You know, I disagree with Christopher Hitchens about God (he's an atheist after all), but I can't take away from the man his sheer brilliance when he focuses his disdain for organized religion in the direction of those who useit to justify intolerance and general unruliness, never mind cold-blooded murder.
His latest piece for Slate is a case in point. [Hat tip to Alois for the link]. In it, he explains "Rage Boy" to us. You've seen him, the seemingly professional Muslim effigy-burning, flag-trampling, open-mouthed-screaming lunatic who is always free on the day that someone, somewhere 'insults' his God. He's always got enough time on his hands to show up and pose for the cameras doesn't he?
But here's what Hitch has to say to the rest of us about him and how we should react to him:
We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.
I saw Star Parker do her best to talk sense while Barbara Walters was incessantly rude and condescending to her.
I saw Joyless Behar be her usual Joyless self, but today she must've been chanelling Rosie. She said that Bush had "taken over" all three branches of the government, and that her proof was the Alberto Gonzales "story." [shakes head in disbelief and exasperation]
Where have I been? And here I thought the House and Senate were Democrat-controlled these days! Not to mention that the balance of the Supreme Court is still tipping in the liberal's favor, what with Ginsberzerk, Kennedy and Seuter still in there. So now they're matched by three conservative justices and that's considered a "takeover?" Wow. Parity is control? What color is the sky in your world Joy?
And, the kicker to the whole experience? I heard Michael Moore tell Star Parker how well our government handles Social Security. No, I am NOT MAKING THIS UP! He maintained that our handling of Social Security is evidence that our government is not only capable of administering a huge centralized socialized healthcare system (at all), but that it would be good at it!
Oh, ouch, my sides still hurt from laughing so hard! He actually said--out loud, in front of millions of people--that the fact that elderly recipients get their checks like clockwork "on time every month" means our government would be good at choosing, providing and administering our healthcare? Yeah, cuz writing a check and picking a doctor are so analagous! Never mind the gargantuan problem the Social Security administration is facing when there aren't enough people paying into the system to have enough to write those checks at all, never mind ON TIME! They are already borrowing from other places to do that now Michael, or did you just return from the other planet on which you've been living for the past decade? That's the only legitimate explanation I can think of for you not knowing that!
He also said that lots of parts of our government are socialized already and cited first responders as an example. He said healthcare should be the same b/c it saves lives, and our lives depend upon it. Just one little problem Michael, first responders--for all the wonderful things they do--do not have the burden of coming up with new and more advanced ways of stabilizing us for transport to hospitals, or of putting our fires. To be sure, they have to do this, but not nearly on the same scale that doctors and researchers and pharma labs have to. We demand more cures, better treatments at lower costs every day, but he doesn't want there to be room for ANY profit in medicine. Well gee, that's just swell. So Mike, without profit, what do you suggest we do about investing in finding those cures and new treatments? What will be the incentive? Our asking for them? The government is going to find, hire and pay the researchers? Really? And how much more tax will we have to pay for all this? And when someone decides to sue because they didn't get what they needed (or are we no longer going to be allowed to do that because it's the government suddenly), will all of us have to pay the settlement or award? From our taxes?
What about energy? Oil, natural gas, electric companies, one could argue their services support life, without them it would be pretty hard to survive in most places in this country, but even they are allowed to make a small profit. Should that stop too? If so, how do you expect them to find new and better ways of heating/cooling and powering our lives? If we only pay for the services rendered, not a dime more, where will the R&D funds come from? The gov't again? Add another line item to our bill folks! Yeah, those pesky profits, they're what's killing us. Having to pay 50-60% of our incomes in taxes just to keep the whole machine rolling along, that would be soooo much better. [Eyeroll]
I have two words for you Mike: WALTER REED. Been there? Check it out. Then ask yourself how you'd feel getting all your care from the government, and how well they are doing taking care of--not the least amongst us, but the BEST?
To add insult to injury, he was telling all of this to a woman who has lived on welfare and has, therefore, depended upon Gov't provided healthcare in the form of medicaid. If she's telling him it doesn't work, maybe he--a person who claims to care about "the least amongst us" should listen?
That's another thing he did that floored me...Michael Moore was quoting JESUS to justify his position on healthcare. Yes, you read correctly. Michael Moore claims to be a practicing Catholic folks. And he said that he is moved by the teachings of Jesus who said that we should care for the least amongst us. And what happened when Star tried to point out--quite correctly I might add--that Jesus never said "go to your neighbors and take from their pockets to care for the least amongst us," he merely said we should EACH individually do what we could, she was shouted down and held back (literally, Barbara kept sticking her arm out to block her when Star was being perfectly polite about it) from making her point.
Yes, Michael Moore doesn't want "socialized medicing" he wants (his words, not mine) "Christianized Medicine." Ah, I see, being Christian is chic when its politically expedient, but when those uppity Christians get their undies in a bunch over abortion rights, well then they are zealots and "just as big a threat" as Islamic terrorists (just ask Rosie, she'll tell you).
So because I'm a Christian who is opposed to socialized medicine I'm what, not Christian enough for Michael Moore? He of all people presumes to sit in judgement of me based on this one issue? I so wanted Star to be able to ask him how "Christian" it is to tell obese people they aren't going to get that knee or hip replacement because they are fat and their "lifestyle choices" contributed to their condition? Because that's how it's done in England. But hey Mike, move there if you really think you'll live longer, only I suggest you look in the mirror before you do. Just be sure to leave a forwarding address, we'll want to be sure you get your social security checks on time.
What the hell am I talking about?
How about what the hell is he thinking about?
George, Condi, here's a newsflash for you: Fatah, the "party" you've decided is worthy of recognition simply because they kicked out Jimmah Carter's declared "legitimate" Hamas government is the party of Yassir Arafat!
Remember Ararfat? The guy who socked billions of western aid dollars away in his own personal bank accounts, who knows where? Bank accounts only his wife (who lives a rather posh Parisian life) knows about? Yeah, THAT guy. The same one who chanted "Jihad jihad jihad" on front of screaming throngs of militants mere months before he died, the same one who probalby wore that stupid headgear to hide the face on the other side of his head, the one that smiled and shook hands with Presidents and Prime Ministers assuring them in English he wanted peace while the one on the other side grimmaced and choked back vomit, and would spew forth later in front of his hometown crowd in Arabic that his most fervent wish was to secure the "Right of Return" from the river to the sea!
Now I understand what guys like Denns Ross are saying--that Fatah is a nationalist movement while Hamas is a religious nutroots movement, and for all their corruption and history of problems, nationalist movements like Fatah can be dealt with. Religious movements? Not so much. Actually, not at all. But crap, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
If it were up to me, I'd tell them all to go blow (themselves up), but it's not up to me (probably a good thing). Let's hope the Bush administration knows what they're doing backing any horse in this race.
Did you ever read someone's quick takes on the major issues of the day and think "Uh, yeah, why didn't I think of that?" or "Yeah, why hasn't anyone said that/asked that?"
If you haven't done it lately, get ready to do it now
Read the whole thing, but my favorites had to do with (you guessed it) immigration:
Every article on immigration uses the numbers "12-20 million" as the estimate for the number of illegals currently in the United States. How do we know? Did someone conduct an illegal immigrant census--or is it typical "shark frenzy" journalism, as in one source used those numbers and everyone else copied it? Daunting reality: what if 20 million is a low-ball estimate? What if we have 50 million illegal aliens living among us? Something to think about when one hears terms like "anchor baby" and "chain migration."
...........
Any politician who tells you "comprehensive immigration reform" is the only way to achieve border security is not a liar. He or she is an extortionist-and Americans will remember who the blackmailers are in 2008.
...........
Ask yourself this question: if you came to this country illegally, and could get a "Z visa" which allows you to stay indefinitely, why would you continue the process of becoming a citizen which might require paying a fine and back taxes, learning English, and staying employed? Only those who breathe the rarified air in Washington D.C. could be so clueless about the reality of human nature. Or are they? Perhaps a "two-tier America"--citizens, and a low-skill low-educated, non-citizen working class is more to their liking. If that sounds somewhat familiar it's because we've been there before--slaves also did many of the jobs "Americans refuse to do." Are the the words "corporation" and "plantation" interchangeable?
[Hat tip to ligneus for the link to Political Mavens]
As if it weren'tt bad enough that Bob Barker (who, until today I liked) retired, the Price is Right is now entertaining the insane notion of hiring Rosie O'Donnell to replace him?
What's that about? A game show you tune into for shock value? The apocalypse is nigh when we as Americans (Americans who would tune into game shows at all anymore) need to be enticed to do so by potential for controversy. What happened to you win, you lose, take your prizes and go home?
How exactly will Rosie manage to inject politics into the show? I mean, wasn't it her opinions and the fights she got into with Elizabeth the ratings draw? What's she gonna do, have on-air verbal smack-downs with guests wearing crosses? What about the Barker Babes, will they keep them? I'm trying to envision that....Basically I'm trying to envision the entire thing as anything other than a car wreck.
But then again, we Americans can't seem to tear ourselves away from staring at those, we're even willing to slow down to a crawl and let the rest of our lives wait while we do, so maybe Bob and CBS are onto something. Game show as gaper-delay?
Welcome to the handbasket. Enjoy the ride.
Sorry to tease, I'm talking about the fence around my house actually. Our neighbors built one a couple of weeks ago, and we're following suit with our own. Why are we doing this? Krauthammer knows.
Fences work. That's why people have them around their houses--not because homeowners are unwelcoming, but because they insist that those who wish to come into their domain knock at the front door.
Yeah, Charles gets it alright. My husband and I didn't say to each other "Hey, you know what? Let's put up a fence to keep those pesky neighbors from ever visiting us. Let's make sure they feel so unwelcome we never see or hear from them again! While we're at it, let's make sure the UPS, FedEx and USPS drivers run from our home crying like little girls from the sheer intimidation factor of our mighty barricade! Yeah, COOL!"
No, we decided to put one up because--frankly--we were sick and tired of the guy who lets his dog piss on our bushes, and we weren't too fond of the people who speed down our street like they're on their way to a fire despite the 25mph signs. We have small children, we're not interested in one or both of them becoming "accident" statistics.
Somehow we didn't figure a drone with a camera in it would solve these problems for our little plot of territory, which is why it's so hard for me to understand those Senators who think it will work for the whole country. If it takes a physical barrier to stop one dog from peeing on my plants, what do you think it's gonna take to stop millions of people from doing the same to our way of life?
And I say that only because Lindsey "Hissy Fit" Graham is from the same state.
But Jim DeMint could be my Senator any time.
DeMint Statement on Border Security
June 14th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement:"I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there’s simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."
"We have a serious problem with our immigration system, but this mess of a bill is not the solution. It puts amnesty before security, contains loopholes for criminals, and will increase the burden on taxpayers."
"All of the border security triggers in this bill can already be implemented under current law. It is unfortunate that the bill supporters continue to hold border security hostage in return for passage of amnesty. Instead, they need to prove to the American people that they will secure the border first."
On Tuesday, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress.
Trust me I know how hard it is to stand your ground in the face of that kind of pressure.
Thank you Senator DeMint. It's sad that we have to *thank you* for doing your job, but like everything else these days, it often becomes necessary to reward people for walking across the room without falling down. If you don't believe me, just visit your average public school first grade classroom. Never mind the lack of red ink, the number of times you hear "special" used to refer to each and every child--no matter how mediocre their efforts might be--will cause the word to lose all meaning for you.
I realize this is going to come as a shock considering my post below from just a couple of days ago, advocating the immediate bombing of targets inside Iran, but I have come--quite suddenly--to the conclusion that it's time to go. Yes, you read correctly. It is TIME TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.
There. I've said it. I wish I felt better about it, but I don't.
I have supported this war from the git-go. I have supported the "Surge" but my increasing rage at this President over immigration has led me to believe that he no longer deserves my support for this policy either.
Does this mean I've changed my mind and that our withdrawal won't leave a chaotic untenable situation? NOPE. Still believe that, 100%. I think the minute we *start* to withdraw the shit is going to hit the fan. I still think Iran will move in--openly and without shame--and I still think a bloodbath of Pol-Pot proportions will ensue. The only difference now is that I don't give a shit.
No, really, I don't. I mean, why should I? Have you seen Gaza lately? I'm starting to come to the conclusion that some of the naysayers, the ones I used to call "bigots" were right all along. These people--Muslims who'll kill for their religion--can't handle freedom. Period. They can't handle it, and they therefore sure as hell don't deserve for one more drop of American blood to be shed in defense of it FOR them. Fuck them. I'm sorry to those brave souls in Iraq who *do* want freedom, I really am. I know you're there, I wish you well. Shit, I wish you a free ticket outta there and into safe assylum here if your bonafides are in order. But I think the time has come to face reality. There are just too many people in your country who would rather kill each other than live in peace. They would rather settle old grievances (your grandfather stole my goat types of grievances) than set them aside and build a future for their children. Apparently they don't care if their grandchildren are able to say "Your grandfather killed my chance at freedom."
But I'll tell you what, there are American CHILDREN who are sick of saying "You killed my Daddy (or Mommy)." Enough is enough.
And Mr. President, you've had your chance too, it's time to go.
How you ask? How should we do it? What about our long-term interests in the region? What about them "following us home?"
Well, I wish this were my idea, but it's not. This comes straight from my Dad, but he's put into words the best plan I've heard in a loooong time.
I think the time has come for Bush to say that it is obvious that forces in the region, including Iran, Shiite and Sunni extremists
from a number of countries, and anti-US extremists from various countries in the region, such as Al Quaeda, have made it impossible for the Iraqi's (with the kind of aid that the US is able to give), to
establish a representative government for the country.Since this objective, which was the secondary objective of the original decision to implement a regime change (getting rid of Saddam), cannot be achieved, we will begin withdrawing our military from Iraq, except from the autonomous Kurdish region, if the government of that region asks us to continue to deploy troops there.
With that announcement Bush should couple a warning that if any extremist group is emboldened by our withdrawal to start attacking US installations or US territory, and we trace the attackers to any country or region, we will respond by devastating all of the infrastructure of that country or region, including power plants, roads, bridges, etc....
That would transform the campaign debate about Iraq into a debate about what will our next leader do when the next attack occurs--and
Hillary won't be able to avoid it by saying it's hypothetical. That way we'll put the candidates on the hot seat, and when whoever is
elected is elected, we'll know what we're getting (and if we elect a
candidate who said he/she would just jawbone, we will have invited
another attack).
You see, we're not saying we can leave and expect not to be back, let's just put them on notice that when we come back, it will be by AIR not by land, and we won't be so choosey about the targets this time. The time for military-as-social-worker should end, NOW. I love--no, adore--the members of our military for their service, but with every passing day I'm more convinced that they have not been allowed to do their jobs, not really, not the way they were trained to do(i.e., seek the enemy, surround the enemy, kill the enemy. Full stop.) Instead they seem to be bogged down in the "seek the enemy" step more often than not. Well, as cruel as this sounds, my present attitude is that the enemy is in Iraq in the same way the enemy was in Germany or Japan. We didn't pick and choose *which* enemies to target in Dresden, nor should we do it in Falluja or Basra or Mosul or Bagdad. No more. Enough is enough.
If this is really a fight about our national interests, then surely bringing it to a quick decisive END is also in our national interests. After years of fighting the "nice" way what have we wrought? A terrorist magnet, that's what.
Do I sound like a left-wing moonbat? I'm sure I do, but you know what? The genius of the left is that they thwart policy for so long the chaos they claim the policy is causing (the same policy they have strangled and twisted until it's less of a policy than a half-measure) will come to pass. Make no mistake, I still blame the left in this country for the present situation in Iraq--at least as much as the terrorists and extremists--it is there fault that we've had to spend so much time pretending Islam is "peaceful" and that we could go door-to-door fighting terrorists and "insurgents" in Iraq. I still blame the Arabists at the State Dept. (liberals all of them) for giving self-defeating nation-building advice to Bush, and I still blame the media for exaggerating all the bad news and serving as willing propagandists for the enemy. The *only* new thing here is that I blame Bush personally for listening to all of them, and I blame the Iraqis for not stepping up and telling them all to FUCK OFF, for not recognizing the beautiful gift our soldiers gave them--we taxpayers gave them--of freedom from tyranny. They want tyranny apparently, badly enough that they're willing to die for it.
So let's give them their wish.
If I sound harsh, sorry, but there it is.
This week, while pundits were busily figuring out how to twist the words of the GOP debaters such that they would sound like they wanted to immediately attack Iran (preferably with "tactical nukes"), Joe "My Hero" Lieberman put it right out there, no further dissembling required!
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
Just one question before you do though...Would you mind explaining to us why Joe's suggestion is nuts, but shelling the crap out of portions of Somalia isn't? Last time I checked, we weren't at war with Somalia any more than we were at war with Iran, nor are the militants there killing U.S. soldiers, so what gives?
Ohhhhhh, you mean because the Somali government has *asked* us to do this it's OK? Well, then it seems we have all the more right to take action within Iran's borders because unlike the Somali government, those acting to aid in the killing of our soldiers in Iraq are doing so with their government's approval. So wouldn't it follow that we are in a state of de facto war with Iran already? And if we're not, can you tell me why not?
Either way, when looked at through this lens, Joe's comments don't seem so nutty now do they? In fact, he sounds like the only sane voice in Washington anymore. God bless him.
If you heard Harry Reid talking last week you may have thought you heard wrong. Maybe you do need that hearing aide after all, or maybe those pranksters who monkeyed around with the Sopranos ending are tinkering with other broadcasts as well...
No, would that it were so. It's true, Harry really did say this:
"This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong."[Emphasis mine]
Scary right? You went to bed a citizen of the USA and when you woke up you were just another "documented American," one of the many hundreds of millions of humanoids inhabiting the "Americas" of the Western hemisphere! Gee, you'd think they'd have sent us a memo or something...Do we have to get new passports?
Mark Steyn summed it up pretty well:
Talk about "a fast track to citizenship"! Never mind probationary visas, Z-visas and Green Cards, in the eyes of the Democrat steering "comprehensive immigration reform" through Congress these guys are already "undocumented Americans." Was it simply a slip of the tongue? Or did Senator Reid mean it?If he did, the very concept of citizenship is dead, and the Senate might as well opt for really comprehensive immigration reform" and declare everyone on the planet a U.S. citizen with backdated Social Security entitlements.
All kidding aside, this really is a big problem. When our leaders in D.C. stop respecting our sovereignty, they've violated their oath of office. People like Harry Reid should be stripped of power, effective immediately, but they won't be. Instead, most of the population they've so painstakingly (through the government run schools) indoctrinated into the cult of national self-loathing and guilt is too busy fretting about the fate of Paris Hilton to worry about the fate of their own country.
So it's up to us then, the millions of people who aren't content to see our culture balkanized overnight, those of us who want to preserve the UNITED STATES of America for the next generation of "documented" citizens. This bill isn't as dead as I'd hoped, it's just dormant, and we have to keep the pressure on the GOP hold-outs, let them know they are doing the right thing in refusing to compromise our sovereignty away.
In the meantime, let's just hope that Dennis Miller's message was received by Senator Reid in the spirit in which it was intended, as Dennis said, "without all due respect."
Say what you will about intelligent design, the fact is that it is no less "provable" than evolution. Both are "theories" of how this world began, and both are grossly misunderstood and misrepresented by those who seek to denigrate the validity of either.
From creationists we hear that evolutionary theorists believe we descended directly from apes. Not so. Darwinism doesn't suggest this either, but the poor man is often blamed for the theory of evolution, as he is falsely accused of suggesting that "survival of the fittest" is how nature works (he actually said that the most "adaptable" to their environment survive).
From evolutionists we hear that all those who support "intelligent design" believe the world began only 6,000 years ago, as the Bible says. People mock and deride intelligent design theory out of hand because they assume that only religious extremists could believe that our entire world is anything other than a giant accident.
The problem is, by focusing on the extremes of either point of view, we fail to leave ourselves open to the ways in which both theories might converge, the ways in which--perhaps--they are NOT mutually exclusive! Why is it not possible that an intelligent deity or power had a hand in the formation of our planet as one that is capable of sustaining life well enough and long enough that evolution could be possible? Why is it not possible that our species--homo-sapiens--"evolved" or "adapted" to its environment better than other primates to the point where we not only survived, but surpassed their abilities? And most importantly, why is it not possible that we were able to do all this because the same intelligent power that thought the whole thing up in the first place *decided* it should be so for reasons beyond our current comprehension?
Only one thing is certain, we will never get any further in our understanding of either theory if we do not allow free and open discussion of BOTH, especially in the classrooms of this country.
That's why this is so sad. In today's American universities and colleges, there is one right way to think, one acceptable way to view the world. It's the problem poor Gallileo faced way back when, only in reverse, only the high-and-mighty in their ivory towers can't see it, won't see it, they're too comforted by the sure and certain knowledge that "they know best" for our children. They know what is the "right" theory to teach, and they know what is the "wrong" one when it comes to the origins of this world, this species, this life.
The irony here is that they seem to pick and choose what they are certain about. How life began on this planet, how humans became so different from all other species on the planet? Yeah, they've got that one figured out. No further discussion necessary. But what's the best system of government for those humans, which country has created the most freedom and prosperity for the greatest number of people in the entire history of mankind--despite reams of factual, as well as anecdotal evidence--nah, they're still debating whether the USA would even be on the list of contenders.
And we're expected to scrimp and save to be able to send our kids to learn amongst such people? If we keep going on this trajectory, I'll be looking for VOCTECH schools for my kids instead because our so-called "liberal arts" schools will have become nothing more than the (barely) Western equivalent of madrassas--indoctrination centers for know-nothings, people whose "evolution" has ended.
Well, it looks like the Shamnesty Bill is dead, or at least in a persistent vegetative state (perhaps this would be a good time to remind the Dems that they are the pro-euthenasia folks).
Michelle did some live blogging during the debate tonight and what she captured would be funny (we're talking laugh-out-loud funny) if it weren't so pathetic.
And predictably, instead of giving credit to the PEOPLE of this country who shouted from the rooftops that WE DIDN'T WANT IT, the whiners in D.C. (Bush included) are blaming Rush Limbaugh and talk radio.
Slap the base some more Mr. President. How much is Mrs. Clinton paying you?
But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out!
This from a state that literally DEPENDS upon people speeding through their state for REVENUE! Fine for going 5 mph over the speed limit? $150.
Nuff said.