No Replacement For Displacement

Bring Back Bea Arthur!

The National Organization for Man-Hating Marxist Lesbians Women are in a snit because there are too many good looking women on TV. No, I'm not making that up. Some other bits of unintentional hilarity in their report:

1. The Jennifer Aniston Rule. The majority of women in the U.S. are young, thin, white and fall within a narrow standard of "beauty." FALSE. Really? Wow, am I glad NOW clued me in on that. I went to the senior center to cruise for chicks, and they all looked like Bea Arthur. I thought God was playing a cruel joke on me.


2. Opposites attract. Attractive women often couple with less attractive "average Joe" men and older men, placing value on personality over appearance. MOSTLY FALSE. Gee, and I thought my bald spot would attract all those Jennifer Anniston lookalikes too. Someone should clue NOW in--we overweight balding guys already know this, and we know that the only way we'll date supermodels is if we earn the equivalent of the GDP of Ecuador.


3. The WWE Smackdown! (UPN) web page lists 35 male "superstars" and only 6 females. That's only because they haven't signed up Janet Reno yet.


4. FOX's America's Most Wanted: "Clips before[the] show and in between cases focus onthe victims who are young and attractive and frightened. Emphasis on their beautyand fear seems geared toward attracting male viewers . . . Excuse for program is to identify most wanted criminals--but selection of content is questionable." Imagine that--crime victims being frightened. The next thing you know, they'll talk about how apprehending crooks is too violent.


5. FOX's Cops features violent arrests, often involving men and women of color and lower-income people. Oops, never mind.


6. Field analysts commented on the low level of maturity in primetime TV and its overall lack of interest in social issues. I think this became commonly accepted wisdom by the second episode of My Mother the Car. Nonetheless, let's applaud NOW for getting to the bottom of this deep conspiracy that the networks have engaged in for the past 45 years or so.

I have to hand it to NOW. For an organization that has absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever, they do an admirable job of putting out some really hilarious material.

Bjorn Staerk has a good post about anti-Americanism in Scandinavia. The part that most intrigued me was this part:

The best way for a foreign artist to get good press in Norway is still the magic word Norgesvenn, "friend of Norway". (Anything is forgiven of a Norgesvenn, even failing careers, and becoming one can actually be a good retirement plan.)

Which explains what happened to all the guest stars on The Love Boat.

Sis vs. the Idiotarians

Last weekend my sister came up to visit with some friends of hers from college, then she came over to the house to visit. Over dinner, she mentioned that all her friends from college are idiotarians. She didn't use that exact word(she doesn't read any blogs but this one), but from what she related of the conversation, it was pretty obvious. They mentioned Kyoto to her, about how Bush is "stupid", etc. Pick a style of tinfoil hat, and they're probably wearing it. Anyway, because she doesn't read blogs outside of this one, doesn't surf the net much, and gets her news primarily from the Howell Raines Gazette,the Scare Quotes Sentinel, the Clinton News Network, PMSNBC and other birdcage liners mainstream news sources. As soon as I get an e-mail from her with the questions, I am going to do a multi-part series, answering one or two questions a day. Anyway, it should make good reading, and I welcome any and all participation in it.

From Cato

Mark Steyn hits another one out of the ballpark:

You get the picture: Sure, Muslim fundamentalists can be pretty extreme, but what about all our Christian fundamentalists? Unfortunately, for the old moral equivalence to hold up, the Christians really need to get off their fundamentalist butts and start killing more people. At the moment, the brilliantly versatile Muslim fundamentalists are gunning down Maryland schoolkids and bus drivers, hijacking Moscow musicals, self-detonating in Israeli pizza parlours, blowing up French oil tankers in Yemen, and slaughtering nightclubbers in Bali, while Christian fundamentalists are, er, sounding extremely strident in their calls for the return of prayer in school.

Watching Donahue, So You Don't Have To

I'm doing this on a full stomach, so I'm taking a chance here. This is going to be a stream-of-consciousness thing, so if the post appears disjointed, that's why. Michael Moore is now comparing the executives of K-Mart with Nazis. He's also drawn a connection between Lockheed and Columbine. Michael Moore just claimed that all the countries with less murders than the US is because they don't have the death penalty. Of course, the fact that Japan has a death penalty he completely forgot, and the fact that Britain had far less crime when they had the death penalty, and the crime rates of all the countries(with the possible exception of Japan) is increasing.

Now Donahue has put up this lovely clip of Moore drawing a connection between Kosovo and Columbine. Of course, it is obvious that stopping a tyrant in the Balkans would cause two crackpots to shoot up a high school.

Mikey is saying that increasing the minimum wage will reduce the murder rate. That makes perfect sense, if you are tripping on bad acid.

Now Michael is going to miracle himself full employment with a $10.00 an hour minimum wage. Of course, that also makes perfect sense, if the only economics course you've taken is home economics.

OK, my stomachs rumbling a bit, and I'm feeling woozy. I can make the last 15 minutes, I can make the last 15 minutes.

It's nice how Donahue has stacked the audience with a whole gang who all think Michael Moore is such a great guy. I'd like to see Donahue pack the audience with folks like Misha, Rachel, Cato, Glenn, and myself. Maybe have someone bring up the fact that he makes up such gems as the NRA/KKK link.

Now Mikey is saying that Bush is declaring war on Iraq to distract from the economy.

Mike's saying that Canada is the paragon of virtue. We should sign kyoto, the land mine treaty, etc, etc. OK, this mikey more love fest is making me ill, and I just can't watch any more.

Yet Another Sign of the Apocolypse

The Howell Raines Gazette has endorsed George Pataki.

A side note to the previous post: If you have learned about poker from watching the movies, don't send me any comments about Royal Flushes and beating four of a kind with a straight flush or a royal. The only movie I have ever seen which accurately portrays the game is the movie Rounders. Every other movie about poker sucks in portraying the actual game. You learn as much about poker watching your generic poker movie as you would learn about auto mechanics by watching an episode of Speed Racer. Yes, they are all that bad.

Update: Everything they say is good, except for the casino that the Matt Damon character says everyone plays at. You want to play poker at Atlantic City, play at the Tropicana or the Trump Taj Mahal. If you live in New York or Boston, play at Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun instead. It's closer, and they both spread more games.

We've got the nuts at the UN

I haven't mentioned it here before, but I am an avid poker player(I'm not a great player, but I love the game). Usually I will play either 7 card stud(2 down then 5 up then 1 down at the end) or I will play a game called Texas Hold 'em, where each player is dealt two cards individually, and then five community cards are dealt(two individual cards, then 3 community cards(the flop), then one more community card(the turn) and finally the last card(the river). You make the best hand using the cards you hold plus the cards on the board. There are other games, Hi-Low games and such, but they are beyond the scope of this post.

In Texas Hold'em there is a term known as having the nuts, or having the nut straight, or nut flush(Ace high), etc. In the parlance of the game, that is the absolute strongest hand that can be made using the five cards on the table. Having the nuts is a very good thing. It means you can afford to slowplay a hand(pretend you have a much weaker hand than you do) and it means that you can be 100% confident that you will scoop the pot at the end of the hand.

Also, in poker, there are a number of strategems you can use to get the pot. First there is the obvious way, having the strongest hand at the table. The second way is to bluff. You bet and raise, with the idea towards making other players think you have a stronger hand than you actually do. One thing about bluffs, is often the player engaging in the bluff projects a rather aggressive stance. He'll stare you down, act intimidating, and generally try to make himself look strong. Bluffing is rarely done in a casual manner.

There is also a form of reverse bluff. Instead of bluffing to project strength, you bluff to project weakness. For example, I was playing in a 7 card stud game, and with the fifth card, I made a full house, queens full of deuces(3 queens, 2 deuces). This is a very strong hand, and I didn't want anyone to drop by my betting. So, instead of jumping out with a bet/raise right a way, I let out a loud moan when the deuce paired. The other players happily bet and raised, because they believed that I had crap, but I took the pot(and a big pot it was).

There are different kinds of poker players. Rocks, very tight, passive players, never play anything unless it is the absolute best hand, and will throw away just about everything else. Maniacs bet and raise with any two cards. Calling Stations do just that. Every hand, they call. They rarely raise, and they rarely fold. They basically just tag along for the ride. Sometimes you lose to a calling station, but mainly they just donate money to the pot.

One thing I've noticed is how much diplomacy is like poker, and the goings on in regard to Iraq can be put into poker terms pretty well. Iraq is the prototypical inebriated maniac player. Saddam is holding a lousy hand(a ten and a deuce before the flop), but he is betting and raising like mad. He thinks that by raising any bet, acting bellicose, and staring real hard at the other players, they'll fold. Its worked for him pretty well in the past ten years, so he thinks it will work again now. Of course he is bluffing, but he thinks his bluffing will work forever. However, all he is doing is digging himself a deeper hole.

France and Russia are each holding a pair of Kings(the UN Veto). Both have a big stake in the pot from previous rounds of betting, and now are engaging in one last raise on the hope that the US and Iraq will drop their hands, and and France and Russia can share the pot. The problem is that Saddam has had his fifth shot of Jack Daniels in the last hour, and really thinks he can win with his pair of deuces, so he will raise until he is out of money.

China held a pair of nines at the initial deal, and Jiang Zemin decided that he didn't want to waste money on such an obvious loser, and threw away his hand, instead waiting for the pair of pocket Aces which he will get--someday.

The rest of the UNSC got their two cards, and called, like they do just about every time they get dealt a hand(or asked to vote on a resolution)

Finally, there is the US, with his friend Britain watching from the rail. The US holds the nut flush(a congressional resolution), and has held it right from the flop. Bush isn't going to project too much strength. In fact, it is to his advantage to project weakness. Witness all the talk about how Iraq might be able to avoid being invaded if they comply, etc. Bush wants Saddam to raise the bet again(deny his WMD program exists). He wants Saddam to raise, and raise, and raise. Bush wants this, because no matter what, Bush is holding the nut flush and cannot lose. Saddam's bluff is DOA, but Saddam is convinced somehow that it will work. France and Russia are hoping against hope that Bush will drop his hand, but even they realize that is a losing proposition, so their attempt will ultimately fail, and if they don't drop their hand soon, they could lose a lot more than what they have already bet(Lukoil and ELF Fina). But they are trying to do something to stop him, but eventually they'll drop, because while losing the oil concessions is bad, losing their Security Council vote is worse.

Saddam, however, because he is drunk(Jack Daniels, dictatorial power, same thing), is going to raise. Bush is going to raise him back, and Saddam will raise again, and eventually, all of Saddam's money(power) is going to wind up in Bush's hands, and Saddam will lose his entire bankroll(or get hung from the nearest lamppost).

So when you hear about the gnashing of teeth about how the UN is dragging their feet, remember something. Bush could end this charade any time he wants by launching military action. The reason he's not isn't because he can't, but because it is in our best interests for him not to. He is playing Saddam, and the Russians, and the French, and at the end, the result is going to be the same it would have been before. There are only two possible outcomes: The UNSC approves our action, and we invade Iraq(and win the pot) or the UNSC vetoes our resolution, and we invade Iraq(and the UNSC becomes irrelevant in the process). Either way, Saddam falls, and the FrancoRussian oil concessions are dead.

Update: In response to Cato's post, I think I need to clarify/change the situation France and Russia are in. France and Russia are now engaging in what is known in the poker world as a crying call. The crying call is a bet that is called when you have every expectation of losing. You are calling the bet not to win, but on the notion that you probably won't win, but you need to see the cards anyway. The problem, in France and Russia's case, is that they are between Iraq and the US. So the more they try to defend the oil interests, the more likely it is that the United States will consider the UN irrelevant, and that cost is more than I think either country is willing to bear.

Bellesilles in his inordinately long attempt at rescuing his obliterated reputation is saying he will explain all the descrepancies in the second edition of his book. Don't be surprised if instead of guns, he proves via probate records(miraculously recovered from the Chicago fire) that instead of guns, all Americans were armed with ray guns, and did not venture out at night, because vampires roamed the streets.

I am way behind on everything this morning. The power went out at about 8:00, and I've just gotten online about 1/2 hour ago. I just saw them push the Caprice into a garage. They caught the pair sometime last night. The plates for the Caprice were registered in Camden, NJ. I don't know how big an Arab community there is in Camden. I know there is a big one in Jersey City, and I think there is one in Patterson as well. I just saw a picture of agents carrying a box into a building which I think may be the rifle. The box doesn't look like it could fit an AR-15, but it could fit a regular bolt action long gun. That is rank speculation on my part, so I could be very wrong here.

Update: I was wrong, Indepundit is saying it is an AR15 Bushmaster.

Here's a link to a Fox News story about the arrest, and they mention the Marion camp.

Here is a picture of John Allen Mohammed:

I know, it's on fox, etc. I'll change it with a pic from the ATF site when it isn't as overloaded as it is now.

Welcome Freepers. More info from Fox. They are looking for a White Chevy Celebrity, Maryland plate ZWE 510. There is also a Ford Crown Vic, no other info.

While the sniper thing was going on, I initially thought it was a terrorist attack, then I thought it was a lone nut.

I take that all back. I just heard saw on fox news that they are searching a property in Tacoma, and they are looking for suspects in Washington State and Alabama. I am now convinced that it is definitely, and I mean definitely al Qaeda. Here is why. Some of this you have heard before, and some you haven't.

1. The victims share nothing in common, except for being American.
   
2. The attacks were concentrated in Washington, which has a very high concentration of national media, political figures, and the like, guaranteeing national media coverage.
   
3. All the attacks have occurred from locations of good cover, indicating some reconnoitering has taken place, and the attackers have been able to escape quickly, indicating more than a bit of planning.
   
4. The demand for money--not the act of the average lone nut.
   
5. The area where the FBI is now searching with metal detectors in Tacoma, Washington. Earnest James Ujaama, a protege of Al Qaeda recruiter Abu Hamza Al-Masri, tried to set up a ranch as a training camp in Tacoma.
   
6. The FBI has also obtained a search warrant for some location in Alabama. In Marion, Alabama, a camp known as Ground Zero, USA was used for weapons training. On the grounds were shot up police vehicles and school buses.
   

This is no coincidence. I guarantee that by this time tomorrow, the Al Qaeda link will be firmly established.

Update: Fox is now reporting that cops are looking for a Chevy Caprice with New Jersey plates. Gee, what a shock.

Update: MSNBC has added some detail about the car. It is a blue/burgundy 1990 Chevy Caprice with New Jersey plates. And in case anyone doesn't know, a number of Islamofascist terrorist attacks have originated in New Jersey, the 1st WTC attack, Meir Kahane assassination, the attempted Lincoln Tunnel bombing, etc.

Update(They're coming fast and furious today)Robin Goodfellow reports that they are looking for two people from the Bellingham Washington area. A quick google search brings up this reprinted story from the March 21 Wall Street Journal which has a vague link to Bellingham. In the intel business, there ain't no such thing as coincidences.

Update: Fox News is now reporting that the FBI is now serving a search warrant in Marion, Alabama in (here's another shock) Camp Ground Zero, which means my initial hypothesis is now correct.

Update: Fox news is reportings the names Lee Malvo(sp?) and John Mohammed(aka John Allen Williams), an ex soldier. Gee, Mohammed, who'd a thunk it?

Update: Plate number is NDA 21Z

Winona on Trial

Winona Ryder is set to go on trial this week. If she gets off, don't say it was because she was a Hollywood actress and used her money to get acquitted. There is a lot of evidence that this is a politically motivated prosecution.

First of all, she was arrested on drug charges. These charges stemmed from the fact that she was prescribed a name brand medication, and the pharmacist substitutded a generic, of which she had two pills on her person. The charges were dropped in pre-trial hearings.

Secondly, they state that they have her on video stealing merchandise, except the video shows no merchandise was stolen.

Third, she was indicted on felony theft charges. In no situation has someone accused of shoplifting what Ryder was alleged to have stolen ever been charged with a felony in California. (Needless to say, this was a first offense, which would argue against launching felony charges).

Fourth she paid for merchandise and left the store, and again, has no history of shoplifting, or even being detained for shoplifting by store security, yet she is being prosecuted on a felony charges that can carry a three year jail term.

This is not OJ part II here. They are going hammer and tongs to give jail time to go after someone is a first offender, and at worst, should pay a nominal fine and get a short probation. Lizzie Grubman got forty days for nearly killing a dozen people. Wynona Ryder should not be forced to deal with jail time for doing what is functionally the same thing as taking candy from the corner store. If she even intended to shoplift at all, from which I can definitely see reasonable doubt in that regard.

If you haven't felt the urge to vomit today

You will after reading this sob story about poor Lizzie Grubman. Poor Girl. She accidentally on purpose runs over 15 people, and she is all weepy that they are putting her in jail for 40 days. She should consider herself lucky. If I was the judge, she would have gotten 3 to 5 years.

Update: I had to fix this one too. Damn, my typing skill are just plain embarassing!

Weblog Central, meet Brendon O'Neill

Remember when I mentioned about getting hits by making a phony shitstorm?
Well that's what MSNBC did when it accused Little Green Footballs of being racist They knew that LGF was a wildly popular destination, linked to from many pages. It is fair to assume that the editor for MSNBC's site knew the strong anti-Islamofascist content of LGF. It is also fair to assume that the editor put up the site last week anyway, obviously believing that there was nothing wrong with that content.

Now fast forward to yesterday. The editor gets some hate mail about LGF, from the usual suspects. Now, instead of saying that LGF is a racist site, and removing it because he put up that blog in error, he simply relates the accusations put forth by the usual suspects, using the sort of "some say" editorializing that one finds on the front page of the Howell Raines Gazette.

However, and this is most important, he does not remove the site. If he really thought it was racist, he would have removed the site, with a note of apology. He didn't do that. What he did was toss out the accusation, leaving the link in place. When Charles saw the link, understandably, he got angry and asked people to email the editor and disabuse him of the whole "racist" claim. Then the Great Glenn linked. And Meryl Yourish. And Misha. And Bill Herbert. And Tony Pierce. And a whole bunch of others as well.

I won't begrudge any of these bloggers for mentioning the abysmal treatment Charles has gotten at the hands of MSNBC. He was slandered, the accusations are baseless, and someone's good name was trashed. However, if one looks at it as a means to generate hits and emails, well, it appears that MSNBC has succeeded, using Charles' reputation as the fuel. I sent an email long before I wrote this post. Looking back on it, I wish I hadn't. All I did was fuel the appetite for MSNBC to create another phony shitstorm later, using some other poor blogger as the means to do so. Pretty slimy on their part.

Update: First paragraph was a bit awkward. I edited it for clarity.

Andrea Harris came across this entry in a home furnishings catalog:

Porcelain fragments from 14th- to 19th-century Ming and Qing Dynasty vases destroyed during China?s Cultural Revolution form the decorative inlaid tops of these silver-plated metal boxes. One-of-a-kind; please allow us to select for you. Imported.

This is a textbook example of the evils of communism. These were vases that were hundreds of years old, and were probably Chinese cultural treasures. Yet the ChiComs in their Maoist inspired frenzy destroyed these priceless objects of beauty because they were artifacts of a "bourgeois society". Any of the Castro butt-kissing idiotarians who fawn over the likes of Castro should look at these things and think about the sort of evil that would destroy such beauty.

For those of you who think that such anger is best reserved for the human victims of Communism, you are right, but also wrong. These pieces of pottery were of great historical and cultural import, but because they did not advance the cause of Communism, they were destroyed and thrown away. It was an attempt at murder of a culture, as brutal and destructive of the human spirit as the physical acts of murder and torture were.

Marv Albert's Dream Date

Wife Allegedly Bites Husband To Death For Sex Refusal

Middle East experts who aren't complete fucking loons:

1. Fouad Ajami
   
2. Daniel Pipes
   
3. Michael Ledeen

Middle East experts that some would say are completely bonkers and are paid shills for dictatorships:

Every other Edward Saidesque crackpot on the planet.

¡Que Bueno, David Gregory!

NBC's favorite intercontinental reporter, David Gregory, on this evening's NBC news, engaged in a bit of "journalism" which appears to have been taken right out of the playbook of the Howell Raines Gazette. Anyway, it's been awhile, and I'm a bit out of practice, however, I spent most of the evening cleaning and reloading the fiskomatic, so let's do some full metal jacketed fisking:

TO PRESIDENT BUSH, there are many faces, but one fight: Iraq. Yet, it?s al-Qaida, not Saddam, doing more damage, like last weekend?s deadly bombing in Bali, a French oil tanker bombed off Yemen, and the Marines attacked in Kuwait. All are thought to be al-Qaida?s work.

And isn't it awful curious that all this started happening once Congress had voted to commit troops? Nah. It's just a big coincidence, right Davey ol' boy?

Confronting Saddam now, some argue, would ignore the unfinished business with Osama bin Laden.

Ah, the "some argue" form of editorializing as "serious journalism". Some would argue that David Gregory is editorializing in a news story, Some would also argue that there isn't a single fact in this entire "news" story. Some would argue that David Gregory has his head up his ass. I wouldn't argue that, of course, since I'm being completely unbiased. But some would argue that, mark my words!

"We certainly did bomb a lot of caves and did disrupt a lot of things, but it's kind of like a hydra-headed monster, and it pops up in different places," says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. "And I think they need to stay focused on that."

Despite President Bush?s pledge to get bin Laden, dead or alive, al-Qaida's leader remains elusive, as do his top lieutenants Ayman Zawahiri and alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Mohammed.

"I don't think there has to be such a rush," says Albright. "I think the American people and the rest of the world is really owed a better explanation as to why this has to happen this minute."

Some say soliciting foreign policy wisdom from a woman who was responsible for letting Osama go, helping to strengthen the IRA, giving nukes to the North Koreans, and generally fucking up every bit of American foreign policy is the sign of a brain dead blinkered ideologue masquerading as a reporter. I wouldn't say that(gee golly no, I'm completely objective). But some say it.

Others worry that war with Saddam will push him to use the very weapons the U.S. most fears, raising the frightening possibility that the next terror attack against America could be deadlier than Sept. 11.

First some, then others. Others might say that David Gregory researched this story with all sorts of preconceived notions before interviewing one person. Some might say that he didn't do any research at all, but others might say that all the research he needed to do he did by examining his toejam.

"The greater risk is that in that greater point of extremis, [Saddam] will hand them over to these international terrorist groups who have many agents in the United States for their use against our people," says Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Some might say that Bob Graham is a member of the addled asses of appeasement. Others might say that all these Al Qaeda attacks on western interests just weeks before an invasion prove him wrong. Some others might say that Bob Graham is an idiot.

It?s not just Sen. Graham. The CIA has also warned that Saddam would only use his deadliest weapons, or put them in the hands of terrorists, if cornered by the U.S.

And the CIA has also said that Iraq has harbored al Qaeda, and given them aid and comfort. Some would say that David Gregory is ignoring that rather salient point. Others would argue that David Gregory would rather not mention anything that fails to back up his preconceived notions. Some others say that David Gregory is proving that whole "biased leftwing media" idea correct. Some might even argue that David Gregory is not going to let facts get in the way of a good story, and others might argue that neither David Gregory nor Bob Graham seem to understand that their course of action is the textbook definition of appeasement. Of course, I'm not arguing these things. Some argue that, but I'm not. See? I'm still being completely objective.

Then David takes the big plunge into the world of middle east "experts"(some would say scare quotes are warranted):

To experts there?s also the dangerous issue of growing Muslim hatred toward the U.S., the very hatred that makes bin Laden so popular. That anger, they say, has been fueled by the emerging plan to attack Iraq, a country that is viewed differently by Arabs than Americans.

"It's not the aggressor, it's the weak state," says Middle East expert Shibley Telhami. "And they see America as going after Iraq despite the opposition in the region."

Some might say that David Gregory deliberately picked yet another apologist for an Arab dictator. Others might say that David Gregory was too lazy to look up the numbers of Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, or Fouad Ajami, all of whom aren't complete fucking crackpots. Still others could argue that David Gregory didn't want to mention anyone that might bring his entire ideological house of cards crumbling to the ground.

Advocates of taking on Saddam argue that the use of force will not compromise the war on terror, quite the opposite. Force, they say, is the one thing this region respects.

"The replacement of Saddam Hussein would do more to convince the Arab world that America was truly serious about terrorism than any other single act we could undertake," says former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Some might argue that David Gregory brought ol' Newt on board so that he couldn't be accused of bias. Others say that David Gregory's attempt to act impartial was about as transparent as the clothes in the Britney Spears formalwear collection, and as believable as Bill Clinton heading a forum on the evils of adultery.

But for President Bush, it remains a difficult question. Will war in Iraq make America more or less vulnerable to terror?

Some argue that David Gregory has already made up his mind. Others say that David Gregory thinks the president should consult him before any attack on Iraq. Some even say that David Gregory should find a job more in tune with his talents, such as being copy boy at the Howell Raines Gazette.

Paging James T Kirk

A bunch of republican hopefuls are looking to unseat Mary Landrieu from the Senate. I think they are going about it all wrong. All you need to do is put up James T. Kirk on the podium, he'll debate Landrieu, then she'll explode in a shower of sparks and cheesy 60's era special effects.

One more victory for the Clinton foreign policy team

One more victory for the Clinton foreign policy team
The IRA was supplying bomb-making expertise to FARC of Columbia, and those bastions of ethics in the Clinton white house decided to hide that inconvenient fact.

Eric Raymond has written an Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto. Count me in as a signer, with a couple of minor amendments.

Another victory for Clinton's foreign policy

Remember the agreement with North Korea where they said they weren't going to build any more nukes? Well it turns out they were lying.

Blogger sucks.

Friggin' Blogger! My archives have been hosed, and now blogger won't let me republish. Maybe this post will fix it. Maybe now. In either case, it really sucks.

If you want to keep up on what is going on over there, go to Tim Blair's site. I'm going to put him in the blogroll now.

Maybe the Australians will see now why they are hated.
Sure the Bali tragedy was a horrible thing. But it must be viewed in the context of years of Australian oppression.

Wait. I take that back. It is a brutally insensitive and hateful thing to say. Outside of the UK, Australia was the only country to really support the United States in the past year, and unlike the most of the world, it was on a grass roots level, and not driven by some sense of realpolitik. Even a year later, when the shock of the atrocity had worn off for the rest of the world, the Australians were still openly and unashamedly sympathetic to our plight. The picture of Australians on a beach forming the American flag during the anniversary of September 11 was something most of the rest of the world did not do, and would not have done.

The Australian people are probably the closest in temperament to the US. The deep roots of both countries existence is remarkably similar. The United States was formed and grew from the castoffs of the rest of the world. Australia's birth is formed by castoffs from English society. The influence of Aboriginal culture on Australia's heritage is very similar to Native American influence on American culture. Both Australians and Americans place a strong emphasis on self-reliance and individualism shaped in the crucible of our respective frontier cultures. Both also have a view of man and nature that is not based on a European romantic notion of nature, but on a real-world knowledge that not everything you see out in the wild is cute and cuddly. Australians and Americans are closer than either are to the British or to Canadians. With a few script changes, Crocadile Dundee, the quintessential movie about someone from the Outback transplanted to the big city, could easily have been Joe Bob Dundee, movie quintessential Nebraska farmboy transplanted to the big city.

Which is why I'm taking those statements back. The problem is, I still want to say it, just not to them. When I think of the reaction that the United States received and continues to receive from continental Europe, as horrible as it sounds, I wish that instead of hundreds of Ozzies and a few dozen French and Germans, the numbers had been reversed, and hundreds of French and Germans had died. Then maybe the French and Germans would understand just how grotesque it is to say something like that. The worst thing is that I feel bitter enough towards the continent to think such a thing. (And towards Fisk, Pilger, and the rest of them too).

Finally, when Australia starts taking strong action to capture/kill the bastards who did this, I wonder how many of those same bits of human fecal matter will publicly moan about how "Australia has now squandered all the sympathy they received because of the Bali tragedy." If I sound bitter, it is because I am.

I will be putting up a list of charities that will be used for relief for the victims of the Bali atrocity and their families. Any Australians who know of specific charities that are organizing themselves to the relief of the victims, please e-mail me. For right now, here is a link to the Australian Red Cross. We should return the favor for the support they have given us over the past year.

In the words of James Taranto

You Don't Say

Question of the day

Which news story appeared in the Howell Raines Gazette?

This one:

For Kuwait. Baghdad still the enemy

or this one?

Saved by U.S., Kuwait Now Shows Mixed Feelings

What do Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have in common?

The Speech He Should Have Made

I was prepared to do a big piece on how the Nobel Committee is a bunch of EUniks, and that the choice of Jimmy Carter was a perfect example of how Europe is filled with a bunch of weenies, yadda yada yada, and I realized that just about everybody else is saying much the same thing(Emporer Misha does the best job). Therefore, I have decided to pretend I'm Jimmy Carter and make the speech he should have made(after first taking my Carter self to the doctor and getting testicles attached):

Good Evening. When I received this award, I wondered if the Nobel Committee was honoring me or cursing me. [laughter] Sadly, I wish I was joking when I say that. When I see those who I share this award with, I wonder whether or not accepting the "Peace Prize" is the appropriate thing to do.

I have found that I share this award with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last dictator of the Soviet Empire. The committee felt that Mr. Gorbachev should receive the award for relaxing his grip on power. If this is true, why has the Nobel Committee not given the Nobel prize to Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Galtieri of Argentina, or for that matter, given the award to Francisco Franco for dying at a convenient moment in history?

While the Nobel Committee lauded Gorbachev for doing what he should have done the moment he achieved power, they have ignored Ronald Reagan, whose steadfast opposition to communism liberated over 120,000,000 people in Eastern Europe, and Boris Yeltsin, who braved the guns trained on him by troops to call for the Russian people to fight for their freedom, and this man,

who stood in front of tanks sent by the Communist regime in China to brutally suppress the first flickers of the light of freedom and took risks to advance the cause of peace and freedom that Gorbachev never thought of doing.

And that is the problem with the prizes given out by this committee. When you choose peace, you choose peace at daggers drawn. You refuse to recognize that true peace can only occur when people are free.

When you gave the prize to Le Duc Tho, did you not realize the nature of the Communists? Did you not see that the result of this treaty would be that hundreds of thousands would flee Vietnam in small boats, that Cambodian Communists would slaughter one in seven of their own people, and that the light of freedom in Indochina would be squelched for decades?

When you gave the award to Lord Edgar Algernon Robert Gascoyne Cecil, and his pacifist International Peace Campaign, did you not take into account that such calls for pacifism in the shadow of monsters like Hitler would not cause prevent war, but only delay it, and bring about the deaths of millions in a World War that could have been prevented if only voices like Winston Churchill had been heard instead?

When you gave the award to Yasser Arafat, did you not forget the wanton murders that he ordered? Did you not listen to his speeches in Arabic when he said that Oslo was the first step to taking all of Israel? Was the memory of the Munich Games that faded? Now, this winner of the Peace Prize sends the children of his people to kill yet more children. He has used the prestige handed him by this committee to foster a curriculum of hate in the schools under his control, has engaged in murder, torture, and wholesale violations of human rights. Yet this committee has given him the Peace Prize.

Last year, the Nobel Committee saw fit to award the prize to the United Nations. Yet the United Nations acts as a bullhorn for countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and dozens of other regimes ruled by totalitarian dictators, petty autocrats, or decrepit monarchies, all of whom share the common interest in laying blame on the West while brutally suppressing the legitimate aspirations of their own people to be free. The UN has sponsored abominations like the Durban conference on Racism, which was used as a platform to launch anti-Semitic hatred, and the Johannesburg conference, which was used as a platform to act as an apologist for the continuing brutality and corruption that is endemic to most of the African continent. The United Nations has acted to protect murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein, and provide them with a legitimacy that they would never have been given under other circumstances.

Now the committee has seen fit to give me this "prize", tarnished with the grubby fingers of dictators and tyrants, and poorly maintained by "peace activists" who refuse to confront evil, and give it succor and comfort, hoping that evil will just go away. The Nobel Committee has ignored the much more vital contribution to peace and true freedom that has been performed by the members of the American armed forces. Had it not been for the efforts of these valiant soldiers, 25 million people in Afghanistan would still be suffering under the tender mercies of the Taliban. They would be subject to the routine brutality that was the hallmark of that regime.

So, in light of the following facts, I must reject this prize. I reject it not because I am not worthy enough to receive it, but because the peace prize has sadly made itself a mockery of its own name.

Update: Fiddled with the grammar a bit.

I put in another counter on an archived page in the blog. I'm trying to find out if I'm turning into Walter Koenig.

OK, here is the list of votes in the Senate, so you can look up how your own Senator voted. Dodd and Lieberman both voted for military action, so they won't get a position up on the front page alongside Saddam's Honorary Tongue Bather.

Here is a list of how they voted in the House, so you can find who is in favor of hanging Saddam from a lamppost, and who wishes to be his foot masseuse.

The Senate Voted, 77-23. I know Lieberman voted Yea, but don't know if Dodd followed suit. I'll find out tomorrow, though.

I've noticed that the Great Glenn has now called his Congressman "Baghdad Jim" Duncan. He might be Baghdad Jim, but he isn't the winner of Honorary Tongue Bather!

This Johnson/Maloney thing got me thinking. It would be a good idea for us bloggers if we used our clout to turn out the appeasers that make up so much of Congress. So, if you run a blog, and your congressman voted against war, you might want to put up a link to their opponent. Just because we won the vote doesn't mean we should let them off the hook.

Remember when I posted yesterday I was in a conundrum? Forget everything. Jim Maloney(D-CT), soon to be ex-Congressman Maloney, voted with the 125 other Neville Chamberlains to appease Saddam Hussein. I have no qualms about voting for Johnson now. Social Security be damned. I am now actively campaigning for Nancy Johnson. I'll live with some of her RINO views, but I'll be damned before I'll let another member of the Addled Asses of Appeasement slide without getting booted out of office.

I've noticed I've gotten a few hits from military sources. Not a lot, but a few, including some folks from a base that is literally in the middle of nowhere(I won't say where in case the brass has got a bug up their ass). So, as my contribution to the war effort, I engaged in a lot of copious research(a LOT) in order to bring you this to boost your morale:

I know what you're thinking, but this is a PG website, you know.

Well the House voted, and the Dems had an opportunity to step up to the plate, and promptly went crying home to daddy. One Hundred Twenty Six Neville Chamberlains in the Democratic party. The majority of the Democratic Party. If they get slaughtered in the election, they deserve it.

What does Saddam Hussein and Ron Jeremy have in common?

Well, here we go again. The Independent Commie is reporting again about how Saddam is building a really big gun. Now what is amazing is that the "threat"(scare quotes are warranted) of this gun is trotted out every time someone talks about Iraq.

Here is the big problem with the idea that these guns are any sort of threat at all. First of all, they are huge. That means they are easily visible by satellites, and easy to target by aircraft or missiles. Secondly, by their very nature, they are vulnerable. The barrel is very long, easily spotted, and difficult to aim. Finally, they actually use more resources than a ballistic missile, or a fighter bomber, and the latter two have better range and survivability in combat to deliver your payload.

Now, I am inevitably going to get comments saying, "But these guns aren't like the guns the Germans used in WWI and WWII. They can shoot much farther than those guns. Big deal. The fact that the gun is nearly as long as a football field, can't be moved, and will have a thermal signature that you can read by every time it is fired all combine to give it a valiant and very short life in time of war.

The Addled Asses of Appeasement in Action

I am watching the C-Span coverage of the final House debates, where I witnessed a bunch of idiotarians jump up to protest the speech of the Asmoday of Idiotarianism, Dennis Kucinich(D, Pluto). I believe this is a perfect example of idiotarianism in action. Idiotarianists acting idiotically to interrupt the idiotic speeches of fellow idiotarians.

Go read Cato. He has a very good piece on our role in the world.

Stephen Green of Vodkapundit has an excellent post on why we need to win the war. Basically, the point he is making, and I completely, utterly agree with, is that in order for us to protect our civil liberties here, we need to win the war over there. That is why I believe that the only true error in waging this war that we can commit is not prosecuting the war fervently enough, and not acting with enough ferocity when we find terrorists. In one sense, we are already not acting ferociously enough. When we grab terrorists within the United States, such as the Buffalo six, the cell out in Portland, Jihad Johnny, and Richard Reid, we