK, I wasn't exactly wrong, I still think the Observer does a daily disservice to our men and women in uniform, and I still think their choice of headline was absurd, but it's becoming obvious that the soldier accused of heinous acts is probably guilty.
The only other thing I'm going to say on this subject with what's left of our Nation's birthday, is that unlike the criminals who routinely rape, torture, kill, mutilate and terrorize Iraqis, Americans and others who don't support their cause, our soldiers who commit crimes will be prosecuted, will be condemned by the entire world, and if found guilty, will be brought to justice, even put to death if that's the punishment they deserve.
I can admit I was wrong to suggest that our soldiers were being framed in this instance, but I still stand by my assertion that it can be, and probably is, a tactic employed by our enemies to accuse of of things we do not do. I also suppose, as one commenter suggests, that there are other cases that go unreported like the one in question here. What galls me is when newspapers try to make it appear as though all that's going on in Iraq are U.S. perpetrated atrocities. The amount of good we are doing over there far outweighs the bad, but you'd never know it, and for sure our enemies and potential friends abroad never would either! If they have a dim view of the U.S., it's not only because these crimes are committed, it's because the media only covers the crimes, not our efforts to fully investigate, prosecute and punish the offenders.
Put another way, when Insurgents recently kidnapped and slaughtered two of our own soldiers, did the papers react with the same degree of horror? Did they print stories about it above the fold, in bold letters, for days? (Hint: the correct answer is NO). Crickets were heard chirping in the E.U. and other allied nations as well. But with this story? As horrible as it is, you'd think it's something we do all the time, all over Iraq, with impunity.
I realize papers exist to sell papers, not to be "balanced," but given that freedom of the press is only protected by the brave actions of soldiers like the ones in Iraq, men and women who volunteer to do so, you'd think--or at least you'd hope--they'd WANT to be more balanced in their reporting, regardless of who sent the soldiers or why they are there.
On that note, I'm going to bed. Happy Birthday America, God bless and keep you free.
Shit! I didn't get the memo!
Either that or the Charlotte Observer has simply declared itself and its staff to be unaffiliated with this country. What else am I to make of this headline yesterday? U.S. says it's soldiers raped Iraqi, killed 4
"IT'S" soldiers? IT'S?
This headline made me temporarily insane. I actually started muttering obscenities to myself right in the middle of Starbucks! That's where I read it you see, since I no longer have a subscription. People around me were looking at me like I had two heads, and I'm sad to report, not one person there seemed to "get" what my problem was with the headline? Granted, could be cuz it was Starbucks (hey, I can't help it, I like the iced Chai...), but it was a Saturday afternoon, there were all kinds in there, and this is a family neighborhood. It wasn't the usually "independent bookseller" crowd. I was so glad I'd already stopped getting the paper becaue had I not, I would have wasted time taking care of that yesterday too.
Now I know what you're going to say, the story came from the AP, everyone KNOWS they put a decidedly anti-US slant on the news, but the Observer has the right to create it's own headlines! Even the hateful shameless Narcissistic Yellow Traitors (the NYTimes) created their own headline. Not much better, but at least they still consider themselves Americans!
Not so the Observer. They've openly declared their lack of association with the United States in an AMERICAN paper, and a local one at that! And on the eve of 4th of July weekend? Does that mean they no longer have the freedom of speech guaranteed by OUR constitution too? (pleasepleaseplease!!!)
The sickest part is, if you read the article, you clearly see that the headline is--at best--a twisting of the facts. To read it, you'd think the U.S government itself had declared with a certainty that some of OUR own soldiers had done these heinous crimes. The large print sure makes you think that.
Problem is, that's NOT the case at all.
BEIJI, Iraq —A group of American soldiers in an insurgent-riddled town allegedly noticed a young Iraqi woman when on patrol and later returned to rape her, according to U.S. officials Friday.In an apparent cover-up attempt, she and three members of her family then were killed and her body was set onfire. [Hey, where did "allegedly" go?? --Deb]
FiveU.S. soldiers are being investigated, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press.
It is th efifth pending case involving alleged slayings of Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops.
The suspects in the killing, which ["allegedy," conveniently left out here too --Deb] took place in March, were from the same platoon as two soldiers kidnapped and killed south of Baghdad last month, said the official, who is close to the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of thecase.
One soldier was arrested after admitting his role in the alleged attack on the family, the U.S. official said.
Answer? WE DO NOT!
We are talking about allegations, made by Iraqis in an insurgent-sympathetic town. Why do we automatically believe their account, especially since the "evidence" was "allegedly" burned? How do we know there wasn't a rape and attack by insurgents then BLAMED on U.S. soldiers? We know nothing, but the Observer, and the AP report it as fact in the headlines, and only point to "allegations" if you read on. You only figure out that they really have no firm evidence of a rape and murder if you parse their sentences further to discover all they do have is a soldier admitting to a role in an attack. Could be THIS attack with these specifics, could be something else.
What sickens me is that the media reports on this as if the number of investigations and soldiers accused is in itself the only story. What they're missing is that there's another story there, a darker one, more insidious, and one in which the media may play a starring role. Given the way our current enemies consume and study our media for the purpose of manipulating our will to fight this war (since they can't win militarily, it's not that big a stretch to think they'd stage all sorts of heinous acts in places where American soldiers are, and then make sure they get accused by Iraqis of doing the deeds. In fact, I'm SURE it's happening, 100% sure.
I'm not saying these soldiers are innocent, I have no idea, but neither do you, and neither does the Observer. Printing stories with headlines that suggest otherwise not only does a disservice to the over 1M brave men and women who have cycled through Iraq without committing crimes, it absolutely aids and abets our enemy.
But that shouldn't bother the Observer since they aren't Americans anymore anyway.